PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING (AUDITORIUM) 155 N FIRST AVENUE, HILLSBORO, OR 97124
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2016 PUBLIC MEETING 1:30 PM
Prior to scheduled public hearing items, the Planning Commission schedules time to receive briefings from county staff as work session items. These briefings provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to conduct informal communications with each other, review the agenda, and identify questions they may ask before taking action on the agenda items during the public meeting. No public testimony is taken on work session items.
Following work session briefings, the Planning Commission considers items published in their agenda, including scheduled public hearing items and consideration of minutes. The public is welcome to speak during the public hearing portions of the meeting. The public may also speak on any item not on the agenda during the Oral Communications section of the agenda.
Upon request, the county will endeavor to arrange provision of the following services: . Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and . Qualified bilingual interpreters
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. If you need a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or a language interpreter, please call 503- 846-3519 (or 7-1-1 for Telecommunications Relay Service) by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date.
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING AUDITORIUM
The Planning Commission welcomes your attendance at the Public Meeting. If you wish to speak on a public hearing agenda item or during Oral Communications, please feel free to do so. Time is generally limited to five minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for an authorized representative of a Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). The Chair may adjust the actual time limits. However, in fairness to others, we respectfully ask your cooperation on the following:
Please follow sign-in procedures located on the table by the entrance to the auditorium.
. When your name is announced, please be seated at the table in front and state your name and home or business address for the record.
. Groups or organizations wishing to make a presentation are asked to designate one spokesperson in the interest of time and to avoid repetition.
. When more than one citizen is heard on any matter, please avoid repetition in your comments. Careful attention to the previous speakers’ remarks will be helpful in this regard.
. If you plan to present written testimony at the hearing, please bring 15 copies for distribution to Commission members and staff.
PUBLIC MEETING DATES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
8:30 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 1:30 p.m. 1st Wednesday
2:00 p.m. 4th Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS
10 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to 6:30 p.m. 4th Tuesday cancel or add a meeting date.
PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 2016 1:30 PM
AGENDA
CHAIR: A. RICHARD VIAL VICE-CHAIR: LILES GARCIA COMMISSIONERS: ED BARTHOLEMY, TEGAN ENLOE, MARY MANSEAU, ANTHONY MILLS, JEFF PETRILLO, ERIC URSTADT, MATT WELLNER
PUBLIC MEETING (AUDITORIUM)
1. CALL TO ORDER – 1:30 PM
2. ROLL CALL
3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
4. WORK SESSION
a. Ordinance briefing • Proposed Ordinance No. 815 – Wineries – Anne Kelly
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
None
Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: 503-846-3519 · Fax: 503-846-4412 www.co.washington.or.us · [email protected]
Planning Commission Agenda August 3, 2016 Page 2
7. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Ordinance hearing • Ordinance No. 814 - An Ordinance Amending the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan, and the Community Development Code to Address Transportation-Related Issues
b. Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendment Application hearing
Casefile No. 16-107PA Community Plan and CPO: Applicant: Catlin Gabel School Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill / CPO 1 Location: 8825, 8735, 8705, and 8685 SW Description: On the north side of SW Barnes Road (one parcel not address) and Barnes Road between SW 84th Avenue Tracts G, I and J of the West Haven and SW 90th Avenue Subdivision Request: Change the current TO:R9-12(Transit Oriented: Residential - 9 to 12 units per acre), TO:R12-18 (Transit Oriented: Residential - 12 to 18 units per acre), and R-5 (Residential - 4 to 5 units per acre) land use designations to Institutional for an approximately eight-acre portion of the Catlin Gabel School campus.
8. ADJOURN
Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 2 of 8
A more in depth review of Ordinance No. 814 is included below in the Analysis section of this report.
Initial Public Hearings The initial public hearing for Ordinance No. 814 before the Planning Commission is scheduled for August 3, 2016. The initial public hearing before the Board is scheduled for September 6, 2016.
Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 814 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on July 6, 2016. A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in the Hillsboro Argus and The Oregonian newspapers on July 13, 2016 and July 15, 2016, respectively. Individual Notice 2016-06 describing proposed Ordinance No. 814 was mailed to 314 people on the General Notification List on July 20, 2016. A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time.
IV. ANALYSIS Proposed Ordinance No. 814 has four exhibits.
Amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Exhibits 1 and 2) The amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Exhibits 1 and 2) are housekeeping in nature and update the references to the Transportation System Plan (TSP).
TSP Amendments (Exhibit 3) Amendments proposed to the TSP include updates to the mobility policy and glossary to remove references to ‘Regional Street Design Overlay’ and ‘Boulevards.’ In 2014, the TSP adopted ‘Streetscape Overlays’ and ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ as new designations with revised definitions for these features. The TSP amendments made in 2014 and 2015 failed to remove the references to the previous designations and this amendment proposes to correct this oversight. The revised designations have been incorporated into the Pedestrian System Map. Adding these designations to the Pedestrian System Map was intended to reduce the number of maps and make it easier to find and apply the features. The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted similar designations. The ‘Streetscape Overlays’ and ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ designations in the updated TSP are intended to be consistent with the RTP designations.
The functional classification designation of Church Street and South Street in Gaston was discussed with city of Gaston staff during the review of appropriate streets for consideration in the Major Street Transportation Improvement Program. The collector designation is proposed due to the longer distance of trips traveling this route through town.
The proposed amendments to the lane numbers designation on Wilkins Street and along 205th/206th Avenue in Hillsboro were mistakenly omitted from A-Engrossed Ordinance Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 3 of 8
No. 783. The proposed amendments rectify the prior omission. The lane numbers designations were included on the unofficial map produced as part of the review of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, however the designation itself was not included in the ordinance. The revised lane number designations are consistent with the city of Hillsboro’s TSP and Amberglen Plan. The proposed amendment will designate these roadways as intended and discussed during the development of the TSP.
The proposed amendment to the ‘Pedestrian System’ Map will designate the Waterhouse Trail as a Community Trail rather than a Regional Trail. This change is proposed to be consistent with the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (THPRD) Trails Masterplan. THPRD intends to focus on the development of the Westside Trail as the main north-south regional trail. The Waterhouse Trail is now envisioned a parallel and supporting facility rather than a regional facility.
The amendments to the Transit System Map are intended to be consistent with the TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan (SWSEP). A copy of the TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan is attached for reference (Attachment B). The SWSEP was adopted by the TriMet board in December 2015. The Transit System Map in the TSP had transit designations consistent with transit planning before the SWSEP was adopted. The SWSEP is the result of over a year and a half of community engagement and the development of a long-range service improvements and expansion vision for TriMet’s southwest service area. A copy of the proposed Transit System Map will be available at the Planning Commission hearing to show the overall transit system after the proposed amendments.
Community Development Code (CDC) Amendments (Exhibit 4) Several amendments are proposed to the CDC to address transportation-related issues. The amendment to CDC Section 418-2 (Additional Setbacks Required for Future Right-of-Way) was identified by Current Planning staff to clarify existing practices for determining setback requirements. The existing language does not indicate where the setback for future right-of-way is to be measured from. Also in certain circumstances where the existing right-of-way is not symmetrical and/or not coincident with the existing traveled way, no mechanism for an alternative setback is provided. The amendment is intended to clarify how the setback is to be determined.
