TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 22, 2020
Sign-language interpreters are available at no cost. Please call 503-681-6100 or TTY 503-681-6284, 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Transportation Committee Teleconference - 6 pm The City of Hillsboro invites you to listen to the Tuesday, September 22 Transportation Committee Teleconference using meeting details listed below.
Zoom Webinar Phone: +1 346 248 7799 Meeting ID: 818 4790 9459 URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81847909459?pwd=RFIwOEVodHJpUC9OQ1c2QURBYkNxZz09 Passcode: 502995
Call to Order - Roll Call
1. Consider Minutes:
1.1. Transportation Committee Minutes August 25, 2020 Transportation Committee Minutes August 25, 2020
2. General Public Comment: (General Public Comment, not related to the SE 229th Avenue Plan and Profile Study in South Hillsboro, should be emailed in advance to Zakk.Kiley@Hillsboro-Oregon.gov by 8 am on the day of the meeting. General comments will not be heard during the meeting.)
3. Items for Recommendation to City Council:
3.1. None.
4. Items for Transportation Committee Action:
4.1. None.
5. Items for Discussion (Items may result in action and/or recommendation to Council):
5.1. Public input on the SE 229th Avenue Plan and Profile Study in South Hillsboro. Staff Report - Don Odermott and Gregg Snyder
Feedback related to the SE 229th Avenue Plan and Profile Study can be provided
during the meeting following staff's presentation or submitted in writing prior to the meeting. Please read the instructions below.
Join the meeting via Zoom webinar or telephone using the Zoom details above: The Committee Chair will read down the list of attendees who have raised their Zoom hand. When the Committee Chair calls out your name, you will have three minutes to speak. Members of the public using Zoom will not be able to share their screen or turn on their camera during the meeting. If you are joining the meeting via telephone, *9 will raise your Zoom hand.
Reserve a video conference spot at the Hillsboro Civic Center: For those of you that aren’t able to join the Zoom Webinar by computer we are offering reserved video conference call viewing in our First Floor Conference Room 113 at City Hall, located at 150 East Main Street, Hillsboro Oregon 97123. If you want to reserve a spot, please call the South Hillsboro information line at 503-681-3999 by Monday, September 21st and leave your contact information. One of our staff members will contact you and fill you in on all the particulars. Please understand that if you decide to reserve a spot to view the video conference call at City Hall you will be required to wear a mask and social distancing will be required.
Email your comments to us in advance: If you have comments and would like to email them in, please send your comments to [email protected] no later than 5:00 pm on September 22nd and we will read them into the record at the meeting. Staff Report
5.2. Transportation System Plan Update - Review Draft Chapters 4 and 5. Staff Report - Don Odermott and Brad Choi Staff Report
6. Advice/Information Items
6.1. Washington County Coordinating Committee update. Packet - Colin Cooper and Don Odermott Washington County Coordinating Committee Packet
6.2. Shute Road Multi-Use Facility update. Verbal Discussion - Don Odermott
6.3. Log of Special Event Permit Applications. Log Of Special Event Permits
6.4. Log of Citizen Requests received to transportation issues. Log of Citizen Requests
6.5. August/September Transportation Communications. August/September Transportation Communications
Page 2 of 142 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Tuesday, August 25, 2020
Teleconference
Present: Councilor Anthony Martin, Councilor Beach Pace, Councilor Rick Van Beveren and Citizen Advisory Member Sushmita Poddar.
Staff Robby Hammond, Tom Arnold, Tina Bailey, Diana Bracamonte, Don Odermott and Present: Aubrey Minear.
Transportation Committee Teleconference - 6 pm Call to Order - Roll Call 1. Consider Minutes: 1.1. Transportation Committee Minutes July 28, 2020
Beach Pace made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Rick Van Beveren seconded the motion. CARRIED. 3-0 Beach Pace, Rick Van Beveren, and Anthony Martin voted yes.
2. Public Comment: 3. Items for Recommendation to City Council: 3.1. None.
4. Items for Transportation Committee Action: 4.1. None.
5. Items for Discussion (Items may result in action and/or recommendation to Council): 5.1. Transportation Outreach Discussion. Verbal Discussion - Councilor Martin
6. Advice/Information Items 6.1. Washington County Coordinating Committee update. Staff Report - Don Odermott
6.2. Log of Special Event Permit Applications.
1.1 (1)
Page 3 of 142 6.3. Log of Citizen Requests received to transportation issues.
6.4. July/August Transportation Communications.
1.1 (2)
Page 4 of 142
STAFF REPORT
To: Daniel L. Dias, Economic and Community Development Director
From: Gregg Snyder, Transportation Planning Supervisor Don Odermott, Transportation Systems Director
Date: September 22, 2020
Subject: Public Input on the SE 229th Avenue Plan and Profile Study in South Hillsboro
Requested Transportation Committee Action: Take public input on potential SE 229th Avenue alignment alternatives.
Background/Project Overview: Since early 2018 staff have been managing an engineering study and boundary survey that seeks to establish a locally preferred alignment for SE 229th Avenue from the future roundabout located at the intersection of Kinnaman Road at SE Century Boulevard south over Butternut Creek to SW Rosa Road.
Unfortunately, the pandemic put a halt to what would have been a robust public engagement effort to select the locally preferred alignment for the road. Public input plays a vital role, so staff are proposing to take an initial round of public input at the Transportation Committee’s September 22nd meeting. Public input will be taken from Zoom video call participants, folks who call into the meeting using cell phones or land lines and from Conference Room 113 via a live, socially distanced audio/visual feed.
The initial round of public input will be from local property owners in the northern portion of the study area who are on the project mailing list. This includes South Hillsboro developers, local homeowners, the Reserve Golf Course and land use attorneys who are representing property owners. Public input from properties along the southern portion of the 229th Avenue alignment will be taken at a later date.
Cost: None.
Attachments: Attachment A: 229th Avenue Options
5.1 (1)
Page 5 of 142 ATTACHMENT A
SE CENTURY BLVD
FUTURE SE CENTURY BLVD AND SE KINNAMAN RD ROUNDABOUT
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
SE NOBLE ST
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
RESERVE GOLF
COURSE ENTRANCE
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE) REALIGNMENT OPTION 1 - NORTH SE CENTURY BLVD PLAN AND PROFILE STUDY 1
Page 6 of 142 5.1 (2) SE CENTURY BLVD
FUTURE SE CENTURY BLVD AND SE KINNAMAN RD ROUNDABOUT
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
SE NOBLE ST
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
RESERVE GOLF
COURSE ENTRANCE
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE) REALIGNMENT OPTION 2 - NORTH SE CENTURY BLVD PLAN AND PROFILE STUDY 2
Page 7 of 142 5.1 (3) SE CENTURY BLVD
FUTURE SE CENTURY BLVD AND SE KINNAMAN RD ROUNDABOUT
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
SE NOBLE ST
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
RESERVE GOLF
COURSE ENTRANCE
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE) REALIGNMENT OPTION 3 - NORTH SE CENTURY BLVD PLAN AND PROFILE STUDY 3
Page 8 of 142 5.1 (4) SE CENTURY BLVD
BUTTERNUT
CREEK COMMUNITY PARK
CREEK PKWY
SE BUTTERNUT
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE)
SW ROSA RD
SE CENTURY BLVD (SW 229TH AVE) REALIGNMENT OPTION 1/2/3 - SOUTH SE CENTURY BLVD PLAN AND PROFILE STUDY 1/2/3
Page 9 of 142 5.1 (5) Page 10 of 142 STAFF REPORT
To: Transportation Committee
From: Don Odermott, Transportation Systems Director Brad Choi, Transportation Planner
Date: September 22, 2020
Subject: Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update – Review Draft Chapters 4 and 5
Requested Planning Commission Action: Conduct policy-level review and recommend edits and changes to draft chapters 4 and 5 of the TSP.
Background/Project Overview: Transportation and Planning staff in the Community Development Department, along with Public Works staff, are currently working towards the adoption of a new Transportation System Plan (TSP) around the end of the calendar year 2020. In July, staff provided chapters 1, 2, and 3 for Transportation Committee review and discussions. This month, staff is providing draft chapters 4 and 5 which covers the needs analysis and recommended system plans of the TSP.
TSP Draft Chapters 4 and 5
The draft TSP consists of a total of seven chapters. The first three chapters are Introduction, Goals and Policies, and Existing System Inventory. Chapters 4 and 5 covers the needs analysis and recommended system plans. Chapter 6 is the project list and financing plan, and chapter 7 covers other regional transportation topics and initiatives.
Chapter 4 of the TSP is the “Needs Assessment” chapter. This chapter presents the future population and employment assumptions and future travel demand forecast. The future needs of each transportation modal system is discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 5 presents the system plans that make up the regulatory elements of the TSP. It is the chapter that informs readers what the planed future transportation system will be. This chapter, together with the project list in chapter 6, provides the information that city staff uses on a daily basis to guide development review and capital project decisions in order to implement the future transportation system identified in the TSP.
The system plans in chapter 5 include the following consistent with the State of Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0020):
1. Road System Plan a. Functional Classification b. Number of Lanes and Right-of-Way
5.2 (1)
Page 11 of 142 TRMISC-003-16: Transportation System Plan Update Pre-Initiation Review 2
c. Neighborhood Connectivity d. Roadway Jurisdiction e. Design Standards f. Special Districts g. Access Management 2. Intersection Improvement Plan 3. Bicycle Plan 4. Pedestrian Plan 5. Transit Plan 6. Freight Plan 7. Safety Plan 8. Communications Plan 9. Parking Plan 10. Air, Rail, and Pipeline Plan 11. Trails Plan
Summary “grey boxes” have been added in certain places in the draft chapters to help guide policy-level review and discussions. The draft TSP table of contents and draft chapters 4 and 5 are provided as attachments to this staff report.
Next Steps: Staff plan to present the last two chapters—6 and 7—to Transportation Committee in October. Input from Transportation Committee in these work sessions will be incorporated into the final TSP draft document. Initiation of the plan adoption process is scheduled to begin later this fall.
Cost: In addition to City staff time, costs associated with the TSP update include a previously approved and budgeted contract with a consultant team led by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for a total value of $715,250.
Attachments: A. Draft Table of Contents B. Draft TSP Chapter 4 C. Draft TSP Chapter 5
5.2 (2)
Page 12 of 142 Draft TSP Document Outline (9/15/20) Chapter I - Introduction Chapter V – System Plans
1. Overview 1. Introduction 2. Regulatory Context 2. Road Master Plan 3. City Background and TSP History 3. Intersections Improvement Plan 4. TSP Update Process 4. Public Transit Plan 5. Public Involvement Process 5. Pedestrian Plan 6. What’s New 6. Bicycle Plan 7. Document Organization 7. Freight Plan 8. Air, Rail, Pipeline Plan Chapter II – Goals & Policies 9. Transportation System and Demand 1. Comprehensive Plan Goals & Policies Management 10. Parking Plan Chapter III – Existing Conditions and Inventory 11. Safety Plan (reference only) 1. Roadways 12. Communications Plan (reference only) 2. Intersections 13. Trails Plan (reference only) 3. Public Transit Chapter VI – Project List and Financing Plan 4. Pedestrian 5. Bicycle 1. TSP Project List 6. Freight 2. Financing Plan 7. Air, Rail, Pipeline Chapter VII – Implementation and Beyond 8. System Management 9. Safety 1. Integrating Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Chapter IV – Future Needs and Proposed 2. Supporting Workforce and Freight Changes Mobility 1. Future Land Use Assumptions 3. Improving Transit Access and 2. Travel Demand Modeling Forecast Performance 3. Roadway and Intersection Needs 4. Maximizing Mobility Options 4. Functional Classification Proposed 5. TSP Amendment Process Changes 5. Number of Lanes and Right-of-Way Proposed Changes 6. Freight Needs 7. Connectivity Needs 8. Public Transit Needs 9. Pedestrian Needs 10. Bicycle Needs
5.2 (3)
Page 13 of 142 CHAPTER 4 – FUTURE DEMAND AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Page 1
5.2 (4)
Page 14 of 142 4.1 Overview of Forecasting Methodology
In determining the future needs in a TSP, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0030(3)(a)) states that transportation needs within urban growth boundaries shall be based upon “population and employment forecasts and distributions that are consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan,” and that “forecasts and distributions shall be for 20 years and, if desired, for longer periods.”
In the Portland region, the regional government, Metro, regularly coordinates with local jurisdictions to update the regional 20-year future regional land use model. The land use assumptions in the regional model are based on the adopted local comprehensive plans. In this process, comprehensive plan land use assumptions are expressed in number of households and employment.
Future land use assumptions in this TSP were based on the adopted land use forecast in the Metro Travel Demand Model which is the regional traffic forecast tool for the Portland Metropolitan Area. This area includes Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties, as well as Clark County, Washington. Land use assumptions are divided into geographic areas known as Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). Each TAZ includes the number of household units and number of jobs that are assumed to be contained within the geographical area as the result of the land use designations within the TAZ. The boundaries of each TAZ are typically a major transportation facility or a natural feature, such as a river.
There are a total of 2,162 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in the travel demand model. Eighty-five of these zones are within the Hillsboro study area which includes areas within the current city limits and those expected to be added into the city limits by 2040. Figure 4.1 illustrates the TAZ locations in the Hillsboro TSP planning area.
For the future year forecast land use assumptions, Hillsboro staff made adjustments to the “Gamma” model version’s land use assumptions Metro models estimate development progression over the 20-year forecast period towards Comprehensive Plan capacity utilizing a tool known as Metroscope. Hillsboro has historically outpaced Metro’s Metroscope forecasts for growth, resulting in under sizing Hillsboro’s transportation system to accommodate reasonable buildout consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In order to avoid a repeat of this past difficulty, this TSP has adjusted the model’s household units and employment projections to both reflect estimated buildout capacity, but also to reflect changes in the UGB boundary not reflected in the Gamma model. This is best reflected in the TSP’s inclusion of growth in the new UGB expansion area located north of NE Evergreen Road, east of NW Jackson School Road, which was added to the UGB through House Bill 4078 approved by the Legislature in 2014.
Page 2
5.2 (5)
Page 15 of 142 The future land use assumptions are labeled as the “year 2040” land use forecast. The intent of the forecast is to assess the potential “build-out” level of land use based on the currently adopted UGB and Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Actual timing of population and employment growth will be affected by factors such as the market and economy and may or may not be achieved by 2040.
The regional travel model estimates future travel demand across the modes of vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mode types. To make these estimates, the model relies upon a validated base year with documented land uses of housing and employment as well as measured travel demand across each of the modes for that base year. At the time of the TSP update, Gamma model used a validated base year of 2010.
Forecasting future demand considers the planned expansion of future roadway capacity, new sidewalk and bicycle facilities, and TriMet’s financially constrained future assumed transit system (routes and frequency) on modal choice. Also considered are other factors such as changing travel habits, increasing telecommuting, time of day for trip making (“peak spreading”), trip chaining (multiple “stops” on a common trip), aging population, changing demographics of car ownership and household population, These factors are coupled with the projected growth in housing units, population growth forecasts, employment growth, and the assumed location of this growth as expressed in the TAZ growth assumptions described earlier. In general, vehicular trip production per household and per employment unit are projected to reduce by 2040 compared to the 2010 base year.
Page 3
5.2 (6)
Page 16 of 142 Figure 4.1 Hillsboro Area TAZ Structure
Page 4
5.2 (7)
Page 17 of 142 The 2010 and 2040 land use assumptions that form the basis of the TSP needs analysis are summarized in Table 4.1. As shown in the table, the expected 2040 Hillsboro forecast is 60,249 household units and 135,269 jobs. This represents an increase of 25,085 household units (+71 percent) and 76,265 jobs (+129 percent) jobs compared to what was present in 2010. Data from 2015 is included for comparison purposes.
Table 4.1 Land Use Assumptions Summary Year # of Households # of Jobs (Employment) 2010 35,164 59,004 2015 38,943 75,050 2040 Forecast (UGB Buildout) 60,249 135,269 2010 to 2040 Increase 25,085 76,265
The household units and employment forecast increase between 2010 and 2040 for each TAZ are graphically illustrated in figures 4.2 and 4.3. The increases are depicted in such a way to show the intensity of where future growth in housing and employment are expected to occur. Most residential growth is anticipated to be in the southern parts of the City and job growth in the northern parts. This forecast is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan with new residential units planned for areas such as South Hillsboro and employment areas in the North Hillsboro Industrial Area. Not included in these growth forecasts are the implications of House Bill 2001 approved by the 2020 Oregon Legislature which requires revisions to land use development codes to allow “Middle Housing”, duplexes, triplexes, and quads in all residentially zoned land.
A zone-by-zone listing of the household units and employment forecast is provided in Appendix XX.
Page 5
5.2 (8)
Page 18 of 142 Figure 4.2 Projected Household Unit Growth from 2010 to 2040
Page 6
5.2 (9)
Page 19 of 142 Figure 4.3 Projected Employment Growth from 2010 to 2040
Page 7
5.2 (10)
Page 20 of 142 4.2 Travel Demand Modeling Forecast
The Metro travel demand model utilizes the future land use assumptions and the planned roadway network assumptions. The 2040 roadway network assumes all previously adopted regional infrastructure projects have been constructed, including those in the previous Hillsboro TSP. The travel demand model uses a four- step process of estimating the number of trips generated, the origin and destination of those trips, what mode of travel people are likely to choose, and routes those trips will likely take to derive the number peak hour vehicle trips on the regional network.
The following sections summarize the PM peak two-hour vehicle trips derived from the travel demand model. The heaviest congestion and roadway constraints typically occur during the PM peak hours in our transportation system. For AM peak hours, targeted analysis was conducted for known congestion hot spots. Vehicle trips are reported as four separate vehicles types: single occupancy vehicles (SOV), high occupancy vehicles (HOV), median trucks (MT) and heavy trucks (HT). The travel demand model analysis was conducted for the 2010 base year and the 2040 forecast year. It should be noted that total vehicle trips calculated in this exercise include those trips which start and end within the same TAZ.
Total Vehicle Trips
According to the travel demand model, there were a total of 59,946 PM peak two- hour vehicle trips in 2010. This total vehicle trip number included trips with at least one end (origin or destination) in one of the Hillsboro study area TAZs. Of the 59,946 vehicle trips, 16,473 trips both began and ended within Hillsboro. This count does not include trips that both started and ended outside Hillsboro and merely passed through the City.
The model forecasted a total of 103,609 PM peak two-hour vehicle trips in 2040. Of the 103,609 vehicle trips, 30,247 trips are forecasted to both begin and end within Hillsboro, while the remaining trips have either the start of the trip or destination for the trip outside the City.
The total number of model forecast PM peak two-hour trips for years 2010 and 2040 are summarized in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Total PM Two-Hour Trips for 2010 and 2040 2010 2040 Total PM Peak Two-Hour Vehicle Trips (Trips with at 59,946 103,609 least One End in Hillsboro) Total PM Peak Two-Hour Vehicle Trips Internal to 16,473 30,247 Hillsboro (Trips with Both Ends in Hillsboro)
Page 8
5.2 (11)
Page 21 of 142 Average Trip Length
According to the travel demand model, during the PM peak two hours, the average motor vehicle trip length for trips that began and ended in Hillsboro in 2010 was 2.6 miles and the average trip length for trips with one end outside of Hillsboro was 11.2 miles.
For the 2040 forecast year, the average trip length for trips that will begin and end in Hillsboro is predicted to be 2.8 miles. The average trip length for trips with one end outside of Hillsboro is about 11.1 miles. Average vehicle trip length calculation does not include trips internal to the same TAZ due to the limitation of the travel demand model.
