The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/17/2009 Revised November 13, 2009: Agenda Item No. 4 t-escl~eduled far discussion on December 8, 2009. City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE/TIME: November 17,2009-6:30 p.m. -Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Tunes noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons tivith unpaired 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 CMD - Telecorrununications 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 - Telecorrnnunications 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 pin (*117orkul)op ime ings are not ah-ed line. Tues-dcry bivadcasts are a replay of the most recent Jvork-shop meaing.) • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 3 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2009 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 ti ww.dgard-ongov Page 1 of 3 71 City of Tigard s ► Tigard Workshop Meeting - Agenda E r i eft' ~,~i1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE/TIME: November 17, 2009 -6:30 p.m. -Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 p.m. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 13 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 p.m. 2. ANNUAL MEETING WITH THE TREE BOARD + Staff Report: Cotntnunity Development Department 7:30 p.m. 3. TIGARD TRAIL SYSTEM UPDATE + Staff Report: Community Development Department Agenda Item No. 4 mrdhednled for discussion on Deceinber 8, 2009. 5:99-p,: 7 WC)RKSHOP DISC=USSIGN) 8:00 p.m. 5. BOUNDARY CLARIFICATION BETWEEN CITY OF TIGARD AND TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT + Staff Report: Public Works Department TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 17, 2009 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 3 6. DISCUSS TOPICS FOR THE JANUARY 19, 2010 JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON TREE CODE AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN • Staff Report: Community Development Department 7. ADJOURNMENT I:AADM\CATHY\CCA\2009\091117.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 17, 2009 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of3 Agenda Item # Meeting Date November 17.2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Annual-joint Meeting between the Tree Board and City Council CG#1.b Prepared By: Todd Prager Dept Head Approval: r City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The purpose of the joint meeting Nvill be to update Council on the status of the Tree Board's 2009 goals, and inform Council of the Tree Board's tentative goals for 2010. The meeting will also allow both bodies an opportunity to ask questions and provide information to one another. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to Tree Board and staff, as appropriate. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tree Board's two main purposes are to develop, and administer, a comprehensive community tree management program for trees on public property; and develop a comprehensive citywide tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement program. The following is a status update of the Tree Board's goals for 2009: 1. Complete the Urban Forestry Master Plan On September 2, 2009, the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (Tree Board plus additional technical experts) achieved consensus on die Urban Forestry Master Plan. The Plan was then forwarded to Planning Commission for review and to Council for acceptance. 2. Complete Interim Tree Code Revisions The Tree Board completed their review of the interim tree code on December 4, 2008. However, after a hearing in July 2009, Council decided in August 2009 not to pursue the interim tree code. 3. Begin Comprehensive Tree Code Revisions Staff is in the process of developing a work schedule for comprehensive tree code revisions that will involve forming a techincal advisory committee and extensive public outreach. 4. Complete the Development of Urban Forestry Orientation Materials for New Residents of Tigard This was completed on October 7, 2009 in cooperation with the City's office services staff. The City will begin mailing orientation materials in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. 5. Participate in Arbor Day Celebrations Arbor Day Nvas celebrated at Alberta Rider Elementary on April 7, 2009 and attended by a Tree Board representative. 1:\CURPI.N\Todd\Trce Board Info\2()9 Tree Hoard hlcetin&-;\Novcmher 17th Annual Joint NIceting with Council\11-17-09 AIS joint Meeting Between Council and Trec Board.docx While the Tree Board has not yet officially set goals for 2010, the following goals are anticipated for 2010: 1. Advise Staff on Comprehenssve Tree Code Revisions and a Tree Grove Protection Program 2. Provde Oversight on the Implementation of the Urban Forestry Master Plan 3. Secure a Budget for Urban Forestry Outreach Materials 4. Develop Official Tree Board Bylaws to be Adopted by Council The Tree Board would hk-e to receive input from City Council regarding their expectations for the Tree Board in 2010. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A. CITY COUNCIL GOALS 1.b Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENT LIST N/A. FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\CURPLN\Todd\Trcc Board Info\2109 Trcc Board i• feetingANovc9nber 17th Annual joint ilfeeting witii Council\1147-09 AIS Joint Meeting Betwcen Council and Tree Board.dOCx Agenda Item # Meeting Date 11-17-09 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Ti=d Trail Svstem Update, Goal la Prepared By: D. Roberts Dept Head approval: City lIgr approval: _rR y ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Staff will provide an update on various Tigard area trail planning and implementation efforts for Council information and discussion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' No action is required. This is an information-only agenda item. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY This agenda item addresses the question of what's happening around the issue of enhancing Tigard hail connections such as 1) How is the City doing in connecting greenway trails; 2) Actions needed to complete the mapped system; and 3) What opportunities and challenges does the City face in attempting to complete the greenway trail system? An accompanying report (Attachment 1) provides a comprehensive update on where things stand with regard to Tigard's trail system. It outlines efforts undenvay to close gaps and the various challenges faced in attempting to do so. It includes information on the following current topics: Neighborhood Trail Plan; Trail Count/Survey; Intertwine; Crescent Connection; Rail-to-Trail; Library Trail; Greenway Trail System Master Plan; local Greenspaces Bond Measure activity; and the Westside Trail. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal #3.a: Complete Parks Master Plan. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Final Plan, Neighborhood Trails Plan, June 2009 Attachment #2: Tigard Greenway Trail System Update FISCAL NOTES N/A ]:\LRI'LNWouncil Nfatcrials\2009\11-17-09 Trails Update AIS.doc 14, '~f1JS-~. ..y i..3 v .i r-•,.--:- r... %i_ ~ s j r' ~ .f* ' - t , 1, 'r,>w ~'1`tQ t ~ 4i - [ lh ~ t. rtt t 14. Ai City of Tigard NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN 7-7 - - 1' i y.•.-\ :•i VI t`r ..'11~ J'V[{I; ' - -'rl4y/ 'i~•r j{ .1~ .`~''•f. [ ~ .Wy~ ~ t~ ~~~~e`~.~'.~ty_.[ ~,~•s. iS ~ ;}.~~iy `i~~,~~`~+~~1r~t, r_-K~-,,fi~'~~..G'- I tt y i "'1 I - ts-..`KS+-:< i"'S{~C"lLr ~rr r' TT.SY n.'i~w7j[.:f. [[T~► t.C S F •~1 ~ ~'G~-~+ ~ '~.l.w~-.ti,.i~~-r 'i'ii. ~ .[A•*•~~'scY,. FINAL PLAN June 2009 - _~•~4` r }'~j~'y1~ - PKL~F' S ter," ,M,}f l ,i ~y~{~- S:t l ~.~I _ + ~~~t L~!I"\~r~ r {~Y'. ~ _ it :j ~H ~7 A-i 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 .................................................................................................................3 Demand and Potential Neighborhood Trails ...................................................................................6 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN GUIDELINES 11 Existing Trail Standards 11 Neighborhood Trail Definitions 12 Natural Trails 13 Urban Trails 16 Innovative Neighborhood Trails 20 Path Surfacing Options Analysis 23 Universal Access/ADA 31 Environmental Considerations 32 Path Safety and Security 33 Maintenance 35 Design-Option Costs 39 CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................................41 Trail Evaluation Methodology 41 Preliminary Cost Estimate 46 Field Verifications 47 CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS ................................................................49 Project List 49 Design Options 63 CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...............................................................................................65 Regulatory Amendments 65 Financial Strategy 70 Action Plan 81 APPENDIX A. PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 87 APPENDIX B. EVALUATION MATRIX ....................................................................................................92 APPENDIX C. PROJECT PROSPECTUS SHEETS ..............................................................................101 List of Tables Table 1. Existing Tigard Transit Service .................................................................................................5 Table 2. Neighborhood Trail Design Standards ..................................................................................13 Table 3. Costs for Gravel ........................................................................................................................15 Table 4. Costs for Filbert Shells .............................................................................................................16 Table 5. Costs for Concrete Trails .........................................................................................................18 Table 6. Costs for Asphalt Trails ...........................................................................................................19 Table 7. Costs for Boardwalks ................................................................................................................23 Table 8. Surfacing Options Matrix .........................................................................................................25 Table 9. Costs for Fencing Types ..........................................................................................................28 Table 10. Costs for Signage .......................................................................................................................29 Table 11. ADA Trail Development Guidelines .....................................................................................32 Table 12. Safety Recommendations for Paths ........................................................................................33 Table 13. Summary of Trail Costs ............................................................................................................39 Table 14. Evaluation Criteria Matrix ........................................................................................................42 Table 15. Cost-Estimate Summary ...........................................................................................................47 Table 16. Design Option Criteria .............................................................................................................63 Table 17. Natural Trail Cost Estimate Summary ...................................................................................63 Table 18. Urban Trail Cost Estimate Summary .....................................................................................63 Table 19. High-Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Estimates ..............................................................75 Table 20. Medium-Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Estimates ........................................................76 Table 21. Low-Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Estimates ...............................................................76 Table 22. Guide to Funding Source Availability for Recommended Projects ..................................77 Table 23. Potential Grant Funding Sources for High-Priority Projects .............................................78 Table 24. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Medium-Priority Projects .......................................79 Table 25. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Low-Priority Projects ..............................................80 Table 26. Evaluation of High-Priority Recommended Trails ..............................................................92 Table 27. Evaluation of Medium-Priority Recommended Trails ........................................................93 Table 28. Evaluation of Low-Priority Recommended Trails ...............................................................95 Table 29. Evaluation of Trails Not Recommended ..............................................................................96 List of Maps Map 1. Proposed Neighborhood Trails ......................................................................................................7 Map 2. Recommended Trails Overview Map ..........................................................................................51 Map 3. Recommended Trails Northwest .................................................................................................53 Map 4. Recommended Trails Northeast ...................................................................................................55 Map 5. Recommended Trails East ............................................................................................................57 Map 6. Recommended Trails Southeast ...................................................................................................59 Map 7. Recommended Trails Southwest ..................................................................................................61 Executive- Sum-mary 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 this 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. PLAN ES- Plan Objectives Plan Vision The 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 that were evaluated and prioritized, resulting in a list of 42 recommended trail projects. ES 'LAN 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. Chapter2. 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. Chapter3. Design Standards presents guidance for the development of neighborhood trails, including urban and natural trails, surfacing options, amenities and cost estimates. Chapter4. Evaluation Process outlines the criteria used to evaluate the potential neighborhood trails, including field work and preliminary cost opinions. Chapter5. Recommended Neighborhood Trails lists the recommended neighborhood trails and provides project descriptions. Chapter6. Implementation Plan lays out a course of action for implementing the recommended projects, including regulatory amendments, a financial strategy and a phasing plan. Appendixes at the end of this Plan include a summary of the property owner survey, the complete evaluation matrix, and summary sheets of the short-term recommended projects. Evaluation Process Each potential trail location was assessed based on the evaluation matrix shown in Table ES-1. Table ES-1. Evaluation Criteria Criterion Measurement Utility Direct access to parks, schools, open space, 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 trail 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 Habitat impacts Land Ownership Land ownership, if the City or other public entity owns the land Willingness of the owner to allow an easement or sell the land for a trail Potential Conflicts Proximity to existing houses with Neighbors Safety and Security Personal security, considering visibility from the street Pathway design, 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 Estimate Medium - 6' asphalt trail and boardwalks if trail is in wetland, as well as High - 8' permeable asphalt trail maintenance costs, design and CM, and contingency. 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. 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 understand the 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. Map ES-1 shows the recommended neighborhood trails identified in this study. Further details on each site are provided in subsequent sections of this Plan, including benefits and implementation challengers. Table ES-2. 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 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/Former St. to Howard Dr Extension 124 urban $8,000 $5,000 $4,000 5A Scholls Ferry Rd to Englewood Park Trail 62 urban $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 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, 92nd/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 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 Dr. 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 Hunziker St/77th PI to 72nd Ave/Hwy 217 22 Overpass 1,392 urban $30,000 $18,000 $17,000 88th Ave Ext. to 88th Ave Extension/Pinebrook 23 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 $10,000 $6,000 27 Waverly Dr ext.; 88th 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 $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.; North Dakota St to Greenburg Rd. 234 urban $14,000 $9,000 $8,000 32 92nd Ave ext.; North Dakota St to Greenburg Rd. 128 natural $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 Total 6,912 $384,000 $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/21B to 84th Ave Extension 431 urban $340,000 $336,000 $334,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 135th Ave to 132nd Ave 715 natural $51,000 $29,000 $18,000 35 Rockingham Dr to Maplecrest Ct [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 36B Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 198 natural $10,000 $6,000 $3,000 37 116th Ave Extension to Katherine St 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 to Commercial 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HY 0 18 ,.y 2039 d° B ~ 28 ~ 32 21 31 17~ I F, I _j 11~ rc ~ 12 22 35 29 6 V J~ 9 ` 30 +I 36 ,f l 36 13 .V 42 2,&3 J 26 I' 41 D 43 - 27 Neighborhood Trails MW ME a~ta Low-Priority Trail Parks Multi-Use Paved Trail Bike Lanes * High-Priority Trail Not Recommended Streams Multi-Use Unpaved Trail ------I Tigard City Boundary Medium-Priority Trail Already Built kRecoom m Tr2ils School Property 'Pedestrian-Only, Unpaved Trail Miles verview Map 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 were identified, and potential funding sources available for each trail are considered. The 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. Recommended implementation strategies are: Implementation Strategy 1. Strategically Pursue Projects Action Item 1.1. Pursue capital improvements funding or grant funding for 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 of a lower priority project possible, pursue funding sources for that project regardless of priority. Action Item 1.3. As quickly as possible, pursue development of neighborhood trails on land where the owner has been identified as willing to allow an easement or to sell land for a neighborhoof trail. Implementation Strategy 2. Incrementally Implement Projects 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 Action Item 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 3.2. The neighborhood trail project list should be revisited with input from the public when the Transportation System Plan 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. C-hapter- -1-. - - - -Int-rod-ucti-on The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan seeks to improve - opportunities for walking, bicycling and using transit by W"t 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 yA neighborhood trails can help to provide critical connections in many locations. Neighborhood trails, as 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 This project provides recommendations for making South end of Gallo Ave 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.C 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. Contribute to healthier lifestyles and improved air quality through reduced automobile usage. 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 design features; and Recommend revisions to the City's TSP, Capital Investment Plan, and engineering and development standards as necessary to support the Plan. Planning Process, Public and Agency Involvement City staff, stakeholder groups, and - most of all - Tigard residents helped 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 project's 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 issues from the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations. A property owner survey was provided to the 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. This information was included in the evaluation of trail alternatives, and a more detailed summary is provided in Appendix A. C-hapter- 2-. - Existi-ng-Conditi- - ons 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 154th 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. 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 major grocery stores. Finally, downtown Tigard is located adjacent to Oregon 99W. Downtown serves as a community center for Tigard residents and includes numerous pedestrian-oriented shops and restaurants. Consequently, connectivity improvements that allow residents to more easily access the destinations on Oregon 99W and in downtown will greatly benefit pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Schools Using neighborhood trails to improve connections to schools is a key priority of this project. Increasing the number of children walking and biking to school has the potential to 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 throughout the 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, improved connections for Tigard residents to recreational areas are a project priority. Better access to parks and trails improves livability for residents and is one of the goals of the TSP. Tigard's trails and open spaces are generally concentrated along several greenways located within the City. The most notable of these is the Fanno Creek Greenway, 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 preserved open space. As with trails, 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 important destinations 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. Table 1. Existing Tigard Transit Service Route Number Route Name Description 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 I 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 to Washington Square 64X Marquam Hill/Tigard TC Express bus with service along Oregon 99W east of Tigard Transit Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Beaverton/Tualatin North/South Service along Washington Square Road, Greenburg, Main Street, Commercial, Hall, and Durham 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 service along Scholls Ferry from Hall to Conestoga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Sherwood-Pacific Highway Express bus with service along Oregon 99W for full length of City Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Tigard/1-5 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 begin operation in Fall 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 new service will provide service to destinations throughout the Portland region, making high-quality non-motorized access within the station areas a key priority. Tigard's priority list of bus service improvements includes the initiation of new service on: Barrows Road between Scholls Ferry Road and Horizon Boulevard; Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and 72nd Avenue; and Hall Boulevard north of Oregon 99W. Improved connections to these corridors should also be considered a priority during the planning process. Connectivity Connectivity in Tigard is hampered by the physical barriers created by the Portland & Western Railroad, Fanno Creek, and Oregon 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. 