The amendment proposed to CDC Section 501-2.5 (Application of the Public Facility and Services Standards Inside a UGB) was not included in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 802 (Bonny Slope West) because the Transportation System Development Charge for Bonny Slope West was not approved until January 19, 2016 after Ordinance No.802 was adopted. Ordinance No. 814 provides an opportunity to amend the CDC to include a provision in the CDC similar to that done for the North Bethany Transportation System Development Charge.
The amendments proposed to CDC Section 501-8 (Standards for Development) clarify that roadway alignments designated in the TSP are conceptual and may be adjusted within a subject property. This is consistent with how the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires that transportation planning in Oregon be conducted (ORS 660-012-0010). Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 4 of 8
The amendment to CDC Section 502-1 regarding sidewalk standards was included in the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper recommendation No. 8, “Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code (CDC) sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required.” The proposed change is intended to make CDC Section 502-1 consistent with CDC Section 501-2. As described in the Issue Paper (starting on page 14):
Sidewalks are one of several facilities regulated by CDC Section 501-2 (Application of the Public Facility and Service Standards Inside a UGB). Consistent with Comprehensive Framework Plan Policy 14 (Managing Growth), “on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way” are designated as an essential service and “off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities” are designated as a desirable service (CDC Section 501-7.1). Additional regulations specific to sidewalks are included in CDC Section 502.
Development subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards includes all land divisions, property line adjustments, new construction of structures and expansion of existing structures, with some exceptions. The most notable exception is for “construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot…” (CDC Section 501-2.2).
However, CDC Section 502-1.4 states:
Sidewalks shall be required to be constructed prior to occupancy for the following development in the unincorporated areas of Washington County within an Urban Growth Boundary: A. All development that is subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards as required by Section 501-2, except for: (1) Private streets for four (4) or fewer dwelling units pursuant to Section 409-3.3 A. (1), (2), and (4 - 7); and (2) Residential development that meets the exemption criteria in Section 502-14; or
B. One (1) detached dwelling unit or one (1) duplex on a legally created lot or parcel when: (1) The lot or parcel has two hundred fifty (250) feet or less of street frontage; and (2) A sidewalk or temporary sidewalk exists, or is required to be constructed as part of a development approval, on an adjacent lot or parcel with the same street frontage.
While CDC Sections 501-2.2 and 502-1.4 may appear to be at odds, Current Planning staff has developed an administrative interpretation to exempt sidewalk requirements for single family detached homes on lots of record. This is based on the premise that the home to be constructed on the lot of record would not generate trips over and above what was already permitted on the site, and therefore public improvements would not be proportional to the development.
The proposed change to CDC Section 502-1.4 will remove the conflicting language allowing CDC Section 501-2.2 to continue to be implemented as Current Planning staff has interpreted. It should be noted that no changes to CDC Section 409 are proposed. The requirements for sidewalks on new private streets continue as currently provided for in CDC Section 409 (Private Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 5 of 8
Streets). Only the requirements for sidewalks along the public street frontage in these circumstances would be clarified. The intent of this amendment is to strengthen and clarify the sidewalk requirements consistent with the recommendation of the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper.
The amendment proposed to CDC Section 502-14.2 was identified by Current Planning staff based on existing practices for determining exemptions from the construction of sidewalks. The existing subsection E contains two numbered sections that reiterate the language in subsection E itself. The redundant language is confusing when determining if a proposed development meets the exemption standard. The proposed amendment is not intended to change the standard for the exemption. No substantive changes to current practice are proposed and the existing exemptions with the proposed language would not be affected. It should be noted that the language in CDC Section 502-14.2 intentionally does not mention Neighborhood Routes. Neighborhood Routes are not exempt under CDC Section 502-14.2 and qualifying measurement distance extends to a Collector or Arterial but does not stop at a Neighborhood Route.
The amendment proposed for CDC Section 702 (Exempt Projects) would add a category of projects exempt from the requirements of CDC Article VII, Public Transportation Facilities. This is very different than an exemption from the requirement to build a sidewalk discussed under CDC Section 502 above. The Article VII requirements are for the implementation of a public improvement. This exemption will reduce the bureaucratic requirements for public improvements intended to exclusively serve pedestrian and bicycles. This amendment was recommended by the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper recommendation No. 9, “Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Exempt Projects).” Article VII functions as the development review requirements for public transportation projects. New capital construction improvements within unincorporated Washington County must meet the requirements of Article VII. This land use review procedure is beyond the level of review and scrutiny that most public agencies require.
The proposed exemption would allow the acquisition of right-of-way and construction of walkways, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and other improvements intended to exclusively serve bicycles and pedestrians without an Article VII review. The criteria proposed in the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper recommendation No. 9 has been expanded to ensure that multimodal improvements are reviewed appropriately. A number of walkway improvements can be implemented as minor improvement projects and this exemption is intended to reduce the administrative costs of such improvements.
Other recommendations from the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper Proposed Ordinance No. 814 is intended to address the legislative recommendations from the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper. Recommendation Nos. 1 through 6 are administrative recommendations that are all at different stages of being addressed by staff. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 6 of 8
Recommendations Nos. 7 through 11 are potential legislative changes. An Issue Paper to address recommendation No. 7 is under development and is expected to be discussed by the Planning Commission later this year. Recommendation No. 8 is proposed to be addressed by the changes to CDC Section 502 discussed above. Recommendation No. 9 is proposed to be addressed by the changes to CDC Section 702 discussed above. Recommendation Nos. 10 and 11 are outside the ability of planning staff to advance. Recommendation No. 10, “Take limited actions to address improvement needs on non-county public roadways in UUWC” requires separate Board action on a case-by-cases basis. These actions may require coordination with individual property owners and targeted investment of funds to provide appropriate public walkways or other facilities. Recommendation No. 11, “Examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A”. These can come back to the Board as separate work sessions discussion” is more appropriate for the Board to consider during ongoing funding decisions and/or the development of new transportation-related revenue sources. Neither of these last two recommendations can be addressed through an ordinance process at this time.
Commissioners’ Enloe and Manseau had a number of questions regarding proposed Ordinance No. 814. Staff responses to these questions are attached (Attachments C and D).
Potential Engrossment Proposed Ordinance No. 814 does not address public facility requirements for obtaining a building permit to construct a new dwelling unit on an approved lot of record. Staff has evaluated various options for public facility requirements related to a building permit for an existing legally established lot of record. Currently the CDC prescribes that once a lot has been legally established for a single dwelling unit, the public facility requirements are assumed to have been satisfied and is not subject to additional public facilities review.1 An existing legally established lot currently can apply for and receive a building permit for a single dwelling unit. A couple of questions regarding public facility requirements and building permits on a lot of record are:
1. Does building a house (and payment of the TDT) on an existing legally established lot of record have an additional impact on existing public facilities? 2. The land division that creates a lot is subject to public facility requirements. Does adding an additional public facility requirement for an existing lot of record create a circumstance where public facility requirements might be assessed twice?
Implementing public facility requirements for an existing lot of record would likely be difficult given current review procedures. Last year the County issued building permits for more than 1,000 single family homes. Likely 99% or more of these were on lots of record that already were subject to the public facility requirements. Furthermore, requiring additional public facilities for a single legally established lot of record may not withstand challenges on appeal.