The model forecast PM peak hour average trip length for years 2010 and 2040 are summarized in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Average PM Peak Two-Hour Trip Length for 2010 and 2040 2010 2040 Internal Trips Average Trip Length (Trips with Both 2.6 mi 2.8 mi Ends in Hillsboro) External Trips Average Trip Length (Trips with Only 11.2 mi 11.1 mi One End in Hillsboro)
Distribution of Trip Length
Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show how frequently trips of different lengths occurred in 2010 and are expected to occur in 2040. Figure 4.4 shows all trips and 4.5 shows only trips internal to Hillsboro. The two figures illustrate that there is a larger number of short- distanced trips in both 2010 and 2040.
People are typically willing to walk up to one mile or bicycle up to three miles to reach a destination when there is a complete and safe walking and bicycling network. Therefore, understanding trip distances reveals the potential number of vehicle trips that could be replaced by walk or bicycle trips.
Page 9
5.2 (12)
Page 22 of 142 Figure 4.4 Number of Trips by Trip Length (Total Trips) – (add legend)
Figure 4.5 Number of Trips by Trip Length (Trips Internal to Hillsboro) – (add legend)
Page 10
5.2 (13)
Page 23 of 142 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)/Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) are two useful measures as these two factors directly correlate to the demand on the roadway system. VMT represents the total distance traveled for all vehicles within a certain geographic area over a given period of time. VHD is the difference between vehicle hours traveled under congested conditions and vehicle hours of travel that would otherwise be expected under free flow conditions.
For the 2010 base year, the total VMT within Hillsboro during the PM peak two hours was calculated to be 241,444 miles. Under a theoretical, free-flow condition where there are no delays, the corresponding total travel time was calculated to be 5,747 hours. Using a loaded network that reflected delays, the time calculated to cover the same VMT was 6,389 hours. This represented 642 vehicle hours of delay (VHD) during the PM peak two hours based on the 2010 land use assumptions and roadway network.
For the 2040 forecast year, the total VMT on roadways within Hillsboro during the PM peak two hours is projected to be 386,218 miles, a 60% increase over the 2010 VMT. The corresponding free-flow travel time is 9,329 hours (62% increase over the 2010 free-flow travel time). The loaded network travel time reflecting delays is 10,647 hours (67% increase over 2010). This represents a total of 1,318 hours of vehicle hours of delay during the PM peak two hours based on the 2040 land use assumptions and roadway network, which is a 105% increase over the 2010 total PM peak two-hour vehicle hours of delay (VHD).
Tables 4.5 and 4.6 show total and by vehicle type VMT and VHD from 2010 and that are expected to occur in 2040, according to the model. It should be noted that the values derived in the exercise should be interpreted comparatively (relative to each other) as opposed to quantitatively (as absolute values).
Table 4.5 2010 Base Year VMT and VHD SOV HOV MT HT Total VMT 179,780 53,996 2,830 4,838 241,444 VHTfree flow 4,284 1,300 60 104 5,747 VHTwith delay 4,762 1,441 69 117 6,389 VHD 478 141 8 14 642
Table 4.6 2040 Forecast Year VMT and VHD SOV HOV MT HT Total VMT 284,424 78,298 8,630 14,867 386,218 VHTfree flow 6,913 1,916 183 317 9,329 VHTwith delay 7,889 2,172 215 371 10,647 VHD 976 256 32 53 1,318
Page 11
5.2 (14)
Page 24 of 142 4.3 Roadway and Intersections Needs Analysis
Between 2009 and 2017, City of Hillsboro staff conducted travel demand modeling and analysis for special planning areas and UGB growth areas including AmberGlen, North Hillsboro, and South Hillsboro. Future roadway plans including intersection-level lane geometry for these areas were determined and amended into the TSP. As part of this TSP update, travel demand modeling and analysis was conducted both to confirm and validate the previous analyses and to analyze other areas that were not previously studied. The results form the basis for the roadway needs and projects in this TSP.
In total, 138 existing or future intersections were studied or analyzed for this TSP. Future intersection volumes were derived using the Metro travel demand model, specifically the “west-side” model maintained by Washington County, and based on National Highway Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255 post-processing methodology. Intersection PM peak hour operational analysis was conducted according to latest Highway Capacity Manual methodologies and measured against Hillsboro’s adopted performance standards, which considers both lane group capacity and delay.
The TSP study intersections are illustrated in Figure 4.6. Intersections are symbolized based on the analysis results and whether they are expected to meet or fail the adopted performance standards in year 2040 traffic volumes under the existing geometry. Future new intersections or planned intersection reconstructions are depicted separately. The intersection forecast and analysis for all 138 intersections are summarized in Appendix xx.
Future forecast average daily traffic volumes for specific roadway segments were determined to provide a high-level comparison against the existing year average daily traffic counts. This was done in order to understand the level of traffic growth that can be expected to occur on the roadways. Roadway volumes were derived by applying a peak hour-to-daily ratio (K factor) of 0.10 to the intersection forecast volumes. This was conducted to provide a comparison against existing daily traffic volumes. Future roadway segment average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.7. The existing traffic volumes are included to provide comparison with the future forecast volume.
As shown in the figure, the forecast growth on select segments of some of the major roadways are as follows: - Brookwood Parkway (Main to Cornell): 22,100 (2018), 32,600 (2040), 48% increase - Cornelius Pass Road (Cornell to Evergreen): 34,800 (2018), 45,000 (2040), 29% increase - 185th Avenue (Walker to Cornell): 32,600 (2018), 50,700 (2040), 55% increase - Evergreen Road (25th to Brookwood): 23,100 (2018), 29,200 (2040), 26% increase - Cornell Road (Brookwood to Century): 27,500 (2018), 31,200 (2040), 13% increase - TV Highway (Brookwood to Century): 34,100 (2018), 41,300 (2040), 21% increase
Page 12
5.2 (15)
Page 25 of 142 Figure 4.6 Forecast 2040 Intersection Operating Conditions
Page 13
5.2 (16)
Page 26 of 142 Figure 4.7 Existing and Forecast Average Daily Traffic
Page 14
5.2 (17)
Page 27 of 142 4.4 Functional Classification Proposed Changes
Functional classification is a hierarchy system for classifying and organizing roadways based on their roles in a street network. Roadways have the primary functions of accommodating movement of people, goods, and services, providing mobility, connectivity, and access to diverse destinations. Streets and highways are assigned a functional classification to indicate their purpose, design, and role in providing mobility and access. Mobility speaks to our ability to travel over longer distances efficiently while access refers to our ability to connect to discrete destinations along the corridors of mobility. Figure 4.8 graphically depicts the relationship between the mobility and access for the typical functional classifications. In general, as access increases along a travel corridor, the ability to efficiently travel through the corridor decreases due to conflicts with entering and exiting traffic.
Figure 4.8 Relationship of Functionally Classified System in Serving Traffic Mobility and Access
The Functional Classification Plan in Chapter 5 was updated to reflect the expanded urban growth boundary and expanded TSP study area. New roads in expansion areas were assigned functional classifications based on the function they are expected to serve in the system. An additional distinction was added to road classification categories such that the collectors and neighborhood routes identified in the TSP consistent with the Hillsboro Design and Construction standards in distinguishing between residential and industrial/commercial sub-category.
A number of additional functional classification changes were made to reflect changes to street functions. The proposed changes and adjustments to functional classifications generally fall under one of the following two categories:
• Changes to classifications of roads where the functions they serve have evolved over time due to surrounding development and other new roadways
Page 15
5.2 (18)
Page 28 of 142 • Changes to functional classifications for roads under Washington County jurisdiction for consistency with the Washington County TSP
The proposed changes are summarized in Table 4.7 and Figure 4.9. The Functional Classification Plan is provided in Chapter 5 under Section 5.2.A.
Page 16
5.2 (19)
Page 29 of 142
Figure 4.9 Changes to Functional Classifications
Page 17
5.2 (20)
Page 30 of 142 Table 4.7 Changes to Functional Classifications
Page 18
5.2 (21)
Page 31 of 142
Page 19
5.2 (22)
Page 32 of 142 4.5 Number of Lanes and Right-of-Way (ROW) Proposed Changes
Changes to the vehicle travel lanes are planned for a number of roads to address capacity and safety needs.. The proposed road widening improvements, ROW needs, and number of lanes for planned new roads are illustrated in Figure 4.10 and summarized in Table 4.8. To highlight the changes made between the 2004 TSP Update and this current TSP, only the newly proposed changes are identified with project IDs in the map and table. Previously adopted TSP changes are shown in the map but not labeled with project IDs and not included in the table.
The majority of proposed widening improvements add a median turn-lane to existing undivided roads. The goal of these identified improvements is to increase safety and efficiency. Capacity increases are proposed in a few select locations such as Brookwood Parkway from Ihly/47th Avenue to Cornell Road (widening from three to five lanes) to provide needed future capacity.
Figure 4.10 illustrates two additional requirements on select roadways. Roadways with identified ROW Preservation (yellow highlighted) reflect significant forecast growth corridors where anticipated future development beyond UGB buildout is anticipated to require additional travel lanes. Dedication of future additional ROW beyond that which is required to accommodate buildout under the current Comprehensive Plan and UGB area cannot be required of development. Protection of said future right of way shall be assured through implementation of ROW Preservation setbacks which will assure no buildings or code-minimum required parking or associated parking circulation are located within the ROW Preservation setback.
Additional ROW dedication to accommodate the ability to widen to 7/8 lane future roadway width is identified on NE Walker Road between NE Stucki Avenue and NW 185th Avenue. The addition of the two additional travel lanes resulting in a 7-lane width within the protected ROW is not required at this time. This supplemental ROW dedication requirement may be amended out of the TSP in the future once a public roadway connection between NE Amberglen Parkway (check current road name) and 185th Avenue is assured south of NW Walker Road and north of the Light Rail corridor. Additional ROW dedication is also identified on SE Cornelius Pass Road extending approximately 500 feet south of SE Blanton Street to allow for future widening SE Cornelius Pass Road to 7/8 lane width. This additional ROW has already been dedicated between SW Blanton Street and TV Highway.
Page 20
5.2 (23)
Page 33 of 142 Figure 4.10 Changes to Number of Lanes
Page 21
5.2 (24)
Page 34 of 142 Table 4.8 Changes to Number of Lanes
Page 22
5.2 (25)
Page 35 of 142 4.6 Freight Needs Assessment Reliable freight transportation is crucial to the local, regional, and national economies given Hillsboro industry’s importation role to the State economy. Congestion and capacity shortfalls can have a detrimental impact on travel times and delivery schedules and reliability, and ultimately, on the economy. The Portland metropolitan area plans for freight at the regional level (in coordination with the State) and has an adopted Regional Freight Plan that identifies the following challenges:
• Congestion and hotspots – chronic road and rail network bottlenecks that impede regional freight/goods movement. • Reliability – as distinct from congestion, unpredictable travel time due to crashes, construction, special events, and weather (often exacerbated by capacity constraints). • Capacity constraints – lack of capacity in critical corridors as well as physical and operational issues. • Lack of system redundancy – Hillsboro freight to market relies heavily on Sunset Highway and Cornelius Pass Road, both corridors susceptible to landslides and crashes, with little to no alternative freight routes. • Network barriers – safety concerns and out-of-direction travel resulting from weight-limited bridges, low bridge clearances, steep grades, at-grade rail crossings, and poorly designed turns or intersections. • Land use – system capacity and land for industrial uses that is being lost to other activities • Environmental and other impacts – managing adverse impacts including diesel emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality, noise, and land use conflicts.
Regionally and locally, improved freight movement enhancement strategies include:
• Expanding intelligent transportation systems; • Protecting existing industrial businesses’ competitiveness; • Ensuring an adequate supply of appropriate well-located industrial land; • Encouraging the collocation of high-volume freight users along freight routes; • Designing roadways to be mode-separated for enhanced safety; • Including freight needs in facility design particularly on freight routes; • Freeing up capacity on network roadways by reducing the number of vehicle trips and per capita vehicle miles traveled competing for finite capacity; and • Adding roadway system capacity as a last option.
Page 23
5.2 (26)
Page 36 of 142 Policies would focus on taking a system approach to improving freight travel time reliability, protecting industrial lands, and encouraging clean and green technology and fuels to reduce environmental impacts.
Page 24
5.2 (27)
Page 37 of 142 4.7 Connectivity Needs
Regionally speaking, a well connected roadway network is generally defined as having one mile spacing between major arterial streets and a half mile spacing between collectors. The goal of a half mile spacing between collectors and a one mile spacing between arterials has generally not been achievable in Hillsboro due to certain natural features (ie. rivers, steep hills, etc.) and rail infrastructure. These physical constraints have, over the growth of the City, been reflected in existing development patterns. This challenge was addressed in more detail in Chapter 3, Section XX.
Hillsboro’s regional roadway network of arterials and collectors is relatively mature and connected within the constraints of creek corridors and limitations on railroad crossings with the exception of a few large industrial campus locations and the Hillsboro Airport. The railroads and natural bodies such as creeks, streams, and wetlands, coupled with existing built neighborhoods, create barriers to building additional roadway connections. For these reasons, additional arterial and collector roadway network connections were not proposed in the Roads System Plan. Connectivity also can be enhanced by new pedestrian and bicycle connections which improve accessibility between complimentary land uses (i.e. residential and retail) as well as increasing the amount of the community that can access transit and other amenities by reducing physical access barriers. While challenging to deliver in established neighborhoods, new pedestrian and bicycle connections are considerably better received than new vehicular connections.
Beyond the arterial and collector network, Hillsboro’s local street network also lacks connectivity in many areas outside of the historical neighborhoods in and around downtown where creek drainage corridors were historically piped and paved over. A lack of local street connectivity increases the reliance on arterials and collectors to carry large volume of traffic and a need for community members to travel out-of-direction when streets do not connect. Creating additional connections can balance travel between various streets and reducing vehicle miles traveled as well as emissions negatively effecting the local environment. More local vehicular connection opportunities will better disperse traffic; potentially reducing the need for expanding arterials and collectors. A connected local street network is also more suitable for people walking and bicycling which can reduce the community’s need to rely upon use of vehicles to complete trips, particularly trips less than 4 miles and 1 mile in length suitable to bicycle and pedestrian travel, respectively.
Future local street and pathway connections were identified throughout the City by evaluating future development and re-development opportunities as well as identifying key areas where strategic pedestrian/bicycle connections would improve accessibility linking neighborhoods to each other and to other public amenities such as parks, trails, existing or planned future transit, retail, and employment areas. The future connectivity plan is provided in Chapter 5.3.
Page 25
5.2 (28)
Page 38 of 142 4.8 Public Transit Needs Assessment
A transit system that is efficient and convenient is paramount to addressing the mobility needs within Hillsboro and supporting its connections to the surrounding region. With a heavy reliance on workforce commuting into Hillsboro every weekday, viable and competitive transit options to surrounding residential areas throughout the Tualatin Valley and extending into Portland and Clark County, Washington is essential to reducing the need for widening freeway connections to the remainder of the region. Improving transit service is one of Hillsboro’s greatest transportation needs and opportunities today and in the future.
A majority of areas in Hillsboro are not within walking distance to frequent transit service today as illustrated in Figure 4.11. People using public transit are typically willing to walk five to ten minutes, or approximately ¼ to ½ mile, to access a transit stop (cite FHWA Pedestrian and Transit Safety section). There are exceptions such as park-and- ride facilities and secured bicycle storage facilities that allow users to connect to transit by car and bicycle.
In 2013, TriMet, the regional transit agency providing transit service in Hillsboro, adopted the Westside Service Enhancement Plan. The 20-year transit vision document covers Hillsboro, Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove and unincorporated Washington County north of Scholls Ferry Road. The plan was the result of collaboration between local road authorities, including the City of Hillsboro, and TriMet staff based on population and employment analysis, community surveys and outreach, and local stakeholders’ input.
The Westside Service Enhancement Plan identified five key areas of needs. They are:
1. Better Connections – Complete the “transit grid” by providing better coverage and improved frequency. North-south service local to Hillsboro continues to be lacking in both coverage and frequency today. Therefore, transit connection between the residential areas in the central and southern parts of Hillsboro and the employment clusters in the northern areas are deficient. Better north-south coverage and frequency is needed to complete the transit grid in Hillsboro. 2. Travel time and frequency – In addition to coverage, frequency and travel time are the primary concerns for transit users. Today, only two transit routes in Hillsboro— the MAX Blue Line light rail and Bus 57—meet TriMet’s definition of frequent service of 15 minutes or less for most of the day. Other transit routes in Hillsboro have frequency as infrequent as once an hour with limited service hours. Improving travel time and decreasing wait time are important to make transit more attractive to commuters. 3. Pedestrian Environments – Most transit riders begin and complete the transit journey as pedestrians. A complete and safe pedestrian network is an important component to utilizing transit service. The pedestrian element of this TSP looks at future projects
Page 26
5.2 (29)
Page 39 of 142 to improve the pedestrian environment around transit by completing missing sidewalks, create safe street crossings, and improve lighting and other pedestrian amenities. 4. Last Mile Solutions – Completing the last mile for transit users may include different approaches such as the pedestrian environment, bicycle infrastructure, park-and-ride facilities, connection to shuttles or other transit lines, or even newer mobility services such as scooters and on-demand taxi. Hillsboro staff engages with partner agencies and industry representatives on a regular basis to consider last mile solutions to maximize the value of transit investments. 5. Low Ridership Areas – Serve areas of low population density or undeveloped street network more cost effectively with “Community Connector Service”-type service. This type of service relies on flexible shuttles or low-cost fixed routes with a different cost structure and often operated by partner entities. The “North Hillsboro Link” community shuttle currently operating in the North Hillsboro Industrial area is an example of this type of arrangement.
TriMet, working with Hillsboro staff, conducted outreach to the community via listening tours, focus groups, online surveys, community workshops, and stakeholder group conversations. The resulting Westside Service Enhancement Plan included recommended improvements in Hillsboro that will provide the following:
- More north-south service between residential areas in the south and employment areas in the north. - Last mile connections to reach areas beyond a reasonable walking distance from transit stops. - Improved frequency in conjunction with continuous development.
In addition to the improvements identified in the TriMet Westside Service Enhancement Plan, Hillsboro staff, worked with TriMet and the regional government, Metro, to identify a number of transit improvements in the City in response to existing challenges. These include:
- MAX light rail grade separation at 185th Ave – A grade-separated crossing at 185th Avenue was originally planned for the Westside MAX extension to Hillsboro. It was ultimately deferred for cost-saving reasons at the time. Today, the MAX light rail at- grade crossing at 185th Avenue is the busiest at-grade crossing in Washington County in terms of vehicle volume on 185th Avenue. In addition to the MAX Blue Line that serves Hillsboro today, TriMet is planning to extend MAX Red Line to Hillsboro to improve frequency in the future. This planned increase in MAX frequency, in addition to the projected increase in vehicle traffic on 185th Avenue from about 35,000 ADT today to 46,000 ADT in 2040, prompted Hillsboro staff to revisit the grade-separation idea in 2018. With support from TriMet, Washington County, and Metro, this project is included in this TSP and will be included in upcoming regional funding measures.
Page 27
5.2 (30)
Page 40 of 142 - Hillsboro Transit Center update – The Hillsboro Transit Center (Hillsboro TC) at Washington Street between 3rd and 4th Street currently has an outdated transit center design, a one-way routing configuration for buses, and disconnected access for pedestrians and bicycles. An update for this transit center has been identified to change the bus circulation which will lead to improved service time; provide better pedestrian and bicycle access through the transit center; and improve the bus stop amenities. - Sunset Highway Express Bus – Improve transit service to the north Hillsboro employment cluster via the concept of a limited-stop, express bus on Sunset Highway that will connect downtown Portland to North Hillsboro Industrial Area, and potentially continue on to downtown Hillsboro and Cornelius and Forest Grove. Possible components of the express bus concept include bus travel on US 26 shoulders”, new park-and-ride lots at select locations along the route, and utilizing the planned Council Creek Regional Trail as the alignment to connect to Cornelius and Forest Grove.
