The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/16/2009 K E N, ` City of Tigard h Tigard Workshop Meeting — Agenda ...cs. .a.4 ".1011V M ' ... - ,W 'sa Pe . -: ....r • :; , M✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: June 16, 2009 - 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (ILD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also 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 calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 30 • Every Sunday at 11 a.m. • Every Monday at 6 a.m. • Every Tuesday at 2 pm "Workshop neetirgs are not aired liw. Tuesday broadcasts are a replay the most recent workshop n tir • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 3 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 16, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov ( Page 1 of 3 r e: City of Tigard ‘' Tigard Workshop Meeting — Agenda r _.......X=6.Yts . a% °,.:. '"F =111 : _.'.3S:: "_ '""_. .. :syw:_ ;l 'u =mom, as, TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: June 16, 2009 — 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 • 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. 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. MEETING WITH OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 1 MANAGER — JASON TELL • Staff Report: Community Development Department 6:55 PM 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PRESENTATION ON NEIGHBORHOOD TRAIL STUDY RESULTS • Staff Report: Community Development Department 7:25 PM 4. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (PRAB) TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • Staff Report: Public Works Department Recess City Council Meeting (Motion by Council) Convene City Center Development Agency (CCDA) Meeting: Approx. 7:55 pm TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 16, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov I Page 2 of 3 7:55 PM 5. WORKSHOP ON CURRENT AND FUTURE QTY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES • Staff Report: Community Development Department Adjourn City Center Development Agency (CCDA) Meeting (Motion by CCDA) Reconvene City Council Meeting: Approx. 8:40 pm 8:40 PM 6. PROGRESS REPORT ON STREET MAINTENANCE FEE PUBLIC OUTREACH -I EFFORT • Staff Report: Community Development Department 9:00 PM 7. DISCUSSION ON DRAFT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT WASHINGTON COUNTY CREATE A CPO 4T • Staff Report: Administration Department 9:20 PM 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) to discuss labor negotiations. 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. 9:35 PM • 9. ADJOURNMENT I: \ADM\Cathy \CCA \2009\ 090616.workshop.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 16, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of3 Agenda Item # Meeting Date June 16, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Meeting with Oregon Department of Transportation Region 1 Manager, Jason Tell jI n Prepared By. Agustin P. Duenas Dept Head Approval: k cit Mgr Approval: t . a41 C ►v I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This meeting continues the dialogue with Jason Tell, Oregon Department of Transportation Region 1 Manager, on various issues of importance to both the City and ODOT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Share information and discuss the various issues with Mr. Tell. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Council last met with Jason Tell, the ODOT Region 1 Manager, at the Council meeting of May 20, 2008. The . meetings with Mr. Tell are part of an effort to establish a closer working relationship with ODOT staff; to share: : • information of significance; and .to, help resolve issues that may need direction from top management in ODOT....: • Tigard City Council President, Nick Wilson, sent a letter to Mr. Tell (Attachment 1) describing the tremendous transportation- related needs of the City. He made a case that the City and ODOT facilities in this area are not receiving the funding and attention they deserve, but that scarce funds are committed to questionable projects elsewhere. Some of the key points in the letter are: • The highways around and within Tigard are the busiest in the state. • Highway 99W is unique in the state with sustained traffic volumes of 40,000 AADT or more over a 4 -mile stretch with no access control and closely spaced intersections. • Tigard has many large businesses that draw customers from miles around. This results in very high volumes of traffic and congestion on state roads in Tigard. Tigard residents are very negatively affected. Despite the pressing need for improvements to these facilities, transportation funds from Tigard and the region are spent elsewhere. • The I - to 99W freeway connector has been replaced with a plan to improve the arterial connectors instead. Highway 99W through Tigard should be at the top of the state's lists for improvement because of this major change in concept. • Tigard is initiating a long -term effort to completely revitalize the Highway 99W strip. This includes rezoning of the land adjacent to the corridor to better support high capacity transit from Portland down Barbur Blvd and Highway 99W through the City. As part of that effort, the City is seeking to have that corridor designated as a high capacity transit corridor in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan to set the state for future funding. We need ODOT as a partner if this effort is to be successful. C \Documents and Settings \cathy \Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\ Content .Outlook \34URMPIM\6 -16-09 AIS - Meeting with Jason TellODOT Region I Manager.doc 1 Some of the other significant issues for discussion are: • House Bill 2001B was passed by the State Senate and will be submitted to the Governor for his action. The bill includes a 6 -cent gas and diesel tax increase and significant increases in vehicle registration fees. The fuel tax increase is expected to take effect no later than January 1, 2011, or after there has been a 2- percent increase each quarter for two or more consecutive quarters in seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll employment, whichever is sooner. This bill means more dollars for ODOT and the various jurisdictions in the state. Any insight from Mr. Tell on how ODOT intends to use this additional funding will be helpful in determining future partnering efforts. • The Hall /99W and Greenburg /99W /Main intersection projects, both in the design stage, are proposed for construction in the spring and summer of 2010. The City has been working closely with Sam Hunaidi, ODOT's point of contact for both projects. However, some of the project review is performed at ODOT headquarters in Salem. ODOT's continued cooperation (both in and out of the region) in the timely design review and approval of the project plans will be crucial for successful merging of the two projects under one construction contract for implementation in 2010. Whatever Mr. Tell can do in support of timely review, comment, and approval by ODOT staff in the various offices would be helpful in moving these two projects towards construction. • The City has been successful in partnering with ODOT on the application for upgrades to the Highway 99W corridor signal system, and in the submittal for Congressional earmark funding for the Gaarde /99W /McDonald Street intersection improvements. The City will be looking to continue these efforts with ODOT in the future. Mr. Tell's support in these partnering efforts should be acknowledged. • The development of the Tigard Triangle has been significantly constrained by the lack of capacity on Highway 99W and the 72nd Avenue interchange with Highway 217. The City and ODOT staff have been dealing with this issue on a project -by- project basis. The update of the City's Transportation System Plan will take a closer look at how the Triangle can be developed, given the inability of the adjacent major systems to accommodate major developments. This issue will require serious discussions with ODOT and policy decisions that will affect future development in the Triangle. ODOT participation and cooperation in these discussions will be essential to successfully overcome these major hurdles. • Council will soon be considering the Highway 99W Improvement Plan for adoption. The development of this plan was a joint project between ODOT and the City. Once adopted, it will provide the basis for future projects along the Highway 99W corridor. The City would like to thank ODOT for its continuing interest in working with the City to improve this corridor; however, the adoption of the plan is just the beginning of the work. Many of the high priority projects listed in the plan will require significant funding to implement. Partnering with ODOT, with other jurisdictions, and possibly with future private development ventures, is crucial to the successful implementation of these key projects. • • The City has major concerns about the impact of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) on its aspirations to redevelop lands to higher urban densities within its Downtown Center, along Highway 99W, within the Tigard Triangle, and Washington Regional Center. ODOT's commitment is needed to work with the City and other regional partners to resolve conflicts between the TPR and the region's growth aspirations. The periodic meetings with the ODOT Region 1 Manager are highly important in keeping the lines of communication open between ODOT and the City. Close coordination between ODOT and the City be emphasized as improvement I: \ENG \GUS \Council Agenda Summaries \2009 \6 -l6 -09 AIS - Meeting with Jason Tell,ODOT Region I \Ianager.doc 2 projects are selected for future implementation to alleviate congestion on highways and arterials that are under ODOT jurisdiction. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Long term goal: "Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." (Timely street maintenance minimizes the need for costly reconstruction and allows available funds to be redirected to other projects. It also provides better ride- ability and should improve traffic flow on City streets.) ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Letter dated June 4, 2009 from Council President Nick Wilson to Mr. Jason Tell. FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \I NG\ GUS \Council Agenda Summaries\ 2009\ 6 -16-09 AIS - \leeting with J;son'fe11,O DOT Region I \lanager.doc 3 ATTACHMENT I City of Tigard, Oregon a 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ® Tigard, OR 97223 pat Jason Tell Oregon Department of Transportation 1 T IfGARTY 123 NW Flanders - Y F Portland, OR 97209 June 3, 2009 Dear Mr. Tell, Thank you for coming to Tigard to meet with us to discuss our transportation concerns. We have some questions that we would like you to address and we wanted to submit them in advance so that you have time to review them before our discussion on June 16. Last year when you visited us, you indicated that ODOT funds were committed through 2013 but that the MTIP process was just beginning and that there may be opportunities there. Unfortunately, we were not successful in securing any funding in that process. Historically Tigard has had limited success in securing funding of local projects. We intend to be much more engaged in the future. However in order to advance a compelling argument with decision makers, we need to arm ourselves with the facts. We would like your assistance in this effort. In the following paragraphs, we present the facts as we see them . and we would like you to validate or refute them. We also have some questions where we would like to enlist your help in filling in the blanks. Some of them may require digging in to the ODOT archives. As you know, Oregon funds its road system through "road user fees" based on the principle that those who use the roads pay for them in proportion to the costs for which they are responsible. ORS 366.507 requires that projects must be equitably distributed throughout Oregon. Tigard is Oregon's 12 largest city with about 1.2 per cent of Oregon's total population. However, the population figure alone understates the transportation demand in the area. Tigard's position at the intersection of three major highways makes it an ideal location for retail land uses that attract consumers from far beyond the Tigard city limits. According to census data, Tigard's retail trade per capita is higher than any city in. Oregon with more than three times the state average. Because retail land uses generate trips at up to 10 times the rate of residential uses, the transportation demand in the Tigard vicinity is far greater than other comparable cities. Tigard is home to many big box retailers including Costco, Best Buy, Target, Winco, Home Depot, Lowes, Fred Meyer, Office Depot, Staples, ToysRUs, and many others. Tigard is also home to Washington Square, a 1.5 million square foot regional shopping mall which logged 12.4 million visitors in 2008. Phone: 503.639.4171 0 Fax: 503.684.7297 ® www.tigard - or.gov ® TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 It is not surprising then that the highways within and around Tigard are among the busiest in the state. Tigard has 14 miles of state highways. The most heavily traveled Oregon segment of I -5 is in Tigard with 156,000 AADT. Highway 217 also peaks out in Tigard at 116,800 AADT. Scholls Ferry, a small portion of which remains a state highway, exceeds 50,000 AADT. And the 3.8 mile stretch of Highway 99, through Tigard ranges from a low of 40,000 AADT to more than 50,000 AADT. Oregon has about 8,000 miles of state highways. Less than 200 miles of highway segments exceed 40,000 AADT. Most (about 183 miles) of these heavily travelled segments are freeways or other separated, limited- access highways which move vehicles very efficiently. The remaining six miles of Oregon highway segments that exceed 40,000 AADT but are not freeways are mostly short segments (< 'h mile) near a freeway interchange. Highway 99 through Tigard is unique in the state of Oregon. It is the only stretch of highway that has sustained traffic volumes over 40,000 AADT over a length of several miles (3.9) with no access control and closely spaced intersections. There is no place like it. (See attached table) Some highways, such as Highway 99E from the Ross Island Bridge to HWY 224, have evolved over decades of incremental improvement projects. That highway stretch has benefited from the construction of four grade - separated crossings, restricted turn movements, access limitations, and other improvements resulting in vastly improved traffic flows. Highway 99W by contrast has been frozen in time for over 40 years. Old timers in Tigard do not remember any major ODOT improvements except overlays during that time. Please identify for us what, if any, capacity or safety improvements have been made to Pacific Highway in Tigard since 1970. Please include the projects, dates, and expenditures. Please also identify, for the sake of contrast, the same for the Sunset Highway. Since fiscal year 2002 -2003, ODOT has collected over $5 billion in revenues from taxes and fees. Assuming that Tigard residents pay these taxes in proportion to their population, they would have contributed over $60 million during that time. But drivers from Sherwood, Newberg, McMinnville, Vernonia, Carlton, Cornelius, Gaston and other outlying communities also visit Washington Square or other Tigard businesses for services that they lack in their communities. These rural and smaller city drivers should share in the responsibility for improvements to highways on which they travel. Instead, the opposite is happening. Not only have Tigard residents levied additional taxes on themselves to make improvements to a regionally significant highway, most of the millions of dollars that they already pay in taxes seem to be spent elsewhere often on rural highways with little traffic. In the current STIP for example, OR 219 (peak AADT 4800) received $5.7 million for three improvement projects. By contrast, Tigard received about the same amount but mostly for trails, sidewalks and green streets. The only amount Tigard received for capacity improvements was $1.8 million for Greenburg Road near Washington Square. We have put this project on hold because the amount allocated is insufficient to complete the project. We would like to call your attention to several other projects that we think should have received closer scrutiny before committing scarce public dollars. Please comment specifically on these projects and let us know if there is some justification that we are not aware of. 0 Spiesschaert Road Bridge Washington County applied for this $1.9 million OTIA funded project which connects to a dead end road serving nine homes. We questioned whether it is sound public policy to pool resources from thousands of taxpayers to benefit nine residents. Washington County responds that the project met the OTIA criteria and the residents need continued access. The residents were not asked to participate in funding; they were not asked to take over future jurisdiction of the road; nor were temporary repair options explored. • Greener Road Bridge This $1.1 million bridge is in a remote portion of Washington County serving.a logging road. Greener Road is unpaved and without shoulders. The 82 foot long concrete bridge has a 32 foot wide deck, with room for two 12' travel lanes and two 4' shoulders. When asked about this expenditure, the County noted the economic potential of getting lumber to market. We know however, that lumber companies do not build bridges on logging roads to such a high standard. When they do build bridges they are priced into the lumber they sell. We do not generally tax our motorists to subsidize lumber companies. • Staley Junction This $12 million overpass project at the intersection of Hwy 26 and OR 47 is a solution to a peak hour turning problem. Southbound Hwy 47 vehicles face a delay turning left onto the Sunset Hwy. The traffic study estimates that in 2030, vehicles attempting this on Sunday evenings when beach visitors are returning home (presumably mostly in summer) will face more than a 16 minute delay. During other times of the week, the delay is not significant. Should $12 million be expended for something that is only needed a few hours a week? A stop controlled solution would be substantially less expensive but it was rejected because it did not meet the Oregon Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards even though it was a substantial improvement over the no -build condition. Is there no cost - benefit analysis applied to ODOT projects? Does the application of HDM standards require perfection at all times or nothing? When prioritizing projects, does ODOT consider the benefits of spending $12 million elsewhere? Tigard, for example, has four planned but unfunded overpasses in its TSP. If an overpass in Tigard reduced delays half as much for twice as many motorists five days a week rather than one, would it have received a higher priority? • Hwy 217, Sunset Hwy to TV Hwy This highway is heavily congested and is in need of capacity improvements. However this project widens the only part of 217 that already functions well at all times. Why was this project selected? Finally, we wanted to comment on the Hwy 99 to I -5 Connector project. Transportation planners have recognized that capacity problems exist in this portion of the metro area for a long time. First the West Side Bypass was proposed. The idea was kicked around for many years before it died. Then the most critical piece was revived as the "Connector ". That project also went through much analysis and appeared to be gaining some momentum until it finally succumbed because of a lack of support from one jurisdiction. When the freeway concept died, the concept of improvements to existing arterials in the Tualatin - Wilsonville area took its place. Planners are now considering improving every I -5 to HWY 99 connector except the original "Connector" itself. Why not improve HWY 99 through Tigard? We are embarking on a long -term effort to completely revitalize the Hwy 99 strip. We have completed the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan. We are seeking a high capacity transit corridor designation along the highway. We are beginning a process to revise our Transportation System Plan to integrate the rest of the City's transportation plans with the new corridor plans. And we are undertaking a visioning process that will lead to re- zoning the land adjacent to the corridor. There are many places throughout the country that have highway strips like ours. We will be looking for examples of strip transformations and if we cannot find suitable examples, we will pioneer our own solutions. We would like to make ODOT a partner in this effort. We look forward to meeting with you again on June 16. We anticipate a lively and constructive discussion and a continuing of our partnership in addressing our transportation needs. Sincerely, Nick ' ilson Tigard City Council President Statewide Highway Segments That Exceed 40,000 ADT ' ..., s siv 'P ! .., _ c� k 3 hv^ . ; . sc 2 I z a�. ` r E - is s at ` i Y s -fir 4 E . I 4! R II S a 1 PACIFIC HIGHWAY 1 -5 27.28 28.33 1.05 Freeway Medford Viaduct 1 120.01 124.78 4.77 Freeway Roseburg 1 " 183.13 198.85 15.72 Freeway Eugene 1 " 232.93 307.97 75.04 Freeway Salem- Portland 2 COLUMBIA RIVER HIGHWAY 1 -84 0.49 16.46 15.97 Freeway Portland 4 THE DALLES- CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY US 97 135.95 138 2.05 Freeway Bend 17 MCKENZIE -BEND HIGHWAY US 97B 18.79 18.79 0 Bend 22 CRATER LAKE HIGHWAY OR 62 0.66 1.39 0.73 non - controlled Medford I -5 to Whittle 0.73 26 MT. HOOD HIGHWAY US 26 0.76 1.33 0.57 Freeway Ross Island Br. Barbur to Milwaukie 29 TUALATIN VALLEY HIGHWAY OR 8 2.94 3 0.06 non - controlled 217 to 117th 0.06 29 6 6.61 0.61 non - controlled 170th to 185th 0.61 29 " 8.31 8.31 0 E. of 219th 30 WILLAMINA -SALEM HIGHWAY OR 22 24.03 25.96 1.93 Freeway Salem Center St. -W City Ilmit 47 SUNSET HIGHWAY US 26 59 73.75 14.75 Freeway 61 STADIUM FREEWAY HIGHWAY 1 -405 0.6 3.05 2.45 Freeway 64 EAST PORTLAND FREEWAY 1 -205 1.99 25.5 23.51 Freeway 69 BELT LINE HIGHWAY OR 69 6.68 12 5.32 Freeway 72 SALEM HIGHWAY OR 22 7.9 8.28 0.38 controlled assess Turner to Hawthorne 0.38 81 PACIFIC HIGHWAY EAST OR 99 E 1.38 5.21 3.83 Semi - freeway Mcloughlin, Ross Island to 224 81 5.89 5.89 0 91 PACIFIC HIGHWAY -WEST OR 99 W 7:61 11.5 3.89 'non- controlled Tigard Segment 3.89 91 15.6 15.6 0 controlled assess Sherwood @ Tualatin- Sherwood Rd 91 " 22.79 23.05 0.26 non - controlled Everest to 219 0.26 92 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER HIGHWAY US 30 1.45 1.96 0.51 Freeway Fremont Bridge Ramp to Nicoli 123 NORTHEAST PORTLAND HIGHWAY US 30BY 10.99 10.99 0 143 SCHOLLS HIGHWAY OR 210 9.07 9.07 0 144 BEAVERTON - TIGARD HIGHWAY OR 217 0.5 7.04 6.54 Freeway 150 SALEM - DAYTON HIGHWAY OR 221 20.77 20.77 0 160 CASCADE HIGHWAY SOUTH OR 213 0.12 0.49 0.37 controlled assess Washington to Redland 0.37 162 NORTH SANTIAM HIGHWAY OR 22 1.21 1.71 0.5 Freeway I -5 to Lancaster 171 CLACKAMAS HIGHWAY OR 224 3.82 5.58 1.76 Freeway 227 EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD HIGHWAY 1 -105 0.03 6.3 6.27 Freeway Total Miles Non - divided, Non - access - controlled, Interrupted -Flow Highways 6.3 Source: ODOT 2007 Traffic Volume Tables Hall Blvd. Pfaff le St. to Locust Street L . ° ` S) G L ` i`1 C { a ,„ - . . _ S r l" '''lw. Y - _ -.--- K Z 'Ar'.4^' yy � .,;t S O U P 1r- 172. "zY a5, ., - I , fit ,. — , ` ", ii 'M I TI" 'y i3 . Y a r - ? . , .; Of A .;' a I l l e al. 3. s ( 171 '). 4Y k l e2' r . botei e" 6/61. , 6/ - 7 - 11/1. pep— p.„,eri /e/y, oe t fZ> CO 07 /21 en / , 4 cM c 1/4, / /e747 Are , Agenda Item # .3 Meeting Date June 16, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Neighborhood Trail Study Progress Report - CG No. 1 Prepared By Duane Roberts Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: /0 @/ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Briefing by project consultants on draft Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information and provide feedback on the proposed Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY With funds provided by a State Transportation Growth Management Grant, the City undertook a study of opportunities to improve the community's neighborhood trail network. As defined in the study, neighborhood trails are short, unmaintained walking paths used by residents for everyday transportation, such as short trips to the store or bus stop. Over 100 of these routes are identified in the study, which includes chapters on study goals, existing conditions, design standards, the site evaluation process, a recommended trails list, and an implementation plan. • The rationale for focusing on these routes is that connections designed for pedestrians and cyclists that are direct, convenient, and safe may decrease trip length sufficiently to cause some residents to substitute walking or cycling for long, more circuitous, driving trips. They also may encourage transit use by improving access to bus stops. Consultants with Kittelson and Associates and Alta Planning + Design will give a presentation on the results of the study and answer any questions Council or Planning Commission may have. A draft copy of the complete report is attached (Attachment 2). The next step is finalizing the study followed by considering its recommendations for adoption as part of the revised Transportation System Plan now underway. After this, grant funding will be sought to complete an initial batch of priority trails. The original work scope for the TGM- sponsored study included separate Council and Planning Commission presentations. To control costs and shift more funding to field work, Planning Commission has been invited to hear and participate in tonight's Council presentation. During the previous staff update on this project, Council nominated three potential trail linkages for study consideration. Attachment 1 is a document entitled Council Trail Site Nominations. This document provides background detail on each of these three sites. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A C: \Documents and Settings \ cathy\ Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ Content.Outlook\34URMPLM\ 6-16-09 AIS Neighborhood Trails Plan.doc 1 CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 1: Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Council Trail Site Nominations. Attachment 2: Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan. FISCAL NOTES NA l: \LRPL.N \Council Materials \2009 \6 -16 -09 AIS Neighborhood Trails Plan.doc 2 Attachment 1 Council Trail Site Nominations At the last Council meeting on this topic in January 2009, Council identified three sites for further investigation. The result of staff follow -up on these sites is as follows: Rockingham /Gaarde The uphill terminus of Rockingham includes a street barrier and a demand trail that leads further uphill. The property through which the demand trail travels is privately owned. As part of the Neighborhood Trail study, the landowner was sent a form letter describing the study, explaining that a potential trail connection had been identified on his /her land, and asking if the owner would ever consider either selling the trail portion of the property to the City or granting an easement. The owner's response in this case was to check the option "I do not wish my property to be considered for potential Neighborhood Trail acquisition. Please keep the donation /lease /purchase option off the table." Along with other inventoried sites with unwilling owners, the site was dropped from further consideration. Ash Creek /Greenberg The second site nominated by Council is a trail along Ash Creek Oak /HWY 217 /Greenberg Road. This is the same route as the Washington Square Loop Trail identified on the Metro regional trail map. In 2003, the City was awarded $260,000 in Metro MTIP grant funds to design and build the HWY 217 to Hall segment of the loop trail and to design (but not build) the HWY 217 to Fanno Creek Trail portion of the trail. After several months, Tom Coffee, the then- Community Development Director ordered the project to be abandoned because of lack of progress in right -of- way negotiations with the primary landowner and because of a irreconcilable disagreement between the landowner and CWS regarding wetland boundaries on the property. Winterlake Drive / 121st The third trail connection identified by Council is a trail extending from the end of Winterlake Drive to 121 Avenue. This link is a segment of the Summer Creek trail identified on the City Park System Master Plan Map. Most of the year, the proposed trail route within the City-owned greenway is under water. This is due to the dam at 121 which creates what is generally known as the "Merestone Pond ". Many years ago, staff held a neighborhood meeting concerning the potential removal of the "illegal" dam. The main rationale for removal was the potential overtopping and flooding of 121 Another rationale for removal was to provide trail access. Some fifty neighbors attended the meeting. No one present spoke in favor of the trail. Council later decided to allow the dam, as long as it was maintained at or below a certain height. This height precludes a year -round trail through the public greenway. 1: \1.12PLN \Council Materials \2009 \6 -16 -09 Neighborhood Trail Study. Attachment 1.docx I ATTACHMENT 2 Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan r 1 I( ARI DRAFT May 29, 2009 Prepared by: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Alta Planning + Design Acknowledgements The City of Tigard appreciates the efforts of the numerous residents and other walking/bicycling enthusiasts who participated in the development of this plan. Their creativity, energy, and commitment were the driving force behind this planning effort. In addition, the following residents, staff, and other agency and organization members contributed regularly to the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan City of Tigard Staff Duane Roberts, Long Range Planning Mike McCarthy Steve Martin Gary Pagenstecher Project Stakeholder Group Hal Ballard Bob Bothman John Frewing David Leinberger Valerie Pratt Stevie Viaene Doug Vorwaller Jeanne Winslow Consultant Team Elizabeth Wemple, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Jamie Parks, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Mike Tresidder, Alta Planning + Design Hannah Kapell, Alta Planning + Design Project funding was provided through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Growth Management Program (TGM). When completed, the Plan will be incorporated into the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP), and recommended projects will be considered for future funding as part of the City's public facilities Capital Investment Plan. Table of Contents • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 Planning Process, Public and Agency Involvement ES -2 Contents of the Plan ES -3 Evaluation Process ES -3 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Project Vision and Guiding Principles 1 Planning Process, Public and Agency Involvement 2 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS = 3 Relationship to the Transportation System Plan 3 Land Use and Connectivity m 3 Demand and Potential Neighborhood Trails 6 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN GUIDELINES 10 Existing Trail Standards 10 Neighborhood Trail Definitions 11 Natural Trails 12 Urban Trails _ 15 Innovative Neighborhood Trails 19 Path Surfacing Options. Analysis " a ° 22 Universal Access /ADA 30 Environmental ;Considerations ` 31 Path Safety and Security 32 Maintenance ' ' 34 Design Option- Costs 38 CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION PROCESS 39 TraihEvaluation Methodology 39 Preliminary Cost Estimate 45 Field Verifications 46 \ CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS 47 Project List ' °; ` 47 Design Options 61 CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 63 Regulatory Amendments 63 Financial Strategy 68 Action Plan 79 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN i TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A. PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 84 APPENDIX B. EVALUATION MATRIX 89 APPENDIX C. PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS 98 List of Tables Table 1. Existing Tigard Transit Service 5 Table 2. Neighborhood Trail Design Standards 12 Table 3. Costs for Gravel 14 Table 4. Costs for Filbert Shells 15 Table 5. Costs for Concrete Trails 17 Table 6. Costs for Asphalt Trails 18 Table 7. Costs for Boardwalks 22 Table 8. Surfacing Options Matrix 24 Table 9. Costs for Fencing Types 27 Table 10. Costs for Signage 28 Table 11. ADA Trail Development Guidelines 31 Table 12. Safety Recommendations for Paths 32 Table 13. Summary of Trail Costs 38 Table 14. Evaluation Criteria Matrix 40 Table 15. Cost - Estimate Summary 46 Table 16. Design Option Criteria 61 Table 17. Natural Trail Cost Estimate Summary 61 Table 18. Urban Trail Cost Estimate Summary 61 Table 19. High - Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion 73 Table 20. Medium- Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion 74 Table 21. Low - Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion 74 Table 22. Guide to Funding Source Availability for Recommended Projects 75 Table 23. Potential Grant Funding Sources for High - Priority Projects 76 Table 24. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Medium - Priority Projects 77 Table 25. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Low - Priority Projects 78 Table 26. Evaluation of High - Priority Recommended Trails 89 Table 27. Evaluation of Medium - Priority Recommended Trails 90 Table 28. Evaluation of Low - Priority Recommended Trails 92 Table 29. Evaluation of Trails Not Recommended 93 List of Figures Figure 1. Existing `Demand Trail' at the South end of Gallo Ave 1 Figure 2. Existing Pedestrian Paths and Bikeways Design Standards 10 Figure 4. Natural Surface Neighborhood Trail 11 Figure 5. Paved Neighborhood Trail 11 Figure 6. Natural Surface Trail 13 Figure 8. Gravel Cross - Section 14 Figure 9. Bark Mulch or Filbert Shell Cross - Section 15 ES -ii TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 11. Urban Neighborhood Trail Cross - Section 16 Figure 13. Concrete Trail Cross- Section 17 Figure 15. Asphalt Trail Cross - Section 18 Figure 16. Permeable Asphalt Trail Cross - Section 18 Figure 21. Post and Wire Fence 26 Figure 22. Wooden Safety Fence 26 Figure 23. Metal Fencing 26 Figure 24. Lighting Bollard 28 Figure 25. Existing Pedestrian Paths and Bikeways Design Standards 68 List of Maps Map 1. Proposed Neighborhood Trails 7 Map 2. Recommended Trails Overview Map 49 Map 3. Recommended Trails Northwest 51 Map 4. Recommended Trails Northeast 53 Map 5. Recommended Trails East 55 Map 6. Recommended Trails Southeast 57 Map 7. Recommended Trails Southwest 59 • TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN iii Executive Summary Introduction The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan seeks to improve opportunities for walking, bicycling and using transit in the City of Tigard by creating and formalizing short, unofficial neighborhood trail connections to provide for more direct travel. The term used for these facilities in the present project is "neighborhood" trails or paths. Neighborhood trails are variously referred to as desire trails, path connections, community trails, urban trails, informal trails, short trails, cut - throughs, pedestrian passages, and access ways. While the primary facilities for walking and biking in the community are the on- street network of bike lanes and sidewalks and the off - street greenway trail network, neighborhood trails can help to provide critical connections in many locations. Tigard was a rural community for much of its history and the vast majority of its population growth has occurred since 1970. Consequently, many of the City's developed areas are characterized by the disconnected street networks popular for subdivisions built in the 1970s and 1980s, and the City lacks a large pedestrian - friendly urban core. The result is out -of- direction travel that discourages bicycle and pedestrian travel for many trips. Recent changes to the City's development code ensure improved connectivity for new sub- divisions; however connectivity improvements for already developed areas are more difficult to achieve. Neighborhood trails provide one method to improve connectivity in built -out areas. Neighborhood trails provide circulation and access through Tigard. They connect streets, reducing out -of- direction travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non - motorized users. They are used by children to get to school, and by community members to access neighborhood parks, employment, shopping, and downtown. This project sought opportunities to improve demand trails (i.e. informal trails already in use) to make them a formal part of the transportation network, identified feasible potential trails (i.e. trails not currently in use that could be improved as a formal trail) to construct, and developed appropriate design standards for both demand and potential trails. The project did not consider the need for additional greenway trails (e.g. Fanno Creek), as these trails are typically longer and serve a different transportation role than neighborhood trails. Project funding is provided through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Growth Management Program (TGM). When completed, the Plan will be incorporated into the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP), and recommended projects will be considered for future funding as part of the City's public facilities Capital Investment Plan. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN ES -1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plan Objectives Plan Vision The successful Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan will: • Establish a plan and program • Focus on connections that enhance the broader transportation network, for developing a network of including sidewalks, trails, and transit routes; off - street neighborhood trails • Identify new or improved connections to schools; to encourage walking, • Identify and address gaps in the existing pedestrian network, primarily in bicycling, and transit as established neighborhoods; alternative modes of travel • Reduce unnecessary out -of- direction travel through improved connectivity • Promote livability and for pedestrians and bicycles; sustainability by increasing access to neighborhood parks, • Seek implementation -ready sites where trail improvements can occur in schools, employment, and the near -term; shopping destinations via non- • Develop a framework for implementing new neighborhood trails; auto modes of transportation • Map general and specific locations for future trails; • Contribute to healthier • Establish trail standards relating to width, surface, lighting, and other design lifestyles and improved air features; and quality through reduced • Recommend revisions to the City's TSP, Capital Investment Plan, and automobile usage. engineering and development standards as necessary to support the Plan Planning Process, Public and Agency Involvement City of Tigard staff, stakeholder groups, and — most of all — Tigard residents helped guide this Plan. Data collection involved the following activities: • A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) that met regularly to identify bicycle /pedestrian issues from the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations • Project website for the public to identify potential trail locations • Two Open Houses to identify potential trails and receive feedback on evaluation criteria and methodology • Property owner survey of public and private owners of Tigard -area sites identified as potential neighborhood trail routes. The survey was undertaken by City staff to determine which owners of sites identified as potential routes were willing to consider the possible donation, lease, or sale of a portion of their property for trail purposes. • GIS Analysis and Evaluation of trail conditions, including slope, zoning, significant habitat, sidewalk and trail connections, out -of- direction travel reduction, etc. • Field Verification of GIS analysis and design options The data collection phase resulted in 115 potential neighborhood trails, which were then evaluated to develop a list of 42 recommended trail projects. ES -2 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Contents of the Plan The Tigard Neighborhood Trail Plan is organized as follows: • Chapter 1. Introduction provides an overview of the Plan and its purpose. • Chapter 2. Existing Conditions describes Tigard's existing land uses, destinations and connectivity challenges and provides the list of potential neighborhood trails identified and analyzed in this Plan. • Chapter 3. Design Standards presents guidance for the development of neighborhood trails, including urban and natural trails, surfacing options, amenities and cost estimates. • Chapter 4. Evaluation Process outlines the criteria used to evaluate the potentiaf,neighborhood trails, including field work and preliminary cost opinions. • Chapter 5. Recommended Neighborhood Trails lists the recommended neighborhood trails and provides project descriptions. • Chapter 6. Implementation Plan lays out a course of action for implementing th6r4ommended projects, including regulatory amendments, a financial strategy and a phasing plane • Appendixes at the end.of this Plan include a summary of the property owner survey, technical,design standards for neighborhood trails, the complete evaluation matrix; and summary sheets of the short - recommended projects. Evaluation Process Each potential trail location was assessed 'based onAhe evaluation matrix shown in Table ES -1. Table ES -1;. Evacuation „_Criteria :. . Critenon Measu rement 1, k� �, wr ur+��'r-_ M �r �r�, =� �` . - 's3 ° ' w�. , .,,. I r _ � �''• R JR � °�, s . w. —�”` ""' � d: �.. Utility • Direct access to parks; schools, open"spa�ce, retail centers and transit stops • "Direct: connections to °existing sidewalks or trails • Out -of- direction travel reduction, weighted by expected volume and demand • Existing demand • Environmental benefits =of formalizing an existing demand trail through an environmentally - sensitive area Constructability • "Steep'slopes that would increase the cost of the trail • Presence of environmentally - sensitive areas s • Habitat:impacts Land Ownership • Land ownership, if the City or other public entity owns the land • Willingnes`s.ofithe owner to allow an easement or sell the land for a trail Potential Conflicts ��• Proximity to existing houses with Neighbors Safety and Personal security, considering visibility from the street Security • Pathwaydesign, or the ability of the trail to comply with ADA or bike path standards Preliminary Cost • Low 4' wood mulch trail Cost estimates include bridges if trail crosses a stream and Estimate • Medium — 6' asphalt trail boardwalks if trail is in wetland, as well as maintenance costs, • High —8' permeable asphalt trail design and CM, and contingency costs. Every trail was assigned a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 prioritization ranking for each criterion, based on GIS analysis and field verifications. Consideration of the tiered prioritization rankings helped inform the project's trail recommendations by providing information about the potential benefits and challenges associated with each potential trail location. These rankings were not combined into an overall rating for each potential trail, but instead were used to inform decision- making through a qualitative process. In general, a Tier 3 ranking on a certain criterion did not prevent a trail from being recommended. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN ES -3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the case of potential trails located on private property, the City of Tigard sent letters to all affected property owners to determine their level of potential interest in providing land to allow a trail to be constructed. Potential trails were not recommended where property owners indicated that they would not participate in negotiations to allow a trail to be constructed. Recommended Neighborhood Trails Using the results of the trail evaluation, the 42 recommended trail projects were ranked based on information obtained from field work, City of Tigard staff, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and from the public. Through this process, the projects have been grouped into High, Medium and Low project priorities. • High - priority projects have a significant amount of existing use (currently demand trails) or are high priorities for a new trail connection and are the most feasible projects for construction. , ; • Medium - priority projects are good candidates for providing connections >but may not be currently used as accessways (currently 'potential trails'). • Low - priority projects are future recommended projects that may be more difficult to construct due to slopes, environmental considerations, or community support. , Within each priority grouping, trail projects are listed .in .no particular order. The priority of an individual project may change according to available funds;:' changing priorities, new coinciding projects, new development and redevelopment opportunities, or :Other factors. .. ; Note that the purpose of the prioritization is to understandthe'projects' relative benefits for the purposes of programming available funding. Medium- and low - priority° °projects also are important, and may be implemented at any point in time as part of a development or public works project. Table ES -2 through Table ES -4 provide summaries.of the recommended trail projects, including a preliminary design option and planning -level cost estimates: M ap ES -1 shows'the`recommended neighborhood trails identified in this study. Further details on each site are providedin subsequent sections of this Plan, including benefits and implementation ,challengers. Appendix "C ",.provides detailed summaries for each trail listed below. .� .,:: , . :, A Table -ES - High Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion Potential Neighborhood Trails Cost Estimate Length Design ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 1 Near „106th Ave to 103rdAve, on Murdock* : 590 urban $34,000 $20,000 $19,000 2 Gallo *e.Extension to 113th /Gallo Path ° 396 urban $23,000 $14,000 $13,000 3 Pathfinder :way to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 132 urban $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 4 116th PI /Fonner'to Howard Dr:Extension 124 urban $8,000 $5,000 $4,000 3 000 2 000 62 urban 5 000 r it 6 $ ParkT a $ Scholls F r "Rdt "�En ewood $ 56 Parking Lot to Scholls Ferry Roa d ........................................................ ............................... 161 urban ......................................_..... ....................._..._ 10, 000 7 000 ......................_$..._-...._............_......_...................__..._$ 000 ..... r.... ............................_.. 6 90th Ave Extension to:lnez St Extension 293 natural $15,000 $9,000 $5,000 7 Greenfield ext.; Ridgefield Dr to Chirp St 492 natural $24,000 $14,000 $8,000 8 100th Ave Extension to Highland Dr 222 urban $14,000 $9,000 $7,000 , 9 Mistletoe Dr to Sunrise Lane 333 natural $17,000 $10,000 $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Coral St to Locust St, 92 /Lincoln Extension 374 urban $22,000 $13,000 $12,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Gaarde St to Aerie Dr 294 urban $17,000 $11,000 $9,000 12 Fanno Creek Trail /Scholls Ferry to apartments 62 urban $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 13 Landau St Extension to 72nd Ave 153 urban $10,000 $6,000 $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80th PI to Bonita Rd 29 urban $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 Total 3,717 $215,000 $133,000 $100,000 ES -4 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES -3. Medium - Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion Potential Neighborhood Trails Length Design Cost Estimate ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 15 Quail Hollow South Trail to 129th Ave Trail 165 urban $34,000 $30,000 $29,000 16 129th Ave 45 urban $4,000 $3,000 $1,000 17 Tigard St to Fanno Creek 117 urban $8,000 $5,000 $4,000 18 Ventura Dr to 70th PI 165 natural $9,000 $6,000 $3,000 19 Broadmoor PL to Rockingham 620 natural $12,000 $7,000 $4,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Spruce St Extension at 80th 429 urban $48,000, $38,000 $37,000 21 Edgewood St /Halcyon Terrace Ext. to Braydon Ct 656 urban $14;000 $9,000 $8,000 22 Hunsiker St /77th PI to 72nd Ave /Hwy 217 Overpass 1,392 urban , $30,000 $18,000 $17,000 23 88th Ave Ext. to 88 Ave Extension /Pinebrook Ct 386 natural - $19;000 $11,000 $6,000 24 Mtn Highlands Trail to Mtn Highland Trail 242 natural $12,000 $7,000 $4,000 maintenance 25 Twality Middle School to 92nd Ave 113 . , ',only' $1,150 ,„ ,;.$1,150 $1,150 ................. ............................... ... 26 89th Ave Extension to 91st Ave Cul -de -sac 357 natural $18,000 ° "° $1.0 000 $6,000 27 Waverly Dr ext.; 88 Ave to 85th Ave 641, natural $30,000 $18,000 $11,000 28 Gallo Ave ext.; North Dakota St to Suzanne Ct 514' , ;. , natural $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 ... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 29 132nd Ave ext.; Marion St to Hollow Ln 139 ,, urban,, ,a .. $9,000 $6,000 $4,000 30 74th Ave ext.; Cherry Dr to Fir St 138 `'urban` ,! $9,000 $6,000 $4,000 ........... ............................... 31 94th Ave ext.; Dakota St to Greenburg St 234 urban' $14,000 $9,000 $8,000 32 92nd Ave ext.; Dakota St to Greenburg St -128 natural „„ $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 Total , . 6,91-2 - $193,000 $151,000 Table ES =4 `Low- Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion Potential Neighborhood Trails Cost Estimate Length Design ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 33 Steve.St ° ° /21 Aye Extension ,, 431 urban $340,000 $336,000 $334,000 34 135th Ave to 132nd Ave 715 natural $51,000 $29,000 $18,000 35 ;t‘„. Rockingham Dr to Maplecrest [construction] 349 natural $40,000 $33,000 $29,000 36A Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 253 natural $10,000 $6,000 $3,000 natural 10 000 6 000 3 000 36B Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 198 $ $ , 37 116th`Ave %Extension to Katherine 387 natural $403,000 $400,000 $398,000 39 77th Ave Extension to Spruce St 150 natural $31,000 $28,000 $26,000 • 40 Burnham St tC;C:kiinercial Parking Lot 132 natural $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 41 Hall Blvd to Matthew Park'St Extension 591 natural $28,000 $16,000 $10,000 .................................. ............................... 42 Murdock Rd ext.; 109thA5e to 99W 439 natural $21,000 $12,000 $7,000 43 Schaffer Ln ext.; Tigard High School to 85th Ave 602 urban $14,000 $9,000 $8,000 Total 3,816 $552,000 $480,000 $440,000 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN ES -5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .14f/ 0 ® ' ,.\ t 7. . ....\ 1 ) 16 , em4 Lfill 1. fir■ ID 0 Ilf ' 1/4. ' --_,, . iee.....40 ,4- 1' fl L: 41 lir 30 „ J. , ii. 15 , / 7 � . 24 I 42 O 5 D •, illi‘ ' ' 40 '1 ‘k. n :o i I E , '`, ,I.... . Neighborhood Trails Low- Priority Trail rt Parks - Multi -Use Paved Trail Me Lanes e tr or ngam aego _......_ P , .,--, / :. „ 1 n r • High-Priority Trail Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan ' \ w Streams - Multi -Use Unpaved Trail - Tigard City Boundary TIGARp 1<Ki; e.T 8l s9on"tsaw° • Medium - Priority Trail • Already Buie I Recommended Trails School Property Pedestrian -Only, Unpaved Trail I Miles TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN ES -7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Implementation To facilitate implementation of the recommended neighborhood trails, this Plan identifies minor changes to regulatory amendments, a financial strategy, and an action plan These are summarized here, with additional detail provided in the Implementation chapter of the Plan. The City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code and Public Improvement Design Standards guide the development of pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including neighborhood trails. Policies and regulatory changes are recommended to prioritize, program, fund and construct projects on the Final Recommended Neighborhood Trails Project and Prioritization Report project list. Fully implementing the recommended neighborhood trails will require''funding. Existing, potential and anticipated funding sources that are available to the City of Tigard to fund . neighborhood trails are identified, and recommendations for the potential funding sources available for each` trail; is considered. The action plan is provided to guide the City of Tigard toward the''vision identified in this Plan and to provide a rv . framework for project selection, programming, design a construction, and ,,,periodic updating of the neighborhood trails project list. Recommended implementation strategies are Implementation Strategy 1. Strategically Pursue Projects • Action Item 1.1. Pursue capital improvements funding or'grantfunding°fdr higher - priority neighborhood trails - projects first. -.: • Action Item 1.2. In the case where grant requirements or construction in conjunction with another roadway project, or a willing land owner make construction.ofalower priority project,possible, pursue funding sources for that project regardless of priority. • Action Item 1.3. As quickly as possible, pursue'development of neighborhoo■;trails on land where the owner has been identified as willing to°allow an easementor to sell landfor a' neighborhoof trail. Implementation'Strategy 2 .1nicrementally'Inir lement Projects • Action Item 2.1. Consider,. constructingneighborhood trails with minimum - design features first, then incrementally develop additional amenities asp desired =by neighborhood residents. • Action . Item; 2:21Develop permitting and design forthe- recommended trails, particularly those identified as high - priority inorder to have theprojects prepared for funding if it becomes available. .:. Implementation Strategy 3. Regularly Revisit Project Prioritization • Actibrilltern 3.1. The status and,ongoing actions of projects listed in the Recommended Neighborhood Trails Projects List should be incorporated into the Transportation System Plan. • Action Item 3°2i °The neighborhood trail project list should be revisited with input from the public when the Transportation System is revised. Implementation Strategy 4. Encourage Private Donors to Support Neighborhood Trails • Action Item 4.1. Evaluate the opportunities for establishing a philanthropic giving program that can be used to support the construction and maintenance of Tigard neighborhood trails. Implementation Strategy 5. Work with Other Jurisdictions to Encourage the Development of Neighborhood Trails • Action Item 5.1. Consider pursuing an amendment to state regulation that requires a vote of the neighborhood association in the case where the neighborhood association is inactive. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN ES -9 Chapter 1. Introduction The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan seeks to improve opportunities for walking, bicycling and using transit by t Y identifying, evaluating, and setting priorities for short, unofficial trail connections that provide more direct .; travel. While the primary facilities for walking and biking . . in the community are the on- street network of bike lanes and sidewalks and the off- street greenway trail network, S xx � .. " neighborhood trails can help to provide critical i 7 � .I7ZZr1 connections in many locations. Neighborhood trails, as 16 ‘' A Ar „ir they are understood in this Plan, are often referred to as desire trails, path connections, community trails, urban trails, informal trails, short trails, cut - throughs, pedestrian passages, and accessways (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Existing `Demand Trail' at the South end of Gallo Ave This project provides recommendations for making potential trails into a formal part of the transportation network. The project does not consider the need for additional greenway trails (e.g. Fanno Creek), as these trails are typically longer and serve a different transportation role than neighborhood trails. Trails may be located on either public or private land where the land owner is willing to consider a trail, with the realization that those located on private property will ultimately be more challenging to construct. Project funding is provided through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Growth Management Program (TGM). When completed, the Plan will be incorporated into the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP), and recommended projects will be considered for future funding as part of the City's public facilities Capital Investment Plan. Project Vision and Guiding Principles The Vision statement describes the Plan's primary purpose and overarching goals, while the Objectives define specific elements of the Vision and describe how the Vision will be accomplished. Overall, nine Objectives associated with the Vision are shown. The Draft Project Vision and Objectives are based on the background provided in the scope of work, conversations with project staff, and the results of PMT Meeting #1 held on July 7, 2008. The Draft Project Vision and Objectives were completed as part of deliverable 1.0 under the final work order contract. It is intended that the Draft Project Vision and Objectives will be used to facilitate Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting #1, with SAC comments being incorporated into the final document. Vision The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan will: • Establish a plan and program for developing a network of off - street neighborhood trails to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit as alternative modes of travel • Promote livability and sustainability by increasing access to neighborhood parks, schools, employment, and shopping destinations via non -auto modes of transportation. and, • Contribute to healthier lifestyles and improved air quality through reduced automobile usage. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 1 CHAPTER 1 Plan Objectives In order to satisfy the Vision, the successful Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan will: • Focus on connections that enhance the broader transportation network, including sidewalks, trails, and transit routes; • Identify new or improved connections to schools; • Identify and address gaps in the existing pedestrian network, primarily in established neighborhoods; • Reduce unnecessary out -of- direction travel through improved connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles; • Seek implementation -ready sites where trail improvements can occur in the near -term; • Develop a framework for implementing new neighborhood trails; • Map general and specific locations for future trails; • Establish trail standards relating to width, surface, lighting, and other designafeatures; and • Recommend revisions to the City's TSP, Capital Investment Plan, and engineeringand development standards as necessary to support the Plan. Planning Process, Public and Agency Involvement City staff, stakeholder groups, and — most of all — Tigard residernts guide this Plan: During the data collection phase of the project, a website was created, where residents could both map existing demand trails and identify locations where a trail may be feasible and would benefit the community. Two community workshops were held throughout the projectzs,duration, enabling residents and other interested individuals to express concerns and ideas for improvements: :The. planning process „also included a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), established to identify bicycle /pedestrian issuesvfrom the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations. In addition, a property owner survey, was provided to the public and private owners of Tigard -area sites identified as,potential neighborhood .trail survey was undertaken by City staff to determine which owners' of sites identified as potential routes were willing to consider the possible donation, lease, orsale a portion of their property for trail purposes. This information was included in the evaluation of trail°a'Iternatives, and'a-more detailed summary is provided in Appendix A. r .. a F•. 2 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN Chapter 2. Existing Conditions Tigard is a community of approximately 47,000, with a total land area of 11.5 square miles. The City's population has grown by nearly 15% since the 2000 Census and is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Tigard was a rural community for much of its history and the vast majority of its population growth has occurred since 1970. Consequently, many of the City's developed areas are characterized by the disconnected street networks popular for subdivisions built in the 1970s and 1980s, and the City lacks a large pedestrian - friendly urban core. The result is out -of- direction travel that discourages bicycle and pedestrian travel for many trips. Recent changes to the City's development code ensure improved connectivity for new sub - divisions; however connectivity improvements for already developed areas are more difficult to achieve. Neighborhood trails provide one method to improve connectivity in built -out areas. This chapter provides an overview of existing conditions within Tigard as they relate to the potential to improve the transportation system through neighborhood trails. Relationship to the Transportation System Plan The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan will be adopted as part of the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP). As such, it is critical that the Trails Plan be consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the TSP. The TSP serves as the primary transportation planning document for Tigard, and identifies the long -term need for new transportation facilities as well as a financial plan to meet these needs. In addition to the objectives for the Trails Plan described above, the TSP policies serve as guidance to ensure that this Plan is consistent with community goals. In particular, TSP policies highlight the need to provide desirable pedestrian routes, reduce trip length, and provide non - motorized connections to schools, parks, and transit stops. In addition, Goals 3 and 5 of the TSP, respectively related to safety and accessibility, require that the Trails Plan provides for safe and secure facilities, and that new facilities are compliant with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Land Use and Connectivity This section summarizes current land use and connectivity issues in Tigard as they relate to the need for and prioritization of neighborhood trails. Particular attention is given to major destinations for pedestrian and bicycle trips, and areas within the City where connectivity is a major barrier to non - motorized transportation. Areas where improvements to connectivity are limited to topography are noted as well. Land - Use Tigard's current boundaries are generally defined by Scholls Ferry Road to the North, I -5 to the East, the Tualatin River to the South, and SW Barrows Road and a saw- toothed line extending as far as SW 154 Avenue to the West. Tigard is shaped by several facilities that divide the City, including Oregon 99W, which crosses the City from Southwest to Northeast, and by the Portland & Western Railroad, Fanno Creek, and Oregon 217, all of which cross the City from Northwest to Southeast. The majority of Tigard is zoned for residential uses, and most of the City is comprised of single - family residential development. Connecting these residential areas to one another and to commercial, recreational, and transit destinations is the key concern of the Neighborhood Trails Plan. The primary destinations for pedestrian and bicycle travel within Tigard are described briefly below. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 3 CHAPTER 2 Shopping Commercial land -uses in Tigard are located in three key areas: Washington Square, the Oregon 99W corridor, and downtown Tigard. Washington Square is located adjacent to Oregon 217 along the boundary between Tigard and Beaverton. The area is anchored by the Washington Square Mall, a large shopping center with over 1 million square feet of retail space, and includes numerous shopping destinations and several office buildings. The area is also a designated Regional Center in the Metro 2040 Plan. Because of these features, Washington Square has the potential to be a key destination for non - motorized trips, making pedestrian and bicycle connectivity a primary measure of the success of the Washington Square transportation system. Connecting surrounding residential areas to Washington Square is particularly important. In the Fall of 2008 Washington Square also will be served by the new WES Commuter Rail service making pedestrian and bicycle connections even more important. The Oregon 99W corridor is the other primary location for commercial activity in Tigard. As shown in Figure 1, almost all land adjacent to Oregon 99W is zoned for commercial.,: uses. For,the most part, this development comprises traditional strip malls and large retailers, including several°'majorgrocery stores. Finally, downtown �* Tigard is located adjacent to Oregon 99W. Downtown serves \a community b center for Tigard residents and { includes numerous pedestrian- oriented shops and restaurants: Consequently, connectivity improvements that allow residents to more easily access the destinations onA Oregon 99W and in downtown will greatly benefit pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Using neighborhood trails to improve connections to schools,istla key priority of this project. Increasing the number of children walking and biking toschool, has the potentialLto both reduce traffic congestion and increase physical activity. A total of eight "schools 'owned by the Tigard- Tualatin School District are located within the City of Tigard. These school properties are,spread throughoutthe City. While most are located in residential areas, several properties are also „within commercial: ,areas along Oregon 99W or Washington Square. Parks and Trails ' As with schools, imp owed connections for Tigard residents to recreational areas are a project priority. Better access to trails irn'proves livability for residents and is one of the goals of the TSP. Tigard's trails and open spaces,areigenerally concentrated along several greenways located within the City. The most notable of these is Fanno Creek Greenwa ' which traverses the full length of the City. In addition to Fanno Creek, significant trails are located along the Tualatin River and the Pathfinder - Genesis Trail. In many locations, these trails are lined by preserve l,open space. As with'•tr:;ails,several of Tigard's parks are located along the Fanno Creek Greenway. Other large parks of note include Cook .Park in the southern portion of Tigard along the Tualatin River and Summer Lake Park in northwest Tigard.' In addition to these large -acre parks, several smaller parks are located throughout Tigard. Finally, the Tigard ;Senior' Center located south of downtown, and Tigard Swim Center located at Tigard High School, are also importantdestinations for non - motorized trips that should be considered during the planning and prioritization process. Transit Tigard is served by several existing TriMet bus routes, as shown in Table 1. 4 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 1. Existing Tigard Transit Service r ILA I w11F # ud' Y M B € y IZ I� r� ul�', . 9 ,4Ali u! t Route -':: Name ' tid ti � ti oM u P & rS �rf l 4 it A , Number d :414 �Rryf91IVU ° y d.iik P u,Nl s �v fr > Y 4E ,7 �^� u,fir.'ul �!��a.a. 4'F�,ai w, z::'IM }p�G� x ,. , .�,, .rZ irlr:. a ',Irnki i ` I"' `h." -2 12 Barbur Boulevard Service along Oregon 99W for full length of City 38 Boones Ferry Road Service along 72nd Avenue between Oregon 217 to Lower Boones Ferry Road 43 Taylor's Ferry Road Service along Greenburg and Washington Square Road connecting to Hall Boulevard 45 Garden Home Service along Scholls Ferry, 121st. Avenue, and Walnut Street to Tigard Transit Center 56 Scholls Ferry Service south along Scholls :Ferry to Washington Square 62 Murray Boulevard Service east along Scholls Ferry Washington Square 64X Marquam Hill /Tigard TC Express bus with seo ice 99W east of Tigard Transit Center - 76 Beaverton /Tualatin North /South Service along Washington'Square Road, Greenburg, Main Street, Comrnercial, Hall, and Durharr_r. 78 Beaverton /Lake Oswego Service to Washington Square along Washington Square Road, Greenburg, Main, Hunziker, Hampton, and 69th --\ 92X South Beaverton Express Express bus with servicealong Scholls Ferry froni'Hall°to Conestoga. 94 Sherwood - Pacific Highway Express buswith service`along Oregon 99W for fulliength of City Express 95 Tigard /I -5 Express Express bus with along Oregon 99W for full length of City In addition to existing bus routes, several new'transit services are planned for Tigard. Most notably, TriMet's new WES Commuter Rail service is scheduled to b operation in1Fl1 2008. The service will run from Wilsonville to Beaverton Transit Center and `will include stations. in downtown Tigard and near Washington Square in Beaverton. This newservice will provide service to destinations throughout the Portland region, making high - quality nonmotorized,access within the areas a key priority. Tigard's priority list bus service improvements includes the initiation of new service on: Barrows Road between Scholls Ferry Rbad and Horizon Boulevard:Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and 72 Avenue; and Hall Boulevard north of Oregon 99W. Improved corinections to these corridors should also be considered a priority dur,Rngthe„planning,process. Connectivity Corinectivity in Tigard is hampered by the physical barriers created by the Portland & Western Railroad, Fanno Creek, andhOregon 217. All,three of these parallel each other and run generally from southeast to northwest through the eastern portion of the City. The result of these barriers is that only a few facilities are available to travel from northeast to southwest within Tigard (e.g. Scholls Ferry Road, North Dakota Street, Oregon 99W, and Bonita Road.).These...facilities are by nature higher volumes and less friendly for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Thus, neighborhood trail connections that allow travelers to bypass these busier thoroughfares are preferred where possible. In addition to large barriers that limit non - motorized connectivity, the local street network in many locations is poorly connected as well. In general, this is most apparent in the residential areas of Tigard, where block lengths are longer and many streets end in cul -de -sacs, resulting in out -of- direction travel for even short trips. Thus, it is expected that the potential for neighborhood trails will be highest in residential areas, where improved connections shorten travel distances to non - residential attractions such as schools and shopping. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 5 CHAPTER 2 Demand and Potential Neighborhood Trails Data Collection The project team used citizen input and the knowledge of City staff to identify both demand and potential neighborhood trails within Tigard. Map 1 shows the location of these prospective neighborhood trails, with demand trails shown represented in red and potential trails shown in rose. ' Data on the location of both demand and potential trails were collected in three ways: • City staff used local knowledge and conducted field visits to identify prospective trails; and, • City staff worked with local trail users, the Tigard -Bull Mountain Trails Friends,and neighborhood groups to solicit information on the location of prospective trails. • A map -based project website was used to solicit additional public input on the location of prospective trails. The website was linked to through the City of Tigard website and various neighborhood association websites. After the commenting period has closed, the project team will add any new trail locations to the current database. The initial list of proposed neighborhood trails was,provided to Tigard residents during the public open house, and public comments were used to develop a final list ofproposed neighborhood trails. 4 Locations In total, Map 1 shows the location of 115 prospective neighborhood trails. Of these trails, 54 are demand trails where an existing path has been worn by users, and 60 are potential \trails not currently used by travelers. The trails range in length from 20 feet to over 2;000 feet; with an average; of:approximately 300 feet, or roughly the length of a city block, These trails are spread throughout the City and tend to be more frequent in residential areas where'the'yserve °to connect cuf -de -sacs to other streets or to existing multi -use trails. There are relatively few prospective trailOn Washington Square, the Tigard Triangle, and the industrial areas in the southeast portion Tigard. Several residential areas have a particularly high density of prospective trails. For instance, the residential area near Metzger in the northeast cornerof theCitylimits shows about ten neighborhood trails in close proximity, • with most ofthese potential`trailsto provide connections between local streets. In addition, most of the trails,intthiarea are <orientednorth - south, indicating a need for improved connectivity in this direction. Theresidential areas located south',of downtown also have a high number of connections. With the exception of`one.,trail that connects to the Tualatin :River trail, all of these trails connect dead -end streets or cul -de -sacs with other ^local streets. In 'several cases, the prospective trails would improve connectivity to the transit route on Hall Boulevard. Finally, the residential areas between Walnut Street and Bull Mountain Road in the vicinity of 130 Avenue'have over a dozen prospective trail locations. These trails are a mix of demand and potential trails, and tend tote longer than the prospective trails in other areas, as the steeper topography here results in a more disconnected network. Note that topography plays an essential role in the attraction and use of these neighborhood trails. In the area near Metzger and particularly in the area near Bull Mountain Road steep slopes both increase the need for neighborhood trails and increase the difficulty of providing new connections. Conversely, topography to the south of downtown is relatively flat. 6 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS .1 / ( • .4 , : is4iiil?tz.„.. , ,, )11 OAK - , 1 i e ■ 40! i ! 1 sc:oiLs' Frt.. . r.i — . , ; - ..---- , . t* \ 1 - - ,- l i1/4". wayarr : : 1 ".. s ,,,, . 1 \ \ - ' • 4 P 7.'jj V i r"1:*". 46 A i \-- 1 I MCDONALD' --. \ .i ) rAj: • .., 7 A r 1 BULL MOUNTAIN ,ft. , . J .0' : MURDOC 0 .11•01 r • . . . . ...,'". i .,, . < . . , DU NAM .3 . c . 1 .>- • ) , _ _ 1 ".: :- ' i, a 1 _ ..4 1 r . . — .,: Ore Proposed Neighborhood Trails - Paved Existing Trail 11111 School Property --,*--- Railroad 1111 Tigard City Boundary 0 Tigard Neighborhood ...., Trails Plan r r .... iii - Demand Trail - Unpaved Existing Trail II. Parks - Streams a A"""".. 0' Potential Trail i. Iln I Potential Neighborhood Trails ® Transit Centers - Bike Lanes 1111•1MIIMA, Overview Map Map 1. Proposed Neighborhood Trails 7 ,-•4P7, EXISTING CONDITIONS Railroad crossings As noted above, the Portland & Western Railroad presents a barrier to pedestrian and bicycle travel within Tigard. Although new non- motorized crossings are desirable, current ODOT Rail policy related to at -grade crossings is to reduce the number of at -grade rail crossings. In fact, the 2001 Oregon Rail Plan expresses a desire for fewer rather than more at -grade railroad crossings within Tigard. This is particularly true given the impending start of WES service, which will significantly increase rail traffic on the corridor, potentially decreasing the safety of at -grade crossings. The official policy from the 2001 Oregon Rail Plan is stated below: CROSSING SAFETY PROGRAM: Crossing Application Process ODOT Rail Division is in agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration in its effort to close crossings wherever possible. The Division is required by statute to eliminate' crossings at grade wherever possible. ODOT also strongly discourages construction of new grade crossings`; unless there are strong, persuasive arguments to justify a new crossing. Due to the above policy, this project does not recommend ;additional at- grade, `raiL crossings, though grade - separated crossings may be considered as appropriate. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 9 CHAPTER 3 Chapter 3. Design Guidelines This chapter presents a toolbox of potential design elements for neighborhood trails that are appropriate in different situations. The discussion includes natural and urban trails, possible cross - sections, paving options, fencing, and other trail amenities, such as wayfinding signage and lighting. It also outlines important ADA design issues, environmental factors, and potential ways of increasing safety throughout the trail system. In this report two kinds of neighborhood trails are differentiated: "demand" and "potential ". Demand trails are trails or dirt paths that are already being used by travelers, but that are not part of the official transportation system. They are informal, soft surface trails which appear on public and private property, and provide non - motorized access throughout the City. Potential trails are not currently in use, but could be improved or modified to a formal trail suitable for use by travelers. In particular, these types of connections may be useful in already developed areas of Tigard where the originally laid -out street network provides poor connectivity. Existing Trail Standards The City of Tigard has standard cross - sections for pedestrian paths and bikeways. Shown in Figure 2, the standards dictate a 5' minimum width for pedestrian ways and 10' minimum for multi -use paths. They further state that: • "Concrete shall be 3000 P.S.I. At 28 days, 6 sac mix, slump range of 1' / " -3" • Concrete panels shall be square, %" deep scribes at joints 5' apart, edged on 4 sides and have a light broom finish. • Fabric to be a woven geotextile (Amoco 2006) or approved equal. • Compact and sterilize subgrade. 