1 On lands designated as R-5 or R-6 a future development plan that demonstrates how the entire site can be ultimately developed is required (CDC Sections 302.-6.3 and 303-6.3). Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 7 of 8
An existing lot of record may not be in compliance with adopted transportation plans or public facility standards. In such circumstances, the lot of record may be able to dedicate right-of-way such that it would be more consistent with current plans and/or standards. Additional requirements beyond right-of-way (such as sidewalk construction) may be desirable but normally considered to be more than a proportional exaction. Dedication of right-of-way may affect the ability of the property to develop and also may affect the placement of the dwelling on the property.
Due to uncertainty regarding the questions above, adding language requiring the dedication of right-of-way as part of a building permit on an existing lot of record may create language in the CDC that cannot be implemented. Therefore, staff does not recommend engrossment of Ordinance No. 814.
Regardless of the staff recommendation, the Planning Commission may want to recommend to the Board an engrossment to add CDC requirement of right-of-way dedication prior to a building permit approval on an existing lot of record. If such a recommendation is desired the following engrossment language could be added to Exhibit 4:
SECTION 501 - PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
***
501-2.6 Construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot (Section 430-13.3) shall dedicate right-of-way as specified in Section 501-8.4.B.
***
501-8 Standards for Development
***
501-8.4 Dedication of Right-of-Way
Except as provided in Section 418-2.2, dedication of right-of-way shall be required pursuant to the classification of the facility as designated by the Washington County Transportation System Plan and based upon the county Road Standards.
A. Except as provided in Section 418-2.2, dedication of right-of-way shall be required pursuant to the Functional Classification and Lane Numbers of the facility as designated by the Washington County Transportation System Plan and based upon the County Road Design and Construction Standards.
B. Construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot (Section 430-13.3) shall dedicate right-of-way along the site’s frontage(s) equal to half the maximum right-of-way designated in the Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 814 July 27, 2016 Page 8 of 8
Functional Classification Design Parameters Table in the Transportation System Plan
***
The above engrossment is not recommended by staff. The language is provided to give Planning Commission members specific language for consideration.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Ordinance No. 814 proposes to amend the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Transportation System Plan and the Community Development Code to address transportation-related issues. These amendments are proposed to make minor clean-up changes, improve consistency with other plans, and address inconsistences in the CDC. Specifically, the proposed amendments are: Housekeeping amendments to the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area. Amendments to Washington County Transportation System Plan Goal 5: Mobility and Glossary – to correct references and remove terms no longer in use. Amendments to several Washington County Transportation System Plan maps to maintain consistency with other adopted planning efforts. CDC Section 418-2 – Amendment to clarify setback requirements. CDC Section 501-2 – Amendment to public facility and service requirements to include the Bonny Slope West Transportation System Development Charge. CDC Section 501-8 – Revise text to allow roadway alignments designated in the Transportation System Plan to be adjusted within a subject property. CDC Section 502-1 – Revise Sidewalk Standards to be consistent with Section 501-2. CDC Section 502-14 – Clarify exemptions from sidewalk construction requirements. CDC Section 702-13 – Revise procedures for land use review of transportation improvements to exempt construction of facilities intended to exclusively serve pedestrians and/or bicyclists.
Attachments The following attachments identified in this staff report are provided:
Attachment A: Long Range Planning Issue Paper 2016-01: ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Attachment B: TriMet Southwest Service Enhancement Plan Attachment C: Staff response to Planning Commissioner Enloe’s questions Attachment D: Staff response to Planning Commissioner Manseau’s questions
S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\StaffReports_PPTs\PC\080316\ORD814_PC_8_3_staffrept_071516.docx
Attachment A
May 9, 2016
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUE PAPER NO. 2016-01 - REVISED
Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area
Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services • Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-3519 • fax: 503-846-4412 www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected]
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 2 of 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Issue ...... 3
II. Summary of Recommendations ...... 3
III. Background ...... 5 A. Definitions B. Existing Conditions C. Policy Framework D. Sidewalk Provision through Development E. Walkway Provision through Public Projects
IV. Analysis...... 29 A. Key Takeaways from Background Section B. Walkway Construction Cost C. Safety Analysis of Different Walkway Types
V. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………...... 32
VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..……..40
VII. Appendix A...………………………………………………………………………..……..41
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 3 of 44
Revision On February 2, 2016 an Issue Paper addressing solutions for walkway gaps in urban unincorporated Washington County (UUWC) was released. The initial paper has been revised to reflect recent direction on walkway gap funding. Staff recommends delaying new discussions about walkway financing until after the MSTIP 3e decision takes place in the fall of 2016. Recent Board discussions and direction that influence future decisions on walkway gap funding include MSTIP 3e and Gain Share. After finalizing decisions on MSTIP 3e in the fall of 2016, the Board may wish to examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A.”
I. Issue
Numerous residents, stakeholders and organizations1 in Washington County have identified the incomplete network of sidewalks and walkways in UUWC as a persistent problem that needs to be addressed in order to promote safe, livable communities. At the same time, members of the development community have requested process changes for determining public improvement requirements (including sidewalks). These requests were approved as part of the 2015 Work Program, Tier 1, Task 1.23 (New tools for eliminating sidewalk gaps). This Issue Paper examines existing conditions and policies related to sidewalks and walkways, reviews sidewalk/walkway implementation methods in the context of both development and public projects, and recommends several policy and procedural changes that would potentially result in more successful completion of sidewalks and walkways throughout UUWC. Walkway gaps on county roadways inside city jurisdictions were not considered as part of this paper.
II. Summary of Recommendations
To address walkway gaps in UUWC, staff proposes 11 recommendations for potential implementation or further consideration and scoping. These recommendations are divided into “Potential Administrative Changes” (those that can be implemented by staff) and “Potential Legislative Changes” (those that would require action by the Board of Commissioners and warrant a higher level of public involvement). Each of these recommendations is described in further detail in the Recommendations section starting on page 32 of this paper.
Potential Administrative Changes:
1. Expand capabilities and usage of the Transportation Improvement Master List for documenting, characterizing, mapping and monitoring walkway gaps and programmed projects.
1 This Issue Paper responds to requests received by the Department of Land Use & Transportation from the Washington County Committee for Citizen Involvement, unincorporated county residents Mary Manseau and Eric Squires, and Justin Wood representing the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 4 of 44
2. Add walkway presence/absence information to the Integrated Road Inventory System and Asset Browser.
3. Focus walkway project development efforts on gaps identified in the following sources: o Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project (“DOE project,” 2012) o Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan, Addendum C: Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2014) o School Access Improvement Study (2015) o Small Road Improvement Candidates List (ongoing) o External sources, including the TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis, ODOT Pedestrian/Bicycle Inventory, and the Metro Regional Active Transportation Plan o Future studies that identify and prioritize sidewalk gaps.
4. As part of future capital projects and facility permits, identify opportunities to strategically and efficiently address walkway gaps on other roadways in the immediate vicinity.
5. Identify interim system completion targets for different roadway functional classes, or for different locational contexts (such as Pedestrian/Bicycle Districts or areas near schools).
6. Institute a more coordinated, intra-divisional effort to prioritize transportation projects (including walkway projects) and match them with appropriate internal and external funding sources, including a regularly-scheduled transportation project “super-committee.”
Potential Legislative Changes:
7. Replace or revise Resolution & Order 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance – Process Documentation) with a multimodal transportation development improvement process with guidance from the 2014 Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards report.
8. Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code (CDC) sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required.
9. Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Public Transportation Facilities – Exempt Projects).