Page 28
5.2 (31)
Page 41 of 142 Figure 4.11 Existing Transit Service Walksheds
Page 29
5.2 (32)
Page 42 of 142 4.9 Pedestrian Plan Needs Assessment
The pedestrian system in Hillsboro includes sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and neighborhood paths (accessways). The focus of the TSP Pedestrian Plan is to complete missing sidewalks and improve pedestrian crossing safety. Neighborhood pathways are addressed in the Local Street Connectivity section of the Roads System Plan in Chapter 5. Trails are addressed in the City of Hillsboro’s Trails Master Plan. Figure 4.12 presents the inventory of existing and missing public sidewalks within the City.
As of 2020, there were 95 miles of missing sidewalks along public streets within the city. This includes all roadways regardless of roadway jurisdictions and accounts for each side of a street separately. Roadway functional classification serves as a good proxy for motor vehicle speed and traffic volume, which are key factors that greatly impact the safety and comfort of pedestrians. Of the 95 miles of missing sidewalks, 12.1 miles are on arterials, 24 miles on collectors, 5.6 miles on neighborhood routes, and 53.3 miles on local streets. These totals do not include sidewalks that are absent consistent with adopted policy, such as along the south side of TV Highway between signalized cross- streets and pedestrian stops, and on rural edges of UGB boundary roadways. {Note: miles of missing local street needs to be reduced to reflect Old Orenco local streets not planned to have sidewalks}
Missing sidewalks on arterials, collectors, and neighborhood routes form the candidate list of capital projects for the City’s future Bicycle/Pedestrian Capital Improvement Program (BPCIP) and the regional Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP). The approximately 53 miles of missing sidewalks on roads classified as local streets are grouped together as one programmatic item in the project list under “Local Streets Sidewalk Infill”. Additional information on the prioritization strategy for BPCIP and MSTIP is provided in chapter 6.
Page 30
5.2 (33)
Page 43 of 142 Figure 4.12 Sidewalk System Gaps
Page 31
5.2 (34)
Page 44 of 142 4.10 – Bicycle Plan Needs Assessment
Bicycle facilities planning in Hillsboro has evolved significantly in the last several decades. The first striped, on-road bike lanes appeared in the 1980s on select segments of TV Highway, Cornell Road, and Evergreen Road. Since then, the network of dedicated bicycle facilities has grown to about 140 miles by 2020.
In recent years, the focus in bicycle facilities planning has been in providing more separation for increased safety and comfort for cyclists, as well as making bicycle facilities more attractive for families and less aggressive cyclists. Newer treatments such as buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks, and multi-use paths have become preferred over the 5-foot bike lane that was the standard during the early days of bike facilities planning. As such, the exercise to update the bicycle facilities plan calculated a level of stress for bicycle riders to determine needs and opportunities for these new treatments.
Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists Using a qualitative methodology known as bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), originally developed by Mineta Transportation Institute of San Jose State University, inputs such as speed, traffic volume, surrounding land use, and separation from motor vehicles were combined to determine the level of stress for bicyclists. LTS analysis is a data- based approach to evaluating the level of stress experienced by people bicycling. A rule of thumb from the LTS methodology is that on roads with speeds 35 mph or above, a physically-separated facility such as cycle track or multi-use path is necessary for a low- stress experience acceptable to a broader user base.
In the standard LTS methodology, road segments are rated from LTS 1 which is most comfortable for bicyclists to LTS 4 which is most stressful for bicyclists. Hillsboro’s LTS analysis made one modification to the standard methodology by adding a fifth tier—LTS 5—to represent the most stressful environment which is roads with speed limit above 35 and no dedicated bicycle facilities. In turn, LTS 4 was used for high speed, high volume roads with buffered bike lanes, which is currently a common treatment found on arterials in the City. A detailed Level of Traffic Stress methodology and a definition of each level of stress category is included in Appendix X.
The existing bicycle network was analyzed based on this LTS methodology and is presented in Figure 4.13. Segments considered low stress are depicted as LTS 1 and LTS 2, in addition to local streets.
The planned bicycle facilities are summarized in Chapter 5.xx – Bicycle Plan.
Page 32
5.2 (35)
Page 45 of 142 Figure 4.13 Level of Traffic Stress Determination {Update this Map}
Page 33
5.2 (36)
Page 46 of 142
CHAPTER 5 – Transportation System Plans
5.2 (37)
Page 47 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO MODAL AND SYSTEM PLANS Chapter 5 presents the system modal plans that make up the regulatory elements of the transportation system plan for the 2020-2040 planning horizon. These plans together help create a safe, efficient, and complete multi-modal transportation system in order to meet the needs of our growing community in Hillsboro. By adoption into the TSP, these modal plans guide the requirements placed upon adjacent development as well as guide the City’s investments in infrastructure through their multi-year Capital Improvement Programs. They also establish the needs for the arterial and collector system, referred to within the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as the federally recognized “regional” system. These facilities will be included into the Metro Regional Transportation Plan as required under federal law for assessment of regional air quality conformity, as well as to maintain eligibility for potential federal and State funding opportunities.
As required by the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0020), the 2040 plans include elements addressing people driving, riding transit, bicycling, walking, and moving freight, as well as air, rail, and pipeline system plans. Future system needs and improvements are identified at the network, intersection, and neighborhood levels. Together, these plans will contribute to a connected transportation system with convenient and efficient mobility options for all users as the City grows both within its current boundaries, as well as expands into the Urban Growth Boundaries and prepares for future expansion into Urban Reserve areas.
In addition to the modal plans, Chapter 5 addresses system plans related to transportation including recognizing the City’s transportation safety action plan, its communications plan, its policies regarding parking within the public right of way, and its trails system plan.
The organization of this chapter is as follows. Accompanying maps and figures are included in each section, where applicable.
1. Introduction 2. Road Master Plan A. Functional Classification B. Number of Lanes and Right-of-Way C. Neighborhood Connectivity D. Road Jurisdiction E. Design Standards and Legacy Streets (Complete Streets) F. Special Districts and Locally Preferred Alternatives G. Access Management
Page 2
5.2 (38)
Page 48 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
3. Intersections Improvement Plan 4. Bicycle Facilities Plan 5. Pedestrian Plan 6. Transit Plan 7. Freight Plan 8. Safety Plan 9. Communications Plan 10. Parking Plan 11. Air, Rail, and Pipeline Plan 12. Trails Plan
Page 3
5.2 (39)
Page 49 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.2 Road Master Plans
5.2.A - Functional Classification The City’s functional classification system consists of the following six designations: Freeways provide the highest level of mobility with the most restricted access. These facilities typically have regional and statewide significance in the movement of people and goods. They are often characterized by limited access points and high travel speeds. US 26, an ODOT facility, is the only freeway inside the Hillsboro city limits. Arterials connect major residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Arterials are optimally spaced about one mile apart. Arterials prioritize throughput mobility over access; therefore, the number of driveways and side-street approaches are usually limited on arterials to collector roadways, other arterials, and high-volume driveways such as major industrial campuses approved through an adopted plan. Collectors provide both access and mobility. Collectors help connect and distribute trips from arterials to and from neighborhoods and local roads. Collectors are ideally spaced ½ mile apart. Neighborhood Routes provide connection from local streets to collectors or arterials. This classification was previously identified as a Minor Collector or combined with Local Streets in other functional classification systems. Local Roads have the primary function of providing access to the adjacent land. They are designed to discourage through traffic and promote slower travel speeds. {Note: Maps are missing a map that differentiates Residential from Commercial/Industrial Local Roadways}
In this TSP update, collectors, neighborhood routes, and local roads are further sub-classified into ‘residential’ or ’commercial & industrial’ type to be consistent with the roadway cross-section standards in the City’s Design and Construction Standards. Commercial & Industrial collectors, neighborhood routes, and local roads have design standards that call for wider and stronger pavement than residential designations to accommodate the larger and heavier vehicles that use these commercial and industrial roads. Additionally, all collector (and arterial) roadways are structurally designed to accommodate future public transit bus service. This is a context-sensitive design element that was added to the city’s Design and Construction Standards in 2018.
It should be noted that there is a separate federal functional classification system which is used primarily for determining federal transportation funding aid qualification. The federal functional classification is not the same as the Hillsboro functional classification plan. The federal functional classification map can be accessed from the Oregon Department of Transportation website. The Hillsboro functional classification plan is the regulatory plan for Hillsboro land use processes.
Page 4
5.2 (40)
Page 50 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
The functional classification system for the Hillsboro street network is illustrated in Figure 5.1.
{Note edits required to Figure 5.1: Main Street should continue to be ‘Commercial & Industrial’ at Connell to avoid disconnection. Blanton should continue to be ‘Commercial & Industrial’ at the eastern Neighborhood Route to avoid disconnection. All of Stucki south of Cornell Road should be ‘Commercial & Industrial.’ The current TSP shows this segment of Stucki as an arterial instead of collector. The road that connects Walker and Stucki should be ‘Commercial & Industrial.’ All of Walker Road should be ‘Commercial & Industrial.’ Edgeway north of Holly Street should be ‘Commercial & Industrial.’}
Page 5
5.2 (41)
Page 51 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.1 Functional Classification
Page 6
5.2 (42)
Page 52 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.2.B Number of Lanes and Right of Way
The number of vehicle lanes and additional right-of-way (ROW) planned for 2040 are shown in the Future Motor Vehicle Number of Lanes and Right-of-Way Plan in Figure 5.2. The planned number of vehicle lanes shown in the figure includes the total number of through lanes plus median or center turn lanes. Generally in this TSP, even number of lanes indicate the same number of through lanes in each direction; odd number of lanes indicate an equal number of through lanes plus a median or center turn lane. There are exceptions to this where the number of through lanes may be different in each direction and also in one-way streets where the number of lanes indicate through lanes in the same direction.
Right-of-way preservation is identified in this plan where additional vehicle travel lanes may be necessary beyond what is identified to meet the needs of buildout of the Urban Growth Boundary. The identification of additional right-of-way preservation took into consideration possible urbanization and development of areas beyond the UGB that are currently classified as Urban Reserves as well as additional land previously identified prior to House Bill 4078 as necessary to accommodate a 50 year inventory of industrial land. The right-of-way preservation in these locations shall be achieved through building setbacks or voluntary right-of-way dedications to prevent buildings, storm water facilities, and code-required parking spaces and driveway circulation aisles from being constructed in the area that may be needed for future road widening..
The following roadways have been identified for additional right-of-way (ROW) preservation for growth beyond the Urban Growth Boundary buildout, or for dedication to secure public right of way for potential needed additional lanes necessary to accommodate Urban Growth Boundary buildout:
NE Meek Road – ROW Preservation for 5-lanes between the western city limits and the Waibel Creek tributary located east of NE Starr Boulevard may be needed to accommodate a future NE Meek Road over-crossing of US 26 that would relieve future traffic congestion at the Brookwood Parkway interchange with US 26.
NE Huffman Street – ROW Preservation for 5-lanes between NE Jackson School Road and NE Starr Boulevard that transitions to 7-lanes between Starr Boulevard and Brookwood Parkway may be needed to accommodate the land west of NE Jackson School Road, if that land is converted from Rural Reserve to Urban Reserve.
NE Century Boulevard – ROW Preservation for 5-lanes between NE Jacobson Street and NE Cornell Road to provide traffic capacity anticipating changing travel patterns once a grade-separated overcrossing or braided ramp interchange is constructed on NE Century Boulevard at US 26.
Page 7
5.2 (43)
Page 53 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
SE Cornelius Pass Road – ROW Dedication for 7-lanes between OR 8 and 500 feet south of SE Blanton Street to provide traffic capacity and/or a grade-separated interchange on SE Cornelius Pass Road at OR 8. Right of Way has been established north of SE Blanton Street to accommodate potential future lane in each direction.
NE Walker Road – ROW Dedication for 7-lanes between NE Stucki Avenue and 185th Avenue are needed if the Wilkins Street extension, or an equivalent connected public roadway system, does not connect NE Amberglen Parkway with NW 185th Avenue.
SE Brookwood Avenue – ROW Preservation for 5-lanes between SE Alexander Street and E. Main Street is anticipated to be needed to accommodate development of the South Hillsboro Urban Reserves area.
NE West Union Road – ROW Preservation for 5-lanes between Century Boulevard and Helvetia Road may be needed to accommodate future industrial growth in the areas located west of NE Jackson School Road in the event the area is added into the future Urban Reserve area or Urban Growth Boundary, and anticipating a future NE Meek Road overcrossing of US26.
NE Helvetia Road – ROW Preservation for 5-lanes between NE West Union Road and US 26 may be needed to accommodate future industrial growth including expansion of future industrial growth in the reas located west of NE Jackson School Road in the event the area is added into the future Urban Reserve area or the Urban Growth Boundary, and anticipating a future NE Meek Road overcrossing of US26.
The future motor vehicle number of lanes and right-of-way plan is illustrated in Figure 5.2.
{Notes to be addressed in Figure 5.2:
- OR219 between Walnut and Railroad Line should be 3-lanes. - The highlight on the Century over-crossing of US26 should be stronger for the +2 Lanes ROW Preservation and should extend south to Cornell Road. - Meek Road west of 30th Avenue should be 3-lanes. - Walker Road between Amberglen and 185th should be highlighted for +2 Lanes ROW dedication. - Should one-way streets be noted? - Legend needs to include red dot roadways slated for removal from the map (down classing to Local) - Consider removing roadway improvements shown in Witch Hazel Village South until after UGB addition is legally accepted, Comp Plan is amended, and then TSP amended to add roadways. }
Page 8
5.2 (44)
Page 54 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.2 Future Number of Lanes and Right-of-Way
Page 9
5.2 (45)
Page 55 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.2.C Local Roads and Neighborhood Connectivity The Local Roads and Neighborhood Connectivity Plan identifies future local street connections and pedestrian/bicycle pathways and accessways. These are often small, local connections that do not constitute full public streets but would be placed on public right of way or public easements. They may be in the form of a non-motorized vehicle accessway, paved or non-paved pathways, or alleys connecting two local streets.
Recommended future local road connections and pedestrian pathway connections are summarized in Figure 5.3 and shown in modal detail maps in Figures 5.3a to 5.3h. Arrows in the figures represent potential location and general direction of the connections. In each case, the specific alignments and design will be determined during the actual design and review process which would be undertaken in conjunction with extensive neighborhood public outreach.
The locations shown in the Connectivity Plan indicate priority connections only. Additional future connections may be identified, if deemed to be feasible and beneficial to network connectivity. These may be determined as re-development of existing parcels occurs.
The local connections and pathways may be constructed or required as part of future capital improvement or land redevelopment projects. To minimize impacts to existing neighborhoods from potential traffic volume increases resulting from extension of current stubbed streets, it may be appropriate to incorporate additional neighborhood traffic calming features into the design and construction of future local connections. These may be in addition to local street standards which already utilize narrowed lanes, curb extensions at intersections, on-street parking, and other passive traffic calming features.
New public streets such as arterial, collector, or neighborhood routes are identified in the Functional Classification Plan section 5.1.A and are not addressed in this section.
Page 10
5.2 (46)
Page 56 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3 Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan
Page 11
5.2 (47)
Page 57 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3a Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 1)
Page 12
5.2 (48)
Page 58 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3b Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 2)
Page 13
5.2 (49)
Page 59 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3c Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 3)
Page 14
5.2 (50)
Page 60 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Page 15
5.2 (51)
Page 61 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3d Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 4)
Page 16
5.2 (52)
Page 62 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3e Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 5)
Page 17
5.2 (53)
Page 63 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3f Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 6)
Page 18
5.2 (54)
Page 64 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3g Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 7)
Page 19
5.2 (55)
Page 65 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.3h Local Road and Neighborhood Connecitivity Plan (Map 8)
Page 20
5.2 (56)
Page 66 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.2.D - Roadway Jurisdiction The City of Hillsboro, Washington County, and State of Oregon each have jurisdiction over different public roads in Hillsboro. The State of Oregon has jurisdiction over Sunset Highway (US 26), Tualatin Valley Highway (Hwy 8), and OR 219; Washington County over most arterials; and the City of Hillsboro over most collectors and all neighborhood routes and local streets. In addition to public roads, there are a number of private streets in the city on private properties.
The agency with jurisdiction over a particular roadway has the ultimate authority and responsibility in decision-making and implementation in the planning, improvement, design standards, and maintenance of the roadway; however, when design standards are in conflict, the more stringent of the two governs. This typically leads to the City’s requirements for bicycle, landscape, and sidewalk infrastructure standards being applied together with the County vehicle travel lane requirements for width, vertical design, and material design including design life. The City of Hillsboro often partners and coordinates with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Washington County on future roadway needs and improvements.
There are currently two roads— NE Quatama Street and the westernmost portion of NE Jacobson Road that are slated for future jurisdictional transfer from ODOT and Washington County to the City. NW Cornelius Pass Road between US 26 and Highway 30 in Multnomah County is planned for future jurisdictional transfer from Washington County to ODOT.
Roadway jurisdictions are illustrated in Figure 5.4.
Page 21
5.2 (57)
Page 67 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.4 Road Jurisdiction
Page 22
5.2 (58)
Page 68 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.1.E - Design Standards & Legacy Streets Design Standards
Typical roadway design standards and typical cross-sections are found in the City’s Design and Construction Standards. These roadway cross-section design standards were developed to meet the function and demand for each functional classification type identified in the TSP and apply to new roads and road reconstruction. Unlike in past TSPs, design standards have been removed from this TSP document and are found exclusively in the Design and Construction Standards. As design standards are updated periodically, this reduces the possibility for confusion from having different versions of standards in different adopted city documents.
Hillsboro roadway design standards are consistent with the Metro Livable Streets/Complete Streets guidelines. The City’s Design and Construction Standards, Section 200 outlines the roadway design standards. Standards contained in the Hillsboro Design and Construction Standards may be superseded by standards for Plan Districts in the Community Development Code (Hillsboro Municipal Code, Chapter 12). {Note: Should reference a map that depicts the special Plan Districts which supercede the Design and Construction Standards}
Streets that are classified as ‘residential local roads’ that connect to an arterial or collector with an average daily traffic volume of 5,000 or more vehicles should have the right-of-way width established as a ‘residential local road with parking on both sides’ as listed in the City’s Design and Construction Standards unless a Community Development Code Special District requirement supersedes. This guideline should be applied minimally 320-feet from the approach stop bar of the existing or expected local road where the local road connects with the arterial or collector. Planned unit developments, subdivisions, or development review applications for properties located on an existing or planned residential local road that meet the guidelines in the prior two sentences shall have the following conditions of approval:
- The applicant shall dedicate the half-street right of way from the local road centerline to match the width classified as a ‘residential local road with parking on both sides’ as defined in the city’s Design and Construction Standards; - The applicant shall design and construct the frontage half-street improvements to the local road standards with the curb located to allow future parking on both sides; - The applicant and/or future property owners shall record a non-remonstrance against the removal of the on-street parking when a traffic analysis determines a left-turn lane is needed on the local road approach to the arterial or collector; and - The applicant shall not place on-street parking within 20-feet of an intersecting public street in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 811.550(17).
Page 23
5.2 (59)
Page 69 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Discuss policy on potential inclusion of a section regarding Legacy Streets. Legacy Streets Language modeled on City of Medford.
Legacy Streets are existing improved (with curb and gutter) higher order streets such as arterials and collectors that do not meet the current cross section width standards, existing higher order streets that are mostly improved but have unimproved segments, or existing higher order streets that are predominantly surrounded by developed properties on both sides. Legacy streets generally fall into one or more of seven categories:
1. Facilities exist for all travel modes, but lanes are narrower than the current standard 2. Missing vehicle lanes 3. Missing center-turn-lanes 4. Missing planter strip and/or sidewalk 5. Missing bike facilities 6. Streets that are mostly improved to an old standard but have unimproved segments (gaps) 7. Existing streets that are predominantly surrounded by developed properties on both sides Street design standards
Legacy streets will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in the development application or capital improvement process.