5' MIN. 2 1/2" A.C. 4" OF P.C.C. ON 4" OF 3/4 " —O f — � _ • 2% SLOPE TO STREET p n na.2 9:4): • 4. A FARR'^ Figure 2. Existing Pedestrian Paths and Bikeways Design Standards' In addition, the City Code 18.810.110 states that the minimum width of a bikeway should be five feet per bicycle travel lane, and that the minimum width of an off -road multi -use path should be ten feet. Eight feet is acceptable, given environmental or other constraints. For a pedestrian off - street path, the minimum width is five feet. Neighborhood trails should be designed to meet these standards wherever possible. Neighborhood trails discussed in this Plan are different from the pedestrian paths and bikeways that these standards apply to. They are not regional multi -use trails such as Fanno Creek, but instead offer residents shorter walking routes to neighborhood destinations. Because of this difference, neighborhood trail design 1 Source: htto: / /www.ci.tigard.or.us /citv hall /depa rtments /cd /capital construction /standard details /default.asp 10 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS standards vary from the established trail standards in two respects. As the neighborhood trails proposed in this Plan are not exclusively formal urban trails, they will not necessarily be paved with concrete. Additionally, the widths may vary according to expected trail usage and available right -of -way. Neighborhood Trail Definitions Neighborhood trails are variously referred to as desire trails, demand trails, community trails, informal trails, 4. short trails, cut - throughs, urban trails, natural trails, and r A 111. accessways. Neighborhood trails provide direct routes between residential areas, retail and office areas, institutional facilities, industrial parks, transit streets, neighborhood activity centers, and transit oriented developments. They "' „ are off - street paths intended primarily for pedestrians and sometimes bicyclists. Neighborhood trails are necessary where routes for pedestrians and bicyclists are not otherwise provided by the street system, particularly Figure 3. `Demand Trail' in Tigard in neighborhoods with a disconnected street grid that requires both out -of- direction travel and walking or biking on a major street. Neighborhood trails should be considered when 'desire lines' or informal, unauthorized and unmaintained paths have been created (Figure 2). These routes are intended to provide safe, direct, and convenient connections to reduce out -of- direction travel and make walking and bicycling easier. Neighborhood trails can be unique community features. They can incorporate stairs, an elevator, bridge, alley or passage and connect gardens, courtyards, or other urban spaces. They can be unpaved, in the case of a natural trail, or paved to accommodate all potential users. Wherever possible, however, neighborhood trails should be designed to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Natural trails are soft - surface and are typically found in undeveloped parks, natural areas, or between house lots and provide a natural outdoor experience. These trails are usually for pedestrians only. Some urban neighborhood trails may not be able to maintain a 5% grade to accommodate disabled users due to topographical constraints (steep grades, constrained widths, etc.). Depending on the expected use of the trail, construction to ADA standards should be considered where possible. Neighborhood Trail Types � � 4, fide' . ' , 9 ,, E i S ,' • • r r 's , opr R di 1 W1 s>r * . , ci MIS' .k f Figure 4. Natural Surface Neighborhood Trail Figure 5. Paved Neighborhood Trail CHAPTER 3 The designs of neighborhood trails vary according to the functional classification of the facility as well as the expected user group. Safety for bicyclists and pedestrians on these routes is paramount, as they often intersect busy roadways, are located in residential areas without regular surveillance, and can be quite dark. There are two broad classes of neighborhood trails: • Natural Trails (Figure 4) • Urban Trails (Figure 5) Different surfacing and fencing options are recommended for each of these categories. Table 2 provides a quick reference chart for both types of neighborhood trails and the recommended standards. Table 2. Neighborhood Trail Design Standards Natural Trail (unpaved) Urban Trail (paved) Facility Type Soft surface trail _ Shared useipath /Sidewalk Road or Mountain Bicyclists Pedestrians Pedestrians Users Mountain Bicyclists* Wheelchairs * * *7 Baby strollers * * * Skaters * ** o Width 3' -8' ** 14' -10' ** Earth, gravel, wood:shavers, or other soft Pa or other smooth rolling Surface surface to accommodate all surface material , trail users Notes: * Depends on the slope ofthetrail and presence, of barriers, that dosnot .impede pedestrian travel * *Depends upon expected level of use and surrounding. land uses * ** Depends upon chosen trail surface — inline skates and skateboards will not roll well on surfaces other than asphalt of cbncrete, and slope of the trail (see Universal Access /ADA concerns) Natural -Trails Natural = trails are asuallwconsidered, when a trail is desired next to a natural resource or if the expected use will be minimal, as inthe case of minor neighborhood trails. They are also appropriate where a paved trail wouldkbe incompatible Withthe surroundings. Natural trails should take into account issues such as drainage, erosioncompaction /impaction from anticipated use presence of waterways and sensitive riparian areas, habitat areas;Penvironmental °guidelines, such as Green Trails: Guidelines for Environmentally Friendly Trails by Metro, and regulations, like Clean Water Services code for trails in water quality resource areas. They should be designed:to minimize illegal activity and trash dumping. Width Trail width will depend on the number and characteristics of intended users and the width of available right - of -way. For example, narrower paths intended only for walking use may be necessary in constrained areas. Larger areas with natural trails (i.e., natural parks and green spaces) should have a complimentary accessible route that meets or exceeds ADA standards in addition to the natural trail. A soft surface trail should have a 5' to 8' trail width, and can be as narrow as 3' if constraints exist. 12 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS '. , - i ` .t 'A. :; ■ tA w:, , -,/f ° v 1° ` ull. : Ot 11 ril 11 . 2' 5 -8' 2' Figure 6. Natural Surface Trail The trail width should include two -foot shoulders where possible (Figure 6), which can be planted with a bio- swale or low shrubbery. This area is meant to prevent the tunnel effect that can occur if fences come are directly up to the edge of the trail. Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8 feet minimum (2.5 m), with 10 feet (3 m) of clearance recommended. —d Surfacing Options. ; , ` Crusher Fines/ Gravel , r � •�; As a natural neighborhood trail surface, gravel is a practical ' „t;. NI option for narrow trails that will not see significant traffic. . , Gravel surfacing provides a more stable footing that will be 4i"...-1`..' �”. — to collect rain water in the winter (Figure 7 . The 44' `^ "` -mils likely ( g ) �+ path width can be as narrow as 3' but should allow regular width increases for users to pass each other. Gravel trails ` can offer neighborhood access to a community facility 5Ai I in into the existing character of the '�? ` while bend g to g neighborhood. Figure 7. Gravel Neighborhood Trail CHAPTER 3 VAOTH%JARIES 2% CROSS SLOPE `,t \ t +,. ` • t \ \ t t l r CIiUSHIS FFINE. , \ t t + 4' AGGREGATE a0.SE 't ` + 1 • t GEOTEXTILE RAMIE: 1 +t + CD»PAG7EC 5U6'vRACE '+ UNVISTUR€EO EARTII Figure 8. Gravel Cross- Section Table 3. "; , Costs for Gravel Element Unit Price Unit Earthen Trail (grading, vegetation clearing) LF fi. $ 4.50 4" Aggregate trail base 7 CY I $25.60 3" Crusher Fines A l SF - $3.15 Other natural surfacing options ' Filbert shells, wood rrriul'ch; and wood planer shaving aretadditional natural trail surfacing options. Filbert shells are a locally produced tra surfacing, they are aesthetically appealing, shells must be raked regularly and're topped every five years.'Wood mulch and wood planer shavings are additional options for unobtrusive °su rfaces: 2 All cost estimations were determined by Alta. They were developed through previous trail - building experiences in Oregon and the Portland area as well as inflation of the material costs. 14 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS room vaftes FINISH GRADE FLUSH VI !LLCM - WITH P4TH EOG! ...... _____ AFTER IMfl O:10401041 l T ONO M1tC>I \ \\\\ _\\, M1 5 {`AO[ifiEf3ATE RASE GEOTEKTILE FABRIC COMPACTED BUBGA40E —___ —_ UNOcSTURCiED EAHr,4 Figure 9. Bark Mulch or Filbert Shell Cross - Section Table 4. Costs for Filbert Shells Element Earthen Trail (grading• .. ring) ■ LF $ 4.50 4" Aggregate trail base CY $25.60 3" layer bark mulch SF $2.65 3" layer Filbert Shells SF $2.85 �',7 Urban Trails #; Neighborhood trails can be paved to accommodate - 44: ' Nei g p _ � , . most trail users. Where they provide a direct *'"w".' „ connection to a park or other neighborhood i1 , �-�` attraction, urban trails have their own right -of -way, 'f K ' separated from the street system (Figure 10)., Many of the existing demand trail locations in Tigard ' pass closely between two houses. In these situations, it is important to consider the privacy of the homeowners and to provide sufficient landscaping and amenities to make the trail an important Figure 10. Urban Neighborhood Trail in community asset. Oregon City Width The width of urban neighborhood trails depends on their predicted usage. Heavily -used urban neighborhood trails should optimally have a 12' right -of -way with a centered 8' wide paved surface and two 2' planter strips (Figure 11). Eight feet is the minimum width generally recommended for a two -way multi -use path that will experience significant use, and is compliant with Tigard design standards. In less- heavily trafficked areas, these neighborhood trails can be as narrow as 5' to allow for one - directional pedestrian travel, and even narrower if constraints exist. If such a trail is long, bulb -outs should be provided, to allow pedestrians to pass each other. CHAPTER 3 Ada isomp 11 IF" OEM i- _ Figure 11. Urban Neighborhood Trail Cross - Section Clearance Approximately two feet of clearance space on either side of the trail is recommended. This clear space can include small bushes or vegetation, which should be maintained such that they do not encroach into the trail as they grow. Fencing or dense vegetation that comes directly up to either side of the trail right -of -way creates a tunnel effect that is unpleasant for trail users and should be avoided. Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8 feet minimum (2.5 m), with 10 feet (3 m) of clearance recommended. Surfacing Options Pervious surface materials such as pervious concrete and interlocking pavers are ideal for neighborhood trails, as they reduce rainwater runoff into neighboring yards. If the neighborhood trail is built to accommodate all users, it should not exceed a 5% slope. Concrete /Permeable Concrete The use of concrete surfacing for paths has N _ proven to be the most suitable for long -term use (Figure 12). Using modern construction `: . practices, concrete provides a smooth ride with _ low maintenance costs that is suitable for all - -_ users. Runners may prefer to use the softer surface along the sides of the trail. Concrete paths cost more to build than asphalt paths, yet they do not become brittle, cracked and rough ;, with age, or deformed by roots and weeds as with asphalt. _ ... Permeable concrete lasts for approximately 15 Figure 12. Concrete Trail Surface years and requires a sweep and pressure wash four times per year. Permeable concrete allows water to absorb through the trail surface, thereby decreasing run -off and improving drainage alongside the trail. 16 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS 2. 2 CLEAR WEDTdi VARIES CLEAR -0 - I..-...--ri 1' — 1" RADIUS EOGER FEN SH / , WELDED WIRE MESH 1 / 2% CROSS SLOPE / ATM A185 ✓ : ` 1 r 1 t i f r,. 4 i 7/C 1 7 -' .r`4 r i 4' t . , t ��^ r / -7 r ' f 4 4 }_ .� - 3 5 'r;.ir X �' 4 P` 1 .. J •ft 1.+i :! . ;, r - •\ ' ,, . . f .�t ▪ f \ d• < ;,, \ ;t r t,l . ` ( ,' \` . . , .•�� ' `. : .:. . .. • y � , tt \ t C' CONCRETE PAVING LIGHT BROOM FINISH PERPENI' ?ICI#I,AR TO W1OTH OF PATH tt ti' t l 1 4 " AGGREGATE BASE \ GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1 \ UNDISTURBED EARTH N OTES; 11 rRAR SECINJN CON'IMRGEN1 ON GEO TECH NEPOHI 2) PLACE SAW CUT CONTROL JOINTS AS SEEN ON PLAN Figure 13. Concrete Tr Cross=Sect v Table 5. , Costs for Conc °Trails Element . Unit Price Unit It Tie an& Grub 1 y $0 15A1� t SF. . % '4 "-Aggregate base ��_.$O 6 SF 4" Concrete $595 ' SF 4" Permeable` 0, a $7 50 I SF Concrete 1 \ v ExcavationAfo $10!00 1 CY \ 4° ' °' Geotextile Fabric Z , $ 1 SF a C \� s ' 4 .i : . !l'' Y"ud'�" 97 .. • Asphalt /Permeable A sphalt ;e ft � ` ' ; ,� ., ° It `,`- r Asphalt Is the most commontsurface treatment f or -i ` i, � 1, t r,,, multi - use\ ! paths (Figure X1 The material „ , , ,,,q , ” a. , h s` „ � s' ^ composi construction: m ethods used can ;-�y k,., t. „„r ' ' ,�3� r significantly affect the longevity of the pathway. /��, •" ;.— r . A k ., ' Thicker asphalt se t ons� nd a well - prepared , -� -____ M subgrade will reduce formation over time and � -, r 2 t� t ' t - . !'r " „ t reduce long -term m costs. Asphalt is , .: °.: . ,... ^ F • suitable for a wide variety of trail users. i wfr , ., , ,� Figure 14. Asphalt Trail 3 Note: The "clear" shoulders shown on the cross - section should be kept empty of buildings or fences; however, low -lying vegetation or bioswale plantings are encouraged in these areas. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 17 CHAPTER 3 2 2' CLEAR . WIDTH VARIES CLEAR 1 - 2% CROSS SLOPE I T 0 ---01,.. ---."'•''' , ' '111111 I , , 1 t I I I I! , . - .. -, .., ,. , , ., .• ..,:- - i. . - ' . .. - . - -. . • - .-x:-.:.- . :„...-,:....,,(.'-,, ... ,-,-.•:;:. V ,/...- i '••-,..;"4 >. ... -, .• ..,- ,.,•••-ss .': ..:-., •-. ,,......:;" .-:..,:.: ; ,--..' ,; :,.....: :..„.., ,.. ' . :. . -,,,:,...; .: . .. .,,,,, ,., ' ,,.:,:.......,>,,. ,,,--24,, ...-.." :. ,•.:', • .'<, z'..;... >;".•::•,.7>":,':;>>.,i:k ;;>,\-.....;',‘ ....:, ;• •• .:.7 ..-...,- , .. ••>:' :... , .:s>.;,;-:„ .; ..;. :‘, < ...'-.:-..-,...". : ,,- . ., 4 : , ; : 4 , „„.<:...,..- \ {,;.;‘,......!,,,:;.•:.,:;;;,,,,,< V,;-,, A ' •. ,...4, , ,.... '. -?.:: ,:-., ; • ...„......- ' ..,,,, ...:-.,.• .. ..c.:.,.. ..,;:, ',....',..;•::.,::.= ,>-• , ' -■, "-., . -- . - •- ' , :4 4 - -. , . , : .• - .`:. . -. • '. 2 4.; - - 4. ,/- ; — \ \ \ \ \ \ •,, . .----- 3" CLASS "C" ASPHALT PAVING \ \ \ \ \ % 4" AGGREGATE BASE ' \ GEOTEXTILE FABRIC % UNDISTURBED EARTH Figure 15. Asphalt Trail Cross-Section Similar to traditional asphalt, pervious asphalt allows rain to seep through the surface, reducing run-off. Trails that are along bodies of water or that may have flooding problems should consider using this surface. ..- , 2 ' 2' MAR WIDTH VARIES CLEAR ....--,...-.-.. 11 " -- "• — •^1 r L 2% CROSS SLOPE .,-,..., s ,,,, • 4 ,_ . . _ „. ,....'...: . .:, ..,. ,..C.- 2:- ,-,',-: .'' ,'-:''' . '' -' l'e;;' Z'''...{; N::- . .<! '''' ':'/...,-.• '',. :.',..;. . ' '''.':‘,-... .., ' ''' • i ' . .. .,' ;,:,,.% 4 ,..:):. .,:..,),5.: .1.'- .:"\.• ,. ,> ..,, - '..... ' ..,., : ' ;',..::,.• , , ,-'1. .. ,...; ..- \ \ \ \ 3' PE RMEABL E ASPHALT PAVING .. -4 \ \ 1 , \ x Er AGGREGATE BASE \ \ 1 \ CEOTEXTILE FABRIC \ \ UNDISTURBED EARTH Figure 16. Permeable Asphalt Trail Cross-Section Table 6. Costs for Asphalt Trails Element Unit Price Unit ' Clear & Grub I $0.15 SF --- Site Grading $10.00 CY --I 6" Aggregate Base : $1.00 1 1 - SF Asphalt Paving Paving (non- permeable) $ 3.45 ' SF Permeable Asphalt Paving $4.40 SF 18 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Innovative Neighborhood Trails In addition to more traditional neighborhood trails between houses or yards, there are several other innovative ways to provide direct access, particularly in topographically constrained areas (i.e., on steep hills, over waterways, etc.). Stairs, alleyways, bridges, and elevators can provide quick and ^ mo w " '.� 4 _ •� '''''"..1\ � direct connections throughout the city and can be designed so they are safe, inviting, and accessible to most trail users. Wheel Gutters Wheel gutters on stairways allow bicyclists to easily roll their 41' _ �:. I bicycles up and down an otherwise inconveniently steep incline (Figure 17). Figure 17. Wheel Gutters on a Staircase Boardwalks I r 1 While expensive, boardwalks are appropriate in environmentally sensitive trail locations. They can provide �. direct access through sensitive wet areas and across small v waterways. Construction options include piers, foundation material, and decking. Helical Piers Helical piers are auger -like anchors that can be screwed in the soil with little disruption to the ecosystem environment. Helical Piers are particularly effective where soft soils are over ten feet deep and can be applied using handheld equipment in the field. Figure 18. Boardwalk Large piers can be applied using small- automated machinery. Costs for this type of system are based on adequate soil information, and number of piers. Pin Foundation Pin foundations as patented by Pin Foundations Inc. in Gig Harbor, WA, are a foundation system that uses 4- to 8- foot -long sections of galvanized pipe that are driven into the soil at several diagonal angles. They can be driven into the soil with hand held tools, eliminating the use of heavy machinery and cut or fill. The pins can be pulled up, adjusted or removed with minimal site disturbance. Conventional boardwalks use chemically treated wood as pilings, whereas the pin foundation system uses a small concrete diamond pier that is hand set. There is no chemical impact to the environment and minimal compaction to the soils when using this type of system. Geo- technical information is needed to determine the phi -angle (angle of internal friction) and dry unit weight of the soil. These values will dictate the length and number of pin- foundations needed. ° Source: htta: / /www.buildinggreen.com /auth /article.cfm ?fileName= 081008a.xml TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 19 CHAPTER 3 Concrete Foundation Custom concrete foundations systems are frequently paired with building boardwalk structures. These foundations systems are either poured in place or pre - poured off site and leveled in the field. There are two general types of concrete footing systems for building a boardwalk, a slab or block on grade and T- foundations. A T- foundation is a footing that is placed below the frost line and then the walls are added on top. The footing is wider than the wall, providing extra support at the base of the foundation. A post brace is cast into the concrete wall and a post or beam is anchored to the brace A Slab or Block -on -grade is a single layer of concrete or concrete block, several inches thick. The slab is poured thicker at the edges, to form an integral footing; reinforcing rods strengthen the thickened edge. The slab normally rests on a bed of crushed gravel to improve drainage. Casting a wire 'mesh in the concrete reduces the chance of cracking. *. When the site is easily accessible these systems are relatively inexpensive. The limiting factors to using concrete systems are soil factors and ecological sensitivity of the area. Concrete footings are considered fill within a wetland environment and will impact permitting processes =with the agencies. Recycled Plastic Posts Where the boardwalk is within three feet from grade; recycled plastic posts that are reinforced with fiberglass can be used as a non -toxic long lasting material solution.Fiberglass ' reinforced plastic postsmanufactured by US Plastic Lumber have been successfully used at a number of projects for decks and short boardwalks. Recycled plastic posts can be used as an alternative to pin- foundations or in conjunction with a pin foundation, as not to increase the amount of cut needed. Recycled plastic posts come with a 50 -year warranty. o Joist and Beams Treated wood has generally been specified forthe beamstndjoists. Generally the argument for using treated joist and beams is that they form the structural, components to the boardwalk and treated Fir or Hemlock is structurally very strong: In' addition,, the treated members are 'not in contact with the ground therefore minimizing the chancesof ground`poilution. An alternative to singpressure treated wood is using galvanized steel beams. Galvanization and production of steel present environmental problems during manufacturing, despite the fact that most steel is recycled. An in-depth ,lifecycle comparison between - galvanized steel beams and a treated wood system should be made when choosing materials. Using steel beams is'about twice as expensive as a structural system made from pressure treated =wood. However,, galvanized beams will last for 'a._.ver,y long. time whereas treatedkwood will require replacement after about :i .0• Min Width 40 years a I The last alternative to using=treated wood for joists and beams is',using recycled plastics. Plastic joist and beams arerappr three times as /I expensive compared to pressure treated wood ' f (source: US Plastic Lumber). In addition posts will • have to be set four feet on center because of lack of sheer in the strength of the members, instead of y _ a , go, usual 8 — 10 foot span. These shorter spans between members will double the price of the foundation system. Figure 19. Boardwalk Concept Cross - Section 20 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Decking During the rainy season, decking can become dangerously slippery. Ensure that whichever type of decking is chosen, it is treated with anti -skid paint or is otherwise safe to use when wet. Signage may be necessary to warn users if the material is somewhat slippery. The decking experiences more wear and tear than any other part of the boardwalk. Pressure treated wood is not recommended, even though the decking is not in ground contact. The constant wear will expose untreated inner sections of the planks and the deck will be susceptible to premature rotting. Alternatives to treated wood are indigenous rot resistant woods such as Western Red Cedar, Port Orford Cedar, and Alaskan Yellow Cedar, tropical hardwoods (Ipe), plastic decking or plastic composite decking and concrete. Concrete decking will last longer than the structural system of pressure treatedjoists and beams. When using concrete it seems prudent to combine this with a system of galvanied°=beams. To avoid bringing heavy machinery and trucks into sensitive ecosystem areas, concrete will havejo be brought in through a hose and pump system. It is only possible to bring in concrete in this manner over a distance of maximum 400 feet Clear grade Western Red Cedar or Port Orford Cedar are approximately twice tbe,:price of pressure treated decking. These cedars need to be treated with natural oil such as linseed oil ev er ye ar to keep them water repellent. Every seven years the decking should be checked for rot and pieces will need'to be replaced at that time. Alaskan Yellow Cedar is of a superior quality to Western Red Cedar and Port Orford : cedar because this cedar is from a tight -knot quality meaning that it is harvested from old- growth forests. It is:expensive - nearly three to four times the cost of pressure treated woods and two timefhe cost of Western Red Cedar . Ipe or Ironwood is a tropical hardwood out of Central and South America. This wood is available though certification of sustainable forest product distributors throughout the United States. The certification programs guarantee that the forest practices -used to extract`AheFwood do not contribute to forest or community degradation. This type of wood product, isthestrongest and rot resistant wood available. Ipe is about twice the price of pressure treated'. decking and similar in price to a good grade Cedar. There are added costs during the installation because Ipe requires the use of stainless steel fasteners. It is guaranteed to last 25 years. Howevervpor the Coney Island boardwalk' constructed of Ipe have withstood over 40 years of exposure withvno apparent .vrear.� Plastic or plastic - composite decking will also be long :lasting and maintenance free. The cost of these materials is about twice the price ofitreate6 wood similar in price to a good grade Cedar. However, there have been reports of problems with warping of plastic composite decking. Plastic- composite decking contains wood fibers,nriixed n` with the plastic'These wood fibers'do absorb some water, which might result in mold and mildewgrowth. '- ,,,°:.. An; example of a plastic decking thatdoes not contain any wood material is Trimax Decking. Over the past years; composite decking; products have shown that they will stain, fade, discolor, and even suffer termite damage. Unlike composites, Trimax Decking does not contain any wood fibers and is not susceptible to water damage ` arid,'.insects. This material can also be used as structural members in the construction of the boardwalk itself':, Treated Wood indicate that pressure treated wood leaches out in the environment, but the effects of toxins on natural resources remain unclear. Arsenic is the most commonly used pressure treatment CCA off wood products. ACQ uses copper as a preservative, which is potentially harmful to aquatic species; it is therefore still a questionable material to use in wetland or sensitive ecosystem environments. 6 Source: Smooth Move Construction 6 Source: Bear Creek Lumber TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 21 CHAPTER 3 Initially, constructing a boardwalk out of pressure treated wood is more cost effective than using an alternative material. However, when looking at life cycle costs (potential impacts to the environment caused by the facilities materials), alternative materials are cost competitive. Table 7. Costs for Boardwalks Element Unit Price Unit Boardwalk 1 $1,000 _ LF Bridge T$1,490 LF Path Surfacing Options Analysis The surfacing material of a path contributes to the overall feel of the trail and can affect which users can comfortably utilize the trail. Whether or not a trail is paved can encourage or deter neighborhood support for the trail, if they consider a paved trail to be an invitation for outsiders to' pass; through their community, or if they have safety or aesthetic concerns about an unpaved trail.. In arriving ata recommended trail surface, several key criteria should be considered, including: Surfacing Option Considerations • Initial Capital Cost —Trail surface costs vary dramatically :and,dollars to build trails are scarce. Construction costs include excavation, subbase`preparatiion, aggregate base placement, and application of the selected trail surface. Costs can vary from a low of around $2.00 /SF for a bark mulch trail, up to $12- $13 /SF for a rubberized surface. � • Maintenance and Long Term Durability - The anticipated life'of a trail surface can vary from a single year (bark surface in a moist climate) to 25 +.Nears,(concrete) k In*Idition, each trail surface has varying maintenance needs that will require regular to sporadic-inspections and follow up depending on the material selected.Some surface repairs`can be made effort such as on a bark surface trail, while other such as a concrete surface will require skilled craftsmen to perform the repair. • Existing Soil and Environmental Conditions Soil conditions are predetermined and play a critical role in surfacing selection. In addition, when considering the use of a permeable concrete or asphalt surface, the,success ratekof these surfaces is directly correlated to the permeability of the soil and climatic condit ons The>lower the, permeability and moisture, the greater risk of failure. � �• Ant tipated Use /Fyu ctionality — Who are the anticipated users of the trail? Will the trail surface need 1 ��' to accommodate equestrians, wheelchairs, maintenance vehicles, bicycles, etc.? Does the trail provide critical access to a popular destination for many users or is it a local access route to a community park? $ ti . Multiple use trails attempt td meet the needs of all anticipated trail users. This may not be feasible with a single trail surface. Considering the shoulder area as a usable surface, it is possible to provide enough '1 width to accommodate use by those preferring a softer material. Each surface also has varying degrees 'of:.roughness and therefore accommodates varying users. In - line skates, for example, cannot be used on-a chip seal surface or most permeable concrete surfaces due to the coarseness of the finished - surface. • Funding Source — The funding source for the trail may dictate the trail surface characteristics. If the trail has federal funds and is being administered through ODOT, funding agency will need to review and approve the selected trail surface. • Susceptibility to Vandalism — Trail surfaces are not usually thought of as being susceptible to vandalism, but the characteristics of the varying surfaces do lend themselves to a variety of vandalism including movement of materials such as gravel or bark, graffiti on hard surfaces, arson (wood and rubber surfaces), and deformation. • Aesthetics — Each trail surface has varying aesthetic characteristics that should fit with the overall design concept desired for the project and for the neighborhood in which the trail is located. 22 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS The following section will discuss standard treatments for the primary neighborhood trail design opportunities in Tigard. It highlights several popular trail grafdm options forma type of neighborhood trail, and provides acstbnmlanalsyBa these alternatives. w y . " ' \% . A ?� 4 . y > d TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 23 CHAPTER 3 Table 8. Surfacing Options Matrix -' , Maintenance Vandalism m Description/ :; '. - Cost Product Installation Method e. Durability De Permeable Functionality .. ADA Availability Susceptible /.SF Crusher Prepare subbase, place 2 -5 years, Sweep to fill voids Yes Pedestr Bicycle No High Moved, $4.88 Fines/ geotextile, 6" aggregate depending on from dislodged fines 1.� r.. Deformation Gravel base, place 2" depth 'A" maintenance minus over base, roll and O. * ,• compact ., 4 4;,,4 �s. Filbert Prepare subbase, place 7 -10 years Keep shells in place Yes v �r�' Pedestrian !Nof -, Moderate Moved $2.85 Shells geotextile fabric, 4" by regular raking. Re- � r p% 0 a ggregate base, then 3" top every 5 years >,,, q r x �'' layer of filbert shells 4 e fi' 4 `':° Wood Prepare subbase, place 1 -3 years Top dress annually Yes e ` ` ;;° iP edestrian No High Moved, $2.65 Mulch geotextile, 4" aggregate ,. .;4 Deformation, I base, place 3" layer of Arson wood mulch, rake and :,;-,,,:s �'% ' 4 A A shape, apply second 3" N r x layer after initial ' ,,; , x , compaction and � �i x < I settlement ��D No Wood 1 Prepare subbase, place 1 2 3 years-0,0' ' Add 2, 3" of new 'Y es^ ' P � High Moved, $3.25 9 ' Planer geotextile, 4" aggregate ey�' materiahannually �� ,, Deformation, Shavings base, place 3" layer of 4,P , : ,� ' Arson t wood planers shavings, ,� �� °" add additional 3" layer ''/,40' ; �� ' •;r'� after initial compaction � w . ' � x „ y '. x 7P I 140 ,g, „ ' e. a , The cost of maintaining each trail surface is incorporated into the overall cost per square foot for the surface. 24 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Maintenance . Vandalism Description/ Cost Product Installation Method Durability Description Permeable Functionality ADA Availability Susceptible / SF Concrete Prepared subbase, place 25 years Periodic inspection No Pedestrian; :' Yes High Graffiti $9.00 geotextile, 6" agg. base, for uplift and Bicycle; ,Roller Portland cement, settlement, repair as Blade, Wheelchair aggregate, sand, water needed - 4" depth section _ _ ' i Permeable Prepared subbase, place 15 years Vacuum sweep and Yes I ~ Pedestrian, ` x Yes Medium Graffiti $11.65 Concrete geotextile, 12" depth pressure wash 4 Bicycle, Roller w aggregate base, Portland times a year ' ° Blade, Wheelchair ,'„ .- cement, coarse aggregate, water, 5" depth section _ r .- , , ' —_ __ Asphalt Prepared subbase, place 10 years Pothole patching ( No ' .Pedestrian, Yes High Graffiti $5.25 geotextile, 6" aggregate _ Bicycle, Roller –{ base, emulsion, aggregate _ Blade, Wheelchair Permeable I Prepared subbase, place 8 years Vacuum sweep and Yes Pedestrian, Yes Medium Graffiti $6.75 Asphalt 1 geotextile, 12" depth pressure wash 4, , I ; Bicycle, Roller I aggregate base, emulsion times a year, patch Blade ? Wheelchair and coarse aggregate 2" any pot holes as 11 � depth section needed • „ 1 ,A. f 7 , .H , , 4✓ 4 ; . ;, 7 ',,: y. ,% y ;; ' 0 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 25 Edge Treatments Fencing Fencing is a means of assuring safety for both trail N. users and neighboring residents by preventing unwanted access onto or off of the trail. By ' definition, significant lengths of the Tigard - - < , - - ... _A& — fir neighborhood trail corridors are surrounded on Solid Wood Fence both sides by residential properties. However, fencing both sides of the trail right of way can Figure 20. Example Wooden Fence result in a "tunnel" effect with the perception of being trapped, resulting in a detrimental effect on the trail user experience. The narrow width of many corridors in the study area compounds this tunnel effect. Additionally,, fencing could literally have the opposite effect of enhancing public safety by inhibiting communitysurveillance of the trail. As a general policy, fencing requests should be reviewed on case -by -case bases. If credible evidence exists that trespassing and crime issues on a specific property is a result of the development =of the trail, then installation of fencing should be considered. There are numerous fencing types that can be considered. Solid fencing that does not allow any visual access to the trail should`be'diiscouraged. Fencing that allows` a balance between the need for privacy, while simultaneously allowing informal surveillance of the trail should be encouraged. If fencing is requested purely for privacy reasons, vegetative buffersshould be considered. Figure 20 shows an example wooden fencing option, and Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23 each show additional examples of different types of fences that,, have been used along trails. In addition to these, fencing can be made of metal or dense vegetation, or trails be left with an open boundary, as discussed below. • t i _ ^'✓" y ' 'y a� .� ^mow, JI .. .... f , :ef Ag ` Y j ma y . - I p �` j _ � : �' 1 gy 1t1 { "� iNd11 , { ` . r. ',� :, V % `,-._ \ r 1, - , � er(' i o „„ ,7 , ) ,,I. , ,,;,?,,,:. - -- ,,, ikv-..,. N. I, ,,,,,,,_,, , * " '� +' , ` fi` -" _ Figure 21. PostaridWire Figure 22. Wooden Safety Figure 23. Metal Fencing Fence y ,y ' Fence o-_� Dense Vegetation Dense vegetation can be used to define the trail corridor and increase privacy, particularly in locations with preexisting plants. The major expense of this option is maintenance and upkeep, which includes watering and trimming vegetation semi - regularly to maintain adequate path clearance. Open Boundary In locations without significant vegetation, it is an option to maintain an open boundary around the trail. Users will tend to walk through an open area, so this option is not practical for areas where privacy or trespassing is a concern of landowners. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 26 DESIGN STANDARDS Table 9. Costs for Fencing Types Element Unit Price Unit � I Metal railing S50.00 j LF Aluminum Hand Railing (2 rail, 1 'Al $21.35 I LF _ y 6' High Chain Link r $12.00 LF 4' High Chain Link $7.00 LF - 4' High 4 -Cable _ $11.00 LF 6' High Ornamental _ $40.00 LF Wooden split -rail fencing $20.00 LF Dense vegetation $7,500.00 - LS Trees 24" Box _ _ _+_ $500.00 each Trees 15 Gallon $250.00 _ each Shrubs 5 GC , $25,00 Shrubs 1 GC I $12.90 ' each Shrub Plantings 4 ,$1.25 , SF , Signage Signage for Tigard neighborhood trails should be both wayfinding and regulatory. Consistency of signage image provides the trail user with a sense of continuity of the system as well as "general trail user orientation and safety. As a general rule, less signaggis=better,as trail users become overwhelmed and noncompliance increases. Also, neighboring homeowners n ay not want to advertise the trails' existence, but would prefer limiting use to local residents. Additionally, incorporation of signage into vertical elements such as bollards, lighting or other trail elements should be encouraged. Thiswill avoid the "visual pollution" of too may signs along the trail and an excessive number of s'ign,poles. Wayfinding Signage Wayfinding signage pr\ovides orientation to the trail user and emphasizes the continuity of the trail. Street names and place names are key elements that may be called out along neighborhood trails, as appropriate. Wayfinding should be used to call- outakey destinations along the trail route , including: • Schools Parks. �, • City offTigard buildings , • Major employers Other Trails, including the Westside Trail, Fanno Creek Greenway Trail A central installation at trailheads and major crossroads also helps users find their way and mt acknowledge the rules of the trail. They are also useful for interpretive education about plant and animal life, ecosystems, andlocal history: Regulatory and Warning Signage The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) clearly spells out how regulatory and warning signage should be incorporated into the trail. Key signage types include: • Trail Etiquette Sign: utilize at key access points • Stop: utilize at all crossings of public road rights of ways • Bike /Ped Crossing Ahead: roadway approaches trail If the city maintains the particular neighborhood trail, signage should provide a phone number to call for reporting maintenance or safety problems with the trail segment. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 27 CHAPTER 3 Table 10. Costs for Signage Element Unit Price Unit Wayfinding Signs $500.00 each Interpretive Signs $1,500.00 I each Stop Signs /Warning Signs $250.00 each Amenities This project presents an opportunity to provide communities with natural spaces that allow and promote non - motorized travel to important destinations. As a network of linear open spaces winding their way through urban development, the trail can be a model for restoration and respect for the natural environment. It is also appropriate to create a design theme that reflects the neighborhood values and that contributes to building a 'sense of place' in Tigard. Context Sensitive Design is the practice of integrating local culture' and heritage into infrastructure projects. For the neighborhood pathways system, there are a number of`uni ue themes, icons and details that will g p Y Y s .� q ��,, make the trails inviting and unique, particularly related„to;,the natural features..in4,the City. The following examples of context sensitive design solutions can makea trail system more invitingktothe user: Pedestrian -Scale Lighting Pedestrian -scale lighting improves safety and enables the facility to be used year- round, particularly on winter afternoons. Minimizing glare, not lighting the night sky, and protecting the light from vandalism a'reqhe three main issues neighborhood trail lighting design should consider.. Lights should not have a visible source, either to the users or to t, neighboring residences, as they can blind users and pollutethe, sky. In addition, globes, acorns other light types that arenot reflected or shielded on the top: light - the sky=and should .be avoided. Low level lighting, such as very, short poles or - bollards, are often problematic, due to their easy accestfor vandalism. yR, In some areas, street lighting,is sufficient'trail light for users, and in other locations homeowners May' to publicize the trails in their neighborhoods. If lights are'desired, some neighborhood -scale options Figure 24. Lighting Bollard are.available. A few`ofthese include: Source: Knight Pedestrian Lighting • In- ground lighting —dim lightswhich indicate the extent of the path 7 °Bollards — low - level lighting, susceptible to vandalism • Sgla,rlighting -.best used in situations where running power to the trail would be costly or undesirable. Pedestrian scale lightingcan have screens to deter the glare from affecting neighbors. In addition, lights can be programmed to dim or turn off later in the night. Cost: $3,000 each (standard pedestrian light and pole) 28 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Pedestrian -Scale Furniture Providing benches at key rest areas and viewpoints encourages 51 R people of all ages to use the trail by ensuring that they have a place to rest along the way. Benches can be simple (e.g., wood slates) or more ornate (e.g., stone, wrought iron, concrete). Cost (bench): $1,500 each try` I ,r . i+- -,' Dog Bag Stations *: At parks and popular dog - walking areas, dog bag stations can be _ t ; provided to encourage users to pick up after their dogs. Such a it. t station can include bags only, or offer a trash receptacle, and signage. Cost: Varies i e 1.1 --r l' — - Bollards 6w6 4WD m I Bollards can serve several functions: they can prohibit motorized j.:14..„i_i_ vehicles from using the trail, warn trail users that the trail is crossing a larger street, and provide wayfinding, mileage, or regulatory information for trail users. Cost: $450 each r. •a I — Landscaping and Bioswales Landscape features, including street trees or trees along paths, can enhance the visual environment and improve the path user experience. Trees can also provide shade from heat and protection '" : from rain. Bioswales are natural landscape elements that manage water runoff from a paved surface, such as a trail. Plants in the swale trap pollutants and silt from entering a river system. Cost: Varies TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 29 CHAPTER 3 *. -. • Information Kiosks Information kiosks can provide places for community postings and maps of the trail system. A large- format map can be displayed, or smaller maps of the area can be available for trail users to take with aliesamar 11111111Mir .4 them. These kiosks can alternatively serve as community bulletin • boards, and act as community centers and gathering places. Cost (large map): $5,000 each Art Installations • `' '' """ Local artists can be commissioned to provide art for the trail system, making it uniquely distinct. Many trail art installations are functional as well as aesthetic, as they may provide places to sit and play on. Cost: Varies Universal Access /ADA All public facilities must be built to meet the requirement of the American's With Disabilities Act (ADA), where possible. The act was established to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with accessibility standards established by ADA. ADA design standards establish criteria to support universal access. All paths and ramps are to be designed with the least possible slope. The maximum slope allowed by ADA design standard for a walkway in new construction shall be 1:12 or 8.33% of rise, over 30 feet of run. When designing for maximum slope, landings are needed every 30 inches of rise along with handrails. Paths will have a continuous clear width of 5 feet minimum so that two wheelchairs can pass each other. To provide extra traction, decking should be perpendicular to the walking direction. Standard code requirements state where the walkway/ boardwalk will be 30" or more from the ground plain guardrails will be added to the design. In areas 30" or lower curbing stops will be constructed to edge the walkway. Constructing trails outdoors may have limitations that make meeting ADA standards difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts include harm to significant cultural or natural resources, a significant change in the intended purpose of the trail, requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state or local regulations, or presence of terrain characteristics that prevent compliance. See the following Table 11, which provides guidelines for developing accessible trails. If the slope where a trail is proposed exceeds 5 %, constructing the trail with switchbacks, or over a more gradual distance can ameliorate this problem. However, in certain situations, it is impossible to build a trail to 8 Source: htto:// www .usdoi.gov /crt/ada /stdsodf.htm e Source: htto:/ /www. access - board .Rov /adaas/html /adaag.htm #4.8 30 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS the slope standards. Additionally, the neighborhood trails discussed in this Plan will often have soft - surfaces, which are not conducive to wheelchair travel. In these situations, alternative routes that include sidewalks are acceptable accommodations. Simple details to be considered in the planning and design process can greatly enhance accessibility to and within the planned system. Breaks in long grades, consideration of the user's eye level, minimizing grades at drainage crossings, providing areas to get off the trail, and appropriately designed seating walls are examples of simple accessible improvements. Consultation with the physically challenged on specific design issues prior to the planning and design of trails or trailhead facilities can be very beneficial and is encouraged for every accessible project. Table 11. ADA Trail Development Guidelines Item Recommended Treatment Purpose Trail Surface Hard surface such as, asphalt, ''Provide a smooth surface that concrete, wood, compacted gravel accommodates wheelchairs Trail Gradient Maximum of 5% Greater than 5% is too strenuous Trail Cross Slope 2% maximum Provide positive trail drains etbut avoid excessive gravitational to side of trail Trail Width 5' Minimum Accommodate a wide variety of users Trail Amenities, phones, Place no higher than 4' off ground`' , Provide access within reach of wheelchair drinking fountains, pedestrian ,users actuated buttons Detectable pavement changes Place at top of ramp before Provide visual cues for visually impaired at curb ramp approaches entering roadways Trailhead Signage Accessibility information such "as User convenience and safety trail gradient /profile, distances, tread°conditions, location of drrinkinglountains and rest stops EnvironmentarIC.onside.rations - o` Environmental, constraints sho.uld> be con before choosing construction materials. Often trails and boardwalks are constructed', to minimize impacts to sensitive ecosystems such as wetlands. Material ..... �, considerations in these areas should mitigate potential long -term impacts to the resource. Steps to consider ., '� taking include: , •;, Identify and map water resources within 200 feet of the trail system. Accurately locating wetlands, streams and riparian areas relative to the trail is an important element of the trail planning. The location of these potential "receiving resources" for trail drainage and associated sediments will affect decisions about placement of trail drainage structures, maneuvering of maintenance equipment, seasoriofvwork interception and infiltration of trail drainage, and disposal of earth materials generated duringmairite'nance activities. • Minimizecrossings of streams and wetlands. Minimize channel crossings and changes to natural drainage patterns. • Minimize trail drainage to streams and wetlands. Minimize the hydrologic connectivity of trails with streams, wetlands and other water resources. • Keep heavy equipment off wet trails. Avoid operating heavy equipment on trails when they are wet. Use alternate routes for heavy equipment when trails are wet. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 31 CHAPTER 3 • Provide crossing structures where needed. Where trails traverse wet areas, structures should be provided to avoid trail widening and damage at "go- around" spots. Crossing structures also help protect water quality, wetlands and riparian areas. • Establish vegetative buffers between trails, streams and wetlands. Retain a buffer between trails and water resources by establishing riparian and streamside management zones ( RSMZs), within which trail influences such as drainage, disturbance and trail width are minimized. In reviewing environmental considerations permitting will play an important role regarding what can or cannot be accomplished on site. Permitting agencies that should be consulted with are: Army Corp of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quantity, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington County Clean Water Services. A few over - arching principles can provide some guidelines for master planning, and hopefully, steer many project elements away from the lengthy and expensive environmental assessment process. • Utilize disturbed areas. Utilize existing disturbed areas and clearings,for trails and parking facilities, to the extent that such use does not detract from the area's scenic quality: s . • Establish vegetative buffers for non - conforming uses:" Industrial and commercial uses adjacent to trails should be screened by means of fully planted native vegetative buffers at l 2 5 feet wide. • Establish riparian and streamside management setbacks (RSMS). Vegetative disturbances such as thinning, pruning and felling to improve cano o enin s should be allowed as necessa' to maintain g P g g P pY P g rY existing trails in RSMSs. However, no heavy egdipment should operate outside the trail clearing limits here. Storm water discharges from roads and ttails should be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Storm water discharges that cannot be avoided should be designed for maximum treatment, sedimentation, infiltration. and level - spreading before entering the RSMS. • Avoid wet areas unless special construction: techniques are used. Path Safety and;&e:curity Various design and,programmatic'measures can betaken to address safety issues on a shared -use path. Table 12 summarizes key.safety issues and,strategies for minimizing impacts. +Table 12: °' '° Safety Recommendations for Paths Safety issue Recommended Improvements Privacy of • Encourage the'use of>nei hborhood friendly fencing and also planting of landscape buffers. :��.��..: g : �. , g Y g P g P property ° - owners A • Clearly4mark path access,points. • .,. • Post path rules that encourage respect for private property. • Place lighting strategically. Litter and dumping \y , ., Post path rules encouraging pack -it -in /pack -it -out etiquette. \• Place garbage receptacles at trailheads. • Place lighting strategically, utilizing light shields to minimize unwanted light in adjacent homes. • Manage vegetation within the right -of -way to allow good visual surveillance of the path from adjacent properties and from roadway /path intersections. • Encourage local residents to report incidents as soon as they occur. • Remove dumpsites as soon as possible. Trespassing • Clearly distinguish public path right -of -way from private property through the use of vegetative buffers and the use of good neighbor type fencing. • Post path rules that encourage respect for private property. 32 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Safety Issue. Recommended Improvements Crime • Manage vegetation so that corridor can be visually surveyed from adjacent streets and residences. • Select shrubs that grow below 3 ft in height and trees that branch out greater than 6 ft in height. • Place lights strategically and as necessary. • Place benches and other path amenities at locations with good visual surveillance and high activity. • Provide mileage markers at quarter -mile increments and clear directional signage for orientation. • Create a "Path Watch Program" involving local residents. '7,- • Practice proactive law enforcement. Utilize the corridoi patrol training. Private use of ■ Attempt to negotiate win /win solutions with property owners. corridor • Eliminate where detrimental impact to path:cannot be reasonably ameliorated. Local on- street • Post local residential streets as parking for local residents only to discourage path user parking parking. Place "no outlet" and no parking signs prior to path access points. Vandalism • Select benches, bollards, signage and`other site amenitiesthat are durable, low maintenance and vandal resistant. • • Respond through removal or replacement in:rapid manner. �w o. • Keep a photo record of all vandalism and turnover to local law enforcement. • Encourage local residents to report vandalism. > u • Create a Trail Watch Program ;maintain good surveillance of the corridor. • Involve neighbors in path projects to build aasense of ownership. • Placeamenities,(benches, etc4 in well used and highly visible areas. Unwanted vehicle • Utilie define the corridor edge and path, including earth berms and large access on the path �� boulders. •�< Usebollards at intersections • Passau :motorized ordinance and sign the path. °° •. Create aPath" Watch Program° and; encourage citizens to photograph report illegal vehicle V . ; use of the'cprridor. 4'i#, • 'Lay trail out , with, curves that allow bike /ped passage, but are uncomfortably tight for .....:.., automobile passage:. Children'ssafety' Provide lighting on trails near schools, to protect children returning home after school in the winter. Community in:vo/vemenf'with Safety on the Path Creating a safe path environment goes beyond design and law enforcement and should involve the entire community. The most .effective and most visible deterrent to illegal activity on Tigard's neighborhood trail system will be the presence of legitimate path users. Getting as many "eyes on the corridor" as possible is a key deterrent to undesirable activity. There are several components to accomplishing this as outlined below. Provide good access to the path Access ranges from providing conveniently located trailheads along the path, to encouraging the construction of sidewalks to accommodate access from private developments adjacent to the path. Access points should be inviting and signed so as to welcome the public onto the path. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 33 CHAPTER 3 Good visibility from adjacent neighbors Neighbors adjacent to the path can potentially provide 24 -hour surveillance of the path and can become the City's biggest ally. Though some screening and setback of the path is needed for privacy of adjacent neighbors, complete blocking out of the path from neighborhood view should be discouraged. This eliminates the potential of neighbors' "eyes on the path," and could result in a "tunnel effect" on the path. High level of maintenance A well- maintained path sends a message that the community cares about the public space. This message alone will discourage undesirable activity along the path. Programmed events Community events along the path will help increase public awareness and thereby attract more people to use the path. Neighbors and residents can help organize numerous—public events along the path which will increase support for the path. Events might include a path cleanup or a series�.offshort interpretive walks led by long -time residents or a park naturalist. Community projects The support generated by community groups could befurther capitalized by involving neighbors and friends of the path in a community project. Ideas for community prdjects.inelude volunteer planting events, art projects, interpretive research projects, or even bridge building events. These community projects are the strongest means of creating a sense of ownership along the path that ii perhaps the strongest single deterrent to undesirable activity along the path. Adopt -a -Path Program businesses, community. institutions, and, neighbors often see the benefit of their involvement in the path dev elopment and maintenance. Businesses and developers may view the path as an integral piece of their site planning`and be willing take on some level of responsibility for the path. Creation of an ado t -a ath ro ?am should lie °`ex lored to capitalize on this opportunity and build civic ride. p p p g p p� PP Y p Path Watch4Program' Partnering with local and county law enforcement, a path watch program would provide an opportunity for local residents to b eco e,actively involved in crime prevention along Tigard's neighborhood trail system. Similaar to Neighborhood W tch programs; residents are brought together to get to know their neighbors, and are edticated on how to recognize and report suspicious activity. M a i n t e n an ce, Trail managemenV'andomaintenance are important factors in trail success. The psychological effects of good maintenance can be a.,highly effective deterrent to vandalism and littering. Maintaining surfacing, vegetation and signage improves trail safety and aesthetic quality. Which parties are responsible for trail maintenance should be clear, as should specific and regular maintenance tasks. 34 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Maintenance Responsibilities Park Division Staff One of the most important issues facing the Parks Division will be to establish maintenance standards and to ensure that the Park Division and any maintenance partners are aware of and will adhere to such standards. The Parks Division should identify a key senior staff person that will be designated to serve as the Trail System Manager. The following list represents the major management tasks of the designated Trail System Manager for the Division: • Monitor security /safety of the trail system through routine inspections ,a • Oversee maintenance and rehabilitation efforts • Acquire trail easements and other agreements, where applicable • Establish consistency in the trail user regulations with nearbyyagencies • Manage and respond to issues and incidents throughout .the trail system: • Coordinate routine law enforcement needs • Assist in coordination of art in public places programming • Act as the local trail system spokesperson withi'the public and elected officials, and respond to the issues and concerns raised by trail users • Develop and manage an emergency response systemin coordination with local fire and police departments <° Community Members Active and informed community members" are a wonderful. resourceefor the Tigard neighborhood trails. Interested citizens should be connected with'vofunteer opportunities within Tigard. Additionally, community members can be encouraged form Friends of groups; such Friends of the Westside Trail, and really take pride and a sense of Ownership in.th. eir local trails Management Non -trail use needs arise ,as= utility „installations,.private driveway accesses, and roadways that will impact the tr sy tem_ Aseparate of policies and procedures that outline the details of property management for the planned system ,should be developed and implemented in order to protect the quality of the user's experience. Key elements of such'a,:policy are summarized below: Encroachments Given thes:puljlic nature of :the planned system, private encroachments should not be overlooked. Resolving encroachmentissues to min mile their impact on future trails should be a priority for all effected parties. Utilities / Shared-Usage Compatible utility and shared usage agreements may be of benefit to both the planned system and the requesting party. For example, underground fiber optic cables will not interrupt use of the trail while providing an annual rental fee for maintenance of the trail. Utilities should not be granted exclusive use of the right -of- way but would be expected to share use with other compatible and even competing utilities. It is strongly recommended that a utility corridor be defined and conduits running the length of the corridor be installed as each phase of paved trail is built. This will minimize construction and design impacts to the trail as future utilities are installed. Under - grounding of utilities is encouraged whenever feasible. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 35 CHAPTER 3 Maintenance Tasks Paved Surface Maintenance Cracks, ruts and water damage will have to be repaired periodically. In addition, vegetation control will be necessary on a regular basis. Where drainage problems exist along the trails, ditches and drainage structures will need to be kept clear of debris to prevent wash outs. Bio- swales should be considered in these locations, to improve drainage. Checks for erosion along the trails should be made monthly during the wet season, and immediately after any storm that brings flooding to the local area. The trail surface should be kept free of debris, especially broken glass and other sharp objects, loose gravel, leaves and stray branches. Trail surfaces should be swept periodically. Soft Surface Maintenance , • Soft surface trails are often used in environmentally sensitive :areas, and care:must be taken that the trail surfacing material does not spill outside the established widthfof trail itself. Compacted gravel and crusher fines trails need to be sw,epi,periodically to ensure that>-the trail material is not spilling over and to fill in voids along the trail from dislodged gravel and fines. mulch trails need to top dressed annually, with p carepad the established width of the trail to ensure a 4' wide trail stays a 4' wide trail and does not wider with the new application of the trail material. Vegetation and Pest Management' 4 N.a. In general, visibility between plantings at trailside should;be maintainedso as to avoid creating the feeling of an enclosed space. This will also give trail users,good, clear views of their" "surroundings, which enhances the aesthetic experience of traihusers, Under story•v egetation -alongtrail corridors should not be allowed to grow higher than 36 inches. ,Tree's speciesselection and placement should be made that minimizes vegetative litter on the trail and root:uplifting of°pavement. Vertical clearance along the trail should be periodically checked and any overhanging branches overthe trail should`be`pruned to a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet. The trail system movesthrough a variety of landscapesettings. Some basic measures should be taken to best protect the trail investment:' " 1Vherever possible7weed "control should be accomplished by mechanical means. This is.especiallytrue -along drainage ways crossingthe trail. Innovative weed control methods such as grazing and seaming should be , explored. Use of chemical sprays should be limited to use only on those plants that are harmful to the public. Litterand.Illegal Dumping: Litter along the ,trail corridors should be removed by staff or volunteer effort. Litter receptacles should be placed at accesspo.ints such as•trailheads. Litter should be picked up once a week and after any special events held on the trail; except.where specially designed trash cans have been installed throughout Tigard. Illegal dumping should b'e controlled by vehicle barriers, regulatory signage and fines as much as possible. When it does occur, 'it must be removed as soon as possible in order to prevent further dumping. Neighborhood volunteers, friends groups, alternative community service crews and inmate labor should be used in addition to maintenance staff. Signage Signage will be replaced along the trail on an as- needed basis. A bi- monthly check on the status of signage should be performed with follow -up as necessary. 36 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS Fencing As the need arises, fencing requests should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Proper lines should be clearly surveyed and field marked in a way that is useful for the maintenance staff and the trail neighbo rs. The following table summarizes a recommended maintenance schedule for the Tigard neighborhood trail system. The approxi mate maintenance cost of a neighborhood trail is between $ t0 0and $3,000 annually. It should be noted that federal funding requirements might cause project ass! to rise when comp ed to the total cs! when using loc al funds. Co nstruction co sts may also fluctuate based on labor and material costs. z / ., >. < ? • s: , 4 \ \}� « . ? \ TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 37 CHAPTER 3 Design- Option Costs This chapter outlines a diverse array of options for trails, including surfacing materials, edging, and other amenities. Each trail section should be considered independently to determine the most appropriate alternatives given its particular circumstances. Property ownership and availability of land will be important constraints to consider, and in some situations alternatives may be selected based on landowner preferences. Finally, particular consideration should be given to the expected trail users and frequency of trail use, which is determined by the extent to which the trail offers access to important destinations. Table 13. Summary of Trail Costs Surfacing Options Item Unit Unit Cost 4" Concrete 4" Aggregate base , f SF $0.60 Asphalt 40 -car parking area I SY $7.50 5' wide paved trail , SF $2.50 Pervious asphalt - - SF $3.50 - - Boardwalk = LF j $1,000.00 Wooden Foot Bridge (20' x 8', prefabricated Each j $6,500.00 Gravel mulch _ CYa $40.00 Earthen Trail (grading, vegetation clearing) LF : ,$ 4.50 "Aggregate trail base" ? `t CY tt$25.60 EdgeTreatments Item Unit Unit Cost \ \,IGletal railing LF S50.00 Wooden split rail fencing LLF $20.00 I Dense' vegetation I LS $7,500 kT \Signage Item Unit Unit Cost Way finding or regulatory signage Each $250.00 Informational kiosk , Each $5,000.00 Trail Amenities Item Unit Unit Cost Bollards _ Each $ 600.00 _1 Removable bollard _ Each $850.00 Benches Each $1,800.00 Picnic tables I Each $4,000.00 Trash receptacles I Each $2,500.00 Lighting Each ! $3,000.00 Public art Allowance 38 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN Chapter 4. Evaluation Process Each potential trail location was assessed based on an evaluation matrix considering: utility; constructability; the willingness of the property owner to allow the trail; potential conflicts with neighbors; safety and security; and high, medium, and low cost estimates for construction and maintenance. Every trail was assigned a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 prioritization ranking for each criterion, based on GIS analysis and field verifications. Consideration of the tiered prioritization rankings helped to inform decisions about which trails to recommend by providing information about the potential benefits and challenges associated with each potential trail location. These rankings were not combined into an overall rating for each potential trail, but instead were used to inform decision- making through a qualitative process. In general, a Tier 3 ranking on a certain criterion did not prevent a trail from being recommended. Projects were prioritized based on their overall benefits the community, balanced by the cost of construction and potential environmental and habitat impacts. In the case of potential trails located on private property, the City of Tigard sent letters to all affected property owners to determine their level of potential interest in providing land to allow a trail to be constructed. Potential trails were not recommended where property owners indicated that they would not participate in negotiations to allow a trail to be constructed. Trail Evaluation Methodology Table 14 shows the evaluation matrix, including the performance measures, data sources and the tiering system for each criterion. The project team used the results of the evaluation matrix analysis to determine project prioritization. Most of the evaluation criteria shown in Table 14 do not use a quantitative scoring or weighting system; however, some of the criteria were evaluated on a quantitative scale and categorized into tiers. Where possible, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other readily - obtainable data were used to determine the prioritization tier for each criterion. In come cases, this analysis was combined with a qualitative weighting based on local experience. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 39 CHAPTER 4 Table 14. Evaluation Criteria Matrix Utility . .% c=^ . T` - _. c' Y:. us °, r 5 I ^., ^ juw' ry .i9 '.e 1 .0 z S" t -9 - x .. � T Y - _..� .; �- � - , _°..�.. , .. ; _ .. wq �- �- � .� , � , , _;. t - . h ' , ' _ .. _ w`.,w•... � ',€ � s =. ' -; � � t� -S - � ,. ^i"� "� -. s s , - „� i i �` - Gate o z ' I- Measurement - , g Data Source,� . = 41,E -Aer,1 7� f,. Tier -�2`I 7 ITier =, ,_ ' — <� , ' „ , , ti •,::w. 9i� r.; q t i o ixl, P `4 4 , E-. Y i. " _ .. ": • 1:, 0 k V 1101 .� .... nta; � q }�, .�x"':'��:�":� '� I��:��: I . .`�l'�� ". "��11�' =I °g � �" '�.,�U- �v'ul'�'� "'t.— �•�I'.:' -�-+' .i:r�L��V7�r _ '4' � � i -C` � . � ,.l � � � ; :: - . �,.�r. air Iii � Proximity to parks, schools, open GIS* - p arks, schools, open 'Jr � 'c�P y p p p m Popular amenities further - Popular amenities within . Popular amenities within Direct Access spaces, retail centers or transit space, zoning and transit . T: than 1/2 mile from 1 /4mile'of tra ".1 , 1 /2 mile oftrailhead stops stops layers: trailhead 4 . s. Connection on only one Connection on both ends ': , • Trail connections to existing GIS - trails layer and City e trail to existing No connections to existing Direct Connections oftrail to existing multi ; � �7,. sidewalks or trails sidewalk layer or field visit, `p, s3' multi userails and /or sidewalks or trails - z ` use trails and /or sidewalks sidewalks'; — / — — 7 y' Distance of out -of- direction travel I Oui -of- direction travel Out -of- direction travel Out -of- Direction GIS - measurement of out- ; , ,, Out-of-direction travel reduced, weighted by expected reduced,by1 4 1/4 or reduced by less than 1/8 Travel Reduction volume and demand of- direction travel more reduced by 1/4 to 1/8 mile mile Existing Demand If the proposed trail has evidence I City lists and field Trail is an existing demand Trail is not an existing N/A . Trail , of use t verification frail ' ry, y =. demand trail ', City lists and field , Proposed trail is existing demand Trail is an existing demand I Trail is not in an Environmental I verification, GIS — trail in environmentally - sensitive/ - ',trail in an environmental environmental zone or is N/A Benefits environmental zones, area I zone or wetland not a demand trail I wetlands Constructability ._., i -.. 11I k o". "i P.,. 1 u a ' P tiv ay of �' "_ � _:{ . ,!�� I �` � , 9: 1= , ',� � � _ � e �� Cate o Measurement '' ; l)ata'SOUrce ' ' F T1er;a1 _ '" `Tier 2�+ � r ,- ,' Tl r 3 r,, z ;$r A` - 4 ry• _ -' " _ "r N 1 . �,.1,�fi alV . !' G 7 . . ',1, ;4 h -1I' . ` ±. ,1 CIE.. ' Cross slope categorized by less �:� �� Steep Slopes than 15 %; 15 -25 %, and greater % GIS slope layer Trail cross -slope less Trail cross -slope between Trail cross -slope more .- �.. ` � than 15% grade 15 - - grade than 25% grade than 25% __ _ _ __ __ _ Presence of Trail located within; environmental GIS - environmental zones, I Trail not in Trail in environmental I Environmentally conservation zone, wetland, Goal w etlands and flood plains i environmental zone, Trail in flood plain zone or wetland I Sensitive Areas 5 area .. :layers 1 wetland or flood plain Presence of regionally significant # Trail is not in a regionally I Trail is in a "moderately" or Trail is in a "strictly" limit Habitat Impacts !,. .4 .�. GIS —Goal 5 layer p habitats; I significant habitat I "lightly" limit region region * All GIS analysis used features available in the City of Tigard or RLIS GIS databases. 40 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA Willing Owner /Property Owner Permission ;— �. FF_. a s ir t - =1 mn _ .:. f , .; rte f,T' �_. �� .: u�r , . rd,, .:_�., z�' , 1 � « , T �,.r a._f 9VI 4 . ,,. ° .„y V.i �„ 1; tr 1 -. I -y -. _ , W � ...... r � .i ..: 1. � , .0 1.. r.. i ., -. PI'I ,I s , xlk �M � : 5" '.40-p4,1. ✓° . _ _y „�: „ . 4, _.«` ^S a.:, 'z';�i''1 €I , :,`+ i � . II4�I , -&4 7�' r V'i€ . 7 s r, m.!vx . ,,1 X;ri i _ ' I, �, . W^_ II I i I YI ° akti a lia� � ` Y .. R*., I ' _ t 1 n' .Ca f .. ;k ..• . , h „, ,�u .. � I .4. _ I, � -. ie *;� " r . .. -_E ,. 1 ,:'> A ; ,• M , i _ , ,'!. ;�' 3 = ! Ca _., ,,, . M :, . . ,Da Source Tier 1 ,. . :'.— .ra ;, _6, +r te 25d>~- '� - f ''S:N� .„,ta�c�l 1 " .,v m .'4r�e . - �. t' .a. „ IP'`o � �' '' %E Ii-":- t k °n.'� t" `r^�- i" ''I Land owned by City, public entity, GIS layer developed in Land owned by other Land Ownership private ownership trail identification Land owned by City public entity Land in private ownership Willingness of property owner to Land owner willing to sell Land owner unwilling to Willing Owner allow easement or sell land Property owner surveys Land owned by City or allow easement consider trail (Trails in this category not considered) Potential Conflicts with Neighbors ; -71H .1 -. ..„ ,, I,., r - r . la Yk s. J ' ,° . I, I ,', .1. Y . - .w,... ., - "- ,.a -r � tl . - , ". . , * • _ ..4 i' h ",-'f _I I tl, ' �Il , �,+i1 P E a ,•. v - __ ° ti'. I, ,„t' %u. � ._� li , '�' Vie-. u �y: 1 P 1M:..uw. I iv1 1 � °„ �: „i ., ; 7.04 c,, ;u_- �, w : a . - ,.r li k= f: ,1C. - s.. ^°F•"... .t :. -� roi ' f. - x ' 1 ' 4 - Gate o _ -_ , Measurement _ '' I _ D So urce-' T er T er* Ti 3 � � . .R•?�.a �: � i . s R R. P - � .x,+�' . m . � °_ � .„ l ays 44. I . r,. �� #.,.�N "A i� !.°„I:',r�.�r�'�cdll - 1 x� . s.. �l_ ,V �. _ ,:c �Ir1 n - . r: ..�.'.. ,�I, 'T :�;' 1,,,... �:.� M1 *1*� � a •:. �11%I�' MP`.1 �I�' ' _•,.: k �. ' . �'llm II L�:, GIS - land ownership, RLIS Land owned by City, in Potential Conflicts tax lots, vacant land Trail is not adjacent to Trail is in close proximity with Neighbors Proximity to existing houses inventory, over -sized lot or on vacant ry, aerial maps, parcel existing houses to existing houses field verification I Safety and Security - . - - ` , a , : � i ,. - .. ... i.� f„ N VISIT -. i. d :e, i A11 'PI � B . sl 11 v its uV ,7 Category. Measuremen I °" • „ „Data ' `Source ' T ien 1 ,M Tier 2 : ' T ier 3 , T7 z 1 Visibility from the street, trail Trail is clearly vis from Personal Security open and free from structures or Field visit streets through its entire Trail is mostly visible from Trail is over 1/4 mile and vegetation length the street along its length not visible from street Trail complies with ADA Trail cannot comply either Trail cannot comply with Ability of trail to comply with ADA and bike path standards, with ADA or bike path ADA or bike path, AND GIS - slope and major Pathway Design or bike path standards, presence no major streets without standards, OR has major has major street crossing of street crossings streets layers, field visits existing pedestrian street without a without pedestrian crossing pedestrian crossing crossing Preliminary Cost Estimate a z ..- - .n • _:- _ - ° w *'- .. Iu 1 -^' . +:;ill I1 g f. 161 , ., a . 1 . 14i ,, dt 1 h c- - 1 a. e _ -, : 4 ,.a. 4Vw 4 ' 1 qu ., II,. V .. _ -_ „ , , a, .- h 4 ' 1- a,M sureroent .., 3- I, " i r , ,: ° ,. Data4Source i�l I „I�Notes, , r,' _ .. � ,., ° , y 1 4 � : Category, w ,Iy . it e .1 > , J _ : .�. ,, , = — _ i 3 p� ,.� 41 - ryt� "-y. ' , rr ` - . 4 ',- , - - _ ;_ y` kit. t t -. T� `°- - *1 ., _.., ,lam , ,hj .,... a 'v+e �'.i «'. k i . , .. .._:. +1 'c- 'iS ___._r[. ., �.. :>�. `C t = 1' .+s .';tt - _ - ... : ?.,,r_ :- rw:_."".�'+::,w�!- 8' permeable asphalt surfacing, wooden split -rail High Estimate fencing, 2 wayfinding, 1 interpretive and, 2 regulatory GIS length of trail, All cost estimates include bridges if trail crosses a stream and signs, lighting, bollards design costs boardwalks if trail is in wetland, as well as maintenance costs, design Medium Estimate 6' asphalt surfacing, chain -link fencing, 1 wayfinding outlined in and CM, and contingency costs. Preliminary cost estimates remained and 1 regulatory sign, bollards Technical Memo #2 as dollar values, rather than being categorized into tiers. Low Estimate 4' wood mulch surfacing TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 41 EVALUATION CRITERIA Connectivity In keeping with the purpose of the Neighborhood Trails Plan, the potential of each proposed neighborhood trail to improve the connectivity of the existing transportation system was the key criterion for evaluation. Measures of connectivity included: • Direct access to activity centers, such as parks, schools, open spaces, retail shopping or transit stops — weighted by intensity of expected use of the destination • Direct connections to existing sidewalks and /or trails • Short -cuts that reduce out -of- direction travel weighted by the nature of the destinations and anticipated demand and trip volumes (i.e. neighborhood connectivity) • Existing demand trails • Environmental benefits Connectivity of potential neighborhood trails was measured l / the land 'uses connecting to the trailhead. Trails providing direct access to parks, schools, open space,, shopping centers or. transit stops within a quarter - mile of the trailhead (measured in straight -line distance );received the highest priority, rating. Trails with any of these amenities within a half -mile were considered, „second -tier, and trails that do nbtiprovide access within a half -mile are the lowest priority. This information was determined in GIS, using Metros Regional Land Inventory System (RLIS) layers for schools, parks, open space and transit stops. The quantitative GIS analysis was supplemented with local experience to weight the,:popularriityof activity centers. For example, a large transit center, large park or school will attract more users;than,a neighborhood park or bus stop, and a trail offering connections to the latter received ,ialhigher ranking. `,: ;- Direct connections to existing sidewalks 'and..tr•:ails_ -,were deterniinede in GIS, using the Metro regional trails layer and aerial imagery. Sidewalks and trails were,verified during field ;visits. Highest prioritization projects provide multiple connections (i.e. on both ends) to 'eith'er trails_ or existing sidewalks. Second -tier projects connect to trails or sidewalks on only one end of he trail, and third Tier projects do not connect to facilities at either end. The specific amount of out -of direction travel that "a potential neighborhood trail would eliminate was measured in GIS as \thedistance a traveler would need walk to access the other trail end were the trail not present. The anticipated demand and volume for the trail were qualitatively estimated, based on trail connections density(from RLIS zoning layer). If the;potential- trail - isaan existing lemand trail,' or an informal path created by people taking short -cuts, it is a priority for implementation, as'there is an exhibited need for a connection. If no demand trail exists, the <> project is considered second -tier in this category. Whether or not a specific trail is an existing demand trail was by the City = and field verified. In a case where the potential trail is a demand trail and is located in an environmentally - sensitive area, building it may particularly important, to reduce the impact on the surrounding area. People will continue to use the short- cutthrough area, and the provision of a trail or boardwalk will mitigate the environmental impacts of travel`' Constructability The criterion of constructability considers factors that will likely increase the cost of building the trail. This criterion takes into account: • Steep slopes • The presence of environmental resources or environmentally sensitive areas t Construction of a neighborhood trail may alter the network distance to amenities. For consistency and case of application, straight - line distance was used. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 43 CHAPTER 4 To accommodate requirements of Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Standards'', the cross -slope of the trail must 'maintain slope stability.' For the purposes of this analysis, 25 percent grade was considered challenging to constructability due to slope stability issues and site assessment requirement. The favored alternative, which received the highest prioritization, was for a trail with a cross -slope of less than 15 percent grade, as this requires the simplest construction. The second prioritization was for trails with cross - slopes between 15 -25 percent slope, and the lowest prioritization was for trails on slopes greater than 25 percent. The grade of the proposed trail was determined using the slope layer in GIS. The presence of environmentally sensitive areas was established using the RLIS layer of environmental conservation zones. Areas zoned for environmental conservation require environmental review to develop a paved trail over four feet in width. In these cases, the low -level cost estimate will consider paths that do not require environmental review. The City Local Wetlands Inventory was used to determine if boardwalks are required for the potential trail. If they are required, boardwalks were included in all levels of cost estimates. Another environmental conservation element of building a trail is the impacts on animal habitats. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 5 is designed to, "protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces" (OAR 660 - 015 - 000[5]). An RLIS layer outlines regionally significant habitats in the city. If a trail is on land designated as "strictly limit ", it received the lowest prioritization ranking. If the potential trail is on land designated as "moderately" or "lightly limit ", it received the middle ranking, and the trail received the highest ranking if it does not impact relevant habitats. Willing Owner /Property Owner Permission The ownership of the parcel and willingness of the owner to support the project is the second -most important criterion for evaluating a potential neighborhood trail. This criterion applies to privately -owned land and land owned by public agencies other than the City. These other public agencies may include the State, County, Metro, BPA, TriMet, Water Board, or School District. Obtaining permission from property owners to allow public access has been determined to be consistent with community values. Property ownership was determined through the GIS layer developed in the identification of potential neighborhood trail locations. The highest -tier trails in this category are located on land owned by the City, followed by trails on land owned by another public entity, and finally, land in private ownership rank last. Property- owners' willingness to sell or to allow an easement on the land has been established in property owner surveys conducted by the City. Trails located on land where the owner is willing to give an easement to the city for their use are considered first -tier. Second -tier trails are located on land where the owner is a willing seller, as this may be expensive for the City. If the land is not owned by the City of Tigard, or by one of the aforementioned public agencies, and the owner is not willing to allow an easement or to sell the land, the trail is not recommended. Potential Conflicts with Neighbors This criterion uses proximity to existing houses as a proxy for evaluating the potential conflicts with neighbors of a trail. Again, finding pathway locations that take advantage of publicly -owned land is the highest priority, which was previously ranked in the willing owner criterion above. Also, projects located on over -sized lots in residential areas and vacant lots are also prioritized first. These were determined using aerial photographs and field visits. Trails not adjacent to an existing house, as determined from field visits, were assigned second -tier. Finally, trails directly adjacent to houses were prioritized last. http://www.cleanwaterservices.ors/content/ Permit /D &C %20Chapters/ Chapter% 203 %20DC %20Amendment%20R0%2008 - 28.ndf 44 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA Safety and Security The safety of a potential neighborhood trail was evaluated with the categories of personal security, pathway design, and school ground security. These criteria were used to rank potential trails into Tiers qualitatively as described below and in Table 14. The personal security criterion is the most qualitative, as there are few quantitative measurements of a potential trail's capacity to affect security. This criterion considers whether the trail will be clearly visible from the street, be lit from existing street lighting, and whether it appears to be relatively open and free of structures and vegetation. These factors were determined through site visits, based on the surveyor's ability to see the length of the trail and current condition of the demand trail, if one exists at the location. These personal security concerns will be mitigated in part through proper application of the design standards described in Technical Memo #2. Of particular importance for this category are trails near schools and water reservoirs, which will require a higher minimum level of safety features. Trails that connect to schools were prioritized for implementation in the land use and connectivity criterion. However, these trails may need additional amenities to improve safety, such as lighting, fencing, or requiring additional surveillance. The appropriate amenities for trails near schools will determined during the design phase for individual trails. Fencing and lighting costs are not included in cost estimates, though basic unit costs for fencing and lighting are provided in Appendix B. Pathway design considers if ADA standards can be met (Tier 1), whether bike path standards for curves and grades can be accommodated (Tier 2), and whether complications such as major street crossings or frequent driveways are present (weighting factor). The highest - prioritized trails in this category have less than five percent grade along their length. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 trails either do not connect to arterial or collector streets, or are located where existing pedestrian crossing amenities are available to provide access across the street from the trail. This criterion considers the path a trail user would take before or after using the trail, and accessing the trail would require or encourage unsafe street crossings. Existing pedestrian crossing amenities include a pedestrian- actuated traffic signal or marked crosswalk, For example, Trail 5 connects an apartment complex to Schools Ferry Road. No signalized or marked crosswalk exists at this location, so trail users would have to make an unsafe crossing or walk out -of- direction to access a bus stop. Trail 5 is ranked Tier 2 on this criterion. Second -Tier trails can accommodate bike path grade standards; the maximum allowable grade for bicycle use over short distances is ten percent. Trails are not excluded from consideration if the grade will be above ten percent or if they lead to a large un -aided street crossing; however, such trails rank lowest for project prioritization on this criterion. The grade of the proposed trail was determined using the slope layer in GIS, and street crossings utilize the RLIS streets layer and aerial imagery. Preliminary Cost Estimate For each potential neighborhood trail, a preliminary high, medium and low cost estimate was prepared. The high -level estimate includes a complete package of design features, including an eight -foot permeable asphalt surfacing, two wayfinding signs, one interpretive sign, two regulatory signs, and bollards. The medium -level cost estimate includes a subset of these features: six -foot asphalt surfacing, one wayfinding and one regulatory sign, and bollards. The low -level cost estimate includes only four -foot wood mulch surfacing. All levels of costs include foreseeable maintenance costs. Table 15 summarizes the elements included under each cost estimate. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 45 EVALUATION CRITERIA Table 15. Cost - Estimate Summary o is�tz Medium �� Highs ?`"+*.,• Surface 4 -foot wood mulch 6-foot asphalt 18 -foot permeable asphalt Bollards No Yes _ Yes Bridge If trail crosses a stream If trail crosses a stream If trail crosses a stream Boardwalk If trail is in a wetland If trail is in a wetland If trail is in a wetland * Note: all cost estimates include design & CM (25%) and contingency costs (30 %). These cost estimates take into account geographic conditions of the trail, including slope, the presence of wetlands, safety concerns that require lighting or fences, and other desired amenities that improve the attractiveness of the trail for property owners or neighbors. Planning level "costs are based on the cost per linear foot for the primary design types, included in Appendix B. Estimates do not include the cost of right-of- way acquisition. Cost estimates were rounded to the nearest thousand`tol reflect the planning -level nature of the estimates. .> . . \ :. In addition, trails that were recommended for construction received a refined °cost,estimate incorporating the design option as well as details from the field inventories andanalysis, discussedlin;the following chapter. Field Verifications °\ All 115 trails included in the proposed neighborhood trails : project list were evaluated with the evaluation criteria described above. From this information, 63 of the trails. were selected for field verification. Reasons a trail may have been not selected for further,investigation include: • Unwilling seller • At -grade railroad crossing • Trail outside of City boundary • High construction expense(stream crossings, wetlands) • Already built Field visits included verification of GIS analysis, including: connections to sidewalks and trails; if trail is a demand trail; proximity to; houses, and,stream crossings: In addition, whether the trail is clearly visible along its entire length was recoded. the complete Evaluation Matrix for each trail is provided in Appendix B. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 46 Chapter 5. Recommended Neighborhood Trails The evaluation matrix and field visits resulted in 42 recommended trails that are both feasible, and would provide benefit to Tigard residents. These trails were prioritized based on the evaluation results, with emphasis on out -of- direction travel reduction and connectivity benefits. Maps of the recommended trails follow the phased project list, and the chapter concludes with a discussion of the methodology used to determine the design option recommendation for each trail. Project List Using the results of the trail evaluation, the 42 recommended trail projects were ranked based on information obtained from field work, City of Tigard staff, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and from the public. Through this process, the projects have been grouped into High, Medium and Low project priorities. • High - priority projects have a significant amount of existing use (currently demand trails) or are high priorities for a new trail connection and are the most feasible projects for construction. • Medium - priority projects are good candidates for providing connections, but may not be currently used as accessways (currently 'potential trails'). • Low- priority projects are future recommended projects that may be more difficult to construct due to slopes, environmental considerations, or community support. Within each priority, trail projects are listed in no particular order. The high and medium - priority projects may change according to available funds, changing priorities, new coinciding projects, new development and redevelopment opportunities, or other factors. It should be noted that the purpose of this exercise is to understand the relative priority of the projects so that Tigard may apportion available funding to the highest priority projects. Medium and low projects also are important, and may be implemented at any point in time as part of a development or public works project. Short - term projects The following trails were found to be high - priority for construction: 1. 106 Avenue to 103 Avenue, on Murdock 8. 100 Avenue extension to Highland Drive Road 9. Mistletoe Drive to Sunrise Lane 2. Gallo Avenue extension to 113th /Gallo Path 10. Coral Street to Locust Street, 92 " /Lincoln 3. Pathfinder Way to Pathfinder Genesis Trail Street extension 4. 116 Place to Howard Drive extension 11. Gaarde Street to Aerie Drive 5. Scholls Ferry Road to Englewood Park 12. Fanno Creek Trail /Scholls Ferry to apartment Trail /Apartment Complex to Scholls Ferry Road complex 6. 90 Avenue extension to Inez Street 13. Landau Street Extension to 72 Avenue extension 14. 80 Place to Bonita Road 7. Greenfield extension; Ridgefield Drive to Chirp Street TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 47 CHAPTER 5 The following trails were found to be medium - priority for construction 15. Quail Hollow South Trail to 129 Avenue 26. 89 Avenue extension to 91 Avenue Cul- Trail de -sac 16. 129 Avenue 27. Waverly Drive extension; 88 Avenue to 85 17. Tigard Street to Fanno Creek Avenue 18. Ventura Drive to 70 Place 28. Gallo Avenue extension; North Dakota Street to Suzanne Ct 19. Broadmoor Place to Rockingham Drive 29. 132 Avenue extension; Marion Street to 20. Spruce Street extension at 80 Avenue Hollow Lane 21. Steve Street to 84 Avenue extension 30. 74 Avenue extension; Cherry Drive to Fir 22. Hunsiker Street / 77th Place to 72nd Street Avenue /Hwy 217 Overpass 31. , 94 extension; Dakota Street to 88 88th Greenburg Street 23. 88 Avenue extension to 88 Avenue extension /Pinebrook Court 32. 92 Avenue extension; Dakota Street to 4 24. Highlands Trail to Mountain Highland Trail Greenburg Street 25. Twality Middle School to 92 Avenue 33. Edgewood Street /Halcyon°Terrace extension • to Braydon Court The following trails were found to be low= priority for construction: 34. 135 Avenue to 132 Avenue (connects,to ' 40. Burnham Street to Commercial Parking Lot Trail 12) z 41. Hall'Boulevard to Matthew Park Street 35. Rockingham Drive to Maplecrest Court Extension 36. Terrace Trails DriveFto Pathfinder Genesis 42. Murdock Road extension; 109 Avenue to Trail 99-W .. 37. 116 Avenue extension to Katherine Street 43. Schaffer Lane extension; Tigard High School 39. 77` h Avenue extensionmto Street to 85 Avenue Maps 2 through 7 show the potential neighborhood trails identified in this study. They show whether a particular trail was a demand or potential trail, as well as if the project was visited in the field. Recommended trails'are,shown with a solid line. Individual = project sheets are included in Appendix D, which highlight the key benefits and issues of each trail project. A desgn option was developed for each of these trails, and preliminary cost estimates were revised to correspond with the design option, as will be discussed in the following chapter. 4;4.4.: 48 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN RECOMMENDED NEIGHBBORHOOD TRAILS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .7 I --� ' • i A i ® • 7/./..1 -4 \`■-\ j Ili IIIIr 414) t 019 1/ 1 B • x r1111k lir ( Nrniir'l . ' Itv, r 3 0 ' ? iff / / C ir,4( 4 \ ,, • 41 til 5 A ill .4.....4.....e. ..., ■ r e t „DA i D 111.((.81(414'.' 1 EOP ii ,...... Ii r ,o .. ,4,:ip: . A,6 T PP , E ' ;, w t ` alt Neighborhood Trails Low Priority Trail Parks Multi-Use Paved Trail Bare Lanes III ' � � Tca•d Neishl' rh�.,od rnG Play T., / . High-P io ity Trail Not Recommended Streams Multi-Use Unpaved Trail � r • Medium -Pr ai Trail Nready Buin ni I Recommended Trails ja • School Property Pedestrian Only, Unpaved Trail Miles Overview Map Map 2. Recommended Trails Overview Map TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 49 RECOMMENDED NEIGHBBORHOOD TRAILS 3 \III 5 A '1 • 5 cC110U { {' IRONWOOD i/ \ O r� 1 SIM . x IMIEES HEARD; PP; \N ' IY)NWOOI) GM;NE:NN .4 \TON NA \ %4 \I'I liI,LSON F. I ■ •' E TINA FOREST x. B • r NORTH iI •1'1!1! NORTH 11.5 Rf. OOp a`, 1 ► MILL. IEW _ / yS TORI. \ND I '. !4 / - .� �, 28 • SUMMER :ST %SHRI RI is - .i TIGARD 7 .s-- / ; / y r - x, rnli} iLCON RJSE 7 _ 1 =i1 ON RISC KATI1CRINE � 2 k\rl{f.i{I \i / KATHERINE L _ \ LNUT c7, Yi ( . N NI 0 1012, 0l qr4 A to �;, N, 7 tF� \i5H � J • r , ROI NETS 116 wnE" _ i1 , cc 7 ` g. C , z i ` . F:RROI. E . MARIE { i \rw h High-Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail - School Property Multi-Use Paved ® Transit Cent ary of ngaN Oregon Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan • >f 1111 Park " "" Railroad h n Medium-Priority Recommended Trail Existing Neighborhood Trail Multi-Use Unpaved {,,, i O, Reco mmended Trails Map t of 5: V R� °E;s�. Northwest Tigard 1'� Low -Priority Recommended Trail Bike Lanes NI Open space Pod -only, Unpaved 0 ii, Map 3. Recommended Trails Northwest TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 51 RECOMMENDED NEIGHBBORHOOD TRAILS 5 6 7 _ 70r. 72 71 - - TAYLOR$-F..l;"RRY _ S 0 n H 9 x i ® II a WALNUT % 97 B LO1__ -„BRED 104; BARBARA i - -- sod 113 1 1' o 112 13 82 _ 18 84 .` -_- . - I.WCLST % PIELEAF 183 85 106 . _ x O IRQNWOOD i,I, I f I' \,, b Y -1- F4 4 " \' 102 20 39 SPRUCE c1>,_:\ = 105 1 111 - -- __ , f- E lc C _ ;6 , ' 86 _ 1 NOR Ill I)\KO, -A i. 74 t 3 2 = 3'1 nc�R1■ 17 _ ATLANTA 115 I UI� High - Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail ® School Property •a � Multi - Use Paved 0 Transit Center c ry of Tigam Oregon I I II o.w ,n�.., e Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan a — Medium - Priority Recommed Existing Neighborhood Trail - Park Multi - Use Unpaved ^' '' ' Railroad I n; A Rn e,neLson A Assou.ns. in< v". " Recommended s Map 2 of 5: Low- Priority Recommended Trail Bike Lanes space • P ed -Doty, Unpaved MI k N ortheast Tigard 9 a d Map 4. Recommended Trails Northeast TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 53 RECOMMENDED NEIGHBBORHOOD TRAILS 5 6 7 _l___ ' r-, J , 31 i . TIGARD_ - , 1 ,, B `" T X15, T r- 7 Pl-fAS ! -- - - BAST On :' o + , KATHERINE • /- lilt ', a � 87 DARTMOCTH 77) � -�"-- O A T. ig . U NERAIO so t ,` , ` t ; , RR � : FRA.NKI I ERROL z .. _ - - }} -- - z . .., p ct. BEVFUNn i I • 3 22 H J C DERRY DELL CRI S7 S9F ' t PARK Z - \ YARNS �I C Y 0 0 r� n tntX30 !2 041111 • FAIRHAVEN • - * SS N CHERRI'. ti _._ - . :SANDBURG ,. �°�'_ . EDGE1FO011 p 121 _ . TECH CENTER '- - ! N(:DONALE j . .- -- IIII High - Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail Multi -Use Paved III Park ® Tigard Nei ghbborh Transit Center 9 cn of oth ood od Trails Plan Medium - Priority Recommed Existing Neighborhood Trail Multi - Use Unpaved - goo " '''''''" Railroad K Km ASSO<M s.lkc. :u° 1 + Recommended Trails Map 3 of 5: Low- Priority Recommended Trail Bike Lanes Ped -only, Unpaved. School Property MI rat, EastTigard Map 5. Recommended Trails East TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 55 RECOMMENDED NEIGHBBORHOOD TRAILS 5 6 7 i L-""/"--.. - Y ROl N; FAIN VIIitC L 62 C E GREF:NSRARI) P g F r lAL/ INer 6 14 BONITS cnN TCent',I <r 25 PLMIROOK - F- y. f, r n , .MI R IXWK Yi \ERKUOIi 11 _ - r a 26 SGIIk'CI a 109 D Or � 41 P E PPER7RlaC ? d HOME 89 = - ROSS , SA T11.1:1 m r x i y BELLFL0\1 I:It 8 �� {nI.E 64\ HAMLET - 911 24 M GENII RI OAS . ND _ I) .ROANI ( ri, Niqui - 1 /.//: — _ 0 f H. {T1; \l ° 10" 0 ( DOVER RIVF,RNOOU 94 92 U'AVLR1.1 27 66 93 A High - Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail Multi -Use Paved Park e Transit Cent cy of both Oregon T ! „ . r '. . Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan 1 r Medium Priority Recommed Trail Existin Neighborhood Trail Multi -Use Unpaved - 0 Pe *ace ace " "" Railroad s . u., o s ... ..._ s :o � .. „E, ........ Recommended Trails Map 4 of 5: n, > ... low - Priority Recommended Trail Bike lanes Ped - only, Unpaved - School Property Oh.,, SoutheastTigard Map 6. Recommended Trails Southeast TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 57 RECOMMENDED NEIGHBBORHOOD TRAILS 5 6 7 _ 9 95 45 n..nnrt,n 1 ` .r. ' LALRF.\ / ` ,tl.4l ' Fn \1VL:R � 4 . �t�c.A DeRRti DELL 1 I E 29 MARION �� PARR KLJPvAN , . 58 I , / _ X , iu, Lou • * ^ t. Q�11I. CItF'lit� - e- QS 56 ,1 % ` FM RH WEN s nsT,yTUe �Y 0" I. 11 _ 36B _ D 9/49 ,s,' 101 v , 591 . SI - NRi -I 48 ---_,Li x f.A4RUl. 51 r5 ' � - — "a 7 1 '. J A(:SIL � t ALPINE VI @a i . 5 F rs I '11 - i a 1 60 53 1 11 = 199 - i z - 42 1 \nrtlliei 54 - PFn..m - -- - - 69 �>Pr.\ Rn Dr app, / / 61 �68 J SUMMIT RIDGL - i i. E J gi High-Priority Recommended Recommended Trail Multi -Use Paved - Park © Transit Center car hborh Oregon Tr � �; Hi i R dd Trail Not Currently Tigard Neighborhood Trills Plan Low -Priori Recommended Trail Bike Lanes Ped -only, , Un ved. School Property F MI " ` Recommended Southwest Ti Map 5 of 5: «` Low-Priority g Neighborhood y � oPeftY Railroad . K!,.,:.-.,.,.,:::!!:.=,.! —Medium-Priority Recommed Trail Existin Nei hborhood Trail Multi -Use Unpaved apace Rai ....__. So111hwest Map 7. Recommended Trails Southwest TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 59 RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS Design Options Neighborhood trails are either characterized as natural or urban, as described in Chapter 3. For the purposes of this study, the choice of design option was determined based on trail connections and anticipated use. The factors shown in Table 16 were guidelines for design choice, which was ultimately chosen based on field visits. Table 16. Design Option Criteria Natural Trail Urban Trail Connects to earthen trail Connects to asphalt tra'il's'" Land will be developed in future Connects to bike lane or'lowxraffic street Environmental or habitat concerns Currently sees significant`use" ?� Steep slopes gin . , Based on the design option determined through the evaluation and field visits, cost estimates were revised for the recommended trails, as shown in Table 17and Table 18. The recommendedtrails. cost estimate was determined based primarily on surfacing material and if bollards were appropriate. Additional amenities such as fences, signage and lighting represent optional costs:that may beyappropriate for a specifie trail, and will be considered during the design of individual trails. Table 17. Natural Trail Cost Estimate Summary Trail Feature Low Medium High Surface 4 -foot wood mulch 5 -foot planer shavings ''6 -foot gravel Bollards Yes Bridge If trail crosses a stream If trail crosses a stream If trail crosses a stream Boardwalk�� .'_ ' If trail is,inea wetland If'trail is in a wetland If trail is in a wetland * Note: all cost estimates include design & CM (25 %) and contingency costs (30 %). s\\\ N Table 4.4. Urban Trail Cost Estimate Summary Trail Feature Low Medium High Surface ' 6 -foot asphalt 16 -foot asphalt _ 18 -foot permeable asphalt Bollards No Yes Yes B ridge I If trail crosses a stream If trail crosses a stream If trail crosses a stream Boardv alk If trail is in a wetland If trail is in a wetland I If trail is in a wetland *Note: all cost estimates include design & CM (25%) and contingency costs (30%). • These design options'should not be interpreted as standards, but as recommendations for ensuring that the trail serves anticipated usage and fits into the character of neighborhoods. While fencing, signage and lighting are not recommended on neighborhood trails, they can be used in situations where neighbors feel that they are important features for a neighborhood trail in their community. Very few trail providers in the region install lighting due to the high expense of installing and maintaining lights (roughly $3,000 per light). It is recommended that neighborhood trails be constructed without lighting, and that lighting can be considered on an 'as needed' basis. Engineering -level design should also consider mitigation for trails that are in, or that are partially within environmental zones or in significant habitat area. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 61 Chapter 6. Implementation Plan Forty -three neighborhood trail projects were recommended for implementation. This chapter describes associated measures necessary for implementation of these trails, and is comprised of three parts: • Recommended Regulatory Amendments outlining existing regulations and policies that influence the development of neighborhood trails in Tigard, and recommended amendments that support the development of neighborhood trail projects in Tigard. • A Financial Strategy identifying existing and available funding sources that represent funding opportunities for trail projects • An Action Plan for constructing the proposed neighborhood trails, strategically implementing prioritized projects, acquiring right -of -way, and creating a long -term strategy for developing the recommended trail projects, as well as other future trail projects Regulatory Amendments Existing policies and planning guide the development of pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including neighborhood trails. This analysis considers how the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code and Public Improvement Design Standards affect neighborhood trail development. Policies and regulatory changes are recommended to prioritize, program, fund and construct projects on the Final Recommended Neighborhood Trails Project and Prioritization Report project list. Recommended changes to the following policies are provided in underline for additions, and strike - through for deletions. Tigard Transportation System Plan, 2002 The Transportation System Plan (TSP) for the City of Tigard was adopted by Council in 2002 and guides transportation planning for the next 20 years. The first Goal of Tigard's TSP relates to livability. It aims to, "plan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard." The second policy under this Goal relates the neighborhood trails: "Encourage pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable pedestrian routes." Goal 2 of the TSP is to "provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other modes)." Related policies are as follows: • Policy 3: Bicycle lanes must be constructed on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan (with construction or reconstruction projects). All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall have direct access to a bikeway. • Policy 4: Sidewalks must be constructed on all streets within Tigard (with construction or reconstruction projects). All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall have direct access to a sidewalk. • Policy 5: Bicycle and pedestrian plans shall be developed which link to recreational trails. • Policy 6: Local streets shall be designed to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out -of- direction travel. Provide on- street, path or trail connectivity to activity centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 63 CHAPTER 6 • Policy X. Safe and accessible neighborhood trails should be provided (with construction or reconstruction projects, or where otherwise feasible) to create links between local and regional community centers (downtowns, schools, parks, neighborhood centers) and pathway systems, as well as regional facilities and destinations. Goal 3 relates to safety of the transportation network, stating, "strive to achieve a safe transportation system by the development of street standards, access management policies and speed controls when constructing streets, and by making street maintenance a priority and through a comprehensive program of engineering, education and enforcement. • Policy 2: Street maintenance on all roadway facilities, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and bicycle /pedestrian trails shall be a priority to improve safety in Tigard. vvy • Policy 3: Safe and secure pedestrian and bikeways shall be designed between =and other activity centers in Tigard. • Policy 4: Safe and secure routes to schools shall be designated for eachsehoorand any new residential project shall identify the safe path to school for children. a� Accessibility is addressed by Goal 5, "Develop transportation facilities are accessible to all members of the moo community and minimize out of direction travel • Policy 1: Design and construct transportation facilities tormeet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act • Policy 2: Develop neighborhood and local connections to provide adequate circulation in and outof the neighborhoods. r The TSP Task Force evaluated strategies` for implementing the,goals and policies relating to pedestrian travel. The strategies are intended to provide the`Cit °y away of prioritizing project funding. One strategy that relates neighborhood trails is to connect key to nei g y pedestria0corndors to schools, parks, recreational uses and activity centers. This includes requiring new developments to define,.direct andksafe pedestrian routes to paths, parks, activity centers, schools and transit (in the future) with OVrnile of the development site. Other strategies include: • Strategy 3: Coordination;of Land Use'Approval Processyto Provide Sidewalks & Links to Existing Sidewalks AN A • Strategy 5:Pedestriank'Corridors thatConnect to Major .Recreational Uses • Strategy 6: PedestrianeCorridors that C nnect to Major Transit Locations \ ��:. • Strategy TRedestrian Corridors‘that ConnectNeighborhoods • Strategy9 : Commuters Might Use Strat targeted t bcycle travelisimilarly focus on providing corridors to recreational uses, schools, transit, AWK neighborhoods and employment centers* Discussiontk The Transportation SystemPlan includes text that supports the development of neighborhood trails. The City of Tigard is curre developing an update to the TSP. As such, proposed changes listed above should be coordinated with ,the'TSP update and implemented through the TSP update process. In addition, recommended neighborhood trail projects as described in the Final Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan should be incorporated into the TSP update for programming. Tigard 2027: Comprehensive Plan Update (2009) The Tigard 2027: Comprehensive Plan provides the policy basis of Tigard's land use planning program and guides the city's actions relating to the use of land in the City. Originally written in 1983, the 2009 update is the first complete update of the Plan. 64 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Land Use Planning Element The Land Use Planning element of the Comprehensive plan generally promotes developing and protecting a high - quality pedestrian environment. The overarching Goal 2.1 is to, "maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program." Policy 24 addresses the pedestrian environment, and the following action measure also relates to neighborhood trails: • Policy 24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. • iii. Implement measures to preserve and enhance the qualitytand character of Tigard's residential districts. Examples include managing the design of'infill development, mitigating impacts of adjacent dissimilar land uses, improving p adjacent p g quality of streetscapes and the pedestrian environment, and providing greater access to open p :\ Parks, Trails and Open Space Element ° Goal 8 addresses parks, recreation, trails and open space The' overarching goal oftthe Parks, Trails and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan is, "to satisfy`the recreational needs of thetzens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for thesiting for recreational facilities, including destination resorts.' While the neighborhood trails addressed in'this Plan are primarily designed for transportation, rather than recreation uses, they do provide recreational opp tu nities astell as enabling non - motorized access to recreational opportunities, and are promoted through this "Goal Goal 8.1 is to "provide a wide variety of h ghtquality park and open spaces for all residents, including both (A) developed areas with facilities for active recreation (B) undeveloped areas for nature - oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within\the parks and open space system." \ . Specific policies and actions relating to the proposed neighborhood trail system include: • Policy 4: The city shall erideavor todevelop neighborhood pa ks [orneighborhood park facilities within other parks, A . such as a linear pa, within,a half mile along!a street or trail connection of every resident to provide access to active and passive recreation opportunitiies for residents of all ages. • Policy 7: The City shalfensure public safety is a consideration in the planning, design, and management of parks, open spaces, and trail y \\ V • Policy16 1The Cityashall continue to encourage recognize the important role of volunteers and community \\ $groups in meeting4ity park, trail open space, and recreation needs, and in building stewardship and promoting community pride. • Policy 20: The City shall continue to i p o e access to neighborhood parks and other facilities in order to serve all Esc citizens, regardless of ability °�,� • Action Coordinate with and support Metro, Oregon State Parks, the National Park Service, and otheagencies and that provide parks, open spaces, trails, and recreational activities in or near igard. • 'A Ction xi. Utilize alternative methods to acquire and develop open space, parks, and trails, including local improvement districts, purchase of easements and development rights, life estates, etc. • Action xii. Work to increase grants and donations from new sources for operating and capital funding. • Action xix. Make parks, trails, and open spaces universally accessible by as many people as possible by adhering to the Americans with Disabilities Act or bicycle path standards, where possible. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 65 CHAPTER 6 ▪ Action xx. Provide public access to public open space in ways that protect and preserve sensitive natural resources. • Action xxi. Continue to seek the assistance of volunteer groups to help in developing and maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces. • Action - -. Work to provide direct neighborhood trail access where direct sidewalk or street access is not provided. Another key Goal for the development of neighborhood trails is Goal 8.2: "Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off -road pedestrian and bicycle trails." This Goal addresses how the City should develop and maintain a complete trail system, including neighborhood trails. Policies related to this goal that impact the planning and development of neighborhood trails include: • Policy 1: The City shall create an interconnected regional and local systenil'oNin nd off -road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban act iv tylcenter and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property • Policy 2: The City shall design and build greenway trails and paths to minimize their impa on the environment, including on wildlife corridors and on rare, and state or .fe a ally listed species. Action i. Complete a trail system masterplan to guide the development ofthetrail system and facilitate progress toward its completion. Action ii. Complete a Citywide inventorytandorioritization of opportunities for short pathway connections that increase bicycle and connectivity and complement the greenway and on street bicycle /pedestrian systems:; ` <�, Action iii. Develop trail standards for the many trail systems, sizes, and materials needed in different settings. Action v. Coordinate trail development andmaintenanceactivities with natural resource management objectives and Action viWhere appropriate, furnish trails with amenities, such as interpretive and directional ssignage, benches, drinking fou a ns; parking and staging areas, and other services. Action vii. Use automated systems to e systematically map and document trail easements, right -of- , otw A44 wayidedications; proposed alignments, and current trail locations. HousinggEiement The;Housing elementyof the Compnsive Plan also supports the development of neighborhood trails. Goal 1Q s tto "maintain a high level rehe of residen livability. Relevant policies include the following: • Policy 2:yThe City shall seekto provide multi -modal transportation access from residential neighborhoods to transit stops; commercial servicesemployment, and other activity centers. 6 • Policy 5. The =City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by promoting the efficient use,of °land conservation of natural resources, easy access to public transit and other efficient modes of ��... transportation; easy�aceess to services and parks, resource efficient design and construction, and the use of renewable energy ources. gy = However, the action items do not specifically address the development of neighborhood trails or other accessways as a consideration of multi -modal transportation access. Energy Conservation Element Goal 13.1 of the Energy Conservation element of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan is to "reduce energy consumption." The first policy under this Goal is as follows: 66 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Policy 1. The City shall promote the reduction of energy consumption associated with vehicle miles traveled through: • A. land use patterns that reduce dependency on the automobile; • B. public transit that is reliable, connected, and efficient; and o C. bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that is safe and well connected. Discussion These existing goals, policies and action items in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan support the development of neighborhood trails as complementary to a larger network of regional an 4local trails for recreation and transportation. A few small modifications suggested above could explicitl;yein clude neighborhood trails with other bicycle and pedestrian facilities. AV Municipal Code — Title 18 Community Developinent Code \k, Chapter 18.810 of Tigard Community Development Codeaaddresses construction reconstruction and repair standards for streets, sidewalks and other public imp raements. 18.810.030 Streets • F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 4 2. Where necessary to givekaccess or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to th boundary lines of th t a e ct to be developed • N. Street alignment and connections. V∎t 1. Full street connections with spacing of'no mor:e than 530ifeet between connections is required except\ where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre - existing developments alease provisions; easements covenants or other restrictions existing prior to Ma 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due , to, regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Where a full street extension is no t =possible due to the above limitations, a neighborhood trail s�.a ate; shouldxbe ,constructeditohprovide pedestrian and /or bicycle travel. ‘\ oseckStreet or street bctensions shall be � NP anned transit stops, comme c al services, and other neighborhood fac lities, such as schools, shopping areasand parks. • L.:Culs - -de -sacs. A cul- de- saOshall be n& more than 200 feet long , shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shallonly be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development ?.. %.. patternor adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: t` 1 13. If a cul- de;sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be y requaredto be provided and dedicated to the City. 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways • C. Minimum width. 2. Minimum width multi -use paths separated from the road is ten (10) feet. The width may be reduced to eight (8) feet if there are environmental or other constraints. 3. The minimum width for pedestrian -only off- street paths is five (5) feet. For neighborhood trails and accessways, the width may be reduced to a minimum of three (3) feet for earthen trails. 4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian -ways shall be determined by the City Engineer. (Ord.02 -33, Ord. 99 -22) TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 67 CHAPTER 6 Discussion Tigard's existing Community Development Standards generally support the development of neighborhood trails. Recommended modifications in Code language are designed to increase design flexibility, particularly by allowing narrower widths for neighborhood trails where constraints exist and anticipated use is not large. Public Improvement Design Standards Design standards for bikeways in Tigard are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1991. Bikeways that are not along a street "shall be constructed upon compacted subgrad ?that has been sterilized if an • �\ `k asphaltic concrete bikeway. " ' The City of Tigard has standard cross - sections for pedestrian pathsfandkb k ikeways. Shown in Figure 25, the standards dictate a 5' minimum width for pedestrian ways and 1 inimurn for multi -use paths. The Public Improvement Design Standards document does not specify des standards4 o neighborhood trails, with the exception of barricades and guardrails. The design standardis that white andNblack reflectorized Type II barricades shall be used at the end of the sidewalk or pedestrian /bike path. 5 MIN. 2 1/2' A.C. 4" OF P.C.C. ON 4" OF 3/4 -0 -..— 2% SLOPE TO STREET --- 11 . 1077 • , . , • - : 1 . - : : ' . - ..- , S / , ZIR:(). . ' , 4R, A . 6 • . e . . 1 1= I I - . I /d o.p .b:'60 U 9 1 eir _ ■ III. '' ' ._ uu FABRIC Figure *2 ExistinP Pat Bikeways Design Standards lwr . \ \ \ \ \ `fir. In addition, the guidance states that thezrminimum width of a bikeway should be five feet per bicycle travel lane, and that the- minimurmwidth of an off road,multi -use path should be ten feet. Eight feet is acceptable, givenenvlronme other constraints For a pedestrian off - street path, the minimum width is five feet. Discussion ... . Nom•> . Neighborhood trails should designed to meet Public Improvement Design Standards wherever possible; howeve the City of Tigar consider modifying the policy language to allow narrower trails where \ \V- constraints existiand usage is anticipated to be low. \ Financial Strategy Fully implementing the recommended neighborhood trails will require considerable funding. This section discusses existing, potential and anticipated funding sources available to the City of Tigard to fund neighborhood trails. The second half of the section provides a phased cost opinion for the recommended neighborhood trails by prioritization level, and outlines which of the funding sources may be appropriate for each of the trail projects. 12 Source: http: / /www.ci.tigard.or.us /city hall /departments /cd /capital construction /standard details /default.asp 68 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Existing, Potential and Anticipated Funding Sources A variety of potential funding sources are available to help pay for future trails, including Federal, State, regional, local, and private sector funding programs. Most of the programs are competitive and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs, and benefits. Several of these sources are currently being utilized in Tigard, while others present new opportunities for the City to fund neighborhood trail projects. Federal Funding Sources The majority of funding for trial implementation is acquired through the nonmotorized programs and funding opportunities provided by the Federal Highway Administration's Safe, .Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) program, which>•was enacted in 2005. Additional sources may include state and local agency revenues and contributions from citizens and corporations. SAFETEA -LU authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the five -year period 2005 -2009. SAFETEA -LU expires in September 2009, with a new federal transportation bill expected. While federal funding sources are likely_ to ;change somewhat -as a result of this new authorization, we anticipated that most of the programs described below will continue to be available. In Oregon, Federal funding is administered throughState (ODOT) and regional planning agencies. Most but not all of these funding programs are oriented toward;transportation,versus recreation, with..,an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter -modal connections. 'Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs, ands :po ects must relate to the surface transportation system. . ,. SAFETEA - LU There are a number of programs identified within SAFETEA -LU that`provide for the funding of bicycle and pedestrian trails projects. Recreational TrailsProgram The Recreational Trails *Program off -the Federal Transportation Bill provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational tra Is�and trail related facilities for both non - motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses "bicycling, in fine skating, equestrian use and other non - motorized and motoriiedhuses. These funds are available forboth paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to improvroads'fOr general passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads. Recreational Trails Program funds maybe used for: • Maintenance and restoration of existing<trails • Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment • Constructionof'new trails, including unpaved trails • Acquisition or easement ofproperty for trails • State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State's funds) • Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a State's funds) Safe Routes to School (SR2S) The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools program is to provide children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. The SR2S Grants were established to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety near schools, and eligible projects must be within two miles of a primary or middle school (K -8). TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 69 CHAPTER 6 Under the SR2S Program, Federal funds are administered by ODOT. Under the Oregon Safe Routes to School Program, approximately $3.7 million will be available for grants between 2006 and 2010. The grants can be used to identify and reduce barriers and hazards to children walking or bicycling to school. ODOT estimates that they will receive an average of $1.37 million annually for this program through the lifetime of SAFETEA- LU. A Safe Routes to School Plan is required for a project to be eligible for the infrastructure grant program. To utilize this funding source, the City should work with the school district to develop this plan, which includes outreach, studies and safety education. Transportation Enhancements `. V ia" � Administered by ODOT, this program is funded by a set -aside of Highway Trust Funds. Projects must serve a transportation need. These funds can be used to build a variety of pedestrian, bicycle, streetscape and other improvements that enhance the cultural, aesthetic, or environmental'value transportation systems. The statewide grant process is competitive. Community and System Preservation Prograain� The Transportation, Community and System Prese Program provides federal funding for transit- oriented development, traffic calming, and othertjects that improve the efficiency '044 ‘ transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers. The program is intended to provide commun tes with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation; and environmental activities. The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program funds require a 2Q.1percent match. State Funding Sources Statewide Transportation Improve Pro The Statewide Transportation "Improvement Program "- ,:(STIP) is "ODOT's short -term capital improvement . rntea: program, providing�project fundingand schedulingliifiblination for the department and Oregon's metropolitan planning organizationsAt is a four -year program detoped through the coordinated efforts of ODOT, federal and local governments; Area Commissions on Transportation, tribal governments and the public. In developing fundingprogramn, ODOTimustyerify that the identified projects comply with the Oregon TransportationPlan (OTP), ODOT\Modal Plans, Corridor Plans, local comprehensive plans, and SAFETEA -LU planning requirementsThe STINmust fulfill Federal planning requirements for a staged, multi -year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation \ projects. Specific transportation projects are prioritized based on Feder:-ahplanning requirements and the State plans. ODOT consults with local jurisdictions before highwayrelated projects ar added to the STIP. Bicycle a d Pedestrian Program Grants The Pedestria ° d Bic Grant Program is a competitive grant program that provides approximately $5 ��r�� million every two yto Oregon cities, counties and ODOT regional and district offices for design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Proposed facilities must be within public rights -of -way. Grants are awarded by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Regional Funding Sources Metro Transportation Improvement Program Funding (MTIP) The MTIP is comprised of federal transportation funds coordinated by Metro. Funds can be used for Preliminary Engineering, ROW acquisition, and construction. The MTIP document is prepared every two years and incorporated into the State TIP. The first topline result from the most recent 2010 -13 MTIP was to 70 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN "complete gaps in roads, trails, streets or transit routes to improve circulation within regional centers and town centers." Another key topline result was, "complete gaps in transit service, automobile, pedestrians, and bike routes between employers and potential employees, and between businesses and potential customers." Local Funding Sources Local Bond Measures Local bond measures, or levies, are usually initiated by voter - approved general obligation bonds for specific projects. Bond measures are typically limited by time based on the debt load of the local government or the project under focus. Funding from bond measures can be used for right -of -way acquisition, engineering, design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Increment Financing /Urban Renewal Funds ,�,a,, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance'the current improvements that will create those gains. It is administered by the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC). When a public project (e.g., sidewalk improvements) is constructed, surrounding property values generally increase and encourage surrounding development or redevelopment. The increased tax revenuesare then dedicated to finance the debt created by the original public improvement project. Oregon state la■all ;ows Tax Increment Financing to occur only within designated Urban Renewal. Areas (URAfthat meet certain ec noniic criteria and approved by a local governing body. To be eligible for tthis, financing, a project (or a portion of it) must be located within the URA. The City of Tigard currently has one, URA ;which encompasses downtown Tigard. Street Maintenance Fees The City of Tigard has administered street °user m aintenance fees sinc °2004. The revenue generated by the fee is used for operations and maintenance'of` and' are established by the Public Works Department. Revenue-from this fundshould be used ° to!maintain on- street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including routine <s weeping of bicycle lanes and ; other designated bicycle routes. Local Improvement Districts. (LIDs) Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are most often used'by cities to construct localized projects such as streets, sidewalks or bikeways. `Through the LID process, the costs of local improvements are generally spread out amonga group of properk within a" specified area The cost can be allocated based on property frontage or'otherimthods such trip generation. System Developmen i ,,Charg`,es/Developer Impact Fees System,' Development Charges °(SDCs), also known as Developer Impact Fees, represent another potential local funding SDCs are typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- or off -site pedestrian improvements,•that will encourage residents to walk or use transit rather than drive. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project's impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit. Some communities have also established fee in -lieu parking programs, where minimum parking requirements are relaxed based on developer contributions to a parking fund. These funds may be used for a variety of purposes, including construction of improved pedestrian facilities. Private Sector Funding Opportunities Residents and other community members are excellent resources for garnering support and enthusiasm for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. The City of Tigard should work with volunteers to substantially reduce implementation and maintenance costs. Local schools, community groups, or a dedicated neighbors TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 71 CHAPTER 6 group may help sponsor projects, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties can be formed to help clear right -of -way where needed. Local construction companies can donate or discount services. Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, such as grants and private funds. The City has been successful in the past in obtaining grants and donations from private parties and in partnering with other agencies in co- development of facilities. The City should look to its residents for additional funding ideas to expedite the completion of the bicycle and pedestrian system. Volunteer Services Local businesses can help defray some of the costs associated with trail and greenway development. Some examples include: • Donations of services, equipment, and labor • Cash donations' l. • Contribution of employee volunteer time • Discountedmaterials Neighborhood and other community groups including Eagle.S'couts for "a °'community- service project can develop some of the natural surface trails, particularly thoseAhat are on City -owned land. The City could develop a booklet of trails that would be appropriate for volunteer efforts. \w A good local example of this type of volunteerism is the SW Trails Group, a neighborhood :group that has built several neighborhood trails in SW Portland. Volunteer work parties have built stairs, wooden bridges, and have organized an experiment to gravel a trail — by providing a pile >of gravel at the trailhead and asking walkers to fill a bucket and help spread the gravel on the.trail: group has also assisted the City in development of a trail map and lead regular group walks arciUnct the neighborhood. Foundations Some trail elements, particularly if they are related to educational, civic, or environmental goals or projects, can be funded through private foundations. Funding opportunities through local foundations have a higher probability of success ,and should, be approached before,pursuing, national foundation funds. Some local foundations include the Ford Family,,Foundatior and the Meyer Memorial Trust. It is important to keep in mind that many foundations only solicit grant proposals`from registered 401c3 nonprofit organizations. Land Trusts Land Trusts are local, regional, or statewide nonproftconservation organizations directly involved in helping protect scenic; recreational , agricultural, historic, or cultural property. Land trusts work to preserve open land that is important to the „coinmunities and regions where they operate. Service.Clubs Community organizations haveabeen very successful holding fundraisers and providing volunteer labor for trail building and maintenance activities. Local examples include 4 -H, Boy Scouts of America, Rotary Club, Portland Community Collegeservice „clubs, and others. Individual Sponsors Individuals, businesses, or corporations can contribute donations to sponsor sections of trail or project elements. The City of Tigard has previously obtained grants and donations from private parties to assist in developing other types of park and recreation facilities. Plaques or other forms of recognition are typically placed on constructed pieces in the trail corridor or at a prominent entry point. Sponsorship is a good way to fund trail elements such as benches, trash receptacles, and interpretive areas. 13 http : / /explorepdx.com /swtrails.html 72 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Sections of trail can also be sponsored through a "Buy a Foot" program. Community members can purchase a section of trail at a fixed cost per linear foot and have their names (or dedication) inscribed along the facility (e.g. in concrete or on a boardwalk). Phased Cost Opinions and Funding Strategy Planning -level cost estimates were developed for the recommended neighborhood trails in Chapter 5. Neighborhood trails were either characterized as natural or urban, as described in Chapter 3. For the purposes of this study, the choice of design option was determined based on trail connections and anticipated use. Table 19 through Table 21 present the length and planning -level cost opinions of recommended neighborhood trails for short -term; medium -term and long -term projects. Table 22 on the following page provides a guide for how potential funding sources were identified for the recommended Neighborhood Trail projects. Tables 8 through 10 show grant funding availability for the High -, Medium -, andlow- priority projects, respectively. Table 19. High- Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion Potential Neighborhood Trails Cost Estimate , Length Design ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 1 Near 106th Ave to 103rd Ave, on Murdock 590 `� ' _ urban` $34,000 $20,000 $19,000 2 Gallo Ave Extension to 113th /Gallo Path 396 t :. „urban $23,000 $14,000 $13,000 3 Pathfinder way to Pathfinder Genesis Trail - • 132 "urban $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 4 116th PI/Fonner to Howard Dr Extension -r ' 124 urban_;. , $8,000 $5,000 $4,000 5A Scholls Ferry Rd to Englewood Park Trail '.62 urban .' 4 '$5,000 $3,000 $2,000 5B Parking Lot to Scholls Ferry Road 161 urban ... .:.. $ 10,000 .._ ................. $7,000 $5,000 6 90th Ave Extension to Inez St Extension 293 natural- $15,000 $9,000 $5,000 7 Greenfield ext.; Ridgefield r'to Chir " St 492 natural $24,000 $14,000 $8,000 8 100t Ave Extensionto ° ...... g Hi hland Dr: -. .._.:_ .................... ....... ........................ °'222- urban $14,000 $9,000 $7,000 ...... ........................ � ur _.... ............_.................. 9 Mistletoe Dr to Sunris 'Lane ,'333 natural $17,000 $10,000 $5,000 10 Coral St to Locust St, 92 7„d /Lincoln Extension. 374 r urban $22,000 $13,000 $12,000 11 Gaarde St to Aerie Dr , 294 urban $17,000 $11,000 $9,000 12 Fanno CreekTrail /Scholls Ferryto °apartments 62 urban $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 13 . Landau St Extension to72nd Ave_ 153 urban $10,000 $6,000 $5,000 14 ` 80th PI to Bonita Rd '°o - -- 29 urban $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 Total ICS, 3,717 $215,000 $133,000 $100,000 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 73 CHAPTER 6 Table 20. Medium - Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Opinion Potential Neighborhood Trails Length Design Cost Estimate ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 15 Quail Hollow South Trail to 129th Ave Trail 165 urban $34,000 $30,000 $29,000 16 129th Ave 45 urban $4,000 $3,000 $1,000 17 Tigard St to Fanno Creek 117 urban $8,000 $5,000 $4,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Ventura Dr to 70th PI 165 natural $9,000 $6,000 $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Broadmoor PL to Rockingham 620 natural $12,000 $7,000 $4,000 20 Spruce St Extension at 80th 429 urban $48,000 $38,000 $37,000 21 Edgewood St /Halcyon Terrace Ext. to Braydon Ct 656 urban . ,$14,000 $9,000 $8,000 22 Hunsiker St /77th PI to 72nd Ave /Hwy 217 Overpass 1,392 urban '$30;000 $18,000 $17,000 23 88th Ave Ext. to 88 Ave Extension /Pinebrook Ct 386 natural 000 $11,000 $6,000 24 Mtn Highlands Trail to Mtn Highland Trail 242 natural $12,000 $7,000 $4,000 maintenance , : , v 25 Twality Middle School to 92nd Ave 113 only $1,150 ,a $1,150 $1,150 26 89th Ave Extension to 91st Ave Cul -de -sac 357 - natural $18,000 '•*$I0 $6,000 27 Waverly Dr ext.; 88 Ave to 85th Ave 641 natural $30,000 $18;000 $11,000 28 Gallo Ave ext.; North Dakota St to Suzanne Ct 514 ' natural $6,000 $4,0004 , $2,000 29 132nd Ave ext.; Marion St to Hollow Ln 139 a ; *urban,, 1 _. $9,000 $6,000 $4,000 30 74th Ave ext.; Cherry Dr to Fir St 138 ';urban ' $9,000 $6,000 $4,000 2: , „. 31 94th Ave ext.; Dakota St to Greenburg St 234 ur ian $14,000 $9,000 $8,000 32 92nd Ave ext.; Dakota St to Greenburg St 128 natural $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 Total ., 6,912 • ‘ $384,000 $193,000 $151,000 Table 21 f ' , Low - Priorit Neighborh ail Cost Opinion Potential Neighborhood Trails Cost Estimate Length Design ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 33 StevetSt 721604r Ave Extenion• .;; 4 431 urban $340,000 $336,000 $334,000 34 135th Ave to 132nd Ave -. 1 715 natural $51,000 $29,000 $18,000 in p :- _ 35 Rockin ham Dr to Ma l'ecrest Ct [construction] 349 natural $40,000 $33,000 $29,000 36A YTerrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder`Genesis Trail H = 253 natural $10,000 $6,000 $3,000 36B Terrac e� Dr to Pathfinder; Genesis Trail 198 natural $10,000 $6,000 $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . 37 116th`Ave,Extension to Kather ne'St 387 natural $403,000 $400,000 $398,000 39 77th Ave Extension to Spruce Si' ' °` 150 natural $31,000 $28,000 $26,000 40 Burnham St to Parking Lot 132 natural $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 41 Hall Blvd to Matthew,:Park,St:Extension 591 natural $28,000 $16,000 $10,000 42 Murdock Rd ext.; 109th Ave to 99W 439 natural $21,000 $12,000 $7,000 43 Schaffer Ln ext.; Tigard High School to 85th Ave 602 urban $14,000 $9,000 $8,000 Total 3,816 $552,000 $480,000 $440,000 74 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Table 22. Guide to Funding Source Availability for Recommended Projects Abbreviation i Funding | Limitations 1 • � | | RTP I Recreational Trails Program | None; all trails SR2S I Safe Routes to School I Project must be within 2 miles of a primary/ middle school and beindude�ina��fenoute�to��hoo|P|an� TE I Transportation Enhancements I Projects must serve a transportation need (i.e. Travel Reduction | | is greater than 'Amile) TCSP Program Transportation, Community and I Trail provides access to jobs, services, trade centers System Preservation Program STIP I Statewide Transportation I Project must comply with planning requirements 'need to adopt ||mpmvementPmg�m |po4ect�inmtheTran�po��i��5y�emp|an Bike/Ped Program I Bicycle and Pedestrian Program I Project must be within the public right of way Grant | Grants | -� MTIP I Metro Transportation i mnneaU*aib , "~� � Improvement ��`' '~��~ Local Bond Measure Local Bond Measure i oondfinancing mv�bevot��pp�ved � TIF I Tax lncremerit Financing I Pmjec Must -c:+ ». Street Maintenance I Street Maintenance Fees I Used for Maintenance only � °-` Fees i -+' ` LID I Local Improvement Dbthct nn� quine s ce aUunofL6�`L � 7pmvement • | | District ^ SDC I System Development Charge ! Mut be on Iard t be developed in the future Volunteer Services I Volunteer Services I Less unpaved projects (i e project cost estimate • ° � _ � less than � °uta.' Includes the OR Transportation PIan (OTP), ODOT Modal Modal pu *mao�noao nu�onus«rcrs�mnnu/mmen� `^ � ^ +. � ^, 'r - '^^ ` �� . � , . ~ ~~ A;' / ` �- - � *�� °. ^ t�� , ^ . � � � ' m^~� ��^� ^ �� ~�° ^ �- 4~k,--" ....- :,. /� "^ `�r,. ' : ,~* ~~�= ', 4+ + ' '1 —- ~ ^. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 75 CHAPTER 6 Table 23. Potential Grant Funding Sources for High-Priority Projects Bike/Ped Local . Street VOlun- TCSP Program Bond Maint teer ID Description RTP SRTS TE Program Grants MTIP Measure TIF enance LID SDC Services . : . . : . : . • . 1 ,/ !!-,,.. . "! , 1 ,,,,, 1•••••••••••••. Near 106th Ave to 103rd . .. . ..•• , • • . . . . : .••• : . : 1 1 Ave , on Murdock X 1 X : • • . . .. • • • . . 1,: )C, 1 I: .. • . . 1 X 1 . Gallo Ave Extension to . • I" - . X . . • : .• • ' aaa 4-1, • 2 1 113th/Gallo Path X 1 X 1 X 1 : .. . X :, - .,: X 1 1 X • . • Pathfinder way to Pathfinder : : • . : • : ' .. • . . . : : .••• : 3 1 Genesis Trail X i X 1 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 • : ., i l- 116th PI/Fonner to Howard ..••• • • . . i • . . . . . • 4 1 Dr Extension X 1 X 1 X 1 • X .• I • 1 X 1 . . ! X Scholls Ferry Rd to . .. • . • .. .••• • • . • . 5A 1 Englewood Park Trail X 1 X 1 X :i X i X i X : • . . X : :, :: •:4" t 1 ::, • : -: f ' s Parking Lot to Scholls Ferry .. I , . . 5B 1 Road X 1 X 1 • . '. - "1g: " 'a X 1 X ' '1 X . : . ., i X 1 . • .••• : 7 : 90th Ave Extension to Inez St • . I . .••• : ..••• 6 1 Extension X 1 X 1 X 1 : I.1 " 1 . 1 a X 1 X : . i X 1 .•••• •• .••• , • I : Greenfield ext.; Ridgefield Dr .'fa'd „ a, a : a ,, a . 1 .• 7 1 to Chirp St X 1 X' - 41 : ‘ X X X X : 1' , •:X` 1 1 : .••• I I : ..••• _ • 100th Ave Extension to / 1 I : 8 1 Highland Dr X X 1 - ' I X !I . .ti • - X X X !?, 44, i ; X : : • i • i f : 9 Mistletoe Dr to Sunrise Ln ;- `- 41: 4 , ii• 4 I 4 0 , : • • • I X I .. 1 X 1 X `- Y X —1 .. ' , - A --', ' 4 V t „ I , 'r": ' 1 X 1 X : : Coral St to Locust St, 10 1 92nd/Lincoln Extension ' - X '" 1 X 1 I.X a 1 ' — X i X 1 X X • . • I . . -- ,.. : • • 11 1 Gaarde St to Aerie Dr IL : . X 1 X 1 1 X , , : X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 . Fanno Creek Trail/Scholl : • • • • 1 I i • . 1 I 12 1 Ferry to apartments -.:.a , -,- X 1 X 'I- ;, - 9( 1 ' '4'k' . X X X .: . . X Landau St Extension to 72nd • • • ' 1 13 I Ave ':X ' 1 XX I X 1 X : 1 X 1 : : 14 1 80th PI to Bonita Rd X , ' X ' I IX 1 1 X 1 X X X : . • . I • . . : t 76 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Table 24. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Medium - Priority Projects - _ - t14 1u :vk.,::. � .�:.: *i:� lfi m .�r:4d�' i' 4• y �,uN m�`dl�.:y.., t �d �. r •1' � am W . .c ` rs $' - ,'_ ` t r= '�. . 1 ' a a v ' a.�., , +5E' ,a: 6 " �+ a � ` - #ae �a� rs � : 5 - f�. i IJ 4 i I - : ', 3M" -:. ` ' J` l .. , , s, t w , ,:.V �I i rtWA,.:t?,;:-4-5-T-re:30151if,'.41',OriP:xelt)1•11_ B1 Lo a '•`� > �o ',. y , . � „a1 �", :.r � _ .'�; , .,.'.._•�ry `�' h .� r i�'m �� `� !t r ,. ` Il §6 - _ �. F` - ` o R. , , , � rw .09.�._� .��,��_ = w - - TC�SP. �ti7-Pro m ;, - ... Bond � kti ,=Ma�nt. a 1 ,4;� , . =° G g k ,� � -�"r .�. , �-, �^ - V �'�r, �€" �i'w •�,.� , , n, P� A =: � � -.r 1, #�I•,r :i >x:"' � .0 ._ - - -- �.� ».3., ��. " . r � � .� ,: 1 dr.. Jd,� ^n:. :,,, $.�, a d9�'' - „��; �4 Li�AI- ._,•:_�'L w.° W, " t ' _ ”" � � �: � �+ �_ `M "�TIF ^� ce �4� ° � -'S�C� FSe�lices';" "' ID De t ion w �= �, �- 3 -RTP,„ �SRT�S ;; TE, } ,,� � Program, Grants M _,- �, 3 , , ..�,,,�t'x' P'; - '- � �� L- .m; ^+'�i ` F _, >:. ,; ' . > .> =. _.,, ?•- .._ ri '"' . -� w.r - � R -.. 1. :_a -: � :�,':� Quail Hollow S Trail to 129th • 15 Ave Trail - X X X X /i. ,»x_ .e .,. •,X X...... 16 129th Ave X X / X ' 4.,. X I � X . : X x x X 17 ; Tigard St to Fanno Creek X X 1 i* - X 1 X` 18 I Ventura Dr to 70th PI 1 X 1 X 1 X 1- h i X X X...... X 19 Broadmoor PL to Rockingham X X X ., X ` X: 1 X X ................. X ._... X ......................... 20 Spruce ruce St Extension at 80th X X X °.X, ' X X X • • Edgewood St /Halcyon Ter Ex. ;,, . • • I< • • 21 to Bra don Ct X X X ,X X X y • „ Hunsiker St /77th PI to 72nd " • 22 1 Ave /Hwy 217 Overpass 1 X 1 X X �X X X....... _ ..................... _ ................ _..........._........_......... • 88th Ave Ext. to 88th Ave • 23 Ext. /Pinebrook Ct X X 1 • .. _ X ,X, X x ....... Mtn Highlands Trail to Mtn • • • 24 Hi hland Trail - X <X X • X X X X....... X ........................ g Twality Middle School to 92nd • 25 1 Ave 1 X 1 X' y X i X X X .... X ........................ 89th Ave Extension to 91st • 1 ,r „X , , 4 26 Ave Cul -de -sac I X X , X I • X X Waverly Dr ext.; 88th Ave to •z s- ” ` % I x r • 27 1 85th Ave X X X 1 X i X X Gallo Ave ext.; North Dakota . -, . -,- • 28 •• • St to Suzanne Ct , X X - X ` {` * `; X 1 X I X X ... X ............. . . . a. : : :: . . . . . . : 132nd Ave ext.; Marion St to; i • • • • 29 Hollow Ln .X X X X X .... X x r I X 74th Ave ext.; Cherry Dr to Fir' • • 30 1 St 1 X X , X X I X X X 1 i X 94th Ave ext.; Dakota St to I a +,' ', • • • 31 1 Greenburg St I X, X <i ' X X ... ... X..... X X. X ..... 92nd Ave ext.; Dakota St to f " ` °!- ' 32 : Greenburg St X X X X X X X X TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 77 CHAPTER 6 Table 25. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Low-Priority Projects 1 7.€5 !?ro:gr,179 VIN.4Blitetirse _,:.!_,-, ,-L:*- , -,,, . :;,,, 7: -. , , , . 4 .,,,,- ; : v 4v,4,010.-, _ ILL, ..., ..v . , ,..2,;•„,..41,_,z-,4 -9P .; , •- - 4 , ,,a.,:`-,,,,,,,,- . .vil : r im' . 'iiii* ViAtAq.iiti4..._ J17__ teet:;Li:','Jt--:A ?d,Li_ .4i,: tN-eqie‘ P*1 =-1 "1: t'i'l'IOAATIP AiniA6Attirie -:.......e.,;;4-e,senption 4 .1 iLe, tV2,- 11-,,, :-: ..'gw 1 Th • - k.1.4. 1 ,,, w i 7!*•;-„,,,,;,,,L,, ,,i,14 g‘fq. - ;0_ , ' :;-'.;1•4yz %:„ , . , • • . • . • . : . : . , ,„ , , .••• Steve St/21B to 84th Ave I .. • ' . . ..••• • • . .. • • . ' . ;X IX I X • i • . A !e X 1 -,!! t"' X 1 .••• .. . I I , 33 I Extension X • . , , • • " 0 4 ;' I • • . I • • . , 34 I 135th Ave to 132nd Ave X I X 1 X I .. . X : X' 9, , • . 1 X I X : - t : , . i ••i• .. Rockingham Dr to : .. • . . • • IT' - : . . .. • 1 :• : . . . . • +.1(%-• I • . Maplecrest Ct • . .. : 1- t. - • . • . " • : . .•••• . • • • X X I: : , 35 I [construction] X • . • :1,-• '4, 1 X I X 1 ' ',.. ',- 1 X I X • i i ' ! : . . • .. Terrace Trails Dr to • • . , • . .• ...• • : . . • . : : . 36A I Pathfinder Genesis Trail 1 X 1 X 1 X ' 1 X ' • i , 9 X I X : • • • I X i X 1 X ' : • : i . - 9 ,-, "1, i .. . . • • : . . Terrace Trails Dr to . : . . 1 • , • : • . I ,, %,- 1 , - i • • • 36B I Pathfinder Genesis Trail 1 X X I X - ' I i. , „ , 1 • - : XX : i ,,, .9: „,•• : X : .. . . . I X I X : : . X ......... • : . . 116th Ave Extension to A 1 • : , r, ,,, ". i •: • : I . : .••• . :••• .•• 37 I Katherine St X I X i X • . • i , ' X I X : . X ; i X i X .fl . : . . . , . ; 77th Ave Extension to 1 . . : . . . I I 39 I Spruce St 'X IX i9-X-,: 19 , --X 1 X . X X : , — 9 • Burnham St to , . A.1 • X X X X X X I I 1 I i i 40 I Commercial Parking Lot I X I X ' 9 ,„„: „ , „ X . .........„.......„ . . ..•• . • • • . . Hall Blvd to Matthew I , • • • " • • : .••• • . • . : 1 X - . . • 41 : Park St Extension I I X 1- -• X-',;:- ' 1 ' , I '''" I X i X • • X X ••t , • . . . . . .. , : . • • . , Murdock Rd ext.; 109th i ,; f f ',-,:=, i : '' : i 'f 1 i, .• .. .•••• : :• . • 42 1 Ave to 99W i X 1 • - X ' 1 X; ','" I X I X 1 ••: X , • • . . : X 1 X • I , i — i• i : . . . • Schaffer Ln ext.; Tigard „ ,1 , • i - ' ' : : . . : • . : 43 1 H igh School to 85th Ave -I? -- 1 X - t, , X -1 ' -' • X I X I X : • . . : 1 X 1 X r t , . ,,., 4 78 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN Action Plan The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan provides the long -term vision for the development of a neighborhood trail system that can be used by all residents for local trips to parks, schools, retail, employment and community centers, trails and other non - motorized transportation facilities. Implementation of the plan will occur in small steps over many years. The following action plan is provided to guide the City of Tigard toward the vision identified in this Plan and to provide a framework for project selection, programming, design and construction, and periodic updating of the neighborhood trails project list. The Action Plan has two parts: future trail development considers how the City can expand the neighborhood trail system by taking advantage of opportunities to acquire land for trails through acquisition, easements and right -of -way vacations. The second part of this chapter outlines strategies for implementing the recommended neighborhood trails and maintaining the list of trails. Future Trail Development Future opportunities to implement neighborhood trails mays occur as land'_changes ownership or as landowners are more receptive to allowing a neighborhood trail through their property. Neighborhood trails should be developed cooperatively alongside adjacent, private construction and incorporation into adjacent roadway improvements. Property control is the primary concern of future trail development The relationship of the parties in a shared -use corridor'will be drivento a great extent by'which entity holds the dominant property interest. The type of property`control influences both the ease of implementing the project and the liability burden. There are three types of property arrangement: purchases, easements, and licenses.'�� Purchases To accommodate the concerns of property owners with.respec Ito th ' I cation of a neighborhood trail, the City of Tigard could considerowning the trail ,, corridor itself 4 Thisfnternalizes the liability and coordination efforts. The City is treateddifferently from other*property ownerS`'due to its unique status as a sovereign entity. This optiontransfers basic liability to Tigard an'd Would give the City the authority to locate the trail in the corridor. Challenges with the City. .acquiring f land.for neighborhood trails include the expense and the difficulty for the City to acquire land while`housessare'for sale:' e s Property.: acquisition procedures "'are laid out in great detail in Property Acquisition Procedures, updated • 2/23 /0.. This documentincludes,efiapters on Procedures; Charter, Ordinances & Statutes; Standard Forms; Preliminary Title Report, ,Environmental Site Assessment; IGA Samples; Negotiation Techniques; and Miscellaneous. Some of the sections rn6s't pertinent to trails include the following: • The City ha' the power to acquire property, both within and outside its corporate limits, for a wide variety of purposes .Cities may acquirea variety of property interests, including fee title, easements, and leasehold interests.'Feetitle or easements may be acquired through dedication, negotiated purchase, or condemnation. Leasehold interestwill'beacquired either through a direct lease of property from the owner, or by a sublease or "assignment" of theserights of a current tenant. With rare exception, subleases or assignments of lease rights require the consent of the owner of the property in question.... • Regardless of the form of interest to be acquired, or the technique used for acquisition, certain investigations must be undertaken before acquisition of any real property interest. These investigations are commonly lumped together under the term "due diligence ". An early and thorough due diligence study of the desired property is essential for protection of the City and the public.... • As soon as a property has been identified for acquisition, and even before the owner is contacted, investigation into suitability of the property for its intended purpose can begin. The first step in this process is to determine the form of property interest the City needs. For some acquisitions (trails, [et al ]), easement interests may suffice... TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 79 APPENDIX A • For properties less than $20,000 in value, an administrative determination of market value, based on review of the value of other properties in the area, may be used instead of a formal appraisal. Such a determination is more appropriately used where the property to be acquired consists of narrow right -of -way strips, ... In such cases the cost of a formal appraisal is probably not justified.... • The City's approved form of purchase and sale agreement contains a period of time ... during which the City can conduct any and all tests, studies and investigations of the property it deems appropriate.... • In this era of heightened awareness of possible environmental problems, and in light of the comprehensive federal and state statutory scheme imposing liability on owners of property for environmental hazards, the City Attorney strongly recommends an environmental site assessment by performed with regard to every property the City intends to acquire.... Easements In most instances, full ownership acquisition is not necessary for trail development and in many cases, is not an option. Easements, which come in many forms, typically are acquired when the landowner is willing to forego use of the property and development rights for an extended period. Thelandowner retains title to the land while relinquishing most of the day -to -day management,of the property. The xrail, manager gets sufficient control for trail purposes. The easement is attached to the property title, so the easement survives property transfer. A model easement agreement should: .