10. Take limited actions to address improvement needs on non-county public roadways in UUWC.
11. Examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A”. These can come back to the Board as separate work sessions discussion.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 5 of 44
III. Background
In 2005, the Long Range Planning Section of the Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation (LUT) completed Issue Paper No. 9, which proposed potential remedies to the fragmented walkway system in UUWC. Recommended solutions included modifying Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) and Local Improvement District (LID) policies and procedures to fund walkway needs identified in the Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan. It also suggested investigating the ability to obtain off-site sidewalks in conjunction with new development through the Transportation Funding Plan (a precursor effort to the Transportation Development Tax).
This Issue Paper updates and builds upon the 2005 paper. The following Background section defines key terms, summarizes existing conditions and policies and describes how sidewalks and walkways are provided through land development and public projects. The subsequent Analysis section synthesizes this information to inform the Recommendation section.
A. Definitions
This Issue Paper was originally defined in terms of “sidewalk gaps,” which was subsequently revised to “walkway gaps.” Sidewalk is defined in CDC Section 502-2.2 (Sidewalk Standards – Definitions) as “a concrete sidewalk which meets adopted design standards and is used primarily by pedestrians as a means of travel.” A more inclusive term is “walkway,” since not all facilities intended for walking along a roadway are built of concrete and built to standard. For example, some walkways are made of asphalt, and some concrete sidewalks are built directly next to the curb (contrary to adopted design standards, but allowed under certain circumstances). Furthermore, solving the problem of sidewalks gaps in UUWC will require looking at a variety of walkway solutions, some of which will not meet the county’s strict definition of a sidewalk.
This Issue Paper uses the terms sidewalk and walkway intentionally and not interchangeably. In this paper, the definition of sidewalk is expanded to include curbside sidewalks, which do not meet adopted design standards but are otherwise made of concrete and installed with the approval of the County Engineer. The definition of walkway in this paper focuses on all types of facilities intended for walking along a roadway, but does not include off-street facilities such as trails and accessways; nor does it include facilities that help people cross roadways, such as crosswalks or mid-block crossings.
Key definitions for the purposes of this Issue Paper are as follows:
Curbside sidewalk: A sidewalk that is built directly adjacent to the curb of a roadway, typically at the same grade as the top of the curb (also “curb-tight sidewalk”).
Enhanced sidewalk: A sidewalk that contains more features and/or has larger dimensions than the county’s standard sidewalk. Examples of additional features include pedestrian-scale lighting, landscaping, decorative paving techniques, benches and public art.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 6 of 44
Multi-use path: A paved pathway that accommodates people walking, running, using mobility devices, riding bicycles, using skateboards and performing other human-powered movement. Multi-use paths can be located in off-roadway locations as well as parallel and adjacent to roadways. In the latter case, the multi-use path often functions as both a walkway and a bikeway.
Pedestrian facility: Any constructed improvement intended to facilitate the movement of people walking or using mobility devices. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, walkways, accessways, multi-use paths, trails, crosswalks, mid-block crossings, walk signals, stairways and elevators.
Separated asphalt path: A walkway constructed of asphalt located parallel to a roadway and separated from the roadway by grass, landscaping, gravel, and/or a drainage ditch.
Separated sidewalk: A sidewalk that is separated horizontally from the roadway by trees, grass, landscaping and/or other materials.
Sidewalk: A walkway constructed of concrete located alongside a roadway and intended for people walking or using mobility devices.
Walkway: A constructed linear space located alongside a roadway and intended for people walking or using mobility devices. Walkways include separated sidewalks, curbside sidewalks, separated asphalt paths and wide-shoulder walkways (also “pedestrian path”).
Wide-shoulder walkway: A walkway located adjacent to and at the same grade as the roadway, typically constructed of asphalt, and separated from vehicular traffic by profile striping.
Figure 1 on the following page illustrates six common walkway typologies in UUWC.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 7 of 44
Figure 1: Common Walkway Typologies in Urban Unincorporated Washington County
No walkway – SW Rosa Rd Wide-shoulder walkway – SW Johnson St
Separated asphalt path – SW 170th Ave Curbside sidewalk – NW 185th Ave
Separated sidewalk – NW Evergreen Parkway Enhanced sidewalk – NW Cornell Rd
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 8 of 44
B. Existing Conditions
UUWC is home to over 200,000 people and would be the second largest city in Oregon if it incorporated. Provision of urban services such as sidewalks has been a particular policy challenge as the area has changed incrementally over 70 years from a largely rural land base to a collection of suburban communities.
The presence or absence of sidewalks in UUWC is largely a function of when a particular location developed with suburban/urban land uses and densities. Sidewalks were not required as a condition of development approval until the adoption of the 1983 urban Community Development Code.2 In the 50 years prior to that, it was not common practice for developers to voluntarily build sidewalks. Sidewalks were common in urban communities built before World War II, but UUWC contains very few communities of this vintage – most are located within incorporated cities (downtown Hillsboro, for example).
LUT performed an inventory of sidewalks, walkways and bike lanes along Principal Arterials, Arterials and Collectors (“major roadways”) in 2012 as part of the Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project funded by a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grant. This inventory, known as the DOE project, was updated and quality-checked in 2014 as part of the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) update.
The inventory found that, as of 2014, 56% of major roadways in urban Washington County (including county and state facilities in unincorporated and incorporated areas) have sidewalks on both sides of the street, while 19% of these streets have no walkways at all. The remainder, 25%, has sidewalks on one side of the street, or has non-standard paved walkways on one or both sides of the street. Figure 2 provides a map of walkway coverage along major roadways in urban Washington County.
Sidewalk coverage statistics for all roadway functional classes are not available for the entirety of UUWC. However, a sidewalk inventory of all roadways in Aloha-Reedville was performed as part of the 2014 Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan. In the nine-square-mile Aloha-Reedville study area, 66% of roadsides have sidewalks or walkways, leaving 34% of roadsides without walkways. Similar conditions are found in other mixed-era neighborhoods in UUWC such as Metzger, Garden Home and Cedar Mill. Newer areas, such as Bethany, tend to have more complete (but not total) sidewalk coverage.
In practice, walkways in UUWC are provided through a variety of means. As an example, Figure 3 demonstrates how walkways along a segment of SW Kinnaman Road in Aloha have been or will be provided by both the private sector (through development) and the public sector (through Washington County capital projects, Minor Betterment projects, and Urban Road Maintenance District safety projects). Figure 3 also indicates the type of walkways that have been provided along this stretch of Kinnaman, including interim wide-shoulder walkways, curbside sidewalks and county-standard separated sidewalks.