5 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 of proposed neighborhood trails. 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 they serve to connect cul-de-sacs to other streets or to existing multi-use trails. There are relatively few prospective trails in Washington Square, the Tigard Triangle, and the industrial areas in the southeast portion of Tigard. Several residential areas have a particularly high density of prospective trails. For instance, the residential area near Metzger in the northeast corner of the City limits shows about ten neighborhood trails in close proximity, with most of these being potential trails to provide connections between local streets. In addition, most of the trails in this area are oriented north-south, indicating a need for improved connectivity in this direction. The residential 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 130th Avenue have over a dozen prospective trail locations. These trails are a mix of demand and potential trails, and tend to be 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. ~ rc rc I ! • r -r I A _ I - ~ r ~ ~ ~f 5C}i0LL5 FER OAK r l it ~n -LT w r- _ 1 LA~Nl1T ° r y~Nx~k~R I L I •t V i I 1 MCDONALPI' ~1 Ily r 1 BULL moUNTAIN ~`-lopli MURDOC a. ..z -77 I DURHAM m II I s - - aty of Tigard, Oregon A~Jalto Proposed Neighborhood Trails »s paved Existing Trail School Property Railroad L _ Tigard City Boundary Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan ■ " ~ ~ Demand Trail Unpaved Existing Trail Parks Streams Kl,r¢~sar+ B nesocl.-e. luc, Potential Trail Potential Neighborhood Trails rc Transit Centers Bike Lanes Overview Map Map 1. Proposed Neighborhood Trail Options 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. C-hapter- 3-. - - - - Design- -Guideli- - nes- 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.1. At 28 days, 6 sac mix, slump range of 1 'z"-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. N 1/2" A OF - 7l L •P 10 STRE` 1 r W 4 A.L. 11 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: http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/city hall/departments/cd/capital construction/standard details/default.asp 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. t1111, PI Neighborhood Trail Definitions m7" Neighborhood trails are variously referred to as desire k 'kP ` trails, demand trails, community trails, informal trails, t d ' short trails, cut-throughs, urban trails, natural trails, and accesswa s. Neighborhood trails provide direct routes between residential areas, retail and office areas, institutional e facilities, industrial parks, transit streets, neighborhood ..1~rr`"f activity centers, and transit oriented developments. They are off-street paths intended primarily for pedestrians } Ib j,+ 4 `°i and sometimes bicyclists. Neighborhood trails are +la A", 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 y~t ~ ' ~ • J'I~ ~ Ip I ~f R ~e 5..a ~ 4 N n I ~ ma -A A'. Figure 4. Natural Surface Neighborhood Trail Figure 5. Paved Neighborhood Trail 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 use path/Sidewalk Road or Mountain Bicyclists Pedestrians Pedestrians Users Mountain Bicyclists* Wheelchairs*** Baby strollers*** Skaters*** Width 3'- 8'** 4' - 10`** Earth, gravel, wood shavers, or other soft Paved or other smooth-rolling Surface surface material surface to accommodate all trail users Notes: * Depends on the slope of the trail and presence of barriers that do not 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 or concrete, and slope of the trail (see Universal Access/ADA concerns) Natural Trails Natural trails are usually considered when a trail is desired next to a natural resource or if the expected use will be minimal, as in the case of minor neighborhood trails. They are also appropriate where a paved trail would be incompatible with the surroundings. Natural trails should take into account issues such as drainage, erosion, compaction/impaction from anticipated use, presence of waterways and sensitive riparian areas, habitat areas, environmental 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. F g sr V~15~a~~ L 1 'I R t a~ _ L- x 6'. •t. I k I i I~ ~ i Ili I itI 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. 40 Surfacing Options Crusher Fines/ Gravel . As a natural neighborhood trail surface, gravel is a practical X" option for narrow trails that will not see significant traffic. Gravel surfacing provides a more stable footing that will bear less likely to collect rain water in the winter (Figure 7). The path width can be as narrow as 3' but should allow regular +s. w= « . _ width increases for users to pass each other. Gravel trails a°- _ - can offer neighborhood access to a community facility . while blending into the existing character of the neighborhood. Figure 7. Gravel Neighborhood Trail vo16TH VARIEv 1% C`;10SS SLOPE Y 5 ,5 5 °.°5 X15 5 'S °5 5 .5 5 ~ 51 5 5° Y L'HLIGHLii F INLU 5~ ''S k 4° AGGREGATE BASE 5. 5 5 GEMIX-ILE FABRIC w C7dFAC_rE1: SIJBGRAC€ 5 'S - Jf9•]ISTJft3'_O CART I Figure 8. Gravel Cross-Section Table 3. Costs for Grave 12 Element Unit Price Unit Earthen Trail (grading, vegetation clearing) LF $ 4.50 4" Aggregate trail base CY $25.60 3" Crusher Fines SF $3.15 Other natural surfacing options Filbert shells, wood mulch, and wood planer shaving are additional natural trail surfacing options. Filbert shells are a locally-produced trail surfacing option. While 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 surfaces. 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. h%'Q fl I viy'gI'' FINISH GWE: FLUSH Z% SLOPE Wrni P47H EZUE ~ 5a ~ 1 '4k 4 ig *5ky, 5\ 5~ t',5 ~h r MARK A4JMH!ADCC-D 4 115 1'ri 5~ '°55 5 YLIARKMO_C4l 4'A13GRf.GA7F. RASE % GE67CKTILE €AMC COMPAC7E4 9460Rk0E 5 UNOS HrLL1 eAHI.. Figure 9. Bark Mulch or Filbert Shell Cross-Section Table 4. Costs for Filbert Shells Element Unit Price Unit Earthen Trail (grading, vegetation clearing) LF $ 4.50 4" Aggregate trail base CY $25.60 3" layer bark mulch SF $2.65 3" layer Filbert Shells SF $2.85 Urban Trails r Neighborhood trails can be paved to accommodate most trail users. Where they provide a direct II connection to a park or other neighborhood attraction, urban trails have their own right-of-way, L .tea . 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 a homeowners and to provide sufficient landscaping ` ;•s 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. I _ I 2' 7' 2' 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 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. 2. 2. CLiAR YADTH VARIES CLEAR RADIUS ELGtH FINISH WELDED WIRE MES-I T _ air CROSS SLOPE A%T49 aV'M _ S ,5 ~55 ~5 + - 4' CONCRETE PAVING LIGHT BROOM FINISH. % PIFRP"DIrIJI,.AR TR WIGTH OF PATI? 21"AGGREGA.TE BASE k - GEJTFXTILE FABRIC UN131MRMD EARTH NOTES' 'I; rKAIL SEC: IICON CON I d4GEN I O?,GtJ I LCH KEPOH1 2]'PLACE SAW UT CON-ROL JOINTS AS SEEN ON PLAN Figure 13. Concrete Trail Cross-Section 3 Table 5. Costs for Concrete Trails Element Unit Price Unit Clear & Grub $0.15 SF 4" Aggregate base $0.60 SF 4" Concrete $5.95 SF 4" Permeable Concrete $7.50 SF Excavation for Trail $10.00 CY Geotextile Fabric $0.20 SF Asphalt/Permeable Asphalt, Asphalt is the most common surface treatment for multi-use paths (Figure 14). The material composition and construction methods used can significantly affect the longevity of the pathway. , r. Thicker asphalt sections and a well-prepared I y?f••' N7 ~S~ subgrade will reduce deformation over time and reduce long-term maintenance costs. Asphalt is 6 suitable for a wide variety of trail users. ' 4 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. 2' 2' C I..F, AM WICITI i VARIES Cl; FAR 29i, CROSS SLOPE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3" CLASS '0' ASPHALT PAVING 4~ 55 ~ k" IGREC,1,4TI= BASF k, GE07E?CTiLE FABRIC ()HI ?IS r uRI'lF-0 FAkr H 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 Q FAR WIDTI1 VARIES (1 1 Ali N ClRC $ Sag OPEE 'y i } Y PERMEABLEASPRALT PAY NG - WAGGREGATE S45E GEO EXTILE FABRIC -jND;.STIjA8ED ISARTH Figure 16. Permeable Asphalt Trail Cross-Section Table 6. Costs for Asphalt Trails Element Unit Price Unit Clear & Grub $0.15 SF Site Grading $10.00 CY 6" Aggregate Base $1.00 SF 1 Asphalt Paving (non- permeable) $ 3.45 SF Permeable Asphalt Paving $4.40 SF 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 direct connections throughout the city and can be designed so Y`•, they are safe, inviting, and accessible to most trail users. i' Wheel Gutters r' Wheel gutters on stairways allow bicyclists to easily roll their bicycles up and down an otherwise inconveniently steep incline (Figure 17). Figure 17. Wheel Gutters on a Staircase Boardwalks While expensive, boardwalks are appropriate in r. environmentally sensitive trail locations. They can provide ye.+. direct access through sensitive wet areas and across small w: waterways. Construction options include piers, foundation material, and decking. Helical Piers I' 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.4 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. 4 Source: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=081008a.xml 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 posts manufactured 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. Joist and Beams Treated wood has generally been specified for the beams and joists. 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 chances of ground pollution. An alternative to using pressure 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 very long time whereas treated wood will require replacement after about 40 years. 5 V M n VVidrb The last alternative to using treated wood for joists and beams is using recycled plastics. Plastic joist and beams are approximately three times as expensive compared to pressure treated wood: (source: US Plastic Lumber). In addition posts will have to be set four feet on center because of lack 4-- 71 F_ of sheer in the strength of the members, instead of usual 8 - 10 foot span. These shorter spans between members will double the price of the foundation system. Figure 19. Boardwalk Concept Cross-Section 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 treated joists and beams. When using concrete it seems prudent to combine this with a system of galvanized beams. To avoid bringing heavy machinery and trucks into sensitive ecosystem areas, concrete will have to 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 .5 Clear grade Western Red Cedar or Port Orford Cedar are approximately twice the price of pressure treated decking. These cedars need to be treated with natural oil such as linseed oil every year 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 times the cost of Western Red Cedar .6 Ipe or Ironwood is a tropical hardwood out of Central and South America. This wood is available through certification of sustainable forest product distributors throughout the United States. The certification programs guarantee that the forest practices used to extract the wood do not contribute to forest or community degradation. This type of wood product is the strongest and most 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. However; portions of the Coney Island boardwalk constructed of Ipe have withstood over 40 years of exposure with no apparent wear. Plastic or plastic-composite decking will also be long lasting and maintenance free. The cost of these materials is about twice the price of treated wood and 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 mixed in with the plastic. These wood fibers do absorb some water, which might result in mold and mildew growth. An example of a plastic decking that does 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 and insects. This material can also be used as structural members in the construction of the boardwalk itself. Treated Wood Studies 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. 5 Source: Smooth Move Construction 6 Source: Bear Creek Lumber 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 $1,000 LF Bridge $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 at a 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 preparation, 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+ years (concrete). In addition, 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 with volunteer 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 rate of these surfaces is directly correlated to the permeability of the soil and climatic conditions. The lower the permeability and moisture, the greater risk of failure. Anticipated Use/Functionality- Who are the anticipated users of the trail? Will the trail surface need 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? Multiple use trails attempt to 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 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. The following section will discuss standard treatments for the primary neighborhood trail design opportunities in Tigard. It highlights several popular trail surfacing options for each type of neighborhood trail, and provides a cost/benefit analysis of these alternatives. Table 8. Surfacing Options Matrix Maintenance Vandalism Description/ Cost Product Installation Method Durability Description? Permeable Functionality ADA Availability Susceptible / SF Crusher Prepare subbase, place 2-5 years, Sweep to fill voids Yes Pedestrian, Bicycle No High Moved, $4.88 Fines/ geotextile, 6" aggregate depending on from dislodged fines Deformation Gravel base, place 2" depth maintenance minus over base, roll and compact Filbert Prepare subbase, place 7-10 years Keep shells in place Yes Pedestrian No Moderate Moved $2.85 Shells geotextile fabric, 4" by regular raking. Re- aggregate base, then 3" top every 5 years layer of filbert shells Wood Prepare subbase, place 1-3 years Top dress annually Yes Pedestrian No High Moved, $2.65 Mulch geotextile, 4" aggregate Deformation, base, place 3" layer of Arson wood mulch, rake and shape, apply second 3" layer after initial compaction and settlement Wood Prepare subbase, place 2-3 years Add 2"-3" of new Yes Pedestrian No High Moved, $3.25 Planer geotextile, 4" aggregate material annually Deformation, Shavings base, place 3" layer of I I Arson wood planers shavings, add additional 3" layer after initial compaction The cost of maintaining each trail surface is incorporated into the overall cost per square foot for the surface. 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 Permeable Prepared subbase, place 15 years Vacuum sweep and Yes Pedestrian, Yes Medium Graffiti $11.65 Concrete geotextile, 12" depth pressure wash 4 Bicycle, Roller aggregate base, Portland times a year Blade, Wheelchair cement, coarse aggregate, water, 5" depth section 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 Prepared subbase, place 8 years Vacuum sweep and Yes Pedestrian, Yes Medium Graffiti $6.75 Asphalt geotextile, 12" depth pressure wash 4 Bicycle, Roller aggregate base, emulsion times a year, patch Blade, Wheelchair and coarse aggregate 2" any pot holes as depth section needed Edge Treatments Fencing Fencing is a means of assuring safety for both trail users and neighboring residents by preventing unwanted access onto or off of the trail. By definition, significant lengths of the Tigard neighborhood trail corridors are surrounded on kJid 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 community surveillance 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 discouraged. 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 buffers should 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 can be left with an open boundary, as discussed below. jift xst 4 M, f Figure 21. Post and Wire Figure 22. Wooden Safety Figure 23. Metal Fencing Fence Fence 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. Table 9. Costs for Fencing Types Element Unit Price Unit Metal railing S50.00 LF Aluminum Hand Railing (2 rail, 1 $21.35 LF 6' High Chain Link $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 each Shrubs 1 GC $12.00 each Shrub Plantings $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 trail system as well as general trail user orientation and safety. As a general rule, less signage is better, as trail users become overwhelmed and noncompliance increases. Also, neighboring homeowners may 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. This will avoid the "visual pollution" of too may signs along the trail and an excessive number of sign poles. Wayfinding Signage Wayfinding signage provides 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-out key destinations along the trail route , including: Schools Parks City of Tigard buildings Major employers Other Trails, including the Westside Trail, Fanno Creek Greenway Trail A central information installation at trailheads and major crossroads also helps users find their way and acknowledge the rules of the trail. They are also useful for interpretive education about plant and animal life, ecosystems, and local 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. Table 10. Costs for Signage Element Unit Price Unit Wayfinding Signs $500.00 each Interpretive Signs $1,500.00 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 unique themes, icons and details that will make the trails inviting and unique, particularly related to the natural features in the City. The following examples of context sensitive design solutions can make a trail system more inviting to the 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 are the ' f three main issues neighborhood trail lighting design should consider. Lights should not have a visible source, either to the trail users or to neighboring residences, as they can blind users and pollute the night sky. In addition, globes, acorns and other light types that are not 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 access for vandalism. In some areas, street lighting is sufficient trail light for users, and in other locations homeowners may not want to publicize the trails in their neighborhoods. If lights are desired, some neighborhood-scale options Figure 24. Lighting Bollard are available. A few of these include: Source: Knight Pedestrian Lighting In-ground lighting -dim lights which indicate the extent of the path Bollards - low-level lighting, susceptible to vandalism Solar lighting - best used in situations where running power to the trail would be costly or undesirable. Pedestrian scale lighting can 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) 9 u _ Pedestrian-Scale Furniture r Providing benches at key rest areas and viewpoints encourages A 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 dtjlj~ Dog Bag Stations At parks and popular dog-walking areas, dog bag stations can be provided to encourage users to pick up after their dogs. Such a station can include bags only, or offer a trash receptacle, and signage. Cost: Varies Bollards bKs aasn o. Bollards can serve several functions: they can prohibit motorized 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 Landscaping and Bioswales Landscape features, including street trees or trees along paths, can i , enhance the visual environment and improve the path user experience. Trees can also provide shade from heat and protection from rain. a 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. ~t Cost: Varies Information Kiosks kale" _ 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 them. These kiosks can alternatively serve as community bulletin boards and act as community centers and gathering places. Cost (large map): $5,000 each Art Installations . 4 Local artists can be commissioned to provide art for the trail system, - - - making it uniquely distinct. Many trail art installations are functional as well as aesthetic, as they may provide places to sit and play on. ~,G +I Cost: Varies Universal Access/ADA All public facilities must be built to meet the requirement of the American's With Disabilities Act (ADA), where possible. The act was established to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with accessibility standards established by ADA.$ 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.9 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: http://www.usdoo.gov/crt/ada/stdspdf.htm 9 Source: http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.8 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 drainage, but 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 drinking fountains and rest stops Environmental Considerations Environmental constraints should be considered 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, season of work, interception and infiltration of trail drainage, and disposal of earth materials generated during maintenance activities. Minimize crossings 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. 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. 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 least 25 feet wide. Establish riparian and streamside management setbacks (RSMS). Vegetative disturbances such as thinning, pruning and felling to improve canopy openings should be allowed as necessary to maintain existing trails in RSMSs. However, no heavy equipment should operate outside the trail clearing limits here. Storm water discharges from roads and trails to the RSMS 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 Security Various design and programmatic measures can be taken 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 adjacent Encourage the use of neighborhood friendly fencing and also planting of landscape buffers. property owners • Clearly mark path access points. • Post path rules that encourage respect for private property. • Place lighting strategically. Litter and dumping 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. 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. • Practice proactive law enforcement. Utilize the corridor for mounted 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 amenities that are durable, low maintenance and vandal resistant. • Respond through removal or replacement in rapid manner. • Keep a photo record of all vandalism and turn over to local law enforcement. • Encourage local residents to report vandalism. • Create a Trail Watch Program; maintain good surveillance of the corridor. • Involve neighbors in path projects to build a sense of ownership. • Place amenities (benches, etc.) in well used and highly visible areas. Unwanted vehicle Utilize landscaping to define the corridor edge and path, including earth berms and large access on the path boulders. • Use bollards at intersections • Pass a motorized vehicle prohibited ordinance and sign the path. • Create a Path Watch Program and encourage citizens to photograph report illegal vehicle use of the corridor. • Lay the trail out with curves that allow bike/ped passage, but are uncomfortably tight for automobile passage. Children's safety Provide lighting on trails near schools, to protect children returning home after school in the winter. Community Involvement 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. 