„ • Guarantee exclusive use or uses compatible. • Be granted in perpetuity. , • Include air rights if there is any possible need°for a '.structure • Broadly define purpose of the easement andidentify all conceivable activities, uses, invitees, and vehicular types allowed to avoid any need to renegotiate with'fee interest downer in future;,, • State that all structures and fixtures installed as part „of a trail'are property of grantee. • • Include subsurface r,,ightslor Use by:utility franchises It is also understoodthat major landowners would •`want an easement agreement to address issues on their side. Through coope negotiation, the following issues should be addressed in an easement agreement: • Access needs related to maintenance; etc. , • Trail `managemerit`° °plan • , improvemeritstormodifications'to the trail Trail , Use of UtilIity This primarily refers to the, idea of including trail access as part of any sewer, storm - drain, and water line easements the "City negotiates:Other utilities, such as gas or electricity, normally are extended within public rights -of- way , orblanket utility easements, as opposed to stand alone easements. The main idea behind this approach to expariding opportunities for trails is that every time the City initiates a sewer capital project, it potentially could s au for a trail. In the case of sewer lines in new developments, this authority may not be needed. This is because bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to a street or greenway trail is required by code every 330' feet. The proposed new authority would not add new requirements. In the case of sewer lines placed in older areas, a problem is that sewer funds cannot be used for any other use than sewer - related improvements. There would be a cost both for asking and for drawing up an agreement. Negotiation and legal fees associated with a trail provision in a sewer agreement would need to come from a source other than sewer funds. A more important complication is that private owners may be amenable to providing a utility easement, but not to providing access for a trail. As demonstrated by the 80 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN results of the Neighborhood Trail landowner survey, the majority of landowners do not wish their property to be considered for potential trail use. In conclusion, it would appear that in newer areas existing code provisions adequately provide for block links and bike /ped connectivity on public easements. It is gaps in the pedestrian walking system within older areas if the community where use of this approach could have some benefit. Despite accounting difficulties and limited chances for success, none of the above - identified problems would appear to preclude the use of this approach. The City should be able to work out the details of how any associated costs would be handled. Given the limited chances of finding willing owners, overall program costs should be minimal to low. And, although likely to be of limited usefulness, the potential benefit of requiring consideration of trail access in utility easement negotiations could be the possible provision of a few new opportunities for Neighborhood Trails. °' Licenses,: _. A license is usually a fixed -term agreement that provides limited.rightsto thelicensee for use of the property. Typically, these are employed in situations when the ro err cannot be sold e:. a ublicl P P Y (a g - owned, active , P Y electrical utility corridor), or the owner wants to retain useof ^and everyday control over the property. The trail management authority obtains permission to build,and, operate a trail. But it will.have little control over the property, and may be subject to some stringent "requirements that complicate trail , development and operation. .. . A model license agreement should: • Provide an acceptable term length with an to renew. • Identify all conceivable activities, uses, invitees, and vehicular types..; , • Provide clarity on maintenance responsibilities. �s y on • Specify limits on other uses of license property:. ;. As with easement agreements, property owners would want °a licenseagreement to address issues of concern to them. Through cooperative negotiation, the followingissues should be addressed in a license agreement: • Access needs related to maintenance,,etc. • Trail management plan4 „4. • Future improvements ormodifications.to the trail Rig df Way'Vacation Righe'of way vacations ',are initiated by .private parties, typically upon the request of the adjoining owner. Usually, City- approved vacations include`the reservation of utility easements. Changes in the vacation process would h elp ' preserve future access for trails. Under 15.08.090.1.b, the Public Works Director is required to prepare a report. The report is required to include consideration of (A) the effect on (i) traffic, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. This section could be strengthened to some extent by adding the following language: • (i) ... traffic, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation, including opportunities for a paved or unpaved Neighborhood Trail. The completed Neighborhood Trail Plan will be adopted as part of the TSP, as described above. (b) 2 (B) references "compliance with the comprehensive plan, transportation element.” The comp plan by definition includes the TSP, which officially is an associated document. However, the specific reference to "transportation element" suggests the transportation chapter is the only portion of the Comprehensive Plan that need be consulted. For clarity, it may be beneficial to specify consideration of the Neighborhood Trail element of the TSP as well, plus any potential for Neighborhood Trail use (whether or not identified in the plan) should be addressed in the director's report. Thus: TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 81 APPENDIX A • (2) (B) Compliance with the comprehensive plan, transportation element, and with the Transportation System Plan, Neighborhood Trails chapter, including any opportunities for Neighborhood Trail use, whether or not explicitly mapped or identified in this chapter. • Under (3) The recommended conditions of approval, if any, shall be those conditions necessary to protect the public interest. This provision is adequate for Neighborhood Trail preservation purposes, assuming the adoption of the two above amendments. Implementation Strategies Implementation of the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan will take place in small steps over many years. The following strategies and action items can guide the City toward developingthe projects identified in the Plan. Implementation Strategy 1. Strategically Pursue Projects' Ideally, Tigard staff should pursue capital improvements rfunding or grant , funding for higher - priority neighborhood trail projects first. However, if grant requirements, or constructionri conjunction with another roadway project make construction of a lower priority 'project possible, then Ti and _should pursue funding 1 p oYo p j P g .�� P g sources for that project regardless of priority. Landowners that have been identified . Property Owner Survey as willing to allow a trail through their property present ,a 'particularly importantRopportunity that should be pursued as quickly as possible • Action Item 1.1. Pursue capital improvements funding or grantfunding for higher - priority neighborhood trails projects first.. • Action Item 1.2. In the case where grant requirements or constructionnconjunction with another roadway project, or a willing land owner make construction ofa lower priority project possible, pursue funding sources for that project regardless of priority. • Action Item 1.3. As quickly as possible, pursue development of trails on land where the owner has been identified as N jlling to allow an easement orjo sellIand for a neighborhoof trail. • Action Item 1.4. Inactive neighborhood associations:p*esent a significant challenge to implementation of several recommended neighborhood trailsaby delaying important decisions about the trail. Tigard should encourage the State of Oregon to consider amend1ngthe_requirement of neighborhood association approval for trail development in the case,of inactive associations.,. , Imp`Iei mentation'Strategy2 fricrementally Implement Projects The Recommended Neighborhood Trails ' List includes recommended design options, determined by � � the anticipated use and connectivity op portunity of the trail. Trails designated as urban can be incrementally developed, a temporary earthen surfacing, until funding is secured to complete the project. Similarly, trail amenities' including bollards and wayfinding signage can be added at a later time The low cost o r s . estimate considersahe fewest design features possible for a trail, which can be added to as funding allows. In addition, permitting,andrdesign can be developed for the recommended trails, to ensure that the trails are 'shovel ready' if additional becomes available. • Action Item 2.1. Consider constructing neighborhood trails with minimum - design features first, then incrementally develop additional amenities as desired by neighborhood residents. • Action Item 2.2 Develop permitting and design for the recommended trails, particularly those identified as high - priority, in order to have the projects prepared for funding if it becomes available. Implementation Strategy 3. Regularly Revisit Project Prioritization Projects have been prioritized based on connectivity benefit, constructability, permission of seller or property owner, potential for conflicts with neighbors, safety and security, and cost, and feasibility. This list should be reviewed as necessary, with new projects added, completed projects removed, and the priorities revised as 82 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN conditions change. pelts of recommended trails should be incorporated into the 2009 update of the Transportation Sy stem @a, and updated as that plan is upd a»d • Action Item 3.1. The status and ongoing actions of projects listed in then commmAdNeg�hb rhood Trails Projects List should be incorporated into the Transportation SselmPan. • Action I! m 3.2. The neighbo rhood tra il proj e I4 should be revisited with inpaf from the public when the Transportation SslmPln evied. Implementation Strategy 4. Encourage Private Donors to Support Neighborhood Trails Through an "Adopt a #6' program or other neighborhood volunteerism,, corporations, institutions and individuals can aid maintenance and development of the neighborhood traiIs\4m. • Action Item *t Evaluate the opport unities for etsab¥ing aphilanthropic giying program that can be used to support the construction and mainten «2 of Tigard neighborhood /a . t • Action Item 4.2 Suppo rt vo lunteer groups building or maintaining neigh b rhoodtQ# by providing materials and expertise as nedd. §` ~ \ / {. 4 & s m«K yaJ , . . C ° -° y . x , � � y ¢: TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 83 APPENDIX A Appendix A. Property Owner Survey The appendix presents an overview of the methodology and key findings of a survey of the public and private owners of Tigard -area sites identified as potential neighborhood trail routes. The survey's purpose was to determine which owners of sites identified as potential routes were willing to consider the possible donation, lease, or sale of a portion of their property for trail purposes. A related purpose was to document the objections of unwilling sellers to see if they could be overcome. The site - specific "willing" and "unwilling" owner information helped formulate evaluation criteria and develop recommendations for pathway projects. Methodology The identification of candidate sites relied on information obtained from a range of sources. These included, most importantly: • A 1995 City -wide map of potential trail sites • A Friends of Tigard -Bull Mountain inventory of trail opportunities • Nominations by Tigard residents in response to media stories and webpage postings about the study that solicited such nominations. These stories and postings appeared in the Cityscape, Oregonian, Tigard's official homepage, plus eleven independent, citizen - operated Neighborhood Area webpages. • In- person nominations by Tigard residents obtained during two major community events: the Tigard Balloon Festival and the Neighborhood Program Open House. • Sites drawn by citizens on a special inter - active webpage map created for the present study by the study consultant. • Nominations by members of the City Parks crew • A recent comprehensive inventory of unused City -owned street rights -of -way. Property owner address information was obtained from the Washington County Tax Assessment records. A cover letter; survey questionnaire; and postage paid, self- addressed return envelope was then sent to the owners of every site, except those described below. As noted, the purpose of the survey was to identify potentially willing sellers of trail rights -of -way and to document the objections of potential unwilling sellers. Within the cover letter, owners were asked whether they would be willing to consider the possible donation, lease, or sale or a portion of their property pathway purposes. It was emphasized that this information was for discussion purposes only and that the City at present has no funds allocated to purchase trail right -of -way. Two rounds of mailing were sent, an initial mailing to some 65 owners and, approximately three weeks later, a follow -up mailing to non - responders to the first mailing. The tax office was asked to verify the owner addresses on letters returned as non - deliverable. If a more current address was available, a new letter was sent. In several instances (7), addresses on file with the tax office were found to be invalid. Self- evidently, no letters were sent to the City itself or to the Tigard Water District, which operates as a City department, regarding the use of City- or district -owned land for a trail connection. Also excluded from the survey were the owners of sites located entirely outside of and not connecting any part of the incorporated City. This is due to the City Council's opposition to the provision of any City services what -so -ever to unincorporated (and non - taxing paying) areas. Also, TriMet and Portland Western Railroad (which holds freight easement rights over the corridors in question) were not contacted regarding two demand trails that cross RR tracts. This is because ODOT Rail, the agency that regulates all such crossing in Oregon has an established permit process for requesting at -grade and other crossings. To be noted in this regard is that ODOT Rail's current policy is very stringent and limits the granting of permits for new vehicular and pedestrian crossings to instances where a requesting jurisdiction is willing to close one or two existing crossing in order to obtain permission for a new crossing. 84 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Important to emphasize is that as a key part of the survey landowners were assured that the City is placing great emphasis on a "willing seller" policy. If an owner does not wish his or her property to be considered for possible trail acquisition, the letter advised that the property will be taken off the table for future trail development. The high priority placed on willing sellers reflects a lack of City support for the condemnation of land for trail purposes. This is especially true in cases where a proposed trail is regarded by a homeowner as an unacceptable intrusion. For this reason /As such, unwillingness is regarded as a deal breaker or fatal flaw with regard to the targeting of candidate sites for trail development. If an owner is unwilling, then the pathway will not be considered as a potential route. At the same time, it is recognized that owners and sometimes attitudes can change over time. Additional criteria for evaluating and ranking potential connections will be developed in the course of the Neighborhood Trail Study. Once a comprehensive set of criteria are development, each candidate site will be evaluated according to the criteria. The purpose of the present survey is to mark candidate pathway locations for field inspection and assessment. , . N In a later phase of the study, recommended pathway standards will be 'prepared relating to width, surface, lighting and other design considerations. � Key Findings preferences are recorded in the attached tally sheet. Comments contributed by owners : are included in another attachment. Not surprisingly, most homeowners (some 70 %) who responded to the survey are opposed to the retrofitting of neighborhood trails through their properties, including those with over -sized lots. To this figure must be added most of the homeowners who did. not respond to the s On the other hand, 6 single family lot owners are willing to consider allowing accessfora trail. Additionally, 5 other owners in the private property category (includes:'homeowners associations, apartment owners, and a shopping center),also are receptive-to the idea"of trail. One inventoried traVon°'.privatei- property (5- 7=0Hs- scheduled to'`be built as part of a project currently undergoing land use review. This proposed Dartmouth /Hermosa trail follows the route of the trail depicted in the City candidate trail map, except that it connects to'Hermoso rather than Beveland. The trail is included in the site plan for the development ,ofthe vacant parcel bordering the eastern edge of the Costco property. The developer in question, 'Pac °3'also plans to install °a second north -south trail in conjunction with the development Of the ,: \ As , ,indicated, a large ,riumber ofe private owners did not respond to two mailed notices. This includes VVashiington Square Property Management and others in the private property category, who did not respond to the two mailings or to in p erson or phone solicitations. One can only presume that these non - responses are indicative ofa lack of opennesson the part of these private owners to the idea of allowing a trail. Based on the 'survey results; 'most opportunities for pathways are in the public sector category. Some 23 public sector sit s\potentially are available for trail use Because they do not involve acquisition of right-of- way, the projectsmost \ easily implemented may be those extending through unused road rights -of -way and parks and open spat 0.kqLialification is, of course, that some may be more difficult to implement than others because of environmental, engineering, or cost considerations. Two of the trail connections appearing on the City inventory (sites 4 -8 -R and 4 -9 -R) recently became easier to implement, because the land they traverse is likely to be added to the City parkland inventory. Both are located on the Fowler School campus and extend from Tigard Street to the Fanno Creek Trail. Recently, the school district board officially declared some 20 acres of the fowler natural area to be surplus and authorized its sale to the Trust for Public Land for eventual transfer to the City. Plans for the Cleans Water Services Durham Treatment Plant expansion, now underway, includes the rebuilding of the portions of the existing trail /emergency access damaged during construction. Significantly, they also include the infill of the 100 foot gap (site 6 -6 -R) located between the southern terminus of 85 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 85 APPENDIX A Avenue and the eastern end of thep ved trail. peas Ave/Cook Park trail is a popular mute m Cook Prk the Tu mka River TraiI, and to the Kit-a-Kuts bike/p e bridge. The many exi km pudEHghtsofwa are all prime opportunities for trail connections. For the most prt adjacent properties have developed, but for whatever reason, the street connections have not been made. Some 17 segments of varying Iength have been identified in this category. They are prime candidates because the City already owns the and. In the case of all, no roads are scheduled to be co nAGded within any of these rigRaolwym the foreseeable future. � � 2 33 T 4'4 > ` A y in . r , ° »x /y xy ey g y ; % \2 g + y y {, + \7 86 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Sample Property Owner Survey Letter October 22, 2008 «AddressBlock»Tigard, OR 97223 «GreetingLine» The City of Tigard is interested in reducing traffic congestion by finding ways to make auto travel less necessary. The City's overall Transportation Planning efforts now underway will evaluate many travel options. These include determining whether the City's informal neighborhood trail system can be improved to provide more walking opportunities for residents. Recently, the Oregon Department of Transportation awarded Tigard a grant to study its informal trail system and investigate ways to improve it. The City would like to involve you in this effort. By way of explanation, Neighborhood Trails are short, unimproved walking paths used to get around neighborhoods. They are important because people use them on a regularbasis to walk to school, take short trips to the store, visit friends, etc. Such trails are quite common, and Tigard has a distinct Neighborhood Trail network. In fact, the study has identified 82 existing neighborhood trail locations ° Most trails have developed over time on private and public property as people find convenient and safe xways to get to everyday destinations. Determining the possibility of preserving and improving sections of ° the°' Neighborhood Trail network is a key part of our trail study. This includes contacting the owners of property where an existing trail is evident or where an important connection might be "developed inath4e future. The neighborhood trail inventory has identified your property the site of an existing trail or as a candidate for an important future trail connection. As part of our study, we would like to know if you would ever consider either selling the trail portion ofyour property to,the : City or granting an easement. The reason for asking is the Neighborhood Trails project; needs' to determine`where, in the future, it might be possible to acquire land or easements for trail purposes.. e ° Please note that the City does not currently have funds to purchase property or easements. Our objective at this time is to determine where itmight be possible to do Aso and; note this as part of the neighborhood trails plan. If funding ever becomes available for trail projects, the City would then contact property owners and discuss the matter in greater detail Because we are only in the planning stage, it is uncertain which properties or easements would be considered priorities for future acquisition. It is important to stress That the ; City;;places.great, emphasis on a "willing seller" policy. Even if you agree at this time to talk to later.; you change your mind at any time and your property will be taken off the possible trait connection inventory." Please indicate wheth'eraor. not youwould be willing, in the future, to discuss potential acquisition of the trail portion of your propertyby,checking tfe.; appropriate box on the enclosed survey form and mailing it back to me in °_the enclosed stamped self addressed envelope. Please mail or hand - deliver your letter no later than October 2 9, 2008. I would welcomean opportunity to talk to you by phone, or meet, if you would like more information or desire to discuss this matter: in, greater detail. I'm available to meet at your convenience, including most evenings and possibly weekends: Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information. I may be reached at 503- 718 -2444 or duanec tgard-gov.or. Sincerely, 42 1 - 4 - 49 ' .1-1 6 04)21 Duane Roberts, Project Planner TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 87 APPENDIX A City of Tigard Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 As the owner of land identified as a potential Neighborhood Trail Route: I am willing to consider the possible donation, lease, orsale of a portion of my property for Neighborhood Trail purposes. 1 understand that my feedback is for discussion purposes only. "‘ 1 do not wish my property to be considered potentialNeighborhood Trail acquisition. Please keep the donation lease /purchase option off the table. 1 want to discuss this matter in person. Please contact me to schedule a face to face meeting. Signature Date Phone # a , Tax lot #(s) 15136AA00400 a Site 5 -4 -0 Mailing Address Comments\ 88 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN Appendix B. Evaluation Matrix Table 26. Evaluation of High- Priority Recommended Trails Land Safety and Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Acquisition Potential Security Direct Travel Env. Land Conflicts Path - Direct Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Steep Sensitive Habitat Owner- Willing w/ Personal way ID Project Description Access ions tion Trail Benefits Slopes Areas Impacts ship Seller Neighbors Security Design Near 106th Ave to 103rd 1 Ave, on Murdock 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 Gallo Ave Extension to 2 113th /Gallo Path 2 1 1 1 1 _ 1 3 3 1 0 1 2 1 Pathfinder way to 3 Pathfinder Genesis Trail 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 116th PI /Fonner to Howard 4 Dr Extension 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 Scholls Ferry Rd to 5A Englewood Park Trail 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 0 1 2 1 5B Pkng Lot to Scholls Ferry Rd 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 90th Ave Extension to Inez 6 St Extension 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 Greenfield ext.; Ridgefield 7 Dr to Chirp St 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 100th Ave Extension to 8 Highland Dr 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 142nd extension to 1 9 Mistletoe Drive 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 Coral St to Locust St, 10 92nd /Lincoln Extension 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 11 Gaarde St to Aerie Dr 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 Fanno Creek Trail /Scholls 12 Ferry to apartments 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 13 Landau St Ext. to 72nd Ave 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 14 80th PI to Bonita Rd 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 89 APPENDIX B Table 27. Evaluation of Medium- Priority Recommended Trails Potential Safety and Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Conflicts Security Direct Travel Env. Land w/ Path - Direct Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Steep Sensitive Habitat Owner Willing Neigh- Personal way ID Project Description Access ions tion Trail Benefits Slopes Areas Impacts -ship Seller bors Security Design Quail Hollow • '" South Trail to 15 129th Ave Trail 2 1 1 2 2 2; .��, q 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 16 129th Ave 2 3 3 1 2 I ' `°' , 1 1 3!, 1 2 1 1 Tigard St to Fanno , 4 a 17 Creek 2 1 2 1 2 , 1. 2 3 2 a ,,_ 2 1 2 / Ventura Dr to 70th ._ „ /'b , 18 PI 3 1 1 2 2 3 '' '= "1 ;- 2 3 1 3 1 2 Broadmoor PL to ° 19 Rockingham 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 Spruce St - ,_ 20 Extension at 80th 3 1 1 1 g2 g,. i 1, 1 g., 3 1 0 1 2 1 Edgewood „ St /Halcyon Ter Ext z 21 to Braydon Ct 3 3 1, , ,1 2 x , 2 1 -, 3 3 2 1 2 Hunsiker St /77th g, ;. PI to 72nd ° Ave /Hwy 217 , 22 Overpass 1 2 3 "" 1 2 „2a,,, 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 88th Ave Ext. to , -� - ' 88th Ave 23 Ext. /Pinebrook Ct 12 -1 _ - 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 Mtn Highlands "”. 1 ;.6 A; Trail to Mtn ; 9 24 Highland Trail 1� 1 1 , , 2 „ 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 Twality Middle 44, School to 92nd z- ` 25 Ave 1 ° 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 89th Ave vz Extension to 91st , /, .j 26 Ave Cul -de -sac 1 1 :'14/ 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 Waverly Dr ext.; 88th Ave to 85th 27 Ave 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 90 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EVALUATION MATRIX Potential Safety and Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Conflicts Security Direct Travel Env. Land w/ Path Direct Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Steep Sensitive Habitat Owner Willing Neigh- Personal way ID Project Description Access ions tion Trail Benefits Slopes Areas Impacts -ship Seller bors Security Design Gallo Ave ext.; North Dakota St to : '< , j...,,,, 28 Suzanne Ct 2 2 1 1 2 1 41 ,..- -,, 1 0 1 1 1 132nd Ave ext.; Marion St to 29 Hollow Ln 2 2 1 1 2 1, ( 1 , . , : r 1 1 tl 4 , 0 1 1 1 74th Ave ext.; „ e 30 Cherry Dr to Fir St 3 1 1 1 2 1 ,/, , 1 1 , c 0 1 1 1 ./,.. 94th Ave ext.; Dakota St to 31 Greenburg St 3 2 1 1 2 1 ' 7 ' ,1 1 1 0 1 1 1 _ , e, , 92nd Ave ext.; Dakota St to 4 • 32 Greenburg St 3 2 1 1 - 2 ' t. 2 i1 ' 1 1 0 1 1 2 , . — 1 c , ;,' . */, :4 !' 4 ' vrA , • 4 1::, , ,e, , 1 .p; ,,,.• '; ':' TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 91 APPENDIX B Table 28. Evaluation of Low - Priority Recommended Trails Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Potential Safety and Security Direct Travel Env. Land Conflicts Path - Project Direct Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Steep Sensitive Habitat Owner- Willing w/ Neigh- Personal way ID Description Access ions tion Trail Benefits Slopes Areas Impacts ship Seller bors Security Design Steve St /21B to 7'.77 ,' 84th Ave y d : 33 Extension 2 1 1 2 2 1 ; 147". 1 3 1 2 1 1 135th Ave to /,,,y .. 34 132nd Ave 3 1 1 2 2 3 i „',�.,,;J.^1 2 2 , NO 3 2 2 Rockingham Dr e , ,i . to Maplecrest Ct 4 35 [construction] 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 NO 3 1 2 Terrace Trails Dr ,- t to Pathfinder 36 Genesis Trail 1 1 1 1 2 e T 1 Y `3 3 2 1 Terrace Trails Dr ` �” to Pathfinder 'a 36 Genesis Trail 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 116th Ave Extension to 4` 37 Katherine St 2 2 1 ' 2 .4 .3 1 ., —�..� 3 3 1 0 3 1 1 77th Ave '" Extension to 39 Spruce St 3 3 1 " '91 ' 2, 1 7 . - .1., 3 1 0 1 1 1 Burnham St to t ,;r 1 , ,; , Commercial ' 40 Parking Lot 1 2 %' '' 3 ' 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Hall Blvd to ' *1 Matthew Park St 41 Extension 2 12 .4 1 2 d4 , 2 , 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 Murdock Rd ext. 109th Ave to f �� a "e` ` 42 99W 1 3 ✓% .%f,1 2,4' 2 3 1 1 1 NO 1 1 1 Schaffer Ln ext.; ., 4 . , Tigard High School to 85th 0 ,t , 43 Ave 1 2 1 ' :4 /2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 92 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EVALUATION MATRIX Table 29. Evaluation of Trails Not Recommended Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Safety and Security Direct Direct Travel Steep Env. Habitat Land Path - Acces Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Slope Sensitive Impact Owner Willing Potential Conflicts Personal way ID Project Description s ions tion Trail Benefits s Areas s -ship Seller w/ Neigh -bors Security Design Lauren Ln Extension "' Y, 44 to stream 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 0 2 2 2 Gaarde St to Field / F , y, 45 (not park) 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 w 46 1-3-0A to Gaarde St 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 -, 3 A, .. 2 2 2 47 ? to Sunrise Ln 2 2 1 1 2 3 .; .3�. 3y 3 1 2 N/A 2 2 -2 -RA to Tigard 48 Boundary 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 4,', , ; % 2 3 1 2 2 2 -2 -RB to ?; .., 49 (construction area) 2 3 3 1 2 * = °� 2= 1 . 1 3 1 2 N/A 2 Greenfield Dr to - ,` -• . "' • 50 Mountain Ridge Ct 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 N/A 2 • Fernridge Terr Extension to y Ridgefield Ln , - yE y," -,F; 51 Extension 1 1 1` 1 ''2 3 w ; 1 3 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Wilmington Ln to " Starview Dr Trail /2- 52 5 -RB 2 1 3 -''' 1 2` 2 "4. 1 0 3 NO 2 N/A 2 2 -5 -RA /Starview / r Trail to Greenfield "' ° 3 53 Dr ,, y `." 1 1 "" ?` 2 ' „z 2 3 1 3 3 NO 2 2 2 Starview Dr `"°' ; ,;�, Extension to Bull , °°° y " Mtn Rd, on Foran °; 4 54 Ter 1 -= rr22 °a,,, 1 4, 2% , 2 2 1 1 3 NO 3 N/A 3 Mtn Highlands " 6,, , It. "`` Trail /3 -1 -OA to ^ T ` 55 128th PI 2 2 0 - -4 '1 2' W 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 2 , j 129th Ave to 3 -1- s ,!� �� ` OA /Mtn Highlands y "` ', = ° y 56 Trail 2 2 2 �4 ff 2 2 3 1 3 1 0 1 2 Unnamed Trail - 57 Quail Creek Ln 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 93 APPENDIX B Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Safety and Security Direct Direct Travel Steep Env. Habitat Land Path- Acces Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Slope Sensitive Impact Owner Willing' Potential Conflicts Personal way ID Project Description s ions tion Trail Benefits s Areas s -ship Seller w/ Neigh -bors Security Design' Unnamed Trail - A-4,, * �. 58 124th Ave 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 ,' /„A,3 a" ,x 3 ,z NO 2 N/A 2 Kelly Ln to r -.„.< t. 59 Plantation Terr 2 2 1 2 2 1 -- ,- 1 3 4 . , 3 N/A 2 u a Field to McFarland ', " J , 60 Blvd 2 2 1 2 2 2 1'':. ' 1 3 ` `? - "r^ 3 N/A 2 Thornwood Trail to F li.- �� 61 Autumn View St 2 2 1 2 2 2 l 1 " " 3 3 2 z� 62 View Terr - 97th Ave 1 2 1 2 2 2 1• " - , 3 NO 3 N/A 2 / 63 Inez St to 97th Ave 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 100th Ave to '1 ', 64 Summerfield Dr 3 2 1 2 2 „, v3 g;„.., 1 , 3 3 N/A 1 Chateau Ln to Dover - 'tn --; -%'. -- 65 Ct 2 1 1 2 2 ,1 x.,1 3 1 0 1 N/A 1 Riverwood Ln to 66 Tualatin River Trail 1 1 3 ''/2 fr 2 1' 2 •j , 3" 1 0 1 N/A 1 Terrace Trails Dr to �c Pathfinder Genesis . r , a .y 67 Trail 2 1 3,?, 1 „ 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 Aspen Ridge Dr to 1 122nd Ave ...,, , .1; 68 Extension 1 1 ',,o• < 1 c2 sa' 2 0 ,✓ 1 1 3 1 3 2 Aspen Ridge Dr to I 69 Aspen Ridge Dr 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Scholls Ferry Rd to Pkng Lot past WA ,ft , "v c', . 70 Square Rd 3 .1 3 ;1 4 2 A 1 1 1 3 NO 3 N/A 2 Scholls Ferry Road " a to Washington 71 Square Rd 3 2 A-- =ya3 1- 2 1 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 4 -1 -RA to 1 a ' Washington Square Rd 3 2 3 ,,F.,,% 1 2 1 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Parking Lot to 121st 73 Ave /Springwood 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 94 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EVALUATION MATRIX Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Safety and Security Direct Direct Travel Steep Env. Habitat Land Path- Acces Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Slope Sensitive Impact Owner Willing Potential Conflicts Personal way ID Project Description s ions tion Trail Benefits s Areas s -ship Seller w/ Neigh -bors Security Design Drive North Dakota , St /Fanno Creek to „.=, £ ,7 74 Fanno Creek 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 r{ . 3 3 `•. , ' 1 2 1 Tigard St to Fanno 75 Creek 2 1 1 1 2 1 / 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 98th Ave to Tigard /''4% 76 St 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 . ,.4‘ 3 NO , 2 N/A 2 Fanno Creek Trail to a , ?, 77 Walnut St 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 "' , 3 3 NO 2 N/A 1 Johnson St e a `5 Extension to;F, . y 78 Johnson St 1 3 1 2 3 a 1 3 3` 3 NO 2 N/A 1 125th Ct to Mary 79 Woodward Elem 1 2 1 2 1 1 % %, 1 , 2 3 1 1 Ventura Ct to ' 80 Ventura Dr 3 1 1 1 „ 2 ;3 1'T 1 i 3 1 3 N/A 2 Stream to Ventura Y” > i 82 Dr 3 2 3 - = 2 ; ;2 2'- - <` 1 3 3 NO 3 1 2 Locust St /75th Ave Extension to 75th 83 Ave 3 3 1 ' "' 2 / /,; t2 • 1 1. 1 1 0 1 N/A 1 84 Ventura Dr to Oak St 2 3 - , 1 ' 2' '- I/" 2 " / z s3 ' ' 1 2 2 1 3 N/A 2 70th PI Extension to y -, F., a 9f,, . .z>% 85 70th Ave Extension 2 .0, ,2 1 1 ;/ 2 2 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Hall Blvd to Steve St 2' . 86 Extension /21A 2 , „'/, ',1 1 42 >. ¢3 14 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 Dartmouth St to ty , 87 Beveland Rd 1 1; ,. 1 2 4; 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 N/A 1 Greens Park Ln Extension to 88th 4 0 88 Ave Extension 2 1 1 Y, `12 2 1 1 1 3 NO 3 N/A 1 Twality Middle ;,„ f. 89 School to Home St 1 2 1 � 2 1 1 1 3 2 N/A 1 Grant Ave Extension 90 - Tigard St to 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 NO 2 N/A 2 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 95 APPENDIX B Neighborhood Trails Utility Constructability Land Acquisition Safety and Security Direct Direct Travel Steep Env. Habitat Land Path - Acces Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Slope Sensitive Impact Owner Willing Potential Conflicts' Personal way ID Project Description s ions tion Trail Benefits s Areas s -ship Seller w/ Neighbors Security Design Commercial St 4 $ , 76th Ave Extension A' i999, �. , . 91 at Onnaf Ct 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4: `1 1 � 3 y NO 2 N/A 1 92 6 -4 -B to 92nd Ave 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 3� "I NO 3 N/A 2 Waverly Dr /85th 4 " ,i ' Ave Ext. to Cook '` '" ". 93 Park Trail /85th 1 2 1 1 2 1 » 1 1_ 1 0 "', zry J-0, 1 N/A 1 Riverwood Ln to r- .', r, i 94 93rd Ave 1 1 1 2 2 2 1- "'x. , 4, 3y 3 NO 3 N/A 2 132nd Ave to „„J„ ;, 95 Gaarde St 2 1 2 1 2' 1 1 ` 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 5 -4 -R /Spruce St to 96 79th Ave 3 3 1 2 2 ,, 1. 1 3 3 2 N/A 1 r J 97 Lola Ln to 70th Ave 3 2 1 2 2 - 3 1 3 3 2 N/A 2 Taylors Ferry Rd to p, 98 Alfred St 3 2 1 2 2 2`" 1' 1.` 1 0 1 2 3 Alpine Crest Way 4 Extension to Bull 99 Mtn Rd 3 3 1 :`-'`" 1 '2 2 4 ' 1 1 1 0 1 3 Beef Bend Rd to e 100 Parking Lot 3 1 1 ` 4j 24 f2..4jiJ' -4 %- 4 3, `x' ' 1 1 3 2 N/A 3 2 -1 -0? Woodshire - -'' / "' 4' Ln? to Greenfield ,. „ :,, 101 Dr 2 "J 1 1.,,. 2 ,2 3 1 3 4 2 N/A 2 Spruce St to 83rd e e,' f , 2y -u 102 Ave Extension 2 2 1 j2, 2 44 1 1 1 3 2 1 Leah Terr to Bull l '4 JJ ,;'1 103 Mountain Road 3 1 „ 2 12 ,o- 2 1 1 1 3 3 N/A 2 69th Ave Extension , .sft, '. 104 to Barbara Ln 3 2 12 2 2 1 2 3 3 N/A 2 105 Pkng Lotto Pkng Lot 3 3 4 ,:'%„,,,,,4., 4 2, 3 1 0 3 1 0 1 N/A 1 Locust St Extension '' -§ , ' 106 to Parking Lot 3 2 1 ., 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 N/A 2 107 Coral St to Locust 5t 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 N/A 1 96 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN EVALUATION MATRIX Neighborhood Trails Utility . Constructability Land Acquisition Safety and Security Direct Direct Travel Steep Env. Habitat Land Path- Acces Connect- Reduc- Demand Env. Slope Sensitive Impact Owner Willing Potential Conflicts Personal way ID Project Description s ions tion Trail Benefits s Areas s -ship Seller . w/ Neigh -bors Security Design Fanno Creek Trail to 4) ", 4 108 Greenburg Rd 2 1 1 2 3 1 0 it 3' ` % 3 "81,.., 2 N/A 2 76th Ave to 74th , -0, „, - ' ' ./.. ate,, `” 109 Ave 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 o.�3 3 .x ,:, 2 2 2 SW Hall Blvd to / e . 110 unnamed st. 2 2 1 1 2 1 „1, il. Y4 ' 1 1 (0 „ 1 N/A 2 Spruce St to 82nd F ': ' - %f 111 Ave Extension 2 2 1 2 2 1 1, 1.- 1 0 2 1 1 Ventura Ct to 112 Ventura Ct 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 `2 3 2 2 Ventura Dr to 65th �' h 113 Ave Extension 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 - g 3 2 NO 2 N/A 2 ` z ,. Vin, *S -9 is within City of Portland right -of -way. The City of Tigard should correspond'with Portla this trail �y % tg'.' , . /,. 9. ,': ' Y/P / fr t Vii: 't r4 y / .'0 AX .i5. 4 . ,-, //. /// f TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 97 Appendix C. Project Prospectus Sheets 106th Avenue to 103rd Avenue, on Murdock Street 1 Summary � r toret. Trail 1 connects both ends of Murdock with short connection t; � to 104th in the middle. There is significant existing demand f _ � ~ "'S4 '' ' _ for this trail. h Location: D5* ° I ! 's h 1 ilt I! Key Benefits • Existing demand trail • Trail on land owned by Tigard Water District • Little out -of- direction travel Key Issues , reduction • No connection to sidewalks or trail _;fie.:: � - -: z • Trail not visible along entire Murdock ends in a T at 103 where Trail begins length Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban, significant demand ' Length: 590' Low Estimate: $19,000 Medium Estimate: $20,000 High Estimate: $34,000 • - Fencing Option: 4' Chain - Link: $4,000 The connection to Murdock near 106"' shows heavy use Wooden Split -Rail: $12,000 * This location corresponds to the grid on Map 2 on page 49. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 98 PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS Gallo Avenue Extension to 113 Avenue /Gallo Path 2 Summary , ; � ►,,� ,,. ��,,�� Trail 2 borders school district land on Tigard land. It shows . ° j,, -` signs of significant use, and is currently graveled. While the " ' trail is along land currently designated as wetland, the trail is already graveled and a boardwalk is likely to be unnecessary. Location: B5 • • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail `"t4'i"ve_Zi,e Key Benefits • Existing demand trail in environmental zone • Trail on City land Key Issues • Trail on designated wetland, but boardwalks are likely unnecessary Gallo Avenue is blocked and a well - trod demand trail passes • Trail in "strictly" limit development the fence habitat area • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion Trail 2 connects to this existing paved trail, and currently has a Design Option: Urban; connects to asphalt trail gravel surface Length: 396' (355' in wetland) Low Estimate: $13,000 Medium $14,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $23,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain - Link: $3,000 Wooden Split -Rail: $8,000 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 99 APPENDIX C Pathfinder Way to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 3 Summary r This trail is an existing maintenance access road that is ., ,r+. V currently used to access the Pathfinder Genesis Trail. There is 1 a dog bag station, indicating substantial existing use. As a , . • gravel- surfaced demand trail located in an environmental - ar ' - • f zone, this trail is a high priority for construction. ..,- Location: C5 !:'- • Existing demand trail in wetland` Key Benefits - ownership; willing seller k it • Key Issues • Little out -of- direction travel reduction • Trail in wetland and environmental zone .,.1 ' • Trail in "strictly" limit development I, habitat area A . • Potential conflicts with neighbors ' c . , .. it P Cost Opinion Natural; connects to existing asphalt trail This trail passes between two houses to access the Pathfinder Design Option: in wetlands, boardwalk not Genesis Trail recommended Length: 132' (30' in wetland) Low Estimate: $7,000 Medium Estimate: $5,000 High Estimate: $2,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $900 Wooden Split -Rail: $3,000 100 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS 116th Place /Fonner Street to Howard Drive Extension 4 Summary This location has a well -trod demand path through an empty lot. The fence across the area currently restricts the g passageway to a three -foot wide corridor. - - Location: C4 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Private ownership; willing owner - • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • Trail does not provide access to popular destinations • No connection to sidewalks or trail Cost O pinion This trail is located on a vacant parcel, where the owner is willing to consider a formal trail Design Option: urban Length: 124' ;. •; • Low Estimate: $4,000 A Medium Estimate: $5,000 - High Estimate: $8,000 Fencing Option: 4i. 4' Chain -Link: $900 i t - Wooden Split -Rail: $2,500 The existing fence restricts the passageway to three feet TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 101 APPENDIX C Apartments to Scholls Ferry Road /Englewood Park Trail SA &B 1 Summary ; a ` Two existing demand trails were identified that provide � , access to residents of a multifamily residential complex. Trail r ' �sf!f ~ 5A is along a rise and provides a route to Scholls Ferry Road around an existing wall. Trail 5B runs along a building and ' connects to the existing asphalt Englewood Park Trail. Both trails show signs of significant use and are muddy due to ► s.*, drainage issues. ` Location: B4 • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of mow.{ Key Benefits , , rc ' �.` trails „ ., � ,- s; • x : • Existing demand trail '. . , - • Trail 5A on public and private land; of e willing seller '# ' �> • Trail 5B on City land, connects to '. .,i ;,'w- w existing asphalt trail . � ' • , • Both trails in flood lain re 1 ' `` � Key Issues p �" - .. - r. • `, .. 0. •,, • Both trails in "strictly" limit "' �� _ development habitat area 1 7 + • Little out -of- direction travel reduction .+ , • Neither trail visible along entire length Trail 5A takes the higher path, connecting the apartments to Cost Opinion Schalk Ferry Road around an existing fence Design Option: Urban; trails connect to 8' asphalt trail ; and bike lane, respectively , 5A Length: 64' 5B Length: 161' • A B Total Low Estimate: $2,000 $28,000 $30,000 Medium Estimate: $3,000 $28,000 $31,000 - e -- High Estimate: $5,000 $33,000 $38,000 i Fencing Option: 4' Chain - Link: $1,500 Trail 58 is the lower path against the apartment complex, and connects to Englewood Park Trail Wooden Split -Rail: $4,500 102 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS 90 Avenue Extension to Inez Street Extension 6 Summary This trail connects two stub roads. It is located in a wooded % .111.. i . . — s area where development is likely to occur in the future. ,: `j t Location: D6 i ' ' r Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular destinations; 11. v • Significant out -of- direction travel •••,...„.. - �.. v reduction . • Existing demand trail Key Issues • Private ownership; could not contact owner • Trail not visible along entire length Cost Opinion This existing demand trail begins at a stub street Design Option: Natural; future development Length: 293' J= .. a' , "'" , • ,. K . 1 Low Estimate: $5,000 ir i, ,� R. Medium $9,000 _ , ' 4 Estimate:" High Estimate: $15,000 ' Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $2,100 Wooden Split - Rail: $5,900 Development is likely to occur in the future on this lot TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 103 APPENDIX C Greenfield Extension: Ridgefield Drive to Chirp Street 7 Summary - Q; , This trail is located in a City -owned right -of -way where road �.. extension is unlikely. l 4 Location: D4 Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail t • • Significant out -of- direction travel ,+ t reduction • Steep slopes - may require stairs Key Issues • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area ` A » • Trail not visible along entire length - Cost Opinion The trail (in pink) connects stump streets through a heavily - Design Option: Natural; habitat concerns and steep wooded area slopes Length: 492' Low Estimate: $8,000 Medium $14,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $24,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $3,400 Wooden Split -Rail: $9,800 104 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS 100 Avenue Extension to Highland Drive 8 Summary This trail passes through the edge of a vacant City -owned lot. A dog bag station indicates that the space is regularly used. : %r "-A'L' There is significant neighborhood support for this trail, and residents have requested a streetlight, which would increase 4 ' • ; 1 the safety of the trail. r '* N' Location: D5 Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail • Significant out -of- direction travel ....ar.,• reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length This trail provides access through a vacant City - owned lot Key Issues • Trail does not provide access to popular destinations • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban aliaLtrit Length: 222' Low Estimate: $7,000 Medium $9,000 ��""..r�* Estimate: _ High Estimate: $14,000 Bollards and a dog bag station are existing amenities at this site Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $1,600 Wooden Split -Rail: $4,400 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 105 APPENDIX C 142 extension to Mistletoe Drive 9 Summary This trail is partially located in a utility corridor, and adjacent to it. Location: C3 .M • Existing demand trail Key Benefits : y . • Significant out -of- direction travel - z t .r reduction • Private ownership; willing seller ; •# 1 • Trail adjacent to steep slopes Key Issues • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit development habitat area Cost Opinion This trail is partially located in a utility corridor Design Option: Natural; steep slope, habitat concerns Length: 333' Low Estimate: $5,000 Medium $10,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $17,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $2,300 Wooden Split -Rail: $6,700 106 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS Coral Street to Locust Street: 92 Avenue /Lincoln Extension 10 Summary This trail connects two sections of the City (across land not -4, ; �. - • t _ within City of Tigard) and provides school access. • Location: A6 Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular destinations • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion This trail crosses a vacant lot Design Option: Paved; existing demand Length: 374' Low Cost Estimate: $12,000 `!' Medium Cost Estimate: $13,000 High Cost Estimate: $22,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $2,600 Wooden Split -Rail: $7,500 The trail could either be paved or remain a natural trail TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 107 APPENDIX C Gaarde Street to Aerie Drive 11 Summary Trail 15 would provide significant reduction in out -of- y '. gt direction travel by bicyclists and pedestrians. It is already a a commonly used demand trail. ' Location: C4 . Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail • Existing demand trail • Significant out -of- direction travel ( ` reduction • Trail on City land Trail 15 would provide a direct route that would save bicycles • Steep slopes may require stairs and pedestrians out -of- direction travel Key Issues • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit -,i' ,g development habitat area j r; • Trail not visible along entire length ' '� -'a #!y1 Cost Opinion v> , Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane y Length: 294'j.% Low Estimate: $9,000 ,i „G Medium $11,000 6' - - Estimate: The route along Trail 15 is a commonly used demand trail High Estimate: $17,000 4 f Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $2,100 r Wooden Split -Rail: $5,900 - iti The trail would provide access to bike lanes on Gaarde St 108 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Fanno Creek Trail/ Scholls Ferry Road to Apartments 12 Summary ,: • _* : ,<�, ; • , A trail with significant existing use, this trail connects both '-- .°- '. a the Fanno Creek Trail and Scholls Ferry Road to an apartment - - complex. ,�:-- t _ Location: AS A Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel r !: reduction • Existing demand trail 4 - ' .p aim -� ,�lY . ' r `.` w"� < • Public and private ownership; willing .,, : K �' { z-- _ - owner ' • Trail visible along entire length `` • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit The trail emerges on the lot of an apartment building at the Key Issues end of a long driveway; this is the best pedestrian access to the development habitat area • Potential conflicts with neighbors bus stop Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane list 1 ' `; Length: 62' ' . Low Estimate: $2,000 r. Medium $3,000 - 3 ' ' Estimate: -- � .04 - .2't - . High Estimate: $5,000 ~.- " Fencing Option: ` ` 4' Chain Link: $400 A r .-. _ 4 4 %, M • Wooden Split -Rail: $1,200 _ -r, - • 4 1' ' . ' s. - . . - s - • ' This trail is a short and muddy connection to Fanno Creek and Scholls Ferry Road TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 109 APPENDIX C Landau Street Extension to 72 Avenue 13 Summary Trail 19 connects stub road to the adjacent street within the • ' ' * -%"• street right -of -way. a Location: A7 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction `t • Existing demand trail == • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • No major issues Cost Opinion Trail 19 is a very popular route, which becomes muddy in Design Option: Urban, significant demand and mud the winter and rainy season. issues Length: 153' Low Estimate: $5,000 Medium $6,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $10,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $1,100 Wooden Split -Rail: $3,100 110 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS 80 Place to Bonita Road 14 Summary Trail 24 connects a cul -de -sac to Bonita Road, providing access to a bus stop, bike lane, and street with sidewalks. This trail currently exists as a graveled path, but would be improved with paving, as it would allow residents to access the bicycle path and sidewalks more easily. Location: D6 w Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail • Significant out -of- direction travel - . - reduction • Existing demand trail 1 411111 • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length This short trail connects a cul - de - sac to Bonita Rd Key Issues • No major issues Cost Opinion ` :..f, f Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane Length: 29' Low Estimate: $2,000w Medium $4,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $4,000 Fencing Option: Consider marking a no parking zone if developing the trail 4' Chain -Link: $200 Wooden Split -Rail: $600 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 111 APPENDIX C 129 Avenue Extension between 128 Avenue and Walnut Street 16 Summary f; 1,5'1 , ./ w. : 1 This trail is the unpaved section of two roads, where a fence " .' blocks the connection. Parking will need to be managed due t —._._ __ �� to a landscaping business at the north end of 129`h. i 7 Location: C4 .• -0009 v,. 'k _■, • Existing demand trail # .01+"x Key Benefits • Slopes less than 10% grade F .... ; "fit.. _ • No environmental concerns • Private ownership; willing seller • , - !.. a- • • Open space only amenity within a ` �"' Key Issues *- , :s . quarter -mile of the trailhead • No connection to sidewalks or trail The north end of 129` is currently used for parking by a • Little out - direction travel neighboring landscaping business • Potential for conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban; connects stump streets Length: 45' �� :, To" - - -- Low Cost Estimate: $100 (maintenance only) - I 1 r ' - -1=1 4 --..* 1,. - - , High Cost Estimate: $4,000 T ~ °" Fencing Option: arm �� , �'� - _. :' 1,., - ''i r +k' r 4' Chain -Link: $300 Pedestrian through - travel is currently possible, but $900 improvements would allow unimpeded pedestrian /bicycle Wooden Split Rail: access 112 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Tigard Street to Fanno Creek Trail 17 Summary This trail has priority for being formalized over other d. F.. potential neighborhood trails to reduce potential for parallel path creation. Trail 17 is a well -worn demand trail through an area designated "strictly limit development" for habitat reasons. The Transportation System Plan update should consider providing a marked crosswalk at this location, given the high usage of this trail. In addition, the TSP should consider prioritizing constructing sidewalks on both sides of Tigard street. Location: B5 The trail connects to Fanno Creek Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail • Existing demand trail is t,, ' % _ • Trail visible along entire length T) " * • r G ',J..; . Issues • Trail in flood plain; boardwalks Ke y N. required • Trail in "strictly" limit development x*'• habitat area • Trail on land owned by public entity; could not contact owner • Cost Opinion Option: Natural; habitat issues and flood plain Length: 117' Low Estimate: $4,000 Medium $5,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $8,000 Looking at Trail 17 from Tigard Street Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $800 Wooden Split -Rail: $2,300 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 113 APPENDIX C • • , , • • . 114 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Ventura Drive to 70 Place 18 Summary � f This trail connects a cul -de -sac with the adjacent road. The slope is high but the trail is already partially built; it may ' require stairs. The neighboring homeowner association is unwilling to allow the trail, so the alignment should avoid their land, whereas the owner of the land Trail 18 is on is willing to allow the trail. Location: A7 • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail'- Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction €' • Trail visible along entire length , t II • Private ownership; willing seller 70 This trail would connect the 70 PI cul - de - sac to Ventura Dr Key Issues • Steep slopes - requires stairs • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit development habitat area • Potential conflicts with neighbors • Trail does not provide access to popular destinations •`' - . fit Cost Opinion Option: Natural; steep slopes, habitat issues • • Length: 165' Low Estimate: $3,000 Medium $6,000 - Estimate: High Estimate: $9,000 Part of the trail is already built but travels on a steep slope Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $1,200 Wooden Split -Rail: $3,300 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 115 APPENDIX C Broadmoor Place to Rockingham Drive 19, 34 Summary , A partially- existing loop, this trail would provide a connection ; between cul -de -sac neighborhoods. Steep slopes and close .„.,,,,. 6,4 proximity to homes present challenges; however, the trail is _ entirely within City -owned right -of -way. The recommended „ i treatment is to stripe this trail to indicate private access, and to pave the northern section. An extension of the trail to 13` � Avenue (designated Trail 34) is proposed for future - consideration. Location: C3 Key Benefits • Significant out travel The west end of Trail 12 follows the left -hand side of this reduction driveway, which is public right -of -way • Sidewalks exist on both ends of trail .. Key Issues • Trail does not provide access to popular destinations 4 • • Potential for conflicts with neighbors • Steep slopes - may require stairs k i.J.. • Trail not visible along entire length Cost Opinion Parts of Trail 12 are already paved; "' 4A Design Option: striping only in these areas - natural surface on unfinished sections _, �? Length: Trail 12 is 612' long and Trail 34 is 333' The existing trail continues past the driveway and turns east; where the trail is paved, striping should be provided to indicate the public trail as separate from the driveway Low Cost Estimate: $4,000 Medium Cost Estimate: $7,000 High Cost Estimate: $12,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $1,600 Wooden Split -Rail: $4,600 The eastern end of the trail connects to Rockingham Drive at a water quality facility Note: Possible future extension of this trail is along Trail 34, which would connect to 135 behind water towers. The cost would range from $18,000 to $51,000 and may require additional safety considerations. 116 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Spruce Street Extension at 80 Avenue 20 Summary � : ,..�,`,sk, ',,, �, sl Trail 20 is located at the blocked dead -end of Spruce Street. 74' r . • . s,,i , An existing demand trail passes through a wooded area and - . -1 , ,,.- ll .' - crosses a stream, leading to 80 Avenue. r 3 . f Location: B7 Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends '" : : of trail • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction - _ • Trail on City land • Existing demand trail The trail is located at the end of Spruce Street, where the street is blocked off • Trail in "strictly" limit development Key Issues : - habitat area { ; • A , , • Trail not visible along entire length „:.' I�� +� • Trail does not provide access to N ` popular destinations • Trail crosses a stream, high cost .,N �• II". _ X a Cost Opinion - _ �i� . - -r A Design Option: Urban, mud issues T Length: 153' Low Estimate: $37,000 r xk 'fro }► T Medium rail 20 is an existing demand trail that shows heavy use $38,000 a Estimate: i High Estimate: $48,000 "_.' 1P e; y ,., i v 1 • Fencing Option: � ' r �; .. • F. ' 4' Chain -Link: $3,000 „ �,i' Wooden Split -Rail: $8,600 , ":s The trail passes through a wooded area and crosses a stream TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 117 APPENDIX C Edgewood Street /Halcyon Terrace Extension to Braydon Court 21 Summary ; ' � Connects streets through a residential property. The trail is K 'i partially along Halcyon Terrace. _ Location: C6 .40' v , *. • Significant out -of- direction travel Key Benefits ` + . reduction ' • Existing demand trail p .;� ' • Trail visible along entire length ` ' , •- ' r . 'i 'v t ` : Key Issues • Trail in "strictly" limit development - habitat area • Private ownership; one of two owners -" is willing to allow trail, other did not _ respond Currently a construction site, Trail 33 would provide significant • Trait does not provide access to travel benefits popular destinations • No connection to sidewalks or trail N I Cost Opinion 1. Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane Length: 109' 1 14 lit Low Estimate: $3,000 Medium $5,000 ° Estimate: High Estimate: $7,000 Fencing Option: This trail provides access through a new development 4' Chain -Link: $800 Wooden Split -Rail: $2.200 118 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Hunsiker Street / 77 Place to 72 Avenue/ Hwy 217 Overpass 22 Summary The trail is a shortcut to a major highway over - passing. No parallel sidewalk facilities exist. Location: C7 Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular. ' �'' ` destinations �► • Little out -of- direction travel reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City and ODOT land • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • Trail adjacent to steep slopes Cost Opinion Trail 22 provides a short-cut to a major highway overcrossing, where no parallel sidewalk facilities exist Design Option: Urban Length: 526' ' 4 Low Estimate: $17,000 Medium $18,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $30,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $3,700 Wooden Split Rail: $10,500 Trail 22 shows signs of regular use TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 119 APPENDIX C 88 Avenue Extension to 88 Avenue Extension /Pinebrook 23 Court Summary Trail 23 connects stub roads through a field. Location: D6 t- • Trail provides access to popular : Key Benefits f , destinations • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction i`. �• • Trail visible along entire length • Existing demand trail Key Issues • Private ownership; could not contact owner Cost Opinion The trail is located at the end of a road and travels through an Design Option: Unclear empty field Length: 386' Low Estimate: $6,000 . R High Estimate: $22,000 = °`4 a r + Fencing Option: ' :`��ff / / // 4' Chain -Link: $2,700 Of/ / Wooden Split -Rail: $7,700 An existing path indicates that there is an existing demand for Trail 23 120 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Mountain Highlands Trail to Mountain Highlands Trail 24 Summary This trail connects a gap in the Mountain Highlands trail. The • . ' southwest section is half -way paved, but is very steep and may require stairs. '' Location: C4 • Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular destinations • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Trail on City land Key Issues • Steep slopes - may require. n stairs One end of the paved portion of the trail connects to sidewalks • Trail not visible along entire length Cost Opinion �� ' � .:, 41` - P' � Design Option: Natural, steep slopes w . Length: 242' �* • Low Estimate: $4,000 Medium Estimate: $7,000 = - .. High Estimate: $12,000 Fencing Option: The paved section of the trail ends at a steep slope 4' Chain -Link: $1,700 Wooden Split -Rail: $4,800 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 121 APPENDIX C Twality Middle School to 92 Avenue 25 Summary This existing gravel trail connects 92nd to Twality Middle School. The community has been doing upkeep on the trail and maintaining the roses. This trail should be considered for maintenance as it currently exists, as it connects to sports fields. : " ; ;-s 4 ^^ �dd Neighbors requested installation of bollards to mediate the - << a 4 ^� �17� problem of children riding bicycles and not stopping to look ~ ,{ ,k before crossing the street. Natural surface is also ,c4 *A41,VOW recommended to reduce speeds. _t;V Location: D6 Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular destinations • Existing demand trail The trail and rosebushes are maintained by the trail's • Trail on City land neighbors • Trail visible along entire length • No connection to sidewalks or trail Key Issues • Children bicycle on trail and fail to . stop in order to safely cross the street` (92nd Avenue) 1� r. Cost Opinion {/�� Natural, maintenance only include i . 4 •+!1 Design Option: bollards • _ _'`" is .. Length: 113' Estimate: $250 maintenance, $900 bollards; $1,150 total Fencing Option: A crosswalk and warning sign help students cross 92 Ave, despite the lack of sidewalks Fencing already exists at this trail site. 122 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS 89 Avenue Extension to 91 Avenue Cul -de -sac 26 Summary This trail connects through a wooded area to a HOA -owned + � . lake. Trail will require HOA support. a .:z • Location: D6 .Ar `-0 . • t . Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular �► destinations rt ; • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail • Significant out -of- direction travel i . ` � lk` v i I I reduction i + ��► 'IL • Trail on City land 4. 1 _ r; „ ■`` • Existing demand trail __. --� • Trail in "strictly" limit development Key Issues The trail passes through a large wooded area, which will likely habitat area • Potential conflicts with neighbors be developed in the future • Trail not visible along entire length • Trail requires HOA support 1. i 2r ::. •• . +� 1 4 Cost Opinion � ' X Natural; habitat issues and likely future .,.; Design Option: , : ,, development _ 4,. 1t Length: 357' . a — i Low Estimate: $6,000 ' Medium "y`; xa, r r,' $10,000 :'1a .� 1/...21e-::: +',. Estimate: Y, The trail ends at a HOA -owned lake and sitting area, which High Estimate: $18,000 trail users would have to pass through Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $2,500 Wooden Split -Rail: $7,100 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 123 APPENDIX C Waverly Drive Extension between 88 and 85" Avenues 27 Summary This potential trail provides access to a school and ' �1 4 neighborhood from the Cook Park Trail. It is located in a City - ` 't tAld 4 ' . owned ri ht -of -wa . 4 )° q g Y where road extension is unlikel Y • • ,�.� � :F ,� "t ' h i p Location: E6 a art �� ., • Significant out-of-direction travel �' 1i p it Key Benefits @ ∎ reduction • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length °- • No connection to sidewalks or trail Key Issues • Trail does not provide access to popular destinations Cost Opinion Trail 27 is currently blocked with a fence Design Option: Unclear Length: 641' Low Estimate: $10,000 (unpaved, no design features) ` . • High Estimate: $36,000 (paved, full design features) Itit e, i• Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $4,500 J >, 1 7 Wooden Split -Rail: $10,000 I The trail would provide access to the school and the neighborhood from the Cook Park Trail 124 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Gallo Avenue Extension; North Dakota Street to Suzanne Court 28 Summary Trail 28 travels along the unimproved Gallo Avenue. The JF natural surfacing recommendation would provide a walking ;�.- path from the end of unimproved Gallo Avenue and would require a break in the fence to provide pedestrian access to - Suzanne Court. Neighbors have expressed concerns regarding -- increased burglaries and lack of privacy. Location: B5 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Trail on City land Key Issues • Potential conflicts with neighbors Trail 28 travels along the unimproved Gallo Avenue, and natural surface recommendations should be considered from Cost Opinion the end of Gallo Ave Natural — from end of unimproved road Design Option: (Gallo Ave) to Suzanne Ct; requires fence '"f» removal and rebuilding `. IA Length: 95' _ _ A.4 Low Estimate: $2,000 Medium $4,000 Estimate: 4 ,. High Estimate: $6,000 *� Y } n r A Fencing Option: A new fence currently blocks access Fencing is not appropriate at this location; cost of rebuilding fence incorporated into cost opinion. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 125 APPENDIX C 132 " Avenue Extension from Marion Street and Hollow Lane 29 Summary This trail is located in a City -owned right -of -way where road extension is unlikely. The stub street is being used as community space; a basketball hoop and a skateboard rail -. are provided. X'l` Location: C4 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length • Existing demand trail • Trail does not provide access to Key Issues popular destinations View of Trail 29 from the north • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion' Design Option: Unclear ,{ Length: 139' s ' Low Estimate: $2,000 (unpaved, no amenities) iii..... .. .-� High Estimate: $9,000 (paved, amenities) " ""`- Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $1,000 The south side of Trail 29 has a basketball hoop and skateboard rail Wooden Split -Rail: $2,800 126 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS 74 Avenue Extension from Cherry Drive to Fir Street 30 Summary This trail is located in a City -owned right -of -way where road • d extension is unlikely. � M�7 .1t .� 4 ` Location: C7 • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail " � at Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel R z reduction l • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • No major issues Cost Opinion Trail 30 is a short connection that significantly reduces out -of- direction travel Design Option: Urban Length: 138' Low Estimate: $4,000 Medium Estimate: $6,000 High Estimate: $9,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $1,000 Wooden Split -Rail: $2,800 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 127 APPENDIX C 94 Avenue Extension from Dakota Street to Greenburg Street 31 Summary This trail is located in a City -owned right -of -way where road J i ^- . extension is unlikely. The existing grassy surface of this trail . ./.. k ' }! becomes slick when wet. 444 ,: {' j' Aft Location: B6 -,.� + 4 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel --.. reduction • Existing demand trail w ' - .:". - z- - • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length -� ;: ° e • Trail does not provide access to �` Key Issues , popular destinations • Potential conflicts with neighbors • A trailer is parked on- street somewhat impeding access to the This trail is a well -used demand trail; the grassy slope becomes trail slippery during the rainy season Cost Opinion Design Option: Paved ' .x„ , - �, v '; : Length: 234' '", Low Estimate: $8,000 !ry - NM c- Medium Estimate: $9,000 High Estimate: $14,000 , Fencing Option: The trail ends where this trailer is regularly parked in the 4' Chain -Link: $1,600 driveway Wooden Split -Rail: $4,700 128 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS 92 Avenue Extension from Dakota Street to Greenburg Street 32 Summary This trail is located in a City -owned right -of -way where road extension is unlikely. A steep set of stairs has been benched into the slope, and a small bridge provides access over a drainage ditch. Location: B6 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length The existing stairs and bridge at Trail 32 • Steep slopes — requires stairs Key Issues • Drainage issues Cost Opinion " .',.• Design Option: Natural; stairs required Length: 128' Low Estimate: $2,000 • • Medium $5,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $7,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $900 Wooden Split -Rail: $2,600 This trail is clearly visible along its entire length TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 129 APPENDIX C Steve Street /Hall Boulevard to 84 Avenue Extension 33 Summary Japanese Baptist Church owns part of the land where this trail is located. The church is "willing to consider" allowing ,; ; use of their property for trail purposes. The trail connects �• > c ; two stub roads. Location: B6 - "' • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail `" <x Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Private ownership; willing seller Key Issues • Trail not visible along entire length Cost Opinion Trail 21 is located on land owned by the Japanese Baptist Church Design Option: Urban; connects stump streets, bike lane Length: 431' Low Estimate: $14,000 Medium ., w4. Estimate: $15,000 t High Estimate: $25,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $3,000 Wooden Split -Rail: $8,600 Part of the trail is along an unpaved road 130 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Rockingham Drive to Maplecrest Court 35 Summary This trail travels from the south end of SW Rockingham Drive to a road in a new development west of SW Greenfield Dr and north of SW Clearview Way. Location: C4 Ar' A Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail \ � „ ++� ' • Trail visible along entire length • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction Key Issues • Steep slopes - natural surface • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area • Private ownership; unwilling seller Each end of Trail 35 connects to a dead - end road with • Potential conflicts with neighbors sidewalks Cost Opinion Natural; slope and habitat concerns, t1 Design Option: , �•, sensitive to stream crossing. Length: 349' POSTE • Low Estimate: $29,000 Medium Estimate: $33,000 High Estimate: $40,000 Fencing Option: The property where Trail 35 would be located is privately 4' Chain -Link: $2,400 owned Wooden Split -Rail: $7,000 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 131 APPENDIX C Terrace Trails Drive to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 36A &B Summary There are two potential options for this connection to the 4 , 11. r 4 ~ 4 ` Pathfinder Genesis Trail. No demand was observed during + 4 � field evaluations. Both of these trails have significant conflicts with neighbors. Trail 36B is recommended due to cost "'` considerations; Trail 36A crosses a stream and is therefore a > ' ,, ' considerably more expensive project. / ..* Location: C4 _ J O - • - , ' .4-4,,,s `�� • Trail provides access to popular _ ._f Key Benefits destinations c ;,..-• t� _ .« x _ - r i 4. • !W • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail � - r r ; 4 I ? '�:' ; fi `r, * • Significant out -of- direction travel ,, sy, ,• Rr 4 reduction • Existing demand trail The alignment along 36A passes through a heavily treed area Key Issues • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area ' '+ , NI , . 4.. . ' , • Trail on land owned by corporate * ,1� -, .e owner without address > r '' + s • Trail 36A crosses a stream .,''- Cost Opinion ,,. s ' • • J Natural; connects to earthen trail, ti, "4 Design Option: iD , habitat =,,,,, . L , M 36A Length: 253' 36B Length: 198' 36A 36B Low Estimate: $27,000 $3,000 Either 36A or 368 would connect to the Pathfinder Genesis Trail Medium Estimate: $31,000 $6,000 High Estimate: $36,000 $10,000 Fencing Option: 36A 36B 4' Chain -Link: $1,800 $1,400 Wooden Split -Rail: $5,000 $4,000 132 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS 116 Avenue Extension to Katherine Street 37 Summary • • 't i ,1' e, 7111, Trail 37 crosses Summer Creek, an approximately eight -foot 7 f r ... wide stream, and would connect two neighborhoods. The F. ' i - land has been recently cleared by the City for restoration, and a drainage ditch runs along the prospective trail location. • Neighbors to the trail have expressed concerns about the e environmental impacts of a trail, as well as reduced privacy. - Location: B4 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length • Trail in wetland Key Issues • Trail in " "strictly "" limit development habitat area • Potential conflicts with neighbors Trail 37 would require a bridge over Summer Creek Cost Opinion Natural; habitat and environment issues Design Option: — boardwalk and bridge needed Length: 387' (240' in wetland) �rt Low Estimate: $398,000 Medium Estimate: ` $400,000 '* * — High Estimate: $403,000 = The land has been recently cleared for restoration, and a Fencing Option: drainage ditch constructed 4' Chain -Link: $2,700 Wooden Split -Rail: $7,700 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 133 i APPENDIX C 77 Avenue Extension to Spruce Street 39 Summary The trail is within the City planning area although one end of I i , . ' �'. 0 �j the trail is outside of the City. , ,. - tr ,. Location: B7 > .,; •b ,. '' 1 j ,, y m •` -. • Significant out -of- direction travel Key Benefits .- r. reduction , " • Existing demand trail - y , t1 J S • Trail on City land a 11 4� i l VW. lit • Trail visible along entire length t- Key Issues • • No connection to sidewalks or trail • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area • Trail does not provide access to Trail39 is a well - used demand trail popular destinations Cost Opinion 1„'..,,,- Design Option: Natural; habitat issues , 41. 4 F ' , tp� Amy , t , ; ; "pg fi k �,. 