As development happens on Legacy Streets, deviations from standard cross-section widths will allow improvement while reducing impacts to developed properties. The following are possible updates to the Hillsboro Community Development Code to address the issue of legacy streets.
1. If existing facilities for all modes of travel exist on an improved street but are narrower than the current standard; then no street improvements or right-of-way dedication will be required by development. Sidewalk reconstruction and right-of-way dedication will be required if additional width is needed to meet ADA requirements along the frontage of the development. 2. If the street is improved but is missing auto travel lanes, then right-of-way dedication sufficient to accommodate missing lanes will be required at time of development. No physical improvements of less than a full block length will be required, unless one of the other categories also applies. 3. If the street is improved but is missing the center-turn-lane, then right-of-way dedication sufficient to accommodate turn lanes will be required at time of development for properties within 200 feet of an intersection with a collector or arterial. If the property is greater than 200 feet from
Page 24
5.2 (60)
Page 70 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
a collector or arterial intersection, no right-of-way will be required. No physical improvements, unless one of the other categories also applies. 4. If the street is improved but is missing planter strip or sidewalk, then sidewalk construction will be required by development. The City Engineer will be authorized to reduce the planter strip width to fit the area context and surrounding roadways. Right-of-way dedication shall be reduced to the back of sidewalk. 5. If the street is improved but is missing bike facilities, then seek alternatives in the priority listed below. Right-of-way dedication shall be reduced in accordance with the location of the back of sidewalk: - Seek alternate routes via local streets or off-street paths - Evaluate lane reconfigurations where alternate routes are not available. - Provide, and require by development, 14 foot wide sidewalks to serve as multi-use paths where alternate routes and lane reconfigurations are not feasible. Width may be reduced to 10 foot minimum where there are existing structures or utility infrastructure. 6. If the street is mostly improved, then the unimproved sections (gaps) will be built to match the abutting cross section. Right-of-way dedication shall be reduced in accordance with the location of the back of sidewalk. 7. If the existing street is predominantly surrounded by developed properties on both sides, then cross-sectional elements may be reduced in width or eliminated at the City Engineer’s discretion in the priority order listed below: - Planter strip width reduction - Planter strip elimination - Parking lane elimination - Center turn lane elimination (except at higher-order intersections) - Lane narrowing - Bike Lane narrowing or elimination - Center turn lane elimination at higher-order intersections
Page 25
5.2 (61)
Page 71 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.2.F Access Management Access management is the process used to plan and manage the number of driveways and intersections along a roadway. Intersections and driveways create conflict points which can lead to increased safety issues and decreased mobility. Access management is the strategy to help maintain traffic flow and improve safety by managing the number of access and conflict points along roadways. This is particularly important on higher classification roadways such as arterials and collectors which generally carry more vehicles and at higher speeds.
For roadways within the City under ODOT and Washington County jurisdiction, the City will coordinate with ODOT and Washington County to apply access spacing standards through the land use process. ODOT access spacing standards can be found in Oregon Administrative Rule 734-051 and the Washington County access spacing standards can be found in the Washington County Community Development Code, Section 801-8.5. The access spacing standards governing driveway locations on City roadways can be found in the City’s Design and Construction Standards, Section 230.6.
Figure 5.XX (Exhibit 18 to be re-labeled) illustrates an example of the potential application of access consolidation over time to achieve access management objectives. As illustrated in the exhibit, by applying joint and crossover easement access management strategy, driveways that do not meet minimum access spacing standards can eventually be brought into compliance as development and redevelopment occur along a given street. An example where such a strategy may be applied is along TV Highway where existing driveways could be consolidated over time as redevelopment occurs.
Page 26
5.2 (62)
Page 72 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Page 27
5.2 (63)
Page 73 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.2.G - Plan Districts & Locally Preferred Alternatives Plan Districts and Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) have standards and requirements that override those in the TSP and the Design and Construction Standards. For the Plan Districts and LPAs outlined in this section, consult their specific adopted standards along with the TSP.
Plan District
A Plan District is a geographic area for which special zoning regulations have been created, either through adoption of a community plan in the Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan or by previously adopted provisions in the Community Development Code. .
The following Plan Districts are adopted in the Hillsboro Community Development Code (CDC):
- Downtown: Street and alley standards, parking standards. (CDC Subchapter 12.61) - Orenco Plan District: Street and alley standards, sidewalk standards. (CDC Subchapter 12.62) - Hawthorn Farm/Fair Complex: Sidewalk standards, parking standards. (CDC Subchapter 12.63) - AmberGlen: Street standards, connectivity, parking, pedestrian and bicycle. (CDC Subchapter 12.64) - South Hillsboro: Street standards, circulation and connectivity, parking, pedestrian and bicycle transit, transportation studies. (CDC Subchapter 12.65) - North Hillsboro Industrial Area: Street and access standards, connectivity, parking, pedestrian and bicycle transit. (CDC Subchapter 12.66)
Witch Hazel Village South Community Plan has not been adopted into the City’s Community Development Code (CDC) at the time of this TSP adoption. Design standards in this area should be coordinated among City staff and in the case of SE Brookwood Avenue, with Washington County staff until such time as jurisdictional transfer has occurred.
Station Community Area
Station Community Area, or SCA, in the city’s Community Development Code, provides opportunities to create new mixed-use neighborhoods containing a variety of housing types, neighborhood commercial and employment opportunities, designed for both pedestrian-sensitivity and auto- accommodation. SCAs generally fall within a quarter-mile of a light-rail station. Plan Districts’ requirements in the city’s Community Development Code override Station Community Areas requirements.
Page 28
5.2 (64)
Page 74 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Roadways along Urban Growth Boundary
The City typically utilizes the monumented centerline of an existing roadway when requesting right- of-way dedications and half-street improvements. The City has certain roadways that reside along the Urban Growth Boundary where the centerline cannot be used since road widening is generally prohibited outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Instead, the right-of-way dedication and widening of these roadways will need to expand into the city limits away from the Urban Growth Boundary. These roadways include NE Evergreen Road (between NE Jackson School Road and NW Glencoe Road), NE West Union Road (between NW Cornelius Pass Road and NE Helvetia Road), NE Helvetia Road (between West Union Road and US26), SE 229th Avenue (south of SE McInnis Lane, SE Rosedale Road (SE 229th Avenue east to the southern extension of the Urban Growth Boundary beyond SE Rosedale Road, and on SE Farmington Road (SE 209th Avenue to the western Urban Growth Boundary limit..
Roadways along Railroad
The City has only one roadway that resides along a railroad line, OR 8. Right-of-way dedications and widening of this roadway need to happen on the north side of the roadway away from the railroad right-of-way instead of following the OR 8 surveyed and monumented centerline.
Locally Preferred Alternative
A Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is established when it is deemed necessary to establish the alignment, both horizontally and vertically, of a new or improving roadway or transit corridor. It is the result of an Alternatives Analysis process. An Alternatives Analysis is the process to analyze and select the preferred option out of several alternatives based on a set of decision factors. The LPA process blends civil and transportation engineering to establish viable alignment alternatives, considering design objectives and the inherent challenges to the context of individual projects. Public testimony is received and Alternative Analysis results are shared before the City Council’s Transportation Committee where a final decision on alignment is made and adopted by Resolution. (or Ordinance?). The adopted LPA allows the City to require necessary right of way dedications and construction of adjacent improvements when adjoining properties are developed or re-developed.
Currently adopted LPAs in the city include the following:
- SE Cornelius Pass Road between TV Highway and SE Rosedale Road - SE Century Blvd between SE Davis Road and the future SE Kinnaman Road extension. - NE Walker Road between NE John Olson Road and NE 101st Avenue
Page 29
5.2 (65)
Page 75 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
There are several roadway corridors within the City that may lead to potential LPAs. They are:
- US 26/NE 185thAvenue Interchange Area - Oak Street/Baseline Street between Adams Avenue and 10th Avenue - 10th Avenue between Main Street and Maple Street - 30th Avenue between Evergreen Road and Brookwood Parkway - 25th Avenue between Jackson School Road and Beacon Court (Confirm location) - 25th Avenue between Sunrise Lane and 28th Avenue - Century Boulevard between Bennett Street and Jacobson Street - Cornell Road between Arrington Road and 10th Avenue - Cornell Road between 34th Avenue and 43rd Avenue
{Note: Add the following to Figure 5.5: Add CDC Figure 12.50.550-A to this Figure; and Include Table that specifies where to find design standards}
Page 30
5.2 (66)
Page 76 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.5 – Special Districts and LPA Map
Page 31
5.2 (67)
Page 77 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.3 INTERSECTIONS IMPROVEMENT PLAN Intersection-level improvements are identified in this section. In all, 138 intersections were evaluated based on the 2040 forecast traffic volumes. The Intersection Improvement Plan in Figure 5-6 illustrates the locations identified for future intersection improvements. Detailed information sheets for each intersection that include the existing counts, future forecast volumes, and recommended mitigation improvements are provided in Appendix X.
The Intersection Improvement Plan is a tool to supplement the Road Master Plan in identifying and protecting the necessary right-of–way surrounding intersections for future improvements. The intersection improvements identified in this section shall be used as a starting point for identifying where intersection improvements will be needed. Additional analysis should be conducted with any future improvement. Furthermore, additional intersection-level improvements may be identified in the future that are not included in this TSP. Improvements on Washington County jurisdictional roadways within 1,000 feet of an intersection are typically permitted without amending the TSP.
Remove inclusion of Jackson East and Witch Hazel Village South improvements in TSP
Page 32
5.2 (68)
Page 78 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Page 33
5.2 (69)
Page 79 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.4 Public Transit Plan The Public Transit Plan illustrates the planned service improvements described in TriMet’s Westside Service Enhancement Plan (WSEP), and transit service included in the Metro 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Figure 5.7 illustrates the existing and planned transit services in Hillsboro which resulted from the community outreach undertaken in support of this TSP. The planned services depicted in the figure include:
• New routes and extension of existing routes • Upgrade of service frequency on existing routes • Proposed high capacity transit (streetcar, express bus) • Light rail grade separation • Enhanced transit corridor for improving transit performance
The City’s long term vision for transit service includes serving major corridors connecting existing neighborhoods and new growth areas where transit improvements are not currently planned as part of the ongoing regional process. Transit service in these corridors are needed to create a complete network of transit routes to serve our community and for transit to be a viable and competitive alternative to personal motor vehicles.
The Transit Plan further identifies where additional investment is needed to provide a well- connected system that gives more Hillsboro residents and workers the option to travel by shuttle, bus, and rail. These are illustrated as “Transit Vision Corridors” in Figure 5.7 to promote future discussions. (Need updated graphic with vision corridors)
Page 34
5.2 (70)
Page 80 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.7 Public Transit Plan
Page 35
5.2 (71)
Page 81 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.5 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The Pedestrian Master Plan identifies the locations of planned sidewalks. These include sidewalks that will be part of new roadways and sidewalk infill on existing roadways. Sidewalks can be constructed in a number of ways: as standalone sidewalk projects through the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Capital Improvement Program (BPCIP), as part of new road construction or improvement projects, or as an improvement conditioned when a property is developed.
There are about 95 miles of missing sidewalks in 2020. Of these missing sidewalks, 12 miles are on arterials, 24 miles on collectors, 6 miles on neighborhood routes, and 53 miles on local streets. In addition, there are 43 miles of new sidewalks on planned arterials, collectors, and neighborhood routes.
(Add discussion on Mid-block crossings)
The Pedestrian Master Plan is illustrated in Figure 5.8.
Page 36
5.2 (72)
Page 82 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.8 Pedestrian Plan
Page 37
5.2 (73)
Page 83 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.6 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN The Bicycle Master Plan identifies the location and type of planned bicycle facilities. Over the years, bicycle facilities have evolved from standard bike lanes to buffered bike lanes and cycletracks. As such, there are now a mixture of many different bicycle facility types in the Hillsboro transportation network. The following bicycle facilities types are identified in the Bicycle Master Plan:
- Cycletracks: 7’ separated bike facility constructed behind curb; standard on arterials and collectors; this is the default bicycle facility on new arterials and collectors according to the Hillsboro Design and Construction Standards - Buffered bike lane: 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffer; standard on most county facilities; alternative to cycletracks when cycletracks are not feasible - Standard bike lanes: 5’-6’ bike lanes that were standard in prior design standards but are no longer applied except in constrained environments - Multi-use paths: shared pedestrian and bicycle paths - Neighborhood bikeways: Shared-use roadways on low speed, low volumes streets; designated with signage and pavement markings and may include traffic calming treatments; no dedicated space for bicycles. Neighborhood bikeways are identified as tier 1 and tier 2 in the Bicycle Master Plan; tier 1 indicates facilities that are near ready for signage and pavement markings; tier 2 represents routes that will require additional capital improvements such as protected or signalized crossings, new pathway connection or bridge structure in order for bikeway to be implemented
In addition to the above planned facility types, the Bicycle Plan identifies locations for future enhancements or retrofit to bicycle facilities. These enhancements may be additional physical protection or upgrades to a cycletrack. The exact treatment shall be determined at the time of implementation based on the standards and best practices at the time of implementation.
Bicycle facilities can be constructed through the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Capital Improvement Program (BPCIP), as part of new road construction or improvement projects, as frontage improvement conditioned on land use application, or as part of pavement maintenance program.
The Bicycle Master Plan is illustrated in Figure 5.9.
Page 38
5.2 (74)
Page 84 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.9 Bicycle Facilities Plan
Page 39
5.2 (75)
Page 85 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Page 40
5.2 (76)
Page 86 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.7 Freight Plan
The Freight Plan identifies the network within the City for the movement of heavy vehicles. Appropriate standards are applied to these roadways for lane width, driveway access spacing, curb returns, pavement strength, and other elements. The State, the County, and the City each have their own freight network designations which overlap on most major facilities.
The State of Oregon Freight System (from the Oregon Freight Plan): • Oversize and Overweight Freight Routes are designed and designated for use by the largest (14’ wide, or greater with a Single Trip Permit) and tallest (over-height) heavy haul loads. These unrestricted wide and high routes are the most heavily used in the State. • Standard Freight Routes are designed and designated for use by standard freight trucks up to 12’ and even 14’ wide (in certain cases), but are restricted for use by over-height and heavy haul loads.
The Washington County Freight System (from the Washington County Transportation System Plan) consist of: • Over-Dimensional Truck Routes are designed and designated for use by heavy duty vehicles that exceed statutory vehicle weight and size limits (e.g., large turn radii, mountable curbs or medians, placement of other roadway infrastructure and features). • Truck Routes that are designed and designated for use by heavy duty vehicles.
The City of Hillsboro’s freight network primarily consists of arterials and commercial & industrial collectors. These roads are designed for use by through freight traffic. Much of the arterial network in the City overlap with ODOT and Washington County’s freight systems. Primary external freight routes that support freight mobility needs within the City of Hillsboro are Sunset Highway, NW Cornelius Pass Road, Tualatin Valley Highway, OR219, SE River Road, and SE 209th Avenue. Figure 5.10 illustrates the freight network as designated by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, and the City of Hillsboro.
Page 41
5.2 (77)
Page 87 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.10 Freight Plan
Page 42
5.2 (78)
Page 88 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Page 43
5.2 (79)
Page 89 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.8 Air, Rail, Pipeline Plan
The TSP is required to consider the locations and needs of aviation, freight rail, and pipeline facilities when planning for the future roadway network. The City does not own or operate any of these facilities; instead they are owned and operated by other public and private agencies.
Air Hillsboro Airport (HIO) is a 963-acre airfield owned and operated by the Port of Portland. The airport’s three runways and accompanying facilities serve a range of aviation activities, including general aviation, training operations, corporate air shuttle service, and limited cargo service. Classified as a general reliever, Hillsboro Airport is intended to attract general aviation activity that may otherwise take place at more congested commercial service airports. Hillsboro Airport is Oregon’s second busiest airport, after Portland International Airport, with around 200,000 annual takeoffs and landings.
The 2018 Hillsboro Airport Master plan evaluates the airport’s capabilities and strategic role, as well as the potential for commercial service and expanded air cargo service out of Hillsboro. Based on analysis presented in the plan, the Port of Portland anticipates that Hillsboro Airport will remain a general aviation reliever that supports corporate business aviation, flight training, and recreational needs of the region through 2036.
The 2018 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan identified the need to realign segments of NE Cornell Road and NE 25th Avenue in order to meet current Federal Aviation Administration regulations and maintain existing runway length. These changes would move the road to avoid the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at both ends of Hillsboro Airport’s primary runway. These realignments are included in the proposed project list in Chapter VI.
Rail There are 11 miles of active railroads in Hillsboro, all of which are operated by Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR), a Salem-based short line railroad company. PNWR tracks in Hillsboro run parallel to TV Highway (OR-8) with branches extending west to Forest Grove, northwest to Banks, and southeast to Beaverton and Tigard. The overall PNWR railway system reaches locations such as Astoria and Portland, several cities and stations in the Tualatin and Willamette valleys, and eight interchange locations with other short line railroads. Train operations take place roughly three times a day (at varying hours) in Hillsboro, carrying a variety of materials and products to locations within and beyond the region.
Page 44
5.2 (80)
Page 90 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Pipeline Transport The major pipeline facilities running through Hillsboro are high-pressure natural gas feeder lines that are owned and operated by Northwest Natural Gas Company. The feeder lines serving Hillsboro originate at Sauvie Island. After passing through Hillsboro, the lines branch north to North Plains and west to Forest Grove.
Figure 5.11 identifies the locations of the air, rail, and pipeline facilities in Hillsboro.
Page 45
5.2 (81)
Page 91 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
Figure 5.11 Air, Rail, Pipeline Plan
Page 46
5.2 (82)
Page 92 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.9 Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management, or Travel Demand Management (both TDM), measures include any method intended to shift travel demand from single occupant vehicles to non-auto modes or carpooling, travel at less congested times of the day, or help people reduce their need to travel altogether. Given the significant motor vehicle capacity deficiencies under forecast conditions, an increase in transit, walk and bike mode shares is as essential to the future transportation system as adding roadway capacity. Further, effective TDM measures would help reduce the scope and scale of the deficiencies.
TDM is most effective when it is designed for the individual needs of a community. Example strategies may include: • Wayfinding and Traveler Information Stands • Incentivizing Carpools and Vanpools • Ride matching • Employer shuttles • Flexible work schedules • Telecommuting • Staggered work hours and/or shifts • Car sharing • Personal mobility devices (scooters, electric bikes, etc.) • Bike Parking and Wash Facilities
Large employers (100+ on payroll) in the State of Oregon are currently required by the state to develop TDM plans with strategies to reduce the number of cars driven to and from work. As an example of TDM strategies of a large employer, the City of Hillsboro, in recent years, has provided free annual transit passes for all employees; many City employees have the option to participate in compressed work weeks (nine-hour work days and then a day off every other week); and the City actively participates in events like the Bike Commute Challenge.
The Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA) is the main transportation management association (TMA) serving Washington County. The WTA assists employers in developing, implementing, and monitoring TDM programs to reduce commute trips by single occupancy vehicles. The City of Hillsboro is a long-time and active member of the WTA along with many neighboring jurisdictions and private employers in Washington County.
Page 47
5.2 (83)
Page 93 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
(The following is from Tigard TSP; should we include something similar?)
While many TDM strategies are most effectively implemented by employers, there are numerous strategies that cities can implement or support with other agencies. These include the provision of facilities (sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit amenities) and management of existing resources (parking). Another critical role that cities play is in the policies related to development activities. Through support, incentive, and mandate, cities can ensure that new development supports a balanced transportation system. Several broad TDM strategies are summarized in Table 5-2. The table also identifies typical implementation roles.