2 Source: Tom Harry, Senior Planner, Current Planning section.
Attachment A
D
R
H N IL A L D SI R D ROY R D MAN E D M ER TO RD Figure 2: G N R L W D K SR R Ig S GORDON RD A ?¹ E OO P
K C ION H H S Z URCH RD M U C E I E L K S K HELVETIA RD E A Arterial/Collector
RD W I N KEMPE E S R RD O S E ORN S T D EN RD E R R T WR K C U ILL H N PRINGV C R IO S O N R A D RD A D
T C Sidewalk Inventory R J L C K G N Y AIDLAW
A H I R D
W
L D F L E F VE C E R R D E K
R
D S D GREEN RD 2
R U R V
P D R T E E
R P E R
D O R K L R
C IN RD BO H 2 B HO VER E 2 T
R D 9 B MPSO E C R 5 N D T L
O E
E T O VERG V N
S E O REEN RD H D K HORN C H W Y D U EC P KER K A A K N R N
A W R D A V A
R S M
V O
D E Y B
B H D E Z
U E R L O N I
S O T A I G NS T V L
15TH AVE 15TH R ID HILL RD T U O E L
R E B
S N B A A S L N RD NIE N M SUNRISE LN N R CORNELL RD O
B O E
V C GRA A T NT ST
T
S
T S
K
1 S D
3 Q R A UATAMA D LEAHY R 1ST AVE 1ST
173RD AVE 173RD E MAIN ST
MAIN ST 2
O
5TH AVE 5TH
E
B D 19TH AVE OAK ST E PACIFIC AVE E
V ?} V
R R V
A A Y O D
4TH AVE 4TH A R E AVE 26TH WALNUT ST BASELINE
H
O
T
H H
C D T T S RIT K BA
0 N R
ELM ST W B 1 2 N LOIS ST 58 D GO Existing Both Sides S PARK ES R D 3 1 WA V T ROCK RD E W Y R O L INGTOWN R O V A L D D B A L F K A 1
Y 185TH AVE 185TH S
H E 5
V L R R
T L W 3 I E COU IMLAY AVE JOHNSON ST R
S 0 H D R D AÚ Existing One Side H
7 R E R D
1 A
O E TUALATIN VALLEY HWY
R D D R G
D D R E
D O L I D R C R O R B R DAVIS RD ON ?¹ L I Y S M V ?} N B K CA Substandard Both Sides
L L
E IN B I R D N D
L TE A A H I R M
IN R V A R
H N M L N ?¡ TONGUE LN R R D BEAVERTON HILLSDALE HWY E R T E D B TH S F D 6 G DIVISION ST A
Y
V ID R ROSA RD Substandard One Side
E R
U 209THAVE ALLEN BLVD
B T
N
198TH AVE 198TH JO S D HNSON CHO E OAK ST DAVIS R O D O H C 1
A
L RD O 5 5
L No Sidewalks R RD T ROSEDAL E L
H DENNEY RD S BUR BANY RD C K A B H LL V L O VA EY A RIGERT R VD D G INS RD E G LTER RD D R
E Other Roads
V N
MURRAY MURRAY BLVD A O C S
A LE S KEMMER S O
D C UNGER RD N R RD U A O B TTO T
N G D A VA N I Urban Area
P L RMI WEIR RD M LE N AE
FA AVE 80TH Y D ?¡ R OAK ST ?¹ V TON RD DAVIES E S RD D A E
G R V County
M E
A
N ILL RD L O V
DIX L
T
I
A
S H
TILEF 1 D
2
K L S A D 1 D N R T P R R 2
AK R T AÚ A R S 7 E L S P D R UT I W N
N U D O LA REL O WA L L C G W R D BAR R O OD A R S D B Y G R H R A H SC LAUREL RD HOLLS F E A A I !` L K R L R DE ST D BULL MOU Y BONITA RD N TAIN RD W H R C D I D F AÜ R I D C N E A DURHAM RD EEF B P 150TH AVE 150TH B
S
C
H D
O R
ROY ROGERSROY RD LL R S E SHERWOOD RD N TUALATIN RD S
EL T
E
C T
O I D P R N N O MA
SEIFFERT RD SEIFFERT R L HE A D VE E R R D OD O SAGERT ST W SHER EDY RD TUALATIN AVERY ST
D
RD
R
Y
T !` R
R R
E
T AVE 65TH P E
O F W D IN L N R This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared E Q S E S Y U E for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users T I R
N N R of this information should review or consult the primary data and information SUNSET BLVD O R E
D F O sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken
CHAPMAN RD B ¯ AÜ S in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, M notification of any errors will be appreciated. A
1 inch represents 10,000 feet H 0 1 2 A R N RD G ELLIGSE Miles Department of Land Use and Transportation
\\Emcgis\nas\GISDATA\Workgroups\GISPlanning\Joe\SteveZig\2015\TSP_UserGuide_11x17_Sidewalks.mxd Planning and Development Services Division Attachment A
Figure 3 ACE TER ACE YEAGER LN
173RD AVE 173RD Pedestrian Facility
E
184THAVE
V
179TH AVE 179TH
A
D Provision History N ROBERT LN 2 18 WINONA LN
177TH AVE Kinnaman Rd
!!!!! MEADOWBROOK
! KANDREA CT
! !
!!!!!!! !
!
! W ! !
! !
!
! A
! !
!
! Y ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! Funding Source
! !
!! !!
! ! !
! !
!!!!
! !
! !!!! ! !
!
! Privately Funded:
! !
!!! !!! ! !
! !
! !
!
! WASHINGTON CT
! ! Redevelopment
! !
! !
! !
!
! WASHINGTON DR
!
B KINNAMAN! RD !
UTTERNUT ST ! Publically ! !
! !
! !
!
185THAVE !
173RD AVE 173RD
!
! Funded: Capital ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! Project
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
L !
! !
!
P !
! !
!
JAYLEE ST ! CHRIS ST Publically Funded:
!
S ! ! ! !
PA R ! Minor Betterment SELLWOOD LN
180THAVE
182NDAVE
184THAVE Publically Funded: Urban Road Maintenance District
MADELINE ST 174TH TER NOVATO LN Improvement Type G
O
L
D Y Separated
E A
N W Sidewalk GAT E DIVISION ST Curb-tight D 186TH PL IV I Sidewalk
E S I
V O N
A S D T !!!!!!! Wide Shoulder
R
184THAVE 3
8 Walkway 1 DELINE ST FARMINGTON RD Tax Lots
This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken ¯ in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 1 inch represents 300 feet
0 215 430
182NDAVE Feet Department of Land Use and Transportation
183RDAVE \\Emcgis\nas\GISDATA\Workgroups\GISPlanning\Joe\SteveZig\2015\Kinniman_sidewalks_11x17_L1_Fig3.mxd Planning and Development Services Division Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 11 of 44
C. Policy Framework
County policies call for sidewalks to be provided along roads in UUWC, pursuant to state and regional requirements. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012 (the “Transportation Planning Rule”), in its description of the required transportation components of land use and subdivision regulations, states in section 660-012-0045 that, “Sidewalks shall be required along Arterials, Collectors and most Local Streets in urban areas, except that sidewalks are not required along controlled access roadways, such as freeways.” The Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan restates this requirement in section 3.08.130, requiring transportation system plans to include “Provision for sidewalks along Arterials, Collectors and most Local Streets, except that sidewalks are not required along controlled roadways, such as freeways.”
Overarching county pedestrian policies are consistent with state and regional requirements and are found in the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan and the Washington County Transportation System Plan, described below. Walkway implementation mechanisms are discussed in sections ‘D’ and ‘E’ of this paper.
Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP)
CFP Policy 14 – Managing Growth – categorizes urban facilities and services into essential, critical and desirable services:3
o Critical facilities and services include public water, public sewer, fire protection, drainage, and access on Local and Neighborhood Route roads. An inability to provide an adequate level of critical services in conjunction with a proposed development will result in the denial of a development application.
o Essential facilities and services include schools, Arterial (including State highways) and Collector roads, transit improvements (such as bus shelters and turnouts, etc.), police protection, street lighting, regional trails and on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way. Failure to ensure the availability of an adequate level of all essential services within five years from occupancy may result in the denial of a development application.
o Desirable facilities and services include public transportation service, parks, community trails, traffic calming devices, mid-block crossings and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These are facilities and services that may be expected in a reasonable timeframe from the occupancy of a development. A development application may be conditioned to facilitate desirable facilities and services based upon specific findings.