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 clean-up or a series of short interpretive walks led by long-time residents or a park naturalist. Community projects The support generated by community groups could be further capitalized by involving neighbors and friends of the path in a community project. Ideas for community projects include 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 is perhaps the strongest single deterrent to undesirable activity along the path. Adopt-a-Path Program Nearby businesses, community institutions, and residential neighbors often see the benefit of their involvement in the path development and maintenance. Businesses and developers may view the path as an integral piece of their site planning and be willing to take on some level of responsibility for the path. Creation of an adopt-a-path program should be explored to capitalize on this opportunity and build civic pride. Path Watch Program Partnering with local and county law enforcement, a path watch program would provide an opportunity for local residents to become actively involved in crime prevention along Tigard's neighborhood trail system. Similar to Neighborhood Watch programs, residents are brought together to get to know their neighbors, and are educated on how to recognize and report suspicious activity. Maintenance Trail management and maintenance 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. Maintenance Responsibilities City of Tigard Staff The City should establish maintenance standards and ensure that any maintenance partners are aware of and will adhere to such standards. The following list represents the major management tasks for neighborhood trails: Monitor security/safety of the trail system through routine inspections Oversee maintenance and rehabilitation efforts Acquire trail easements and other agreements, where applicable Establish consistency in the trail user regulations with nearby agencies 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 with the public and elected officials, and respond to the issues and concerns raised by trail users Develop and manage an emergency response system in coordination with local fire and police departments Community Members Active and informed community members are a wonderful resource for the Tigard neighborhood trails. Interested citizens should be connected with volunteer opportunities within Tigard. Additionally, community members can be encouraged to form Friends of groups, such Friends of the Westside Trail, and really take pride and a sense of ownership in their local trails. Property Management Non-trail use needs arise such as utility installations, private driveway accesses, and roadways that will impact the trail system. A separate set 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 the public nature of the planned system, private encroachments should not be overlooked. Resolving encroachment issues to minimize 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. 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 width of the trail itself. Compacted gravel and crusher fines trails need to be swept periodically to ensure that the trail material is not spilling over and to fill in voids along the trail from dislodged gravel and fines. Bark mulch trails need to top dressed annually, with particular care paid to the established width of the trail to ensure a 4' wide trail stays a 4' wide trail and does not grow wider with the new application of the trail material. Vegetation and Pest Management In general, visibility between plantings at trailside should be maintained so 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 trail users. Under story vegetation along trail corridors should not be allowed to grow higher than 36 inches. Trees species selection 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 over the trail should be pruned to a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet. The trail system moves through a variety of landscape settings. Some basic measures should be taken to best protect the trail investment. Wherever possible, weed control should be accomplished by mechanical means. This is especially true along drainage ways crossing the trail. Innovative weed control methods such as grazing and steaming should be explored. Use of chemical sprays should be limited to use only on those plants that are harmful to the public. Litter and Illegal Dumping Litter along the trail corridors should be removed by staff or volunteer effort. Litter receptacles should be placed at access points 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 be 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. 7 Fencing As the need arises, fencing requests should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Property lines should be clearly surveyed and field marked in a way that is useful for the maintenance staff and the trail neighbors. The following table summarizes a recommended maintenance schedule for the Tigard neighborhood trail system. The approximate maintenance cost of a neighborhood trail is between $1,000 and $3,000 annually. It should be noted that federal funding requirements might cause project costs to rise when compared to the total costs when using local funds. Construction costs may also fluctuate based on labor and material costs. 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 SF $5.00 4" Aggregate base SF $0.60 Asphalt 40-car parking area SY $7.50 5' wide paved trail SF $2.50 Pervious asphalt SF $3.50 Boardwalk LF $1,000.00 Wooden Foot Bridge (20'x 8', prefabricated) Each $6,500.00 Gravel mulch CY $40.00 Earthen Trail (grading, vegetation clearing) LF $ 4.50 "Aggregate trail base" CY $25.60 Edge Treatments Item Unit Unit Cost Metal railing LF S50.00 Wooden split-rail fencing LF $20.00 Dense vegetation LS $7,500 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 Removable bollard Each $850.00 Benches Each $1,800.00 Picnic tables Each $4,000.00 Trash receptacles Each $2,500.00 Lighting Each $3,000.00 Public art Allowance 9 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. Table 14. Evaluation Criteria Matrix Utility Category Measurement Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Proximity to parks, schools, open GIS* - parks, schools, open Popular amenities further Direct Access spaces, retail centers or transit space, zoning and transit Popular amenities within Popular amenities within than 1/2 mile from stops stops layers 1/4 mile of trailhead 1/2 mile of trailhead trailhead Connection on both ends Connection on only one Direct Connections Trail connections to existing GIS - trails layer and City of trail to existing multi end of trail to existing No connections to existing sidewalks or trails sidewalk layer or field visit use trails and/or sidewalks multi use trails and/or sidewalks or trails sidewalks Out-of-Direction Distance of out-of-direction travel GIS - measurement of out- Out-of-direction travel Out-of-direction travel Out-of-direction travel reduced, weighted by expected of direction travel reduced by 1/4 mile or red reduced by less than 1/8 Travel Reduction volume and demand more reduced by 1/4 to 1/8 mile mile Existing Demand If the proposed trail has evidence City lists and field Trail is an existing demand Trail is not an existing N/A Trail of use verification trail demand trail Proposed trail is existing demand City lists and field Trail is an existing demand Trail is not in an Environmental verification, GIS- trail in environmentally-sensitive trail in an environmental environmental zone or is N/A Benefits area environmental zones, zone or wetland not a demand trail wetlands Constructability Category Measurement Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Cross-slope categorized by less Trail cross-slope less Trail cross-slope between Trail cross-slope more Steep Slopes than 15%, 15-25%, and greater GIS - slope layer than 15% grade 15-25% grade than 25% grade than 25% Presence of Trail located within environmental GIS - environmental zones, Trail not in Trail in environmental Environmentally conservation zone, wetland, Goal wetlands and flood plains environmental zone, Trail in flood plain zone or wetland Sensitive Areas 5 area layers wetland or flood plain Presence of regionally significant GIS Trail is not in a regionally Trail is in a "moderately" or Trail is in a "strictly" limit Habitat Impacts habitats -Goal 5 layer significant habitat "lightly" limit region region * All GIS analysis used features available in the City of Tigard or RLIS GIS databases. Willing Owner/Property Owner Permission Category Measurement Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Land owned by City, public entity, GIS - layer developed in Land owned by other Land Ownership Land owned by City Land in private ownership private ownership trail identification public entity Land owner unwilling to Willingness of property owner to Land owner willing to sell 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 Category Measurement Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 GIS - land ownership, RLIS Land owned by City, in Potential Conflicts Proximity to existing houses tax lots, vacant land oversized lot or on vacant Trail is not adjacent to Trail is in close proximity with Neighbors inventory, aerial maps, parcel existing houses to existing houses field verification Safety and Security Category Measurement Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Visibility from the street, trail Trail is clearly visible from Trail is mostly visible from Trail is over 1/4 mile and Personal Security open and free from structures or Field visit streets through its entire the street along its length not visible from street vegetation length Trail complies with ADA Trail cannot comply either Trail cannot comply with Ability of trail to comply with ADA GIS - slope and major and bike path standards, with ADA or bike path ADA or bike path, AND Pathway Design or bike path standards, presence streets layers, field visits no major streets without standards, OR has major has major street crossing of street crossings existing pedestrian street without a without pedestrian crossing pedestrian crossing crossing Preliminary Cost Estimate Category Measurement Data Source Notes 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 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 by 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 distance1) received the highest priority rating. Trails with any of these amenities within a half-mile were considered second-tier, and trails that do not provide access within a half-mile are the lowest priority. This information was determined in GIS, using Metro's 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 popularity of 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 a higher ranking. Direct connections to existing sidewalks and trails were determined 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 either trails or existing sidewalks. Second-tier projects connect to trails or sidewalks on only one end of the 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 the distance a traveler would need to 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 and residential density (from RLIS zoning layer). If the potential trail is an existing 'demand 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 determined 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 be particularly important, to reduce the impact on the surrounding area. People will continue to use the short-cut through the area, and the provision of a trail or boardwalk will mitigate the environmental impacts of travel. Cons tructability 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 10 Construction of a neighborhood trail may alter the network distance to amenities. For consistency and ease of application, straight- line distance was used. 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[51). 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 oversized 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. clea nwaterservices.org/content/Perm it/D&C%20Cha pters/Cha pter%203%20DC%20Amendment%20R0°/2008- 28.pdf )LAN 45 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. Table 15. Cost-Estimate Summary Trail Feature Low Medium High Surface 4-foot wood mulch 6-foot asphalt 8-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 to 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 and analysis, discussed in 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 recorded. The complete Evaluation Matrix for each trail is provided in Appendix B. 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 th Avenue to 103`d Avenue, on Murdock St. 8.100 th Avenue extension to Highland Drive 2. Gallo Avenue extension to 113th/Gallo Path 9. Mistletoe Drive to Sunrise Lane 3. Pathfinder Way to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 10. Coral Street to Locust Street, 92nd /Lincoln 4.116 th Place to Howard Drive extension Street extension 5. Scholls Ferry Road to Englewood Park 11. Gaarde Street to Aerie Drive Trail/Apartment Complex to Scholls Ferry Road 12. Fanno Creek Trail/Scholls Ferry to apartment 6. 90th Avenue extension to Inez Street complex extension 13. Landau Street Extension to 72nd Avenue 7. Greenfield extension; Ridgefield Drive to 14.80 th Place to Bonita Road Chirp Street )LAN The following trails were found to be medium-priority for construction 15. Quail Hollow South Trail to 129th Avenue 26. 89th Avenue extension to 91ST Avenue Cul- Trai I de-sac 16. 129th Avenue 27. Waverly Drive extension; 88th Avenue to 85th 17. Tigard Street to Fanno Creek Avenue 18. Ventura Drive to 70th Place 28. Gallo Avenue extension; North Dakota Street to Suzanne Ct 19. Broadmoor Place to Rockingham Drive 29. 132nd Avenue extension; Marion Street to 20. Spruce Street extension at 80th Avenue Hollow Lane 21. Steve Street to 84th Avenue extension 30. 74th Avenue extension; Cherry Drive to Fir 22. Hunziker Street/77th Place to 72nd Street Avenue/Hwy 217 Overpass 31. 94th Avenue extension; North Dakota St. to 23. 88th Avenue extension to 88th Avenue Greenburg Rd. extension/Pinebrook Court 32. 92nd Avenue extension; North Dakota St. to 24. Highlands Trail to Mountain Highland Trail Greenburg Rd. 25. Twality Middle School to 92nd Avenue 33. Edgewood Street/Halcyon Terrace extension to Braydon Court The following trails were found to be low-priority for construction: 34. 135th Avenue to 132nd Avenue (connects to 40. Burnham Street to Commercial Parking Lot Trail 12) 41. Hall Boulevard to Matthew Park Street 35. Rockingham Drive to Maplecrest Court Extension 36. Terrace Trails Drive to Pathfinder Genesis 42. Murdock Road extension; 109th Avenue to Trail 99-W 37. 116th Avenue extension to Katherine Street 43. Schaffer Lane extension; Tigard High School 39.77 th Avenue extension to Spruce Street to 85th 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 C, which highlight the key benefits and issues of each trail project. A design 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. 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 018 w i 2039 B 21 28 32 31 32 11 -i TC 12 22 , ~7761 35 29 9 34 36 16 42 2503 26 1141 -s 43 - 27 Neighborhood Trails alta Low-Priority Trail Parks Multi-Use Paved Trail Bike Lanes ~--~r High-Priority Trail Not Recommended Streams Multi-Use Unpaved Trail t----- i Tigard City Boundary r r ;','•;;e ° p,„a~„~°;,;ps;;;,;a Medium-Priority Trdil Already Built (i.5 E Recommended Trails School Property Pedestrian-only, Unpaved Trail Miles Overview Map Map 2. Recommended Trails Overview Map 51 3 4 5 A 2 5 I.1yV4t~ IRII\1kUgI1 tiCilflll~' fl j. 7, EFU ]Llllti'^HI.iItE9 NL\~ (-111111AV1llLSlt _ Col`.\I.k # 'l. #NTON ~ i h1A\'L.S\I"1 11.1.801' ~ - 108 ~ _ ~ 11111 Ill} I(rR1.51st 1j \\i' `x -I It H I DA KC r rrlinrll"1 ~wr 't11Lr #1sn ~ 74 28 L\ x ~~Sl.:,#ISSlat1 I{I tili C~. AS1113UR1 77C1RE3 t 17 Z ` i,l II S4 FALCON ItI t 37 - 75 1',\1,CON RES1', -7 2 1 . 6:#7lli Ill\I 76 KATHERINE I \1 tl J 9rUl VI.I~ - 16 78 1 X EAROL f ~ - 1] 4111 r: ~ti~ _ VIM \ ~r Malta High-Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail School Property Multi-Use Paved Transit Center a•?N ~ Medium Priority Recommended Trait Existing Neighborhood Trail Park Multi Use Unpaved Railroad Recommended Trails Map 1 of S. Low-Priority Recommended Trail Bike Lanes - Open space Ped-only, Unpaved Northwest Tigard " Map 3. Recommended Trails Northwest 53 5 6 7 70 71 12 - Tr1YLORS FERRY _ o 98 B r 97 104 80 113 107 10 112 13 82 X 18 84 LOCI. S I' 83 85 y 106 F i 1f;11 r.f:f.l:hl OAK OAK I Rl)MG'OOl) A 102 20 39 ('i`ii A 105 111 108 w 33 96 86 NORTH DAKO 32 74 r - 31 R \ 17 8r' High-Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail Schoot Property Multi-Use Payed Transit Center " •y Medium-Priority Recommed Existing Neighborhood Trail Park Multi-Use Unpaved Railroad h z A 5 Recommended Trails Map Z of 5; Low-Priority Recommended Trait Bike Lanes - Open space Ped•only, Unpaved Northeast Tigard Map 4. Recommended Trails Northeast 55 J V I 2$ 31 I f{; URI) 17 A rL,4 r:4 1I:4I\I:s I ul< 75 k l Y~ RAN WX J2 \ 76 ` (A-IN 1'O \ 1i:4"f 1i I? It l \ I $7 ~t 90; ):utl~u11rll 77`- ~f = rf m ,~rJ l:q 78i t rat 40 r FRtvNK1_JN i ~ 1;RRC11. / ~ Z REVE'L4ND II ytl F - 4\41444 r(P f 1~ 1111''1 3 22 = [ 1]SiRRY DGLL r PARK r 1';1RNs r, i_ R 30 I':AIR1i:411i1 Ci-Il;Iilt1 r sANI)m I(f ,4' 171f1i4(t1~1~ li• F1(-A-1 CENTER 21 D JI('DONAL1 I -1 11 "k, 8 ~ Malta High-Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail -Multi-Use Paved Park Q Transit Center Medium Priority Recommed Existing Neighborhood Trait Multi Use Unpaved Open space Railroad . + e o Recommended Trails Map 3 of 5: Low-Priority Recommended Trait Bike Lanes Ped-only, Unpaved Schoot Property D I„ EastTigard Map 5. Recommended Trails East 57 5 7 Mm ~~~r,~t.~srl~li X88 62 23 42 INEZ 63 I 6j 14 t.rl RIA ea 25 nt3~rt,e f 1 x _ 110 - 26 109. 7:1 D-1,0-0- 41 I'I:I'I"9 ItTItIJ ~ ~ lllflil ~ pA _ ~y D7 _ ]itltiti -a! _ ti:1ETf,1: R Y ~ IIIt1.Lr1AM IN R pji 1'TII01;11 64 rE;i,111.f l' 2 91k _ A\ ON Cr•1`ll It lt7\ls DURHAM ' r 43 SHAI. HA r CHATEAU TITAN r, a 65 KENT E ' DOVER RI\`1..It\'ti001) 94 27 f g2 ~ta'c~tii . X66 93 aty of Tigard, Oregon a eta High-Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trait Multi-Use Paved Park Transit Center 7 N ULM, Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan Low-Priority Prore Rme -Existing Neighborhood Trail Peit1 se Unpaved pen space Railroad Recommended Trails Map 4vi5: Recommended Trail Bike Lanes d v{y, Unpaved School Property 0 r SoutheastTlgard Map 6. Recommended Trails Southeast 59 5 ~ 7 34 19 95 45 I .Al_' NF N - y N rn~,til:it -44- 14 46 r 35 'J. 58 29 t11RION yj PAR K RLtPSA\ 57 EIrL). ~A r F" ??I .111 (:Nlif?K Yti~ 15 TO 1`.SII?Ii ;A 4F7 36A 24 ` 59 Q 9~49 101 r _11 ti111>r ,48 55 a 51 7 z~ 52 lnc 11: 11.1'1.1 1 {I~t1 w 60 - ! 103 53 N 99 42 154 rlatlsrlt~ Nit w - 69 0. ~68 61 ~ r 111 1l SU111NIIT R1Dcu, - i q b°4 TT (-F I , . a 'ta High-Priority Recommended Trail Not Currently Recommended Trail ~ Multi-Use Paved Park Q Transit Center 8 a Medium-Priority Recommed Trail Existing Neighborhood Trait Multi-Use Unpaved - Open space Railroad e . ? 7Recommended Trails Map 5 of 5: Low•Priority Recommended Trail Bike Lanes Ped-only, Unpaved Schoot Property 1,, outhwest Tigard Map 7. Recommended Trails Southwest 61 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 trail Land will be developed in future Connects to bike lane or low-traffic street Environmental or habitat concerns Currently sees significant use Steep slopes Based on the design option determined through the evaluation and field visits, cost estimates were revised for the recommended trails, as shown in Table 17 and Table 18. The recommended trails 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 be appropriate for a specific 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 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%). Table 18. Urban Trail Cost Estimate Summary Trail Feature Low Medium High Surface 6-foot asphalt 6-foot asphalt 8-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 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. C-hapter- 6-. - - - -Im-ple-mentation- -Pla-n 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. 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. Policy 3: Safe and secure pedestrian and bikeways shall be designed between parks and other activity centers in Tigard. Policy 4: Safe and secure routes to schools shall be designated for each school and any new residential project shall identify the safe path to school for children. Accessibility is addressed by Goal 5, "Develop transportation facilities which are accessible to all members of the community and minimize out of direction travel." Policy 1: Design and construct transportation facilities to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Policy 2: Develop neighborhood and local connections to provide adequate circulation in and out of the neighborhoods. The TSP Task Force evaluated strategies for implementing the goals and policies relating to pedestrian travel. The strategies are intended to provide the City a way of prioritizing project funding. One strategy that relates to neighborhood trails is to connect key pedestrian corridors to schools, parks, recreational uses and activity centers. This includes requiring new developments to define direct and safe pedestrian routes to paths, parks, activity centers, schools and transit (in the future) within one mile of the development site. Other strategies include: Strategy 3: Coordination of Land Use Approval Process to Provide Sidewalks & Links to Existing Sidewalks Strategy 5:Pedestrian Corridors that Connect to Major Recreational Uses Strategy 6: Pedestrian Corridors that Connect to Major Transit Locations Strategy 7: Pedestrian Corridors that Connect Neighborhoods Strategy 9: Pedestrian Corridors that Commuters Might Use Strategies targeted to bicycle travel similarly focus on providing corridors to recreational uses, schools, transit, neighborhoods and employment centers. Discussion The Transportation System Plan includes text that supports the development of neighborhood trails. The City of Tigard is currently 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. 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 quality and character of Tigard's residential districts. Examples include managing the design of infill development, mitigating impacts of adjacent dissimilar land uses, improving quality of streetscapes and the pedestrian environment, and providing greater access to open space. Parks, Trails and Open Space Element Goal 8 addresses parks, recreation, trails and open space. The overarching goal of the Parks, Trails and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan is, "to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting 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 opportunities, as well as enabling non-motorized access to recreational opportunities, and are promoted through this Goal. Goal 8.1 is to "provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both (A) developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and (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 endeavor to develop neighborhood parks [or neighborhood park facilities within other parks, such as a linear park] located within a half mile along a street or trail connection of every resident to provide access to active and passive recreation opportunities for residents of all ages. Policy 7: The City shall ensure public safety is a consideration in the planning, design, and management of parks, open spaces, and trails. Policy 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, and in building stewardship and promoting community pride. Policy 20: The City shall continue to improve access to neighborhood parks and other facilities in order to serve all citizens, regardless of ability. Action v. Coordinate with and support Metro, Oregon State Parks, the National Park Service, and other agencies and that provide parks, open spaces, trails, and recreational activities in or near Tigard. Action A. 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. 7 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 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. Policy 2: 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. Action i. Complete a trail system master plan to guide the development of the trail system and facilitate progress toward its completion. Action ii. Complete a Citywide inventory and prioritization of opportunities for short pathway connections that increase bicycle and pedestrian 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 and maintenance activities with natural resource management objectives and activities. Action vi. Where appropriate, furnish trails with amenities, such as interpretive and directional signage, benches, drinking fountains, parking and staging areas, and other services. Action vii. Use automated systems to systematically map and document trail easements, right-of- way dedications, proposed alignments, and current trail locations. Housing Element The Housing element of the Comprehensive Plan also supports the development of neighborhood trails. Goal 10.2 is to "maintain a high level of residential livability." Relevant policies include the following: Policy 2. The City shall seek to provide multi-modal transportation access from residential neighborhoods to transit stops, commercial services, employment, and other activity centers. 