4.. +Or.. ' , - Length: 150' Air ,' :,�# ' aid 1 % m stt : Low Estimate: $26,000 - — 9 ;11,1'0 Medium :, t , 1 Ail kW • , Estimate: $28,000 High Estimate: $31,000 Fencing Option: This trail provides significant travel benefits 4' Chain -Link: $1,100 Wooden Split -Rail: $3,000 134 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Burnham Street to Commercial Parking Lot 40 Summary • Trail 40 travels into commercial property; through a parking 4 4 ° ,. lot to reach the railroad station. This lot will developed as an 1/4 Urban Renewal Area (URA) by the City in the future."`` Location: C6 �_• r Key Benefits • Trail provides access to popular destinations • Existing demand trail • Trail located on City -owned land Key Issues • Little out -of- direction travel reduction Trail 40 shows signs of significant use - Cost Opinion % e • Design Option: Natural; likely future development` , l 1 ' . Length: 132' 4 .000 Low Estimate: $2,000 Medium $5,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $7,000 The Trail is located near City Hall and Main Street, and will Fencing Option: likely be developed as an Urban Renewal Area 4' Chain -Link: $900 r Wooden Split -Rail: $2,600 1 .a_sr; .. The Trail ends at a commercial parking lot TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 135 APPENDIX C Hall Boulevard to Matthew Park Street Extension 41 Summary: This trail could connect to 83rd, from the cul -de -sac to Hall '` '� Boulevard. This land is likely to be developed in the future, which will create the connection. Location: D6 f Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel • reduction • Private ownership; willing seller ., r • Trail visible along entire length' • Potential conflicts with neighbors ,. Key Issues Cost Opinion Trail 41 passes through a field Design Option: Natural; future development Length: 591' Low Estimate: $10,000 r Medium $16,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $28,000 47 Fencing Option: 4' Chain -Link: $4,100 Wooden Split Rail: $11,800 This trail provides significant travel benefits 136 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN SHORT -TERM PROJECT SHEETS Murdock Road extension: 109 Avenue to 99 -W 42 Summary • • Trail 42 connects both ends of Murdock with a short 111 connection to 104th Avenue in the middle. The trail crosses .]n 4' private land where the owner is unwilling to allow the trail. The land is likely to be developed in the future, and a previous development approval had been conditional upon " . ' construction of Trail 42. Location: DS Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel reduction • Trail provides access to popular destinations • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length Trail 41 provides a connection from Murdock Road to 99 - W Key Issues • No connection to sidewalks or trail • Steep slopes ,, ° - Cost Opinion x - IN Design Option: Natural; future development Length: 439' Low Estimate: $7,000 Medium $18,000 Estimate:` High Estimate: $36,000 The Trail crosses privately -owned land, which is likely to be Fencing Option: developed in the future 4' Chain -Link: $4,100 Wooden Split -Rail: $11,800 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 137 APPENDIX C Schaffer Lane extension; Tigard High School to 85 Avenue 43 Summary Trail 43 is located on land owned by the School District. This trail is a safer walking route to the sports fields. Location: E6 Key Benefits • Significant out -of- direction travel ikir 1,i 4 �� reduction ' • Trail visible along entire length • Trail on land owned by School District Key Issues • No significant issues Cost Opinion Design Option: Unclear Trail is adjacent to the sports fields and provides access to school. Length: 602' Low Estimate: $10,000 High Estimate: $84,181 PP 41 0 t h Fencing Option: ` • .� u ;• 4' Chain -Link: $4,200 Wooden Split -Rail: $34,000 The trail is located on an empty area that would benefit from a formalized route to school. 138 TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN / /-ern Afc -, . 3 e „ ,,° 7g'in '6 /1 6 Oq r • • d ,„H' 1 ...,. . , . .., ..,..., _.., ,....., .,,, ..,,...._.-,', 10 r Tigc...,..:,.. , - ,-. - .. .. .....„ l' '..; 1 , ' ,,,,,,,,,- ': „,. ,,, ....,.:. e - „,,,, , i . ,,,,I..;,:,..,',:, ,p).”. 'ic,',2;.,-,.'.7,,,,,,-'„,,,,,..,:•..-.. sb, H , - 1' ...,.. , .14 1 `. " , P. • ' " - :, .1 ,' . 44 A * - ' 1 .'• *.- ; ';' ' ..1-: 'Tra , - , '''',. -'"•,' N. ,, ,_ .. .,. A P 6th , ) , * - „I , ..,i,.•.., IF", % . --,; ,,,,.,—,,,,,t4,.;,,z;,!,, , . , ;' ,, t''' ' ' - 't ' ' 1 , ", '4144 J une /, / 2009 ,., . " f :- i,::_74 . 1 * 4. -. ,. ' ' .. -_, ...- 1 r.. -..-_-7*, . . ,,* ir , - 1, 4,t-, '4:41 , . . *. ..• „ 4 : I;„ 1 I - 44.6.4 -1,1;; . 4C, ;,,:f•-• ipt,6-0441, 1-;:*„7, , # li 46.,- ,-'--• - .4 -- ,I.Z" 4 . , . .. , . . , . . ,.. . .. . . , . . 1 4,, ' 1 111. , - , , •,,,,, , ; ' ..'' - .4 4.#4,-,- t,„ . i,,,,, -... 4 ....;1 wol,,, ' 14$ .- 'ar.,-7, . - - Olie ' - 'n''.,!'''''''' '-' Ill iNig4-4 '',.t,"..r..,04.,i...1,10,1,.itl'..' ,, • ''' ' „_ • r,,'$''','4,i,-z,:i:14,,,-.,,,f1',;,,,',.:',:-;':‘,',”: ,,,,,'i44' '' ''''' , ,__ ,.. ...,-- --; .7, . r .... IN . 7r ,,,.. ..„„..,„ °reg.. ,, DePartment ...., Transportation R , 1 T 1 C A 0 of Transp alta IN clATEs, r.111W . ITTEL s 0 N , M _ . . d / p L A N N N a I R 0 N t N G ' NEC " IV NryilvG + DE5113 ATIO . ' ,poRT & A S_ 0 S_ - . TRAN' . , , III is P roject Vision Develop network of off - street neighborhood trails to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit Promote livability and sustainability by increasing pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood parks, schools, employment, and shopping destinations » Contribute to healthier lifestyles and improved air quality Project overview t .��_w, ,:.., a., A.....A .»w. r . �.,,M,r� , , „.aw w� ✓TM�tw.., . si........, & u. x„.,? a.. ,. ,�. .. ... ,.x. .. , ,...u..... ,�..�. ,. ,..€.�...«»'... aid - 'm...,..�, -m ,..... �... ....,., w x <ss. ..,�,.......f.. ,.�.. b;. ., M .,.�.�.. ,. ...+�.,.�.. v..d.�t,..,.:,_., er�f�"� z„K»a: ea ,.�....., «b. ��E+s vs�..,., , a , n a . ra t wse�.. . a w~;..' 7�` Seek opportunities for short connections (Neighborhood Trails): — Stub streets — Existing demand paths — Connections between cul -de -sacs — And more... Worked closely with a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) throughout project SAC comprised of: — Tigard residents — Oregon DOT representatives — Washington County Bicycle Transportation Coalition — Tigard - Tualatin School District Process i Over 110 potential trail sites were identified through a multi - pronged approach Progress Downs ' ,v �,� Gar course Jr .J � _ City staff - SAC �� y I � GW Poren Ln J . - J er Rd l � C Project 1 bslte r en House r"""'"""' Comer v Greet shortcut rxl S Staff evaluated benefits y 5; -. Pon Dick ens o n and drawbacks of each site . Met :7:1.r yPerk w MP :pe .- — Property owner survey to i r = - assess willingness to sell ., & ' �i =;� - Used evaluation matrix with ._ Lir L .. _e Greenburg — 4 Q I 13 criteria to determine benefits 2, — GIS analysis for all sites Li 1 r ,t' Far est Field visits conducted , 1 of most promising sites Prepared design toolbox to guide design Provides wide range of options to meet local context Results 2 Total of 43 recommended trail locations — Prioritized into 3 tiers (High -, Medium -, and Low - Priority) — Average trail 300 feet in length Planning level cost estimates for each trail — High, medium, and low estimates Total Estimated Costs High- Priority Medium - Priority Low - Priority #of Trails 15 18 10 Total Cost $100k - $215k $151k - $384k $830 - $941k* * 2 trails cornprise over 8o% of cost s .. F s Recommended Trail Map 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 1 / ( , ,, _,/' I . 1 • 0 --.....\ t ) t re) 4. e s dariA i, _ .....„/ sww. aOr _ ,,..., ir .. III■-, 1 4 .„-- MI 1 � � -' . ,, „ yi :, / ( I _ ).._.__, s'.11 \ ' IV 1n , I .. il I' 7 Ink ---...dr . 0 v r o _....._- . ,i. Aihei.„ - ' _ i . : , (\ i l / w ..... PI IIIIIPP 'Tk E s, ti • ethborhood Trail ' t,+- rMnrtr -mu - Nom Mottl -Use Mow' Elks i was n ' M h T� IN 4::,.. T H -f$1nf III" l Tigard Nei�gb:. .1 - r: IIII • - :. F ..1 • Mt RpcTix1 4+winx xflb -135.P Unp;7.wA -DV C!y 8..1. n w i - - MedlFn fl1 yr T1"41 • Araany 14" 14" I Recommended Trap i Ell Scrum! Firmly --- 1'PrkS'tnall- I-Xth1, ININwPA Trail IMMMI=IMIIIIIMI Wales purview Mal' 1 ci_ Trgo s P an )1cDcornant Maps of proposed trails Single page summary for each trail location - C ost estimate Spruce Street Extension at 80 Avenue 20 — Recommended tra surface Summary *, �� Trail 20 is located at the blocked dead -end of Spruce Street •&s" t `, g � , - Benefits 4n existing demand trail parses through a wooded area anE C * de i crosses a stream, leading to 80 Avenue. r , �� ; �yy` 1 L e, s t " N Location: 37 � ,� r ,'. { �� "' "� , — Implementation Key Benefits entation challenges • Sidewalks or trail on both ends Fi - t of trail 144 r Design Toolbox • r ed u c t io n Out- oi- dirac[inn travel _ retlu ▪ Trail on City land • Existing demand trail t - - me trail i s locatedorthe end ofS,,i ir streer, where the street Implementation considerations U'' . frail in'striRly" limit development s DOCked o' ' i l habitat :red �— r +� ��r,7�+� j � i Key Izz ,rail not visible along emir i n g th �� , 49 ' i t s 4 ' , ,f 'o .� + y Trail does rot provide aces o i=y' ~i d • ; _ . ,�.__ : zr 4 .0 : popular destinations a — Code changes r. i ." •.t•� Trail crosses stream high cost �� :. Cost Opinion J•!3 . r 'I — Fund opportun ' V4 21-7'. . 9 4 1 W il l 4 D ez Design O p ti on : U rban „. issues Action items LenSh 1 3' r '� `• _ s, _i . Low Estimate :' X537.000 ' t''- ' " . M1- . s... I Medium',, { mil20is or. existing drmand trail Shot shows heavy use Estimate: f X38,000 . , .. V ik Ct :'- • i •'3, High Estimate: l 588 fl„ _�*E+s' �" • Fencing Option: 1. L - t�s �� 4' r , 4' Ct.in.k: 58,000' y t 3 �t(� $� $ t o ' w P:oocen Split -Rail: 58,600 q '' a7 , The trail passes through a wooded area and crosses a stream r Agenda Item # Meeting Date June 16, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Joint Meeting with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to Discuss the Draft Park System Master Plan Update Prepared By Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: CityMgr Approval: � (lI2/ CJ1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Council is being asked to participate in a discussion with the PRAB and provide input on the draft Park System Master Plan Update. The Council will be asked to approve the Park System Master Plan at an upcoming meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Park System Master Plan update will provide an analysis of current park, open space, and recreation opportunities in Tigard and recommendations for the future. These recommendations are important guidelines for future fiscal planning. In October 2008 the Council completed an update of the Comprehensive Plan including a section on parks, trails, and open space. The updated Park System Master Plan supports the Comprehensive Plan. In 2008 an update of the Park ]ystem Master Plan was begun. To gauge the community's opinions on needed parks, trails and open space, the following has been conducted: • A formal scientific telephone survey. • A questionnaire was offered to the general public. • A community questionnaire was offered at the City's Balloon Festival booth. • Informal meetings were held with recreation group providers and individual stakeholders. • A public visioning workshop was held September 8, 2008 with the PRAB. • MIG, the consultant working with staff on the Park System Master Plan, compiled the results of the public input. • The PRAB held a January 26, 2009 meeting on the Park System Master Plan. • The PRAB meeting on May 18, 2009 discussed the planning framework and the recommendations of the Park System Master Plan. • Two technical advisory group meetings were held to compile the existing facilities, maintenance and staffing requirements. • Staff kept the public informed of the Park System Master Plan process by updating information on the City's web page. • Staff kept the public informed of the Park System Master Plan process by updating information on the City's web page. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal 3. Prepare for 2010 Bond Measure for Parks, Open Spaces and Trails a. Complete Parks Master Plan Council 5 Year Goals: Implement Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Draft City of Tigard Park System Master Plan Update FISCAL NOTES There are no costs associated with the adoption of the Park System Master Plan; however, the plan does provide cost estimates for implementation. Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD PARKS DEPARTMENT • , .1 t" . jid • I - - I till) ■ 1 ;*: .... , .. . ; ','. • ; , , r ,.., i. .• 41 i ' 1 11141 .. • • A ., . ,A.1 - . a . • ' ' • , „ f ' 4 . , '- ) I' • s. i -. *,, * 6 • tr , . - ii• 1111111A /, d' . .. '.... 0, ;.: .;", .:`„,•., ' t ■ • 7 , • - ir 0. .* :...• ..,...*,.- `;e',7,- - ,.. ; -. , ,• , . ' ;If : '" '.1" 'A '.,z . ',. . ' -..; - - , 1 „. ...,- .i... % ." . *• :1 ‘ /,. '' c $'' ' I . ' . , ' ' .4,', ,,,A 0 • 1 .. .. , •,,,, - - . -. :., ....p .,•-,°;',..,,- '+' . • ",, . , r- ','-'-' ' ' ' '' # •• • • t y ' '' • ....tt,'...V ' V 3 • :',,a- •,' .?: .f.' ' ,- [ " . ,_--,,-.-•-- \-7,....--- '-- ,,,,-. i 4,- •:- r• .•,,,,,,..z • 1 fi all• PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN MAY 2009 DRAFT • .1 . TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD PARKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE May 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the many citizens, staff, and community groups who provided extensive input for the development of this Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update. The project was a true community effort, anticipating that this plan will meet the needs and desires of all residents of our city. CITY COUNCIL Craig Dirksen, Mayor Nick Wilson, Council President Gretchen Buehner Marland Henderson Sydney Webb PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Jason Rogers, Chair Scott Bernhard Troy Mears Brian Davies Holly Polivka Kim Leinberger Trisha Swanson CITY STAFF Craig Prosser, City Manager Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director Steve Martin, Parks and Facilities Manager Daniel Plaza, Parks and Facilities Manager (Retired) Duane Roberts, Staff Planner C ONSULTANT M I G MIG, Inc. 815 SW 2 Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97204 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 WHY ARE WE UPDATING? MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROCESS COMMUNITY PROFILE II. PARK SYSTEM TODAY 7 PARKLAND RECREATION FACILITIES TRAILS RECREATION PROGRAMMING III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 25 METHODS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IV. NEEDS ANALYSIS 29 PARKLAND NEEDS RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS TRAILS RECREATION PROGRAMMING NEEDS V. PLANNING FRAMEWORK 45 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GOALS VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 51 PARKLAND RECREATION FACILITIES TRAILS RECREATION PROGRAMMING VII.IMPLEMENTATION 77 NON - CAPITAL PROJECTS CAPITAL PROJECTS PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROJECT FUNDING BIBLIOGRAPHY MAPS Map 1: Existing Facilities Map 2: Access Analysis Map 3: Park Concept LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Planning Process LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Tigard Parks Inventory Table 2.2: Tigard School District Inventory Table 2.3: Recreation Services supported by the City of Tigard Table 4.1: Summary of Parkland Needs Table 4.2: Summary of Recreation Facilities Needs Table 7.1: Priority I Projects Table 7.2: Summary of Projected Existing Funding Sources APPENDICES Appendix A: Park and School Facility Inventory Appendix B: Design Guidelines Appendix C: Project List Appendix D: Funding Sources _ I TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE I. INTRODUCTION i N7 t . Yom • y In June 2008, the City of Tigard began updating the community's Park ,'w` ' �'` 'q s 2 $i System Master Plan, the document that guides park, recreation and trail ` ' 3 E r ,k" I!, i ' development in the City. Much has changed in Tigard over the ten years t 11 ,� :,,,:A : , : 4 ri � � since the past Park System Master Plan was adopted in 1999. The update ?' � -5 *'' r''!� l of the Park System Master Plan provides an opportunity to check in with � - vNWe� , _ ,9 J ., the community and make sure that the projects and priorities for parks 8 i'PE1ka,�4r NI 0.y, ? � and recreation match the current needs of residents. In addition to the prior system master plan, the planning process builds on the community priorities, goals and policies developed during the recent update to the Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan. ACHIEVEMENTS SINCE 1 99 Tigard can be proud of its achievements since the adoption of the 1999 Plan. Parkland acquisition has been a focus over the years with park property in various stages of planning and development. These achievements include the implementation of the Cook Park Master Plan and development of the Northview and Bonita Parks; expansion of the Fanno Creek Regional Trail system and many local trails; addition of Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park; and the addition of three off -leash dog parks, including Potso, Ash Street and Summerlake Dog Park. In addition to the acquisition of land mentioned above, land has been acquired for neighborhood parks and trail segments, including Fanno Park, Bonita Park, Jack Park and portions of Fanno Creek Trail. Other significant accomplishments include adding new and improving the condition of sports fields and building a pedestrian bridge across Tualatin River. Many of the projects were completed in partnership with other agencies. COMMUNITY PROFILE Tigard has experienced a high level of growth since the 1999 Parks Plan. This translated into steady development throughout the city with much of ' it focused on the west side. With an emphasis on downtown redevelopment, the downtown plan encourages a vital, vibrant, mixed -use and pedestrian- friendly environment. Businesses continued to thrive in Tigard, attracting a large workforce from outside the city limits. The CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE current economic conditions may change this pattern of development and employment, but may only require the City to be innovative in its approach to growth. DEMOGRAHICS The 2007 official population for Tigard was 46,715 with the highest r 77 percentages of residents in the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups. Families f .1'.�11 account for two- thirds of Tigard households, with one third having children under 18.c ='» Tigard's income distribution indicates that it is predominantly a middle class city, with concentrations in the middle range of the income I{ t spectrum. With 70% of the workforce working outside of Tigard, and a higher number of jobs than employable workers, thousands of workers commute to Tigard for employment. The majority of Tigard residents identify themselves as white (85.4 %). Asians make up about 6% of the population in the City of Tigard and approximately 9% of Tigard citizens identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, slightly lower than the rest of Washington County. The majority of new development has occurred in the City's west quadrant in previously undeveloped areas. Residential development also occurred on larger vacant parcels in the southern quadrant. Infill development has occurred throughout the City. Tigard maintains a buildable lands inventory (BLI) that tracks available residential land. The 2006 BLI identified approximately 600 acres of undeveloped land available for development. These 600 acres of buildable land represents approximately 8% of the nearly 7,500 acres of land within Tigard's city limits. DOWNTOWN Downtown Tigard is designated as a Station Community in the 2040 Regional Growth Concept, indicating its location along the Westside Commuter Rail corridor. This designation indicates the intention to increase density and promote the downtown as an important center of the community. This intention is also emphasized in the recently completed Downtown Improvement Plan. The downtown plan lays out a blueprint for a vital, vibrant, mixed -use and pedestrian - friendly environment. Included in the features that will make Tigard's downtown unique are a central plaza to increase community identity and the integration of 2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE environmental features into multi -modal transportation and pedestrian - friendly streets. EMPLOYMENT AREAS vorip Tigard has recognized that parks are just as significant in commercial and industrial areas as in residential areas. However, the recreation needs of workers are different from the needs of residents. Local residents need neighborhood parks to support their leisure activities, such as playing catch, walking he dog, playing with kids, picnicking and walkin ' ^ Y, , . � • ... �,.'rt'� � g g P n g P g g• Employees may live in Tigard or may travel to Tigard only for their job. While employees are working, they may have time available for exercise, ..,, picnicking and enjoying the outdoors. Walking paths provide places to exercise, as do basketball courts, tennis courts, disc golf courses and other sports facilities that support pick -up games. Benches, picnic areas and similar facilities provide healthy opportunities to relax and socialize during lunch and work breaks. Organized sports leagues and facilities provide opportunities for team building, as well as socializing and exercise. These activities help employees become more effective and productive; they also make Tigard a more attractive place for employers. In 2000, Tigard developed and adopted innovative code changes to authorize recreational uses within industrial zoning districts. The code changes allow industrial floodplain to be used for outdoor recreation, provided the recreational use does not preclude development of the upland portion of an industrial property. The amendments also allow conditional use of industrial upland for recreation. Buildable industrial land developed for outdoor recreational use is not removed from the City's industrial land inventory, but continues to be available for conversion to industrial use. The new flexibility enabled the City to locate a suitable site for Potso Dog Park in an industrial area. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 3 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS The planning process for the Park System Master Plan update was organized into four phases, as depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1.1: Planning Process WHERE O HOW f DO ° a WHERE ARE WE NOW? WE WANT '. A WE GET - ADOPTION TO BE? THERE? e' Identify existing Identify needs Assess options Adopt the Master resources & goals & develop Plan recommendations Phase I: Where Are We Now? Phase I reviewed the planning context, the inventory of parks and facilities, and an evaluation of assets. This phase included a brief demographic profile, review of land use and development patterns, and a synopsis of relevant previously completed planning studies. This phase also included introductory workshops with the park commission to identify key issues for the Plan. Phase II: Where Do We Want to Be? Phase II involved significant outreach to the community through a series of public involvement efforts. Through these forums, community members identified major park and recreation needs and priorities, as well as a vision for the future. In addition to the qualitative community input, the planning team conducted technical analysis of the park system, facilities and trails; as well as an analysis of recreation programs. Phase III: How Do We Get There? Based on the findings of the first two phases, the planning team developed recommendations to help the community realize its vision for the parks system. These recommendations address parks and facilities, trails, recreation programs and natural areas. Phase IV: Adoption: In Phase IV, the Park System Master Plan underwent a public review process, where the plan was presented to staff, parks and recreation advisory board, residents and the City Council for refinement and adoption. 4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE PLAN ORGANIZATION The Tigard Park System Master Plan is organized as seven chapters and two appendices. These include: • Chapter 1: Introduction describes the purpose of the Plan, the planning context and area, the planning process, public involvement in Plan development and the organization of this document. • Chapter 2: The Park System Today defines the City's classification system for park land and summarizes the current inventory and availability of parks, recreation facilities and programs in Tigard. • Chapter 3: Public Involvement describes the public involvement process and presents key findings from the public involvement process. • Chapter 4: Needs Analysis summarizes the community needs for parkland, recreation facilities, trails and programs. • Chapter 5: Planning Framework describes the vision, goals and objectives for parks, open space and recreation services. • Chapter 6: Recommendations describes strategies for enhancing the park system in Tigard, which include new parks, existing and planned sites, recreation facilities, natural areas, trails and recreation programming. The chapter includes specific recommendations for developing the proposed system. • Chapter 7: Implementation explains strategies for the City to pursue to achieve the recommended improvements to the park system, including prioritizing both capital and non - capital projects. A funding package, targeted to include adequate resources to complete all of the highest priority projects is also included. The appendices to this Plan include the following: • Appendix A: Park Inventory presents the inventory of current parkland in Tigard, along with a summary of recreation facilities. • Appendix B: Design Guidelines presents guidelines for the design and development of future parks and facilities within Tigard. • Appendix C: Funding Options details the potential funding sources Tigard could use to implement capital and non - capital projects, as well as fund ongoing operations of the park system. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 5 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Available under a separate cover from Tigard Parks and Recreation are: • Recreation Survey Report includes the complete report from the city -wide recreation survey conducted in Tigard between June and July 2008. • Community Questionnaire Summary includes the key findings from the Tigard Park and Recreation Questionnaire online and in paper form. • Recreation Needs Assessment Report presents the entire Needs Assessment report, which establishes in quantifiable terms the community's need for parkland and recreation facilities in Tigard. 6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 11. THE PARK SYSTEM TODAY Tigard residents are served by a variety of parks that provide a diverse PPIPPPMParray of recreation opportunities. This chapter identifies the City's park and recreation resources and describes the park classification system used to categorize and analyze specific park sites. It includes an overview of the inventory of City -owned park sites, along with an inventory of specific recreation facilities within the planning area. PARK CLASSIFICATION A strong park system is made up of different types of parks, recreation facilities and open space areas —each designed to provide a specific type of recreation experience. Separately, a specific type of park may only serve one function, but collectively the entire system will meet the needs of a diverse community by providing a wide variety of opportunities for leisure. The point of classifying parks by their function is to identify what types of opportunities are being provided in Tigard and what needs are being met. By classifying parks by their function, a community can plan for and evaluate recreation needs more easily, providing a more efficient and usable park system that minimizes conflicts between park users. This plan refers to seven classifications of park land, based on the definitions provided in the Comprehensive Plan. These classifications are: • Community parks; • Neighborhood parks; • Pocket parks; • Linear parks; • Special use areas; • Open space; and • Undeveloped parkland. Undeveloped parkland is differentiated by the intention to develop this land into another park category. This category recognizes city ownership of the property, but avoids overstating the developed park acreages. CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 7 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table 2.1: Tigard Parks Inventory PARK. ACREAGE COMMUNITY,:PARKS .... Cook Park 74.8 Summerlake Park 29.8 NEIGIp1BORMOOD, PARKS .< }., '•, ; Bonita Park 7.7 Elizabeth Price Park 2.7 Jack Park 8.0 Northview Park 3.5 Woodard Park 14.0 Liberty Park 0.5 Main Street Park 0.3 LINEAR P''RKS '' x Commercial Park .8 Englewood Park 15.1 Fanno Creek 31.5 SPECIAL USE; AREAS = ; Ash Street Dog Park .2 Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park - Potso Dog Park 2.0 Tigard House 0.4 Windmill Park 0.1 OPEN , ;SPAGE Various parcels 190.1 UNDEVELOPED, PARKLAND Cach Community Park 21.2 East Butte Heritage Park 3.4 Fowler Park 48.2 Jack Park Extension (TVFR) 1.9 Schaltz House (Fanno Creek House) 1.6 Senn Park 4.5 TOTAL — - - - 462.2 Map 1, on the following page, shows the locations of the existing parks and facilities in the City of Tigard. A detailed account of parks and recreation facilities is provided in Appendix A. 8 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY i 9ftacrcuAN -i L ,.- . —. -.�! \ iAU01{ /,,EFftv Tigard Park - ULTNOMAH I COUNTY System Master ' r _ f TIGAU. Plan Update • - - ,t. � a.. - g Ti as , Oregon WASHING 'II , w. • ),f � . — A _. s 41� I'' - P rk �� 7 Facilities �: 2 I Trail � ' � L ■ 0 - -- IIMI Pocket Park • umrrierlak: r 1-` ' Neighborhood Park Park t , Community Park 1 , �t � � 0 ooda� � � Linear Park .m m rcial a 1- Northview Park' _ 1 y _. Public Open Space T ,� t y ' ` Ash S f Undeveloped Parkland Pte : ( - �..: _Special Use Site #� _ �� Jlm memorial � � Private Open Space e ark - ;.j ,� arts Skate P - r — , . ` - ' • Creek. ♦.Po o Dog - .\ -Other Open Space r t �_ at � Sc�1eRZ J _ 7 ® Other Public Property -_ I Senior Center I Course S .� , 11. School Grounds i WO r , a I _ 1{ - ♦ I , y+ Private School '`" I Z.- F 1ZabEt11 ,--- r -- — Public School '• ` � _, t — Major Arterial ? 4 ' f I _ , Local Street - . - n , Railroad ' -I ir ! Ir - -. -- � CKAMA� � Water Body - - = Y County Line 4 �<34JNT �t P} C Ft �- L Urban LimiGts � � � p� `"' rowth Boundary mm r d r A' ,,f 1, '.MBA Map 1: "� s i'j ' Existing Facilities J r I o. zs os 4 May 2009 v r r � /' -- ® 0 Data Source: City of Tigard GIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY PARKS Community parks provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for all age groups and are generally larger in size and serve a wider base of residents than neighborhood parks. Community parks often include developed facilities for organized group activity, as well as facilities for individual and family activities. Community parks also provide opportunities for environmental education and community social activities. The existing community parks are: • Cook Park — This 75 - acre park contains five soccer fields, two ,. > 110 softball and two baseball fields. A basketball court and two hoops `' ,_ are available as well as two horseshoe pits and volleyball courts. 1. This park provides a boat ramp and dock with opportunities to fish. Open turf areas, play equipment, and paved and soft surface paths /trails are accessible. Fifteen picnic areas and five group picnic r ,___' areas along with four restroom structures are located at Cook Park. - - This park also contains a storage building and off - street parking. This park is home to the Tigard Festival of Balloons and sports tournaments that draw teams from around the West. • Summerlake Park — This 30 -acre park provides a baseball field, basketball court and two hoops in addition to the only tennis courts provided by the City of Tigard. Horseshoe pits and play equipment are available at this site. A group picnic area and restroom structure is located on site as well as other picnic areas and a temporary/portable restroom. This park also contains off - street parking and several drinking fountains. Community parks are the signature facilities in Tigard that promote community identity while also providing local park services to nearby residents. Community parks are desired because of their high capacity for use and multiple programs. This will be important as infill and higher density development continues in Tigard. NEIGBHORHOOD PARKS Neighborhood parks are the foundation of the parks and recreation system, as they provide accessible recreation and social opportunities to nearby residents. When developed to meet neighborhood recreation needs, school sites may serve as neighborhood parks. CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 11 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE The existing neighborhood parks are: Jack Park — Once providing only softball fields, Jack Park is the • T P g Y only neighborhood park that contains a baseball field which is �+ suitable for Little League play. A basketball court with two basketball hoops, open turf area as well as play equipment are 4p, I located at the park. For site amenities, Jack Park includes i� r _ .! I temporary/portable restrooms as well as a picnic area and drinking 1 n ' fountains. • Elizabeth Price Park — This park, when completed, will be the smallest neighborhood park (2.6 acres). Several amenities are planned for this park such as play equipment, paved path/trail, picnic tables, benches and drinking fountains. • Bonita Park — This park is one of the most recently constructed in the City. The site includes a total of 8 acres of land, which includes both active and natural spaces. One full basketball court and two additional half courts are available at the park along with an open turf area and play equipment. Bonita Park includes temporary/portable restrooms, as well as a picnic area and drinking fountains. An irrigation system is located at this park. • Northview Park — This 3 acre park includes open turf areas, play equipment, and a soft surface path/trail and picnic area. • Woodard Park — With 14 acres, Woodard Park is the largest neighborhood park. A picnic area and drinking fountains, as well as temporary/portable restrooms, are provided at Woodard Park. Open turf areas and play equipment are located at the park. POCKET PARKS Pocket parks provide recreation opportunities for residents in areas not adequately served by neighborhood parks, such as town centers or areas of high density development. The existing pocket parks are: • Liberty Park • Main Street Park These two small sites do not contain any park amenities, but rather provide green space and beautification areas in the Tigard town center. 12 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE LINEAR PARKS Linear parks offer opportunities for trail- oriented outdoor recreation along built or natural corridors, connect residences to major community destinations, and provide some active and passive recreation facilities to meet neighborhood needs. This is especially important in areas not adequately served by traditional neighborhood parks. Linear Parks are becoming increasingly important for pedestrians, non - motorized travel and exercise. Tigard has three linear parks. The sizes of linear parks are adequate to protect natural resources and accommodate intended uses. For nearby residents of all ages, linear parks encourage an active healthy lifestyle by providing trail- oriented activities and opportunities. The existing linear parks are: • Commercial Park – This linear park is primarily used as a pedestrian route between Commercial Street and Center Street. 4M Englewood Park – This 15 -acre park contains a little over one mile TNI of paved pathways. In addition to the trail, there are three playgrounds and a basketball hoop. • Fanno Creek – With 31 acres of open space and a paved, multi -use trail, Fanno Creek is the largest linear park. Fanno Creek Park is the centerpiece of the proposed downtown redevelopment and revitalization. Future Fanno Creek Park planning includes a community meeting place (the Fanno Creek House) and a community gathering place (the Plaza). OPEN SPACE Open spaces are publicly- or privately -owned areas— undeveloped or minimally developed— intended for either active or passive outdoor recreation. Open spaces may include developed facilities that support outdoor recreation and trail- oriented recreation, or areas solely set aside for nature- oriented recreation and the protection of natural resources, such as fish and wildlife habitat. This type of land often includes wetlands, steep hillsides or other similar spaces, as well as land intentionally left undeveloped to protect surrounding land uses or manage stormwater. These properties have also been referred to as greenspaces or greenway areas and are intended to contain a natural quality that protects valuable natural resources and provides wildlife habitat and opportunities for CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 13 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE nature - related outdoor recreation, such as viewing and studying nature and participating in trail activities. Greenways are often linear in nature. In Tigard, may of the greenways are along streams and watersheds. Acquisition and protection of these natural areas will be more important in higher density development. Tigard owns 197 acres of open space, greenspace and greenways. Much of the land is concentrated around creeks, the Tualatin River and wetlands. In many cases, these lands are accessible through trails. SPECIAL USE AREAS Special use areas are public recreation lands that are specialized or single purpose in nature. Examples are dog parks, skate parks, golf courses, display gardens, recreation centers and a wide range of other activities and facilities. The existing special use areas are: • Potso Dog Park — off -leash dog area • Ash Street Dog Park — off - leash dog area • Windmill Park — historic windmill • Tigard House — Carpenter Gothic Victorian house listed on the National Register of Historic Places • Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park — skate and BMX park Since the 1999 Plan, Posto Dog Park, Ash Street Dog Park and Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park have been added to the park system. In addition, the Windmill Park was reclassified a special use area to bring attention to its historical value within the park system. UNDEVELOPED PARKLAND Undeveloped park sites include land that has been acquired by the City for future park improvements. These sites currently provide green space in Tigard and may be developed to one of the other park classifications in the future. Their size varies depending on the purpose of their acquisition. 14 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE The existing undeveloped parklands are: • Cach Park — This site includes the Cach Creek Nature Park and other properties acquired since the 1999 Parks Master Plan. This site was purchased with the intention of developing a community park with a wide variety of amenities. The development of this park will take place after a water reservoir is placed on the property. • East Butte Heritage Park — East Butte is located adjacent to the Tigard House and is currently being acquired. • Fowler Property — The Fowler property is north of Fowler Middle School. With Native American significance and a historic grove of oak trees, the Fowler property represents a unique mix of historical and environmental opportunities for the City. The property also has existing competitive sports fields adding variety to the potential recreation opportunities. The Trust for Public Land is in the process of acquiring funds to purchase this approximately 48 -acre property. • Jack Park Extension (TVFR) — The site lies adjacent to Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Station 50, where the fire department has donated land for additional park amenities. The land will be available in Fall 2009. • Fanno Creek House — Also known as the Schaltz House, this City property is a two -story 1930's house with a garage. It is anticipated to have a public meeting room for up to 40 people and gardens. • Senn Park — This property is located in northeast Tigard. Primarily a natural area, this property is being considered a neighborhood park and designed to include a small play area and trailhead. SCHOOL SITES Given their contribution to the City's recreational opportunities, school sites are included in the park classifications. These sites include playfields that range in size and amenities, since their design characteristics are -j based on the different opportunities for joint use offered at the school sites. Elementary school playfields often partially serve as neighborhood = - -- — — i park sites, and middle and high school playfields often fill many functions of community park sites. However, simply having a playground does not make an elementary school or middle school site an effective park. The playfields typically complement the amenities found on the adjacent school properties. CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 15 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE There are six elementary schools, two middle schools and one high school in Tigard to provide residents with additional spaces for active recreational pursuits. Some of the fields feature a running track in addition to ball fields and multi- purpose paved areas. Table 2.2 provides a list of schools and total acres for each school site. A complete inventory of facilities and amenities for each school site appears in Appendix A. Table 2.2: Tigard School District Inventory I `FACILITY TOTAL ACREAGE* Elements x t �"ta :Schools Alberta Rider 4.9 Charles F. Tigard 4.8 Durham 5.3 James Templeton 8.1 Mary Woodward 6.4 Metzger 6.0 Middle, Sch_ ools Fowler 33.1 Twality 11.5 ° Tigard High School 32.0 Und= velooed P e pert` Other School District Property 18.8 TOTAL. _ _ 1309 * Acreage excludes covered structures RECREATION FACILITIES The current Comprehensive Plan defines community recreation facilities as the wide variety of indoor and outdoor sports and leisure facilities publicly -owned and operated to promote the health and well -being of the community. Some are used primarily for active recreation, and others are designated for passive uses, with some overlap among or within individual facilities. The City of Tigard maintains two indoor recreation facilities: the Senior Center and Tigard Library. The Senior Center is operated by a third party and the library is operated by Tigard's Library Department. A complete list of recreation facilities for each park site appears in Appendix A. 16 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE SPORTS FIELDS Competitive sport fields are an important part of any park system. These facilities provide space for community leagues, school sports and informal practice, and games to be played safely. The inventory of sports fields is complicated by the various size standards and the condition of the fields. The counts provided here are the best estimate of the fields that exist in Tigard, both within City parks and school sites, based on information gathered by the planning team. In some cases, the fields are inadequate for organized sports due to factors such as condition or size, but the fields still present an opportunity to meet community needs for sports play. Baseball Fields Baseball fields must have a backstop, dugouts and a grass infield. Outfield and baseline dimensions vary according to intended age group and league. An outfield fence, although desirable, is not required. Fields must be level without holes. A total of 12 baseball fields exist in the City of Tigard. Softball Fields Softball fields must have a backstop, skinned infield and dugouts or player benches. Outfield and baseline dimensions vary with intended use. An outfield fence is not required, but fields must be level without holes or mounds. A total of 11 softball fields are located in the City of Tigard. Soccer Fields Soccer field dimensions can vary in dimension according to the intended age group. However, in order to support regulation play, a soccer field must be at least 50 yards x 80 yards for youth and 60 -75 yards x 110 -120 yards for adults. Portable goals are generally used. Fields must be level without holes or mounds. A total of 23 soccer fields exist in the City of Tigard. Football Fields Football fields are developed, level playing fields with sufficient space for a regulation field and goal posts. A total of 3 football fields exist in Tigard SPORTS COURTS Basketball Courts Outdoor basketball courts may be half court or full court configurations and are generally used for informal pickup games. Basketball courts are usually constructed in pairs at larger parks and schools. Courts must include regulation hoops and lines. The playing area should be covered CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 17 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE with asphalt or some other hard surface. No major cracks or irregularities should exist. The City of Tigard has 4 outdoor basketball courts and 11 basketball hoops. The school district has 26 basketball hoops. Tennis Courts Tennis courts are generally constructed in pairs or groupings of four or more. Courts must have adequate fencing, net and color- coated surface. No major cracks or surface irregularities should exist. Tennis courts are usually located at larger parks, such as community parks, or at high schools and middle schools. The City of Tigard has 2 tennis courts. The school district has 13 tennis courts and 4 tennis practice walls. Volleyball Courts Volleyball courts may be located indoors or outdoors. Outdoor surfaces include turf or sand. Regulation volleyball courts should be 60 feet by 30 feet in size, with a net height that varies with age and gender. Courts may be accompanied by seating areas. The City of Tigard has 2 volleyball courts. OTHER FACILITIES Dog Parks Dog parks can be either free - standing facilities or dedicated portions of larger parks. In either case, these areas are designed as off -leash areas for dogs and dog owners. Dog parks should include shade structures, trash receptacles and drinking fountains, and may also include special features such as concessions. There are off -leash dog facilities located at Potso Dog Park, Ash Street Dog Park and Summerlake Park. Picnic Areas Picnic areas are groupings of one or more picnic tables within a park setting. Picnic areas may be situated under shade structures or in permanent pavilions, in which case, they are referred to as group picnic areas. Group picnic areas should be able to accommodate groups of 25 or more. Often, barbecue pits or grills are provided. Drinking water and restrooms should be located within easy walking distance. Usually, group picnic areas can be reserved for a fee by groups for family or business events, weddings and other gatherings. A total of 23 picnic areas are in the City of Tigard park system. 18 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Playgrounds Playgrounds may be developed in all shapes and sizes and may contain multiple design components. Children's play areas may be designed for different age groups to provide play opportunities for as many children as possible. These facilities can incorporate thematic areas with interpretive and educational elements. Playgrounds can be constructed using a variety of materials, but must include impact - attenuating surfacing and a sufficient barrier to separate preschool and school age areas and to keep children safe from traffic and conflicting uses. There are 19 playground sites in the City of Tigard. Skate Parks Skate parks vary in size, with 10,000 — 20,000 square feet as a general standard for a full -size dedicated facility. Skate parks must have a concrete or other hard surface, and may include half pipes, quarter pipes and fi ` , ' , handrails. A skate park may also contain other features designed for tricks, 1016 ` ,, _ , such as ramps, stairs, trick boxes or pyramids. Smaller stand -alone skate I facilities, such as skate rails, may also be included in parks. The Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park is the only existing skate park in Tigard. Boat Ramp and Docks Waterfront sites are highly valued for fishing, hiking and swimming. Access to the river can include overlooks and trail access, as well as opportunities to launch boats for fishing and floating. Boat use on the water varies from fishing boats to small craft, such as kayaks and motor boating. Launch facilities vary as well. Small boat launches can be as simple as a clear path to walk canoes and kayaks down to the water. Boat ramps and docks provide water access for non - motorized or motorized boats and usually consist of concrete or other hard - surfaced materials. In general, boat trailer parking and other appropriate amenities accompany these facilities. Fishing docks provide a designated area for fishing from the shore (land) or adjacent to a body of water. Fishing docks usually are constructed out of wood, metal, concrete or a combination of these materials. The only boat ramp /dock exists at Cook Community Park. Horseshoe Courts Horseshoe pits consist of sand boxes with a metal stake serving as a target. Pits come in pairs and in many cases several pairs are located together for group play. There are 2 horseshoe courts at Cook Park and 2 at Summerlake Park. CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 19 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Interactive Water Features/Spraygrounds Interactive water features, also known as spraygrounds, are spray features with no standing water. These facilities are lower in cost to build and operate than a swimming pool, and still provide a way to cool off in the warm months. Spraygrounds can be provided at the local level, as well as at community and regional scales. In many cases, these facilities double as decorative additions to parks that are appealing even when water is not running. There are no water features or spraygrounds in the City of Tigard. Restrooms Restrooms can be unisex/single- occupant facilities, multiple single - occupant facilities within one structure, or gender- separated facilities of varying capacities. In addition to being self - contained or part of a larger community facility, restrooms can be temporary or portable. Restrooms are highly valued facilities, particularly at park sites that are distant from home and for activities that last multiple hours. A total of 10 permanent and portable restrooms are in the Tigard Park system. Off- Street Parking Off- street parking is formally developed parking that is included within a park site. Existing surface treatments include paving and gravel/dirt. The standard for parking lots in Tigard is a paved surface. Tigard maintains three parking lots of varying sizes, mostly serving larger park types. INDOOR FACILITIES Indoor Pools Pools vary in size and depth according to intended age group and use. They may be located indoors or outdoors, and may be recreational or competition- oriented in nature. Recreational pools may include water features designed for use by different age groups, such as slides or spray elements. The only indoor pool in Tigard is at Tigard High School. Community and Senior Centers Community centers are facilities which provide a focus for recreational, social, educational and cultural activities within a neighborhood or community. Community centers generally vary from 10,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. in size and may contain gymnasiums, indoor tracks, fitness areas, pools, meeting rooms, teen spaces, office space and other amenities designed for community use. 20 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE A senior center is similar to a community center, except the focus for recreational, social, educational and cultural activities is towards seniors. There are two indoor facilities associated with the City for recreation/meeting spaces. These include the Senior Center and Tigard Library. The City currently does not have a community center, but the Tigard Library functions as a community meeting space providing meeting rooms. TRAILS it ' ='r Trails and connectors provide public access routes for commuting and trail- oriented recreational activities including sidewalks, bikeways, multi - use trails and paths. Trails and connectivity have increased in importance and will continue to be a need in the future. They can be soft - surfaced or hard - surfaced. Examples of soft surfaces include soil, crushed rock and wood chips. Hardened surfaces include asphalt (permeable or impermeable), concrete, crushed rock or soil stabilized with resin `' products or cement, open or solid masonry and boardwalks. Most soft surfaces do not provide accessibility for people with disabilities, but are preferable for some recreation activities, such as running. Most hardened surfaces are accessible, with the exception of some masonry surfaces. Hard - surfaced, multi -use pathway designs may incorporate adjacent soft - surfaced paths for running. INTERNAL PATHWAYS Trails within parks provide several benefits to park users. Walking is one of the healthiest activities for people of all ages, and surveys of communities across the western United States consistently reveal that walking for pleasure is one of the most popular recreational activities across all ages and income levels. Additionally, pathways that meet the needs of individuals with mobility issues increase access for all users. TRAIL NETWORKS The City of Tigard has many areas with developed multi -use pathways and many of the City's parks contain internal sidewalks /walkways and/or unpaved trails. Additionally, Tigard has some existing multi -use paths connecting non - motorized travelers with the regional on- street bicycle network. Metro is currently working with several local jurisdictions to develop a regional trails network. The 950 miles of existing and proposed trails will CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 21 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE cross jurisdictional lines of towns, cities and states to connect between parks, natural areas and other trails. Tigard has linkages to two regional trails identified by Metro with existing segments: Fanno Creek Greenway Trail and Westside Trail. Map 1 depicts the location of existing trails. • Fanno Creek Greenway Trail — This trail begins at Willamette Park on the Willamette River Greenway, just south of downtown Portland. It stretches 15 miles to the west and south through Beaverton, Tigard and Durham, and ends at the Tualatin River in Tualatin. Approximately half of the trail is complete; additional sections are under construction. Two key links on this trail remain to be built in Tigard. • Westside Trail — An electric powerline corridor owned by PGE and BPA, this trail route runs from the Tualatin River near the Tualatin Wildlife Refuge north to Forest Park. Currently, some portions of the trail are complete, totaling more than 2 miles of the 16 -mile trail. While not developed, this corridor passes through Northview Park and has potential to link Beaverton and Tigard. Local trail networks can also be found throughout the City of Tigard. Generally, the trails follow local creeks and development patterns. These local trails provide important connections between neighborhoods, to parks and schools, or simply an off- street place to walk or bicycle for exercise. In addition to formal, paved or soft - surfaced trails, the City of Tigard is also working to identify informal "neighborhood connectors." These pathways exist but are not yet a part of the formal trail system. These could be added to the trail network through an easement or acquisition of land or recognized and developed where they are already on public lands: RECREATION PROGRAMMING Though the City of Tigard Parks Department does not have a recreation division, the City supports or facilitates recreation opportunities by providing funds, facilities and/or services to community organizations. In addition, the Tigard Library and Police Department provide some basic programming directly. Table 2.3 provides a list of major recreation services provided in Tigard, both by the City and through community partners. 22 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table 2.3: Major Recreation Services in the City of Tigard PROGRAM YOUTH TEENS ADULT 55+ Tigard Library ✓ SPD—T Tigard Youth Football ✓ - -- Tigard Basketball ✓ ✓ Tigard Swim Center ✓ ✓ ✓ — Tigard - Tualatin Swim Club ✓ ✓ Tigard- Tualatin Water Polo Club ✓ ✓ Tigard Baseball ✓ ✓ Tigard Little League ✓ ✓ Tigard- Tualatin Babe Ruth Baseball ✓ ✓ Southside Soccer ✓ ✓ • RTIAL • Tigard Tigard Library ✓ ARTS, CRAFTS, HOBBIES Tigard Tigard Library ✓ G'?lfl mSebOOUS M CAMP Tigard Police Department DARE /GREAT ✓ ✓ Tualatin Riverkeepers ✓ ✓ -- I tIVP Tigard Senior Center - -- ✓ r , URAL/ENVIRO MhNT , Tualatin Riverkeepers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sports programming is the primary organized recreation activity. Sports program opportunities are offered in football, basketball, swimming, water polo and baseball. The Tigard Library offers a variety of recreation programming for teens. The major programs areas are fitness, martial arts and arts, crafts, and hobbies. These are typically introductory level classes. The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a non -profit organization dedicated to the restoration and protection of the Tualatin River system. They offer environmental education programs for all ages and day camps for youth and teens. This group uses Cook Park extensively for their programming. The City also supports, through providing facilities or services, a variety of special events ranging from bike safety fairs to the Tigard Festival of Balloons. CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY 23 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE OTHER PROVIDERS There are other recreation opportunities available by third party providers. The providers are private, non -profit and adjacent city recreation organizations. The major program areas that these providers serve are fitness, sports, martial arts, performing arts, arts, crafts, hobbies, aquatics, summer camp and environmental education. These programs are youth and adult focused and located at private membership -based facilities or public facilities that require higher out of district fees for Tigard residents. 24 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TRENDS i � ., To develop a solid foundation for the Park System Master Plan, Tigard - solicited feedback from a broad spectrum of residents regarding their needs, preferences, attitudes and vision for parks and recreation services. This chapter summarizes the results of the public involvement process. It -4 includes key findings for parks, recreation facilities, trails and recreation 4 programming. The park and recreation needs identified here provide a foundation for the recommendations identified in Chapter 6. OVERVI EW A variety of activities were conducted throughout the planning process to ensure participation from a cross - section of the community, including various age groups and diverse special interests. In total, over 700 Tigard residents and visitors participated in this planning process. Each of the community engagement opportunities is described below. • Community Intercept Event — One intercept event was held during the planning process. Project staff hosted a booth at the Balloon Festival on June 14, 2008. The booth included interactive displays, flyers about the project website and the recreation questionnaire. • Community Questionnaire (online and paper) — Between June and July 2008, Tigard residents were invited to provide input on how and why they use parks and recreation facilities. A questionnaire was available online through the project website and paper copies were available at the Public Works offices and Tigard Balloon Festival. The web version was presented in both English and Spanish. Almost 250 residents participated. • Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Phone Survey — A statistically valid telephone survey was administered during July and August 2008 by Northwest Survey & Data Services. A total of 404 Tigard residents aged 18 and older participated in the survey. • Community Workshop — The Tigard community was invited to an interactive community workshop in September 2008. The workshop was held at the City of Tigard Public Works building at CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 25 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE the regularly scheduled Park and Recreation Advisory Board meeting date and time. • Stakeholder Interviews — During April through June 2008, the consultant team conducted a series of one -on -one meetings with seven stakeholders representing specific interests in the park system. • Recreation Provider Focus Group — A focus group was conducted with current recreation providers in Tigard. In April 2008, the consultant team met with six individuals connected to multiple recreation service providers. The purpose was to identify existing recreation providers /programs, issues and needs, and opportunities. KEY FINDINGS The public involvement findings are organized into themes that will guide t q the recommendations. The following are the key findings identified. ° ' Parks, open space, trails and recreation services are important to Tigard residents. • On a five -point scale, 83% of questionnaire respondents indicated that these services are "Very Important." ∎I ); • Phone survey results indicated a high willingness to pay for additional services. • The benefits of parks and recreation most indicated by questionnaire respondents included providing opportunities to enjoy the outdoors /nature and youth development. New park sites and facilities are needed in Tigard. • Additional developed parks and natural areas are desired. Participants indicated that there is currently a lack of convenient facilities. • Intercept participants selected a wide variety of additional recreation facilities and activities that they would like to see offered in Tigard. • Small and large developed parks (supporting a variety of activities and providing local access) are the most needed park types indicated in the questionnaire. 26 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recreation programming is a highly desired service. • Participants specifically mentioned in each activity that recreation programming was a high priority or interest. • The scientific telephone survey results indicated a very high interest in City - provided recreation programs (71% in favor) with support maintained when a potential cost was included. • Special events, arts and culture and outdoor /environmental programming were most interesting to participants at the public visioning workshop. • The questionnaire results show support for large facilities (pool, recreation or community center) to support programming. • When asked about other funding measures, respondents to the telephone survey continued to emphasize their priority of creating new recreation opportunities. • Participants stated that recreation programming could start small and build on the strengths of the park system. Open space and trails are valued resources. • According to the results, the primary reasons people use parks is to enjoy nature and exercise. • Residents encourage some access to natural areas. Trail systems need connections • Residents indicated that connections to key community locations are important to encourage walking and biking. • Inconvenient locations and lack of facilities are the main reasons survey participants don't use trails more often for recreation and transportation. THEMES Strengths & Assets Parks can play important roles in the life of a community, offering places for neighbors to gather, adults and children to exercise or play, and occasions to be celebrated. Tigard's current recreation and parks system has a number of strengths and assets that support the community and enhance the natural beauty of the city. These include sports facilities, natural habitat areas, landscaping, trails and family gathering locations. In CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 27 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE addition, the City is playing an important role in the programming and coordination of after - school programs, community classes and sports fields. Challenges During the planning process, some challenges were identified. These include protecting open space for its natural resource value; providing a diverse range of quality recreation programming for adults and children, and providing safe and convenient pedestrian access and connections. Opportunities & Ideas A number of significant opportunities and ideas arose from community input efforts. These include acquiring and expanding upon park land, including wetlands and open space, balancing access and preservation of natural areas, providing amenities for larger gatherings and varying functions including concerts, fitness classes, outdoor /indoor environmental programs and additional dog facilities. Furthermore, many opportunities for upgrades to existing amenities were mentioned. These include trails and access points, playgrounds, sport fields and year -round indoor facilities, such as a pool or community center. The City is encouraged to expand its role in recreation programming, including special events, aquatic programs and sports programs. Overall, the community voiced the importance of the parklands being safe, inviting and functional as this will contribute to the cohesiveness and beauty of the City and its environment. 28 CHAPTER 2 PARK SYSTEM TODAY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE IV. NEEDS ANALYSIS - ; . � v The purpose of the assessment is to establish in quantifiable terms the i 1 , fl\ ' ' \ need for park - related amenities, recreation facilities, and programs in the r E � City of Tigard. These needs are based on the resources that exist and those I -r r, that are desired for the future. For this reason, the identification of park Lu , . ,,.'.1!51�� ,, and recreation needs is inextricably intertwined with the planning > t : context for existing resources and the community's vision for the future. •' ) ' This chapter summarizes the results of the needs assessment. The chapter also notes increasing community demand for recreation programming. The park and recreation needs identified here, along with the public involvement findings in Chapter 3, provide a foundation for the goals and objectives identified in Chapter 6. PARKLAND NEEDS The need for parkland in each category was analyzed based on a geographic model of park access, the standards for comparable communities, public involvement findings and the trends observed in park systems throughout the western states. This multi- faceted approach identifies specific needs for parkland and reflects community preferences for the park system. At the time of the 1999 Park System Master Plan, Tigard's population was 37,000. By 2007, the population had reached 46,715. For the purposes of this plan update, a moderate growth is assumed at 1.5% per year resulting in a 2028 population of approximately 63,042 people. This future population is consistent with Metro projections. These populations were used to analyze the level of service (LOS) standards. The parkland analysis developed existing and proposed level of service standards, expressed in terms of acres of land per 1,000 persons in the City of Tigard, for each park type. However, no standard was proposed for pocket parks or special use areas. These park types can be used as substitutes for other park categories when there is not the opportunity to have a larger multi- purpose site. The analysis of parkland also included a geographic element. The Access Analysis Map illustrates V4 and l mile service areas around each park that provides basic local park amenities. The map also indicates similar service areas for the elementary and middle school sites in Tigard, sites that have CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 29 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE potential to serve park -like functions. These service areas are based on access to the parks using the street and trail network. Much of the City, both residential and employment areas, are outside of the service areas of existing parks. Some of these areas could potentially be served by the addition of local park amenities to existing public lands. The analysis by park type includes needs based on geographic access as well as population based standards. 30 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS " < _ r�.�oa,..ERa. Tigard Park °' . �", r4ULTNOMAH I r e COUNTY NO System Master ` ` Plan Update i TIGARll f a r i Tigard, Oregon 1 ' + ._ WASHINGTOrJ COUNTY - - _ , F•MONn i - Barrier ' Lrl , _ i MN 1/4 Mile Park Service Area I fS : -/ { _ i ce r • / 1/2 Mile Park Service Area �;um .' ' - r • _ J / 1/4 Mile School Service Area `� 12 Mile School Service Area s w ' •mm rcial r.. - •;' s t 1 JJ ^ \ Wi ndmill " Park. Pa '. I Private �r ?4 .• Pa '1(1 d 1 k Ash Street i • Facilities Space OPT 6 Park •i ' Mtr / Jim GrldTrth M - • -1 LL Trail Undeveloped S reef Fanno Skate Park Pocket Park Parkland . Creek pogo Do g + Ileum f v // r rr • Park #Park \ Neighborhood -Park Golf Course Sthaltz �, y' L F -- Senior Center HOUSe ' --1 Community _School Grounds Cam/ Library s v r \1 Linear Park Private School ..� t - 1 , � ' f � A Public Open - Public School ' S�ce 1 Tigard 0 . � \\ .. Special Use Other Public s A, , /House BONITA Si Property � 1 a 11 �1 41 •i:•-• lit I ,....°7' r co - - -- Major Arterial Water Body r._ 1 t1 . , M l & CKAMAS Local Street L County Line g r s? ; 1 GB N TY - 4 , Railroad 1 City Limits •a w . roa " ' 1 r 1 gm .. , , � a ' ---- Stream .r - -•t Urban Growth 1111" II .""t 7 t � ',-;F'A'Q 9 ' ,, _ r 'r _ Boundary �� g i ' o ry J Y IF ...,,_ .. ,t . © . . ` Map 2: 1 u Miles e L Access An y is . of �� = - ° a s O 0.2s O.S epo° <- i © © May 1009 Data Source: City of Tigard GIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY PARKS Standards Analysis erwrvir The majority of Tigard's parkland, excluding open space, is contained within two community parks that serve large portions of the community. With a total of 104.65 acres of community parkland, the current level of service, or LOS, is 2.24 acres /1,000 residents. The 1999 adopted LOS standard is 3.5 acres /1,000 residents. Tigard is not meeting the adopted w standard for community parks. Table 4.1 shows that based on the 2028 population projections, Tigard will need to provide an additional 116 acres of community parkland to maintain the current level of service. Geographic Analysis Some of these areas should be served by larger community parks, as land availability allows, so that additional facilities such as sports fields may be accommodated. To achieve a reasonable distribution of these larger parks throughout the city, three areas need additional community parks. • Few large properties suitable for community park development are available within the city limits. • Area north of Fowler Middle School should be considered for community park service • Development of the Cach property will provide community park access to much of the south west corner of Tigard. • One additional site should also be targeted north of Durham Road and south of Downtown Tigard. It is possible that the grounds of Tualatin Middle School could serve some of this community park function. Summary of Need • Achieving the adopted standard of 3.5 acres of community parkland per 1,000 residents is unrealistic within the current planning area. • The 1999 adopted standard for community parks was based on a development scenario for the City of Tigard that included the large unincorporated area of Bull Mountain. This anticipated future expansion of the City is no longer likely; therefore, the standard should be reduced to 3.0 acres /1,000 residents. • Cach Park, in addition to two to three undetermined properties (20 -30 acres each), are needed for community parks. CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 33 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Standards Analysis Tigard has five neighborhood parks containing a total of 35.9 acres. This results in a current LOS of .77 acres / 1,000 residents. This is below the adopted standard in the 1999 Plan of 2.5 acres/ 1,000. Based on the 1999 standard, Tigard would need a total of 116 acres of neighborhood parkland, or an additional 80.5 acres. Looking forward to the 2028 planning horizon, using the 1999 adopted standard, the City would need to provide an additional 121.7 acres of neighborhood parkland. Geographic Analysis The Park Service Areas map depicts the 1 and l mile service area around each neighborhood park, which make up the prototypical local park. As the map illustrates, many areas within the city are not served by a local Y . F _ park within l mile. Even fewer areas are served at 1/4 mile. Some of the ,a .w� underserved areas do not appear to have adequate land appropriate for neighborhood park use In these cases, adding basic park amenities to existing or future linear parks could meet local park needs. •,, �' ° °" With the exception of the underserved areas identified for community" park service, all underserved areas should be targeted for basic park amenities in either neighborhood parks or linear parks. Summary of Need • The 1999 adopted standard for neighborhood parks was based on a different development scenario for the City of Tigard. Current and future development will be much less than anticipated and, therefore, the standard should be reduced to 1.5 acres /1,000 residents. • However, there is still a need for additional neighborhood parks. Considering the addition of community parks and placing amenities in linear parks will help to meet the geographic distribution of basic park amenities found in neighborhood parks. Placing amenities in Fanno Creek Park, in addition to considering development of some open space sites to serve neighborhood functions will help meet the adjusted standard. • School sites could be considered in providing local park services. However, simply having a playground does not make an elementary school or middle school site an effective park. 34 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Improvements may be necessary to provide the basic park amenities at these sites and the City should consider the fact that these sites will not be available at all times (typically only after school hours). Map 2 identifies 1 /4 and / mile service areas around all schools in Tigard. • The limited land availability makes serving all local park needs in Tigard with neighborhood and community parks impractical. • Changes in the ways that people use parks in Tigard creates opportunities to meet basic park needs in a variety of settings. Trail use, in particular, appears to be more popular than many traditional neighborhood park activities. LINEAR PARKS Standards Analysis Tigard has three linear parks totaling 47.26 acres resulting in a LOS of 1.01acres /1,000 residents. Though the 1999 Master Plan did not recommend a standard, the linear park acreage has remained the same, resulting in a decreased level of service. Geographic Analysis Linear parks may meet local park needs, but are designed to serve many purposes, including trail corridors and natural areas. Englewood Park is included in the geographic service analysis due to the amenities located in the park. Using linear park sites to fulfill local park needs should be considered on an opportunity basis. Where underserved areas include existing or potential linear park corridors, these sites should be considered for additional development. Some underserved areas that could potentially be served by existing linear parkland are described below. • The addition of basic active amenities in Fanno Creek Park may serve the residents and businesses in this area. • The trail system serving the Genesis and Pathfinder developments is in an area that is underserved for local park access. CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 35 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Summary of Need • The 1999 plan did not adopt a standard. A standard is proposed due to the opportunities in meeting recreation needs for residents and to mitigate the decrease in the neighborhood park standards. • If 1.25 for Linear Parks and 2.5 for neighborhood parks is combined, a total of 3.75 acres of parkland is designated to meet residents' local park needs in Tigard neighborhoods. This is actually more local park emphasis than the 1999 plan. • Not all linear park corridors are appropriate for further development. Site conditions and local need should be considered. • In order to substitute for a neighborhood park, linear parks should include all of the essential local park amenities. OPEN SPACE Standards Analysis Tigard has 55 public open space sites containing a total of 197.15 acres. This results in a current LOS of 4.22 acres /1,000 residents. This is below the standard proposed in the 1999 Master Plan of 5.0 acres /1,000. To meet this standard, Tigard needs an additional 36.42 acres of open space land. Looking forward to the 2028 planning horizon, using the 1999 Park System Master plan recommendation, the City would need to provide an additional 118.06 acres of public open space. Summary of Need • The 1999 adopted standard for open space was based on a larger planning area, including much more potential open space land. In the intervening 10 years, Tigard has emphasized open space acquisition with the help of Metro. As the community builds out its current growth area, this pace of land acquisition is not sustainable due to the limits of remaining land. • Additional consideration for reducing the standard is based on potentially reclassifying some open space property. Open space sites could have basic park amenities added to serve local residents. Currently, several open space sites are located in areas that are not served by neighborhood or linear parks. The identified open space around the Senn property, Tigard House, and the linear open space around the Pathfinder and Genesis trail systems total about 23 acres 36 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE and are opportunity sites. Reclassifying these sites would reduce the current level of service for this category by shifting it to neighborhood or linear parks. • The term open space has served as a catch -all category that has included lands called greenspaces, greenways as well as undeveloped park land that is intended for other uses. The definitions of these categories should be reexamined for clarity and relevance. This examination may lead to a reclassification of some park sites and redistribution of acreage. • With these factors in mind, a more realistic standard for open space alone would be 4.25 acres /1,000 residents. SUMMARY OF PARKLAND NEEDS Based on the proposed standards, guidelines, and geographic analysis, the acreage needed currently (2008) and at the end of the planning horizon (2028) can be determined. The `total acres to meet adjusted standard' category is the total amount of parkland acreage that City of Tigard should have. This only applies to park types with an adjusted standard. Table 1 summarizes the LOS, and total acres needed by park type based on the adjusted standard. Table 4.1. Summary of Parkland Needs is is 1 , 1 it ADDITIONAL ACRES NEEDED_y [ CURRENT T 2028 ' TOTAL EXISTING LEVEL 13 1999 I PROPOSED POPULATION I POPULATION PARK TYPE ACREAGE 1 1 OF SERVICE `L STANDARD STANDARD 46 715 [ 63,042 Community Park 104.65 ac 2.24 acres /1,000 3.5 3 35.5 84.48 Neighborhood Park 35.95 ac 0.77acres/1 ,000 2.5 1.5 34.12 58.61 Linear Park 47.26 ac 1.01 acres /1,000 No Standard 1.25 11.13 31.54 Pocket Park 0.78 ac .02 acres /1,000 No Standard No Standard - - Special Use Area 2.79 ac .06 acres /1,000 No Standard No Standard - - Open Space 197.15 ac 4.22 acres /1,000 5 4.25 1.39 70.78 TOTAL L _ 1[ 88 58 8 32acres /1,000 11 10 82 14 245:41 The analysis identified a need for 82 acres of total new parkland to meet the adjusted standard today and 245 acres total to meet the standards in 2028. The adjustments to the 1999 standards reflect an approach aimed at providing local access to basic park amenities using neighborhood, community, and linear parks. CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 37 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS In addition to open land, the facilities that support play, learning and ° "f' A4 exercise are a critical part of the overall park system. The analysis of , aa 4 facility needs is first based on the LOS as it relates to the adopted 1 ' standard. Taking into consideration the comments from the public (/ 4 �. outreach and national and regional trends, the discussion provides suggested actions to take. 00' NATIONAL AND REGIONAL TRENDS National and regional data on sports and recreation trends can be considered to determine if the demand for particular types of activities is expected to increase, decrease, or remain the same. Some of these trends are noted here. • According to 2007 participation data collected by the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA), the top three recreation activities with the greatest number of participants are exercise walking, swimming, and exercising with equipment. • NSGA data indicates that six of the top 10 recreation activities nationwide are fitness activities, including exercise walking (1), exercising with equipment (2), swimming (3), bicycle riding (6), workout at a club (8), and weight lifting (9). • Nationally, sports participation is changing. Participation in football, baseball, soccer, softball, and basketball all decreased in one year. Soccer is the highest- ranked sport in terms of participation. • According to 2007 NSGA participation data, four of the top 15 activities are trail - related: exercise walking (1), bicycle riding (6), running/jogging (11), and hiking (14). • Regionally, participation in sports seems to be increasing. SCORP data indicates that for Regions 2 & 3 in Oregon, which includes Tigard, participation in each of the following sports has increased between 1987 and 2002: football /rugby, baseball, soccer, outdoor basketball, and softball. 