3 These descriptions incorporate changes made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 799, which became effective November 27, 2015.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 12 of 44
Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Overarching county polices related to pedestrian infrastructure are included under TSP Goal 8: Active Transportation.4 Goal 8 directs county transportation providers to “create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users.” Supporting text adds that, “active transportation modes are essential components of the overall transportation system, meeting a variety of societal, environmental and economic goals,” including environmental stewardship and energy sustainability, congestion alleviation, health, safety, efficient travel, cost savings and social equity, and attractive, efficient urban form.
More specific walkway-related strategies are included under TSP Objective 8.2: 5
Objective 8.2 Provide a pedestrian network that is safe, comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.
Strategy 8.2.1 Prioritize pedestrian projects that are technically and financially feasible and that also improve connectivity, fill gaps, and/or provide safe routes to schools, community facilities, commercial areas, transit stops, or essential destinations.
Strategy 8.2.2 Prioritize pedestrian projects based on need; factors to consider may include: safety, density (residential and employment), access to essential destinations and transit, and environmental justice factors, among others.
Strategy 8.2.3 Inside the Urban Growth Boundary, require that sidewalks are constructed along new or improved streets and along street frontages of new developments.
Strategy 8.2.4 Facilitate safe, convenient and comfortable pedestrian facilities through the provision of pedestrian scale amenities as deemed appropriate and in compliance with applicable regulations.
The TSP Goals, Objectives and Strategies are further refined in the TSP Modal Elements.6 The TSP Pedestrian Element establishes that all roadways in the urban area (with the exception of freeways) are pedestrian routes, and delineates particular roadway segments and areas where enhanced pedestrian features are desired because of land use context and/or transit service. The Pedestrian Element also identifies county-adopted Regional and Community Trails. Pedestrian Element designations that have a particular bearing on walkway provision and features include Pedestrian Parkway, Streetscape Overlay, and Pedestrian/Bicycle District. Definitions (edited for brevity) and examples are as follows:
o Pedestrian Parkway: A major urban thoroughfare (typically an Arterial with transit service) that has the potential for significant pedestrian activity. Enhanced pedestrian facilities are encouraged to facilitate a safe, direct, efficient, comfortable walking
4 The TSP Goals, Objectives and Strategies were adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 in 2013. 5 Objective 8.2 also includes strategies 8.2.5 and 8.2.6, which pertain to enhanced pedestrian crossings and rural pedestrian activity areas, respectively. 6 The TSP Modal Elements were adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 in 2014.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 13 of 44
environment along and across these roadways, including enhanced pedestrian crossings and wide sidewalks. Example: 185th Avenue between Springville Road and Farmington Road.
o Streetscape Overlay: A segment of urban roadway (typically within a Town Center, Regional Center or Station Community) in which enhanced pedestrian features, expanded pedestrian facility dimensions and place-making amenities are encouraged to facilitate a comfortable and attractive walking environment and to leverage community and economic development. Example: Cornell Road between 143rd Avenue and 119th Avenue.
o Pedestrian/Bicycle District: An area where high use by pedestrians and cyclists is either observed or intended. Pedestrian-oriented design of streets, public spaces and land uses are generally required in these areas to provide a safe, direct, efficient, comfortable and attractive walking environment. Example: Elmonica Station Community on 170th Avenue.
In addition, the TSP Roadway Element includes Special Area Street designations in the Cedar Mill, Sunset Station, Merlo, Elmonica, Willow Creek and Raleigh Hills areas. These include existing or proposed Special Area Collectors, Special Area Neighborhood Routes, Special Area Local Streets and Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area Street design standards typically include wider sidewalks, narrower paved widths and on-street parking. The sidewalks on Special Area Streets typically include individual trees in tree grates rather than continuous planter strips.
Washington County Community Plans
Some Community Plans require wider-than-standard sidewalks or prioritize certain areas for pedestrian network completion:
o Cedar Hills – Cedar Mill Community Plan requires arterials in areas with Transit- Oriented plan designations are required to have 12-foot wide sidewalks. This provision is detailed in the CDC and described in the next section.
o Sunset West Community Plan identifies pedestrian connectivity areas. The appropriate types of pedestrian improvements within these areas are sidewalks along streets, accessways, off-street trails, off-street pathways, or a combination of these improvements.
o Metzger-Progress Community Plan requires all new subdivisions, attached unit residential developments, and commercial developments to provide pedestrian pathways that allow public access through, or along, the development and connect with adjacent developments and/or shopping areas, schools, public transit, parks and recreation sites.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 14 of 44
o Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan contains provisions for sidewalk and interim pedestrian connections as identified in the CDC below.
D. Sidewalk Provision through Development
Many sidewalks in UUWC are provided by land development activity. Implementation documents that regulate development-provided sidewalks in UUWC include the CDC, Road Design & Construction Standards, Resolution & Order 86-95, and the Transportation Development Tax code. Pertinent provisions from these documents are described below along with legal nexus/proportionality considerations.
Washington County Community Development Code (CDC)
Sidewalks are one of several facilities regulated by CDC Section 501-2 (Application of the Public Facility and Service Standards Inside a UGB). Consistent with CFP Policy 14, Managing Growth, referenced earlier, “on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way” are designated as an essential service and “off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities” are designated as a desirable service (CDC Section 501-7.1). Additional regulations specific to sidewalks are included in CDC Section 502.
Below, in question/answer format, are several important sidewalk-related provisions in the CDC.
o What type/scale of development is required to provide sidewalks?
Development subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards includes all land divisions, property line adjustments, new construction of structures and expansion of existing structures, with some exceptions. The most notable exception is for “construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot…” (CDC Section 501-2.2).
However, CDC Section 502-1.4 states:
Sidewalks shall be required to be constructed prior to occupancy for the following development in the unincorporated areas of Washington County within an Urban Growth Boundary:
A. All development that is subject to the Public Facility and Service Standards as required by Section 501-2, except for:
(1) Private streets for four (4) or fewer dwelling units pursuant to Section 409-3.3 A. (1), (2), and (4 - 7); and
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 15 of 44
(2) Residential development that meets the exemption criteria in Section 502-14; or
B. One (1) detached dwelling unit or one (1) duplex on a legally created lot or parcel when:
(1) The lot or parcel has two hundred fifty (250) feet or less of street frontage; and
(2) A sidewalk or temporary sidewalk exists, or is required to be constructed as part of a development approval, on an adjacent lot or parcel with the same street frontage.
While CDC Sections 501-2.2 and 502-1.4 may appear to be at odds, Current Planning staff have developed an administrative interpretation to exempt sidewalk requirements for single family detached homes on lots of record. This is based on the premise that the home to be constructed on the lot of record would not generate trips over and above what was already permitted on the site, and therefore public improvements would not be proportional to the development.
However, on a newly created single family lot created by a partition, a sidewalk may be required if the frontage is less than 250 feet and an adjacent sidewalk exists, per CDC Section 502-1.4.