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 access to services and parks, resource efficient design and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources. 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: 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 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 and local trails for recreation and transportation. A few small modifications suggested above could explicitly include neighborhood trails with other bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Municipal Code - Title 18 Community Development Code Chapter 18.810 of Tigard Community Development Code addresses construction, reconstruction and repair standards for streets, sidewalks and other public improvements. 18.810.030 Streets F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Where a full street extension is not possible due to the above limitations, a neighborhood trail should be constructed to provide pedestrian and/or bicycle travel. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. L. Culs-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: 3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to 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. (0rd.02-33, Ord. 99-22) 9 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 subgrade that has been sterilized if an asphaltic concrete bikeway." The City of Tigard has standard cross-sections for pedestrian paths and bikeways. Shown in Figure 25, the standards dictate a 5' minimum width for pedestrian ways and 10' minimum for multi-use paths. The Public Improvement Design Standards document does not specify design standards for neighborhood trails, with the exception of barricades and guardrails. The design standard is that white and black reflectorized Type II barricades shall be used at the end of the sidewalk or pedestrian/bike path. >'•1- 3 1/2" A 4" OF ON 4" OF i/4"- 0 2J SSLL,Pc TO STREE71 7- -7 77 _I 4" A. AHn Figure 25. Existing Pedestrian Paths and Bikeways Design Standards1z In addition, the guidance 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. Discussion Neighborhood trails should be designed to meet Public Improvement Design Standards wherever possible; however, the City of Tigard should consider modifying the policy language to allow narrower trails where constraints exist and 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 high, medium, and low cost estimatesfor each of the recommended neighborhood trails. Also outlined are the funding sources that may be appropriate for each. Trails are grouped by prioritization level. 12 Source: http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/city hall/departments/cd/capital construction/standard details/default.asp 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 project need, costs, and benefits. Several of these sources currently are 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 anticipate that most of the programs described below will continue to be available. In Oregon, Federal funding is administered through State (ODOT and OPRD) and regional planning agencies. Most, but certainly not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward transportation-related improvements, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. Federal transportation funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs. To be eligible for this funding, projects 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 Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program of the Federal Transportation Bill provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized and motorized uses. These funds are available for both paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to improve roads for general passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for: Maintenance and restoration of existing trails Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails Acquisition or easements of property for trails Acquisition of land or easements for trail right-of-way. 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). Under the SR2S Program, Federal funds are administered by ODOT. Under the Oregon Safe Routes to School Program, approximately $3.7 million was available for grants between 2006 and2010. The grants can be used to identify and reduce barriers and hazards to children walking or bicycling to school. The application deadline for the 2010 and final funding cycle was June 2009. Should the program be federally re-authoriized, Tigard should consider its potential for funding Neighborhood Trails located near schools.As presently structured, A Safe Routes to School Plan is required for a project to be eligible for the infrastructure grant program., If this requirement continues to be a feature of a re-authorized Sate Routes program, the City should work with the school district to develop this plan, which includes outreach, studies and safety education. Transportation Enhancements 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 of transportation systems. The statewide grant process is highly competitive. Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program provides federal funding for transit- oriented development, traffic calming, and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. State Funding Sources Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grants The Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program is a competitive grant program that provides approximately $5 million every two years to 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 applications are reviewed and prioritized by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Regional Funding Sources Metro Transportation Improvement Program Funding (MTIP) The MTIP comprises federal transportation funds coordinated by Metro. Funds can be used for Preliminary Engineering, ROW acquisition, and construction. The MTIP Program document includes projects selected by Metro to receive regional flexible funds, It is updated every two years and incorporated into the State TIP. The top funding priority of the most recent (2010-13) MTIP is to "complete gaps in roads, trails, streets or transit routes to improve circulation within regional centers and town centers." Another key priority is to "complete gaps in transit service, automobile, pedestrians, and bike routes between employers and potential employees, and between businesses and potential customers." Local Funding Sources General Obligation Bonds General obligation bonds are debt instruments sold by a municipality to fund capital improvements. The bonds are repaid with property taxes. Bond measures become law when approved by a majority of those voting in local property tax elections held in May and November. Funding from a trails bond measure potentially could be used for right-of-way acquisition, design, engineering, and construction. Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) most often are used by cities to construct localized projects such as streets, sidewalks or bikeways. Through the LID process, the costs of local improvements generally are spread among a group of property owners within a specified area. The cost can be allocated based on property frontage or other methods such as traffic trip generation. 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 group may help sponsor projects, possibly by 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. 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 Contribution of employee volunteer time Discounted materials Neighborhood and other community groups including Eagle Scouts for a community-service project can develop some of the natural surface trails, particularly those that are on City-owned land. The City could develop a booklet of trails that would be appropriate for volunteer efforts. 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.13 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. The group also has assisted the City in the development of a trail map and lead regular group walks around 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 Foundation and the Meyer Memorial Trust. Land Trusts Land Trusts are local, regional, or statewide nonprofit conservation organizations directly involved in helping protect natural, scenic, recreational, agricultural, historic, or cultural property. Land trusts work to preserve open land that is important to the communities and regions where they operate. Service Clubs Community organizations have been 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 College service clubs, and others. 13 http://exi2lorepdx.com/swtrails.html 3 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. 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). Cost Estimayes and Funding Strategies Neighborhood trails were either characterized as natural or urban, as described in Chapter 3. Planning-level cost estimates were then developed for the recommended neighborhood trails in Chapter 5. 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 data on the estimated length and planning-level cost of recommended neighborhood trails for short-term, medium-term and long-term projects. Table 22 provides a guide for how potential funding sources were identified for the recommended Neighborhood Trail projects. Table 23 through show grant funding opportunities for the High-, Medium-, and Low-priority projects, respectively. Table 19. High-Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Estimates Potential Neighborhood Trails Cost Estimate Length Design ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 1 Near 106th Ave to 103rd Ave, on Murdock St. 590 urban $34,000 $20,000 $19,000 2 Gallo Ave 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 St. to Howard Dr Extension 124 urban $8,000 $5,000 $4,000 5A Scholls Ferry Rd to Englewood Park Trail 62 urban $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 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, 92nd /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 Table 20. Medium-Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Estimates 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 Dr. 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`h 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 $10,000 $6,000 27 Waverly Dr ext.; 881h 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 $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.; North Dakota St. to Greenburg Rd. 234 urban $14,000 $9,000 $8,000 32 92nd Ave ext.; North Dakota St to Greenburg Rd. 128 natural $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 Total 6,912 $384,000 $193,000 $151,000 Table 21. Low-Priority Neighborhood Trail Cost Estimates Potential Neighborhood Trails Cost Estimate Length Design ID Project Description (feet) Option High Medium Low 33 Steve St/21B to 84`h Ave Extension 431 urban $340,000 $336,000 $334,000 34 135th Ave to 132nd Ave 715 natural $51,000 $29,000 $18,000 35 Rockingham Dr to Maplecrest Ct [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 36B Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 198 natural $10,000 $6,000 $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 116th Ave Extension to Katherine St 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 to Commercial 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 Table 22. Guide to Funding Source Availability for Recommended Projects Abbreviation Funding Source Limitations RTP Recreational Trails Program None; all trails SR2S Safe Routes to School Project must be within 2 miles of a primary/ middle school and be included in a Safe Routes to School Plan. TE Transportation Enhancements Projects must serve a transportation need (i.e. Travel Reduction is greater than'/ mile) TCSP Program Transportation, Community and Trail provides access to jobs, services, trade centers System Preservation Program Bike/Ped Program Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Project must be within the public right-of-way Grant Grants MTIP Metro Transportation None; all trails eligible Improvement Program Local Bond Measure Local Bond Measure Bond financing must be voter-approved LID Local Improvement District Long-term strategy; requires creation of Local Improvement s District Volunteer Services Volunteer Services Less expensive or unpaved projects (i.e. project cost estimate less than $5,000) "7 Table 23. Potential Grant Funding Sources for High-Priority Projects Bike/Ped Local Volun- TCSP Program Bond teer ID Description RTP SRTS TE Prog Grants MTIP Measure LID Services Near 106th Ave to 103rd Ave, on 1 Murdock X X X X X Gallo Ave Extension 2 to 113th/Gallo Path X X X X X X X Pathfinder way to Pathfinder Genesis 3 Trail X X X X X 116th PI/Fonner St. to Howard Dr 4 Extension X X X- X X X X Scholls Ferry Rd to Englewood Park 5A Trail X X X X X X X Parking Lot to 513 Scholls Ferry Road X X _ X X X X 90th Ave Extension 6 to Inez St Extension X X X X X X Greenfield ext.; Ridgefield Dr to 7 Chirp St X € X X= X X X X 100th Ave Extension 8 to Highland Dr X X X X X X _ X Mistletoe Dr to 9 Sunrise Ln X X X X X X Coral St to Locust St, 92nd/Lincoln 10 Extension X X X X X X X Gaarde St to Aerie 11 Dr X X X X X X X Fanno Creek Trail/Scholls Ferry to 12 apartments X X X_ X X X X Landau St Extension 13 to 72nd Ave X X X X X X = X= 14 80th PI to Bonita Rd X X X X X X X Table 24. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Medium-Priority Projects Bike/Ped Local Volun- TCSP Program Bond teer ID Description RTP SRTS TE Program Grants MTIP Measure LID Services Quail Hollow S Trail 15 to 129th Ave Trail X X X X X X X 16 129th Ave X X X X X X Tigard St to Fanno 17 Creek X X X X X X s Ventura Dr to 70th 18 Pi X X X X X X X Broadmoor PL to 19 Rockingham Dr. X X X X X X X X Spruce St Extension 20 at 80th X X X X X X X Edgewood St/Halcyon Ter Ex. 21 to Graydon Ct X X X X X X _ Hunziker St/77th PI to 72nd Ave/Hwy 22217 Overpass X X X X X X 88th Ave Ext. to 88th Ave 23 Ext./Pinebrook Ct X X X X X X Mtn Highlands Trail to Mtn Highland 24 Trail X X X X X X X X Twality Middle 25 School to 92nd Ave X X X X X X X - 89th Ave Extension to 91st Ave Cul-de- 26 sac X X X X X X X Waverly Dr ext.; 88th Ave to 85th 27 Ave X X X X X X X t t t t Gallo Ave ext.; North Dakota St to 28 Suzanne Ct X X [ X[ X X X [ X X 132nd Ave ext._ Marion St to Hollow 29 Ln X X [ X[ X X X [ X X 74th Ave ext.; 30 Cherry Dr to Fir St X X X X X X X X 94th Ave ext.; North Dakota St to 31 Greenburg Rd X X [ X[ X X X [ X _ X - 92nd Ave ext.; North Dakota St to 32 Greenburg Rd X X X X X X X X Table 25. Potential Grant Funding Sources for Low-Priority Projects Bike/Ped Local Volun- TCSP Program Bond teer ID Description RTP SRTS TE Program Grants MTIP Measure LID Services Steve St/21B to 84th Ave 33 Extension X X X X X X , 135th Ave to 34 132nd Ave X X X X X X Rockingham Dr to Maplecrest Ct 35 [construction] X X X X X X Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder 36A Genesis Trail X X [ X X X X [ X[ X Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder 36B Genesis Trail X X X X X X X X 116th Ave Extension to 37 Katherine St X X X X X X X 77th Ave Extension to 39 Spruce St X X X X X X X Burnham St to Commercial 40 Parking Lot X X X X X X X Hall Blvd to Matthew Park St 41 Extension X X X X X X Murdock St ext.; 42 109th Ave to 99W X X X X X X X . - Schaffer Ln ext.; Tigard High School 43 to 85th Ave X X X X X X X 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 may 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 driven to 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 respect to the location of a neighborhood trail, the City of Tigard could consider owning the trail corridor itself. This internalizes the liability and coordination efforts. The City is treated differently from other property owners due to its unique status as a sovereign entity. This option transfers basic liability to Tigard and would give the City the authority to locate the trail in the corridor. Challenges with the City acquiring land for neighborhood trails include the expense and the difficulty for the City to acquire land while houses are for sale. Property acquisition procedures are laid out in great detail in Property Acquisition Procedures, updated 2/23/07. This document includes chapters on Procedures; Charter, Ordinances & Statutes; Standard Forms; Preliminary Title Report; Environmental Site Assessment; IGA Samples; Negotiation Techniques; and Miscellaneous. Some of the sections most pertinent to trails include the following: The City has the power to acquire property, both within and outside its corporate limits, for a wide variety of purposes. Cities may acquire a variety of property interests, including fee title, easements, and leasehold interests. Fee title or easements may be acquired through dedication, negotiated purchase, or condemnation. Leasehold interest will be acquired either through a direct lease of property from the owner, or by a sublease or "assignment" of these rights 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... 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 be 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. The landowner retains title to the land while relinquishing most of the day-to-day management of the property. The trail 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 and identify all conceivable activities, uses, invitees, and vehicular types allowed to avoid any need to renegotiate with fee interest owner in future. State that all structures and fixtures installed as part of a trail are property of grantee. Include subsurface rights for use by utility franchises. It is also understood that major landowners would want an easement agreement to address issues on their side. Through cooperative negotiation, the following issues should be addressed in an easement agreement: Access needs related to maintenance, etc. Trail management plan Future improvements or modifications to the trail Trail Use of Utility Easements 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 or blanket utility easements, as opposed to stand alone easements. The main idea behind this approach to expanding opportunities for trails is that every time the City initiates a sewer capital project, it potentially could seek authority 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 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 rights to the licensee for use of the property. Typically, these are employed in situations when the property cannot be sold (e.g. a publicly-owned, active electrical utility corridor), or the owner wants to retain use of 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 option to renew. Identify all conceivable activities, uses, invitees, and vehicular types. Provide clarity on maintenance responsibilities. Specify limits on other uses of license property. As with easement agreements, property owners would want a license agreement to address issues of concern to them. Through cooperative negotiation, the following issues should be addressed in a license agreement: Access needs related to maintenance, etc. Trail management plan Future improvements or modifications to the trail Right of Way Vacation Right 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 help 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: M 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: (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 developing the projects identified in the Plan. Implementation Strategy 1. Strategically Pursue Projects Ideally, Tigard staff should pursue capital improvements funding or grant funding for higher-priority neighborhood trail projects first. However, if grant requirements, or construction in conjunction with another roadway project make construction of a lower priority project possible, then Tigard should pursue funding sources for that project regardless of priority. Land owners that have been identified in the Property Owner Survey as willing to allow a trail through their property present a particularly important opportunity that should be pursued as quickly as possible Action Item 1.1. Pursue capital improvements funding or grant funding for 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 of a lower priority project possible, pursue funding sources for that project regardless of priority. Action Item 1.3. As quickly as possible, pursue development of neighborhood trails on land where the owner has been identified as willing to allow an easement or to sell land for a neighborhoof trail. Implementation Strategy 2. Incrementally Implement Projects The Recommended Neighborhood Trails Project List includes recommended design options, determined by the anticipated use and connectivity opportunity of the trail. Trails designated as urban can be incrementally developed, with a temporary earthen surfacing, until funding is secured to complete the project. Similarly, trail amenities including bollards, lighting and wayfinding signage can be added at a later time. The low cost estimate considers the fewest design features possible for a trail, which can be added to as funding allows. In addition, permitting and design can be developed for the recommended trails, to ensure that the trails are `shovel ready' if additional funding 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 conditions change. The list of recommended trails should be incorporated into the 2009 update of the Transportation System Plan, and updated as that plan is updated. Action Item 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 3.2. The neighborhood trail project list should be revisited with input from the public when the Transportation System Plan is revised. Implementation Strategy 4. Encourage Private Donors to Support Neighborhood Trails Through an "Adopt a Trail" program or other neighborhood volunteerism, corporations, institutions and individuals can aid maintenance and development of the neighborhood trail system. 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. Action Item 4.2 Support volunteer groups building or maintaining neighborhood trails by providing materials and expertise as needed. Implementation Strategy 5. Work with Other Jurisdictions to Encourage the Development of Neighborhood Trails Inactive neighborhood associations present a significant challenge to implementation of several recommended neighborhood trails by delaying important decisions about the trail. Tigard should work with the State to consider amending the requirement of neighborhood association approval for trail development in the case of inactive associations. 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. Appe-ndix -A-. -P-rope-rty- -Owner-Su-rvey 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. 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 overtime. 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. In a later phase of the study, recommended pathway standards will be prepared relating to width, surface, lighting and other design considerations. Key Findings Owner 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 survey. On the other hand, 6 single family lot owners are willing to consider allowing access for a 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 a trail. One inventoried trail on private property (5-7-0) is 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 Way rather than Beveland St. The trail is included in the site plan for the development of the vacant parcel bordering the eastern edge of the Costco property. The developer in question, PacTrust, also plans to install a second north-south trail in conjunction with the development of the property. As indicated, a large number of private owners did not respond to two mailed notices. This includes Washington Square Property Management and others in the private property category, who did not respond to the two mailings or to in-person or phone solicitations. One can only presume that these non-responses are indicative of a lack of openness on 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 sites potentially are available for trail use. Because they do not involve acquisition of right-of-way, the projects most easily implemented may be those extending through unused road rights-of-way and parks and open space. A qualification 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 th Avenue and the eastern end of the paved trail. The 85th Ave/Cook Park trail is a popular route to Cook Park, the Tualatin River Trail, and to the Kit-a-Kuts bike/ped bridge. The many existing public rights-of-way are all prime opportunities for trail connections. For the most part, adjacent properties have developed, but for whatever reason, the street connections have not been made. Some 17 segments of varying length have been identified in this category. They are prime candidates because the City already owns the land. In the case of all, no roads are scheduled to be constructed within any of these rights-of-way in the foreseeable future. 