38 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE BASEBALL FIELDS • The City of Tigard currently has 12 baseball fields. Four are located at park sites and eight are on Tigard School District sites. • Tigard will need to develop an additional 4 fields to meet the adopted guidelines for the existing population, bringing the total of City provided fields to 16. An additional 6 fields will need to be built, 10 more than in the current inventory, to meet the projected need in 2028, bringing the total to 22 fields. • The 1999 adopted guideline for baseball fields was based on a different development scenario for the City of Tigard. Opportunities for large park sites will limit the number of fields that can be developed. To reflect this reality, the guideline should be reduced to 1/2,900 residents. • Nearby facilities provided by others recreation agencies also impact the need for fields in Tigard. SOFTBALL FIELDS • The City of Tigard currently has 11 softball fields. Two fields are on F4 parks sites and nine fields are on Tigard School District sites. s • An additional five fields will need to be built to meet the adopted guideline, bringing the total to 16. An additional 5 fields for a total of 10, will need to be built to meet the guideline in 2028, bringing the total to 21. Based on this analysis, no adjustment to the guideline seems necessary. • Cach Park may be the only existing site suitable for new sports fields. • Softball fields have the potential for use as youth baseball (Little League) fields. • Sport fields are land and maintenance intensive facilities and Tigard has limited opportunities for large, level spaces in existing or potential parkland. FOOTBALL FIELDS • The City of Tigard currently has three football fields in its inventory of recreational facilities. All three are located on Tigard School District sites. CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 39 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • The existing level of service meets the adopted guideline. One additional field will need to be built to meet the needs of the 2028 population. Based on this analysis, no adjustment to the guideline seems necessary. • Typically football fields serve multiple uses, such as soccer, lacrosse, football, and rugby. • Sport fields are land and maintenance intensive facilities and Tigard has limited opportunities for large, level spaces in existing or potential parkland. SOCCER FIELDS • Based on the analysis of existing fields, opportunity sites and potential capacity, the guideline should be reduced to 1/2,000 residents. • The City of Tigard currently has 23 fields for soccer. Five fields are on parks sites and 18 are on Tigard School District sites. • To meet the adopted guideline, an additional 3 fields are needed for a total of 26 fields. To meet the demand in 2028, Tigard will need an additional 9 more fields, a total increase of 12 fields, for a total of 35 fields. • The 1999 adopted guideline for soccer fields assumed a larger number of potential community parks with space for soccer fields. • Some of the fields are currently not maintained to competitive guidelines. The existing count includes these fields that could be upgraded. • Soccer fields, as well as football fields, may serve other recreation team activities such as lacrosse, rugby, and ultimate Frisbee. Therefore, they serve a wider audience than many other types of sports fields. • Field improvements may extend the season, length of playable time, and enhance the quality of play. Improvements include, but are not limited to, lights and turf. • Sport fields are land and maintenance intensive facilities and Tigard has limited opportunities for large -level spaces in existing or potential parkland. 40 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE DOG PARKS • The current inventory of one fenced, off -leash area, and two stand alone dog parks serves the need of the community for the number and type of off -leash facilities. • No adjustment to the guideline is necessary. • Tigard will need to recognize and provide different types of facilities for dogs in meeting the guideline when the identified dog parks /off -leash areas need to be replaced. • The current guideline is not specific about size and amenities required at a dog park. COMMUNITY CENTERS • There are two indoor facilities associated with the city for recreation/ meeting spaces. These include the Senior Center and Library. The City currently does not have a community center, but the library functions as a community meeting space. • The guideline for senior centers should be dropped. Consideration should be given to the type of facilities needed to provide services to this growing and changing portion of the population. • The national trend has shifted from specialized senior centers to multi- generational, multi -use community facilities. • The guideline for community centers should be adjusted to 1 center per 50,000 residents. • The downtown area has been suggested as a location for a recreation/community center. Also, Winco in the "Tigard Triangle" and Coe Manufacturing near Potso Park were mentioned. • If a community center is built, consideration should be for a multi- purpose space to help decrease operation costs. In addition to these established types of recreation facilities Tigard needs to continue to add variety into individual parks. In order to build a park system that responds to the changing and locally based needs of specific neighborhoods in Tigard, the City needs a selection of facilities to draw from in designing new parks and adding to existing sites. CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 41 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE FACILITY GUIDELINE SUMMARY Table 4.2 summarizes the existing level of service, level of service guidelines and additional facilities needed for each facility type. Table 4.2 Summary of Recreation Facilities Needs ADDITIONAL FACILITIES EXISTING FACILITIES NEEDED 1 EXISTING CURRENT 1 2028 LEVEL OF 1999 PROPOSED POPULATION 1 POPULATION 1 j PARKS SCHOOLS TOTAL SERVICE GUIDELINES GUIDELINES 46,715 63042 Baseball 4 8 12 1/3,893 1/1,800 1/2,900 4 10 Fields Football 0 3 3 1/15,572 1/20,000 1/20,000 0 1 Fields Soccer 5 18 23 1/2,031 1/1,5000 1/1,800 3 12 Fields Softball 2 9 11 1/4,246 1/3,000 1/3,000 5 10 Fields Dog Parks 3 0 3 1/15,583 1/18,000 1/18,000 - - Community 0 0 0 0/46,715 1/37,000 1/50,000 1 2 Centers Six key facilities were considered for adjustments to the 1999 adopted guidelines. Based on the analysis contained in this report, the City should consider adjusting several of these guidelines to reflect the smaller planning area and smaller number of parks in the proposed system. After these adjustments to the guidelines, Tigard has unmet needs for several types of sports fields and a community center. These needs become more important when the standards are projected to the 2028 population. 42 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE TRAILS Trails and trail- related activities are among the most popular recreation activities in terms of participation across most populations. Providing safe, off - street opportunities for people to walk, jog, bike and skate is becoming an important part of City transportation and park systems. Walking, both for pleasure and exercise, tops most national and City surveys as a favored recreation activity. Therefore, linear parks or trails that connect parks, neighborhoods and other community destinations have become popular, responding to the growing interest in walking, biking and other trail - related recreation. Results of the 2008 Tigard park and recreation questionnaire support the SCORP survey findings. When asked about how natural areas should be used, almost 25% identified that limited use such as trails should be considered. The most frequent responses to develop more trails were to experience nature (27 %) and to exercise (24 %), followed by recreation (21 %) and increasing non - motorized transportation options (17 %). The primary considerations in developing a city-wide and regional trails network are to serve all the existing and potential users, improve safety, and to serve the origins and destinations with direct non - circuitous routes. Achieving these goals requires a trail network that provides multiple opportunities for access to key destinations from home and work. These locations may be origins, destinations, or just a stop along the way in the future trail system, which will eventually connect Tigard's neighborhoods together. The top locations identified as destinations in the City of Tigard include community and neighborhood parks, schools, library, and the downtown area. Through this planning effort, as well as the neighborhood trail study, the existing and proposed trail system was assessed to identify linkage opportunities in the trail network. The proposed linkages are primarily along regional trails identified by Metro. In addition, there are many inter - connector trails that allow pedestrians to easily connect to a regional trail which are not connected. CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 43 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • RECREATION PROGRAMMING NEEDS Analysis of existing services and public input reveals a number of gaps in the currently provided recreation opportunities. Some of these are services that are provided to a limited age group that could be expanded and others are programs that residents have expressed interest in that are simply not available in the Tigard area. Areas of programming identified as gaps are: • Special events; • Adult sports programming; • Aquatic programming; • Programs for residents 55 years and older; and • Nature programs /environmental education. In order to create programs in these areas, which have not been served by existing public or private providers, an additional programming agency is needed. The primary role of such an agency would be to coordinate instructors and programming locations and to promote these activities. GAP ANALYSIS Currently, recreation programming supported by the City focuses on youth and teens and provides very few opportunities specifically for adults and seniors. In addition, the city offers minimal or no fitness, performing arts, martial arts, and aquatic programs. Third party recreation providers have at least partially filled this service gap for youth, teens, and adults. Generally, seniors have limited or no organized recreation program opportunities outside of the senior center. 44 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE V. PLANNING FRAMEWORK This chapter summarizes the goals and policies that define the preferred t future for Tigard's park system. These elements form a planning framework that has guided the development of the plan recommendations that appear in the next chapter, as well as the prioritization of Park System Master Plan projects. This plan is guided directly by the Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open ( Y f Space ( PRTOS) chapter of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This PRTOS chapter was extensively updated based on public outreach conducted over the previous year and adopted in December 2007. The Park System Master Plan is an implementation document that builds on the Comprehensive Plan effort and applies the goals and policies that are outlined below. These goals and policies are presented here for context. However, if any subsequent changes are made to the City's Comprehensive Plan the current version of the Comprehensive Plan represents the official guiding policy for the implementation of this plan. VISION The community envisions a future where a wide variety of recreational opportunities are available through a diverse system of parks, trails and open spaces. This system would be distributed throughout the community and easily accessible from all neighborhoods. It includes not only developed parks, but open spaces to protect natural resources that the community holds in high regard. The citizens also know that simply planning for and providing the opportunities is not enough — funding must be secured to properly manage and maintain the system. GOALS The Comprehensive Plan contains policies and implementation measures toward achieving the goal of designing a park and recreation facilities plan. Section 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space provides the following specific goals for parks and reaction. This section will review the planning goals and policies that provide the planning framework from which the City of Tigard must work in. CHAPTER 5 PLANNING GOALS 45 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Goal 1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: - Developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and - Undeveloped areas for nature- oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. Goal 2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. Goal3 Provide Tigard residents with a broad range of recreational, cultural and educational activities. POLICIES For each of the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan, policies have been adopted to guide the City's actions toward meeting these goals. Goan Provide a wide variety &high quality park and open spaces - - for all residents including both: - Developed areas with facilities for active ma-elation; and - Undeveloped areas for na me- oriented recreation and the r protection and enhancement of valuable natal resources -- -` natural within the parks and open space stem. 1. Tigard shall acquire, develop and maintain a diverse system of parks, trails, open space and recreational facilities that are safe, functional and accessible to all of its population. 2. The City shall preserve and, where appropriate, acquire and improve natural areas located within a half mile of every Tigard resident to provide passive recreational opportunities. 3. The City shall seek to achieve or exceed the ideal park service level standard of 11.0 acres of parkland per thousand population. [NOTE: The total of the proposed 46 CHAPTER 5 PLANNING GOALS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE standards equals 10 acres per thousand but this policy still applies as an ideal] 4. The City shall endeavor to develop neighborhood parks, or neighborhood park facilities within other parks, such as a linear park, located within a half mile of every resident in order to provide access to active and passive recreation opportunities for residents of all ages. 5. The City shall develop other parks, including linear parks, special use facilities, urban plazas, skate parks and pet areas, consistent with the descriptions and standards contained in the park system master plan. 6. The City shall acquire and manage some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural resources and other open spaces to additionally provide nature- oriented outdoor recreation and trail- related activities. 7. The City shall ensure public safety is a consideration in the planning, design and management of parks, open spaces and trails. 8. The City shall enforce park rules to protect public safety. 9. The City shall integrate green concepts into park and open space design, maintenance and operations. 10. In addition to standing committees such as the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and the Tree Board, the City shall continue to involve its residents and businesses as active participants and partners in all aspects of providing park and recreational services. 11. The City shall ensure that the community at large is adequately informed of recreation opportunities and programs; issues affecting park, open space and recreation services; and volunteer opportunities. 12. The City shall, either directly or in coordination with other stakeholders and agencies, seek opportunities to acquire public open space. CHAPTER 5 PLANNING GOALS 47 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 13. The City shall build and maintain partnerships with other governmental and private agencies and organizations to optimize funding and facility resources, and improve park and recreational opportunities. 14. When considering acquisition of new parkland and open space, the City shall identify funding for required maintenance and public safety activities. 15. The City shall require all development to pay a parks system development charge or to dedicate land in lieu of a park system development charge. 16. The City shall continue to encourage and recognize the important role of volunteers and community groups in meeting City park, trail, open space and recreation needs, as well as in building stewardship and promoting community pride. 17. The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve, protect and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, and state and federally listed species, and provide "Nature in the City" opportunities. 18. The City shall provide funding for a high level of park, open space and recreational facility maintenance. 19. The City shall seek to establish and manage a fully functional urban forest. 20. The City shall continue to improve access to neighborhood parks and other facilities in order to serve all citizens, regardless of ability. 21. Acceptance of any land donated for park purposes shall be based upon its usefulness and adaptability to the Park System Master Plan. 22. City-owned property may be used for private wetlands mitigation considered on a case -by -case basis. 48 CHAPTER 5 PLANNING GOALS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Goal Cz ate a (3tywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trail& 23. The City shall create an interconnected regional and local ' system of on- and off -road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban activity centers and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property. 24. The City shall design and build greenway trails and paths to minimize their impact on the environment, including on wildlife corridors and on rare, and state or federally listed species. Goal Provide 7Yganl maiden is with a brraad range of recreational, cultural and educational activit:'eav :;, # 25. The City shall endeavor to establish a comprehensive it. W11 3 •4 V- recreation program. 26. The City shall identify funding to provide a broad range of recreational opportunities. .......... Achieving the Comprehensive Plan policies described above may require capital projects, staff time or reallocation of resources to bring greater focus to the City's park and recreation efforts. The recommended projects that will meet the goals and policies are described in the following chapter. CHAPTER 5 PLANNING GOALS 49 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE VI. RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter outlines a series of recommendations for parks and recreation in Tigard. These recommendations are based on the findings of the community needs assessment and include new parks and facilities, improvements to existing parks and facilities, and system -wide improvements. All of the recommendations are designed to help the City achieve its goals. ' Illllllilillill `► � 111 ? , � � 1111111 PARK SYSTEM CONCEPT The vision for Tigard's park system, as noted in Chapter 5, is one of a walkable, accessible, interconnected park and open space system that supports a wide variety of recreation experiences and opportunities. This ideal park system will consist of a variety of park types, each offering certain types of recreation and/or open space opportunities. While each park type may separately serve a primary function, collectively these parks will meet the needs of the entire community. In this manner, the park system will serve Tigard residents on several levels. It also will provide the facilities needed to support a variety of programs and a balance of recreation opportunities. PARKLAND RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Tigard is fortunate to have a relatively large amount of parkland. However, while some residents have an abundance of parks in close proximity, other neighborhoods and communities are in need of additional parkland. Fortunately, Tigard is surrounded by undeveloped land with potential to meet the park and recreation needs of area residents. The community needs assessment identified a future need for 242 acres of additional parkland. Some of this land is already in City ownership and simply needs to be developed as a park. Other proposed parks will require property acquisition or joint use agreements with the Tigard - Tualatin School District. Existing park sites are labeled by park name. On Map 3: Park System Concept, opportunity areas are identified with a blue asterisk that identifies the general vicinity for the proposed park location. The actual locations will be determined based on land availability, acquisition cost, CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 51 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE park development standards and property owner's willingness to sell. Existing parks are color -coded by park classification. Existing and planned regional trails are identified with solid and dashed lines. The park concept map was developed after analyzing projected population growth, current land availability and the ability of the City to acquire land in meaningful locations. This analysis is detailed in the needs analysis chapter of this plan. It is important to note that the map is a conceptual representation and is not intended to pinpoint exact locations for future park sites. Access to neighborhood and community parks is increased through the distribution of park facilities. Potential park locations are within a half -mile walking distance of most residents and most are sited in locations near the existing and planned pathways system. PARK AMENITIES Parks rarely serve just one purpose for visitors. Whether a community or �-p- �.: y � �', neighborhood park, there are usually a number of amenities to choose r' from. Much of the public will travel to a park, not so much because of its - h - ti y " �I classification, but because of the amenities that it rovides. Many parks P Y P ) • include, in some form, amenities such as play areas, trails and pathways, -- and a recreation area Each of these serves a specific purpose, but as a whole, contribute to the visitor's overall experience. It's important to understand that when developing parks, the amenities —as much as the = -•_ classification —are equally important in ensuring that Tigard residents are provided ample recreation opportunities. There are several basic park amenities that must be provided to reach the level of service desired across the park system. • Playground or play area; • Trails or pathways; • Benches, tables or other seating areas; • Activity- oriented features, such as a basketball court, geared at increasing opportunities for play and physical activity; • Site features such as trash receptacles and a drinking fountain; and • Restrooms. These features would not all be included in every park, but the goal is to have a park serving this variety of needs within walking distance of each resident — namely, a "Local Park ". Ideally the full range of basic facilities would be provided at one site, but in some cases basic park amenity access could be achieved through the combination of several sites in an area. 52 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION I i l BROCKMAN I "'�' -\ .-- ° . ,.. _ - rA aP6Aan• Tigard Park ^ a` •~ COUN MA" System Master 1 Update Pl an Upd J • TIGARD Tigard, Oregon _ V WASHINGTON COUNTY TT L' I i x i ..- - Rog P � .' � F OMONA ` : y kT L d ie n , s © C Area • ` •__ t • _ / "W ••+ -, �� - � — � I � __.=� Trail Park Opportunities Opportunity I „ L Ti b A 1• \ I 1 NoR t m 'al .. ' Park _ - — - a _ � •,a *, V n. — •• --•— (`-' -� fc _ - AShlStreet � • f acilities -PPace Private Open ` � r •. Do Park , � I S .•. N� �' f Trail I rid I 'I •!i; v ,: Jim Griffith MemorialU eve o d annoc< Skate Park MI Pocket Park Parkland �T C / ` � _ ' t °� rjc * Park g i hborhood a ;!? Golf Course Dog - ^• I �— ParNek .:,• :. ii SChalt2 Community a •= !l/IYor - •use Park Y School Grounds ,im 1 •_1 ti ® ? Linear Park ?Private School ; I P Open Itia t j am , Public School — ' -- • , • OM ta C_:. _ Space f - WM , ` - Special Use _Oth Public . _ •oeNr� Site Prorty A i / - . 1 . - Major Arterial Water Body tt ( "r s ■ i ^ ( 7 i R CKAMAS Local Street 1 County Line C - _fit? ► e NTY 1 ; — Railroad L - - i City Limits �� 7 -- Stream C: � Urban Growth __,.._- _, �y. , f l: * ' Boundary ----,,,,,..ftetiffy_ ,A , . ': I Map 3: ® ;cook P ;r . Park Concept Map I miles o ` 0 0.25 0.5 I• : a•' :. r/ 0 o G a a ti ^f f �t - ,....,. © May 2009 f r . _ - NT %'�� 1 z! I Data Source: City of Tigard GIS TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS BY PARK TYPE The recommended improvements to Tigard's park system are detailed according to park classification. Proposed additional park types are included in the discussion of the park classification that the new park is intended to fit. COMMUNITY PARKS Recommendations for the Community Park category include decreasing the current Level of Service (LOS) standard to 3.0 acres /1,000 residents. In addition recommendations for community park sites are detailed below. Cook Park Cook Park is Tigard's largest and most diverse park. Current and future potential for this park includes expanding sports tournaments and festivals that attract people from around the region. The park is home to the Tigard Festival of Balloons, held each June, and a number of sports tournaments. Cook Park's river location provides easy access for canoeing, kayaking, boating, fishing and many miles of scenic waterways. It serves as a connection with the Fanno Creek regional trail. Recommendations for this park include: • Make improvements to support large festivals; and • Replace group picnic area in west portion of the park that was recently destroyed by fire. Summerlake Park Summerlake Park is a classic community park supporting a wide range of activities. Three foot - bridges cross its waterways, making Summerlake Lake the centerpiece of this park. The lake is home to numerous waterfowl and aquatic animals. This central area of open space is interspersed with small wooded areas where park visitors can enjoy the natural surroundings. Tennis courts, a basketball court, two playground areas and several picnic tables provide recreational opportunities. The small designated off -leash dog area in the park is the only off -leash dog facility in west Tigard. Recommendations for this park include: • Complete implementation of the Summerlake Master Plan. CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 55 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Proposed Cach Community Park (P5) Cach Park represents one of a few land areas this size in Tigard. The site is #" made up of two pieces of undeveloped park land (Cach and Clute Yl 4,4 with a large reservoir site in between. The original acrea eg _ �' properties) g g � " � E� � � purchased has limitations due to the Metro Greenspaces bond funds used to purchase it Further, the water utility site will have limitations for park ts use due to the size of the required storage facility and security 4 r,,,r }Alr requirements. The City should continue to acquire land in this area to develop Cach Community Park. The eventual development of this park xr " -° Y needs to be observant of the protections and limitations of this site but should also attempt to meet community needs for developed facilities, particularly larger scale facilities, such as sports fields and large group gathering areas, if possible. Recommendations for this park include: • Develop a site master plan that addresses the complexity of the site and its importance to the future of the Tigard park system; • Integrate the water property into the design of the overall park, with attention to security needs for the reservoir; and • Implement the site master plan to develop a full- featured community park. This should include local park amenities on the Clute property. Proposed Fowler Park (P4) With a historic grove of oak trees and Native American significance, the Fowler property represents a unique mix of environmental and historical opportunity for the City. The property also has existing competitive sports fields adding variety to the potential recreation opportunities. Upon acquisition, the Trust for Public Land will transfer rights to the property to the City with some development restrictions. It is intended to serve as a community park with large undeveloped open space with developed fields for baseball and football. Recommendations for this park include: • Complete a master plan that will guide future park development. This master plan will need to address the limitations placed on the property by the purchase funding (proposed funding includes Metro Greenspaces bond funds). The Master Plan should also address the historic and environmental values of this property in balance with the desires for expanded recreation opportunities; and • Implement adopted master plan, in phases if necessary. 56 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Proposed Community Park (P11) The area north of Durham Road and south of downtown Tigard has an opportunity for an additional community park. Recommendations for this park include: • Consider Templeton Elementary School / Twality Middle School for a school park with community park amenities; • In partnership with the School District, complete a site master plan that identifies improvements to existing amenities and new school park facilities to enhance the quality and function of recreation facilities on this site. Examples of improvements could include upgraded sports fields, restrooms (available after school hours) community gathering areas, specialized play areas; • If a school park is not feasible, the City should identify and acquire as large a property as possible to accommodate competitive sports facilities, larger play areas and community gathering places, complete a master plan for this site; and • Implement improvements identified in the approved master plan. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Changes in the ways that people use parks creates opportunities to meet basic park needs in a variety of settings, not just neighborhood parks. Recommendations for the Neighborhood Parks category include decreasing the current LOS to 1.5 acres /1,000 residents. Site specific recommendations are detailed below. Bonita Park This park is one of the most recently constructed in the City. There are several native planting areas at Bonita Park, including two seasonal wetlands, native plantings along Fanno Creek, and an area of naturally occurring camas. The site also includes sports courts and play areas for all ages. Recommendations for this park include: • Address the crossing at Bonita Road to create additional safe routes to the park and for the regional trail connection; and • Connect the Fanno Creek trail at the north end of Bonita Park (T1l). CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 57 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Elizabeth Price Park This park is the smallest neighborhood park in the Tigard system, serving much of the south west corner of Tigard. Built on a hillside reservoir site, this park represents a creative use of public land. Amenities include play equipment, a paved interpretive trail and picnic tables. This park should be maintained with amenities replaced as their life -cycle warrants. Jack Park Jack Park is the only neighborhood park that provides a baseball field. This is a small field, suitable for Little League play. The site lies adjacent , to Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Station 50, where the fire department has donated land for additional park amenities. The land will be available }} . A Fall 2009. Recommendations for this park include: g , • Continue with expansion of the park (underway in 2009) and integration with the fire station. This will expand the amenities at this site to include off - street parking, community meeting room, additional play structures and special uses, such as community gardens; • Develop a basic site master plan to guide future improvements to this site; • Construct a trail bridge to connect Jack Park with the additional property and amenities at Fire Station 50; and • Consider upgrading the park trail if trail segments T5 and T9 are constructed. This could make Jack Park a significant trailhead for the area. Northview Park This small park on the west edge of Tigard sits on a small plateau overlooking Beaverton. The park includes open turf areas and play equipment. Recommendations for this park include: • Design a connection to the Westside Trail; and • Upgrade the open turf area. Woodard Park Tucked away in the center of the city, Woodard Park is the largest neighborhood park. The park is best known for its large oak trees and ponderosa pines; park structures were specifically designed around these mature trees. Park -goers can hear the creek babble along while walking the Fanno Creek trail as it winds through this quiet, neighborhood park. Recommendations for this park include: 58 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • Continue restoration projects in the south part of the park; • Develop the continuation of the Fanno Creek Trail along proposed segment T7; and • Connect the park with the existing trail through proposed segment T8. Tigard Triangle Area (P3) The City is developing a plan for the area defined by Interstate 5 and Highways 217 and 99, called the Tigard Triangle Plan. This area is identified for commercial uses requiring a different focus when considering appropriate park or recreation facility needs. Recommendations for park facilities in this area include: • Address park and recreation needs for this area in the final Tigard Triangle Plan; • Develop an on and off - street trail loop in the area with benches and other trail amenities; and • Explore the potential for a small plaza with seating for employee breaks. Proposed Neighborhood Park (P12) No neighborhood park amenities exist in the area south of Bonita, east of Hall, and north of Durham in Tigard. There may be potential to acquire 6- 7 acres of land in this area. However, much of this land is in the Fanno Creek floodplain. Recommendations for this area include: • Identify and acquire site for a neighborhood park to serve this area; • Consider the addition of sports fields on the proposed site, requiring large flat areas suitable for development; • Develop a master plan for the identified park site; and • Implement the adopted master plan, in phases if necessary. Proposed Neighborhood Park (P9) No neighborhood park amenities exist in the area surrounding SW Gaarde St. between Highway 99 and SW 121st Avenue. Recommendations for this area include: • Identify and acquire site for a neighborhood park to serve this area; • Develop a master plan for the identified park site; • Implement the adopted master plan, in phases if necessary; and CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 59 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • Consider acquiring or leasing a portion of the nearby water department property to provide neighborhood recreation amenities for this area. Site suitability is poor due to access and visibilty, so consider this as a last option. Proposed East Butte Heritage Park (P10) This site is adjacent to the Tigard House and is currently being acquired. It is intended to be a neighborhood park with basic park amenities for the local area. Recommendations for this park include: • Develop a park master plan for this site; and • Implement adopted master plan, in phases if necessary. Site should include basic park amenities to provide local park access. SCHOOL SITES The Tigard - Tualatin School District provides fields and facilities for recreation programming and Tigard Police recreation activities. This works well, but there are additional school district partnership opportunities that can enhance the Tigard Park System. The 1999 Park . System Master Plan identified schools as areas to incorporate neighborhood and community parks. There has been no change in the establishment of designated school parks since this time. Two school sites to consider are Metzger Elementary School (P2) and Templeton Elementary School/Twality Middle School (P11). • Create an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Tigard - Tualatin School District to address access to school facilities, both indoor and outdoor, for use by the community. • Design school parks to include separate play areas that can be accessed by the community during school hours while allowing the school to maintain security for students. • Redesign of school grounds should include improvements aimed specifically at the outdoor education and play features used by the school. Enhancing school grounds and contributing to the maintenance of school sites are examples of contributions the community can make in exchange for increased use of school district facilities. 60 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE POCKET PARKS These very small sites typically cannot support the full range of even the most basic local park amenities. In some cases a pocket park site is the only type of park possible in an area and, in such cases, special attention should be given to meeting local park amenity needs. Because the pocket park does not typically meet the basic local park needs, no LOS standard should be adopted for this park type. Liberty Park This site provides green space and beautification in the Tigard town center. Specifically, this site is home to the community holiday tree, a highly visible focus of the community's holiday celebrations. The City should continue to maintain current park amenities. Main Street Park This site provides green space and beautification in the Tigard town center. This site is currently maintained by an adjacent property owner. Should this agreement change or maintenance fall below City standards, the maintenance of this site should be funded by downtown beautification funds rather than park resources. LINEAR PARKS While linear parks are primarily corridors for natural features or trails, providing basic park amenities in linear parks is an opportunity to meet local park needs throughout Tigard. A standard of 1.25 acres /1,000 residents is proposed in order to encourage this type of development and make best use of limited parkland resources in the City. Increases in the use of linear park land will also mitigate the decrease in the neighborhood park standards while still providing local access. Commercial Park This linear park is primarily used as a pedestrian route between Commercial Street and Center Street. The existing site is located on Oregon Department of Transportation right -of -way and is not a secure site for major capital investment, due to potential expansion of Highway 99 that could use this property. The City should actively pursue expanding this park or augmenting it with a nearby site with enough acreage to provide local park amenities to the adjacent neighborhood. • Maintain pedestrian connection route; and CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 61 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • Provide local park amenities for neighborhood immediately north of this site, either on an expansion of this site or an additional site. Englewood Park Englewood is a walker's park with a variety of interesting things to see and do as visitors traverse the trails. The park is split into an east and west segment, but each can be accessed by a short walk on Ironwood Loop. In addition to the trail, there are three playgrounds and a basketball hoop. Recommendations for this park include: • Monitor adjacent properties for expansion opportunities; • Connect the internal trail system. If the open space between park segments cannot be acquired, on- street trail should be used to link the park segments; • Monitor the creek side property in this area for addition to the park; • Address flooding issues that limit trail usability by upgrading the Fanno Creek trail crossing (T1) to an overcrossing of Scholls Ferry Road; and • Consider adding a restroom to the park, oriented to serve park and trail users. Fanno Creek Park (P8) Fanno Creek Park is the centerpiece of Tigard's downtown redevelopment and revitalization. The park is in the process of being expanded in multiple directions, toward downtown with the upland park and plaza projects and south along the creek past the library. The upland park and plaza area will feature developed gathering and play areas to be implemented along with major redevelopment projects. The floodplain area is a grassy, wooded wetland that provides habitat for a variety of wildlife. The Fanno Creek Park Extension will be developed as a "natural environment" park with open spaces, wetlands, flora and fauna, and limited bridges, boardwalks and soft trails. The new library is located here, as well as a large, meadow field where public gatherings and events can take place. Recommendations for this park include: • Upland Park and Plaza — Continue to follow the recommended "catalyst project" in the Downtown Improvement Plan to recognize and improve a central open space resource and gathering place adjacent to Fanno Creek, supporting a range of passive and active open space and public uses, including a farmers market. The 62 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE s • v ,�� j , .,` projects and phasing of implementation are described in the Fanno . �' Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan; ,7 ��, \ • Lower Park — In addition to the trail and restoration improvements . :- . ;. , �� in the site master plan, the City should consider adding additional ms s °` ± ` ' ` local park amenities (play area, picnic site) to serve the area _, . r ♦'p southeast of Highway 99 and north of McDonald. Consider a ` \- d nature themed play area in this area. Potential locations include in `: \ J the entrances to the park at Ash Street or adjacent to the Senior , a ,„ . ` s o Center; �/► • Park Gateway - The master plan also ca for an improved park l oot rl gateway with a cantilevered deck and a pathway into the park; and �., ;r f or :. . • Fanno Creek House — Also known as the Schaltz House, this City '"""" : ` ' property is a two -story 1930s house with a garage. This site should be developed for public gathering space and gardens. It is anticipated this facility could accommodate up to 40 people and should be developed to serve for event rentals as well as classes and meetings. Proposed Senn Park (P1) The City is currently designing local park amenities for 0.2 acres of this property. This site will provide park access for the local area including trails in the remaining 4.5 acres of open space in this site. When complete, this will be the only developed park in the northeast corner of Tigard. Recommendations for this park include: • Implement the completed master plan, developing play features, site amenities, pathways and signage; and • Combine the to- be- developed and natural portions of this site for inventory purposes into one 4.7 acre linear park site. Undeveloped Linear Park (P7) In the central portion of Tigard, north of Highway 99, local park access is limited by the lack of available land for new parks. The trail system serving the Genesis and Pathfinder developments is an opportunity area for basic park amenities. Recommendations for this area include: • Develop as much of the basic park amenities as the space on public property along the trail will allow. Undeveloped Linear Park (P6) In the west edge of the City, between Jack Park and the Cach property, the City owns several open space and undeveloped properties. However, CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 63 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE there are no developed parks north of Elizabeth Price Park on Bull Mountain Road. The open space in this area should be evaluated for an appropriate site that can be developed to serve local park needs. Recommendations for this park include: • Identify any flat areas that could be developed with local park amenities. Connections to the trail system can provide active elements needed for local park service. OPEN SPACE The 1999 adopted standard for open space (also referred to in past plans as greenspace or greenway) was based on a larger planning area, including much more potential open space land. In the intervening 10 years, Tigard has emphasized open space acquisition with the help of Metro. As the community builds out, this pace of land acquisition is not sustainable due to the limits of remaining land. Recommendations for open space areas in Tigard include the following: • Decrease the LOS standard from 5 acres /1,000 to 4.25 acres /1,000 residents; • Continue to acquire open spaces to protect important natural areas in the city, as opportunities arise; • Consider providing basic park amenities in appropriate open space sites to serve local residents; • Reclassify open spaces that fit into the linear park classification, especially when the sites include local park amenities or developed trails. Moving these parks will change the existing LOS (but not the standard) for both categories; and • The City should examine open space properties to determine the appropriate management and use of specific properties or portions of properties. Existing open space classifications provided in the Comprehensive Plan lack a clear management direction that would assist the community in identifying, for example, land that is protected for ecological values and land that would support nature - oriented recreation. 64 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE SPECIAL USE AREAS Special use areas provide specialized or single purpose facilities or parks throughout Tigard. No standard should be adopted for special use areas. However, the City should plan to acquire 10 acres of land to meet the land needs for special purpose park land needs that will arise in the future. Recommendations for specific special use sites are detailed below. Potso Dog Park The Potso Dog Park is located on leased land that is currently for sale. If the land is sold to another owner, the City should attempt to maintain the park either by extending the lease or potentially purchasing the property. If this site is phased out, an alternative large off -leash area should be identified and developed. Ash Street Dog Park Ash Street Dog Park will not reopen in the same location when it closes later in 2009. A new, similarly scaled dog park site should be identified and, if necessary, acquired. The facility does not need to be a stand -alone site but if it is to be included in a new or existing park site it should be included in master planning discussions. Once a site is identified and planned for, the City should develop an off -leash area to replace the Ash Street site. Windmill Park The City should continue to maintain current park site amenities. Tigard House The Tigard House and adjacent property at the East Butte Heritage Park provide one of two opportunities south of McDonald Street for neighborhood park amenities. The City should continue to maintain current park amenities and incorporate the site as part of the future East Butte Heritage Park planned for park opportunity area P10. Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park The skate park should continue to program for skateboard and bicycle users. The City should consider adding a spectator area with seating beyond the perimeter fence and a restroom to serve park users and trail users connecting along Hall Boulevard. CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 65 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Tigard Waterwise Garden The waterwise garden planned for the area adjacent to the public works building should be developed and integrated into the listings of park resources. This feature will demonstrate the City's commitment to clean water and educate the public about possibilities for similar efforts in residential and business landscapes. This site potentially has as much attraction as historic sites like Windmill Park. RECREATION FACILITIES SPORTS FIELD STRATEGY The limited land availability in the City of Tigard creates considerable pressure to make the most of every acre of land in the park system. This issue becomes especially significant when related to the need for sports fields, which are land intensive. There is also the potential of attracting visitors to Tigard through sports. Providing space for regional club teams to practice, play and even hold tournaments can promote economic opportunities in the community. Based on the demand analysis completed during this planning process, a guideline of one soccer field per 2,000, one baseball field per 2,900, one softball field per 2,000, and one football field per 20,000 people will meet this future local demand. These guidelines are based on the existing standard field capacity and should be adjusted to account for any improvements in field condition. With limited land and considerable local and regional demand for sports fields, the City should consider intensifying the use of existing and future competitive sports fields using artificial turf and lighting to create the most possible playing time (similar to the facilities at Tigard High School). Through a season, the City might see the need for two or more full fields replaced by one fully utilized artificial turf field. It is important to note the trade -offs to this approach. This kind of intensive improvement of sports fields is not appropriate for all sites, due to parking and other support facility limitations, moreover, it has a considerable capital cost. Typically, the capital cost of field improvement is largely passed through to the field users, rather than being borne by the local tax payers. While some teams have significant resources available from their large member base to pay for field time, local recreational organizations can be quickly priced out of the available field space. In addition, artificial turf fields are typically tightly scheduled and managed, 66 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE which limits the availability for the casual pick -up game or emerging sport. Community Park Field Upgrades In general, the fields in Community Parks should be upgraded to the highest standard possible, truly maximizing the amount of playable time per field. Improvements would include phased upgrades, as resources are available, from the existing condition to graded, irrigated, sand -based fields with adequate drainage and ultimately to artificial turf fields with full field lighting. Lights will extend play into the evenings, helping to get as much use as possible out of this significant investment. New and existing fields, where they can be supported by key facilities such as parking and restrooms in community parks or special use sites, should be targeted for maximized use with the best playing surface that can be maintained. Recreation Field Upgrades Other fields in Tigard should also be improved to provide for enough field space to accommodate local recreational play and additional field space for competitive leagues. Improvements to fields at schools and neighborhood and community parks should include upgrades to sand - based fields with irrigation and drainage. Artificial turf upgrades should be carefully considered so that the park system continues to support both organized recreational play and informal pick -up games. Informal fields, open turf areas that exist in many of Tigard's parks, can also help meet the need for recreational use. Even an irregular shaped small turf area, if property maintained, can support a pick -up soccer game or even a youth team practice. As long as they can be maintained to a basic standard, these turf areas along with school sports fields should be able to serve much of the community's recreational uses. OTHER FACILITIES Dog Parks The City of Tigard has great support for current off -leash dog facilities. Both stand alone sites and facilities integrated into larger parks are considered valuable features of the park system. Ash Street Dog Park will soon disappear. Potso Dog Park is on leased land and the parking lot is only accessible after working hours. In addition, residents expressed the need for smaller dog facilities located throughout the City. The recommendations for dog parks include: CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 67 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • Retain the facility guideline of 1 dog park/18,000 residents; • Create design guidelines of what is required in a dog park that includes variety in the facilities for small and large dogs; • If the Patso Dog Park must be replaced, acquire, plan and develop an two -acre or more dog park with off- street parking and the ability to section off the off -leash area for multiple uses or turf recovery; and • Distribute any replacement dog facilities to provide more convenient access from all parts of the city. Skate Parks Tigard's skate park is a heavily used and highly valued new facility. Recommendations for skateparks include; • Enhance the existing park with spectator facilities and a restroom; and • Add skate spots in smaller parks to meet local needs. Interactive Water Features/Spraygrounds Based on the community interest in more diverse, active recreation opportunities, there is a need for water play facilities in the community. In meeting this need, the City should consider one sprayground in a central location; and incorporate interactive water features /spraygrounds in the design process. Guidelines should not be adopted. Community Gardens The City is managing a community garden. It's recommended that the City continue to support and expand community gardens throughout the City. Guidelines should not be adopted. INDOOR FACILITIES The wet Northwest winters are an important factor in the desire to expand indoor recreation opportunities in Tigard. Currently the City has a limited inventory of indoor facilities, including the Senior Center and the Library— neither of which is programmed by the Park Department. Programming needs and the level of community investment in recreation programming should drive the development of the specific indoor spaces. While the City continues to develop recreation programming options, the focus should be on how to maximize use of existing facilities, rather than building new facilities. 68 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Indoor Pools Any resources committed to public swimming access in Tigard should be in cooperation with the School District or other existing providers of these facilities. In line with this approach, the guidelines for City -owned swimming pools should be dropped. In spring of 2009 the Tigard Tualatin School District indicated concerns about the District's financial ability to continue to operate the swim center at Tigard High School. As a part of larger partnership discussions, the City and School District should determine the potential to continue aquatics programming in Tigard. As a part of this discussion, Tigard should investigate the current condition of the facility and begin discussions with the School District about potential sources of capital funds for upgrades. Any options discussed should take full advantage of the cooperative efforts of the School District and the City together maximizing public resources. Community Center and Senior Center The City should consider a name change for the Tigard Senior Center that identifies the diversity of events and age groups that currently or potentially could use the facility. The City should continue to follow the recommended "catalyst project" in the Downtown Improvement Plan to create a community gathering place for the arts and activities in the "Heart" of downtown that links visually and physically with the Fanno Creek Public Area across Burnham Street. The guidelines should be dropped for senior centers and addressed on an as- needed basis. The Fanno Creek House, also known as the Schaltz House, is a two -story 1930s house with a garage located in Fanno Creek Park. The City has identified this facility as a community center with features such as a public meeting room for up to 40 people and gardens. The City should design improvements at this site that support event rentals in addition to community meeting and class spaces. DESIGN GUIDELINES Design guidelines have been developed for each park classification in Tigard. The guidelines provide direction regarding the types of amenities and facilities that should be provided in parks, as well as other supporting facilities to be considered. The guidelines for each park type in Tigard include the definition, benefits and considerations about size and facilities to include. Appendix B includes the details of the design guidelines. CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 69 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE The guidelines are not created with the intent to apply a cookie- cutter approach to park planning and design. All parks and open space should be developed to respond to the unique needs and character of the park environment and nearby residents. A strong community involvement process — involving nearby neighbors, special interest and cultural groups, and maintenance staff —will help to determine the best design for a particular park. The design guideline approach should replace population -based standards for the following recreation facilities/ amenities: • Picnic Areas • Open Turf Areas • Playgrounds • Basketball Courts • Running Tracks • Basketball Hoops • Boat Ramp and Dock • Tennis Courts • Horseshoe Courts • Volleyball Courts The design guidelines should be considered in each park master planning process, as well as prior to any major renovation project in an existing park. This approach will help the City ensure that local needs are being met and that the park system provides a variety of experiences to users. TRAILS The recommendations provided in this section help complete and connect • regional trails and provide major links in Tigard's trail system. This trail i 4 system is designed to provide linkages throughout the community into ..4›, „ Y g P g g tY = 114 nearby communities, other regional destinations. Tigard's trail system generally follows parks, natural areas and open space. Wherever possible,` linkages should be provided between individual developments and the citywide trail system. Map 3 illustrates the trail network and delineates . existing and proposed trails. 70 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE TRAIL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations below address specific implementation steps for providing the trail system envisioned for Tigard. • Develop trail categories for addressing maintenance and use needs. This plan has informally identified three types of trails for discussion: • Regional trails • Local inter - connectors • Local trails • Upgrade existing trails. Tigard has existing trails that are a mix of paved and unpaved trails with varying degrees of formality. These should be upgraded to a consistent standard based on the type of trail; • Actively seek funding to implement the key trail segments depicted on Map 3; • Incorporate safe routes to parks in all new park locations and in any neighborhood planning efforts; • Develop a trail brochure that describes existing trail routes and depicts them on a map. This brochure should be available on the web and printed copies should be available at locations in the community, such as City Hall and the library. This brochure should be updated periodically as new segments are added; • Develop a trail signage plan and implement new signs throughout the system. The signage plan should include standards for kiosks with system maps, trailhead signs indicating distance and difficulty, and trail signs posted along the route; • Where trails are proposed on land not owned by the City, work with property developers and owners to provide access for the public through easements or other dedications of land to provide this amenity to both city residents and employees of Tigard businesses; • For all proposed trail linkages, complete a corridor feasibility study to address design, public concerns, finances and other aspects of trail development; and CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 71 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE • Provide guidance for local trail development to increase connections between existing trails and key destinations. REGIONAL TRAIL LINKAGE OPPORTUNITIES There are four identified regional trails that pass through the City of Tigard. These are the Fanno Creek Trail, Westside Trail, Washington Square Regional Center Trail and Lower Tualatin River Greenway Trail. Fanno Creek Greenway Trail The Fanno Creek Greenway Trail is the longest planned trail in the city and is, at present, partially completed. The City should continue to develop this important regional link, including the following segments: Scholls Ferry Crossing (T1) Work with the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District to improve the trail crossing at Schools Ferry and Fanno Creek; Rail -to -Trail (T6) The trail follows an inactive rail loop extending from Tiedeman to Main Street. The City is actively seeking approval from ODOT for the right to this trail. ODOT, the permit authority and underlying land owner, has rejected trail use. It is recommended that the City continue to seek approval from ODOT to the right -of -way for this rail; Fanno Creek ('I7) An opportunity exists to link the Fanno Creek trail from the current terminus just north of Highway 99 to Woodward Park. Metro has identified this as a regional trail; Bonita Park/Fanno Creek Link (T11) The City should develop the Fanno Creek Trail through the Brown Property. It will require designing and constructing a bridge over Fanno Creek; and Fanno Creek (T12) An opportunity exists to connect Fanno Creek trail between Cook Park and Bonita Park. Multiple proposed trail alignments exist to connect these segments. The existing street network and rail line should be considered. Metro has identified this as a regional trail. The City should meet the need with additional land from property owners along Fanno creek. 72 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Tualatin River Greenway Trail The Tualatin River Greenway Trail is a water trail along the Tualatin River that will provide a water access point every 5 -10 miles. The only developed access point in Tigard is at Cook Park. No additional river access is needed or available in Tigard. Washington Square Regional Center Trail (T3) The Washington Square Regional Center Trail will provide a loop around Washington Square on the east side of Highway 217 with connections to the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail. When completed, this trail will provide a connection to the east side of Tigard. None of this trail is developed. This trail should still be developed as recommended in the regional trails planning efforts, if possible. Ash Creek is identified in the Washington Square Regional Center Trail as the main route which the trail will follow. There are identified trail sections that will be difficult to connect due to private property ownership. Westside Trail (T 10) This regional trail is an electric powerline corridor owned by PGE and BPA. The trail planned to run along portions of the west side of the current urban growth boundary will likely receive high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. However in order to develop the trail the easement owner will need to agree to recreational uses. Two miles of the Westside Trail will pass through Tigard, though none of this has been developed. Some portions of the trail in other areas are complete, totaling more than 2 miles of the 16 -mile trail. Tigard should participate in corridor planning for this trail with Beaverton and Washington County. In addition, connections from the existing and planned trails and parks in west Tigard should be developed. If the easement owner is willing to allow use of this corridor, Tigard should also examine the potential of other recreation features. LOCAL INTER - CONNECTOR TRAIL LINKAGES The local inter - connectors are trails that provide links throughout the city to the regional trails. Some of these trails are constructed, though much of this is within the boundary of a park or public open space. The linkage opportunities primarily serve to connect these public spaces to improve connectivity throughout the city. CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 73 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Englewood Park Trail (T2) An opportunity exists to connect Englewood Park with the Fanno Creek trail. The easiest route geographically would cross private open space. If this crossing proves impossible, the City should consider using the existing street network. Proposed Trail Corridor (T4) An opportunity exists to extend a pedestrian trail from Summerlake Park west with an existing trail to the city limit. The local trail may be able to travel through existing public open space although it may be more practical to route it around the wetlands in these sites. In the interest of connecting the trail segments, the City should consider on- street (sidewalk) routes or the purchase of additional land. Proposed Trail Corridor (T5) An opportunity exists to link Summerlake Park, Jack Park and Woodard Park. Some of the trail is currently built. There are private property ownerships and natural resource considerations that make trail connections difficult. Consideration should be taken to build within the public open space where possible and to use street networks, with improved sidewalks, as alternatives. Woodard Park Link (T8) The development of a trail alignment in this area will connect the Fanno Creek Trail and Woodard Park with an already developed trail along the public open space areas. An undeveloped area in this neighborhood provides an opportunity for a portion of this link. Proposed Trail Corridor (T9) An opportunity exists to build a trail from Jack Park west to the trail corridor currently known as Ascension Trail. Portions of this trail may follow the creek, while some will need to bisect neighborhoods. Street networks should be considered for this trail. LOCAL TRAILS Local trail networks are throughout the City of Tigard and, generally, ;V; follow local creeks and development patterns. These local trails provide important connections between neighborhoods, parks and schools and simply an off - street place to walk or bicycle for exercise. ' `� 40, In addition to formal, paved or soft- surfaced trails, the City of Tigard is also working to identify informal "neighborhood connectors." The of this project is to focus on potential paths that would improve purpose P l P P P , °% . e: 74 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE the convenience of daily trips to school, work and shopping areas. This includes providing short-cuts between two streets, additional connections to existing sidewalks and greenway trails, and extending existing pathways. The project is part of a broader strategy to get people out of their cars and to promote a healthier, more sustainable community. Future implementation of the neighborhood trail project recommendations will result in more choices for moving around Tigard and help create a better place to live. When completed, the study results will be made part of the City's Transportation System Plan. Recommended projects will be considered for future funding as part of the City's Public Facilities Capital Investment Program. RECREATION PROGRAMMING Recreation programming opportunities are amongst the most highly • " ~t'• ` desired expansions of the services offered by the City of Tigard. Existing services and facility support have reached a limited portion of the total potential market in Tigard and residents would like to have a wider range :-.411111= of both indoor and outdoor programming opportunities. In addition to the ` 'A. t � public support for expanding these services, recreation programming • is offers the City a way to build support for other improvements to the park system and make better use of the facilities already developed within it. Recognizing the existing programming options offered by the City and various community organizations, the City should work to consolidate the advertising, scheduling, registration and administrative oversight of recreation programming in Tigard. With a minimal commitment of resources, Tigard Parks could become the central point of contact for community members looking for program opportunities, as well as City and community groups looking to start or expand recreation programs. The City should develop a recreation program that is built from a combination of contract and in -house providers. In exchange for City- provided advertising, registration assistance and, if necessary, assistance in finding facility space, the particular class or event would pay a portion of the registration fee to the City. Building the program from both sources allows the City to provide a wide range of services without starting from scratch in many different program areas. CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 75 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL PROGRAMMING AREAS Based on the existing programming offered, the typical recreation programs in similar communities, and the activities participants in the planning process desired, a number of gaps can be identified in the recreation program opportunities in Tigard. These gaps represent program areas not currently offered or groups not currently served. Each presents an opportunity for new programming by the City or by other community groups. • Special events; • Adult sports programming; • Aquatic programming; • Active senior programming; and • Nature programs /environmental education. In addition to these gaps, public input has indicated a strong ongoing support for the roles that the City has already taken on, including after school and general interest classes and coordinating field use by sports groups. The City should pursue providers of programs that serve these markets or, if no programs exist, initiate prototype programs to test the public interest in the identified areas. For programs that the City will provide in- house, special focus should be placed on programs that can be accommodated in existing City facilities, in school locations under an agreement with the Tigard - Tualatin School District, or outside in Tigard's parks and natural areas. Additional details about how the City should consolidate recreation programming, along with strategies for implementing the capital improvements to the park system, are addressed in the final Implementation chapter of the plan. 76 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE VI I.IMPLEMENTATION 3 . „� - This chapter both identifies specific projects for achieving Tigard's vision .9; y j - for parks and recreation, and describes prioritization criteria for the ”, - projects. However, this is a long -term plan and the City of Tigard does not _ , �j have the capacity to meet all the needs of the community nor implement _ _. - _- — --== -� all of the recommended projects in the near term. For these reasons, it is '— ,;- -=--, important to identify the highest priority actions, guiding the first steps that the community should take to maximize the success of the plan. This ___ , chapter considers the current political and financial realities and lays out a course of action to implement the recommendations and assist in community decision - making over the long -term. NON - CAPITAL PROJECTS Three significant projects emerged from the planning process, separate from the physical park system and the capital projects related to expanding it. These projects were repeatedly identified as critical to meeting the needs of Tigard residents for recreation opportunities and making best use of resources in a largely built -out planning area. The cost implications of these projects are also different from buying land or building trails. For example, recreation programming has the potential to leverage an initial investment into a substantially larger amount of services due to income generated by the programs. For each of these non- capital projects, an approach to implementing the recommendation is proposed, along with a discussion of the financial implications of that approach. RECREATION PROGRAM Tigard is well - positioned to consolidate the many existing recreation classes, after - school programs, fitness programs, community events and environmental activities into a comprehensive recreation program. The key feature of this program, as seen from the program participant's point of view, would be the single point of contact to discover and register for a broad range of opportunities. From the service provider's point of view, a comprehensive program would provide consistent application of policies and standards for instructors and participants. The City would be assured that the proper checks have been made and that the necessary releases have been signed. CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 77 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Initiating a Recreation Program The primary recommendation is to start small and grow the program based on existing providers in the community. City- developed classes and programs should be used to fill in gaps only where a willing instructor or existing provider cannot be found. During the plan update process, the consultant team interviewed directors of six park and recreation agencies with small but effective recreation programs. In nearly every case of an agency setting out to establish a recreation program, the first step is to fill one staff position for the coordination of the recreation program. This position ideally would attract a recreation professional with 1 -2 years of experience. The first task of the recreation coordinator would be to gather information about the existing programs offered by or supported by the City and consolidate the marketing information for each into a regularly published (sometimes twice a year but most often quarterly) recreation guide. To make the best use of limited resources the coordinator should use online services and existing City distribution of materials, such as the newsletter, rather than printing a new stand -alone publication. The coordinator should also move quickly to centralize the registration and payment for participants in order to make the process as smooth as possible. Once a registration system (either in -house or one of a variety of contracted online solutions) and publishing cycle has been established, the recreation coordinator can begin to expand on the existing offerings by bringing outside providers into the recreation guide. In exchange for marketing and registration services for their classes, these providers would agree to conform to the standard policies of the recreation program and a 20 % -30% registration fee for these services. These providers could range from an environmental day -camp for two weeks in a city park to a recurring yoga class offered at a private studio or public building. Typically, if the necessary facilities are provided by the instructor and the program requires little City assistance, the registration fee will be at the lower end of this scale. In cases where the City assists the provider in finding space, or furnishes space in park facilities, the registration fee percentage would increase. City developed and sponsored programs, particularly those that require the City to hire paid part-time or full-time staff, should be carefully examined prior to authorization to ensure the program meets an identified need and can provide a measurable benefit that is in line with the vision and goals of the park and recreation system. Because some programs are not able to recover the entire cost of providing them, clear expectations 78 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE should be set out for the amount of the total cost that should be recovered in participant fees. Policy Requirements As the City expands on the existing programs, there will be a need to '' = : ` standardize some of the policies that have been developed independently ., �•,�� for police programs, library programs and outside providers. At the most - basic level, all programs instructors, staff and volunteers (anyone leading rt or assisting with the provision of the program) needs to have a criminal background check, be fingerprinted and be screened for tuberculosis. The + . City should also develop a standard release of liability for the use of City facilities that will be included in the registration process. Models of these policies and legal releases can be found in nearby recreation programs, k including Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District and the City of Portland Parks and Recreation. The City attorney can customize the approach that will work for them using the experience of these established agencies. In addition to legal matters, the City should set out the performance standards by which the recreation program will be judged. Based on the public input received during this plan update, the community will support City investment in new community recreation services. With user fees and a percentage of outside program registrations coming in as program revenue, the City will be able to leverage additional services for each public dollar invested. Depending on the mix of programs the City pursues, the recreation program should be able to return 125 % - 160% of this investment in terms of services provided to the community. The basic measurement of this is the total expenditures of the recreation program, less any fees simply passed through to instructors or outside providers, divided by the City's contribution to the program. To simplify the accounting of these benefits and to maximize the motivation toward balancing programs that can cover all costs with those that require discounted fees, the program fees should be returned directly into the recreation budget and any balances should carry forward year -to -year. Cost Implications The start-up period for the recreation program should be broken down into two years, with the assumption that the first year is fully funded by the City and the second year has a reduced financial performance target with some of the costs off -set by program revenues. After the second year, the expansion of the program should be based on internal balancing of programming. The ongoing costs that the City should budget for are the coordination staff and an agreed -upon maximum operating investment to CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 79 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE cover the portion of program costs that have significant community benefit, such as less- than -full -cost enrollment in youth programs. The initial amount of this operating investment should be determined based on the difference between the actual resources committed to programs consolidated into the recreation program and the user fees currently charged. Pulling together the oversight of City- sponsored programming also allows for better management of the community's investment in these services. First year costs include: • Establishing policy and new positions; • First year of recreation guide production and distribution; • First year promotion/marketing budget; and • Establishing a registration system. The actual costs of these tasks will vary based on the approach of the recreation coordinator but should have a solid start with a $100,000 total first year budget, including the staff position. In the second year, the program should be adding more outside providers, which will at least partially off -set the cost of the registration system and the recreation guide. Much of the work of set up and consolidation will be complete and the coordinator should be able to focus more on developing some new programming and funding sources. The program may also need administrative assistance at this point. While costs have increased, the revenues are, at this point, partially off - setting them. For planning purposes, the suggested second year budget remains $100,000 At the end of the second year the total program should be evaluated to identify the required investment to maintain the highest performing programs. In some cases, programs that do not cover their costs can be operated based on grant funding targeted to particular types of programs (such as gang and drug resistance). From year three onward the costs to operate the recreational program should be based on a basic investment in support services, the recreation coordinator and administrative support, and the approved program operating investment, which will be the total of the difference between the operating cost and user fees for programs. This investment will need to be approved for each new program, or program type, and should be reviewed following the programs first year and then again every two years. This will allow the City to maintain control over the level of investment but will also allow regular growth of programs that can cover their operating costs. 