Other exemptions from building sidewalks are available in CDC Section 502-14 (Exemption From The Sidewalk and Temporary Sidewalk Construction Requirements), including situations where there are topographic/environmental constraints and on Non- Arterial/Collector streets where there are no sidewalks and no divisible properties in the surrounding area. Nevertheless, CDC Section 502-14 further states that sidewalks may be required if it would benefit access to transit or pedestrian-oriented land uses, if there is a safety need due to high vehicle speeds or volumes, or if it is in a Transit-Oriented or Pedestrian District.
o What are the design standards for required sidewalks?
CDC Section 502-3.1 states that sidewalks shall be built in accordance with adopted county standards. The current county sidewalk standard, in effect since 2011, is a five-foot concrete walkway separated from the curb by a minimum four-foot wide planter strip.7 The curb is typically six inches wide, resulting in a 9½-foot minimum pedestrian corridor, not including any space outside the sidewalk for utilities, topographic features or sound walls.
Sidewalk design modifications may be approved by the County Engineer. One common modification is to build a curbside sidewalk that omits the planter strip. Typical reasons for pursuing curbside sidewalks include limited right-of-way, topographic constraints, and/or a determination that other features of the roadway are considered to be more important for overall safety, such as a right turn lane. Curbside sidewalks have been built in many locations in UUWC, both by development activity and by county projects.
7 The Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards were adopted by Ordinance 738 in 2011.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 16 of 44
While both separated and curbside sidewalks provide safe walkway facilities, excluding the planter strip can have a negative effect on the perceived safety and comfort of the sidewalk, particularly along busier roadways. Insufficient data is available to determine whether separated sidewalks result in fewer pedestrian/vehicle collisions compared to curbside sidewalks. However, the additional horizontal separation (“shy distance”) and provision of trees and light poles may reduce the potential of pedestrians being struck by vehicles departing the roadway. Conversely, trees and other objects within the planter strip can create visibility problems if these features are not properly designed and maintained.
In other circumstances, the county requires a sidewalk to be built along a development frontage at its ultimate location without completing other elements of the half-street. Typically this leaves an open ditch between the sidewalk and the roadway, and the roadway typically remains without a bike lane and without standard pavement width and base. The intent in these circumstances is to provide complete roadway, stormwater and bicycle facilities through a future capital project.
The CDC includes provisions for wider sidewalks in certain areas including the following:
• Eight-foot sidewalks are required along certain state highways. CDC Section 502-13.3 states, “Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the adopted County Road Standards, except an eight-foot width shall be required along Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Canyon Road and Tualatin Valley Highway.” In practice, sidewalks built to this standard have been built curb-tight with no planter strip, which conflicts with current county Road Design & Construction Standards. This is because the eight-foot sidewalk requirement on certain state highways predates the county requirement for planter strips. Application of both standards would theoretically yield a 12-foot pedestrian corridor including an eight-foot sidewalk and four-foot planter strip.
• Twelve-foot sidewalks are required along certain streets within Transit-Oriented plan designations indicated in the Community Plans. CDC Section 431-5.1 B (4) states:
Minimum sidewalk widths in Transit Oriented Districts shall be the widest identified by the Washington County Road Design and Construction Standards for the adjacent Special Area Street (as shown in the Transportation System Plan), except for Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area Commercial Streets shall have sidewalks that are a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width. On Arterials within or adjacent to Transit Oriented Districts and which are designated as ‘Streetscape Overlay’ on the Pedestrian System Map in the Transportation System Plan, the minimum sidewalk width shall be twelve (12) feet.
An example of an applicable segment where 12-foot sidewalks are required is NW Cornell Road in the Cedar Mill Town Center.
• Sidewalks along designated Special Area Commercial Streets in the Peterkort Station Area are required to be 15 feet wide (CDC Section 431-12.3 B (4)).
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 17 of 44
• North Bethany sidewalks are required to meet standards identified in CDC Section 502 (Sidewalk Standards) per CDC 501-10.1 G. Furthermore, a direct, safe and continuous pedestrian connection is required for pedestrian-oriented uses (schools, parks, recreation centers, commercial uses, and nearest transit stops). Interim pedestrian connections are required based on specific standards (CDC Section 501-10.2 F).
o At what stage of development are sidewalks actually constructed?
Subdivision public improvements are typically phased – usually the first phase is the roadways and the final phase is the sidewalks. Sidewalk completion is not required until homes or other buildings have been constructed on the lots. Small subdivisions typically do not have a major time lag in providing complete sidewalks. However, in large subdivisions (e.g., 50 or more homes), new residents in the first phase of the subdivision may experience sidewalk gaps in their community for many months if not years. During the economic recession of the late 2000s, many public improvements associated with subdivisions were left incomplete, perpetuating gaps in the walkway system. One way of potentially mitigating this situation in the future is to have the developer build temporary asphalt walkways in key locations as an interim solution.
Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards
The current Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards were adopted by Ordinance No. 738 in 2011. As referenced earlier, the county sidewalk standard for urban roadways is a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk set back four feet from the back of curb (section 340.060 and standard drawing 2110), or as otherwise specified in the county Comprehensive Plan. Grades and cross-slopes of sidewalks and crosswalks must meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Curbside sidewalks – an exception to the County Road Design & Construction Standards – are allowed as determined and approved by the County Engineer. In cases of land development, this design exception is included in the development’s Notice of Decision. Curbside sidewalks have been constructed in many circumstances along county roads, by development and as part of county capital projects. These non-standard sidewalks are often the result of difficult trade-offs between design optimization, available right-of-way and the proportionality of exactions from development.
The County Road Design & Construction Standards are anticipated to be updated in 2016 to reflect new pedestrian/bicycle designations and right-of-way requirements added to the TSP in 2014 and 2015, including Streetscape Overlays.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 18 of 44
Washington County Resolution & Order 86-95
Resolution & Order (R&O) 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance – Process Documentation) was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in 1986. It establishes the process and criteria by which developments are required to make safety improvements to the roadway system. Appendix B to the R&O, which describes the criteria, states that:
Sidewalks will be installed along the sites [sic] frontage, placed at ultimate location and grade, unless an exception is approved in accordance with the standard of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 501-5.4.
In cases where a hazard is predicted, Appendix B states that:
Off-site sidewalks which are needed to allow safe pedestrian travel from the development to an existing network of sidewalks or to an area of heavy pedestrian draw, such as a neighborhood commercial development, will be required.
Off-site sidewalks have been particularly difficult to implement because negotiation with a third party is usually required. If additional right-of-way is needed to construct the off-site sidewalk, the adjacent property owner may or may not be willing to sell it. In addition, the county does not have a standard procedure for measuring, predicting, setting thresholds or delineating impact areas for off-site pedestrian, bicycle or transit demand. R&O 86-95 establishes only a motor vehicle impact threshold, defined as locations where site-generated traffic equals or exceeds 10% of existing traffic.
While the core functions of R&O 86-85 are still effective, staff believes an updated framework is needed to better account for multiple transportation modes during development review. The county undertook a Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards project in 2013-2014 (funded by an Oregon Transportation and Growth Management grant) that explored potential tools and methods that could be incorporated into such an update.
Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Credit
The TDT is the countywide system development charge for transportation capacity improvements. Development applicants may receive credit against their TDT payment obligations for constructing eligible improvements that were conditions of development approval.8 TDT credit eligibility for roadway improvements applies only to Arterials and Collectors, which make up about 30% of urban roads maintained by Washington County.