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 regular basis 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 ways 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 in the future. The neighborhood trail inventory has identified your property as either 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 of your 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. Please note that the City does not currently have funds to purchase property or easements. Our objective at this time is to determine where it might be possible to do so 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 the City later, you can change your mind at any time and your property will be taken off the "possible trail connection inventory." Please indicate whether or not you would be willing, in the future, to discuss potential acquisition of the trail portion of your property by checking the 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 29, 2008. I would welcome an 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 duane@tgard-gov.or. Sincerely, 4)1~ C_t~ Duane Roberts, Project Planner 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, or sale of a portion of my property for Neighborhood Trail purposes. I understand that my feedback is for discussion purposes only. I do not wish my property to be considered for potential Neighborhood Trail acquisition. Please keep the donation/lease/purchase option off the table. I want to discuss this matter in person. Please contact me to schedule a face to face meeting. Signature Date Phone # Tax lot #(s) 1S136AA00400 Site 5-4-0 Mailing Address Comments Appe-ndix _B.__ Eval-uatio-n -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 St to 4 Howard 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 1 513 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 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 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 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 16 129th Ave 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 Tigard St to Fanno 17 Creek 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 Ventura Dr to 70th 18 PI 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 Broadmoor PL to 19 Rockingham Dr. 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 Spruce St 20 Extension at 80th 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 Edgewood St/Halcyon Ter Ext 21 to Braydon Ct 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 Hunziker St/77th PI to 72nd Ave/Hwy 217 22 Overpass 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 88th Ave Ext. to 88th Ave 23 Ext./Pinebrook Ct 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 Mtn Highlands Trail to Mtn 24 Highland Trail 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 Twality Middle School to 92nd 25 Ave 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 89th Ave Extension to 91st 26 Ave Cul-de-sac 1 1 1 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 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 28 Suzanne Ct 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 132nd Ave ext.; Marion St to 29 Hollow Ln 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 74th Ave ext.; 30 Cherry Dr to Fir St 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 94th Ave ext.; North Dakota St to 31 Greenburg Rd 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 92nd Ave ext.; North Dakota St to 32 Greenburg Rd 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 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 84th Ave 33 Extension 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 135th Ave to 34 132nd Ave 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 NO 3 2 2 Rockingham Or to Maplecrest Ct 35 [construction] 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 NO 3 1 2 Terrace Trails Or to Pathfinder 36 Genesis Trail 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 Terrace Trails Or to Pathfinder 36 Genesis Trail 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 116th Ave Extension to 37 Katherine St 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 0 3 1 1 77th Ave Extension to 39 Spruce St 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 Burnham St to Commercial 40 Parking Lot 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Hall Blvd to Matthew Park St 41 Extension 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 Murdock Rd ext.; 109th Ave to 42 99W 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 NO 1 1 1 Schaffer Ln ext.; Tigard High School to 85th 43 Ave 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 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-born Security Design Lauren Ln Extension 44 to stream 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 0 2 2 2 Gaarde St to Field 4S (not park) 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 46 1-3-OA to Gaarde St 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 47 ? to Sunrise Ln 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 N/A 2 2-2-RA to Tigard 48 Boundary 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 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 Ridgefield Ln 51 Extension 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Wilmington Ln to Starview Dr Trail/2- 52 5-RB 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 0 3 NO 2 N/A 2 2-5-RA/Starview Trail to Greenfield 53 Dr 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 NO 2 2 2 Starview Dr Extension to Bull Mtn Rd, on Foran 54 Ter 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 NO 3 N/A 3 Mtn Highlands Trail/3-1-OA to 55 128th PI 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 2 129th Ave to 3-1- OA/Mtn Highlands 56 Trail 2 2 2 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 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 - 58 124th Ave 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Kelly Ln to 59 Plantation Terr 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 N/A 2 Field to McFarland 60 Blvd 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 N/A 2 Thornwood Trail to 61 Autumn View St 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 62 View Terr - 97th Ave 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 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 64 Summerfield Dr 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 N/A 1 Chateau Ln to Dover 65 Ct 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 N/A 1 Riverwood Ln to 66 Tualatin River Trail 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 0 1 N/A 1 Terrace Trails Dr to Pathfinder Genesis 67 Trail 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 Aspen Ridge Dr to 122nd Ave 68 Extension 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 3 1 3 2 Aspen Ridge Dr to 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 Washington Square 70 Rd 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 NO 3 N/A 2 Scholls Ferry Road to Washington 71 Square Rd 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 4-1-RA to Washington Square 72 Rd 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 73 Parking Lot to 121st 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 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 Ave/Springwood Drive North Dakota St/Fanno Creek to 74 Fanno Creek 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 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 76 St 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Fanno Creek Trail to 77 Walnut St 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 NO 2 N/A 1 Johnson St Extension to 78 Johnson St 1 3 1 2 3 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 1 3 1 3 N/A 2 Stream to Ventura 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 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 1 84 Ventura Dr to Oak St 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 N/A 2 70th PI Extension to 85 70th Ave Extension 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 2 Hall Blvd to Steve St 86 Extension/21A 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 Dartmouth St to 87 Beveland Rd 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 N/A 1 Greens Park Ln Extension to 88th 88 Ave Extension 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 NO 3 N/A 1 Twality Middle 89 School to Home St 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 N/A 1 90 Grant Ave Extension 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 NO 2 N/A 2 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 - Tigard St to Commercial St 76th Ave Extension 91 at Onnaf Ct 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 NO 2 N/A 1 92 6-4-B to 92nd Ave 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 NO 3 N/A 2 Waverly Dr/85th Ave Ext. to Cook 93 Park Trail/85th 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 1 Riverwood Ln to 94 93rd Ave 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 NO 3 N/A 2 132nd Ave to 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 97 Lola Ln to 70th Ave 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 N/A 2 Taylors Ferry Rd to 98 Alfred St 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 Alpine Crest Way Extension to Bull 99 Mtn Rd 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 Beef Bend Rd to 100 Parking Lot 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 N/A 3 2-1-0? Woodshire Ln? to Greenfield 101 Dr 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 4 2 N/A 2 Spruce St to 83rd 102 Ave Extension 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 Leah Terr to Bull 103 Mountain Road 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 N/A 2 69th Ave Extension 104 to Barbara Ln 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 N/A 2 105 Pkng Lot to Pkng Lot 3 3 1 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 St 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 N/A 1 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 108 Greenburg Rd 2 1 1 2 3 1 0 3 3 2 N/A 2 76th Ave to 74th 109 Ave 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 SW Hall Blvd to 110 unnamed st. 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 2 Spruce St to 82nd 111 Ave Extension 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Ventura Ct to 112 Ventura Ct 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 Ventura Dr to 65th 113 Ave Extension 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 NO 2 N/A 2 *S-9 is within City of Portland right-of-way. The City of Tigard should correspond with Portland regarding this trail Appe-ndix -C.-- P-roject- P-rospect- - us- Sheets 106th Avenue to 103rd Avenue, on Murdock Street 1 Summary Trail 1 connects both ends of Murdock Street with a short Via, = connection to 104th in the middle. There is significant existing demand for this trail. Location: D5* Key Benefits • Existing demand trail , • Trail on land owned by Tigard Water District Key Issues • Little out-of-direction travel reduction • No connection to sidewalks or trail • Trail not visible along entire Murdock Street ends in a T-intersection at 103rd Street where length Trail1 begins Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban, significant demand is r.e 44 Length: 590' Low Estimate: $19,000 Medium Estimate: $20,000 High Estimate: $34,000~A kjo Fencing Option: f 4' Chain-Link: $4,000 The connection to Murdock Street near 106`h shows heavy use Wooden Split-Rail: $12,000 * This location corresponds to the grid on Map 2 on page 51. Gallo Avenue Extension to 113th Avenue /Gallo Path 2 Summary ` d Trail 2 borders school district land on Tigard land. It shows signs of significant use. While the trail is along land currently:.~ f designated as wetland, the trail is already graveled and a boardwalk is likely to be unnecessary. Location: 135 - -flip • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail Key Benefits • Existing demand trail in N environmental zone • Trail on City land • Trail on designated wetland, but Key Issues 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 Design Option: Urban; connects to asphalt trail 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 Pathfinder Way to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 3 Summary Ilk This trail is an existing maintenance access road that is 44 currently used to access the Pathfinder Genesis Trail. A dog bag station at this location indicates substantial existing use. As a gravel-surfaced demand trail located in an environmental, R ` zone, this trail is a high priority for construction. Location: C5 Key Benefits • Existing demand trail in wetland x" • Private ownership; willing seller • Little out-of-direction travel reduction Key Issues • Trail in wetland and environmental zone • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area e- • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinions 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 $5,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $2,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $900 Wooden Split-Rail: $3,000 116th Place/Fonner Street to Howard Drive Extension 4 Summary y This location has a well-trod demand path through an empty lot. The fence across the area currently restricts the , passageway to a three-foot wide corridor. Location: C4 Key Benefits • Significant out-of-direction travel - u I reduction s • Private ownership; willing owner ~t R I f ,F• • Trail visible along entire length • Trail does not provide access to Key Issues popular destinations • No connection to sidewalks or trail Cost Opinion This trail is located on a vacant parcel, where the owner is willing to consider a formal trail Design Option: Urban Length: 124' a„ Low Estimate: $4,000 7 r Medium Estimate: $5,000 W .C1 v~ Ip,(I~wA, `t,E•7~N I High Estimate: $8,000 " btu Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $900 Wooden Split-Rail: $2,500 I (d The existing fence restricts the passageway to three feet Apartments to Scholls Ferry Road/Englewood Park Trail 5A&B E~ Summary f Two existing demand trails were identified that provide access to residents of a multifamily residential complex. Trail 5A is along a rise and provides a route to Scholls Ferry Road i around an existing wall. Trail 5B runs along a building and connects to the existing asphalt Englewood Park Trail. Both E trails show signs of significant use and are muddy due to drainage issues. X '1r~ Location: B4 t, a • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of Key Benefits trails m • Existing demand trail • Trail 5A on public and private land; a willing seller ' • Trail 5B on City land, connects to existing asphalt trail + Key Issues • Both trails in floodplain y • Both trails in "strictly" limit development habitat area a ' w Little out-of-direction travel reduction at • Neither trail visible along entire length Trail SA takes the higher path, connecting the apartments to Cost Opinion Scholls Ferry Road around an existing fence Urban; trails connect to 8' asphalt trail Design Option: and bike lane, respectively 5A Length: 64' 5B Length: 161' A B Total Z Low Estimate: $2,000 $28,000 $30,000: Medium Estimate: $3,000 $28,000 $31,000 High Estimate: $5,000 $33,000 $38,000 ' Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $1,500 Trail 5B is the lower path against the apartment complex, and connects to Englewood Park Trail Wooden Split-Rail: $4,500 90th Avenue Extension to Inez Street Extension 6 Summary This trail connects two stub roads. It is located in a wooded area where development is likely to occur in the future. Location: D6 • Trail provides access to popular Key Benefits destinations 4` • Significant out-of-direction travel - reduction • Existing demand trail µK Ke Issues • Private ownership; could not contact Y 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' Low Estimate: $5,000 4 g k Medium i _ I $9,000 Estimate: Vi, High Estimate: $15,000" it C a= Fencing Option: ~~{max'"" a 4' Chain-Link: $2,100 Wooden Split-Rail: $5,900 Development is likely to occur in the future on this lot Greenfield Extension: Ridgefield Drive to Chirp Street 7 Summary ; ' . " This trail is located in a City-owned right-of-way where road ram„ wli°' extension is unlikely.. r a4-0- r..v n r. Location: D4 • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail Key Benefits • Significant out-of-direction travel reduction ew, • Steep slopes - may require stairs Key Issues • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area r~q • Trail not visible along entire length"' Cost Opinion The trail (in pink) connects stump streets through a heavily- Natural; habitat concerns and steep wooded area Design Option: 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 100th Avenue Extension to Highland Drive 8 Summary Zzj This trail passes through the edge of a vacant City-owned lot. A dog bag station indicates that the space is regularly used. There is significant neighborhood support for this trail, and residents have requested a streetlight, which would increase ;A the safety of the trail. 1 . r Location: D5 1, ao~ R • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail Key Benefits - • Significant out-of-direction travel reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length This trail provides access through a vacant City-owned lot • Trail does not provide access to Key Issues popular destinations • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban ~i~r Length: 222' Low Estimate: $7,000 Medium $g 000 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 142nd extension to Mistletoe Drive 9 Summary This trail is partially located in a utility corridor, and adjacent ► A, # to it. A paved but abandoned road exists through this location, which could be explored for potential trail use. • z v Location: C3`~. r ~~rr r= ~ , • Existing demand trail F F° Key Benefits • Significant out-of-direction travel t reduction • Private ownership; willing seller • Trail adjacent to steep slopes? Key Issues, • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit " a V 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 Coral Street to Locust Street: 92nd Avenue /Lincoln Extension 10 Summary CF This trail connects two sections of the City (across land not within City of Tigard) and provides school access. ~ Location: A6 .pit=!~•, • Trail provides access to popular Key Benefits _ destinations - - • Significant out-of-direction travel - - reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail visible along entire length ,v • Potential conflicts with neighbors Key Issues; Cost Opinion This trail crosses a vacant lot Design Option: Paved; existing demand Length: 374' r' Low Cost Estimate: $12,000 d` Medium Cost Estimate: $13,000 r- ~.y High Cost Estimate: $22,000 Fencing Option: ~z' Yd 1 35. 4' Chain-Link: $2,600 f y # r Wooden Split-Rail: $7,500 The trail could either be paved or remain a natural trail Gaarde Street to Aerie Drive 11 Summary Trail 15 would provide significant reduction in out-of- - 41 direction travel by bicyclists and pedestrians. It is already a common) used demand trail. tI V Location: C4,•,~" • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail Key Benefits wool," SF, • Existing demand trail , • Significant out-of-direction travel, reduction .Mco • Trail on City land • Steep slopes - may require stairs Trail 15 would provide a direct route that would save bicycles Key Issues • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit and pedestrians out-of-direction travel development habitat area • Trail not visible along entire length Cost Opinion 4i ' i is ~ _:a°' h r a~ Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lanes Length: 294' IV Low Estimate: $9,000 Medium $11,000 Estimate:' High Estimate: $17,000 The route along Trail 15 is a commonly used demand trail x; Fencing Option: ±l 40 " 'JO 4' Chain-Link: $2,100 1 Wooden Split-Rail: $5,900 " The trail would provide access to bike lanes on Gaarde St Fanno Creek Trail/ Scholls Ferry Road to Apartments 12 t 5 AY ~ M1 's._ T Summary , 3~k f~o}1 A trail with significant existing use, this trail connects both the Fanno Creek Trail and Scholls Ferry Road to an apartment ~'A *t 1 y complex. uLocation: AS 13 • Significant out-of-direction travel Key Benefits s ' - ~y~ " reduction P • Existing demand trail ..A • Public and private ownership; willing 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 development habitat area end of a long driveway; this is the best pedestrian access to the • Potential conflicts with neighbors bus stop Cost Opinion x w:. t Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane ' k ~:E rt Length: 62' r ` emu" g r~ Low Estimate: $2,000 Q ' Y Y J Medium $3,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $5,000 Fencing Option: x f' 4' Chain-Link: $400 Wooden Split-Rail: $1,200 ` ow !F" This trail is a short and muddy connection to Fanno Creek and Scholls Ferry Road Landau Street Extension to 72nd Avenue 13 } 44 Summary 4 Trail 19 connects stub road to the adjacent street within the 't" street right-of-way. Location: A7 • Significant out-of-direction travel' Key Benefits ",SCF~: -as g ` reduction; a ,w 4,a - • Existing demand trail ' v • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • No major issues Cost Opinion ''Yy Trail 19 is a very popular route, which becomes muddy in Urban, significant demand and mud the winter and rainy season. Design Option: 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 80th 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 Key Benefits • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail - Significant out-of-direction travel reduction - t • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length This short trail connects a cul-de-sac to Bonita Rd • No major issues Key Issues Cost Opinion 4 •'x Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane t r. Length: 29' , . ~ ~ Low Estimate: $2,000 vw low- Medium $4,000 - Estimate: High Estimate: $4,000 s ' a Fencing Option: Consider marking a no-parking zone if developing the trail 4' Chain-Link: $200 Wooden Split-Rail: $600 129th Avenue Extension between 128th Avenue and Walnut Street 16 Summary i~ This trail is the unpaved section of two roads, where a fence blocks the connection. Parking will need to be managed due to a landscaping business at the north end of 1291h. ndS58Pe MamteaEene ~ / Li gr~SnEx',NL W'~ ~ - Af'e Location: C451„.~x • Existing demand trail •407-600 s,k _ Key Benefits • Slopes less than 10% grade • No environmental concerns • Private ownership; willing seller • Open space only amenity within a Iwo Key Issues quarter-mile of the trailhead " ~a • No connection to sidewalks or trail The north end of 129'h is currently used for parking by a • Little out-of-direction travel neighboring landscaping business • Potential for conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion A, s n , a E F„ • Design Option: Urban; connects stump streets 1 1 4' n, Length: 45' Low Cost Estimate: $100 (maintenance only) wq . High Cost Estimate: $4,000 Fencing Option:'- i. 4' Chain-Link: $300 ~ ,gip f y~~ ' ~ Pedestrian through-travel is currently possible, but $900 improvements would allow unimpeded pedestrian/bicycle Wooden Split-Rail: access Tigard Street to Fanno Creek Trail 17 Summary This trail has priority for being formalized over other ti . potential neighborhood trails to reduce potential for parallel r path creation. Trail 17 is a well-worn demand trail through an. area designated "strictly limit development" for habitat reasons. A~._: g'' 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 • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail Key Benefits • Existing demand trail off(. Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • Trail in flood plain; boardwalks required x'~ V • Trail in "strictly" limit development t. VIP habitat area ' g • Trail on land owned by public entity;* ; could not contact owner q i4 Cost Opinion ~ J:tE~ t k. y t Design Option: Natural; habitat issues and flood plain Length: 117' NiN f 3 'V~ s,y Low Estimate: $4,000 Medium $5,000 ti a, I { Estimate: High Estimate: $8,000 Looking at Trail 17 from Tigard Street Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $800 Wooden Split-Rail: $2,300 Ventura Drive to 70th Place 18 Summary WIN x This trail connects a cul-de-sac with the adjacent road. The slope is high but the trail is already partially built; it may t s i M require stairs. The neighboring homeowner association is unwilling to allow the trail, so the alignment should avoid, ' ` ,a 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 jf-- • Trail visible along entire length • Private ownership; willing seller to This trail would connect the 70th P1 cul-de-sac to Ventura Dr • Steep slopes - requires stairs Key Issues • Trail in "moderately" or "lightly" limit development habitat area " ~i~l:,; • Potential conflicts with neighbors t • Trail does not provide access to 4 popular destinations Cost Opinion Design Option: Natural; steep slopes, habitat issues Length: 165' Low Estimate: $3,000 Medium `r $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 Broadmoor Place to Rockingham Drive 19, 34 Summary j~I a A partially-existing loop, this trail would provide a connection between cul-de-sac neighborhoods. Steep slopes and close proximity to homes present challenges; however, the trail is } r' gRm '00 11 ♦.~a . I I. entirely within City-owned right-of-way. The recommended treatment is to stripe this trail to indicate private access, and 1h to pave the northern section. An extension of the trail to 13 k - Avenue (designated Trail 34) is proposed for future consideration.. Location: C3 K - Key Benefits • Significant out-of-direction travel The west end of Trail l2follows the left-hand side of this reduction driveway, which is public right-of-way • Sidewalks exist on both ends of trail • Trail does not provide access to l' Key Issues popular destinations ;r • Potential for conflicts with neighbors • Steep slopes may require stairs ":,r *x4' • Trail not visible along entire length { :r ; • tldt r . - Cost Opinion l 3 'A 3-kx Parts of Trail 12 are already paved; o Design Option: striping only in these areas - natural va - surface on unfinished sections f 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 135th behind water towers. The cost would range from $18,000 to $51,000 and may require additional safety considerations. Spruce Street Extension at 80th Avenue 20 Summary Trail 20 is located at the blocked dead-end of Spruce Street.° r An existing demand trail passes through a wooded area and crosses a stream, leading to 80th Avenue. 3 Location: 137 077 • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail Key Benefits • Significant out-of-direction travel reduction • Trail on City land IT. • Existing demand trail . • Trail in "strictly" limit development The trail is located at the end of Spruce Street where the street Key Issues habitat area is blocked off • Trail not visible along entire length ! • Trail does not provide access to popular destinations • Trail crosses a stream, high cost Cost Opinion r , 40 Design Option: Urban, mud issues ; ; ,Ar ,fig !F1 +kRlfy' Length: 153' Low Estimate: $37,000 Medium $38, Estimate: 000 Trail 20 is an existing demand trail that shows heavy use High Estimate: $48,000 r Fencing Option: 1s,. 4' Chain-Link: $3,000 t°! Wooden Split-Rail: $8,600 c 'M ~ r . y x , The trail passes through a wooded area and crosses a stream Edgewood Street /Halcyon Terrace Extension to Braydon Court 21 Summary' ~ } a r Connects streets through a residential property. The trail is partially along Halcyon Terrace. Location: C6 Key Benefits • Significant out-of-direction travel f' reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail visible along entire length • Trail in "strictly" limit development* Key Issues habitat area a e w~ • Private ownership; one of two owners is willing to allow trail, other did not ,f'",_ respond Currently a construction site, Trail 33 would provide significant • Trail does not provide access to travel benefits popular destinations • No connection to sidewalks or trail Cost Opinion Design Option: Urban; trail connects to bike lane Length: 109' ti Low Estimate: $3,000 Medium $5,000. ~f~ Estimate: High Estimate: $7,000 `tug a~ 'I T Fencing Option: This trail provides access through a new development 4' Chain-Link: $800 Wooden Split-Rail: $2.200 Hunziker Street / 77th Place to 72nd Avenue/ Hwy 217 Overpass 22 Summary The trail is a shortcut to a major highway over-passing. No parallel sidewalk facilities exist. Location: C7 • Trail provides access to popular Ke Benefits ir 'j y destinations • Little out-of-direction travel - reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City and ODOT land • Trail visible along entire length R L a • Trail adjacent to steep slopes Key Issues Cost Opinion Trail 22 provides a short-cut to a major highway overcrossing, where no parallel sidewalk facilities exist Design Option: Urban r6'~r won- Length: 526' 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 88th Avenue Extension to 88th Avenue Extension /Pinebrook 23 Court Summary NWi: Trail 23 connects stub roads through a field. ° k Location: D6 i M r • Trail provides access to popular sr+, Key Benefits destinations • Significant out-of-direction travel reduction • Trail visible along entire length • Existing demand trail y • Private ownership; could not contact Key Issues 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 , High Estimate: $22,00001 % .r .A0 Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $2,700 "E Wooden Split-Rail: $7,700 . _ s. An existing path indicates that there is an existing demand for Trail 23 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 y Ptr4 may require stairs. Location: C4 m • Trail provides access to popular t Key Benefits destinations • Sidewalks or trail on both ends - of trail • Significant out-of-direction - travel reduction - • Trail on City land - w Key Issues • Steep slopes - may require - stairs • Trail not visible along entire One end of the paved portion of the trail connects to sidewalks length Cost Opinion Design Option: Natural, steep slopesr Y ~D y{ Length: 242' rA fi F Low Estimate: $4,000 + s ~j`1 bll~`BS~! x & c a ~ '1RM I Y C Medium $7,000 Estimate: r High Estimate: $12,000 Y z-rte _ Fencing Option: - + " - - • The paved section of the trail ends at a steep slope 4' Chain-Link: $1,700 Wooden Split-Rail: $4,800 Twality Middle School to 92"d Avenue 25 Summary This existing gravel trail connects 92nd to Twality Middle School. The community has been doing upkeep on the trail se and maintaining the roses. This trail should be considered for maintenance as it currently exists, as it connects to sports , fields. i, Neighbors requested installation of bollards to mediate the , problem of children riding bicycles and not stopping to look before crossing the street. Natural surface is also'` ' recommended to reduce speeds. r„ Location: D6 • Trail provides access to popular Key Benefits destinations • Existing demand trail The trail and rosebushes are maintained by the trail's • Trail on City land neighbors • Trail visible along entire length Key Issues • No connection to sidewalks or trail • Children bicycle on trail and fail to ttT~' m stop in order to safely cross the street a # + (92nd Avenue) Cost Opinion.' Natural, maintenance only; include Design Option: bollards Length: 113' Estimate: $250 maintenance, $900 bollards; $1,150 total r~ Fencing Option: A crosswalk and warning sign help students cross 92nd Ave, Fencing already exists at this trail site. despite the lack of sidewalks 89th Avenue Extension to 91St Avenue Cul-de-sac 26 Summary c This trail connects through a wooded area to a HOA-owned A,&v, lake. Trail will require HOA support. {r~+`' ~r "4,. ; ' 4 0 15I~ A.!' G S f Location: D6m~Ht` S& V.- K; A • Trail provides access to popular Key Benefits destinations,: s • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail 4t r u p` • Significant out-of-direction travel .f r R" reduction • Trail on City land • Existing demand trail • Trail in "strictly" limit development Key Issues The trail passes through a large wooded area, which will likely habitat area be developed in the future • Potential conflicts with neighbors • Trail not visible along entire length • Trail requires HOA support Cost Opinion Natural; habitat issues and like) future Design Option: development „ 1e. Length: 357' f1.r'- rN Low Estimate: $6,000 Medium •~Y $10,000 w' may,: Estimate: 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 Waverly Drive Extension between 88th and 85th Avenues 27 Summary This potential trail provides access to a school and t e neighborhood from the Cook Park Trail. It is located in a City- } ";;'t' owned right-of-way where road extension is unlikely. Location: E6 ,l\ 5 X44-''S#4~ # p, Td • Significant out-of-direction travel r 11 Key Benefits t reduction g: z ' E A • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length .,z "fr y 41. • No connection to sidewalks or trail =r ' A ' Ke Issues 'J y • Trail does not provide access to 4,i -6 popular destinations f Cost Opinion - Trail 27 is currently blocked with a fence Design Option: Unclear k. , Length: 641' ~f lsl~~ Low Estimate: $10,000 (unpaved, no design features) High Estimate: $36,000 (paved, full design features)" tk A-0 ~A ~pr~~•Npl_ Fencing Option:` A r~ ®~ws:1~`A t ! 4ti I wa a+le d I ' A A 4' Chain-Link: $4,500 PAW4W4W-.WglS► Wooden Split-Rail: $10,000 IMMI~~~®WAMA*1,~Oa4®~Ai r ~~~°r~~~~~~a~~~~+~~a► Al The trail would provide access to the school and the neighborhood from the Cook Park Trail Gallo Avenue Extension; North Dakota Street to Suzanne Court 28 Summary Trail 28 travels along the unimproved Gallo Avenue. The 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 r ' - Suzanne Court. Neighbors have expressed concerns regarding C' increased burglaries and lack of privacy. a Location: 135 • Key Benefits Significant out-of-direction travel • reduction • Trail on City land • Potential conflicts with neighbors Key Issues 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 ! - `y F removal and rebuilding' Length: 95' r - F 'Ile Low Estimate: $2,000 Medium Estimate: $4,000 High Estimate: $6,000 Fencing Option: Anew fence currently blocks access Fencing is not appropriate at this location; cost of rebuilding fence incorporated into cost opinion. 132nd Avenue Extension from Marion Street and Hollow Lane 29 Summary This trail is located in a City-owned right-of-way where road 16 extension is unlikely. The stub street is being used as , community space; a basketball hoop and a skateboard rail i are provided. °'}r Location: C4 r • Significant out-of-direction travel Key Benefits reduction z • Trail on City land #d • Trail visible along entire length ` • Existing demand trail ` = a • Trail does not provide access to Key Issues popular destinations View of Trail 29 from the north • Potential conflicts with neighbors Cost Opinion NA _ Design Option: Unclear Length: 139' { ~M Low Estimate: $2,000 (unpaved, no amenities) y ° a High Estimate: $9,000 (paved, amenities) Fencing Option: 'L 4' Chain-Link: $1,000 The south side of Trail 29 has a basketball hoop and skateboard rail Wooden Split-Rail: $2,800 74th Avenue Extension from Cherry Drive to Fir Street 30 Summary This trail is located in a City-owned right-of-way where road extension is unlikely. t -41 W Location: C7 f "r a` ~r • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail IF Key Benefits;`" " • Significant out-of-direction travel y reduction • Existing demand trails • Trail on City land ` • Trail visible along entire length ' • No major issues` Key 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 $6,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $9,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $1,000 Wooden Split-Rail: $2,800 94th Avenue Extension from North Dakota Street to Greenburg Road 31 Summary This trail is located in a City-owned right-of-way where road extension is unlikely. The existing grassy surface of this trail becomes slick when wet. E d I' Location: 136 I • Significant out-of-direction travel J;+, Key Benefits i reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length w • Trail does not provide access to x' Key Issues ` popular destinations k7 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 i+ Length: 234' Low Estimate: $8,000 X33 Medium iv' 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 92nd Avenue Extension from North Dakota Street to Greenburg Road 32 Summary 'JA A" 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 r r. J ..Y drainage ditch. `L Location: B6 77 • Significant out-of-direction travel ~.r~ Key Benefits reduction • Existing demand trail R • Trail on City land • Trail visible along entire length E- - • Steep slopes - requires stairs The existing stairs and bridge at Trail 32 Key Issues • Drainage issues Cost Opinion Design Option: Natural; stairs required r, Length: 128' Low Estimate: $2,000 F r . Medium $5,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $7,000` Fencing Option: ,y 4' Chain-Link: $900 l Wooden Split-Rail: $2,600 This trail is clearly visible along its entire length Steve Street /Hall Boulevard to 84th Avenue Extension 33 Summary T.. 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 two stub roads. 'ml Air Location: B6 i. i-• • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail t Key Benefits `x • Significant out-of-direction travel reduction • Private ownership; willing seller • Trail not visible along entire length - Key Issues Cost Opinion Trail 21 is located on land owned by the Japanese Baptist Design Option: Urban; connects stump streets, bike lane Church Length: 431' 1 Low Estimate: $14,000 Medium $15,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $25,000 Fencing Option: t 4' Chain-Link: $3,000 Wooden Split-Rail: $8,600 Part of the trail is along an unpaved road Rockingham Drive to Maplecrest Court 35 k Summary This trail travels from the south end of SW Rockingham Drive +l to a road in a new development west of SW Greenfield Dr and north of SW Clearview Way. 3 Location: C4 t ~a a zzi • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail- J40 Key Benefits • Trail visible along entire length • Significant out-of-direction travel° reduction • Steep slopes - natural surface Key Issues • 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 I. ".ten,.,, . f ~ vq.+.,,,w - Natural; slope and habitat concerns,'' Design Option: sensitive to stream crossing.V , Length: 349' r . Low Estimate: $29,000 b ~`1+ ' - Al .a f ' s tY r~~ l s.o Medium $33,000 Estimate: High Estimate: $40,000 _ . > „''tee Fencing Option: a Y ` • ti The property where Trail 35 would be located is privately 4' Chain-Link: $2,400 owned Wooden Split-Rail: $7,000 Terrace Trails Drive to Pathfinder Genesis Trail 36A&B Summary 01, There are two potential options for this connection to the Pathfinder Genesis Trail. No demand was observed during field evaluations. Both of these trails have significant conflicts { with neighbors. Trail 36B is recommended due to cost r considerations; Trail 36A crosses a stream and is therefore a «e considerably more expensive project. 4 ~ + F ,ate Location: C4' • Trail provides access to popular s s Key Benefits destinations ~~``~y tea a S~ ~ i 1J T• f ~ l 5 r 3" n. • Sidewalks or trail on both ends of trail ` ' • Significant out-of-direction travel reduction • Existing demand trail The alignment along 36A passes through a heavily treed area Key Issues • Trail in "strictly" limit development , habitat areas • Trail on land owned by corporate ~yt> owner without address • Trail 36A crosses a stream , t Cost Opinion, Natural; connects to earthen trail, ; Design Option: habitat ~'r •'x ti' Y i 36A Length: 253' 36B Length: 198'?~F5 n 36A 36B B'PS' 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 116th Avenue Extension to Katherine Street 37 Summary Trail 37 crosses Summer Creek, an approximately eight-foot r ~r,l`fi.Y. wide stream, and would connect two neighborhoods. The r 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 ' environmental impacts of a trail, as well as reduced privacy. Location: 134 • Significant out-of-direction travel,; r ti Key Benefits reduction • Trail on City land t • 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 rr ~1 a. ~ , ; ,4 ~i \ 1 1 .F ~ • ~ 4~I 1 Natural; habitat and environment issues Design Option: t + + ' :lf - boardwalk and bridge needed mac, r t 1 I A v' 4 y.. d~. Jt Length: 387' (240' in wetland)y 4 y}!c*7a ~ 7 r ; Low Estimate: $398,000 Medium $400,000 EAU y K Estimate: .6h e 4 0. a. -a AH. k .y r z ~A High Estimate: $403,0001/ ry t, 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 77th Avenue Extension to Spruce Street 39 Summary The trail is within the City planning area, although one end of the trail is outside of the City. l \ Location: 137 k, • Significant out-of-direction travel r w ~.Key Benefits reduction • Existing demand trail • Trail on City land ~•r, as.• per • Trail visible along entire length C' • No connection to sidewalks or trail Key Issues • Trail in "strictly" limit development habitat area • Trail does not provide access to t popular destinations Trail 39 is a well-used demand trail Cost Opinion Design Option: Natural; habitat issues A, t Length: 150' 1 Low Estimate: $26,000 I _ Medium 28000 $ Estimate: High Estimate: $31,000 Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $1,100 This trail provides significant travel benefits Wooden Split-Rail: $3,000 Burnham Street to Commercial Parking Lot 40 Summary k of e Trail 40 travels into commercial property; through a parking lot to reach the railroad station. This lot will developed as an Urban Renewal Area (URA) by the City in the future. ' Location: C6 3 ` • Trail provides access to popular Key Benefits destinations • Existing demand trail }3} Trail located on City-owned land • Little out-of-direction travel reduction Key Issues Trail 40 shows signs of significant use Cost Opinion Design Option: Natural; likely future development _ l`ad, r Length: 132' i!? Low Estimate: $2,000 r ; j 1 ; 11_ Medium y Estimate: $5,000 ~ - - f~ - rya 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 Ir - Wooden Split-Rail: $2,600 R" l~Y The Trail ends at a commercial parking lot 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. r, Location: D6'~'- i • Significant out-of-direction travel Key Benefits , G reduction 1 • Private ownership; willing seller • Trail visible along entire length • Potential conflicts with neighbors, y Key Issues y Cost Opinion Trail 41 passes through afield Design Option: Natural; future development Length: 591' Low Estimate: $10,000 Medium $16,000 ' Estimate: High Estimate: $28,000 a Fencing Option: p 'T5~a, .im Y sirA wuu °}T 4' Chain-Link: $4,100 Wooden Split-Rail: $11,800 This trail provides significant travel benefits Murdock Road extension: 109th Avenue to 99-W 42 Summary Trail 42 connects both ends of Murdock with a short connection to 104th Avenue in the middle. The trail crosses 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: D5 • Significant out-of-direction travel Key Benefits 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 • No connection to sidewalks or trail Key Issues • Steep slopes * w ~t ~ f I!f py y^ ',1 Y~ Jl' Cost Opinion Design Option: Natural; future development; `~7 r Length: 439' r k1Y Low Estimate: $7,000 Medium Estimate: $18,000 ~.y il 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 Schaffer Lane extension; Tigard High School to 85th 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 ,g • Significant out-of-direction travel Key Benefits reduction _ 41 • Trail visible along entire length • • Trail on land owned by School District • No significant issues " Key Issues Cost Opinion Design Option: Unclear Trail 43 is adjacent to the sports fields and provides access to school. Length: 602' Low Estimate: $10,000 High Estimate: $84,181 ~a ,J Fencing Option: 4' Chain-Link: $4,200 Wooden Split-Rail: $34,000.° WOW !ell The trail is located on an empty area that would benefit from a formalized route to school. City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I°DEPARTNIENT ..It 3. A • DATE N • f ' ~ C M1 :rte mi'l' S k '.Y+~~. w f Tigard Trail System J. [ UPDATE NOVEMBER 17, 2009] THE CITY OF TIGARD HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT to the planning and development of its greenway trail system. This report provides an update on the progress that has been made over the last year as well as the ongoing and future efforts to improve Tigard's trail system. Included is information on: the d Neighborhood Trail Plan; the recent Trail Count/Survey; Metro's &Tigar regio nal park and trail branding effort called The Intedwiiw; the Crescent Connection, which is an Active Transportation ' Corridor Demonstration project; the Rail-to- L Trail project; the Library Trail project; r?k+' the Greenway Trail System Master Plan; the Fanno Creek Linkages "y r and Trail, which is a Metro Greenspaces C t {1 `r~7 w r . Bond Measure t iu activity; and the Westside Trail. gar ~ All E t _ ~ ~ s:-T 1 1a+ r•.~. T 4-~-.