80 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS In order to build the recreation program and expand and simplify access to the recreation options in Tigard, the City will need to form solid partnerships with providers of classes, workshops, cultural activities, arts and other recreational offerings in the city. These providers, ranging from 'RV lip hobbyists who teach for fun to private dance studios offering year -round classes, will help the City develop a program that meets the need for diversity and new activities in Tigard. Their participation in the 1, recreation guide will also help support programs that fill in the gaps in what is offered privately. In addition to these outside recreation providers, necessary to the 4 develo ment of the City recreation program, there is one key partnership P tY P g YP that above all others that will determine the range of recreation opportunities available to Tigard residents. The Tigard - Tualatin School District is the second largest owner of open space and recreation facilities in Tigard, second only to the City. Community sports groups have a long history of using the best of the school district fields for much of their practice and game needs, and after school programs including the D.A.R.E. program offered by the Tigard Police Department use classrooms at several schools. Due to the small amount of available land that is suitable for park development, this plan recommends increasing use of all public lands within Tigard. This is especially true of organized sports fields. In some cases, the geographic analysis of park land needs identified school sites as the only likely provider of local park access in an area. Additionally, as the need for indoor space increases with new programming opportunities, classrooms, gyms, performance spaces and the swim center will become more important to meeting the community's needs. This type of partnership also benefits the school district. The limited resources of school districts across the state are forcing them to be ever more focused on the core services they provide, chiefly teaching and learning. In many cases, the recreation and physical education activities that school districts have typically supported in the past have been cut back. This affects not only the opportunities that children get in school but also the development and maintenance of facilities that have always been used by the community to supplement the park system. Joint development of new facilities not only increases the resources available to build high quality facilities, the shared use brings more of the community into these facilities. The use of these school facilities, by parents as well as childless members of the community, increases the awareness and value of these large public investments. The more that the public interacts with CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 81 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE the schools and sees the best use made of the tax funding going to them, the more support the school district will see in elections for additional capital and operations funding. Cooperative efforts between schools and the parks department offer substantial benefits to both organizations and even more benefit to community members. However, with partnership comes an increased need for coordination between the two organizations. The City should take an active role in developing this partnership by establishing direct City Council and School Board discussion about the public benefits and over - arching policy arrangements needed to make this arrangement work best for their constituents. An agreement in principal about why and how the partnership should work can be followed by the formalization of policy about what each side will contribute and any limitations necessary. One of the most important factors to address is the maintenance responsibility for shared facilities. There are a variety of ways this can be worked out, from direct reimbursement for custodial work to the Park Department taking on maintenance of specific sport fields The final details will depend on how the agreement works best for both parties. Cost Implications The partnership in itself will require some staff time to support bringing the elected decision makers together and taking the ideas from concept to agreements and policies. Following the establishment of an agreement between the two organizations, the cost to the City will be determined by how much maintenance and development of school property is agreed to. Alternatives to meeting community needs without this collaboration would require the purchase of significant parcels of land, which is expensive at best and in some cases simply not possible. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT STUDY This plan has focused on how to meet the need for developed parks and ,, facilities while also recognizing that the extensive open space system 4!`° • requires a different type of attention. The recommendations include ► ' , continuing to add to the open space component of the system, while also reclassifying some open space land into linear parks, focused on trail and local park use, and undeveloped parks. With the large commitment to open space that Tigard has made, an important follow -up effort will need to detail how to manage open space in the Tigard park system. The City should complete an overview of the entire open space system to identify and catalog relevant facts about resources, restrictions on use (such as deed restrictions), pressures on natural resources, and the general 82 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE condition of the property. With this information available, the City can make determinations about the potential for access, through trails or overlooks, developed use where appropriate and the need for restoration or clean -up work across the system. This study should also identify the types of maintenance performed in each site and specify levels of effort based on the resource value and condition of each site. Of particular importance are how the City will proactively address tree health (to avoid hazards) and how to approach invasive plant species. This study will assist in the day -to -day management, long range planning and making decisions about the resources necessary to properly maintain the open space portion of the park system. Cost Implications One option would be to contract this management study out to a qualified planning professional. Alternately, the City could pursue this project using existing staff resources to collect most of the information necessary. However, it is still likely to be necessary to consult with the appropriate environmental and design specialists as necessary while developing the management specifics. Overall this project will have a minimal one -time cost with significant ongoing benefits. CAPITAL PROJECTS NiatiNN: The acquisition and development of new parks, trails and open spaces has rs , continued to build the opportunities for recreation in the system. Moving 0 loc a O'" t 4 < �� m forward, many of the capital projects — related to the acquisition, design . .. 4 .'-':;. ' 4 '-! ;$6 , z and development of parks and facilities —will be focused on improving ,-. p 4 '4 a c -".'.',.= 1 , l access to parks and supporting a wider range of activities, programs "`� 0� and events. Tigard 's capital projects list, attached as Appendix C, provides 1 ,,, a catalog of the specific improvements identified by the community, staff and the planning team during the course of this plan update. ,.. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 41 The recommendations in the prior chapter include considerably more projects than the City of Tigard can reasonably complete in the short term. In order to quickly and realistically move forward with these recommendations, the projects have been prioritized, based on public input and the planning framework provided by the Comprehensive Plan. The following criteria were developed to realize these goals and objectives as soon as possible. By applying these criteria, the complete list of CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 83 I TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE recommended projects were prioritized to identify the projects that should move forward first. • Meets Master Plan needs: Projects should be prioritized based on their ability to meet park and facility needs as identified in the community needs assessment (i.e., their ability to fill existing geographic gaps, create connections between parks or satisfy relevant ADA or design guidelines). • Builds connections: Projects should be prioritized on their capacity to create or strengthen physical and organizational connections across the City and the region. • Expands recreation opportunities: Priorities should be determined based on a project's capacity to expand the city's recreation opportunities (i.e., their ability to accommodate new activities in high demand, or leverage potential for grant funding). • Promotes economic development: Park and recreation projects that: enhance Tigard's position as a town center, attract visitors and create a positive environment for businesses and their employees should be prioritized. • Strengthens the community:: Lastly, proposed projects should be prioritized based on their ability to strengthen community identity, foster interaction between citizens and build true community. For example, projects that would serve a diverse cross - section of the community or projects that support community events should be • ranked high in priority. All of the projects included in the project list are important in achieving the vision of the community. Recognizing the importance of all of the projects, the priority rankings are described below. Priority I: Projects should be recommended to include in the capital improvement list immediately and implemented within six years. Priority II: Projects are less urgent or require additional work to prepare for implementation, such as the completion of a master plan. Priority III: Projects should continue to be considered but would require a special opportunity or the completion of the higher priority projects before they are actively considered. A complete list of projects and the priority assigned to each is provided in Appendix C of this report. 84 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE PRIORITY I CAPITAL PROJECTS After evaluating all projects recommended in this plan by the criteria noted above, more than 30 capital projects were identified for implementation in the next six to ten years. These projects are the focus of the implementation plan presented in this chapter. These projects have been assigned planning cost estimates to assist in developing a funding strategy for Tigard. The costs presented for the Priority I projects are based on current construction costs for similar parks in Oregon, as well as the experience of the planning team. It is premature to generate an exact cost for each project, since no specific plans have been developed. As a result, the costs presented in this chapter should be viewed more as preliminary project budgets than as cost estimates. As the projects move forward, site designs will result in more accurate estimates. The Priority I projects and their planning costs are presented in Table 7.1. The total costs of Priority I projects will be approximately $21,000,000. Table 7.1: Priority I Projects PARK NAME [PROJECT TYPE PLANNING COST Cach Community Park Design $ 150,000 Cach Community Park Planning $ 5,000 Fowler Property Acquire land $ 6,250,000 Fowler Property Design $ 200,000 Fowler Property Planning $ 10,000 Bonita Park Improve crossing $ 75,000 Jack Park Design $ 15,000 Jack Park Bridge $ 100,000 • Jack Park Improve park amenities $ 100,000 Proposed East Butte Heritage Park (P10) Design $ 60,000 Proposed East Butte Heritage Park (P10) Develop $ 350,000 Proposed Local Park (P12) Acquire land $ 800,000 Tigard Triangle Area Planning NIC Fanno Creek Park - Urban Plaza Acquire $ 1,000,000 Fanno Creek Park - Lower Park Develop $ 2,115,000 Fanno Creek Park - Urban Plaza Develop $ 4,100,000 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 85 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE PARK NAME PROJECT TYPE PLANNING COST Fanno Creek Park - Park Gateway Develop $ 850,000 Fanno Creek Park - Upland Park Develop $ 1,100,000 Fanno Creek Park - Fanno Creek House Improvements to indoor $ 135,000 space Proposed Senn Park Develop $ 250,000 Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park Improve park amenity $ 150,000 Potso Dog park Partnership NIC Bonita Park/Fanno Creek Link (T11) Design $ 100,000 Bonita Park/Fanno Creek Link (T11) Develop $ 500,000 Fanno Creek (T12) Planning $ 15,000 Fanno Creek (T7) Planning $ 7,500 Fanno Creek (T7) Acquire $ 150,000 Rail -to -Trail (T6) Planning $ 15,000 Rail -to -Trail (T6) Acquire $ 400,000 Schools Ferry Crossing (T1) Overpass crossing $ 2,300,000 Westside Trail (T10) Planning $ 10,000 Proposed Trail Corridor (T4) Planning $ 10,000 Proposed Trail Corridor (T4) Acquire $ 175,000 Proposed Trail Corridor (T5) Planning $ 15,000 $ 21,512,500 NIC: Not included in cost Appendix C provides descriptions of each project and how it fits into the planning framework. PROJECT FUNDING There are a number of possible funding sources for programs, non - capital 377/Z' 77 r;; a projects, parks and facilities acquisition, development, and maintenance. r2A� ,J Most sources are limited in scope and can only be used to fund specific types of projects, but will not fund operations. Because of these limitations, the City of Tigard will have to carefully consider all funding options to determine the best strategy for implementing system improvements. { OPERATIONS FUNDING Securing funds for maintenance and operations is a challenge for most cities and will be critical to the expansion of the City of Tigard park system. For the projects in this Park System Master Plan new and ongoing 86 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE operating resources will primarily be needed for consolidating and expanding the recreation program offerings and for the incremental increases in maintenance costs as new parks and facilities are developed. The following funding sources may be used for ongoing maintenance and operations, as well as capital projects. • General Fund • Local Option Levy /Serial Levy • Fees and Charges • Public /Private Partnerships • Taxes and Surcharges • Parks and Recreation District A variety of funds /funding options are included within the categories noted above. Each of these options is described in Appendix D: Funding Sources. As long as the City maintains its commitment to funding the maintenance of the park system, including new park acreage as it is added, major shifts in the sources of operating funding should not be necessary. The need for new operating funds will be focused on the initiation of the comprehensive recreation program. As the recreation program grows, the City may wish to establish a dedicated funding stream that is independent of the general fund. In order to provide reliable, ongoing funding for operations, a special district (which may or may not include both parks and recreation responsibilities) would be the recommended funding source. The district would require voter approval but would not require the reauthorization of a local option levy. The independent funding of the recreation program should be considered after the initial start-up period. By providing these services, the strong connection to the City will be maintained and the public goodwill accumulated and attributed to the district and the City. CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 87 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FUNDING Priority I capital projects will require significant investments of one -time acquisition, planning and development funds over the course of plan implementation. The following funding sources may be used for capital expenses only. • System Development Charges (SDCs) • Grants • General Fund • Urban Renewal/Tax Increment Financing • Bonds • Local Improvement Districts • Donations • Trusts, Estates and Exchanges Descriptions of specific funding sources for capital and operations are described in more detail in Appendix D: Funding Sources. Cities should be cautious in pursuing capital development unless funds are available to maintain new assets. Existing Capital Funding Sources The City of Tigard relies on two major types of funding for capital projects: grants from federal, state and local agencies, and fees and charges (primarily system development charges). Several smaller sources, including donations and funds from the tree replacement program have also contributed to capital funding. With the exception of system development charges, which are tracked separately for accounting purposes, all capital funds are tracked in the Parks Capital Fund. Each of these sources has the potential to continue to contribute to the development of the park system over the next ten year period. The discussion below projects the amount that could reasonably be expected over the next ten years. The largest source of capital funding for Tigard's park system is the system development charges (SDCs) designed to mitigate the impacts of growth on the park system. After averaging around $400,000 per year for several years, the City modified the methodology, effective 2005, and revenues increased to just over $1.2 million. Revenues have fallen off sharply with the current economic downturn and presently, the City is projecting $180,000 in revenue for the current budget year; and will budget for a 88 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE similar number next year. Over the course of the implementation of this plan, economic recovery will balance out this downswing. However, due to the lack of large amounts of buildable land, system development charges will not likely reach averages of $1 million or more. As a conservative estimate, Tigard is likely to bring in at least $250,000 per year on average over the next ten years. This totals $2.5 million during the 10 -year implementation period. The decrease in expected funding should prompt the City to reevaluate the commitments of SDC funds to the capital improvement plan. Currently, the Fanno Creek Park improvements are allocated nearly $1.5 million of park SDC funding. Even if the City decides to focus the use of this funding primarily on these projects, the timing may need to be reconsidered due to the slower accumulation of the park SDC fund. System development charge funds can only be used for projects that expand the capacity of the system. Some improvements at existing parks, such as replacing features, do not qualify. The existing balance of the SDC fund is not included in this projection due to prior commitments of funding to current projects, making the available balance unclear. The second major source of funding for capital projects has been grants, primarily as a result of Metro bond programs, that have been used to purchase open space properties. Other federal and state grants have also been awarded for park and trail projects. Funding programs such as the Metro Greenspaces Bond are not typically recurring sources of funds. However, if the City were willing to dedicate staff time to grant development, an irregular stream of capital funds could be expected. Assuming that the City were able to win a moderately large grant (perhaps $400,000) every other year or smaller grants ($200,000 or so) every year, the amount that Tigard could bring in over the 10 -year period would be approximately $2 million. This funding will be project based and must be spent on the eligible project. An important consideration for grant funding is the common requirement for a local matching source of funding. In some cases, system development funds can be used for matching funds, however resources from the City's general fund may be required. Tigard has included one -time contributions for park projects in the past and has proposed additional projects in the coming year. These one -time needs are likely to come up periodically. However, with the importance placed on initiating recreation programs, and fewer funding opportunities for operating expenses, asking for a steady commitment of general funds for capital projects does not seem appropriate. CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 89 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Other funding sources will also help fill in matching funds for grants as well as small projects over the implementation period. Income from investing other capital dollars, donations and gifts will accumulate over ten years. These existing funding sources are summarized below with a ten -year total. Table 7.2: Summary of Projected Existing Funding Sources ANNUAL 10 YEAR FUNDING TYPE ESTIMATE PROJECTION System Development Charges $250,000 $2,500,000 Grants $200,000 $2,000,000 Urban Renewal Funds N/A $2,992,000 Other $25,000 $250,000 TOTAL $475,000 $7,742,000 Additional Funding The revitalization of Tigard's downtown has been focused in part on the expansion and development of Fanno Creek Park. This has resulted in the ' ' • commitment of significant urban renewal funds to the various projects. Based on the 2008 -2013 capital facilities plan, the urban renewal funds I `' = Xk committed to Fanno Creek Park projects total $2,992,000. The remaining funding for the projects is indicated as coming from system development + . `? charges, the parks capital fund or is unidentified. As the primary catalyst '. project in the downtown area Fanno Creek Park is likely to be the only 7 park project to benefit from urban renewal funding. This funding plan A: assumes that the commitments for Fanno Creek Park will remain at the -- - — levels published in the 2008 -2013 capital improvement program. The total planning level cost of Priority I projects equals $21,512,500 compared to the $7,742,000 in projected capital funding from existing sources, leaving a gap of $13,770,500. There are several ways this gap can be addressed. The most common way to address a gap in capital funding is to seek voter authorization for a bond levy. The initial projects prioritized in this plan include a great deal of project planning and community engagement to design new parks. This will position Tigard positively in the community in preparation for a bond campaign. The increased involvement in recreation programming will also promote greater use of the park system, which will also build support for future funding. While the City has been planning on pursuing a capital bond as early as 2010, current economic realities may prompt the delay of that request for 90 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE funding. This delay could be an advantage for the bond campaign as it provides the City with some time to continue to build public interest in the projects that would be funded by the bond. If the City were to design a bond package around the Priority I projects, minus the projected existing funding, the cost per household in Tigard would be approximately $75 per year. This assumes a 20 -year bond at 5% interest and is based on the 2008 total taxable value of the City. Other options for addressing this gap in funding include extending the timeline to achieve these projects or focusing on particular projects by re- prioritizing some into Priorities II or III. CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION 91 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE BIBLIOGRAPHY The following is a list of resources that have been referenced during the planning process. Some have been used as primary or direct resources for this report, while others have provided secondary information or will provide direct information for subsequent parts of the plan. Cambell DeLong Resources, Inc. City of Tigard Community Attitude Survey. November 2007. City of Tigard Community Development Department. Comprehensive Plan. February 2007. . City of Tigard Community Profile 2006 Edition. July 2006. METRO. Regional Trails & Greenways. MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Park System Master Plan. July 1999. MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Planning Context Summary Memo. June 2008. MIG, Inc. Community Needs Assessment. February 2009. MIG, Inc. Parks, Facilities, and Recreation Services Update. November 2008. MIG, Inc. Community Questionnaire. August 2008. Northwest Survey & Data Services. Recreation Survey. June 2008. Oregon State University. Oregon's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Encouraging Youth Outdoor Recreation Participation in Oregon. June 15, 2007. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2003 -2007 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Chapter Four Outdoor Recreation Trends. January 2003. Parametrix. Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. September 2005. Spencer & Kupper. Washington Square Regional Center Plan. September 1999. Walker Macy. Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan. January 2008. BIBLIOGRAPHY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX A PARK AND SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table A.1: Parks 0 ... a F �. _. o ? _..c L -r'. v. ; u -6 .Q .1 p F 3 f ^G' F C a f • V 1 C J : :2, C lotal Facility .0 J - . C r C F C C - . :• B • Facility _ e M , = • ,. u ^ G e. . 0 _ n 1Z 1 Accra ° �. u Pocket Parks , .-. �h .. Liberty Park 0.50 �----_�__----�M__ --0 Main Street Park 0.28 -_____ __ ---_-_MI . Subtotal 0.78 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 ®p 0 0 p 0 0 0 EE 0 0 0 ® I eighborhood Parks_ 1[__, __ j1 - - - u� a . ____- _ -__Q ___� � � Bonita Park 7.74 Q________ Elizabeth Price Park 167 __________________Q_____ ack Park 8.05 ___©___ ____®______ Northwiew Park 3.50 C_______= �� 0.38 _ ©___________ Woodard Park 13.99 -__________ an ___0--00-_ , Subtotal .35.95 0 EN 0 EN ®11011 0 ® 0 __ 1.49.® 0 0 K" 0 ®ENQ 0 0 ®0 4Cotnmunity Parks .. . 11 _ _ Cook Park 74.81 © © ©0 ©_ © ©__ © ® © ©0__ © ® ©___© Summerlake Park 29.84 -__Q_______® ©_000©®©___® Subtotal 104.65 ©MIEN ®Q ®Q ©ENEN® 2.9 EN . 6 ®® © ®111111 6 MIEN 0 Ell Spacial Use A reas. _JI1 - II � Ash Street Do; Park 0.24 -_____________� __�Q__ i m Griffith Memorial Skate Park - -__________ _ � ___ Pots. Do; Park 2.02 -____________M_______Q_Q T. rd House 0.40 -____________ __________ Windmill Park 0.13 -_______________________ Subtotal - `" - 2.79 0 0 0. 0 0 11M11 0 0 0 0 111111111131 - 0 0 0 EN 0 0 0 ® 0 iinim® Linear Parks _.. -_.._ ... _ I Commercial Park 0.75 -__________ 0.07 ____________ En ;lewood Park 15.06 -________M©®____________ Fanno Creek 31.45 -________ ______________ - ,.. Subtotal 47.26 '. ® 0 "'0 0;., ® „' 0' ®: 0 0 ® 2.24. 0 0 0 ® 0 0 _ 0 0 `0 ® 0 . _ Total Developed 191.43 11.Ttiidcc Park Land -11 1 - Cacti Communit Park _____ _____MMEM =OM =� - Clute not included in total ME___� ∎_��- 1/.V M\nSMIWarn. .. a t 3 . 6 _�_ _�-_- __---�_� Jack P 48.18 -_�-__-�____� �_____--_ z House Extension F e n Creek House 1.90 Senn Park includes o.en s.ace 4.45 C�C�� C =C��C�� Subtotal 80.72 -_ ® ®-_ ® ®-11111111®_____________ Total 272.15 2 4 5 4 1 1 2 4 2 1 5 „ 13 6.63 2 6 u 5 7 2 3 2 3 . 1 1 1 1 3 0 13 PARK AND SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Table A.2: School Facilities • 11 w — c . - V . L L V Y V -t- - ' v C c L V P Total = 4 . a a _ _ _ _ - V V r, r v f V - Non- Structure ., .' a C 4 Y j _ .T J W r V n r. '— Facility .\crcagc r x ✓% = x H H 0 r r ! ✓'_ u 0 r �Z Schools — — Alberta Charles Rider 4.9 MM 1 1 E Charles F. Ti•.rd 4.8 4 1 1 1 Durham 5.3 _— MEMI_____ 1 1 irn _____ _James Tem.leton 8.1 M 1 1 ___ 4 2 1 1 1 Mary Woodward 6.4 2 ______ 1 1 = = = = =_ Metz :er 6.0 —�___ 4 __ 1 1 . - . ., ,.M, Meal �" , i k�s :. f v t ' „ , 6 s ^ , q .v �v r ?� s ,: u> 4' Subtotal �35�5 3 4- T 6`� 0- 0; :� 0 �' �14�` 0� �� Lx f ��' �,� � '" ��:> � �. $° _ > � _ . -_ . _ '. .:dac . �- °� ' :" �� `�is� as aa , ru,i a � �� ; .. G a.e6 � �,6 :;0� L� � Qx a �� . 0: � IL mi. di• gribrisit5 1 1 . 1 Fowler 1 2 3 1 1 8 5 2 1 EM.1_—_ Twali 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 �__ ,{° - , "' . -^w., g;. .r' .!".? - :=- - °' : „47. ' _ i - .Y . ;1 ad. . ' s v > s Y a , `� ',.', t S ; t` :,.,; 1 r r,�3 ;� g _. ;: .. - . � r :.�,s.�;Subfotal ., .. ,44.6: x - •: ? " �3�:,:: '�5t� r2 �,�2� � �� :� 12� ��7` �,r 0 � 4�:�, s ,..«.1:�� ,,.:�,!M �. �.:,>0� :1'4: �',-,'.0;L. � �d� °.;:, ilk al S -h 11 11 — _ Ti: rd Hi:h School 32.0 4 1 7 1 1 —_ 6 1 ____ __— ' r V. . ,;, -, . . ;Subtotal .,. 4P -?d 4 1 . F , 7ai ? 1tab€Q w 6e .0la 1 " � ��, A0 .d -vela. •d . 0 D' `I Other School District Pro e 18.8 '_— _______________ .o, �.; . � -a:. � A ? Subtotal l H H ,; 1 T 1 1 ::1 . r`O x` 0;1 y.. 1 a . , 1 1 , Q .. Total 130.9 9 8 18 3 3 0 26 13 4 11 7 6 0 1 0 0 0 PARK AND SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX B DESIGN GUIDELINES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES Design and development guidelines are intended to provide planning and site programming guidance and direction. Because site conditions and characteristics vary these guidelines are not intended to override site specific concerns or judgments. For example, during the design of a specific park, if community preferences differ from the guidelines but are consistent with park function and the overall guidance of the Plan, citizen preferences should take precedence. For each park classification, these guidelines provide a description of the classification, considerations for site selection, features to provide, amenities to consider, and features to avoid (if any). • The "Minimum Park Features to Include" heading identifies the basic resources that should be provided in parks of that classification; • The "Additional Park Features to Consider" heading identifies resources that are also appropriate within parks of that classification if there is space, funding or community interest; and • The "Park Features to Avoid" heading identifies resources that are not compatible with a classification's function. POCKET PARK Pocket parks provide recreation opportunities for residents in areas not adequately served by neighborhood parks, such as town centers or areas of high density development. Benefits Provides for the day -to -day recreational needs of residents; provides space for community events; balances high density development and communicates neighborhood character. Minimum Park Features to Include Minimum features to include are children's play area; at least one picnic table and one bench; ADA- compliant internal pathway system; park identification sign; and site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) Additional Park Features to Consider DESIGN GUIDELINES B -1 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Additional park features include open turf areas, trees, and, if space permits, sports courts (basketball court, tennis court, or volleyball court). Park Features to Avoid Pocket parks would generally not include high intensity sports facilities, restrooms, or off- street parking. Site Selection Pocket park sites are generally level, and the site should have physical characteristics that are appropriate for its intended use, such as well - drained soils and desirable topography. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Neighborhood parks are the foundation of the parks and recreation system, as they provide accessible recreation and social opportunities to nearby residents. When developed to meet neighborhood recreation needs, school sites may serve as neighborhood parks. Benefits Provides access to basic recreation activities for nearby residents of all ages; contributes to neighborhood identity. Minimum Park Features to Include Minimum features to include are playground equipment; picnic area with shelter; open lawn area, targeting a minimum 75' x 100'; multi -use field; paved courts (minimum 1 basketball or 2 tennis courts); interior accessible path (paved route connecting all site elements); water fountain; site furnishings (benches, picnic tables, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, signs, etc.); and restrooms (portable structure). Additional Park Features to Consider Additional features include sports fields for baseball, softball, or soccer; skate park or skate facilities; sand or grass volleyball courts; other sporting facilities (horseshoes, bocce, lawn bowling, etc.); water playground; community gardens; off -leash dog area; open space area interpretation (if features are present on the site); and other features in keeping with the function of neighborhood parks. Park Features to Avoid Neighborhood parks generally do no include facilities for large groups, fields for competitive use or off - street parking. Facilities for activities that B -2 DESIGN GUIDELINES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE result in overuse, noise, parking problems and congestion should not be provided. Site Selection Neighborhood parks should be located within a / mile radius of residences without crossing a major street for easy pedestrian and bicycle access. Neighborhood park sites are generally level, and sites with natural aesthetic appeal are most desirable. Locating neighborhood parks next to other park system components, such as greenways, increases their use and desirability. Neighborhood parks should be located adjacent to schools and fire stations whenever possible. COMMUNITY PARK Community parks provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for all age groups and are generally larger in size and serve a wider base of residents than neighborhood parks. Community parks often include developed facilities for organized group activity as well as facilities for individual and family activities. Community parks also provide opportunities for environmental education and community social activities. Benefits Provides a variety of accessible recreation opportunities for all age groups; provides environmental education opportunities; serves recreation needs of families and provides opportunities for community social activities. Minimum Park Features Minimum features include restrooms (permanent structure); playground equipment with separate areas appropriate for different age groups; picnic area with shelter; open lawn area, minimum 75' x 100'; sports fields for baseball, softball, or soccer (artificial turf and field lighting subject to site conditions), fields may be in complexes within the park; paved courts (minimum one basketball or two tennis courts); interior accessible path (paved route connecting all site elements); water fountain(s); site furnishings (benches, picnic tables, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, signs, etc.); and parking, on or off- street of approximately 25 spaces per developed field and an additional two to three spaces per acre of developed park land. DESIGN GUIDELINES B -3 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Additional Park Features to Consider Additional features include skate park or skate facilities; multi -use field; sand or grass volleyball courts; other sporting facilities (running track, horseshoe courts, bocce, lawn bowling, etc.); water playground; boat ramp and dock; community gardens; off -leash dog area; open space area interpretation (if features are present on the site); performance space, such as a stage area or band shell; and other features in keeping with the function of community parks. Park Features to Avoid Features to avoid include those that detract from or conflict with the community park uses and regional -scale facilities (water park, convention center, etc.). Site Selection The site should have physical characteristics appropriate for both active and passive recreation, such as suitable soils, positive drainage, varying topography, and a variety of vegetation. A naturally attractive site character is highly desirable. If land is within the floodplain, facilities should be designed to withstand periodic inundation. LINEAR PARK Linear parks may provide opportunities for trail- oriented outdoor recreation along built or natural corridors, connect residences to major community destinations, and provide some active and passive recreation facilities to meet neighborhood needs. This is especially important in areas not adequately served by traditional neighborhood parks. Linear Parks are increasingly becoming important for pedestrians, non - motorized travel, and exercise. Benefits Protects natural resources; provides environmental education opportunities; provides opportunities for trail- oriented activities and provides access to basic recreation opportunities for nearby residents of all ages to encourage an active, healthy lifestyle. Minimum Park Features to Include Linear parks can include paved or soft - surfaced trails to accommodate jogging, biking, walking, skateboarding, dog walking, horseback riding, canoeing or rollerblading. B - 4 DESIGN GUIDELINES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Additional Park Features to Consider Active and passive recreation facilities may include small -scale sports facilities, such as basketball hoops, children's play equipment, off -leash dog areas, seating, public art, picnic tables, lighting, community gardens, and landscaping. Restrooms may be considered, particularly if the park contains a regional trail segment. Park Features to Avoid Recreation facilities intended for large groups, and off - street parking are generally not provided. Site Selection Although natural corridors, such as creeks and rivers are preferred, opportunities to create built corridors should be strongly encouraged. Built corridors are constructed during development or redevelopment, such as corridors created in residential subdivisions, revitalized waterfronts, abandoned railroad beds, roadway right -of -ways, boulevards, utility right -of -ways and drainage -ways. The minimum corridor width should accommodate a multi -use trail plus buffer planting (25' -50') and would optimally be at least 200' wide. OPEN SPACE /GREENSPACE /GREENWAY Open space are public or privately owned areas, both undeveloped or minimally developed, intended for either active or passive outdoor recreation. Open spaces may include developed facilities that support outdoor recreation and trail- oriented recreation, or areas solely set aside for nature- oriented recreation and the protection of natural resources, such as fish and wildlife habitat. This type of land often includes wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar spaces, as well as land intentionally left undeveloped to protect surrounding land uses or manage stormwater. Greenspace or greenway are areas intended to contain a natural quality that protects valuable natural resources and provides wildlife habitat and opportunities for nature- related outdoor recreation, such as viewing and studying nature and participating in trail activities. Greenways are often linear in nature. In Tigard may of the greenways are along streams and watersheds. Acquisition and protection of these natural areas will be more important in higher density development. DESIGN GUIDELINES B -5 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Minimum Park Features to Include: Minimum features include trails; and site furnishings (benches, picnic tables, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, signs, etc.) appropriate for the intended scale and use of the open space area. Additional Park Features to Consider: Additional features to consider are trailhead or entry kiosk; interpretive signage or exhibits; viewpoints; parking, on or off- street; restrooms; picnic area with shelter; outdoor classroom/gathering space; interpretive center or building; and environmental restoration areas. Park Features to Avoid: Features to avoid are those that conflict with or detract from the site's natural resources, such as turf, ornamental plantings, and active uses such as sports fields. Site Selection The quality of the resources is the most important determinant for site election. In addition, sites that provide medium to high potential for environmental education, aesthetics or buffering qualities, and outdoor or trail- oriented recreation are preferred. The recommended corridor width is approximately 200'; the minimum width is 50'. SPECIAL USE AREAS Special use areas are public recreation lands that are specialized or single purpose in nature. Examples are dog parks, skate parks, golf courses, display gardens, recreation centers, and a wide range of other activities and facilities. Benefits Provides accessible, specialized recreation opportunities for all age groups; provides environmental/historical education opportunities; serves recreation needs of targeted user groups; and provides the ability to host large regional or national scale special events, such as tournaments. Minimum Park Features to Include Minimum features include specialized use facility (indoor or outdoor); site furnishings (benches, picnic tables, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, signs, etc.) appropriate for the intended scale and use of the park; restrooms (permanent structure); and parking, on or off - street. B -6 DESIGN GUIDELINES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Additional Park Features to Consider Consider additional features and amenities that support the primary special use on the site. These could include playground equipment; open lawn area; picnic area with shelter; multi -use fields; sports fields for baseball, softball, or soccer; skate park or skate facilities; sand or grass volleyball courts; other sporting facilities (horseshoes, bocce, lawn bowling, etc.); water playground; community gardens; off -leash dog area; open space area interpretation (if features are present on the site); and concessions, vendor, or lease space. Park Features to Avoid Avoid features that conflict with or detract from the site's specialized use. Site Selection The site size should be adequate to support the proposed specialized use, as well as necessary supporting facilities, including parking. Site selection criteria will be dependent on the specific specialized use proposed, and may include criteria determined through an economic feasibility study. The site should be accessible from the communitywide trail system. Prior to the addition of any special use areas, the City should prepare a detailed cost/benefit analysis and maintenance impact statement for each proposed site being considered. TRAILS AND CONNECTORS A public access route for commuting and trail- oriented recreational activities, includes sidewalks, bikeways, multi -use trails and paths. Benefits Provides opportunities for trail- oriented activities; reduces auto - dependency; and connects community facilities. Minimum Park Features to Include A variety of pathway types are needed to accommodate activities such as walking, running, biking, dog walking, rollerblading, skateboarding, and horseback riding. Trails can be located within parks, within linear parks and greenways, or be designed as a part of the Citywide transportation system. Waterways can provide trail -like facilities for boating and canoeing. Each type of trail should be designed safely accommodate users, and meet recognized design standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES B - TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Additional Park Features to Consider Consideration should be given for trail location, connections and orientation should encourage user to walk or bicycle to the trail; parking for particular trailheads; loop and interconnect trails to provide a variety of trail lengths and destinations; standard trail signs with information regarding trail conditions and degrees of difficulty; access to drinking water at trailheads; and benches or other places to sit with thought to locate them near scenic viewpoints or overlooks. Park Features to Avoid Active recreation facilities and facilities that do not directly support outdoor recreation and trail- oriented recreation should not be included, such as ornamental plants, lawns, and active recreation facilities. Site Selection Trail systems should be coordinated with the City of Tigard's Pathway Plan to create a pedestrian and bicycle system that connects all components of the park system and major community destinations. The trail system should provide access for people with disabilities and accommodate diverse recreational needs. Trail development is guided by site opportunities and constraints, such as pedestrian access, slope, natural resources, views and drainage. B -8 DESIGN GUIDELINES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX C CAPITAL PROJECT LIST Tigard Park System Master Plan Capital Projects List Comprehensive Priority I Project Plan Goal Priority Planning Cost 8 8 3 Q Park/Facility Type Site Name Project Typo Description n r 1 2 3 Community Park Cacti Community Park Design Develop a master plan That addressee property use limitations and the needs of the community- Provide neighborhood amenities ✓ x 3 150,000 (playground, bench, picnic table) and additional community park features as appropriate. Community Park Cacti Community Park Planning Develops site management plan that addresses the requirements ✓ x S 5,000 of the Metro funding. Community Park Cecil Community Park Develop Develop perk according to master plan ✓ X Community Park Cook Park Improve park amenity Add infrastructure for large festivals ✓ ✓ x Community Park Fowler Property Acquire land Purchase a portion of the School Disbicfs Fowler Property for park ✓ ✓ x S 8,250,000 Community Park Fowler Property Design Develop a master plan that addresses property use limitations and ✓ ✓ x S 200,000 the needs of the community Community Park Fowler Property Planning Develop a site management plan that addresses the requirements ✓ x 3 10,000 of the Metro funding. Community Park Fowler Property Develop Develop property according to master plan ✓ ✓ x Community Park Proposed Community Park (P11) School Park Explore the potential to develop additional facilities al Templeton Elementary School / Twallty Middle School to meet community park ✓ ✓ x needs Community Park Proposed Community Perk (P11) Identify/Acquire Site If school park project is not feasible, Identify and acquire a ✓ ✓ x community perk property in the P11 opportunity area. Community Park Proposed Community Park (P11) Design Develop a master plan for either a school park redevelopment or ✓ ✓ x new community park site. Community Perk Proposed Community Park (P11) Develop Develop park according to approved master plan ✓ ✓ x Neighborhood Park Bonita Park Improve Crossing Enhance crossing at Bonita Road for park and regional trail users. This crossing should be designed for young park users. ✓ x 3 75,000 Neighborhood Park Jack Park Design Develop a basic perk master plan to guide future development of ✓ ✓ x $ 15,000 this park. Neighborhood Park Jack Park Bridge Design and develop a bridge to conned Jack Park with Fire Station ✓ x S 100,000 50 Neighborhood Park Jack Park Improve park Develop play area on park extension. ✓ x S 100,000 amenities Neighborhood Park Jack Park Improve trail Upgrade intemel trail segments to match role as a major amenities connection point after proposed Valle T5 and T9 are constructed. ✓ X Neighborhood Park Metzger Elementary School School Park Work with the school district to create space on the school grounds that can provide local park amenities to residents. This site should ✓ ✓ ✓ x connect with the Washington Square Regional Trail. Neighborhood Park Northview Park Improve park amenity Upgrade the open turf area ✓ ✓ x Neighborhood Park Northview Park Design Design a pathway from the park down the hill to the Weatside Trail ✓ x Corridor. Neighborhood Park Northview Park Develop Implement trail connection between park and Westside Trail ✓ x Neighborhood Park Proposed East Butte Heritage Park Design Develop a master plan for East Butte Heritage Park that Integrates ✓ ✓ x S 50,000 (P10) the historic Tigard House into the theme of the park. Neighborhood Park Proposed East Butte Heritage Park Develop Add local park amenities (playground. picnic site) according to s/ x S 350,000 (P10) approved master plan Neighborhood Park Proposed Local Park (P12) Acquire land Identify new park land adequate for local park ameni0ea. If larger site Is available, acquire additional lend for competitive sport ✓ ✓ x S 800,000 facilities such as baseball and soccer fields. Neighborhood Park Proposed Local Park (P12) Design Develop a master plan for new park site considering the need for additional sports facilities and connections to the Fenno Creek ✓ ✓ x Trail. Neighborhood Park Proposed Local Park (P12) Design Develop park according to master plan ✓ ✓ x Neighborhood Park Proposed Local Park (P0) Acquire land Identify and acquire a park sits that meets the basic design ✓ x guidelines for a neighborhood or linear park. Neighborhood Park Proposed Local Park (P0) Design Develop a master plan for this properly ✓ it Neighborhood Park Proposed Local Park (P0) Develop Develop park according to the approved master plan, Including ✓ x local park amenities. , Neighborhood Park Tigard Triangle Area Planning Address park and recreation needs for this area in the final Tigard Triangle Plan. Consider the development of a trail loop In the area ✓ ✓ ✓ x NIC as well as a plaza for employee breaks. Neighborhood Park Tigard Triangle Area Develop Develop recreation amenitee resulting from Triangle Area planning ✓ ✓ ✓ x efforts. Neighborhood Perk Woodard Park Develop Continue restoration projects In the south part of the park 1 ✓ x Linear Park Commercial Park Expand/Replace Expand or replace this park site to allow for local park amenities to ✓ ✓ x be provided to the adjacent neighborhood. Linear Park Englewood Park Develop Connect the inlemal trail system (T2). Ideally this would Include acquisition of the open space between the Iwo park segments. but ✓ x an Interim solution would be to provide Nlgnage and sidewalk connections between park segments. Linear Park Englewood Park Add local amenities Consider adding a resiroom within this park, preferably near the ✓ ✓ x regional trail, to serve local park and trail user needs. Linear Park Fenno Creek Park- Urban Plaza Acquire Acquiring eddltonal floodplaln properties for Fenno Creek Park ✓ ✓ x S 1,000,000 expansion. L inear Park Fenno Creek Park - Lower Park Develop Improve lower park according to master plan. Add local park ✓ ✓ x S 2,115,000 amenities to the lower park to serve neighborhoods south of the Linear Park Fenno Creek Park- Fenno Creek Improvements to Develop a public meeting space outdoor facilities for picnics and House indoor space group gatherings, and potentially a community garden at the Fenno ✓ ✓ x S 135,000 Creek House near the 11011 Boulevard entrance to the perk Linear Park Fenno Creek Park - Urban Plaza Develop Develop plaza as per master plan to support a range of uses, ✓ ✓ x S 4,100,000 including an interactive fountain. Linear Park Fenno Creek Park - Park Gateway Develop Perk Gateway at Main Street s / s / X S 850,000 Linear Park Fenno Creek Park - Upland Park Develop Develop upland park as described In master plan ✓ x / x 5 1,100,000 Linear Park Proposed Senn Park Develop Implement the adopted master plan. For future planning purposes. ✓ x S 250,000 combine the site with the natural area adjacent to IL L inear Park Undeveloped Linear Perk (P5) Identify/Acquire Site The Ideal site would have good visibility, level terrain. and connections with the trail system. If possible, the City should look to ✓ ✓ % utilize open space land already In public ownership. Linear Park Undeveloped Linear Park (PB) Design Develop a master plan for the Identified site ✓ ✓ x Linear Park Undeveloped Linear Park (P8) Develop Develop park according to the approved master plan, Including ✓ ✓ x local park amenities and trail connections. Linear Park Undeveloped Linear Park (P7) Design Design a potion of the linear park land along the trails indicated at P7 to include local park amenities to serve the surrounding ✓ ✓ x neighborhoods. Linear Perk Undeveloped Linear Park (P7) Develop Develop bask perk amenities as the sits(.) will allow. s / ✓ x Special Use Area Additional Dog Park Land acquisition If current site cannot be preserved. identify lend to replace the ✓ x Potso park with a 2 acre dog perk Special Use Area Additional Dog Park Design Develop a master plan fora new dog perk. If the site allows, consideration should be made for separating the site to allow turf ✓ ✓ x rest or multiple activities. Special Uee Area Additional Dog Park Develop Develop the dog park according to the master plan. ✓ x Special Use Area Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park Improve park amenity Add a double restroom (unisex) to serve users of this site and trail ✓ ✓ x $ 150,000 Special Use Area Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park Improve park amenity Add a spectator area with seating beyond the perimeter fence ✓ ✓ x Special Use Area Potso Dog park Partnership Negotiate with new landowners to exend lease or acquire the ✓ X NIC current dog park site Tigard Park System Master Plan Capital Projects List Comprehensive Priority 1 Project Plan Goal Priority Planning Coat t II s 5 3 a a Park/Facility Type Site Nam, Project Typo Description 0 ;y m 1 2 3 Regional Trail Bonita Park/Fanno Creek Link (r11) Design Design a trail connection through the Brown Property. this project will require survey work, wetlands permitting, end design That 1 x S 100,000 reflects the sensitive nature of this site and the Importance of this trail connection. Regional Trail Bonita Park/Fanno Creek Link (1'11) Develop Develop regional trail section including boardwalk and bridge that x/ x S 500,000 are sensitive to the wetlands on this property. Regional Trail Fenno Creek (T12) Planning Implement a corridor study to Identify the exact route and le x S 15,000 challenges to developing this trail segment. Regional Trail Fenno Creek (T12) Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement from Bonita ✓ x Park south to Cook Perk. Regional Trail Fenno Creek (T12) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. 1 x Regional Trail Fenno Creek (T7) Planning Implement a corridor study to identify the exact route and ✓ x S 7,500 challenges to developing this trail segment Regional Trail Fenno Creek (77) Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement from Woodard ✓ X S 150,000 Park south to Highway 99. Regional Trail Fenno Creek (17) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. 1 x Regional Trail Proposed Trail Corridor (1 Planning Implement a corridor study to identify the exact route end ✓ x challenges to developing this trail segment. Regional Trail Proposed Trail Conidor (19) Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement from Jack ✓ x Park southwest to the open apace. Regional Tra11 Proposed Trail Corridor (10) Develop Develop appropriately scaled fecl11ties for this section. ✓ X Regional Trail Rail- to-Trail (T8) Planning Right -of -way should be master planned to identify appropriate uses ✓ x 8 15,000 of land adjacent to trail and trail amenities required. Regional Trail Ra11 -to -Troll (r6) Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement connecting from Fenno Creek Trail along the railroad tracks south to Highway ✓ x S 400,000 99. Regional Trail Rail- to -Tmll (T6) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. 1 X Regional Trail Schools Ferry Crossing (T1) Overpass crossing Work with the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District to i x $ 2,300,000 Improve the trail crossing at Schools Ferry and Fenno Creek. Regional Trail Washington Square Regional Planning Implement a corridor study to examinee range of bike and ✓ x Center Trail (13) pedestrian solutions in this area. Regional Trail Washington Square Regional Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement from Fenno Center Trail (T3) Creek Trail along Ash Creek and north to Portland City limits ✓ X Regional Trail Washington Square Regional Develop Develop regional trail facilities for this section. ✓ x Center Trail (T3) Regional Trail Westside Trail (010) Planning Implement a condor study to identify the exact route and ✓ x S 10,000 challenges to developing this trail segment. Regional Trail Westslde Trail (110) Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement along Metro e ✓ x Identified corridor. Regional Trail Wasteide Trail (T10) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. ✓ x Local Inter - Connector Proposed Trail Corridor (T4) Planning Implement a conidor study to Identify the exact route and s/ x S 10,000 Trail challenges to developing this trail segment. Local Inter - Connector Proposed Trail Corridor (T4) Acquire Acquire any additional land needed to connect from Summerlake ✓ x S 175,000 Tra11 Park west to the built section of trail. Local Inter- Connector Proposed Trail Corridor (T4) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. ✓ x Trail Local Inter - Connector Proposed Trail Corridor (T5) Planning Implement a corridor study to Identity the exact route and s/ x S 15,000 Trail challenges to developing this trail segment. ._ Local Inter - Connector Proposed Trail Corridor (T5) Acquire Acquire any additional land needed to connect from Fowler ✓ x Trail property to Summerlake and Jack Park. Local Inter- Connector Proposed Trail Corridor (75) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. ✓ x Trail Local Inter - Connector Woodard Park Link (T8) Planning Implement a corridor study to Identity the exact route and ✓ x Trail challenges to developing this tra11 segment. Local Inter- Connector Woodard Park Link (T8) Acquire Acquire land through outright purchase or easement from Woodard ✓ x Trail Park southwest to the established trail corridor. Local Inter - Connector Woodard Park Link (1'8) Develop Develop appropriately scaled facilities for this section. ✓ x Trail TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE APPENDIX D FUNDING SOURCES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS GENERAL FUND The General Fund is the primary operating fund for the City. It goes to support a wide -variety of City functions, including police, fire, emergency medical services, comprehensive planning, parks operations and maintenance. Parks and recreation competes with these City services for dollars. Still, the General Fund is, by far, the largest source of revenue for parks operations and maintenance. Staff salaries and benefits, office supplies, equipment maintenance, and staff training are all covered by the General Fund in annual budget cycles. The General Fund is fed by property taxes, interest earnings, intergovernmental transfers, and other funds as noted below. Properly Tax Property taxes are the largest single source of revenue for Tigard's General Fund. Nevertheless, property tax revenues are not typically used to support parks operations and maintenance. Interest Earnings Interest earnings refer to the amount of interest earned on reserved or fund balances during the fiscal year. Interest earned in parks specific funds, such as dedicated parks operations, park SDCs or capital funds, is available for the same purposes as the principal being invested. Public fund investments are highly regulated in Oregon, with allowable interest yielding only limited returns. Intergovernmental Transfers This funding mechanism refers to funds transferred from outside agencies. Examples include transfers from the state or federal government as an allocated pass- through revenue source, RV registration fees, and gasoline tax transfers. Other Other sources of general fund support include state - shared revenue, licenses and permits, hotel /motel tax, community services, and fire contracts, which comprise nearly one -third of the General Fund. Franchise fees, utility license fees and business income taxes make up the remaining portion. FUNDING SOURCES D -1 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE LOCAL OPTION LEVY /SERIAL LEVY A levy is a property tax mechanism that raises funds based on an amount of assessed value. Levies are voter - approved and are subject to a double majority, except in November elections in even - numbered years, when a simple majority will suffice. Levies can be used for either capital or operations expenses. Capital levies can be imposed for ten years and operating levies can be imposed for five years. If the local option levy combines capital and operating expenses, the levy is subject to a five year limit. Local option operating levies can be used for general operations or for a specific purpose. If used for a general purpose, they will be receipted directly in into the City's General Fund. If used for a specific purpose, a special revenue fund must be established. Cities can place up to four local option levies on a ballot within a calendar year. Potential revenue from a local option levy may be reduced due to the $10 /$1,000 of real market value property tax rate limitations for general government taxes. If the $10 limitation is exceeded for any individual property, all general government -taxing authorities receive only a prorated share of their tax levy, so that the total general government taxes remain within the cap. This situation is called compression. Compression occurs in two stages, with local option levies compressed first, followed by the compression of permanent tax rates. FEES AND CHARGES Enterprise revenues (user fees) and earned income generate revenue for the City and are described below: Facility - Use Charges Facility charges generate revenue for parks by charging for the use of City facilities (e.g., sport fields, picnic shelters, meeting rooms, community garden plots). These charges may cover direct costs generated by facility use, such as field lighting or trash removal. Rates may also be set higher to subsidize parks maintenance and address the long -term impacts of facility use. Tigard can increase revenue for park services by expanding rental facilities (picnic shelters, meeting rooms, etc.) or by increasing rental fees and other facility-use charges. Programming Fees User fees for recreation programming generate revenue by charging users for some or all of the costs of providing services and materials. Charges for programming are often based on a cost - recovery strategy determined by the City. Some program areas, such as youth and senior programs, may be D -2 FUNDING SOURCES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE partially subsidized, while programs for adults may be more suitable for higher fees and charges. Some programming fees also include built -in charges for facility use and maintenance. Entry Fees Park entry fees, day -use fees, or parking fees are used by some larger jurisdictions to generate revenue for parks. These are not typically recommended for City park sites and can be difficult to enforce. However, entry fees can be charged for some special events, where appropriate. The decision to charge entry fees at community events and festivals is often based on cost recovery goals for this type of recreation opportunity. Concessions (Earned Income) Food, beverage, and merchandise vendors or concessionaires that operate restaurants, coffee - kiosks, or other revenue - generating facilities in parks can also generate excess revenues to support the park system. The City can set -up specific arrangements with vendors and concessionaires for these services. Park Sponsorships The City may solicit sponsors who are willing to pay for advertising, signage, facility naming rights, etc., generating funds to support operations. In addition, sponsors are often sought to support a particular event or program. Miscellaneous Rentals Many cities are evaluating a variety of opportunities to generate revenue in parks. For example, some cities provide opportunities for organizations to rent display space, such as street banners or flags in urban plazas to advertise events. Companies may rent space to provide cellular phone towers in parks, or vendors may rent pads with hookups, where carts can be parked. (This rental space is different from taking a portion of proceeds from vendor sales.) PUBLIC /PRIVATE COLLABORATION Volunteers Many cities are recognizing that volunteers can be a valuable source of labor to help with maintenance, programming, special events, and capital improvements. Volunteers can increase the quality and quantity of public services at a minimal cost, and provide an opportunity for citizens to contribute to the betterment of their community. Studies suggest that for every $1 invested in volunteers, a city can realize as much as $10 in FUNDING SOURCES D -3 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE benefits. With tight fiscal conditions, more local governments are expanding volunteer programs. Volunteerr programs include individuals or groups who agree to take on specific tasks or perform certain services, such as maintenance, restoration, programming, and special event support. Volunteers may provide direct and indirect support to the park system. For example, a volunteer park clean -up crew directly saves on paid maintenance tasks. Volunteer safety patrols (community groups) may indirectly reduce facility damage and vandalism, protecting City assets. Partnerships (Businesses and Non - Profits) Partnership agreements allow the City to work with a private business or non -profit entity to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives the City can offer potential partners are free land to place a facility (usually a park or other piece of public land), certain tax advantages, and access to the facility. For example, some cities have partnered with the YMCA or private health clubs to build multi- purpose recreation centers /aquatic facilities at city parks. These facilities are larger or more comprehensive than the city could have developed alone. In other cases, a business non -profit may be contracted to manage and operate a city -owned facility. Partnerships with Neighborhood Associations The City may craft agreements with various neighborhood associations for park operations and maintenance. Neighborhood groups may also volunteer to take on basic maintenance tasks, such as mowing and litter removal. Grants and Foundations Private grants and foundations provide money for a wide range of projects, such as unique capital projects or projects that demonstrate extreme need. They sometimes fund specific programs and, therefore, are noted here. However, grants and foundations rarely provide funds for park maintenance. D -4 FUNDING SOURCES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE TAXES AND SURCHARGES Many cities use tax mechanisms to help fund park and recreation projects and services. Examples are noted below. The City of Tigard could explore these or other potential tax mechanisms as part of the City's overall revenue strategy. Park Utility Fee A park utility fee creates dedicated funds to help offset the cost of park maintenance. Most City residents pay water and sewer utility fees. The park utility fee applies to all households and businesses and is collected through the utility billing system. Park utility fees have the potential to be a significant and stable revenue stream for local jurisdictions. For example, assuming the City of Tigard could successfully adopt a relatively small utility fee of $2.50 per unit per month, it would generate approximately $600,000 annually based on an estimated 20,000 households in Tigard Tourism Tax Several Oregon cities use rental, motel and restaurant taxes to support parks and recreation. These dedicated funds directly support department activities. While the City of Tigard applies hotel/motel taxes to its General Fund revenue, currently a portion is not dedicated to support parks and recreation. PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT The State of Oregon allows park and recreation districts to levy taxes on the population within their boundaries. There are three types of districts that may be formed: Special District Special districts are special - purpose taxing districts established to provide limited public services to people residing within the taxing district. An economic feasibility study must be completed prior to filing a petition for formation, to propose a permanent rate limit for operating taxes, expressed in dollars per thousand dollars of assessed value. The petition also requires the consent of a percentage of property owners or electors within the proposed district area. If the petition is approved, an election is required for the formation of the special district. Creating a district and establishing permanent property tax authority can be done as a single ballot measure, requiring a majority vote for approval. A district may also adopt other financing sources that may not require a vote. FUNDING SOURCES D - TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Economic Improvement Districts An Economic Improvement District (EID), also known as a Business Improvement District (BID), can be formed in commercial or business areas, but not residential areas, to fund specific services. An EID is funded through a business license surcharge levied against property square footage in commercial and industrial zones. The surcharge cannot be levied against residential square footage. In order to establish an EID, the City must establish a specific purpose or project for EID funding. The business license surcharge may not exceed 1% of all real market assessed value within the district. Property owners may opt out of the surcharge. However, the district cannot be created or renewed if 33% of the total assessed area opts out of the surcharge. An EID has a five year minimum lifespan and can be renewed at the end of this period. In addition, an EID does not affect the creation of an Urban Renewal District. Cities collect surcharge revenue and distribute it to an advisory group comprised of business representatives from within the district. Once collected, EID funding can be used for: • Planning or management of development or improvement activities; • Landscaping or other maintenance of public areas; • Promotion of commercial activity or public events; • Activities in support of business recruitment and development; and • Improvements in parking or parking enforcement. FUNDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Systems development charges (SDCs) are applied to all new residential development and are an important source of funding for the acquisition and development of new parks and natural areas. Since SDCs are paid for by new development, the fees can only fund capacity enhancement projects that are needed as a result of the development. SDCs cannot be used for the preservation and maintenance of existing parks and facilities. The City's adopted SDC rates per residential dwelling unit are as follows: • Multi - Family Unit $4,134 • Single Family Unit $5,215 D -6 FUNDING SOURCES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE BONDS Voter approved bonds allow the City of Tigard to sell bonds and secure payment with revenue from increased property taxes. This assessment can be communicated as a rate per thousand of assessed value. In Oregon, the use of bond debt for capital construction and capital improvements excludes anticipated maintenance and repairs, and supplies and equipment that are not intrinsic to the structure. The process for placing a bond on a ballot is similar to a levy, however the city must pay for a bond rating and then conduct a feasibility study. These costs can be included in the bond amount. Metro Greenspaces Bond The Metro Greenspaces Bond passed in November 2006 providing over $200 million for the purchase of natural areas. Tigard has acquired natural area lands using funds from this bond measure. Additional land purchases are in progress or possible in the near future. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (LID) An LID is a geographic area in which real property is taxed to defray all or part of the cost of a public improvement. The unique aspect of a LID is that its costs are apportioned according to the estimated benefit that will accrue for each property. The three primary principles that guide LIDs are: direct service, obligation to others and equal sharing. With these principles, the LID charges a special assessment to property owners who receive special benefits from an improvement beyond general benefits received by all citizens of the community. In Oregon, LIDS are governed by local ordinances. In order to create an LID, the City of Tigard would need LID participant's approval to issue bonds to pay for improvements. The assessment would be in relation to the property owner's share of the specific improvements. Bonds could then be sold in the amount of the improvement, secured directly by the assessments charged to the property owners, or indirectly by the lien against the assessed property. URBAN RENEWAL /TAX INCREMENT FINANCING This funding mechanism allows for the redevelopment of communities using public investment to stimulate private investment in areas that otherwise would have remained stagnant or undeveloped. This funding mechanism allows the City of Tigard to freeze property tax rates at the adopted level, using the incremental increase to fund priority projects predefined by the city. FUNDING SOURCES D -7 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE DONATIONS Donations of labor, land, materials, or cash by service agencies, private groups, or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects. Service agencies often fund small projects such as picnic shelters or playground improvements, or they may be involved in larger aspects of park development. GRANTS Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) These grants from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development are available for a wide variety of projects. CDBG funds have limitations and are generally required to benefit low and moderate income residents. Grants can cover up to 100% of project costs. Land and Water Conservation Fund This is a federal grant program that receives its money from offshore oil leases. The money is distributed through the National Park Service and is administered locally by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. The funds can be used for acquisition and development of outdoor facilities and require a 50% match. Local Government Grants This Oregon program uses Lottery dollars to fund land acquisition and development and rehabilitation of park areas and facilities. A 50% match is required for larger agencies and a 40% match for small agencies (cities /districts with a population of less than 5,000 and counties with a population of less than 30,000). The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department staff reviews and approves small projects of $50,000 or less. Large projects exceeding this amount, but less than $500,000, are reviewed and approved by the Local Government Advisory Committee. The funds for this program are available on a biannual basis. Oregon Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program The Oregon Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program provides funding to schools and local governments for projects that increase the ability and opportunity for children to walk and bicycle to school. Program funding is also available for development and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption and air pollution within two miles of the school. The SRTS application requires local governments applying for grant funding to coordinate the application process with local school districts. For infrastructure related D -8 FUNDING SOURCES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE project funding, the project must be within two miles of an affected school. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is a state agency led by a policy oversight board. Together, they promote and fund voluntary actions that strive to enhance Oregon's watersheds. The Board fosters the collaboration of citizens, agencies, and local interests. OWEB's programs support Oregon's efforts to restore salmon runs, improve water quality, and strengthen ecosystems that are critical to healthy watersheds and sustainable communities. OWEB administers a grant program that awards more than $20 million annually to support voluntary efforts by Oregonians seeking to create and maintain healthy watersheds. Recreation Trails Program This is a grant program funded through the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. Projects eligible under this program include: 1) maintenance and restoration of existing trails; 2) development and rehabilitation of trailhead facilities; 3) construction of new recreation trails; and 4) acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property. Grants are distributed on an annual basis and require a 20% match. Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program This program provides funding for the design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The program lists pedestrian/bicycle bridges as an example of project type, eligible for project funding. Project proposals must meet ODOT guidelines. ODOT staff then determines whether the project should be advanced for final review by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Grant opportunities are available on an annual basis and require a 5% match from the City. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program Also known as the Rivers & Trails Program or RTCA, this grant is administered by the National Park Service and federal government agencies so they can conserve rivers, preserve open space and develop trails and greenways. The RTCA program implements the natural resource conversation and outdoor recreation mission of the National Park Service in communities across America. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) Enacted in 2005, SAFETEA -LU allocated almost $290 billion for infrastructure to maintain transportation infrastructure, including FUNDING SOURCES D -9 TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE bicycling and pedestrian facilities. This program will expire in September 2009. Transportation Enhancement Program This program provides federal highway funds for projects that strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, or environmental value of the transportation system. The intent of the program is to fund special or additional activities not normally required on a highway or transportation project. Funds are available for twelve "transportation enhancement activities ", including pedestrian and bicycle projects. Transportation Enhancement or "TE" projects are selected through a competitive process. The funds are provided through reimbursement, not grants. Participation requires matching funds from the project sponsor, at a minimum of 10.27 %. Applications are accepted only from public agencies. All projects must have a direct relationship to surface transportation. Urban Forestry Grants There are several grant programs that provide money for urban forestry projects. One is funded by the U.S. Small Business Administration and provides grants to purchase and plant trees. This program sometimes funds urban street tree planting programs. TRUSTS, ESTATES AND EXCHANGES Land Trusts Private land trusts such as the Trust for Public Land and the Nature Conservancy employ various methods, including conservation easements, to work with willing owners to conserve important resource land. Land trusts assist public agencies in various ways. For example, land trusts may acquire and hold land for eventual acquisition by the public agency. National Tree Trust National Tree Trust provides trees through two programs: America's Treeways and Community Tree Planting. These programs require that volunteers plant trees on public lands. In addition, America's Treeways requires that a minimum of 100 seedlings be planted along public highways. Lifetime Estates This is an agreement between a landowner and the city that gives the owner the right to live on the site after it is sold to the city. D -10 FUNDING SOURCES TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE Exchange of Property An exchange of property between a private landowner and the city can occur to provide park space. For example, the city could exchange a less useful site it owns for a potential park site that is currently under private ownership. FUNDING SOURCES D - Agenda Item # Meeting Date June 16, 2009 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Workshop on Current and Future City Center Development Agency Roles and Responsibilities Council Goal #2 Prepared By: Sean Farrell Dept Head Approval: t City Mgr Approval: P 5 Y P PP n� 1 PP ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Presentation and discussion on the roles and responsibilities of the City Center Development Agency (CCDA). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide feedback and direction to staff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Councilor Henderson has raised issues and requested additional information regarding the history of Urban Renewal in Tigard and the role and responsibilities of the City Center Development Agency (CCDA). This information is presented to initiate discussion and to review urban renewal policies and strategies. CCDA and CCAC — Context and History: The City Center Development Agency is the statutorily required (under ORS 457) body that administers the urban renewal plan. The CCDA (and an advisory board, the City Center Advisory Commission) were established in 1989 in conjunction with a previous (unsuccessful) urban renewal attempt. The entities remained on the books but were "dormant" until reactivated in 2005. The 1989 ordinance established the membership of the CCDA to be the members of the City Council. At the time of the reactivation of the CCDA (Resolution 05 -32) there was discussion that the Council would initially serve as the development agency and that future deliberations would occur on whether to appoint a separate decision making body as the district progressed. ORS 457 allows urban renewal district governance to be an agency made up of either an independent appointed board or the governing body of the municipality (but considered a separate governmental entity). The most common form of urban renewal districts district governance is for the local elected body to assume the role. Among the cities and counties with this arrangement are the cities of Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Gresham, Sherwood, Salem, Troutdale, and Bend, as well as Clackamas County. Examples of cities with independent appointed boards are Portland and Medford. Ordinance 89 -05 stated the City Center Development Agency has the "authority to exercise all powers available to the Agency under ORS Chapter 457..." The City Center Urban Renewal Plan outlines the CCDA's specific responsibilities which include: • Establishing policies for the district and directing the Executive Director of the CCDA (the City Manager) and staff to carry out these policies. • Approving CCDA budgets and allocating tax increment funds. • Purchasing land from willing sellers for redevelopment as part of public /private partnerships. • Establishing rules and regulations for administration of financial and technical assistance programs and relocation regulations. I:ALRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \6 -16 -09 AIS CCDA roles.doc 1 • Making amendments to the City Center Urban Renewal Plan (increasing maximum amount of indebtedness and adding land greater than 1% to the district require voter approval.) The role of the City Center Advisory Commission is to be an advisory body to the CCDA on matters pertaining to plan implementation and tax increment fund allocations. Its responsibilities are detailed in its by -laws, (approved by Council in October 2006 and amended in October 2007): • Making recommendations on policy, budget, and implementation of urban renewal projects identified within the Urban Renewal Plan and /or the annually adopted Downtown Implementation Strategy and Work Program to the CCDA for consideration, deliberation, and action. • Making an annual report to the CCDA including a summary of key activities and proceedings and any specific suggestions or recommendations which the CCAC believes would assist its mission or the overall goals for the Downtown. • Making recommendations to the CCDA for amendments to the Plan. • Performing other duties as assigned by the CCDA Council has the authority to: • Appoint members to the CCAC. • Approve amendments to the CCAC's by -laws. Urban Renewal Governance Options As stated previously Council has the opportunity to change the governing body of the Urban Renewal District to an appointed board made up of citizens, or a mix of citizens and Council members. It is important to urban renewal planning and implementation efforts to know if Council wishes to explore other models for the Development Agency. Status and Future of Urban Renewal: Economic conditions have changed significantly since the adoption of urban renewal in 2006. The experience of Tigard and other suburban communities is that downtown redevelopment does not occur quickly. Tax increment financing revenue, urban renewal's primary fiscal tool, is quite limited without new development to increase the district's total assessed valuation. FY 2008 -09 tax increment is approximately $117,000. Revised projections indicate that by 2014 tax increment receipts will be 60% of the original estimate. In view of the Urban Renewal District's past performance and current economic conditions, the CCDA may wish to adjust the City's Urban Renewal strategy to the reality that tax increment revenues will, in the foreseeable future, be below initial expectations. Revenues will not be available to bond for the level improvements within the time period originally anticipated. CCDA and Future Urban Renewal Strategies: During the coming Fiscal Year the CCDA may wish to undertake the following tasks and others in view of the above conditions and circumstances: • Review and revision of the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan to better match projected public expenditures with tax increment revenues; • Develop specific strategies / policies to engage property owners, developers and financing institutions to promote downtown redevelopment; • Establish specific rules related to financial and technical assistance programs such as the proposed facade grant program, and development opportunity studies; 1:ALRl'LN \Council Materials \2009 \6 -16 -09 AIS CCDA roles.doc 2 • Interagency coordination and communication with other public entities pertaining to redevelopment efforts such as Tri -Met Transit; Metro; Oregon Community and Economic Development Department (OCEDD); ODOT etc; and • Support the City Center Advisory Commission's efforts to develop a downtown leadership program. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Long Term Goal: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo from staff to Chair Dirksen and Members of the City Center Development Agency dated June 1, 2009 Attachment 2: Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 2.64 FISCAL NOTES Not applicable I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \6 -16 -09 AIS CCDA rolcs.doc 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RI III City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Chair Dirksen and the City Center Development Agency Board From: Sean Farrelly, Urban Renewal Senior Planner Re: Current and Future City Center Development Agency Roles and Responsibilities Date: June 1, 2009 INTRODUCTION The following provides background for City Center Development Agency (CCDA) discussion about its current and future roles, responsibilities, and proposed future tasks. BACKGROUND Timeline of Urban Renewal in Tigard • 1981: First Downtown Urban Renewal plan passed • 1983: Tigard Urban Renewal Agency abolished and establishment of requirement for voter approval of tax - increment financing • 1989: Council establishes City Center Development Agency and City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC). Urban Renewal /tax increment ballot measure rejected by voters. • 2002: Citizen led effort for Downtown revitalization starts • May 2005: Council re- activates CCDA • Sept. 2005: Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan accepted by Council • Dec. 2005: Urban Renewal Plan adopted by Council • May 2006: Tax Increment Financing Ballot Measure approved History, Roles and Responsibilities of the City Center Development Agency The establishment of Urban Renewal Districts in Oregon is governed by Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 457. A requirement of this statute is for the municipal governing body to set up an agency to carry out an urban renewal plan. This agency is considered to be a separate governmental entity from the municipal government. In Tigard this agency is the City Center Development Agency (CCDA). Both the CCDA and the CCAC were formed by Council in 1989 (Ordinance 89 -05) when the City attempted to form an Urban Renewal District in the Downtown. Although the urban renewal ballot measure failed, the CCDA "remained on the books" within Chapter 2.64 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Since there was no tax increment financing to implement a plan, the entity went "dormant." 1 Starting 2002, a new citizen led effort started to revitalize Downtown Tigard, which culminated in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. Council reactivated City Center Development Agency (Resolution 05 -32) to help develop the City Center Urban Renewal Plan with specific projects to revitalize Downtown. Tax increment financing to fund the plan was approved by voters in 2006. In the original 1989 ordinance, and again when the agency was reactivated in 2005, the membership of the CCDA was set as the members of the City Council. Under ORS 457 Council may establish urban renewal district governance by appointing a separate board or commission to serve as the urban renewal agency or by designating its members as the Agency board. The most common form of urban renewal district governance in Oregon is for the local elected body to assume the role. Among the cities and counties with this arrangement are the cities of Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Gresham, Sherwood, Salem, Troutdale, and Bend, as well as Clackamas County. Examples of cities with independent appointed boards are Portland and Medford. The organization of the CCDA parallels the City Council. The Mayor is the Chair of the Board and the City Manager is the Executive Director of the CCDA. The City's Budget Committee serves as the City Center Development Agency Budget Committee. CCDA Responsibilities The stated purpose of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan is to use the tools provided by urban renewal to attract private investment and facilitate the District's redevelopment. The CCDA's primary role is to carry out the projects listed in the Urban Renewal Plan and allocate funds raised from tax increment financing. Specific responsibilities include: • Establishing policies for the district and directing the Executive Director of the CCDA (the City Manager) and staff to carry out these policies. • Approving CCDA budgets and allocating tax increment funds. • Purchasing land from willing sellers for redevelopment as part of public /private partnerships. • Establishing rules and regulations for administration of financial and technical assistance programs and relocation regulations. • Making amendments to the City Center Urban Renewal Plan (increasing maximum amount of indebtedness and adding land greater than 1% to the district require voter approval.) • Assigning any additional specific duties to the CCAC. CCDA Past Actions The CCDA during the last two years has undertaken the following specific tasks: 2 • Adopted CCDA budgets, 2007 -2009 • Adopted Fanno Creek Park and Plaza Master Plan, February 2008 • Selected the location of the Downtown Plaza, August 2007 • Adopted the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan, September 2006 • Adopted Downtown Implementation Strategy, August 2006 (and subsequent updates) • Proposed the Urban Renewal Plan, October 2005 History, Roles and Responsibilities of the City Center Advisory Commission The CCAC was also created in 1989 by Ordinance 89 -05. It, too, went dormant and was reactivated in 2005. Members were appointed to the reactivated commission in 2005 to work on the City Center Urban Renewal Plan. After the approval of the District, the role of the CCAC transitioned to an advisory body to the CCDA on matters pertaining to plan implementation and tax increment fund allocations. Its role is detailed in its by -laws, (approved by Council in October 2006, and amended in October 2007). The CCAC's responsibilities include: • Making recommendations on policy, budget, and implementation of urban renewal projects identified within the Urban Renewal Plan and /or the annually adopted Downtown Implementation Strategy and Work Program to the CCDA for consideration, deliberation, and action. • Making an annual report to the CCDA including a summary of key activities and proceedings and any specific suggestions or recommendations which the CCAC believes would assist its mission or the overall goals for the Downtown. • Making recommendations to the CCDA for amendments to the Plan. • Performing other duties as assigned by the CCDA ORS 457 does not require the formation of a citizen advisory body when the governing body assumes the Development Agency's role, but nearly all jurisdictions in Oregon with urban renewal have done so. Status and Future of City Center Urban Renewal The experience of Tigard and other suburban communities is that downtown redevelopment does not occur quickly. One of the main reasons is that downtown assessed valuation is small relative to infrastructure investment need. Growth of the Assessed valuation of existing properties is limited by statute to three percent per year. Thus tax increment financing, urban renewal's primary fiscal tool, is quite limited without new development to increase the district's total assessed valuation. Current tax increment revenues are approximately $117,000. Revised projections by Tashman and Johnson (urban renewal consultants) indicate that by 2014 tax increment receipts will be 60% of the original estimate (see Chart A.) 3 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 .2 a 2005 Projection U- $300,000 3 2008 Projection $200,000 - 5 $100,000 �r43 z a w� , � gy p.. $ o @ k x ` 9 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Chart A: Tax Increment Projections for Urban Renewal District 2005 and 2009 In view of the Urban Renewal District's past performance and the current economic conditions, the CCDA may wish to adjust the City's Urban Renewal strategy to the reality that tax increment revenues will, in the foreseeable future, be below initial expectations. Revenues will not be available to bond for the level improvements within the time period originally anticipated. CCDA and Future Urban Renewal Strategies: The long term key to successful downtown redevelopment is to take short and long actions to foster private investment in the Downtown. Council as the CCDA has a key role in developing needed policies, strategies, and directing specific actions. During the upcoming Fiscal Year the CCDA may wish to undertake the following tasks, in addition to its other duties: • Review and Revision of the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan to better match projected public expenditures with tax increment revenues; • Develop specific strategies / policies to engage property owners, developers, and financing institutions to promote private investment in the downtown; • Establish specific rules related to financial and technical assistance programs such as the proposed facade grant program, and development opportunity studies; • Interagency coordination and communication with other public entities pertaining to redevelopment efforts such as Tri -Met; Metro; Oregon Community and Economic Development Department (OCEDD); ODOT etc; and 4 • Support the City Center Advisory Commission's efforts to develop a downtown leadership program. 5 - ATTACHMENT 1 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 2.64 CITY CENTER domain. The powers conferred to this agency by DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. ORS Chapter 457 are in addition and supplemental to the powers conferred by any Sections: other law. (Ord. 89 -05 §4, 1989). 2.64.010 Need Declared. 2.64.050 Limitation On Action. 2.64.020 Title. 2.64.030 Membership. Any act of the City Center Development 2.64.040 Powers. Agency shall be considered the act of the Urban 2.64.050 Limitation On Action. Renewal Agency only and shall not be considered 2.64.060 Advisory Commission an act of the City Council, even though Established. membership of both are identical. The City Center Development Agency shall not exercise 2.64.010 Need Declared. any power which, by Charter, requires voter approval. (Ord. 89 -05 §5, 1989). • Pursuant to ORS 457.035, the City Council declares that blighted areas now exist in the City 2.64.060 Advisory Commission and that there is currently a need for an Urban Established. Renewal Agency to function in the City. (Ord. 89- 05 §1, 1989). The City Center Advisory Commission is established. The Commission shall be comprised 2.64.020 Title. of seven to twelve members appointed by the City Council. The purpose of the Commission is to The Urban Renewal Agency created by this assist in implementation of the City Center chapter shall be known as the City Center Development Plan, to make recommendations to Development Agency. (Ord. 89 -05 §2, 1989). the City Center Development Agency and to help inform Tigard's citizens of the plan's content and 2.64.030 Membership. activities. (Ord. 89 -05 §6, 1989).• The City Center Development Agency shall be comprised of members of the City Council as it lawfully exists from time to time. Any change in membership of the City Council shall automatically, and without need for further legislative action, constitute an identical change in the membership of the City Center Development Agency. (Ord. 89 -05 §3, 1989). 2.64.040 Powers. Subject to the limitations imposed by Section 2.64.050, the City Center Development Agency shall have authority to exercise all powers available to the Agency under ORS Chapter 457, including, but not limited to, the power of eminent 2 - - SE Update: 12/01 4 7ci ci i . llctAlj.s- 6/17/2009 6 6 fo WO r k_Si we 191- ee-fr'ny Current and Future Sit ' enter Development Agen Urban Renewal in Tigard Roles and ponsibil ie' Downtown 'vision' unveiled '''' °'""�"'`•""'� Ny • City Cent "s = Given more time, - - -_.. Developmen N/ " L�'st zT y -- city pla�ca n ��°26, Workshop = . e ^s•_-- —r.:= -x ' °6 ' ▪ ! a_... a ?_�� '��- - :�?:� 1 �. ° ice \ • �, '�n • June 16, 2 � :s =='4-a : r==:_ f.5• � �� ` q. S:- ._r -.3. �K��:Y�_, z ,* � \ T ;y ., '-'\ _______ - Planne+• reds r�t'loolc' for dly center a �;` `�'•e�'`, �• �� , / , ;A :•;-,:.. 4- - 7.-- ** ? "$ , St•:„... ..''' ar mint` - ! ...w. Ti . ,..= : 74 77.- 4::....7. .?.:-..7-...:7,-, ‘:: : - „,..; :' 2_:;-- ,. 17 : ,.. : :: : :: ' M . LawelpgpAsre.&- a _-: r Tigard Urban Renewal Timeline Tigard Urban Renewal Timeline • 1981: Downtown Urban Renewal plan passed • May 2005: Council re - activates CCDA • 1983: Tigard Urban Renewal Agency abolished and • Sept. 2005: Tigard Downtown Improvement requirement for voter approval of tax - increment Plan accepted by Council financing • 1989: Council establishes City Center Development •Dec. 2005: Urban Renewal Plan adopted by Agency and City Center Advisory Commission. Urban Council Renewal rejected by voters. CCDA and CCAC remain • May 2006: Tax Increment Financing Ballot on the books, but become "dormant." Measure approved by voters 1 6/17/2009 City Center Urban Renewal Plan Role of CCDA • Goal: Use the tools provided by urban The Board That Administers the Urban Renewal Plan Responsibilities: renewal to attract private investment and • Establishing policies for the district and directing the Executive facilitate the District's redevelopment Director of the CCDA and staff to carry out. • Approving CCDA budgets and allocating tax increment funds. • Maximum indebtedness: $22 million • Purchasing land from willing sellers for redevelopment as part of public /private partnerships. • Duration: 20 years • Establishing rules and regulations for administration of • FY 08 -09 tax increment: $117,872 financial and technical assistance programs and relocation regulations. • Making amendments to the Plan (some would require voter approval) • Assigning any additional specific duties to CCAC. Role of CCAC Urban Renewal District Governance Advisory body to CCDA on Plan implementation • In 1989 membership of the CCDA was set as the members of Responsibilities: the City Council. • Making recommendations on policy, budget, and • ORS 457 authorizes URD governance to be made up of either implementation of urban renewal projects to the an independent appointed board or the governing body of the CCDA. municipality (but considered a separate governmental entity). • Making an annual report to the CCDA including a • When CCDA was reactivated in 2005, there was discussion summary of key activities, proceedings and that the Council would initially serve as the development recommendations. • Making recommendations to the CCDA for agency and revisit the question in the future. amendments to the Plan. • The most common form of urban renewal districts district • Performing other duties as assigned by the CCDA governance is for the local elected body to assume the role. 2 6/17/2009 Urban Renewal District Governance Urban Renewal Today Examples of elected body governance: • Suburban downtown redevelopment does not occur overnight. • Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Gresham, Sherwood, • Downtown assessed valuation is small relative to Salem, Troutdale, Bend, Clackamas County infrastructure investment need. • Growth of the assessed valuation of existing properties is limited to 3% per year. Tax Examples of appointed body governance: increment financing is limited without new • Portland (PDC) and Medford development. • Revenues will not be available to bond for the level improvements within the time period originally anticipated. Tax Increment Projections CCDA and Future Urban Renewal 2005 vs. 2008 Strategies $700 Potential Strategies for FY 2009 -10 5600 • Review, revise and prioritize the Urban Renewal Plan to better 5500 match projected public expenditures with tax increment revenues; • Develop specific strategies / policies to engage property owners, 5400 developers and financing institutions to promote redevelopment; ■ 2005 Projection a 5300 2008 Projection • Establish specific rules for financial and technical assistance • 5200 programs; • Interagency coordination with other public entities pertaining to S loo • redevelopment efforts such as Tri -Met, Metro, OCEDD, ODOT, etc; So • Support the CCAC's efforts to develop a downtown leadership 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 program. Projections by Tashman Johnson 3 I 6/17/2009 10- St�hws -1PA i *A\;\ s .......,,..frod,.,,..,..tm.,...4414\ ;A „,, � , ` a 4 � i • Questions, . `` ! ),- Discussion a s , a • '},f t' / Y l % k 1 L RII Y �� et0' 4 Agenda Item # Meeting Date June 16, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Pr ogress Rort — Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach Effort � / ] Prepared By: Agustin P .D Dueenas Q 6,e—e - r✓ ep Dept Head Approval: 6') City Mgr Approval: G- ` /1 C V " n/ C ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This is a progress report incorporating comments received so far in the public outreach effort associated with proposed changes to the City's Street Maintenance Fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and discuss information from staff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Street Maintenance Fee public outreach effort includes meetings with a wide variety of groups to obtain a broad range of public comment and input. Staff presented the public involvement plan to Council at the May 12, 2009 study session and provided a list of groups that would be contacted for meetings. A progress report on June 16, 2009 midway through the process and a final report on July 21, 2009 are key milestones on that plan. The objective of these meetings is to obtain stakeholder input to assist Council in making a decision on this matter. Council may, if it wishes, provide input and direction on the results received so far. The following comments have been received in the meetings that have been conducted as of June 2, 2009: • Go ahead and do what you need to do. Maintenance is important and cannot be ignored if we are to have good City streets and businesses that thrive. (PacTrust represented by John Wittala). • We understand the need for timely maintenance and clearly see the deterioration created by just the most recent winter storms. We have no objection to the proposed increases. (Washington Square represented by Jonae Armstrong). • This is not the right time to raise fees on businesses. Businesses on Main Street are barely surviving and don't need higher fees to tip them over the edge. Raise it on the residents instead. That would be more palatable. Consider cutting back on maintenance and go for a lower overall amount. (Comments from a meeting with the Tigard Central Business District Association, which included both members and non - members). • Include the right -of -way portion of the fee in the fee increase. There is no feasible way the residents from Summerfield can perform right -of -way maintenance with no parking allowed on Durham Road and no access from the residential properties to the areas needing maintenance. (Meeting with Summerfield residents at the Civic Association clubhouse). • Why don't you issue citations to owners that don't maintain their right -of -way frontages. Increasing the fee to include right -of -way maintenance creates a conflict with the current City ordinance requiring property owners to maintain the right -of -way. (Meeting with downtown businesses on May 26t). • Delay the implementation of the fee until the business climate gets better. How about applying the residential fee and delaying the non - residential fee increase until the final year of the phase -in period. (Meetings with downtown businesses on May 26 and May 29t • While we agree that an increase is needed, the proposed increase is substantial. We also think the Consumer Price Index and not the construction and labor costs increases should be used to account for inflation. The methodology of using minimum required parking spaces per code for non - residential uses provides certainty in computing fees and still appears sound to us. We'll contact our membership and get feedback from them on the proposed increases. We do want to work with you on coming up with an appropriate increase. (Meeting with Joe Gilliam and Amanda Dalton of the Northwest Grocery Association). Additional public outreach efforts scheduled during the months of June and July include the Tigard Farmer's Market, as well as meetings with businesses along Highway 99W and representatives from churches in the City. The results of the public outreach process will be summarized in a final report to be presented to City Council at the July 21, 2009 meeting for discussion and direction. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS A long term goal of Council is to "pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." Timely street maintenance minimizes the need for costly reconstruction and allows available funds to be redirected to other projects. It also provides better rideability and should improve traffic flow on City streets. ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES The current monthly rates of $2.18 per residential unit and $0.78 per code required parking space for non- residential provide slightly over $800,000 in annual revenue. The funding needed to adequately maintain the street infrastructure and provide right -of -way maintenance is $2,500,000. The phase -in period will allow for incremental increases leading to implementation of the full monthly rates. So that the final rates account for inflation during the phase -in period, the proposed charges include a 6.5 percent inflation factor. r \eng \gus \council agenda summaries \2009 \6 -16 -09 street maintenance fee public outreach - progress report ais.doc • Agenda Item # Meeting Date June 16, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title: Discussion on A Draft Resolution Requesting that Washington County Create a CPO4T Prepared By: Liz Newton Dept Head Approval: ' City Mgr Approval: _ CR ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council request that the Washington County Board of Commissioners consider creating a CPO (Citizen Participation Organization) 4T? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Discuss the attached resolution and provide direction to staff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the April 14, 2009 City Council meeting, Councilor Webb proposed that the council discuss petitioning Washington County to remove Tigard from CPO4B and CPO4T. Her concern is that Tigard is being represented by CPO4B on several issues that don't reflect the City's position and perhaps Tigard citizens would be better served by a CPO4T • comprised of Tigard residents. Mayor Dirksen commented that CPO4B had been split before (to create CPO4K , developing a precedent. Councilor Buchner expressed support for the concept. Councilor Wilson suggested that staff prepare information and a draft resolution for Council review. Staff reviewed Washington County Resolution & Order 86 -5, which adopts a Citizen Participation Policy for Washington County and provides for its implementation (copy attached). Under the heading "Citizen Participation Organizations" section, Article 4: "Scope of Activities" for the CPOs are outlined as follows: 4. Scope of Activities: a. Advise and consult with the Count' Board of Commissioners on matters affecting the livability of the community. Such matters would include, but not be limited to planning, housing, parks, open space and recreation, human resource delivery ystems, traffic and transportation ystems, water and sewage disposal systems and other matters affecting the livability of the community. b. Be informed and familiar with the views and opinions of the people of the community and be able to give an accurate presentation of those views. c. Keep the Board informed of any changes in its By Laws, its officers and Board members, and the name and address of its representative for receipt of notices and other communications. d. Serve as a vehicle for communication between governments and citizens; (1) Provide a known meeting place for Board communication with citizens; (2) Provide a place for legislators to meet with citizens; (3) Respond to notices, agendas and minutes and land use matters of every description including design review; • • (4) Take full and efficient advantage of budgeted staff assistance. e. Comments by community organizations on any matter of county government will be recognized, received and reviewed by the Board. 5. Neighborhood Associations: The Couny Board of Commissioners may recognize a Neighborhood Organization or _Association within the Couny when in compliance with the respective section in the County's Development Code. Neighborhood Associations will work within and be a substructure to the Citizen Participation Organisation program. Staff confirmed some confusing provisions in discussions with county staff. In particular, item "a." in the Scope of Activities. It describes the CPOs as advisory to the County Board of Commissioners. Item "d." broadens the scope to include communication between government and citizens. Section 5 allows the Board of Commissioners to recognize any Neighborhood Organization or Association within the county when in compliance with the County's Development Code. It is unclear whether the recognition is to be given for specific issues as provided for in the code or whether blanket recognition is the intent. In the case of CPO #2, its boundary is nearly coterminous with the Beaverton city limits. The city's Neighborhood Associations are recognized by the Board of Commissioners. There is no CPO Steering Committee, bylaws, or Officers for CPO #2. Up to two representatives of the City of Beaverton's Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) can be members of the county's CCI. In 2001, the County Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution and Order (copy attached) establishing a new procedure for changing CPO boundaries. Changes must be reviewed by any affected CPOs and by the county CCI. The Board of Commissioners makes the final decision after a public hearing. The proposed resolution attached reflects the county's current policies and procedures guiding CPOs and staff's understanding of the City Council's intent regarding a request to create a CPO4T. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Modify the attached resolution Take no action at this time CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed resolution • Washington County Resolution & Order No.86 -58 Washington County Resolution & Order 01 -75 FISCAL NOTES N/A • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REMOVE LAND WITHIN THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS FROM CPO4B AND CPO4M AND CREATE CPO4T. WHEREAS, the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution & Order 86 -5 on June 3, 1986 to adopt a Citizen Participation Policy for Washington County and providing for its implementation, including establishing Citizen Participation Organizations; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is divided into CPO4B and CPO4M; and WHEREAS, the Scope of Activities defined for CPOs includes "Advise and consult with the County Board of Commissioners on matters affecting the livability of the community"; and WHEREAS, Neighborhood Associations may also be recognized as a substructure of the CPO program; and WHEREAS, the boundary of CPO #2 is nearly coterminous with the City of Beaverton's Neighborhood Association boundaries; and WHEREAS, up to two representatives of the City of Beaverton's Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) can be recognized as members of the County's CCI; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has an active CCI and Neighborhood Network Program; and WHEREAS, Tigard City Council recognizes the importance of direct communication between Tigard citizens and their county government to represent their common interests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council respectfully requests that the Washington County Board of Commissioners initiate the process to remove land within the Tigard city limits from CPO4B and CPO4M and create CPO4T. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2009. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 09 - Page 1 I ` i2 2 p bl f s 'Y Trc � E a i a v ,p ', r . f ' � S{ sl ; . ' ` s a l 1i 1 � 1 , * , . ... , g t e 1 • � . Yka� `",. - ; 44:4 - - 2 4 i 5 L pip ! , � . .i } h 3 . ' r s ` 4 s? r; ( p i • 44; i 4 3 •�c+�4..,.k Sryt+ �7 nrta" � r rs A T' *,1A. ,,,hi r f�,),4,,=:-':'W,044-.$* y,. r ,.� l IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COR1426d2OASE6td 45"t''...,:''' 5: x y'4r 9 FOR BA9HIKCTON COQIK'FT, OREGOW F a 4 . �f t > a n �, 3 In the Batter of Adopting a Citizen ) n fro ,'17c x i ; s g 0 s �'t-" Par Policy for 1)aehington ► RBBOLOTIOn Amp ORDRB r 7 , t 4 County and Providing for its ) N - $4 _ -g , , n i z t ` Implementation r,� �� Y y`v 1 ,w , f , . •, ✓ra S � k`::: . • .... G The above - entitled matter came before the Board of County . , ,� ` ^`` a... i t - a t�*�'i 7 ,� r ,' n�� .'A f aL s - N3 7 Coamisoionere at their regular meeting of June 3, 19861 and d vx , �' I, v. , } , ^ 1 , Y , a It appearing to the Board that citizen participation is of is , ;�. ;. ,. 4 4n'iit ! F i ka i r k IV, 9 paramount importance to the effective operation of County :' { t�f ` } r a� * 'AVIV: 1 ;, . y . 10 government and should be endorsed and promoted by the Board of rri? `. K ,, ?r 3' ' $ ' . 11 County Commissioners) and ► �Zi1 y , X . 7 `� , c t t >f l 11 It appearing ? g et a f ! ppe aring to the Board that a citizen participation s� . �t 0)3':ar 13 policy should be adopted by this Board that assures that citizens 4? r ia,r 1.' "i , ""ct , , 8 ' .4ti 14 of Washington County have clear and understandable lines of , 13 communication with their elected representatives is the s',, ' , � r i "`� 7 *1- 4 16 formulation of County policy and law) and vt , ': It It appearing to the Board that numerous public hearings have :�? €r .°, !, ..M '. 1t been held with testimony from many citizens on the need and ; �} 1 = U '.' 5 7 m ;.C,t: . s 19 specific details of a citizen participation policy: and ' ' �s ; 30 It appearing to the Board that the citizen participation ; •• ' , ` : 21 policy should provide delineation of means for citizen ':. { , ?$t.,,. f • w fi" r } `, y , k i 22 participation, including public hearings, town hall meetings, "< d.�- 23 advisory committees, Committee for Citizen Involvement and 2 7 4N 24 4 ? ,/; i Citisen Participation Organizations) and } I f j iS / / / / / / /// h t i 7 l T jam' P ' � 20 / / / / / / /// s t PAP 1 5 • F f • } . • la1 . " b^ .:1+' '' efi, .:.' ..•yeN.,.. .... . �41 N ' 3. 3 a K z 4 ' i t # �l 4 Y •A 1 t t< ..,'..:1:',',..,1'..''''''-''..-3.,.‘: • 1 t . ' ,`1 ' y • u r WS r& ? i Yt } :., + rbtr h ¢ f(f �1 >N': {' .. . -.. .. - �t r ' tit_ i i .Al , :,•,,, y 5, rn f�L �i.�+ S 9 E ♦ -� r tL l iirl ,-, , �' 7 ri t . + ..• 1 It appearing to the Board that Exhibit °A° attached berets � � ' �6 y3 ?� 2 and identified as "5r r :�z W4 * \ -3-, 3 CITIfEN PARTYCIrATIOB s� vk ' r s "!;'04 • #g g am; r s Ili l a �:�r,�A S� ,; WASBYNGTON COONTY, OREGON %a ;s } a " c^2 t r � y. 44 xrt?L e AND �ti 'xiSs~ r : i �, ay . 5, o� •5 ,� „, is . _ • ) kk 4 a + �4 f3 8 IMPLEMENTATION �1 F4 t� t ` P ? "a a`+4" 9 addresses the need for citizen participation ` r' :` �, P patlon and the manner in �" �'x`� � �` '� r4 10 tt' P ,sf , rq which it may be utilized; and 1 .. �� ; cr � A t u * " 11 114041't ; o 7 � 1 . 1 -Ati It appearing to the Board that the attacked Citizen � 4 4 y ' 19 Participation Policy is the product of a process that Lacladeo '' r ;� � , ` � Contribution f[om many interested citizens and geoupm, and 4Fi'. tip' , +' " ' `F `f r . c 14 °� f t 'Mi. i 3 2 ' fl t �� It appearing to the Board that the Washington County ,�`;a ; f h �" 4r W. -F : IS Community Development Code and Board Resolution and Order Mo. y � r � F x ` 16 80 -108 provide for citizen ? c � 2 C + 4 P participation in matters of land use r , 17 planning, including the establishment of Community Planning • ` '.. , 1 .� i ,° t r is Organizations and the Committee for Citizen Involvement and :',''''''''":-.'1'.4. rr !$ �' <: 19 nothing in this Resolution and Order is intended to repeal, dater F t' p ,', 4C Y ". 20 or impede the intent of citizen involvement as stated therein, ' 1" r,' � F w , nos, therefore, it is �: : ..:, q Z1 -,,,,,..,..:%-':' RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the attached Citizen Participation r s`�' Policy is hereby adopted as the policy of $aehiagton Coua to a ` 1' 5 �. t): • ensure opportunities for the citizens of iaaebingtoa County to r` 4 contribute to the decision - making process of their County X ��e4 government, and it is further 4 J .S _____ '.`Mr�r�i /R�r' t .a, •w:.`a :..... yvl ,4c:+.. ,....�' wJ:, -.... , ' ' ..... .. ��, ' • . . ...; ....,...... . . A ' ""..': ...' • ''1.'-''' Y , ,.a,. •4'. ft `:;''. • ''s'•:•''':•'' t ,',-....::•• ''s :..:% •-":', • ' -.;'..; ."`"7 ' . ' 'f -`.:' ',. ,', -;', .- •-• ,' . • • :.-.,-. ...:-: C.- 4fi -, ''':-V.,? 5ci.i" '<% --.,..' .-- ' .- •.-'' ?:',.."''' '..,,'.•,.,•.• :' '.',-.. ''., ' • ',?-!---' , -, - ' • ': .. . .' ' ' ... • '.. :. ..._•• ' ' '•,‘-'; %•?,- # .. 0 .**4 .7?, - ',4 -;•-•.-,, , .. '. ;), :: :;:.• , "'i 1: i-W:-. ' ' -. Sri's. --• - i - k 4', 04 4 , .,•‘,•,"•■•,: • .4' -, 31'''.1 • ; ,.. >. • ,',..Pfy- , ;-•41,.., , 4 , .'0‘W . 7...X''i,i,'• •'-,1:741)114tOtt.V.4•X • ifs- t'. -- ' 4, /. 4 ',ir4 .273 A ::.,-...4,se,p,... •%.",,, 3.,:.6 g ,.....1 *04.0,0 RESOLVED AND ORDERS, that the County adniniatsnetos of . . •• -:-..40 r ' , 11,-,-04 , ,Fif .r e„.,,,,., ., . '-. e,i,t'' -it.,-c,r.'' Cr,--,''-"g-,,f_t Z Washington County provide copies of this Desolation and Order and -,.• - 4 ... p...,..z 1.1.2• ,,,:;‘,-, ••• " iv . ,Mj-•% , ,,I,;: , - •.!?•;''' 3 Citizen Participation Policy to ail washicnt:m •043ty I .. : P.: ?Mt, 4,,,t, , '-c...,, 4 and any requesting citizen. ... C T "?;'41A5 --. ...; Wirt E.P S DATED this 3rd day at June, 1,06. ;.0-.;:it'.....',ii • . :.., ..f. • f...:.i;' 4 ,,, ,. 7 ..M ' ' .1 ; -, , ■j ftil ? illVAI:' .... .. 6 BOARD OP OUNY CONNIDNIONDRS :- .' ..... • if...lik-•••0, , ,ir,...., POD WADDINGTON COUNTY, ONOGON . •;. --,:•,,,,,, --1.4 ,; ' 61.14 .,,,, •-tv•• • ., ., • Ix .1; ...;?..01 7 '.4041' * ;, . , .. c'...,::.::g ". ''!': sL1";:;:pi'e 'V; ' '.„,.- ' . ' ... 8 .. , ;:e..-.,g,_'..:Igi;:.;:s..;:c N.1,... ; , c. ..i:;4.4:if ,: :0:1?..Y,=:. T.., .- . . 4 ,,,, ,,, ,f.0,:s.„- ;,,,, 9 Attelitii0M4993&—_ .,., )& ...: ....'4,-;0 ,. .4. :;...1,,,AA'V, ''' . , .. ,..-1, ... , . , .311 , . 10 54 v— -., ' ••••1:sit • . %.e., ' v .J., . -v. 11 ' ..• ''.' , g: , 4-.•ra•-•••'z , '• • , . , : ( 777..4...., 6. 7244.. ... 12 .f"-.!;'.'-'f.,', • .:,,,,,• , .:•.;. t ..4.--; 6% . .44.r4SV'. 4 fli,. • 11 ))6...i'S:: . i%s . k, A:kfrd ....' A ..f!.i.E W.'' 19 1 zil 14 •••': .• l '.: : i..IJL: , i , :';'...,`, .0 .I. , -., .,,, • - 14...::•,. ....,,. . IS OK NW ': ' ' .„.. , : HAYS 4..... . OCILLPAC•C --____. 16 ....... 1.- ______ ........ — ..: •_,..,' ') ...4.*.'"A‘il:,-7,,,''' .- *A41'-treCtvt".01 17 MEEK _..IG _ ; VIITIF;$' MYLIENBECK —- — 4 ,1',..4:6 ',,....c til•-.;,..:,-.'44k.3,1 18 ROGERS ........__ '....'''''.',"'siz:..!`,,..s...-',-;..5.-'.;:;'.•,v:,....ii::./ir.?.f-S0.1 --4 — -- 19 ..: - . citl'i?r::V; iVi,:.',',X,..;kil,k u.. 10 ' ......,.. .f,.',;, ;P ,1 0 7. , 21 • ,ii''' ra',;',.. I _, ... .., ,,,,,,. -,.,,m:, 4.0..*,.. gi f-"- ;':::,:::- r.•,.'... .pi'5',, 1 (1 : : .,■3::::.;•;;...g.,"%.•,..;.fl'A. - -.::IP.4.'. - Z . '5';;;I : :'..':;`;:i if g 23 --,-..,-,:)..*: . 1 ?..,..- Vsz..‘r.. . ' • ' ' %:,,..--.,....-•%,=-,'...,,, -,, '...:,;...."...., . . . ...- .s.-.}" ( , .--rtc ,, ....„ f.''.:,' 24 .. :--",':".g...-.:•?:: 1Sz 4 25 s . , :. - . ,, •.•,-, ,,, r ,„-: :•' - ':; , :f.;;.:• - = , ••'A>' • ..- .-..,....k •-.,-,/,...-., A .,.:-.,• • . • r .‘':•.4".,' 28 Polo 3 . - • • -.,,,,,,, ... •;.••-, ,.:,.!.....' '.:. , ** • : " ,: ,‘' , ,.:, - - . :.' , ...1: - .e , z - ,-" , ?••• • •,:.".1.Y..".,e'''V .-. e. 0302d , • ,' . ,, s;` , .::•'..•- • ;;;?... : -;':-. 1 `;:•'.:i.• ; :. • •• :.-::,• : .'•ii; . :',.'..*•• : .1ra . ,•••• • 7 ,2 4•::: : ' ,- : . ..-..... .• , z.,:-. 1 :- ... <1 2 ••- , .;••••.-..„,,,,.;: - :,:j-e.,:,,...--*,- . ' • - . - '''• s: ' • - • --- . ' • - • • , . • ... : •••••=';'-fi -. ' - '. - • ' ' . - ' , - . -. . --'-'- -- :- . ' ' ' - . ... , . . . - - • • ' : . ' ' ' . ' . •- . .- . !:g„ SA :: 7 // 1 !'i'. '.',-;-:': ' - .* - . ' ' .- . • . s. .--., • • . • • -'.-',..'-;',',7--4',.1:::'''':w.,..',V..1-;••-•:.;07,..;•'-1?-.'!.}-',, ' .- ' - % • F - VI 0 r•••:=-1 • -- - . . • - . . . .. . • • - '. '''..4Vt•-'.11.-',46-7,'X'4%.•tl:;-41.'i,;•?,4,',.:Vc..1 • . _ ... : • . . - . . --. - --'''' s•'^Z,..2.•••`.--,'..,•..".",■.•.:,$..r.14.4.,,,.•.' r ' . • • . ' 7,';-,-;;;;:::,+.51N-;'fi.77:n...i:1,‘!•.:::'•-14114r.^::' . . - 7 ' .!7,7'..;::::: ;.1.-.- • *- ■ • . • . , , - '' ., • • .. • ...'''',::,..5.;'%-;ei;,--','.,--;,-.:,--:-.4:-.;•-c",-49. xli-!..., - • , ,,- . . . . . .. . • '" ' '" ' •%'•-'-',. .rjf.• , . ,3.., ' . - - . ' 14414.011464. ,-,-;,......, - - . - ..-- : ..- --',- .-• .. • - ' • «... - ' • . • ' '• ',..'.,4, ._!'-•`.., -. . • • • ' • • .• . ..,..,',,,....!.!:,..,:',`,--"..: ::,:',•?,,',;,,,'": 5' - •-•.i::: : ' . • . 4; ...,...,-• . -;:,.:5- ••••:.,......,::(:,.... ..!..iw....:,..-.„..:,.4•;. ,•- ,, 0 .. ,, :,.....,.. , ,, , ,i -, E...,,e... , ...,--:.- '4 -..,, • • . ., , . ' • .-..v. :c;.•'-'3,..9;r1.:.1,:4;h1';:,•*:Vg • . . . . ..... ., .. -..,...., . ..... .. ......... ;: . ; ;,.,:..I . .,,....0,,.,....;:.:.... , ..... i ...-... , . c ,• •; :.; .•;'...:..".'..t ,.... ... •.• ... .•, • .*. ' . - • '..••!• .. : . - ••••.= •• ..-:* ... . , ....,. , ...,..A,.......... :: ...! .. ..!...,..........,,,.... : ,.?.'.......,:••...,.,-...., .-.,... ...,...!„.:.::.,..F.5: :• , s'..; , .'.':''' .' .," . ..- :4: :2 -. ' . ' ... • ' ' . ......::! ' .......' . ..' , .. , ;•:4140,-4::'4- , :•iic ; 71(24;. , :i...:A4-)i). ... ,...,,,.. . -. ni",, ...;•:•.x .... - • • ::•.!:::.,;,,,:.$ ' . • -- ' 4 4: 1 41 , ': -. k ., :i.,,,':::: - "•' - ','"Pg:', 3 1;., ,,,7 1 . ? -:,, " ....F S'....:. , ••"•,.,..,,,-:%;1ZW4Y.,?;:i.:,-.1,,y4.^,W490R ze•-,... ..,• i ....,;::::,•.,...i .....,....,..,40.-r,.evel4g.:4.,,:,7: •...4. . s 1 ..,..*.rt.,,,- ,......:.:....., . . 7 z. , ••:..'(1:.:; . , .... ,....,,,, tr. f' , " . e ..2 .' , .....<1= . ,r- - "0' . . :',..; :. ' • . . . $ g :- :,...,4;, .,,g , ...- . ..: 1 „,-...4.. •,•,;., -,.. , , 0 , z.Z., .. • :•,' ' v,„( I • , i. s . ..; ' J :',...',.....W.• ,...- ‘, s ' f4 .... • .`...:-.'• ' ..‘ ; •,:r< - .. ,,, • s' <11-4;,:, :, ,r.iz,', ;. .. , „ i ; ;;;;,,,,: , ...4: - ... , ••4>•*4'4.'S' , : , -ifit'..1.c.Lz - • "kg. \*;1;7t...: r i".:444P i t t ,: '1 ' '-t';' '2; 4..,•,) :. ;V:::••,:7:4'.: . . --.-...,,,..';-- , .; ...f .'..!:,?;: ... .•:- ' .4 ‘:- ..,,,%, '11 ,-, ,, e' - ii•V 14 44,, , I;'' , ' -1;‘.; . • .!,.. .4. • , ....‘4 , r,r -- ),;...,,. 4.4‘, ••-•.0: ,,,.',,,; 7 ' ..!' , "(:-: , ,•?i'' , 4r/.4 , ...-.40 ..... .1":•4:'‘./." :••••. iy.f. ' ; -... ile:;:...,,14.5..,'".■■N?i,C■ .3"4-c:SV-e. .. ' ......I'I.I 'st..:••A•-lt . ., ..:•e • 1$4.4.4 • ••••••'!•.i...:1.:. .: :,..-.:,,o ,,...: -.: ',‘..',...:,. .- ',..-.... 1:•>5?:. ,. :r4 • ' .,,1,4,,?.1 ,A; •.,,,, ,5 - .p... i -It'411'; .. .,". ":..f.,,T : • ' ''.' • ,,, ` ' : ' .•;i4,i '''-,-,-''' • • L. Z ', qe: ,',;rAit:?:? '1'.' , :„,,,4„,..,,,,,,,„ ..,:•...,::5.„,„.. •.„....,..,...,,..4 .s.,....„...„:„.,r.,..,...,..„,,,,r,, .P ..' ' : . ........;.4y Citizen Participation ' .A : in ,• • ..,.. Washington County, Oregon ..,..x. - d, 7... „ - vzo , ..; , , ,, ,...‘k,WN --#•,!'- •.... :4 ,,,,, ;.,..5"00 ..i••:. ..... .„, -....0- v e ,:::-..i., ..Vg:VAt.t i' . ;k•-fiK: - ....1:1: -. ;.• i.!.t •,.. , : -;•.•4.f.5W0.= -,?..,,, • -i•‘.-'\:... i... •• ..,..- , ...a::::•••. , -1-Y;'. •-•-, .. ''''''''' • 1.•:1 • ' 1,,,...., Pol 1 cy and 1; 1 .1 ;:: : : : :. d, 5 5. * ; : :::: .:::.'.:•... • ''..z ' '::::-.En:44;e4...:r'-:',.- - Ingi szestati on ..:::. : .......,-.....c,. s•>4 --, .. . ..“::• , .: 1 `,S . A 4.''aiiik';' r"i14■;;'.14"4,, " --- ; • i '.. j - : .;:', . f '..- 42/4-7A. •• •:' -': . 12 ;;; ;t ::.; ' !' ' S'..e .. .1..; '1 0; - • : '' , : .: . ...1.; . i 6 , ,,-, ., . ' •••• 1....'2"...i ",,,- . :•• •;• " ;;"0...:: ' : - r ''' .- *:r;•,,■..r.iW4 ' ' . • • - ,. 4 .....,.. •;:: ...--,`: '':':',;' ' ...4 '• '•'. : , ,,.. % . -4 . ' •,h i;;A: X\. i'. " :,E;', k. • •' •i' .. , . ' • ,',...,....,,, Ptsy if, IOU .2.1#,.,-0.:,:ilf;,_:,L,.A•?.,"Li, .• -...........:6?.';c,•oki,s;.:::;‘.1:•:;i:-, e ..:::, . ;, , z,W. • : , ......:;;;,....‘..,: rA.--:...‘,- .; , ..,e.,... , • .. ,,..X.. •_...7..' : . ■ ., . '. ...., :...... A,..;!. ..... ......iNt:" 1. ...i ' '. 'l ei - .01t• . , .... • •., ....,6•• -V 4- <, : .',..*" l •'. ' '''''r, .. *,,, -;.,,-, . '‘. -,-;..:.`,.....::::;..;,,,,;:..;'. * - - :• , ::''').•1 7 • 7 :" . "5:: ,,`74/.1 . .....' • ::,....1, ;•,..'' ..4 - 3.r. • '; :,,...; ..,'.;IV,5,:;...e....;:i k , ." .. ....1 . ...T. , .;-.' - 7,` . .i.... : ; . .:;: r ;.C ., ..1....1.` 1 ,4.,= : ..." ..1. :, ' .."...;',.., .:..1.....': '';.- : ■' L : K • ..... : '"?'.,."..,'.. ,l'?!..". • ,"7,,,...'T .:.`.', -,..iv..14 • tow . 0::,0 ... -...- -:.,---„,-,:- .,;.-.:,-.:.,;,.. ' • *% j ..*:?' r' A : . ,•':-,...." ''',, .• •:.*:: . ' ' ' ' . ' : ''' ' ' - ' , -' . . . . • ... .. . . . . . . . ..•... • , . , . . . . • l: ., ..._ .,:. ,..,,,, ; Z ,,,.,!...g.: :,:::1•.?-,r.,.i ' . - .• ' ..;...,''''''.' '.: ' '. ' '. : ' . '• • 1'. '' '..:...., -1 . : ;;; ', "; .. ..' .. :::. '. :;- ' -I-- • • '',..." . • • . •• • . , • . • - . . ,, . - • 1. • 1. is ui . .t.• , -t '1 .,„: ....,,,,,,,...,.. . . , ,• . • . . • - s .,'.. , • . . I C 1 3 , pg fi �,, ar£ 1 Yf . ;'vi L ' , ..." , 1-> , 411A 4 .4 , ';;;' , 'z'' ,' ' > 4=',',;.,,,„4-,-.; A t r 'wJ! #-: � , zYtf` 2 t' f � ` rw n -> e i <s r aH sue. ' • . trr 3 n u t y i + " Philoseohy of Citlien Partid,atlesd uw { X41'' .i • Citizen parttclpat1Qt in coca , 7- r 4 tY government isprmrws the d®clslos c 1' ry 4 ., ` I ' + , process. deswerettzes and huesnlaes political and social Institutions. . ' ,' increases the responsiveness of governmental institutions. 'sas a gater ' `; is a ) 1y ?;•,, - variety of information end alternatives to citizens, public officials and <: , , Kt ° '° { f „ • , V-1.4‘.? ; I k $ i \ , , eleetod officials. and enhances individual and group awareness and civic r 4 . ,. r- s . ' ,' c - responsibility. , f ,% ,' t i S r 1(r ' , . .� 5 ' . �t 5."..4" �• } i L t P St '� a 3 , 'i4J, .l s. + 7 It is the policy of the tlaaht ngton County bard of Commissioners to prom►1de .7 r * opportunities for public policy formulation and impiemmentatioa tsv p a e ,,,.,0".,. ,�Y - ;y,z variety of processes and organisations. ineladln4. but amt lisltad to public 1 , ,'!-,. 3/4,,J. ' ; hearings; advisory committees; task fortes: Public surreys: direct access to ? „ i ✓Yrrt J S ° t,'' '' ''./ elected and pa Organization; lnted officials; Citizen Participation 3. 1 ; T -,> Netgirsorleeod Associations: Town Nall Meetings; tad the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). k � V ,JJ. i A. r l r =: J �' Y + r� T r , 1. The County Boats of Cosa1ss1nears shall endorse a variety o a mxhoelsms cif ;; `, - ..",- ;ei0 aa4 tfmaly ogportanities to permit citifies to be heard. to e.reelop a *ease of ,� nom raspsa81bl* citizenship, and to participate in the formulation amid `z f 4„t '` ° 1 s 4 1sessttatoa of l i ? ¶( ; public policy. : ,— .c: _' 2. The Comity board of Commissioners shall make available speedos. plans. r � V > la psifc and edtrational program's to facilitate citizen iavelvemamt. ` 2. The County 4oard of Cstastoeers shall SOCOOrags aartit!pati by F , cities* Mvorse interests and back k Z F H i F r: 4. TAa Comb Board of Cammlasfeners shall satisfy Stat., Federal Sal . •;:....7,---7c, � ! self•' /syoled r oloir+amerrts or advisory belles or tithes Mrtt t ea. 5",,,:, . < P • "° , : 08. : {t 3 r M` t - . .. 1 t ► i w^' � 3 :: . Z i p 4� i, .--4W- r : . - , "S • i r < � a . ' fir z �.w...... .� 4 -.. t t f .see.. w } SJ } .�{. -'' t .� l fir 'A4t., . 4..Y.CW �.4 c . . ... a a. i.y i # r: J� \ +r3 � ��) < r t ,q r ' 1 <� r, y s ' 3 J _ ) Y��1�+1 ` 6 ) 4 1 1 ' {'�, 'rani "s` ,AA' s ' ' t {f` 3 Y ` to ; 5. The County Board of Commissioners or Its t smell - �T \ x , �@! settee be • ,?: .:::!'t.14,,,, K3 ) § + ;S #c 1 1, citizens of a proposed action which 1 3W , ,, ;'tome any P Do e4ratts their homes, neighborhoods, �; • > ?1 . b �' laces or properties. h; , ; w P DfoDe • �� 1 P r 1 s, b. Written or formal requests of the Board of Commissiasers or its apewt • " , h `�F a «"" ,-, shall receive tlmroly response and feedback by the Board or its agent. *.W. & ,4)A .;' I 4 °tr 7. Formalized results of workshops. surveys. tom hall sae tiregs. and f 1 x a k> r r }•- , � studies shall be Wade available to the public. a ` r r vhr , }e' : i j , r: . 4 ?7l i ��. , ; _ F The CofltsMt o1 Citizenry } , r , s \4 )Y;..Y, ra W ith the enjoyment ° g by people' responsibility of the � N y�sent of overn�ent the te' tames a ; 7 ) 2 y y . i citizenry to that governmental process. A commitment of involremeat } h4e ff x l ';,,M " ,' 7. ,: - .,-,1-•,!,...,4•,4 ,, c r �• t,= V tv' esaminstion of the issues. and the sharing of 147 and rmsowces .. ) r fry t s c 't M'' #.:4 ; strengthens the bond between citizen and goverment. 5d l 'F) Criteria for Vehicles of CiCities', Participotiaa 1 tl F 3 t ti; r W .k `r r� '�.,, The forms of citizen participation are varied. Effective forms of citizen x. { �' participation should: � I J' , V , (.r } i o- V 1. Be available to citizens county -wide ` ' ,, 2. Be appropriately staffed (per budgetary constraints and availability of - S ` .y,JRf3 r .': ,:.';',/,•'`, r , ` 99 + �• , a } • key personnel) � iii F ., Y 3. Be easily identifiable as per charge or purpose ' y : ,! , . q. z^ :� t > 4 ., k %s�'t \ 4. Be reviewed for effectiveness '"� -1 1 ' '? 5. host the needs of the County Board of Coanaissiesers 1' r F { ,,s,,,,•,., � •"',: a. Itaet the needs of citizenry (ability to filmset policy t s'uulatio and r + .• 1601 asses taLfOa. allows loaf v1dual to voice opts, oa/positias wad cautetbata 4 : t ) s . ., S . ) uh Irforaatlon). k r + ° Yi, II 1.3)..:.., In.. .. 083 y ' i Y . $. `yam. � _ ice a '� ) S � z , .. t ° z + L +mow i iV .. h- .. 2 C r `y 5 . . � . ,. h } , , r r , . h t I ;t ,. , + ? .v„-.-,, ,, ...1.,-.)- , s5 q. <. .. . . s X ,,„- 1 t t i s 3 v p cr r ss�l�r n •i� Y 3' y j. ( f ( �j 11. V �t�,` v Y y�.�f kS "i ,' AI Y ttMkk A� l { �� t 4 y i ' sk'! 7,i mit 1 .f(Y F ) t y i Vehicles of Cttiaas Participatieor `r ./ ........4:',, '0 A� Y Pobltc hearings: is .* ;�)i s a � T ., y p ; x s . 1. Purpose: , ; � ?_ i r ,"xo .i 1 a. To obtain information from the public. t l ` t a b. To assure access to Information in the creation of public policy. ,e 4 " ty' c. To provide a forum for opposing parties to reach accomeodat /an. ` 1:51 7;7.6 ';'(/ - 2. Scope of Activities: . 1...';:,::::;'''. 7 r : in local government, there arm essentially t�+o types of public bearings: Y 1 , 4 1 , { •r a. legislative. Conducted to determine facts and opinions coacemtug r 'k' s� '`� . the creation of policy. - ` ` g 1 b. Quasi - Ju dicial. Conducted as a procedure on land -use issues r ' �. S iJt s< t ... r.• 1 , y �p x T'i 3 t � , policy is being applied to an individual circumstance. + r':, F x .. il) On th r ecord. Testimony in this quasi- judicial hearing is ' a h 1,, el ry ro limited to those persons who participated in the original z ' %�' c ,s .1.01-'''::-., . , e r rr Y V%;, .,i i . action being appealed, and no new Information cam be introduced. � , , � c , ,,„„ z` 'z7 1 -);;0 ( ?.) Partial de novo. Sam as (1) above, but new information way M :.,+,'.:',-:':.-. ) .t ) -• i i ` . presented in a limited area. P t <aF ti 4r �T . f * J > .' r '¢ am f i t °6 y� y .! x�ii (3) O ra e Novo. Com &cted as a conpietely w haring; no limitations `>c� li r S L k f 1 !, - e, hify or on the information to be presented. S` ',-i' tiM on wo may test ormaon of r I T- c. ° .c f 3. Accountability: 4, <I a. Format notification will state the type of hearing, the time and t1 1 z ', place of the hearing, a brief statement of proceeiures, sad ties . +�, e 1 ,, -fi * ; 4 ,-,:,-',N 3 a f subject matter. t , z? ' ; b. The Chairman shall begin a public hearing with a brief descrlptloa 1 of the bean and its s bearing purpose, and any public Mahar, Mee he , r i:. applied to the haring. i 4. } , 3 J , _ 083 r , a: • 4 4bR 0., .J . li 1 t ■ 0_1: " c s? ,., '''''..:411051.tA;,', ' . ' , ' '', “,', - , : - k Y t- ,,,t' 4. 1 t V.-0i y)3 s s y ��3� (v . - vii-p , ff 1 '3 y tii t N 4 � ry � +l f '�)k ' . T1w Chairman shall Clog On hearing with a statement foil m of '` ,4 h' Y ,1 - ; , ,- r, , procedures, including when and pow action rill be tat.M. wine �' further discussion united to the Caesrifss /osiers sad Conseil, only. ) a � " ; , d. Notification of results. .' , G ..,,*.,%,,,„w,?, l t 1 i ' (. `a � �,a" e. Appeal notice shall be sent to participants of original ascti.* and . r �,x`- the relat CPO. N r ,� : f t r , ,Xr'` ' ` Town Mall meetings: ° , '( 1 r • a, t, - ! y has { i 1 . • PuPpo$. J:1 - : i ' 1 2 S r T f - '� J. I f 1 =,,, ' a. An informal forum for presentation of information b elected or `5< t � i ` � r � , appointed officials. ' � 't'S, f J t Jf� r t A Z � 1 j t �" t } D. An opportunity for informal dial ' oPP ty ogue betwee. tittze#s aid elected r x ' , or appointed officials. 1, t ,. 1+ r t , > b -.a...% ' � f a' 4 2. ProCedvres: r:. `� s�� }, & ? a. Town hall meetings should bo kept to a single issue or topic. ' , : `. < ` , L, 4 b. Town hall meetings should be given as much public notice and I F 3`4 ., y . , a dvance publicity as possible. t; F� c. The siting of town hall meetings should be consistent witioi. , i:t tt 2': . . ' �� r lw Co 1ssloner District. 3 j r ` x f f d. Procedural ru les shall be aanosueed at the *liming of t!. neett.g ' - : r n (e.g. timi Of staff prtseetatloae, speaking tine pewits. mstimds - ; , ` ' x :' _ of subr1tting information, ttc.). 1. f , '.•,,'„,- ,,, y , - ? t e. Minutes shall be taken, if requested prier to eeesttng date. y 4 ;: h Atvieery Ceeaittees: i . y�4 {ll N.! ... : ',.. ; a. To satisfy state and/or federal e.iire meets (t.:.. CestminlMt '_!; ; action program advisory committees, L C Citing latielveinet i `t COunttttt). , 084 q � a � w • i Z .- , ii F1' lit - 'I ..:. ''' , ;-`;'' sf,:`-,N'=-',,.' ' '- y4 i y v 4— q.7: G Yn S' Jam* ! . w.-1+... -.. _�. e. .r •�t4.7S t , r rws� fr c 5 � t J b, To obtain "functional expertise. Cosasittees aqy i* charged wide kg �c y ;14 ,x;"3-", tS d 5 , the responsibility to became °experts on a particular subject in order to advise the Board of County Commissioners (e.g., advisory co®ittees for roads weed control etc.1. Such committees are ;z;) usually standing committees and continue to existence until d a /� .s y � teralnated by the Board of County Commissioners. 4 c. To improve communication with various segments of the county's constituency (e.g. a city kayors/Ranagers Advisory Board). l d. To conduct 1n -depth studies of special issues and to serve as a r a�w v�; + s fi sounding board for various proposals for county action. These are sF }` i k � generally di sbanded when thei r mi ss i on is accosspl i shed. 4 � 2. ibetle : 'f"t x a f a. Members of advisory committees will be appointed for imo -year terns 4 ' 5 � o- %� (sinless other/Ise stipulated by statuta), with an optional two -years ri �r � � 't � reappoietaesnt Y I as wk3 n e b. Mesdersbip will reflect individual interest in the co®ittee's " r charge, expertise, geographic location, balance of viewpoints, andy u7' ?� ^? =•3 civic concern. The total membership should, mere possible. ' rlr�Ai.�r reflect a balance of appointments by all five county coamissioeers. 3. Aaooaeod ility: , '2 ' /Weiser,, cosmiittees are established by action of the Board of sosts1SSieeers, and each enactment shall contain the folloaf i J�' e � t Weslgaaatiessa: r , a. A statement of the type of the committee (e.g. task force, standing t� Y cem ltteel b. A description of Its mission or charge and its neae. r <� 08 ti • � F 5 ,. t S qq - . ff M t ,; £fi y 10 5.vh4 �S , 7 nF 4 - ' Ji t � �J .. { ! :if: t l b j ay ,,�, c. D efinition of the number of footers an a description of the method Z N ! � tl � _ .. � 1 lt6�53�t� Wm" to be used for appointment. :4 t ' v 34 1 4 4. Unless a standing committee, a statement of the maximum duration at ',4:241-1244 ' f k S I � Y�`�,, the committee. `�° r�° 4� � �� ; e. A definition of the resources available to the committee (e.g., P f, ; � ; - 0 !}}. °' i staff , Board liaison, sa support, budget). r ., ; Sir S: � ", f. A statement of the rules, regulations or by-laws applicable toe ∎ 4 Y committee, 1nc1uding any applicable statutes. , ' -Kc , \ 4 a= 4. Appointment Process : u :t ` ...V j. ' f- . :; 77 , 7 yi I3 4 Board of Commissioners mill solicit appointment nominations from the ,�}r ,fe general citizenry, the CCI, CPOs, city governments and other .�, ' ` fi ;` o rganizations. 4, � r " ;: 1 ' } 4 € T . Casartttae for Citi zen Ievelvement: S y ti " 11 / i � v,;;.; .. { 5 ' , a:, -Nfie5 r 1. Paryose: -Cr i� ye I . s3 ik ` Y The purpose of the Coassitt for Citizen Involvement (CCII Is: t x r • t',•f ] t ' .fro "? a. To serve as the officially recognized citizen participation , r1 rce committee, which is representative of geographic areas and r a 4. C. resou '' ,a 6 interests. ,t, b. To be dedicated and committed to the success of c1ttzen participation in the government decision - .eking process. 4 ti me i e. To evaluate citizen involvement process, Al { ` ' ` d. To encourage and promote the expansion of the CPO progress. ' .;' i ,` e. To provide a direct line of communication between the citizens and Y 4> f county gover goverment: and �' +. f. To assist the County Board of Canaaissionsrs to complying wit! diet {R Coal 41 by developing a citizen involvement program tint imm the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of !!e Punning process. ,ks . O8u , ,, ... '• . .. A -y ' : %.:V!i ly t'4 �.. -; tom = '' � . ': " r � V t • , , - , 4 4i , , , -,,, ,„ , ‘: ; ..'-s ,. - ..:,-'i .. '1 :,.. ;:,., $, I . , $,..:• . ...,, ,,, , , . _ . 4 • • AGENDA • WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Category: Action — Land Use & Transportation; County Counsel (All CPOs) Agenda Title: RESOLUTION AND ORDER ADOPTING A NEW .CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ORGANIZATIONS BOUNDARY MAP AND ESTABLISHING A NEW PROCEDURE FOR CHANGING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ORGANIZATIONS BOUNDARIES Presented by: Brent Curtis, Planning Manager Dan Olsen, County Counsel SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary) This resolution will implement the new process that enables Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs) to initiate CPO boundary changes. Adoption of the resolution will also establish the new CPO boundaries as recommended by the CPOs and the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). This Resolution & Order works in tandem with Ordinance 572. The resolution lays out a process where the individual CPOs can suggest a CPO boundary change following an open discussion at a regularly scheduled meeting. The CCI would then conduct an open discussion on the boundary change proposal at one of their regularly scheduled meetings. They would recommend that the Board approve, deny or they could suggest adjustments to the proposed boundary change. The Board would then conduct a public hearing and could approve, modify or deny the boundary change proposal. Attachment: Resolution and Order DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTED ACTION: Adopt the new procedure for the initiation of CPO boundary changes and the new CPO Boundary map. Authorize the Chair to sign a resolution and order memorializing the action. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the department's requested action. 1 Agenda Item No. 9.C. Date: 6/26/01 ` 37 g_t.. 1 Resolution & Order 01-015 FILED 2 1111111 111111111111111111111101 JUN 2 7 2001 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Washington County 3 County Clerk FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 4 In the matter of a Adopting an Updated Citizen) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 5 Participation Organizations Boundary Map and ) 6 a Process for Making Changes to Citizen ) NO. 01 " 75 Participation Organizations Boundaries ) 7 8 9 This matter having come before the Board at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 26, 10 2001; and 11 It appearing to the Board that the existing Citizen Participation Organizations (CPO) 12 boundary map is in need of updating to reflect changes in the community as identified by the 13 Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCD; and 14 It appearing to the Board that the map entitled "Citizen Participation Organizations" in 15 Exhibit "A ", reflects more appropriate CPO boundaries; and 16 It appearing to the Board that there should be a process for CPOs to recommend to the 17 Board the creation of new or to alter existing CPO boundaries; and 18 It appearing to the Board that the attached Exhibit "B" will allow CPOs to recommend new 19 or altered CPO boundaries to the Board; now, therefore, it is 20 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the attached Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B" are fully 2I incorporated into this document by reference, and are adopted as the "Citizen Participation 22 Page 1 - RESOLUTION AND ORDER (CPO BOUNDARIES) CPOBounduicsR &01000328AR. WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N. FIRST AVE, SUITE 340 — MS 1124 11ILLSBORO, OR 97124 PHONE (503) 846 -8747 - FAX (503) 846 -8636 1 Organizations" map and the "Washington County Citizen Participation Organizations Boundary 2 Change Procedure." 3 DATED this 26 day of June, 2001 4 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 6 AYE NAY ABSENT BRIAN 7 SCHOUTEN — ___„ CHAIR LEEPER 8 ROGERS cgarbaACt DUYCK 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 2 - RESOLUTION AND ORDER (CPO BOUNDARIES) CPOBoundariesR &O\000328AR. WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N. FIRST AVE, SUITE 340 — MS 424 HTLLSBORO, OR 97124 PHONE (503) 846-8747 - FAX (503) 846 -8636 Exhibit "A" CPO Boundary Map � . % I Page 1 of 1 June 26th, 2001 r ! . i 's, Washington County J p0 14 _ 1 Citizens Participation i ( Organizations -- / f (CPO) \ -- i } `� �-- CPO Boundaries -- - ; Incorporated Urban Areas • CPO13 -- ,? 'r --, f - - , i / 1 f 1 ;\ Urban Gr B \ \ ` ' — ' Major Roadways } f f Allihr „s.,:...:s_:7„.7::::1:47....7.„.„7..z,„„, . 1,,,...„,1:.3.....,,,:i...,i;.4„....,::::,,„,,,;::::::::,,,,... 1 J ` I . . � � � �� -7!s a _ ' s N -w CP411 ��'3 r �� ; �� 3 p i �l ::.: 1 `ter ` '' t (4-1) i 1111 .a 1 - •'- § ' 4 5 tomes ■ I 1 „ %: C ': 4 / S %: � "c# � r 4c .. 4 , The information on this map vas derived from dip&al database* • f \ . _ ,s � ''- . ore Wastirgtm County* GIS. Gera was taken it the oea0ian / of this map. Washington car= County c accept any Y _� a lor errors. omissio l ao n *, or poetic. crracy. and =setae, - ewe ere re warrantee Wear accvnpany tlis VAC. tbrreyei roars:sten of any errors , Ilai be appr dated 1 • Exhibit "A" CPO Boundary Map Page 1of1 \ June 26th. 2001 Washington County GP014 Citizens Participation Organizations (CPO) 1 CP08 CPO Boundaries i ''. Incorporated Urban Areas CPU13 Urban Growth Boundary Major Roadways 1 ` PO7 ig f Y: CP011 r. ' C P 015 f g,, „ ` a 1 ,.......2.,,,..,4„. sad"':* 4> CPO10 . r• 0 ♦j °1 11 ? '4. q ,/ji) � ..;. .X Era 0 i 2 3 4 5 fddcs S' ;. r... :, fiiwma:rwt on ;ta, man was denwcd t: nrn n1911..1.1 rt:rhalc•. e�1��1�je�l��l�j -�� . f [hs map Wathesafon Ccwnty ,arn »• at<cPt aM . o etrO :, o. 7Yons M positgiyi acxwaC,. and !tweelme, . no wanarOe who!, acco^.panty thn pwit• : t 4,..^,' .. .,uiwn nl am ..,,ter., be a(•Mec .o d Exhibit "2" CPO Boundary Change Procedure Page Iofl Washington County Citizen Participation Organizations Boundary Change Procedure SECTION 1. INTENT A. It is the intent of these provisions to set forth a procedure for the creation of new Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs) and the alteration of existing CPO boundaries. B. The boundaries shown on the "Citizen Participation Organizations" map, Exhibit "A ", shall remain in effect until changed by the Board of County Commissioners or as authorized by the Board under the procedure described in Section 2 that follows. SECTION 2. CPO BOUNDARY CHANGES CPOs may propose the creation of a new or the alteration of existing CPO boundaries. The following procedure shall be followed when one or more CPO proposes to create a new CPO or alter CPO boundaries: 1. The proposed CPO boundaries shall be clearly identified on a map that shows streets and street names. 2. The proposed boundaries shall be reviewed at a regularly scheduled CPO meeting to allow open discussion of the proposal. If the proposal would change the boundaries of two or more CPOs the proposal shall be considered at a regular meeting by each of the affected CPOs unless a joint meeting of all the affected CPOs is conducted. 3. The Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) shall then review the proposed CPO boundaries at a regularly scheduled meeting. 4. The CCI shall prepare a recommendation on the boundary proposal and notify the affected CPO(s). 5. The CCI shall then forward their recommendation to the County. The CCI shall submit a map that clearly indicates the proposed CPO boundary changes and a narrative that describes the reasons why the boundary changes are or are not needed and if applicable, why the CCI's recommendation differs from that proposed by the CPO(s). 6. The Board of County Commissions shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed CPO boundaries and shall approve, modify or deny the request. 7. Following a Board decision, which modifies the CPO boundaries, the County will then prepare a new Citizen Participation Organizations map and provide copies to the CCI all active County CPOs, and all County departments. CPOrd.doc