Page 48
5.2 (84)
Page 94 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.10 PARKING Public parking in the City of Hillsboro is generally limited to on-street parking on Neighborhood Routes and Local Streets though on-street parking may be permitted on Arterial and Collector roadways when additional public right of way is dedicated to accommodate the additional required width, and the City Engineer deems roadway speeds to be compatible with on-street parking maneuvers. In the event on-street parking is provided, intersection and approach driveways should utilize curb bulbouts to improve visibility for approaching sidestreet or driveway vehicles and to shorten crosswalks for pedestrian movements at public intersections and approved enhanced crossing locations. Provision of on-street parking is typically provided where it supports adjacent development, though on-street parking spaces are not allowed to be counted towards required on- site parking requirements established in the city’s Community Development Code.
Special Plan District requirements contained within the Community Development Code may mandate specific on-street parking requirements. These requirements supercede the parking requirements contained within the city Design and Construction Standards.
In areas identified for more urban development character, it will be necessary for the city to ensure an active role in managing public parking resources to ensure that they support community and neighborhood goals.
Page 49
5.2 (85)
Page 95 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.11 SAFETY PLAN (Add brief reference to City’s Transportation Safety Action Plan)
Page 50
5.2 (86)
Page 96 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.12 ITS/COMMUNICATIONS PLAN (Add brief reference to City’s Communications Plan)
Page 51
5.2 (87)
Page 97 of 142 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan
5.13 TRAILS (Add brief reference to City’s Parks and Trails Master Plan)
Page 52
5.2 (88)
Page 98 of 142 MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Monday, September 14, 2020 TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 p.m. LOCATION: Zoom virtual meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88586132347
Call-in (audio-only) option: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 885 8613 2347
1. Visitors Comments – If you are interested in providing verbal public (5 min) comment during the virtual meeting, please write to Sarah Lundin at [email protected] by 9 a.m. Monday, September 14. Submitting comments in writing is preferred; those submitted via email by 9 a.m. Monday, September 14 will be shared with the Committee, and will be described during the meeting.
2. Introductions/Roll Call (5 min)
3. Consideration of WCCC Meeting Summary for August 17, 2020 Action (5 min)
4. TDT Expenditure Request Action (5 min) Purpose: Consider a recommendation for a City of Tualatin TDT expenditure for construction of the Garden Corner Curves project Presenter: Erin Wardell, Washington County
5. HB 2001 & 2003 Rulemaking Updates Information (55 min) Purpose: Provide update on HB 2001 & 2003 rulemaking and seek input on the draft HB 2001 rules for large and Metro cities and the draft HB 2003 housing production strategy rules Presenter: Gordon Howard, DLCD Ethan Stuckmayer, DLCD More Info: DLCD HB 2001 webpage; DLCD HB 2003 webpage
* 6. MPAC Agenda Information (5 min) Presenter: Mayor Peter Truax, City of Forest Grove
Material included in packet 155 N First Avenue, Suite 250, MS 16 * Material will be distributed at the meeting Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 # Material available electronically and/or in advance of the meeting phone: 503-846-4530 6.1 (1) email: [email protected]
Page 99 of 142 Page 2 WCCC Agenda September 14, 2020
* 7. JPACT Agenda Information (5 min) Presenter: Mayor Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton
8. Other Business and Agency Updates Information (5 min)
Washington County Coordinating Committee UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE* 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM Monday, October 12 Monday, November 16 Monday, December 14
* Meetings may be held virtually (online) due to COVID-19. Check www.co.washington.or.us/wccc one week prior to the meeting date for meeting details.
6.1 (2)
Page 100 of 142
POLICY GROUP MEETING SUMMARY August 17, 2020
Voting Members in attendance
Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton Ken Gibs on, City of King City Frank Bubenik, City of Tualatin Pete Truax, City of Forest Grove Gery Schirado, City of Durham Roy Rogers, Washington County (WCCC Chair) Jason Snider, City of Tigard Steve Callaway, City of Hillsboro Jef Dalin, City of Cornelius Tim Knapp, City of Wilsonville Keith Mays, City of Sherwood
Non-Voting Members in attendance
Emerald Bogue, Port of Portland Juan Carlos Gonzalez, Metro Matt Freitag, ODOT
Other Attendees
Anne Buzzini, Metro Joe Younkins, Washington County Bob Galati, City of Sherwood Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Chris Deffebach, Washington County Kim McMillan, City of Tualatin Dan Dias, City of Hillsboro Lucinda Broussard, ODOT Dave Roth, City of Tigard Marc San Soucie, City of Beaverton Don Odermott, City of Hillsboro Mark Ottenad, City of Wilsonville Dyami Valentine, Washington County Mat Dolata, WSP Erin Wardell, Washington County Michael Nemeyer, Washington County Garet Prior, City of Tualatin Mike Mason, WSP Greg Robertson, City of Forest Grove Ruth Osuna, Washington County Heather Wills, WSP Sarah Lundin, Washington County Ilana Brown, ODOT Stephen Roberts, Washington County Jamie Stasny, Clackamas County (WCCC Secretary) Jeff Pazdalski, Westside Transportation Steve Kelley, Washington County Alliance Tony Lee, ODOT Jean Senechal Biggs, City of Beaverton Trent Wilson, Clackamas County Jessica Pelz, Washington County Victor Sin, Metro
Chair Rogers called the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
155 N First Avenue, Suite 250, MS 16 Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-4530 email: [email protected] 6.1 (3)
Page 101 of 142 Page 2 WCCC Meeting Summary August 17, 2020
1. Visitors Comments None 2. Introductions Commissioner Rogers acknowledged the members who had signed on to the virtual Zoom platform. 3. Consideration of WCCC Minutes for June 15, 2020 Motion made to approve the minutes as presented; motion seconded. Vote: With all present members voting in favor, the motion passed unanimously. 4. MSTIP Opportunity Fund Requests Erin Wardell described the requests from the cities of Hillsboro and Tigard and from Washington County for MSTIP Opportunity Fund for use as match for applications to Oregon Department of Transportation’s Competitive Construction Grant Program for the 2021-2022 funding cycle Safe Routes to School grant. The WCCC TAC recommended approval to the WCCC at its August 6 meeting.
In response to a question about implications on the MSTIP Opportunity Fund balance, Erin Wardell clarified that it is unlikely the full request for $939,000 for the matching funds would be awarded based on historic trends.
Motion was made to support the requests, motion seconded.
Vote: with all present members voting in favor, the motion passed unanimously. Following the vote, Mayor Callaway acknowledged the high value of this program by pointing out the information from the packet indicating that each dollar of MSTIP Opportunity Fund spent has leveraged six dollars of grant funds. 5. I-205 Tolling Program Update Chris Deffebach introduced the presenters for the Tolling Program Update—Lucinda Broussard, ODOT, and Heather Wills and Mat Dolata from WSP.
Commissioner Rogers pointed out that most of the WCCC members had heard the tolling presentation at other meetings and asked that the presentation focus on the highlights. Lucinda Broussard turned the presentation to Mat Dolata who described the tolling alternatives under consideration, initial results from the travel demand model showing increased and decreased traffic volumes on affected roadways with each alternative and the staff recommendations for two alternatives for further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act process.
The comment period on the recommendations is open until September 16, 2020. Mayors Knapp and Bubenik have been coordinating with Clackamas County and Clackamas County cities on the analysis and shared the group’s concerns for: • Forecasted increase in traffic diverted from I-205 due to tolling on roads in downtown Oregon City and other communities.
6.1 (4)
Page 102 of 142 Page 3 WCCC Meeting Summary August 17, 2020
• Additional traffic diversion due to the combined impact of tolling on I-5 and I-205, which has not been studied. • Lack of congruity of timelines for I-205 bridge expansion and tolling. • Speed of the tolling program process and the need to take more time for analysis. • Need for more time to develop a plan to address equity. This point was reiterated as a concern for diversion of traffic into lower income neighborhoods and increasing safety risks for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Where and how revenue generated from the tolls would be allocated. The mayors recommended distributing a letter signed by the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee to ODOT expressing these concerns and others, including a request to study a ‘no build’ alternative with I-205 widening and no tolls. (Note: LUT staff forwarded the letter to WCCC members after the meeting and posted it to the WCCC website). Lucinda Broussard confirmed that the Oregon Transportation Commission is receiving all letters submitted.
In response to a question about tolling examples elsewhere in the US where tolling all lanes is used for demand management, Lucinda Broussard pointed out that tolling of all lanes is common to generate revenue and tolling of one or two lanes is more common as a tool for demand management (such as HOV Toll or HOT lanes).
She reminded the group that ODOT has formed an Equity and Mobility Advisory Committee to develop a framework to consider equity for the tolling program. In response to a question about the share of through trips, for example from Vancouver Washington to Woodburn, Mat Dolata replied that the modeling team is working on that now and expects to have an estimate in the next month or two. 6. MPAC Agenda Mayor Truax Mayor Truax reported that the next meeting of MPAC is cancelled. MPAC is scheduled to meet again on Sept. 23, 2020. 7. JPACT Agenda Mayor Doyle Mayor Doyle reported that the Aug. 20, 2020 meeting of JPACT is cancelled and JPACT would meet again on Sept. 17, 2020.
8. Other Business and Agency Updates Commissioner Rogers shared a message from Mayor Lenahan who sent apologies for not being able to attend today’s meeting.
Several members commented on the wide recognition and support from all four counties for the letter from the Region 1 ACT to the Oregon Transportation Commission (included in the packet) to address funding shortfalls for state highways in the region.
6.1 (5)
Page 103 of 142 Page 4 WCCC Meeting Summary August 17, 2020
Chris Deffebach pointed out the overview of Metro’s Regional Framework for Jurisdictional Transfer Study in the packet. Bumped from the recent JPACT agenda, she highlighted the roads under consideration in Washington County and indicated that Metro and ODOT staff are scheduled to present the study findings to WCCC during the project’s public comment period in October 2020. Mayor Truax expressed concern over the high speed limit (55 mph) on Highway 47 south of TV Highway in Forest Grove.
Commissioner Rogers adjourned the meeting at 12:50 pm.
______Stephen Roberts, Secretary Washington County Coordinating Committee PG 08/17/2020
6.1 (6)
Page 104 of 142 LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM Planning and Development Services
To: Washington County Coordinating Committee From: Erin Wardell, Principal Planner Date: September 4, 2020 Subject: Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Expenditure Request
The City of Tualatin requests the following expenditure of TDT funds:
As described in the attached memo, the City of Tualatin requests approval for expenditure of $800,000 in TDT funds for the Garden Corner Curves project (TDT Project List #6002 – 105th/Blake/108th from Avery to Willow) for construction. This request represents approximately 25 percent of the cost, with the remaining portion paid with Tualatin Moving Forward transportation bond funding.
County staff confirmed that this project is eligible for TDT expenditure. The WCCC TAC recommended approval for the project at their September 3rd, 2020 meeting.
Attachments: Tualatin Expenditure Request Exhibit
Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning and Development Services 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 12, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-4530 •6.1 www.co.washington.or.us (7) /lut
Page 105 of 142
To: Washington County Coordinating Committee
From: Kim McMillan, City Engineer
Date: July 8, 2020
Subject: Transportation Development Tax Expenditure Request
The City of Tualatin requests Washington County Coordinating Committee approval to spend a total of approximately $800,000 in Transportation Development Tax funds for construction of the Garden Corner Curves project. This represents approximately 25% of the cost; the remaining will be paid with Tualatin Moving Forward transportation bond funding.
This is an eligible project on the approved Washington County TDT Project List, labeled as Project #6002 (105th/Blake/108th). This is the culmination of years of work in public engagement, design and planning which will increase safety and expand active transportation in this corridor.
Thank you for your consideration of this expenditure request.
Kim McMillan City Engineer City of Tualatin 503-691-3036 [email protected]
6.1 (8)
Page 106 of 142 Existing Wall to Connection to 5' Sidewalk Remain proposed Helenius Greenway
Large concrete Tri-County tree planters 108th Ave Industrial Park Raised Possible Crossing Possible Stormwater Stormwater Planter Facility Double-Yellow 108th Ave Striping 12" Maple Existing Wall to Potential Remain Impact
Right of Way Impacts Digital Speed 30" Douglas Fir Feedback Display Sign Cobbled Texture with striping to Potential Impact maintain pedestrian and bicycle Garden separation Corner Nursery 36" Douglas Fir 5' Sidewalk 28" Douglas Fir Potential Impact 24" Douglas Fir Potential Impact Pavement marking to Potential Impact Willow St separate pedestrian and 15" Douglas Fir 36" Douglas Fir bicycle traffic Likely Impact Potential Impact Driveway 108th Ave Corner Slopes Digital Speed Feedback Display Sign 24" Douglas Fir Likely Impact
Bicycle Crossing with RRFB
18" Douglas Fir Approximate Likely Impact Existing Roadway Limits Painted Transition To On-street Bike Lanes Blake St
Retaining Wall 12' Wide Shared Use Path 18" Maple Possible Removed Stormwater Facility Right of Way Impacts 105th Ave Intersection
Chain Link Fence
Landscape buffer Double-Yellow Legend Revised Corner Geometry Striping (Single Curve) Possible Culvert Stormwater Future Ibach Modifications Facility Park Connection (Alignment TBD) 105th Ave
Ibach Park Retaining Wall Existing Wetland Impacts Raised will Require Mitigation Ibach Park Crossing
SW Hedges Creek Paulina Dr
Moratoc Dr
GARDEN CORNER Estimated Project Cost: $3,577,000 CURVES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE http://www.gardencornercurves.org 08/08/2017 EAST SHARED USE PATH Page 107 of 142
6.1 (9) LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM Office of the Director
To: Washington County Coordinating Committee From: Stephen Roberts, Director Date: September 14, 2020 Subject: HB 2001 & 2003 Overview
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff have released the draft HB 2001 rules for large and Metro cities for public review and the draft HB 2003 housing production strategy rules for comment. DLCD staff will give an overview of the draft rules at the September 14, 2020 WCCC meeting. DLCD staff previously attended WCCC on January 13 and June 15 to update members on the rulemaking process. At the June 15 WCCC meeting members asked DLCD staff to return with an update once draft rules were released for comment. The proposed rules are attached.
Staff from Washington County and several of the cities within the county have been involved either on the primary rulemaking advisory committee or on one of the supporting technical advisory committees throughout the process.
Key Dates • August 31, 2020 – DLCD filed the draft HB 2001 rules along with the hearing notice for the upcoming September 24-25 Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) hearing • September 10, 2020 – DLCD staff report for the September 24-25 LCDC hearing released • September 25, 2020 – LCDC first hearing on the draft rules; provide written comments by September 21 for inclusion in the supplemental staff report • November 12-13, 2020 – LCDC final hearing and adoption of rules
The Commission previously adopted rules for medium cities (July 2020) and Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Request (IBTER) rules (August) and the Department has held nine rulemaking advisory committee meetings.
HB 2001 Summary HB 2001 is intended to reduce barriers to middle housing to encourage a more diverse mix of housing throughout cities and Metro areas, provide more affordable housing options, and provide homeowners with an opportunity to redevelop property. The diverse housing mix is also called “middle housing” and refers to a range of housing types in between single-family dwellings and larger multi-family buildings. Middle housing commonly includes duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters.
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 • phone: 503-846-3822 • fax: 503-846-3588 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected] 6.1 (10)
Page 108 of 142 Page 2 HB 2001 & 2003 Overview September 14, 2020
• HB 2001 requires large cities outside Metro, and counties and cities within Metro to:
o Allow a duplex on each lot or parcel within the UGB where detached single-family dwellings are allowed, and
o Allow triplex, quadplex, townhouse, and cottage clusters in areas within the UGB that allow detached single-family dwellings • Local jurisdictions may:
o Continue to allow detached single-family dwellings o Regulate siting and design of middle housing types; however, design standards may not be more restrictive than those applied to single-family structures and must be clear and objective
o Allow middle housing in additional locations beyond HB 2001 requirements • Local jurisdictions may not:
o Discourage the development of middle housing through unreasonable costs or delay • Minimum compliance standards would be adopted into the Oregon Administrative Rules, and a model code would be adopted by reference • The draft rules include sections on:
o Definitions o Siting standards o Design standards o Parking o Conversion of existing single-family dwellings o Alternative siting or design standards • The draft also includes a performance metric approach intended to give cities flexibility in how rules are applied, providing a “safe harbor” to meet the intent of the rules
HB 2003 Summary HB 2003 directs LCDC to adopt a schedule by which cities over 10,000 population will conduct housing capacity analyses (also known as a housing needs analysis). Cities over 10,000 population within a metropolitan service district boundary must complete their housing capacity analyses every 6 years. The bill also requires that each city over 10,000 population adopt a housing production strategy within a year
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 • phone: 503-846-3822 • fax: 503-846-3588 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected] 6.1 (11)
Page 109 of 142 Page 3 HB 2001 & 2003 Overview September 14, 2020 of the deadline of its housing capacity analysis. The housing production strategy must list specific actions the city will take to promote the development of all housing needs identified in the preceding housing capacity analysis—such as revising regulations, providing financial incentives, reducing regulatory impediments, and creating partnerships for housing development.
Key considerations in rulemaking included: • Amendments to several sections of OAR Division 8 (interpretation of Goal 10 Housing), summarized by the following bullets • Housing Capacity Analysis (OAR 660-008-0045). This analysis, more commonly known as the Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), reports on housing needs for various demographics and income levels. Cities within a metropolitan service district boundary must submit a housing capacity analysis every 6 years. HB 2003 states that the department cannot require new housing capacity analyses scheduled under this program to be completed until two years after the department adopts rules related to another part of HB 2003 – the Housing Production Strategy. The earliest housing capacity analyses scheduled pursuant to HB 2003 are in the year 2022. • Housing Production Strategy Report Structure (OAR 660-008-0050). Cities must develop a Housing Production Strategy Report in conjunction with their scheduled housing capacity analysis. A city must adopt the Housing Production Strategy within one year of the scheduled housing capacity analysis deadline. There are four major components proposed:
o Contextualization of Housing Need o Engagement o Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need o Achieving Fair and Equitable Outcomes • Review of HPS Report (OAR 660-008-0055). DLCD staff will review Housing Production Strategy reports, determine whether or not cities are making good-faith efforts to address housing needs of their communities, and determine whether these good-faith efforts are successful enough or if cities need to use other methods or techniques to achieve satisfaction of their housing needs. • Reporting on Housing Strategy Production Implementation (OAR 660-008-0060). Reporting requirements will take a two-pronged approach – a lighter, data-based annual report supplemented by a narrative and reflective report submitted to the department half-way through implementation. • Compliance (OAR 660-008-0065). DLCD has developed a compliance and enforcement methodology intended to support cities in obtaining more units on the ground. DLCD will only
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 • phone: 503-846-3822 • fax: 503-846-3588 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected] 6.1 (12)
Page 110 of 142 Page 4 HB 2001 & 2003 Overview September 14, 2020
suggest enforcement measures for cities that do not show good faith efforts to comply or are routinely delinquent in implementing their Housing Production Strategies. • Adoption and implementation (OAR 660-008-0070). This section describes a series of actions the Department of Land Conservation and Development may take to ensure that cities adopt and implement specific Housing Production Strategies.
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 • phone: 503-846-3822 • fax: 503-846-3588 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected] 6.1 (13)
Page 111 of 142
Division 46
Middle Housing 660-046-0000 Purpose The purpose of this division is to prescribe standards guiding the development of Middle Housing types as provided in Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 639. OAR 660-046-0010 to OAR 660-046-0235 establish standards related to the siting and design of Middle Housing types in urban growth boundaries. OAR 660-046-0300 to OAR 660-046- 0370 establish the form and substance of an application and review process to delay the enactment of standards related to the siting and design of Middle Housing types in areas with significant infrastructure capacity deficiencies.