+ A 115. v ~I• zS:. k _ r ` , ray 1 r ~y r , p`. ff ~ s~,1 C,. rrr;P r v City of Tigard CO,bIR[UNI'n- DENIE'LOPNIENT' DEPA]Z"I'n[EN-C PAGE 1 C - reel rz~ Ja` Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan In July 2008 Tigard began an effort to create a plan for neighborhood-level pathway connections that enhance connectivity. Preparation of the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan was paid for by a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant and copies of the final report are included in the Council packet materials for this agenda item. Implementation of the study's recommended trail projects will take place over time as funding becomes available. An initial set of 10--12 priority neighborhood trail projects will be proposed as part of the upcoming 2010/11 CIP project nomination process. ' One side item worthy of note that came out of this project occurred in early October 2009, when Jamie Parks of Kittelson and Associates, the project manager, presented a paper entitled "Retrofitting the Suburbs for Pedestrians: Using Short Trails to Improve Connectivity in Tigard, Oregon" at Walk 21, the 10th International Conference on Walling and Livable Communities, held in New York City. Some 5,000 delegates from some sixty countries were expected to attend the conference. A synopsis and discussion of the Kittelson presentation is featured on the website Streetsblog, described as "the national blog network for sustainable transport, smart growth and livable streets." Trail Smey During the week of September 7, 2009, some forty volunteers helped conduct a manual count and user survey at various points along the Fanno Creek, Tualatin River, and Pathfinder/Genesis Trails, and also on the Ki-A-Kuts pedestrian bridge. The Tigard survey was conducted as part of the second annual National Count/Survey Days. Altogether, more than sixty communities nationwide participated in the count and survey. Metro Staff are in the process of tabulating and analyzing all the`' data collected by participating _ rf , 'k 5 jurisdictions and park districts;,, n' within the region. On the west side, these included the cities of Tigard and Hillsboro and + j the Tualatin Hills Park and `Recreation District. When - " available, the complete results City of Tigard I COhINrUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPIUtriNIENT PAGE 2 << i:(~~ P ,r p it -5 `f 'T 12~4' ii '0 if) ' :r - I~ from the 8-part standardized trail count and the 12-question standardized survey forms will be posted on the Tigard webpage. The weekday hours of collection were 5-7 p.m. The weekend hours were noon to 2 p.m. Altogether, Tigard volunteers collected more than 500 filled-out surveys during count week. The highest two- hour count during the period at 197 users was recorded along the Tualatin River Trail. Second was a count of 166 people crossing the Ki-A-Kuts pedestrian bridge. Both were Sunday counts. The highest weekday count -148 - was recorded along the Fanno Creek Trail near North Dakota Street. Based on a preliminary tally, it appears that walkers account for some two-thirds of weekday trail system use. Weekend trail system use is fairly evenly divided between walkers and cyclists. Approximately three- fourths of people are using the trails for recreation purposes and one-fourth for transportation, such as commuting to work or trips to the store. The National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project has developed count adjustment factors for converting counts to weekly, monthly, and annual figures. Using these methodologies, the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek and Yd-A-Kuts Bridge counts extrapolate to the following weekly, monthly, and yearly greenway trail bicycle and pedestrian activity. Fanno Creek Trail @ North Dakota 13,300 57,500 718,000 Tualatin River Trail @ Railroad Undercrossing 17,400 75,200 940,000 Ki-A-Kuts Bridge @ Northern Ramp 15,300 66,100 826,000 In addition to providing the basis for activity extrapolations, the Tigard National Count/Survey Days results will provide baseline data for measuring trail use trends over time. Another important use will be in pursuing grant funding opportunities to help pay for improvements to the Greenway Trail System. As discussed below, the very first application of the data will be to inform the development of a first-ever Tigard Greenway Trail Systent Master Plan. A Starbucks gift card was given to each volunteer as a token of appreciation for his or her participation in the Tigard count/survey. These appeared to be highly popular with everyone. The Public Works Department contributed water bottles and bags as volunteer thank you gifts. These were particularly popular among the Mary Woodward 5th graders who participated, along with their guardians, in the count/survey. Cityof Tigard I CONIMUNITY DEITELOPIvfENT DEP,URTNIENT PAGE 3 I f f F § e;A D W Intertwine The Intertwine is a branding and marketing effort initiated by Metro as a means to provide a consolidated regional source of information and to leverage federal dollars. The term "The Intertwine," which stands for the regional network of parks, natural area, and trail system, collectively, was developed by a Metro-hired marketing firm. THE Metro Council President David Bragdon unveiled the name on June 30th. Mayor INTER Dirksen attended the Pearl District evening ceremony where this occurred. The TWINE new name was introduced to the public on September 18th as part of Parking Day activities. [Parking Day is an annual, one-day, international event where artists and citizens temporarily transform metered parking spots and "niche spaces" into temporary public parks.] The main focus of the The Intertwine branding effort at present is on capturing federal funding to finance a portfolio of both on-street and off-street active transportation projects. These well- connected infrastructure projects, 26 in all, are an outgrowth of the Blue Ribbon Committee for Trails recommendations for increasing the number of people walking and biking for transportation purposes. The projects were solicited by Metro from local governments, park districts, and others. As described below, Tigard, along with three partners, developed and submitted the so-called Crescent Connection project. In September, Steve Martin, Tigard Parrs Manager, forwarded information on Tigard's parks and trails to Metro for inclusion on The Intertwine's new website. Before Us, Mr. Martin attended several meetings regarding the new website and also met separately with Justin Patterson, the Metro planner who is working on The Intertwine signage and branding activities. According to Mr. Martin, the Metro website will include a link to the City webpage. In future, as Metro develops the The Intertwine webpage, Public Works and Community Development will supply more detailed information and descriptions, which will ensure the City is well represented on the website. Crescent Connection In response to Metro's call for well-connected Active Transportation Corridor Demonstration projects, Tigard partnered with the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (THPRD) and the Cities of Durham and Beaverton in the development of an inner west side project called the Crescent Connection. The name comes from the arc- or crescent-like shape of the four city lineal trail. It also reflects the four sponsor's own use of Metro's branding approach. City of Tigard I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART'MEN'T' PAGE 4 i Altogether, the Crescent Connection is twelve miles in length. It extends from the Tualatin River to the THPRD Nature Center in Beaverton. It includes three distinct segments. M Fanno Creek Trail from Ki-A-Kuts pedestrian bridge to the Denny Road trailhead. Improvements to this section include closing gaps, a rail-to-trail connection to the Tigard Transit tap, Center (TC), sidewalk along North Dakota Street from, Greenburg Road to the trail, and widening existing trail segments to the regional width standard of 10'. The overall cost of the Durham-Tigard improvements is estimated at $4.7 million. THE CRESCENT CONNECTION 3 An on-street connection from the Denny Road Trailhead to Fames Crack Regional Trail/ the Beaverton Transit Center. Improvements include widening Beaverton Creek Regional Trail Project existing roads and improving intersects to provide a continuous ASubur&anAeerensWianProject 5'-wide bike lane. Sponsoring Agonies: EE A portion of the Beaverton Creek Trail extending from iHPRO, Citias of Beaman, Tigard b Durl+om Beaverton TC to the THPRD Nature Center. This is where the Crescent interconnects with the Westside regional Trail. This segment is on- and off-street and generally follows the MAX corridor. No off-street portions have been completed. Overall, the estimated cost of completing all proposed improvements and tying together all pieces of the Crescent Connection is estimated at $12 million. The project incorporates Metro's Active Trans Principles by: ■ Providing a seamless, 12-mile long travel experience, with integrated on and off-street facilities along the route; • Providing non-vehicular access to key destinations. Some of these include three centers (one of which is downtown Tigard), three Commuter Rail stations, four Light Rail stations, the Washington Square and Nike-Tektronix employment areas, and interconnections with three other regional trails (Tualatin River, Washington Square Loop, and the Westside Trails); ■ Being direct and accessible from frequent intersections and feeder trails; Being safe, consisting of off-street trail, sidewalks, and 5'-wide bike lanes; R Including flat terrain throughout, with very little grade change along its 12 miles; • Affording natural views along its greenway portion; ■ Helping to relieve vehicular congestion. The route parallels HWY 217 and portions of I-5 and Sunset Highways, and provides a non-vehicular alternative to highway travel; Cityof Tigard I COMIbfUNITY DrNrGLOPhfrNT DrPi1RTMFNT PAGE 5 Imo. ■ Following passenger rail lines. Should a Crescent Connection user tire while walking or biking, he or she can board commuter or fight rail at various stops along the way; and Providing improved bike/pedestrian access to the Tigard, Washington Square, and Beaverton Transit Centers, the Crescent helps ensure a return on Commuter Rail investment. Mike McCarthy, Senior Transportation Engineer, participated in the shaping of another active transportation project proposal affecting Tigard. This is the SWBarbur Boulevard andfeeder -Routes project sponsored by the City of Portland. The project uses Barbur Blvd as a regional trunk line for cyclists and pedestrians. It also includes a system of bicycle routes along major arterials connecting . ' to Barbur. A component of this project includes improvements along the Hwy 99W corridor in Tigard as well as major sections of Hall Boulevard connecting to Hwy 99W. Over the next several months, Metro staff will be meeting with project sponsors to talk about the next steps for the various projects, refine them, and possibly combine some of them. The projects will be developed into a final portfolio intended to make business and elected leaders more receptive to increased investments in trails, bikeways and boulevards, connections to transit, encouragement programs, etc. Metro also may organize tours with Oregon elected leaders in Washington DC, and start discussing how to highlight the projects in the 2011 legislative session. Finally, Metro will be working towards a "total cost" for building out the active transportation network and a proposed funding package. Rail-to-Trail The loop rail corridor extending from Tiedeman i 1~ m to Main is some 3,700 feet long by 50 feet wide'' and covers some 185,000 square feet in area, or N; J}};~~`;'~ * i'• approximately 4.2 acres. The line has been inactive t k , forapproximately three ears. The steel rails were'` removed some time ago and the wooden ties had been scheduled for removal by summer 2009. The southern end of the corridor has been paved over by TriMet for use as a Commuter Rail parking lot. `tee '.e The underlying land within the corridor is owned 7-- ODOT. Although now unused Portland-Western by Railroad (P&NV RR) continues to hold an exclusive freight easement within the corridor. Trail use is ' - Q City of Tigard I COP4,MIUNI'1'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPi1RTMTNT PAGE G I a project identified in the City Center Urban Renewal Plan. The corridor would make an excellent multi-use trail given its easy grade and connection to Main Street. The City has obtained resolutions and letters in support of trail use from Metro, Washington County, City Council, and other various community organizations and individuals. TriMet and Portland- t Western, both of whom operate on the line running parallel to the f: loop, have provided letters stating they do not object to trail use within the inactive corridor. These letters and resolutions are important because they demonstrate community and political support for trail. The two operator letters are important because they address safety concerns raised by ODOT Rail. in general, the support letters provided on behalf of the trail address: ■ Providing children and seniors a safe, off-street alternative to the adjacent Tigard Street, which lacks sidewalks along 80% of its length, Providing a safe, traffic-free path for all walkers, joggers, cyclists, and others to exercise and enjoy the outdoors; ■ Giving the downtown an economic stimulus by providing a new off-street transportation route to downtown businesses of all kinds; Providing direct, non-motorized access to the bus and commuter rail transit station located in the center of the downtown area. ■ Providing a landscape amenity connecting to the downtown in place of an unsightly and unmaintained 50-foot wide former rail corridor. City use and on-going maintenance of the corridor would improve community appearance. To assist with the fine points and intricacies of obtaining long term trail access, some months ago the City hired George Hudson of Alta Planning + Design. He is one of the co-authors of Rails-with-Trails prepared for the US Department of Transportation and has significant expertise in dealing with railroads and with state and federal transportion agencies. Among other project-related activities, Mr. Hudson has contacted the legal firm representing P&W RR. According to the attorney handling this matter, the railroad long ago decided to abandon the inactive loop piece. Formal abandonment is a federal legal process; under the Interstate Commerce Termination Act, a railroad may abandon a line only with the permission of the federal Surface Transportation Board (STP). The attorney attributes P&W RR's delay in giving her the go ahead to file to the low priority of this matter to P&W RR. City of Tigard I CONLvIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PAGE 7 [ Fli :,A ~ f~itk ~ r ~Tr ~i~ji ,gP D rr~~ Mr. Hudson has provided advice on what the City can do to move this process along. In general, he recommends developing a strategy to motivate the railroad to proceed with the abandonment and then implementing that strategy. According to Mr. Hudson, this involves letting the railroad know how much support there is for the trail and that the City wants to work with them to solve the problems associated with the unused corridor, such as litter, weeds, and trespass, and to expedite abandonment. A second approach is the "Bad Guy' approach. Here the City becomes a burden to the railroad, calling them regularly with complaints about their property and how they, as the property owners, need to get out there and address the complaints, or get cited. City Staff presently are following the first strategy. NOT Rail Director, Kelly Taylor, has advised she will sit down with City representatives to discuss trail use once abandonment is accomplished. County Commission Chair Tom Brian is a strong rail-to-trail supporter and has asked for a seat at the table whenever City representatives meet with NOT Rail to negotiate a deal for trail use. As a result of his work on the Commuter Rail project, Mr. Brian knows all the key ODOT Rail staff, including Director Taylor. Mayor Dirksen is the other key player who has agreed to participate in future negotiations with ODOT M. Library Trail After a long delay, construction of the A 15 Library trail finally got underway this fall. Separate contracts have let for the crosswalk and signal and for the boardwalk and bridge components G tit, of the project. The completion ts i . f date for both is January 2010. The proposed trail is a segment of the Fanno Creek Regional Trail. The project will close a gap between existing trail segments and provide a safe crossing of Hall Boulevard. r The pedestrian bridge will be named _ in honor of former Councilor Tom Woodruff. Exclusive of the bridge, the overall cost of the project is $232,000. This is the City's sole active trail construction project at present. However, others are in the pipeline or at some stage in the land acgtusition/design/permitdng/f finding/ contracting process. Cityof Tigard I CONfAlUNI'IY DEVELOPi E-NT DEPAWI'I%IENT PAGE 8 11 ~6) "A -01 Dr ~T' P Trail. System Master Plan The biggest problem with Tigard's greenway trail system is the gaps between completed segments. Figuring out how to fill in these gaps and prioritize the implementation effort is the main focus of an upcoming Greenway Trail Master Plan effort. As mentioned earlier, the trail count/survey data will be used to inform the development of the City's Greenway Trail System Master Plan. ODOT is providing $92,000 through its Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program to finance the plan's preparation. This amount is sufficient to ensure . " a thorough, detailed, high quality master plan with cost estimates for completing the greenway trail network. The local match is in-kind project management services only; no City cash is involved. Steve Martin and Duane Roberts will jointly manage the study. The purpose of the planning effort is to facilitate completion of the greenway trail system by providing the site-specific, technical information needed to design and build improvement and infill projects. The emphasis is on timely, practical, and solutions-oriented information needed to coordinate the completion and upgrading of the mapped system. A related purpose is to provide the cost detail needed as input for the trails portion of the Park System Development Charges (SDC) study that started in summer 2009. Currently available cost and feasibility information on possible trail improvement projects does not comply with the stricter SDC methodology requirements adopted into state law in 2003. i j Beaverton ! ISKMKUM ,t "List 4V a r~ f~ Portland =rt taw 'Amin J6U ti ~ ~ '•.~q'f, tOkQ OSkYCIfA 1 r / f! M Kingcit -g Durham dDI I"A Tuafatfn ~ Z t a iM4?~ City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE UITMENT PAGE 9 The Tigard greenway trail system includes portions of four regional, or Metro-identified, trails and three City-identified trails. The latter include the Fanno Creek, Westside, Washington Square Loop, and lbalatin River Trails. These are all greenway trails that interconnect with, or form parts of, longer regional trails. The Tigard system also includes the Pathfinder-Genesis, Summer Creek, and Krueger Creek Trails. These are City- identified trails that do not form portions of regional trails and do not interconnect with trails located outside the City. The regionally significant Westside Trail, extending between the Willamette and Tualatin Rivers, is the subject of a separate multi-jurisdictional, Metro-sponsored master planning effort scheduled to begin in October 2009. As such, the Tigard portion of this trail is not included in the work scope of the present study. The study provides a greater level of detail on the goals, existing conditions, feasibility, and cost of completing the six other mapped trails within the City of Tigard's official greenway trail network. The Project is part of an overall goal to increase the number of people walking and biking for transportation purposes in Tigard by providing pleasant and uninterrupted greenway trails for these non-vehicular modes. Tigard's official trails are in various stages of completion. The Ti.ialatin River and Fanno Creek Trails, identified in the City's first Comprehensive Playa as the "backbone" of the City's trail system, are approximately 85% and 60% completed, respectively. At the other end of the scale, the Krueger Trail and Washington Square Loop Trails exist only as lines on the City trail map with no sections designed or installed, as yet. Altogether, approximately nine miles of trail have been completed within the City since its incorporation. In recent years, the main focus of trail efforts has been on the completion of the Fanno Creek Trail, with a priority on closing gaps between existing segments. Some of the trail-specific questions the greenway trail study will address include the following: ■ Most trails in the Tigard Greenway Trails are 8' wide. Should any portions of existing pathway segments be widened to 10' in order to accommodate increased use, and, in the case of the Fanno Creek and Tualatin River Trails, meet the width standard for the Regional Trail System? This task d includes consideration of needs and opportunities for adjoining hard and soft trails, such as along the Cook Park/Ki-A-Kuts Bridge section of the Tualatin River Trail. ■ Limited and no segments, respectively, of the Summer Creek or Krueger Creek Trails have been completed or scheduled for construction. Is the installation of all or portions of these trails feasible in terms of the physical and other constraints associated with each corridor? Based on the results derived from a City survey of trail corridor owners and neighborhood residents, do community and stakeholder groups (including the school district) support the construction of all or portions of these trails? ■ Is it possible to straighten out or reduce the many sharp twists and 90-degree turns that now characterize the Library/Fanno Creek Drive segment of the Fanno Creek Trail? City of Tigard I CON lUNIT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PAGE 10 ■ How feasible is the proposed "Brown Property" segment of the Fanno Creek Trail? Are there any fatal flaws or insurmountable obstacles to its construction? What is the most feasible alignment of the segment, including the most feasible stream crossing point? Are there alternative alignments and crossing points? What is the estimated construction cost? ■ Three alignment options (streamside, on-street, and rail-with-trail) are depicted in the Metro- managed Panno Creek Action Plan for the Bonita/Durham Road segment of the Fanno Creek Trail. This segment includes multiple owners and development located within 25 feet and closer to the top of stream bank. Additionally, cooperative efforts with Metro over a four-year period to acquire right-of-way for a continuous streamside trail have achieved limited success. Which alignment, or combination of alignments, is the most feasible? A hybrid of. (a) on- and off-street trail; (b) on-street with chevrons, potentially including loops down to the creek; and (c) on-street and rail-with-trail, should be considered as part of the "combination of alignments" option. ■ Can the Durham Road/Durham City limits segment of the Fanno Creek trail realistically be accomplished given this corridor's extreme physical constraints, i.e. elevated rail bed, sewerage plant development, meandering creek, and deep gullies? Are any of these fatal flaws to its completion? What is the least costly, most feasible alignment of this stretch of trail? In making this determination, land ownership, physical constraints, regulatory requirements, and wildlife impacts should be considered. Up and down stream Fanno Creek Trail segments connecting to Tiedeman Avenue are off-set by some 200 feet. In place of the present jog along a busy road, evaluate a potential long-term solution that brings the two sides of the trail to a common crossing point. ■ What is the feasibility and approximate cost of extending the Tualatin River Trail to HWY 99W, as called for in the Park System Master Plan? [A planning level of analysis and cost estimation, as opposed to Preliminary Engineering level, will be used in making these determinations.] ■ Is it possible to complete the inter-connection of the existing SW 85th Ave, Tualatin River, and City of Durham Trails to create a loop trail within the south Tigard-Durham area? Some three-fourths of this proposed loop currently is in place. This could be a soft (bark chip) loop alongside the existing paved trail and connecting the riverside and Durham plant sections to close the loop The work scope includes a work session with City Council to garner input. Start-up for the year-long study is set tentatively for November/December 2009. Some of the Citizen Volunteers who participated in the trail count and two citizen members of the former Neighborhood Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee have expressed interest in serving on the Greenway Trails Plan advisory committee. City of Tigard I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PAGE 1I a 1 1 C r : i) ff fR jk~'il it ' Metro Greenspaces "Fanno Creek Linkages and Trail" Activities Among other target areas, the 2006 Greenspaces bond measure provided funding for the acquisition of properties all along Fanno Creek. The formal Greenspaces project name is "Fanno Creek Linkages and Trail." Metro Greenspaces real estate negotiators presently are attempting to make easement deals on two key streamside properties located between Woodard Park and Grant Avenue. Both are industrially zoned. Access through the two would provide the continuous right-of-way needed for closing the Woodard Park-Grant Avenue Fanno Creek Trail gap. The money for easement acquisition would come from the Greenspaces bond regional share dollars. R 5S M W , if K B D According to the Metro negotiator involved, the holdup to closing deals on the two properties in question is property owner concerns about potential trespass and security. Both owners want fences as part of any deal. The problem with meeting this demand is not cost. Metro is more than willing to offer a fencing allowance in addition to fair market value. The problem is one of floodplain regulations. As is common in the case of older industrial properties located along the stream, the floodway runs along the edge of stream-facing buildings on the properties. The development code allows the installation of an City of Tigard I COMMUN= DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PAGE 12 at-grade trail in the floodway, but allows a fence only if it would not result in any increase in flood level. In most cases, "zero-rise" is difficult to impossible to document, in response to landowner's concerns regarding potential trespassers, in lieu of a fence, the City can commit to the planting of a barrier of thorny native vegetation between the trail and the industrial buildings. Such a planting would be classified as a hedge and would, therefore, not be subject to the City's floodplain code provisions. Police surveillance would create an additional level of deterrent to trespassers. Once the trail is built, the Tigard police would patrol the easement area and trail, paying particular attention if there were any . " problems associated with the trail. The Tigard police do not routinely patrol the industrial park property at present because it is private. Frequency of the police patrols would depend on call loads and whether problems arose. Thirdly, in the case of the two properties under discussion, the nearby Katherine Street will become an alternative, legal route for accessing the trail. The City is also willing to place signage in the area directing people to Katherine Street to access the trail, once the trail has been constructed. Metro hopes to persuade the two owners that the combination of a thorny hedge, police patrols, and the provision of a nearby legal trail access point will, as a practical matter, address the landowner's concerns that trail users would cut through the industrial parks to access the trail. Westside Trail Master Plan Metro obtained a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) $300,000 grant to develop a Westside Trail Master Plan to fill gaps in the regional trail. An approximately 0.8-mile portion of the 16-mile long trail between the Tualatin and Willamette Rivers is located inside Tigard. Start-up of the ? , . year long master planning effort is set for falWwinter 2009. The ` ► , 3 i" k 77 d# k, City will be represented by staff on the study stakeholder advisory: committee. This trail formerly was called the Powerline Trail in the City Comprehensive and Park System Master Plans. The City's mss; $5,000 pro rata share of the $34,000 local match is included in the proposed 2010/11 budget. City of Tigard I CC NLMUNI'I'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPAItTI,,IENT PAGE 13 \ Summary Over the past year continued progress toward planning for and developing of a connected, integrated and safe trail system that serves the recreational and transportation needs of Tigard has been made. The work will continue over the next years with several large and small scale efforts that involve community members and regional partners in both planning and implementation activities. Updates will be provided to and input will be sought from the City Council as the need or desire arises. City of Tigard I COMMUNITY DEVEI.6PNiENT DEPARTMENT PAGE 14 G(~ cl it F v y t r y arm[ r 11/20/2009 f\V L ? SOD q Irro!a' r t I t ( S~ i ti , _T1GARb-NEIGH130RHOOD TRAILS _PLAN 't:. Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan TRAIL_SURVEY THE-INTER-WINE- ~ Pys 1 ~fi a., ,n INTER a f TWINE y R " " 4 ,ik THE CRESCENT CONNECTION----- RAILTOnTRAIL 4wF The : - Lt 2 T L 3'e -A SHECRIESU iSONNEMOH Creccenf u..nrw [ma gLw.is,nn~Ne /l[7 ~ ~r Z 11/20/2009 -LIBRARY TRAIL PR01EGT TRAILSYSTEM_MASTER_P_LAN-- ~ -a t„A METRO GREENSPACES_ACTIVITIES W-ESTSIDE-TRAIL_MASTER_PLAN____. ~r bra 2 Agenda Item # Ll Meeting Date November 17, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Workshop 42 on Downtown Code Amendments and Desi i Standards CPA 2009-00003 (Council Goals # la and 2b) Prepared By: Sean Farrellv Dept Head .Approval: City Mgr Approval: yl/-C ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The second of two workshops has been scheduled with Council to review and discuss the draft Downtown Code 'Amendments and Design Standards. At a public hearing currently scheduled for December 8, 2009, Council will be requested to consider adoption of die new Downtown code and zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review, discuss and provide feedback on the proposed Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff presented an overview of the proposed Downtown Land Use and Design Guidelines Code Amendments at the Council Workshop on October 20, 2009. The Planning Cotnrnission recotrunended approval of the code amendments to Council at an October 19 public healing wide the stipulation that staff continue working wid-i ODOT to address the Transportation Planning rule, in relation to die proposed increase permitted density and scale of development. Staff has had discussions with ODOT to determine the best way to address the Transportation Planning Rule. The main area of discussion has been the scale of buildings permitted iu the 99W/Hall sub-area. This is currently proposed to be 8 stories, which ODOT believes would negatively impact two of their facilities. If the permitted scale of the development is reduced to meet these concerns, there will bean opportunity to look at the area again as part of the High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, which starts next year (through a grant adn-ifilistered by ODOT). The presence of High Capacity Transit in or near the corridor would likely create opportunities for higher scale development. The proposed increase in density in Downtown does not appear to be an issue with ODOT. There area couple of related issues that ate currently being clarified with the Cit}, Attorney that may necessitate the delay of the public hearing until Januaiy. Staff will report on the issues at the workshop. When the final version of the code is adopted, staff will monitor the code at regular intervals (6 months, 1 year, 2 years) to review rind tweak the code as necessary, OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not Applicable CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan a. Update Tigard zoning maps based on Comprehensive Plan Update In support of Council Goal 1a, the proposed Development Code Amendments would implement the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter "15: Special Planning Areas: Downtown Goal 15.1: The City will promote the creation of a vibtant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by mane modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work, play, and shop ui an environment that is uniquely Tigard. Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Council Goa12: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal b. Complete land use regulations and design standards for the downtown. Long Term Goals: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Plan ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable Agenda Item # Meeting Date November 17, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Boundarv Clarification between the City of Tigard the City and Tualatin Valley Water District rWD) Prepared By: Dennis Koellerineier Dept Head Approval: City Xlgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City withdraw territory from the Tualatin Valley Water District? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public heaving at the December S, 2009, City Council meeting and then consider the proposed ordinance to withdraw territory frorn the Tualatin Valley Water District. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY History: • This area (see snap), while located in the Tualatin Valley Water District boundary, was served by the Tigard Water District due to set-vice pressure and flow issues at the time of original development in 1973. • That decision was memorialized in an agreement between Tigard Water District and Metzger Water District. Since that tithe this area has been taken over by the City of Tigard, and die Tualatin Valley Water District was created from a merger of sevetal districts, including the Metzger Water District. This "housekeeping" administrative action is based on the following • City and District staff agree to clarify the boundary. • The City Attorney's office has advised staff that using the "withdrawal of territory" process as described in ORS 222.520 is appropriate for Tigard to use for this situation. • The proposed area for withdrawal is currently within the City and is served municipal water by the Tigard Public Works Department. • This area has not received any services from Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) since 1973. • This action is proposed to correct the legal description of the area and clarify the existing water utility service boundary. • TVWD Board approved the recommendation to take action to ciatify this boundary on September 9, 2009. • There is no impact to any residents or customers of the City or TVWD through thus action. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council could choose not to adopt the ordinance to withdraw territory froth the TVWD. The City will continue to provide water service to this area. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT UsT 1) Ordinance withdrawing territory from the Tualatin Valley Water District subsequent to annexation to the City of Tigard including Exhibits A, B-1 and B-2 2) Public Hearing Notice 3) Letter from TVWD to customers regarding withdrawal FISCAL NOTES ,'There is a small cost in administrative and legal fees associated with executing the ordinance. There is no fiscal impact to the City. CI"T"Y OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING TERRITORY FROM THE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SUBSEQUENT TO ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD WHEREAS, from 1967 to 1976, the City annexed into the City of Tigard the tracts of land described in Exhibits A, B-1 and B-2, attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference and depicted on the attached map; and WHEREAS die tracts of land described in Exhibits A, B-1 and B-2 were not withdrawn from the Tualatin Valley Water District at the time of annexation (10/11/67 through 1/2/76) or at any subsequent tune; and WHEREAS, the City desires to withdraw from the Tualatin Valley Water District the tracts of land described in Exhibits A, B-1 and B-2; and WHERE-AS the City currently provides all services to the tracts of land described in Exhibits A, B-1 and B- 2; and WHEREAS the City and District both recognize the need to provide legal clarification of the existing service area boundaries, annexations, and any prior agreements Blown and unlmown between the two parties through the action of formal withdrawal; and WHEREAS, ORS 222.520 provides that such Avithdrawals may be processed at any time after annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, on the day of , 2009, the City published and posted Notices of Hearing as required by ORS 222.524(2); and WHEREAS, on the day of , 2009, the City held a hearing as required by ORS 222.524(1) for the purpose of hearing objections to the withdrawal and determining whether such withdrawal is in the best interest of the City; now, therefore, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The tracts of land described in Exhibits A, B-1 and B-2 depicted on the attached map, are declared to be withdrawn from the Tualatin Valley Water District. SECTION 2: The City Recorder shall ininediately file a certified copy of this Ordinance with Metro and other agencies required by Metro Code. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective on the day of , 2009, as provided by ORS 222.465. ORDINANCE No. 09- Page 1 PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by munbcr and title only, this day of , 2009. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of r 2009. Craig Dirksen, Mayor ' Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 09- Page 2 Exhibit A Tualatin Valley Water District Served by City of Tigard / Lj A, s l n Q- T J I 5~ P Y A S fr I : ST S~ _i NE a .A,T-l 1N Q TE Y E L ~W R OKL > ~K !E D [ MEG S J VU BO I }w MEAD a CO Q Qe C. c E ORN hlT IOL Efd J i H EVip 4 L I J S LN O tl J Q ~-~l1WJ I Y O ~ Q EXHIBIT B-1 t11-s-5~J ~ II ORD.:Qfto (J 6 -~s- ^ o^ ffff~~...... 67-61 I1 .rob) ! .,f... H ,sr3tJr 5T 1i Eib 677 ro . s~ e.G.341 i ORD. 68•-2 e-a,7fi) (Ii-4- 0) -70) i Onro-36 IORD, 68-59 ORE) 68-96 (1!'•6.68) 1 @5 IfI )T~' I S rV rl' :J T _ - ~wa~.w~ .q rtr7 LJ' 1 ORD. 67-34 / r r L , .d _I a ~J? rZcr} 1 OR 6T-54 66-18 49 21-67) - v ;;-14-66) I 8. •t.fCTG 31 477.";3 \ 3 rte- (11=10-7) ;J . ~ t n ue c \ ORD.6 ;ulis:ou OR . 67-45 raT~j3.JS2Ua \ F -(7-87) ?i, ORD. 67-34 1~_ -rl~',s,.aa (5-11-67) nu \ \ j TCi :1+13n.0a L MUM" B.C. 22 ORD. 66-la ORD. 68-68 IJI-6-GHA t D.C. B53 UtZ Ems-24-72) i - h. ~Ttrr: , S = OF D. Ge-31 i e. (5-23-66) (r EXHIBIT B-2 ~JB fit' ~ f ~ 1 • Q-1 ORD. 56--31 ( 5-25-66) i fff t9-2 -63 7 F7J , ' S ❑ U B.C- Dpi I ? ~ _ I l 3 F y ORD. 1 24-69} ( 5-2a 6 } 1 cFAM ` ~ 6.C. 867 i \~~FF"'~ . LL) J F,p. Z" 9!-!19 r C Y i~r. ° Lr • ~ f lg~l 1~~ r c Public Meeting Notice Home > News > Public Meeting City of Tigard Press Release 4 Z°. -s 13125 SW Hall Blvd. November 11, 2009 Tigard, Oregon 97223 For Immediate Release Contact: Dennis Koellermeier City of Tigard 503-718-2427 dennis@tigard-or.gov Public Meeting Notice ORS 222.524 Withdrawal of Territory From the Tualatin Valley Water District Subsequent to Annexation To the City of Tigard --Tuesday, December 8 at 8:30 p.m. --13125 SW Hall Blvd at Tigard City Town Hall --Located at the corner of SW Hail Avenue and Burnham Street A Public Meeting will be held at 8:30 p.m. an Tuesday, December 8 at Tigard City Town Hall in Tigard. This public meeting will allow citizens to provide testimony to City Council regarding this proposed corrective administrative action to legally recognize the present existing utility service boundary and withdraw territory from the Tualatin Valley Water District. The meeting will determine whether it is in the City's best interest to complete this "housekeeping" action by ordinance to withdraw territory from Tualatin Valley Water District at the very southern tip of the Metzger area (south of Highway 217, west of I-5, north of Boones Ferry Road and east of the railroad right of way as noted in Exhibit A). Background: The proposed area for withdrawal is currently within the city limits of Tigard and is served municipal water by the City of Tigard. It receives no municipal water service from Tualatin Valley Water District. All water services including meter reading, billing and collection is provided by the City of Tigard. This action is proposed to correct the legal description of the area and clarify the existing water service utility boundary between Tigard and Tualatin Valley Water District. There is no impact to residents or customers through this action, and no physical boundary regarding utility water service shall change between the City and Tualatin Valley Water District. Tualatin Valley Water District WWA t~ -1W Gregory E. DiLoreto 1850 SW 170`x' Ave. • Beaverton, Oregon 97006 • Phone: (503) 642-1511 • Fax: (503) 649-2733 • wVV1v.t1"d.org General Manager DATE Bernice Bagnall Chief Financial Officer Debra Erickson Manager, Human NAME Resources <Address> CITY STATE Dale Fishback Manager, Operations & Field Ser-vices Dear <Name> Todd Heidgerken Manager, Cornmunit3, you may have heard that the City of Tigard is in the process of updating its water service & Intergovernmental Relations boundary in the area near you. We want to assure you that since you currently receive your water bill from Tualatin Valley Water District, you will not be affected by this change and Mark Knudson you will remain a TVWD water customer. Chief Engineer The properties highlighted in the map on the back of this letter have historically been shown Brenda Lennox as being within TVVi -D's service area, however, these properties have actually received Manager, Customer water service from the City of Tigard for about 30 years. The City of Tigard and TVWD are & Supporl Sei-vices currently in the process of updating water service maps of the area to reflect actual service areas and formally show that water for these properties is served and billed by the City of Tigard. As part of this process, these properties will soon be officially annexed into the City of Tigard. The proposed update to the water service area map will not impact your property or water service. You will continue to remain a TVWD customer and your water service will not change in any way. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with quality water and customer service both now and in the future. Sincerely, Mark Knudson Chief Engineer (503) 848-3027 marldc cr,tywd.org ( WATER - not to be taken for granted Agenda Item # Meeting Date November 17, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Discuss Topics for an 19, 2010 Joint Meeting widl Planning Commission, CG 1h Prepared By: lolin Floyd Dept Head Approval: City 111gr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Clarify, topics and issues to be discussed at the Jan 19, 2010 joint Meeting with planning Commission regarding Tree Code Amendments to implement the Urban Forestry Master Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review suggested topics, suggest others, and provide input on desired outcomes of the joint meeting. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the Oct 20, 2009 meeting, Council members agreed to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss new tree regulations that will implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as reconnmended in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. The expected outcome of this joint meeting is not a final decision on specific standards or text changes to Tigard's tree protection program. Rather, the intended outcome is a greater understanding by the Planning Commission regarding the concerns and priorities of Council as the Planning Commission and other citizens begin to craft specific code amendments that will be presented to Council later it-1 2010. This workshop will focus on the topics to be discussed at the joint meeting, which is scheduled for Jan 19, 2010. A list of suggested topics is included as Attachment "1". The topics suggested are in no way exhaustive of all the issues that will be faced by the City. Rather, staff is proposing the Council and Planning Commission focus their conversation on issues that will be the most challenging to decide, and are expected to produce the greatest amount of public discourse and public comment as the process unfolds. A similar discussion will be held with the Planting Commission on Dec 7, 2009 and staff will integrate the information received from both bodies. At a Council briefing on Jan 12, 2010, staff will review the project schedule and consolidated topics. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2009 Council Goal 1b: Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Suggested Topics of Conversation FISCAL NOTES N/A 1.\1.f~P1 I/-/ TOP 'IIS jaba Icelin,gTopicr•daix r Attachment "i" Suggested Topics of Conversation for the January 19, 2010 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Listed below are suggested topics of conversation between Council and Planning Commission at their joint meeting on January 19, 2009. These topics are not intended to be exhaustive of all the issues that may arise as the two bodies begin to consider specific code changes to implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Urban Forest Master Plan. As a reminder, the expected outcome of this joint meeting is not a final decision on specific standards or text changes to Tigard's tree protection program. Rather, the intended outcome is a greater understanding by the Planning Commission regarding the concerns and priorities of Council as the Planning Corn mission and other citizens begin to craft specific code amendments that will be presented to Council later it 2010. Suggested Topics: 1. To what degree do Council Members and the Planning Commission believe the two bodies to be "on the same page" in regards to the development of new Urban Forestry regulations? a. Do the two bodies wish to identify and discuss these areas of consistency or differences at the joint meeting? b. Do Council members wish to communicate any guiding principles, specific requests, or desired outcomes to the Planning Commission? c. Does the Planning Commission wish to provide specific advice or guidance to the Council regarding future tree code amendments? 2. What information or tools would assist both the Council and Planning Commission when developing and considering future tree code amendments? 3. Are there particular tools or strategies that Council members or Planning Commissioners wish to see emphasized or de-emphasized in future tree code amendments? These may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The continued use of negative incentives, such as the current mitigation structure that requires monetary payment or the replacement of removed trees. b. Encouraging and facilitating the preservation of trees through code flexibility, optional approval processes, and preservation incentives. c. The use of planting requirements for all development, that would establish uniform planting standards and canopy goals for all projects, regardless of how many trees on the property to begin with. d. Prohibiting the removal of existing trees under particular circumstances that might include: i. The reason for removal; 1 Attachment ""f" H. The number of trees being removed, either in total number or as a percentage of all trees an the property; iii. The location of the tree(s) and their function (i.e. street trees, parking lot trees, ornamental yard trees, natural areas); iv. The size of the tree(s); v. The species of the tree(s); and/or vi. The health and condition of the tree(s). This list, along with any changes suggested by Council, Nvill be presented to the Planning Coni nission on December 7 for their review and contributions. Any changes suggested by the Planning Comn-ussion will be presented to Council on Januaiy 12, one week prior to the joint meeting, to assist Council in preparing for the joint meeting the following week. l:ALRPlJV\C arnxil rl tr!lrti rlrV?U119~ 11-17 (L _-111a cknrul l fni J tldecliu} Tiipri'.r-don 2 November 13, 2009 t2- I?- 25Of-7t T-5 City of Tigard -"P[,i-,\ ,77NTAL PACKET Greg Miller, P.E., County Engineer City ~^dv ` U- Washington County (DATE ~~~TI~~ 1.400 SW Walnut St. Hillsboro, OR 97123 Re: Barrows Road/Scholls Ferry Road Intersection Dear Mr. Miller, We have received a number of calls and concerns from our citizens about removing the signal and eliminating left turns from Barrows Road to Scholls Ferry Road. Removing the signal surprised us and the public. Although our agreement to improve the bridge affirmed the County's right to remove the signal, we had assumed that it would be a future event preceded by a public decision process in which we would have liked to participate. While some drivers benefited from a free-flawing Scholls Ferry Road, others have been inconvenienced by the changes. Although we accept that there were safety and operational concerns with the previous configuration, we would have preferred that alternatives be considered. Removing the signal produced some negative impacts on Tigard streets. Drivers who reach the north end of Barrows Road and want to turn left, are cutting through to 135thAvenue and using neighborhood streets and a private roadway. We do not know the extent of this cut-through problem and ask for your help to measure how much traffic patterns have changed. We may also need additional "assistance and funding to upgrade other intersections in the Tigard street system to handle the diverted traffic, but we cannot assess that need without additional traffic count data. For Tigard, the improvement to Scholls Ferry Road is not very noticeable, but the inconvenience to drivers using Barrows Road is significant. We ask that you work with our engineering division to assess the impact that this change has caused to neighborhood streets. With this data, we trust that we can work cooperatively towards a solution that keeps any gains made to traffic on Scholls Ferry Road while minimizing the inconvenience to Tigard residents. We look forward to a complete solution for both county roads and city streets that makes traveling better for everyone. Sincerely, Craig E. Dirksen Mayor cc: Tom Brian, Chair - Board of County Commissioners I Tigard City Council Ted Kyle, Interim City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard., Oregon 97223 503,639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 v ww.tigard-or.gov