660-046-0010 Applicability
1. A local government that is a Medium City or Large City must comply with this division. 2. Notwithstanding section (1), a local government need not comply with this division for: a. Lands that are not zoned for residential use, including but not limited to lands zoned primarily for commercial, industrial, agricultural, or public uses; b. Residentially zoned lands that do not allow for the development of a detached single-family home; or c. Lands that are not incorporated and that are zoned under an interim zoning designation that maintains the land’s potential for planned urban development. 3. Local governments may regulate Middle Housing to comply with protective measures (including plans, policies, and regulations) adopted and acknowledged pursuant to statewide land use planning goals. Where local governments have adopted, or shall adopt, regulations implementing the following statewide planning goals, the following provisions provide direction as to how those regulations shall be implemented in relation to Middle Housing, as required by OAR 660-046-0010. a. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic, and Historic Areas - Pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 23, local governments must adopt land use regulations to protect identified resources under Goal 5, including regulations to comply with protective measures (including plans, policies, and regulations) applicable to Middle Housing. A. Goal 5 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitat – Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0050 through 660-023-0115, local governments must adopt land use regulations to protect water quality, aquatic habitat, and the habitat of threatened, endangered and sensitive species. This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 5. Local governments may apply regulations to Middle Housing that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. B. Goal 5: Historic Resources – Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0200(7), local governments must adopt land use regulations to protect locally significant historic resources. This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures as it relates to the integrity of a historic resource or district. Protective measures shall be adopted and applied as provided in OAR 660-023-0200. Local governments may apply regulations to Middle Housing that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, except as provided below. If a local government has not adopted land use regulations to protect nationally significant historic resources, they must apply protective measures to Middle Housing as provided in OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a) until the local government adopts land use regulations in compliance with OAR 660-023-0200. Local governments may not apply the following types of regulations specific to Middle Housing:
6.1 (14)
Page 112 of 142
i. Use, density, and occupancy restrictions that prohibit the development of Middle Housing on historic properties or districts that otherwise permit the development of detached single-family dwellings; or ii. Standards that prohibit the development of Middle Housing on historic properties or districts that otherwise permit the development of detached single-family dwellings. b. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality – Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(6), all waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with such discharges from existing developments, shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules, and standards. Local governments may apply regulations to Middle Housing in a manner that complies with federal and state air, water and land quality requirements. c. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards – Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(7), local governments must adopt comprehensive plans (inventories, policies, and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards. Such protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 7 apply to Middle Housing, including, but not limited to, restrictions on use, density, and occupancy in the following areas: A. Special Flood Hazard Areas as identified on the applicable FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); and B. Other hazard areas identified in an adopted comprehensive plan or development code; provided the development of Middle Housing presents a greater risk to life or property than the development of detached single-family dwellings. Greater risk includes but is not limited to actions or effects such as: i. Increasing the number of people exposed to a hazard; ii. Increasing risk of damage to property, built, or natural infrastructure; and iii. Exacerbating the risk by altering the natural landscape, hydraulics, or hydrology. d. Goal 15: Willamette Greenway – Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0005, cities and counties must review intensifications, changes of use or developments to insure their compatibility with the Willamette River Greenway. Local governments may regulate Middle Housing to comply with Goal 15 protective measures that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. e. Goal 16: Estuarine Resources – Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0010(1) and OAR chapter 660, division 17, local governments must apply land use regulations that protect the estuarine ecosystem, including its natural biological productivity, habitat, diversity, unique features and water quality. Local governments may prohibit Middle Housing in areas regulated to protect estuarine resources under Goal 16. f. Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands – Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0010(2) and OAR 660-037-0080, local governments must apply land use regulations that protect shorelands for water-dependent recreational, commercial, and industrial uses. This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 17. Local governments may apply regulations to Middle Housing that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. g. Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes – Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0010(3), local governments must apply land use regulations to residential developments to mitigate hazards to life, public and private property, and the natural environment in areas identified as Beaches and Dunes. This includes regulations applicable to Middle Housing to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to Goal 18 including but not limited to restrictions on use, density, and occupancy; provided the development of Middle Housing presents a greater risk to life or property than development of detached single-family dwellings. Greater risk includes but is not limited to actions or effects such as: A. Increasing the number of people exposed to a hazard; B. Increasing risk of damage to property, built or natural infrastructure; and C. Exacerbating the risk by altering the natural landscape, hydraulics, or hydrology.
6.1 (15)
Page 113 of 142
4. For the purposes of assisting local jurisdictions in adopting reasonable siting and design standards for Middle Housing, the Commission adopts the following model Middle Housing Model Codes. The applicable Model Code adopted by reference in this section will be applied to Medium and Large Cities who have not acted to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.758 and this division and completely replaces and pre-empts any provisions of that local jurisdictions development code that conflict with the Model Code: a. The Medium City Model Code as provided in Exhibit A; and b. The Large City Model Code as provided in Exhibit B. 5. This division does not prohibit local governments from allowing: a. Single-family dwellings in areas zoned to allow for single-family dwellings; or b. Middle Housing in areas not required under this division.
660-046-0020 Definitions As used in this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015 and ORS 197.758 et seq apply, unless the context requires otherwise. In addition: 1. “A Local Government That Has Not Acted” means a local government that has not adopted acknowledged land use regulations that are in compliance with ORS 197.758 and this division. 2. “Cottage Cluster” means a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre, each with a footprint of less than 900 square feet. Units may be located on a single Lot or Parcel, or on individual Lots or Parcels that include a common courtyard. 3. “Department” means the Department of Land Conservation and Development. 4. “Detached single-family dwelling” means a detached structure on a Lot or Parcel that is comprised of a single dwelling unit, either site built or a manufactured dwelling. 5. “Duplex” means two attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel. A local government may define a Duplex to include two detached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel. 6. “Goal Protected Lands” means lands protected or designated pursuant to any one of the following statewide planning goals: a. Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; b. Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resource Quality: c. Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; d. Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; e. Goal 16 Estuarine Resources; f. Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; or g. Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes. 7. “Infrastructure Constrained Lands” means lands where it is not feasible to provide acceptable water, sewer, storm drainage, or transportation services to serve new Triplexes, Quadplexes, Townhouses, or Cottage Cluster development; where the local government is not able to correct the infrastructure limitation by utilizing the process outlined in OAR 660-046-0300 through OAR 660-046-0370 due to cost, jurisdictional, or other limitations; and which cannot be remedied by future development of Middle Housing on the subject Lot or Parcel. 8. “Large City” means each city with a certified Portland State University Population Research Center estimated population of 25,000 or more or city with a population over 1,000 within a metropolitan service district. This also includes unincorporated areas of counties within a metropolitan service district that are provided with urban services as defined in ORS 195.065. 9. “Lot or Parcel” means any legally created unit of land. 10. “Master Planned Community” means a site that is any one of the following: a. Greater than 20 acres in size within a Large City or adjacent to the Large City within the urban growth boundary that is zoned for or proposed to be zoned for residential development for which a Large City proposes to adopt a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan; b. Greater than 20 acres in size within a Large City or adjacent to the Large City within the urban growth boundary for which a Large City adopted a master plan or a plan that functions in the
6.1 (16)
Page 114 of 142
same manner as a master planafter the site was incorporated into the urban growth boundary; or c. Added to the Large City’s urban growth boundary after January 1, 2021 for which the Large City proposes to adopt a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan. 11. “Medium City” means each city with a certified Portland State University Population Research Center estimated population more than 10,000 and less than 25,000 and not within a metropolitan service district. 12. “Middle Housing” means Duplexes, Triplexes, Quadplexes, Cottage Clusters, and Townhouses. 13. “Model Code” means the applicable model code developed by the Department contained in OAR 660- 046-0010(4). 14. “Quadplex” means four attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel. A local government may define a Quadplex to include any configuration of four detached or attached dwelling units on one Lot or Parcel. 15. “Townhouse” means a dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached units, where each unit is located on an individual Lot or Parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adjacent unit. 16. “Triplex” means three attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel. A local government may define a Triplex to include any configuration of three detached or attached dwelling units on one Lot or Parcel. 17. “Zoned for residential use” means a zoning district in which residential dwellings are the primary use and which implements a residential comprehensive plan map designation.
660-046-0030 Implementation of Middle Housing Ordinances 1. Before a local government amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation to allow Middle Housing, the local government must submit the proposed change to the Department for review and comment pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 18. 2. In adopting or amending regulations or amending a comprehensive plan to allow Middle Housing, a local government must include findings demonstrating consideration, as part of the post-acknowledgement plan amendment process, of methods to increase the affordability of Middle Housing through ordinances or policies that include but are not limited to: a. Waiving or deferring system development charges; b. Adopting or amending criteria for property tax exemptions under ORS 307.515 to ORS 307.523, ORS 307.540 to ORS 307.548 or ORS 307.651 to ORS 307.687 or property tax freezes under ORS 308.450 to ORS 308.481; and c. Assessing a construction tax under ORS 320.192 and ORS 320.195. 3. When a local government amends its comprehensive plan or land use regulations to allow Middle Housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility.
660-046-0040 Compliance 1. A local government may adopt land use regulations or amend its comprehensive plan to comply with ORS 197.758 et seq and the provisions of this division. 2. A local government may request from the Department an extension of the time allowed to complete the action under subsection (1) pursuant to the applicable sections of OAR 660-046-0300 through OAR 660- 046-0370. 3. A Medium City which is A Local Government That Has Not Acted by June 30, 2021 or within one year of qualifying as a Medium City pursuant to OAR 660-046-0050 and has not received an extension under section (2), shall directly apply the applicable Model Code contained in OAR 660-046-0010(4) in its entirety to all proposed Middle Housing development applications until such time as the local government has adopted provisions under section (1). 4. A Large City which is A Local Government That Has Not Acted by June 30, 2022 or within two years of qualifying as a Large City pursuant to OAR 660-046-0050 and has not received an extension under section (2), shall directly apply the applicable Model Code contained in OAR 660-046-0010(4) for the specific Middle Housing type that is not in compliance with the relevant rules in this division to all proposed
6.1 (17)
Page 115 of 142
development applications for that specific Middle Housing type until such time as the local government has adopted provisions under section (1). 5. If a local government has adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan by the date provided under sections (3) and (4) and the city’s land use regulations or comprehensive plan changes are subsequently remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court solely on procedural grounds, the local government is deemed to have acted. Accordingly, the local government may continue to apply its own land use regulations and comprehensive plan as they existed prior to the adoption of land use regulations or comprehensive plan amendments that were the subject of procedural remand until the first of the two options: a. The local government has adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan in response to the remand; or b. 120 days after the date of the remand. If the local government has not adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan within 120 days of the date of the remand, the local government is deemed not to have acted under sections (3) and (4). 6. If a local government has adopted land use regulations or amended its comprehensive plan by the date provided under sections (3) and (4) and the local government’s land use regulations or comprehensive plan changes are subsequently remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court on any substantive grounds, the city is deemed to have not acted under sections (3) and (4). 7. If a local government acknowledged to be in compliance with this division subsequently amends its land use regulations or comprehensive plan, and those amendments are remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court, the city shall continue to apply its land use regulations and comprehensive plan as they existed prior to the amendments until the amendments are acknowledged. 8. Where a local government directly applies the Model Code in accordance with sections (3), (4) and (5), the Model Code completely replaces and pre-empts any provisions of that local government’s development code that conflict with the applicable sections of the Model Code.
660-046-0050 Eligible Local Governments 1. If a local government was not previously a Medium City and a certified Portland State University Population Research Center population estimate qualifies a it as a Medium City, the local government must comply with this division within one year of its qualification as a Medium City. 2. If a local government was not previously a Large City and a certified Portland State University Population Research Center population estimate qualifies a it as a Large City, the local government must comply with this division within two years of its qualification as a Large City.
660-046-0100 Purpose of Middle Housing in Medium Cities OAR 660-046-0105 through OAR 660-046-0130 are intended to measure compliance with ORS 197.758 et seq and Goal 10 Housing for Medium Cities.
660-046-0105 Applicability of Middle Housing in Medium Cities 1. A Medium City must allow for the development of a Duplex, including those Duplexes created through conversion of an existing detached single-family dwelling, on each Lot or Parcel zoned for residential use that allows for the development of detached single-family dwellings. 2. OAR 660-046-0105 through OAR 660-046-0130 do not require a Medium City to allow more than two dwellings units on a Lot or Parcel, including any accessory dwelling units.
660-046-0110 Provisions Applicable to Duplexes in Medium Cities 1. Medium Cities may regulate Duplexes to comply with protective measures, including plans, policies and regulations, as provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3). 2. Medium Cities may regulate siting and design of Duplexes, provided that the regulations; a. Are clear and objective standards, conditions, or procedures consistent with ORS 197.307(4); and
6.1 (18)
Page 116 of 142
b. Do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of Duplexes through unreasonable costs or delay. 3. Siting and design standards that create unreasonable cost and delay include any standards applied to Duplex development that are more restrictive than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. 4. Siting and design standards that do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of Duplexes through unreasonable cost and delay include only the following: a. Regulations to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to statewide land use planning goals provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3); b. Permitted uses and approval process provided in OAR 660-046-0115; c. Siting standards provided in OAR 660-046-0120; d. Design standards in Medium Cities provided in OAR 660-046-0125; e. Duplex Conversions provided in OAR 660-046-0130; and f. Any siting and design standards contained in the Model Code referenced in section OAR 660-046- 0010(4).
660-046-0115 Permitted Uses and Approval Process Medium Cities must apply the same approval process to Duplexes as detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. Pursuant to OAR 660-007-0015, OAR 660-008-0015, and ORS 197.307, Medium Cities may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of Duplexes. Nothing in this rule prohibits a Medium City from adopting an alternative approval process for applications and permits for Middle Housing based on approval criteria that are not clear and objective as provided in OAR 660-007-0015(2), OAR 660-008-0015(2), and ORS 197.307(6).
660-046-0120 Duplex Siting Standards in Medium Cities The following standards apply to all Duplexes: 1. Minimum Lot or Parcel Size: A Medium City may not require a minimum Lot or Parcel size that is greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size required for a detached single-family dwelling in the same zone. Additionally, Medium Cities shall allow the development of a Duplex on any property zoned to allow detached single-family dwellings, which was legally created prior to the Medium City’s current lot size minimum for detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. 2. Density: If a Medium City applies density maximums in a zone, it may not apply those maximums to the development of Duplexes. 3. Setbacks: A Medium City may not require setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single- family dwellings in the same zone. 4. Height: A Medium City may not apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. 5. Parking: a. A Medium City may not require more than a total of two off-street parking spaces for a Duplex. b. Nothing in this section precludes a Medium City from allowing on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking requirements. 6. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio: Medium Cities are not required to apply lot coverage or floor area ratio standards to new Duplexes. However, if the Medium City chooses to apply lot coverage or floor area ratio standards, it may not establish a cumulative lot coverage or floor area ratio for a Duplex that is less than established for detached single-family dwelling in the same zone. 7. A Medium City or other utility service provider that grants clear and objective exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwelling development must allow the granting of the same exceptions to Duplexes.
6.1 (19)
Page 117 of 142
660-046-0125 Duplex Design Standards in Medium Cities 1. Medium Cities are not required to apply design standards to new Duplexes. However, if the Medium City chooses to apply design standards to new Duplexes, it may only apply the same clear and objective design standards that the Medium City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone. 2. A Medium City may not apply design standards to Duplexes created as provided in OAR 660-046-0130.
660-046-0130 Duplex Conversions Additions to or conversion of an existing detached single-family dwelling to a Duplex is allowed, pursuant to OAR 660-046-0105(2), provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards in the Medium City’s development code.
660-046-0200 Purpose of Middle Housing in Large Cities OAR 660-046-0205 through OAR 660-046-0235 are intended to measure compliance with ORS 197.758 et seq and Goal 10 Housing for Large Cities.
660-046-0205 Applicability of Middle Housing in Large Cities 1. A Large City must allow for the development Duplexes in the same manner as required by Medium Cities in OAR 660-046-0100 through OAR 660-046-0130. 2. A Large City must allow for the development of Triplexes, Quadplexes, Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters, including those created through conversion of existing detached single-family dwellings, in areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings. A Large City may regulate or limit development of these types of Middle Housing on the following types of lands: a. Goal-Protected Lands: Large Cities may regulate Middle Housing other than Duplexes on Goal- Protected Lands as provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3); b. Infrastructure Constrained Lands: Large Cities may limit the development of Middle Housing other than Duplexes on Infrastructure Constrained Lands; c. Master Planned Communities: Large Cities may regulate or limit the development of Middle Housing other than Duplexes in Master Planned Communities as follows: A. If a Large City has adopted a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan after January 1, 2021, it may not limit the development of any Middle Housing type on lands where single-family detached dwellings are also allowed, but may limit overall net residential density within the master plan area provided that net residential density is least 15 dwelling units per acre. A Large City may designate areas within the master plan exclusively for other housing types, such as multi-family residential structures of five units or more or manufactured home parks. A Large City may not limit future conversion or redevelopment of already constructed residential units to any Middle Housing type. B. If a Large City has adopted a master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan before January 1, 2021, it may limit the development of Middle Housing other than Duplexes provided it authorizes a net residential density of at least eight dwelling units per acre and allows all residential units, at minimum, to be detached single-family dwellings or Duplexes. A local government may only apply this restriction to portions of the area not developed as of January 1, 2021, and may not apply this restriction after the initial development of any area of the master plan or a plan that functions in the same manner as a master plan. d. A Large City must demonstrate that regulations or limitations of Middle Housing other than Duplexes on these types of lands are the result of implementing or complying with an established state or federal law or regulation. 3. A Large City may: a. Allow for the development of Triplexes, Quadplexes, Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters, including those created through conversion of existing detached single-family dwellings, in
6.1 (20)
Page 118 of 142
areas zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings as provided in OAR 660-046-0205 through OAR 660-046-0235; or b. Apply separate minimum lot size and maximum density provisions than what is provided in OAR 660-046-0220, provided that Middle Housing other than Duplexes is allowed on the following percentage of Lots and Parcels zoning for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings, excluding lands described in subsection (2): A. Triplexes – Must be allowed on 80% of Lots and Parcels; B. Quadplexes - Must be allowed on 70% of Lots and Parcels; C. Townhouses - Must be allowed on 60% of Lots and Parcels; D. Cottage Clusters – Must be allowed on 50% of Lots and Parcels. E. A Middle Housing type is “allowed” on a Lot or Parcel when the following criteria are met: i. The Middle Housing type is a permitted use on that Lot or Parcel under the same administrative process as a single-family detached dwelling in the same zone; ii. The Lot or Parcel has sufficient square footage to allow the Middle Housing type within the applicable minimum lot size requirement; iii. Maximum net or gross density requirements do not prohibit the development of the Middle Housing type on the subject Lot or Parcel; and iv. The applicable siting or design standards do not individually or cumulatively cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of that Middle Housing type as provided in OAR 660-046-0210(3). F. A Large City must ensure the equitable distribution of Middle Housing by allowing at least one Middle Housing type other than Duplexes on 75 percent of all residential lots and parcels within each census block group within a Large City. 4. Pursuant to OAR 660-046-0205 through OAR 660-046-0230, the following numerical standards related to Middle Housing types apply: a. Duplexes – Local governments may allow more than two dwellings units on a Lot or Parcel, including any accessory dwelling units. b. Triplexes and Quadplexes – Local governments may allow more than four units on a lot, including any accessory dwelling units. c. Townhouses – Local governments must require at least two attached Townhouse units and must allow up to four attached Townhouse units. A local government may allow five or more attached Townhouse units. d. Cottage Clusters – A. Local governments must allow at least five units in a Cottage Cluster. Nothing in this section precludes a local government from permitting less than five units in a Cottage Cluster. B. A local government must allow up to eight cottages clustered around a common courtyard. Nothing in this section precludes a local government from permitting greater than eight units clustered around a common courtyard.
660-046-0210 Provisions Applicable to Middle Housing in Large Cities 1. Large Cities may regulate Middle Housing to comply with protective measures, including plans, policies and regulations, as provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3). 2. Large Cities may regulate siting and design of Middle Housing, provided that the regulations; a. Are clear and objective standards, conditions, or procedures consistent with the requirements of ORS 197.307; and b. Do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of Middle Housing through unreasonable costs or delay. 3. Siting and design standards that do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of Middle Housing through unreasonable cost and delay include only the following:
6.1 (21)
Page 119 of 142
a. Regulations to comply with protective measures adopted pursuant to statewide land use planning goals provided in OAR 660-046-0010(3); b. Permitted uses and approval processes provided in OAR 660-046-0215; c. Siting standards provided in OAR 660-046-0220; d. Design standards in Large Cities provided in OAR 660-046-0225; e. Middle Housing Conversions provided in OAR 660-046-0230; f. Alternative siting or design standards provided in OAR 660-046-0235; and g. Any siting and design standards contained in the Model Code referenced in section OAR 660-046- 0010(4).
660-046-0215 Permitted Uses and Approval Process Large Cities must apply the same approval process to Middle Housing as detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. Pursuant to OAR 660-008-0015 and ORS 197.307, Large Cities may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of Middle Housing consistent with the requirements of ORS 197.307(4). Nothing in this rule prohibits a Large City from adopting an alternative approval process for applications and permits for Middle Housing based on approval criteria that are not clear and objective as provided in OAR 660-007-0015(2), OAR 660-008-0015(2), and ORS 197.307(6).
660-046-0220 Middle Housing Siting Standards in Large Cities 1. Large Cities must apply standards to Duplexes as provided in OAR 660-046-0120. 2. The following siting standards apply to Large Cities’ regulation of Triplexes and Quadplexes: a. Minimum Lot or Parcel Size: A. For Triplexes: i. If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is 5,000 square feet or less, the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Triplex may be up to 5,000 square feet. ii. If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is greater than 5,000 square feet, the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Triplex may not be greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a detached single-family dwelling. B. For Quadplexes: i. If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is 7,000 square feet or less, the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a fourplex may be up to 7,000 square feet. ii. If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the zone for a detached single-family dwelling is greater than 7,000 square feet, the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Quadplex may not be greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a detached single-family dwelling. C. A Large City may apply a lesser minimum Lot or Parcel size in any zoning district for a Triplex or Quadplex than provided in paragraphs A. or B. b. Density: If a Large City applies density maximums in a zone, it may not apply those maximums to the development of Quadplex and Triplexes. c. Setbacks: A Large City may not require setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. d. Height: A Large City may not apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, except a maximum height may not be less than 25 feet or two stories. e. Parking: A. For Triplexes, a local government may require up to the following off-street parking spaces: i. For Lots or Parcels of 3,000 square feet or less: one space in total;
6.1 (22)
Page 120 of 142
ii. For Lots or Parcels greater than 3,000 square feet and less than or equal to 5,000 square feet: two spaces in total; and iii. For Lots or Parcels greater than 5,000 square feet: three spaces in total. B. For Quadplexes, a local government may require up to the following off-street parking spaces: i. For Lots or Parcels of 3,000 square feet or less: one space in total; ii. For Lots or Parcels greater than 3,000 square feet and less than or equal to 5,000 square feet: two spaces in total; iii. For Lots or Parcels greater that 5,000 square feet and less than or equal to 7,000 square feet: three spaces in total; and iv. For Lots or Parcels greater than 7,000 square feet: four spaces in total. C. A Large City may allow on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking requirements. D. A Large City may allow but may not require off-street parking to be provided as a garage or carport. E. A Large City must apply the same off-street parking surfacing, dimensional, landscaping, access, and circulation standards that apply to single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. F. A Large City may not apply additional minimum parking requirements to Middle Housing created as provided in OAR 660-046-0230. f. Lot or Parcel Coverage and Floor Area Ratio: Large Cities are not required to apply Lot or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio standards to Triplexes or Quadplexes. However, if the Large City chooses to apply Lor or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio standards, it may not establish a cumulative Lot or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio for Triplexes or Quadplexes that is less than established for detached single-family dwelling in the same zone. 3. The following rules apply to Large Cities’ regulation of Townhouses: a. Minimum Lot or Parcel Size: A Large City is not required to apply a minimum Lot or Parcel size to Townhouses, but if it chooses to, the average minimum Lot or Parcel size may not be greater than 1,500 square feet. A Large City may apply separate minimum Lot or Parcel sizes for internal, external, and corner Townhouse Lots or Parcels provided that they average 1,500 square feet. b. Minimum Street Frontage: A Large City is not required to apply a minimum street frontage standard to Townhouses, but if it chooses to, the minimum street frontage standard must not exceed 20 feet. A Large City may allow frontage on public and private streets or alleys, and shared or common drives. If a Large City allows flag Lots or Parcels, it is not required to allow Townhouses on those Lots or Parcels. c. Density: If a Large City applies density maximums in a zone, it must allow four times the maximum density allowed for detached single-family dwellings in the same zone for the development of Townhouses or 25 units per acre, whichever is less. d. Setbacks: A Large City may not require front, side, or rear setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single-family structures in the same zone and must allow zero-foot side setbacks for Lot or Parcel lines where Townhouse units are attached. e. Height: A Large City may not apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. If local governments mandate off-street parking, their height standards must allow construction of at least three stories. If local governments do not mandate off-street parking, their height standards must allow construction of at least two stories. f. Parking: A. A Large City may not require more than one off-street parking space per Townhouse unit. B. Nothing in this section precludes a Large City from allowing on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking requirements.
6.1 (23)
Page 121 of 142
C. A Large City must apply the same off-street parking surfacing, dimensional, landscaping, access, and circulation standards that apply to single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. g. Bulk and Scale: A Large City is not required to apply standards to control bulk and scale to new Townhouses. However, if a Large City chooses to regulate scale and bulk, including but not limited to provisions including Lot or Parcel coverage, floor area ratio, and maximum unit size, those standards cannot cumulatively or individually limit the bulk and scale of the cumulative Townhouse project greater than that of a single-family detached dwelling. h. Minimum Open Space and Landscaping: A Large City is not required to regulate minimum open space area and dimensions, but if it chooses to, the minimum open space may not exceed 15% of the minimum Lot or Parcel size, and the minimum smallest dimension may not exceed the Lot or Parcel width or 20 ft, whichever is less. A Large City may establish provisions allowing the provision of open space through shared common areas. 4. The following rules apply to Large Cities’ regulation of Cottage Clusters: a. Minimum Lot or Parcel Size: A Large City is not required to apply minimum Lot or Parcel size standards to new Cottage Clusters. However, if a Large City chooses to regulate minimum Lot or Parcel size for Cottage Clusters, the following provisions apply: A. If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the same zone for a detached single-family dwelling is 7,000 square feet or less, the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Cottage Cluster may be up to 7,000 square feet. B. If the minimum Lot or Parcel size in the same zone for a detached single-family dwelling is greater than 7,000 square feet, the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a Cottage Cluster may not be greater than the minimum Lot or Parcel size for a detached single-family dwelling. b. Minimum Lot or Parcel Width: A Large City is not required to apply minimum Lot or Parcel width standards to Cottage Clusters. However, if a Large City chooses to regulate minimum Lot or Parcel width for to Cottage Clusters, it may not require a miniminum Lot or Parcel width that is greater than the standard for a single-family detached dwelling in the same zone. c. Density: A Large City may not apply density maximums to the development of Cottage Clusters. A Cottage Cluster development must meet a minimum density of at least four units per acre. d. Setbacks: A Large City may not require perimeter setbacks to be greater than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. Additionally, perimeter setbacks applicable to single-family dwellings may not be greater than ten feet. e. Height: A large City must allow a Cottage Cluster to be a height of at least one story. f. Unit Size: A Large City may limit the size of dwellings in a Cottage Cluster, but must apply a maximum building footprint of 900 square feet per unit. A Large City may not include detached garages, carports, or accessory structures in the calculation of building footprint. g. Parking: A. A Large City may not require more than one off-street parking space per unit in a Cottage Cluster. B. A Large City may allow but may not require off-street parking to be provided as a garage or carport. C. Nothing in this section precludes a Large City from allowing on-street parking credits to satisfy off-street parking requirements. h. Lot or Parcel Coverage and Floor Area Ratio: A Large City may not apply Lot or Parcel coverage or floor area ratio standards to Cottage Clusters. i. Nothing in this division precludes a Large City from allowing Cottage Cluster units on individual Lots or Parcels within the Cottage Cluster development.
660-046-0225 Middle Housing Design Standards in Large Cities 1. A Large City is not required to apply design standards to Middle Housing. However, if a Large City chooses to apply design standards to Middle Housing, it may only apply the following:
6.1 (24)
Page 122 of 142
a. Design standards in the Model Code for Large Cities in OAR 660-046-0010(4)(b); b. Design standards that are less restrictive than the Model Code for Large Cities in OAR 660-046- 0010(4)(b); c. The same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single- family structures in the same zone. Design standards may not scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances. Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street-facing façade, height, bulk, and scale; or d. Alternative design standards as provided in OAR 660-046-0235. 2. A Large City may not apply design standards to Middle Housing created as provided in OAR 660-046-0230.
660-046-0230 Middle Housing Conversions 1. Additions to or conversion of an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing is allowed in Large Cities pursuant to OAR 660-046-0205(2), provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City’s development code. 2. If Middle Housing is being created through the conversion of an existing single-family detached dwelling, a Large City or other utility service provider that grants clear and objective exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwelling development must allow the granting of the same exceptions to Middle Housing. 3. A preexisting detached single-family dwelling may remain on a Lot or Parcel with a Cottage Cluster under the following conditions: a. The preexisting single-family dwelling may be nonconforming with respect to the requirements of this code; b. The preexisting single-family dwelling may be expanded up to the maximum height, footprint, or unit size required by this code; however, a preexisting single-family dwelling that exceed the maximum height, footprint, or unit size of this code may not be expanded; c. The preexisting single-family dwelling shall count as a unit in the Cottage Cluster; d. The floor area of the preexisting single-family dwelling shall not count towards any Cottage Cluster average or Cottage Cluster project average or total unit size limits.
660-046-0235 Alternative Siting or Design Standards A Large City may adopt siting or design standards not authorized by OAR 660-046-0220 or OAR 660-046-0225 as allowed under subsection (1) or (2) below if the city can demonstrate that it meets the applicable criteria laid out in either subsection (1) or (2) below. Siting or design standards do not include minimum Lot or Parcel size and maximum density requirements. 1. Existing Alternative Siting or Design Standards – A Large City must submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development findings and analysis demonstrating that siting or design standards adopted prior to the adoption of these rules for Middle Housing types not in compliance with the standards provided in OAR 660-046-0220 or OAR 660-046-0225 have resulted in the substantial production of Middle Housing in areas where the standard was applied such that the standards have not, and will not in the future, individually or cumulatively cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of Middle Housing. a. Substantial production means: i. The areas in which the Large City has applied the alternative standard or standards achieved a three percent or greater production rate of the applicable Middle Housing type over the time frame during which the Large City applied the standard or standards. At a minimum, the time frame must include two years of housing production data and housing production data from the full time frame in which the Large City applied the standard or standard. The production rate is the ratio of building permits issued for the applicable Middle
6.1 (25)
Page 123 of 142
Housing type in comparison to the total building permits issued for all Middle Housing and detached single-family dwellings over the same time frame; and ii. The areas in which the Large City applied the alternative standard or standards have a sufficient quantity of remaining sites where the Large City can acoomodate Middle Housing to ensure a minimum three percent production rate over a twenty year horizon. The production rate is the ratio of building permits issued for the applicable Middle Housing type in comparison to the total building permits issued for all Middle Housing and detached single-family dwellings over the same time frame; and b. If a Large City applied a design standard or standards that resulted in the substantial production of Middle Housing in a zone where the standard was applied, the Large City may apply that standard or standards in other zones, provided that any standard that scales by dwelling unit scales with the minimum Lot or Parcel size of the zoning district in which it applies. 2. New Alternative Siting or Design Standards – A Large City must submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development findings and analysis demonstrating that the proposed standard or standards will not, individually or cumulatively, cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of Middle Housing. To demonstrate that, the Large City must consider how a standard or standards, individually and cumulatively, affect the following factors in comparison to what is would otherwise be required under OAR 660-046-0220 or OAR 660-046-0225: a. The total time and cost of construction, including design, labor, and materials; b. The total cost of land; c. The availability and acquisition of land, including areas with existing development; d. The total time and cost of permitting and fees required to make land suitable for development; e. The cumulative livable floor area that can be produced; and f. The proportionality of cumulative time and cost imposed by the proposed standard(s) in relationship to the public need or interest the standard(s) fulfill.
6.1 (26)
Page 124 of 142
OAR 660-008 Amendments Incorporating Housing Production Strategy Requirements Updated: August 20, 2020
Note: Definitions provided here will be incorporated into the Definitions section already provided in OAR 660-008
1. “Housing Production Strategy” means a specific tool, action, policy, or measure a city will implement to meet the housing needs described in an adopted Housing Capacity Analysis. A Housing Production Strategy is one component of a Housing Production Strategy Report. 2. “Producers of Needed Housing” means developers, builders, service providers, or other persons or entities providing materials and funding needed to build housing. Producers of Needed Housing may include non-profit organizations or public entities. 3. “Consumers of Needed Housing” means any person who inhabits or is anticipated to inhabit Needed Housing, as described in the definition of “Needed Housing” in ORS 197.303. 4. “Housing Production Strategy Report” means the report cities must adopt within one year of their deadline to complete an updated Housing Capacity Analysis, pursuant to OAR 660-008-0050. 5. “Housing Capacity Analysis” means a document, incorporated into a city’s comprehensive plan by ordinance, that complies with the provisions of ORS 197.296. A Housing Capacity Analysis is a housing needs analysis or an assessment of housing need and capacity that includes the inventory, determination, and analysis required under ORS 197.296(3).
660-008-0045 Housing Capacity Analysis Deadline
Cities described in ORS 197.296(2)(a)(B) and (10)(c)(B) shall demonstrate sufficient buildable lands as scheduled by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1. The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall publish the calendar of Housing Capacity Analyses deadlines for cities identified under ORS 197.296 2(a)(B) or 10(c)(B) in Exhibit A. 2. The deadline for adoption of a Housing Capacity Analysis in a given year is December 31st. 3. A city will be considered to have met its obligation to adopt a Housing Capacity Analysis upon adoption of the Housing Capacity Analysis by ordinance. A subsequent appeal of the Housing Capacity Analysis will not be considered a failure to comply with the deadline provided in ORS 197.296 2(a) or 10(b). 4. Upon adoption of a Housing Capacity Analysis, the deadline for a subsequent Housing Capacity Analysis is as follows: a. Eight years for cities that are not within a metropolitan service district; or b. Six years for cities that are within a metropolitan service district. 5. If a population estimate developed under ORS 195.033 and OAR 660-032-0020 and OAR 660-032-0030 results in a city qualifying under ORS 197.296(10)(c), the city must comply with this section within two years of its qualification or the interval provided in Section 4, whichever is the longer period.
660-008-0050 Housing Production Strategy Report Structure
As provided in ORS 197.290(2), a city with a population of more than 10,000 people must develop and adopt a Housing Production Strategy Report that includes a list of specific actions, including the adoption of measures and policies that the city shall undertake to promote development within the city to address a housing need identified under ORS 197.296(3) or ORS 197.296(10) for the most recent 20-year period described in the city’s Housing Capacity Analysis. At a minimum, this Report must include the following components:
6.1 (27)
Page 125 of 142
1. Contextualized Housing Need – A contextualization and incorporation of information from the most recent Housing Capacity Analysis, which describes current and future housing needs in the context of population and market trends. a. At a minimum, this analysis must include: A. Socio-economic and demographic trends of households living in existing Needed Housing. The analysis must include a disaggregation of households living in existing Needed Housing by race and ethnicity; B. Measures already adopted by the city to promote the development of Needed Housing; C. Market conditions affecting the provision of needed Housing; D. Existing and expected barriers to the development of Needed Housing; E. Other housing needs to respond to Department review under ORS 197.293(2) including an estimate the number of people or households experiencing homelessness. Estimates must include, as available, the following data sources: i. An estimate of regional housing need for people experiencing homelessness provided by the state or a regional or county entity; ii. The applicable Housing and Urban Development Point-in-Time (PIT) count conducted by the Continuum of Care that the city is located within; iii. The applicable Housing and Urban Development Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR); and iv. The applicable McKinney-Vento Homeless Student Data for all school districts that overlap with the city. F. Percentage of Rent Burdened Households, as determined in the report described in OAR 813-112- 0020(2); G. Housing tenure, including rental and owner households; and H. Housing needs for people with disabilities, including hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care difficulty, and independent living as provided in the applicable American Community Survey and other data sets, as available. b. A city may use the following types and sources of data to further contextualize housing need for the purposes of this section: A. The percentage of housing stock that is market rate compared to the percentage of housing stock that is subsidized to make it affordable; B. Units that the city has permitted but which have not yet been produced; C. Population groups that are not typically accounted for in a Housing Capacity Analysis, including but not limited to college and university students or second homeowners; D. Redevelopment rates that impact the preservation of existing affordable market-rate units; and E. Other types and sources of data to refine housing need for those experiencing homelessness, including: i. Data collected by local coordinated care organizations (CCOs); ii. Data collected by community action agencies; iii. The capacity of existing emergency shelters; iv. Rental and homeowner vacancy rates; v. Change in gross or net property values or rent over time; vi. Qualitative data that illustrate specific needs of people experiencing homelessness; and vii. Other local houseless population datasets 2. Engagement – A Housing Production Strategy Report must include a narrative summary of the process by which Consumers of Needed Housing and Producers of Needed Housing were engaged, especially engagement of State and Federal protected classes. A city may conduct engagement for a Housing Production Strategy concurrent with other housing planning efforts within the city, including but not limited to a Housing Capacity Analysis, Consolidated Plans for Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Communities, and public
6.1 (28)
Page 126 of 142
engagement for Severely Rent Burdened Communities as described in OAR 813-112-0010. The narrative summary must include the following elements: a. A list and description of stakeholders who will be impacted by potential Housing Production Strategies, stating who was engaged and why, including Consumers of Needed Housing and Producers of Needed Housing; b. A summary of feedback received from each stakeholder group; c. A description of how the information from stakeholders influenced implementation of Housing Production Strategies adopted by the City as provided in OAR 660-008-0050(3); and d. An evaluation of how to improve engagement practices for future housing engagement efforts conducted by the city. 3. Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need – A Housing Production Strategy Report must identify a list of specific actions, measures, and policies needed to address housing needs identified in the most recent Housing Capacity Analysis. The strategies proposed by a city must collectively address the next 20-year housing need identified within the most recent Housing Capacity Analysis and contextualized within the Report as provided in OAR 660-008-0050(1). A Housing Production Strategy Report may identify strategies including but not limited to strategies listed in the Housing Production Strategy Guidance for Cities published by the Department under Exhibit B. For each identified Strategy, the Housing Production Strategy Report must include: a. A description of the strategy chosen; b. A timeline for adoption; c. A timeline for implementation; and d. An estimated magnitude of impact, including: A. Housing need addressed by the identified strategy by tenure and income; B. An estimate of the number of housing units that are anticipated to be created through implementation of the identified strategy, if possible; C. An analysis of the income and demographic populations that are anticipated to receive benefit or burden from the strategy, including: i. Low-income communities; ii. Communities of color; iii. People with disabilities; and iv. Other state and federal protected classes; and D. A time frame over which the strategy is expected to impact Needed Housing. 4. Achieving Fair and Equitable Housing Outcomes – A Housing Production Strategy Report must include a narrative summarizing how the selected Housing Production Strategies, in combination with other city actions, will achieve equitable outcomes with regard to the following factors: a. Location of Housing - How the city is selecting Housing Production Strategies that help meet statewide greenhouse gas emission targets by creating compact, mixed-use, neighborhoods for all residents, including those part of state and federal protected classes. b. Fair Housing - How the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing for all state and federal protected classes. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means addressing disproportionate housing needs, patterns of integration and segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to housing opportunity; c. Housing Choice – How the city is facilitating access to housing choice for communities of color, low- income communities, people with disabilities, and other state and federal protected classes. Housing choice includes access to existing or new housing that is located in neighborhoods with high-quality community amenities, schooling, employment and business opportunities, and a healthy and safe environment. d. Housing options for residents experiencing homelessness – How the city is enabling the provision of housing options for residents experiencing homelessness and how the city is partnering with other
6.1 (29)
Page 127 of 142
organizations to promote services that are needed to create permanent supportive housing (PSH) and other housing options for residents experiencing homelessness; e. Affordable Homeownership and Affordable Rental Housing – How the city is creating opportunities, through housing production, to connect residents with both rental housing that is affordable and homeownership that builds wealth, especially for communities that have been disproportionately impacted by past housing policies; and f. Gentrification, Displacement, and Housing stability – How the city is increasing housing stability for residents and mitigating the impacts of gentrification, as well as the economic and physical displacement of existing residents resulting from investment or redevelopment. 5. A Housing Production Strategy Report must include the following additional elements: a. A description of any opportunities, constraints, or negative externalities associated with adoption of the elements of proposed Housing Production Strategies; b. A description of actions necessary that the city and other stakeholders must take to implement the proposed Housing Production Strategies; c. A discussion of how the proposed actions, taken collectively, will increase housing options, particularly for populations with disproportionate housing need; g. If the Housing Production Strategy Report is the first produced under this division, a description of how the city will measure strategy implementation and progress; h. If the Housing Production Strategy Report is not the first produced under this section, a summary of strategies that the city has previously adopted and implemented, and a reflection on the efficacy of each implemented strategy; i. A copy of the city’s most recently completed survey to meet the requirements of Section 1(2), chapter 47, Oregon Laws 2018 and a copy of the ORS 197.178 report which shows all permits applied for and accepted within the year; j. A summary of needs identified in the Housing Capacity Analysis that are not addressed by strategies in the Report, including a description of other tools, strategies, or policies that were considered or implemented by the city to address that need.
660-008-0055 Review of Housing Production Strategy Reports
1. No later than 20 days after a city’s adoption or amendment of a Housing Production Strategy Report, a city must submit the adopted Report or amended Report to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2. On the same day the city submits notice of the Housing Production Strategy Report or amended Report to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the city must provide a notice to persons that participated in the proceedings that led to the adoption of the Housing Production Strategy Report and requested notice in writing. 3. Within 10 days of receipt of the submission under subsection (1), the Department of Land Conservation and Development must provide notice to persons described under ORS 197.615 (3) 4. Notices given under subsections (2) and (3) must state: a. How and where materials described under subsection (2) may be freely obtained; b. That comments on the Housing Production Strategy Report may be submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development within 45 days after the department has received the submission; and c. That there is no further right of appeal. 5. The submission under subsection (1) of this section must include copies of: a. The signed decision adopting the Housing Production Strategy Report or amended Report; b. The text of the Housing Production Strategy Report as provided in OAR 660-008-0050 and any amendments to the most recent Report submitted under this section; c. A brief narrative summary of the Housing Production Strategy Report; and
6.1 (30)
Page 128 of 142
d. The information that the city reviewed and considered under subsection (6). 6. The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall review the accuracy and sufficiency of the Housing Production Strategy Report based upon the following: a. Unmet housing need as described in ORS 197.296(6): b. Unmet housing need in proportion to the city’s population: c. Percentage of households identified as severely rent burdened; d. Recent housing development; e. Recent adoption of a Housing Production Strategy or implementation of actions therein; f. The city’s response to address the housing needs of those experiencing homelessness; g. Increased access to housing opportunity including the elimination of barriers to flexible, fair, and equitable housing options; h. Other attributes that the Land Conservation and Development Commission considers relevant; and i. Recent or frequent failure to address the metrics listed in the criteria in this subsection. 7. The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall, within 120 days after receiving the submission under subsection (1) of this section,: a. Approve the Housing Production Strategy Report; b. Approve the Housing Production Strategy Report, subject to further review and actions recommended by the Department based on its review under subsection (6); or c. Remand the Housing Production Strategy Report for further modification as identified by the Department. 8. A determination by the Department of Land Conservation and Development under subsection (7) is not a land use decision and is final and not subject to appeal. 9. The Department will maintain an annual summary of proposed Housing Production Strategies included in Reports submitted under subsection (2) and reports submitted under OAR 660-008-0060. 660-008-0060 Reporting on Housing Production Strategy Implementation
1. Cities required to adopt a Housing Production Strategy Report under ORS 197.209(1), must submit a narrative report to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for review and comment based on the following schedule: a. For cities that are within a metropolitan service district boundary, no later than December 31st three years after the city adopted a Housing Production Strategy Report; or b. For cities that are not within a metropolitan service district boundary, no later than December 31st four years after the city adopted a Housing Production Strategy Report. 2. The narrative report a city submits under subsection (1), must include the following: a. A summary of the actions already taken to implement the Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need adopted in the city’s most recent Housing Production Strategy Report. If the city has not implemented Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need on the schedule adopted in their most recent Housing Production Strategy Report, the city must provide an explanation of the circumstances or factors that posed a barrier to implementation and a plan for addressing the identified need that the strategy addressed; b. A reflection of the relative efficacy of implemented Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need adopted in the city’s most recent Housing Production Strategy Report; and c. A reflection of the actions taken in response to the questions identified in OAR 660-008-0050(4). 3. Upon submittal of the narrative report developed under subsection (1), the Department will review the report for consistency with the Housing Production Strategy Report approved under criteria provided in OAR 660-008-0055(6). The Department may also consider reporting under Section 1(4), chapter 47, Oregon Laws 2018 as part of this review.
6.1 (31)
Page 129 of 142
4. Should the Department find the narrative report submitted per subsection (1) does not substantially comply with the criteria in OAR 660-008-0055(3), the Department may take action identified in OAR 660- 008-0070.
660-008-0065 Non-Compliance in Adoption of Housing Capacity Analysis or Housing Production Strategy Report
The Department of Land Conservation and Development will review a city’s Housing Capacity Analysis for compliance with provisions in ORS 197.296 and its Housing Production Strategy Report for compliance with the applicable portions of this division. If the city does not sufficiently meet the criteria provided in ORS 197.296 or this division, the Department may engage with the city in one or more of the following actions: 1. If a city determines that it will be unable to adopt a Housing Capacity Analysis or Housing Production Strategy Report by the prescribed deadline, the city must notify the Department of the expected delinquency at least 60 days before the applicable deadline for a Housing Capacity Analysis or Housing Production Strategy Report. In response, the department and the city may agree to remediation either through enhanced review of documents, directed technical assistance to overcome the impediment as available, or other similar measures, and include timelines for completion. 2. If the city has not submitted a Housing Production Strategy Report for Department of Land Conservation and Development review by the deadline provided in OAR 660-008-0050 and has not notified the department of an expected delinquency, the department shall work with the city and may seek mitigation of the delinquency through an Intergovernmental Agreement outlining specific compliance actions, timeline of deliverables, and subsequent enforcement actions. The Intergovernmental Agreement may or may not include directed technical assistance or financial resources. 3. If the department and the city have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement and the city, at the discretion of the department, has not sufficiently mitigated the identified delinquency, the department may remove the city from consideration of technical assistance or other financial resource awards. 4. If the city does not adopt a Housing Capacity Analysis or Housing Production Strategy Report as provided in this division, does not enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the department to remedy the deficiency, or does not comply with the terms of an Intergovernmental Agreement to remedy the deficiency, the department may request the Land Conservation and Development Commission to act under ORS197.319 to 197.335 to require the city to comply with ORS 197.295 to 197.314, this division, or statewide land use planning goals related to housing or urbanization.
660-008-0070 Non-Compliance in Adoption and Implementation of Strategies To Meet Future Housing Need Identified in a Housing Production Strategy Report
The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall review a city’s Housing Production Strategy Report and narrative reports pursuant to OAR 660-008-0060 based upon criteria provided in OAR 660-008-0055. As provided in OAR 660-008-0055, a Housing Production Strategy Report must include a list of Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need including an expected timeline for adoption and implementation for each strategy. If there is a delinquency in the adoption or implementation of an identified strategy, the department will engage with the city in one or more of the following actions: 1. If circumstances impede a city’s ability to implement one or more Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need in coherence with the timeline adopted in the city’s Housing Production Strategy Report, the city must notify the Department of the expected delinquency within 90 days of the end of the timeline to implement the specific Strategy to Meet Future Housing Need adopted in the city’s Housing Production Strategy Report. The notice must identify specific actions, or a combination of actions, that the city is currently taking, or will take, to address the delinquency. This may include, but is not required to include, amendments to the adopted Housing Production Strategy Report such that the city identifies a different action, or combination of actions, to address the specific housing need. The department and the city may
6.1 (32)
Page 130 of 142
agree to remediation either through enhanced review of the documents, directed technical assistance to overcome the impediment as available, or other similar agreement. 2. If a city does not take sufficient action to mitigate the identified delinquency, either through a failure to provide notice to the department as provided in subsection (1) or through a failure to implement the specific actions, or combination of actions, by the timeline identified in the notice to the department pursuant to subsection (1), the department shall work with the city and may seek mitigation of the issues through an Intergovernmental Agreement outlining specific compliance actions, a timeline of deliverables, and subsequent enforcement actions. The Intergovernmental Agreement may or may not include directed technical assistance or financial resources. 3. If the department and the city have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement and the city, at the discretion of the department, has not sufficiently mitigated the identified delinquency, the department may remove the city from consideration of technical assistance or financial resource awards. 4. If the department finds that the city consistently or routinely does not satisfy the criteria provided in OAR 660-008-0055 or this section, the department may petition the Land Conservation and Development Commission to act under ORS 197.319 to 197.335 to require the city to comply with ORS 197.295 to 197.314, this division, or statewide land use planning goals related to housing or urbanization.
6.1 (33)
Page 131 of 142 Page 132 of 142 Log of Special Event Permit Applications Received by the Public Works Department Item Status # Event Description Event Sponsor Event Date (Approved/Pending) Event Location 1 Downtown Hillsboro Saturday Farmers Market Hillsboro Farmers' Market, Inc 10/3/2020 Pending Downtown Hillsboro 2 Orenco Sunday Farmers Market Hillsboro Farmers' Market, Inc 05/03-11/01/2020 Approved/Issued Orenco Station
6.3 (1)
Page 133 of 142 Page 134 of 142 Recent Community Member Requests Related to Transportation Issues Received by Public Works
Request # Issue Requestor Contact Type Date Received Expected Resolution Date Resolved Assigned To Date 13645 Traffic Calming Lori Joseph Email 5/5/2020 6/5/2020 8/27/2020 Doug Gresham
Description Request for speed enforcement on Cedar Street Comment 9/8/2020 Speeds are within 3-5 mph of posted speed. Speed radar units placed and showed a slight decrease of 1-2 mph.
13911 Parking Restriction Russ Sherrell Phone 7/8/2020 8/8/2020 8/27/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to paint curb red to restrict parking in front of a fire hydrant at the west end of NE Birch St. Comment 9/9/2020 7/29/2020 J.Rico - Task was set up for operations to install no-parking signs at the end of NE Birch St.
14076 Sidewalk Improvement Storm Brown Email 7/31/2020 8/30/2020 8/13/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request to install sidewalks on SE 24th Avenue from E Main Street - South Comment 9/8/2020 Provided information on TSP update and BPCIP project selection process. Added Mr. Brown to BPCIP notification list
14078 Vision Obstruction Michelle Hintz Phone 8/3/2020 9/3/2020 9/3/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request to restrict parking on SW corner of SE Johnson at SE 75th Avenue Comment 9/8/2020 Several onsite visits determined that the existing parking prohibition was being violated. Requested HPD enforcement
14065 Traffic Calming Larry Poor Web Form 8/3/2020 9/3/2020 8/26/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to install speed feedback signs to address speeding on NE Cherry Dr. Comment 8/26/2020 J.Rico - Location will be added to the feedback sign rotation. Since it is not a priority, the sign will be added in the next available spot.
14066 Traffic Calming Max Kiehlmeier Web Form 8/3/2020 9/3/2020 8/24/2020 Jose Rico
Description Reporting speeding on SE Reed Dr. No request was made. Comment 9/9/2020 8/24/2020 J.Rico - Traffic counters show no speeding behavior. Community member was informed and recommended contacting HPD if speeding occurs at certain time of day/week.
14371 Traffic Engineering Tricia Mortell Web Form 8/8/2020 9/8/2020 8/26/2020 Doug Gresham Other Page 135 of 142 Description Remove emergency egress designation from NE Hidden Brook Drive Comment 9/8/2020 Forwarded request to Kylie Kelly in Hillsboro Fire Dept 6.4 (1) Request # Issue Requestor Contact Type Date Received Expected Resolution Date Resolved Assigned To Date 14133 Traffic Calming Denise Whitmore Mayor's Office 8/10/2020 9/11/2020 9/8/2020 Doug Gresham
Description Request to make intersection at 28th/Main safer for pedestrians Comment 9/8/2020 Signal timing cannot be adjusted due to the this signal being part of a coordinated corridor. A sign warning drivers of northbound pedestrians on the east side of the intersection will be added to the SE signal pole. Tree was also removed to increase visibility. 14381 Traffic Engineering Ryan Marquardt Web Form 8/10/2020 9/10/2020 8/26/2020 Doug Gresham Other Description Comments on cycle track at NE Hidden Creek Drive and traffic calmin on Brookwood for bicyclists traveling south on Brookwood to turn east onto NE Ihly Comment 9/8/2020 Provided feedback on why the cycle track was designed as it is. Brookwood is a County facility and therefore County would need to provide traffic calming
14236 Vegetation Melanie Rose 8/14/2020 9/14/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to trim tree/bush on the NW corner of Minter Bridge/Jacquelin. Vegetation is blocking sight distance of vehicles on Minter Bridge Rd. Comment Investigating
14348 Traffic Calming Ivan Camacho Web Form 8/17/2020 9/17/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Consider enforcement of speeds on and around SE 18th, SE Maple and SE Oak. Racing Cars Comment Investigating
14351 Traffic Calming Anargiros Meletis Web Form 8/17/2020 9/17/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Consider enforcement of speeding on Grant/Cornell and Speeding on Grant near Poynter Comment Investigating
14365 Traffic Calming Penny Friedstrom Web Form 8/17/2020 9/17/2020 Doug Gresham
Description Request for speed humps on NE 49th Avenue between Hidden Creek Drive and Wrenwood Comment Investigating
14353 Speed Limits Jan Godsey Email 8/19/2020 9/19/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request to increase speed limit on SE 32nd Avenue Comment Page 136 of 142 Investigating
6.4 (2) Request # Issue Requestor Contact Type Date Received Expected Resolution Date Resolved Assigned To Date 14375 Traffic Calming Kevin Harrison Email 8/20/2020 9/20/2020 Doug Gresham
Description Request to check speeds on NE Jamie Dr Comment Investigating
14357 Traffic Engineering Jim Lubischer Mayor's Office 8/24/2020 9/24/2020 Doug Gresham Other Description Crash on Quatama Bridge Comment Investigating
14231 Parking Restriction Jessica Jones Web Form 8/24/2020 9/24/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to restrict parking in River Bend Neighborhood to addresss sight visibility issues and other factors causing safety concerns. Comment Investigating
14359 Parking Restriction Laura Goulet Web Form 8/25/2020 9/25/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request to designate "Parking for residents only" on NE 64th Court and on Dogwood from Century to 63rd Avenue to prevent overflow parking from adjacent neighborhood (Old Orenco) east of Century Comment Investigating
14272 Traffic Calming Laura Pope Phone 8/26/2020 9/27/2020 8/27/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to investigate if speeding is occuring on SE Blanton St. Requestor is reporting loud noises that sound like vehicles racing. Comment 9/9/2020 8/26/2020 J.Rico - Feedback signs displayed the speeds on Blanton St are appropriate for road. No action needed.
14382 Traffic Calming Shane Spahr Web Form 8/28/2020 9/28/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request for speeding enforcement on NE 15th Avenue Comment Investigating
14384 Traffic Calming Tracy Selleck Web Form 8/28/2020 9/28/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request for speed enforcement on NE Stile Dr Comment Page 137 of 142 Investigating
6.4 (3) Request # Issue Requestor Contact Type Date Received Expected Resolution Date Resolved Assigned To Date 14283 Parking Restriction George Durrer Phone 8/31/2020 9/30/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to restrict parking on one side of the road on NW Freeman Ave. Requester state that parking on both sides are creating a bottle neck allowing only one vehicle to pass at a time.
Comment Investigating
14284 Stop Sign Improvement Nina Casper Web Form 8/31/2020 9/30/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to install an all-way stopped controlled intersection at SE Piccadilly Ave & SE Discovery St. Comment Investigating
14385 Crosswalk Improvement Emily Werner Web Form 9/1/2020 10/1/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request for RRFB Crosswalk on Century at Oelrich Comment Investigating
14387 Street Lighting Mike Street Phone 9/2/2020 10/2/2020 Jeannie Little Improvement Description Request for new street light Comment Investigating
14388 Street Lighting Jenni Anonymous Phone 9/3/2020 10/3/2020 Jeannie Little Improvement Description Request to place shields on street lights Comment Investigating
14389 Crosswalk Improvement Kevin Schmidt Web Form 9/3/2020 10/3/2020 Jeannie Little
Description Request for RRFB crosswalk on SE 32nd at Cedar and SE 32nd/Bentley Comment Investigating
14390 Street Lighting Alvaro Solis Web Form 9/8/2020 10/8/2020 Jeannie Little Improvement Description Request for street light infill on SE Baseline between SE 10th and SE 12th
Page 138 of 142 Comment Investigating 6.4 (4) Request # Issue Requestor Contact Type Date Received Expected Resolution Date Resolved Assigned To Date 14329 Stop Sign Improvement Walter Casper Letter 9/8/2020 10/8/2020 Jose Rico
Description Request to install an all-way stopped controlled intersection at SE Piccadilly Ave & SE Discovery St to address speeding and volumes. Comment Investigating Page 139 of 142
6.4 (5) Page 140 of 142 Transportation Social Media and News Articles 08/19/2020-09/16/2020
Road painting outreach:
Type Date City of Hillsboro Twitter 8/19/2020 City of Hillsboro Facebook Ciudad De Hillsboro Facebook 8/19/2020 Web Article or Webpage Update Happening in Hillsboro 8/19/2020 Retweet from Partner Agency City Views Other
Bike/Bus Priority Lane Painting outreach:
Type Date City of Hillsboro Twitter City of Hillsboro Facebook Ciudad De Hillsboro Facebook Web Article or Webpage Update Happening in Hillsboro Retweet from Partner Agency 08/23/2020 City Views Other
6.5 (1)
Page 141 of 142 Jackson School Road Project outreach:
Type Date City of Hillsboro Twitter City of Hillsboro Facebook Ciudad De Hillsboro Facebook Web Article or Webpage Update 08/25/2020 Happening in Hillsboro Retweet from Partner Agency City Views Other: NextDoor Post 08/25/2020
Wayfinding outreach:
Type Date City of Hillsboro Twitter 9/3/2020 City of Hillsboro Facebook 9/3/2020 Ciudad De Hillsboro Facebook 8/29/2020 Web Article or Webpage Update Happening in Hillsboro Retweet from Partner Agency City Views September/October Other
6.5 (2)
Page 142 of 142