Sidewalks are eligible for TDT credit in very limited circumstances because they typically do not provide additional capacity beyond what a Local Street would provide. Variables that
8 Washington County Code 3.17 regulates the Transportation Development Tax. TDT credit regulations are included in section 3.17.070.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 19 of 44
affect credit eligibility for sidewalks include whether it is built larger or the same as the Local Street standard, whether it is contiguous or non-contiguous to the development site, and whether the roadway is or is not included in the adopted TDT Capital Project List. Table 1 below describes credit eligibility in these contexts.
Table 1: Transportation Development Tax Credit Eligibility of Sidewalks
On the TDT Project List Not on the TDT Project List
On or contiguous to the developing property
• Built to local street standard Sidewalk is not eligible Sidewalk is not eligible
• Built larger than local street Portion of sidewalk beyond local Portion of sidewalk beyond local standard street standard is 100% eligible street standard is 75% eligible on arterials, 50% eligible on Collectors • Right-of-way (ROW) is ROW is 100% eligible based on ROW is not eligible dedicated assessed market land value in county tax records
Neither on nor contiguous to the developing property
• Built to local street standard Sidewalk is 100% eligible Sidewalk is 75% eligible on Arterials, 50% eligible on Collectors
• Built larger than local street Sidewalk is 100% eligible Sidewalk is 75% eligible on standard arterials, 50% eligible on Collectors
• Right-of-way is dedicated ROW is 100% eligible based on ROW is 100% eligible based on reasonable market value purchased reasonable market value purchased from a third party from a third party
Under no circumstances are sidewalks along Neighborhood Routes or Local Streets eligible for TDT credit. However, several Neighborhood Routes in the North Bethany subarea are eligible for North Bethany Transportation System Development Charge (NBTSDC) credit. The NBTSDC is a separate charge that is regulated by similar, but not identical, code language as the TDT.
Legal Considerations
Sidewalks and other public improvements required of development are subject to the legal concepts of nexus and proportionality as established through case law in the United States. Several court cases have created a framework in which LUT must carefully consider how the private cost of frontage improvements may or may not be proportional to the scale and
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 20 of 44
impact of development. With no objective criteria or standards available to measure proportionality, the county has had to rely on informal back-and-forth negotiations with development applicants as well as more formal proceedings and decisions by Hearings Officers. If disagreement persists, the applicant or the review authority may appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), followed by the Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court. It is worth noting that the nation’s most significant legal test of proportionality – Dolan v. City of Tigard – occurred in Washington County.
This and two other U.S. Supreme Court cases have had a profound impact on development requirements:
o In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), the Court decided that there was not a sufficient nexus for the Coastal Commission to require a public easement across beachfront property as a condition for rebuilding a house, and it was therefore an unconstitutional taking. As a result of the case, review authorities must make a clear connection – nexus – between the required condition and the impact of the development.
o In Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), the Court ruled that there must be “rough proportionality” between a required land dedication and the development’s impact. In this case, the requirement to dedicate land to the city for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail was ruled to be disproportionate to the impact of expanding an existing plumbing/electric supply store.
o In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013), the Court ruled that the Nollan/Dolan tests of nexus and proportionality apply in situations where a permit is denied, and they apply in cases where money is demanded instead of improvements or land. The case effectively expanded the reach of nexus/ proportionality considerations, including fee-in-lieu situations.
On a relatively frequent and increasing basis, development applicants in UUWC have been appealing land use decisions because they feel sidewalk and other public improvements required by the county are too onerous and disproportionate to the scale of development. Hearings Officers have often sided with the applicant, resulting in no sidewalks. Recent examples include the following:
o SW 85th Avenue Partition (Case File 14-365-P Appeal) – The Hearings Officer (H.O.) determined that staff had not demonstrated that the required improvements (a half-street with sidewalk) were related in nature or roughly proportional to the impact of the partition. The H.O. also determined that sidewalks should not be required due to the lack of sidewalks in the vicinity of the site and because the partition itself would not generate any pedestrian traffic to require the improvement.
o Lithia Mini Auto Dealership Expansion (Case File 14-289-D(C)-Appeals) – The H.O. determined that the cost of the required improvement (widening the roadway to accommodate a bike lane, relocating the sidewalk and dedicating the appropriate right-of-
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 21 of 44
way along SW Canyon Road) was disproportionate to the scale of the proposed development.
o Chestnut Corner Subdivision (Case File 14-460-S Appeal) – The H.O. determined that the required improvements (half-streets with sidewalk along two intersecting streets) were not appropriate due to the limited impact of the proposed subdivision. The applicant proposed to replace four pre-existing dwelling units with four new units, theoretically resulting in no new transportation impacts. The H.O. ultimately required temporary, at- grade sidewalks along the site’s two street frontages, unless one or both temporary sidewalks trigger Clean Water Services requirements to construct stormwater facilities.
In addition, “minimum density” developments tend not to be required to make sidewalk improvements due to proportionality. Development applications that do not meet minimum density requirements may be approved if future development plans are submitted with the applications. A future development plan must demonstrate how the entire site can be ultimately developed consistent with the minimum density and other applicable standards of the CDC. For example, a two lot partition that may ultimately accommodate additional, denser development would most likely not be required to make sidewalk improvements due to the disproportionate cost relative to the development action.
Notwithstanding the cases above, LUT has been successful in requiring sidewalks on a large majority of development applications. Looking specifically at the 20 urban partition9 casefiles that were marked final or approved in calendar year 2014:
o Seven casefiles resulted in sidewalk construction on all frontages (totaling nearly 1,100 lineal feet);
o Nine casefiles had pre-existing sidewalks on the frontages (These were typically partitions within recent subdivisions or serial partitions10 );
o One casefile resulted in 90 feet of sidewalk constructed and 158 feet of sidewalk exempted due to a provision in CDC Section 502-14 (Exemption From The Sidewalk and Temporary Sidewalk Construction Requirements);
o One casefile resulted in a Hearings Officer decision to remove a requirement to build 100 feet of sidewalk; and
o Two casefiles were not included in this analysis because the partition was a small part of a larger development.
9 A partition is defined in the Oregon Revised Statutes (92.010) as a land division that creates no more than three parcels. 10 A serial partition is when a de facto subdivision is created through multiple, adjacent partitions.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 22 of 44
Development Industry Perspectives
Most developers are willing partners in constructing public improvements within and along their development sites. In some cases, however, developers find the county’s public improvement requirements to be burdensome.
As an example, in 2014 a representative of the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) contacted county staff to raise a proportionality issue with the SW 85th Avenue partition described above, in which the required improvements exceeded the value of the lot. During this contact, the HBA representative requested process improvements for determining public facility requirements, mentioning the City of Portland as an example. The HBA representative described a city process in which developers can learn of and contest public improvement requirements prior to formal submittal and for a small fee. The HBA representative stated that this process provides the opportunity to reconsider a development project before making significant investments including land use fees.
LUT staff confirmed with Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) staff that there is an Early Assistance for Public Works program that allows applicants to submit development proposals and receive an assessment of what public improvements would be required, for a $150 fee. However, this program is limited to developments of one or two single family homes and does not apply to developments that necessitate land use review (e.g., partitions and subdivisions). For eligible participants that are not satisfied with the proposed requirements, two levels of appeals are available, each with a $250 fee. The first appeal is the Alternative Review process which allows applicants to propose alternatives to a Public Works Alternative Review Committee. The second appeal is to a Public Works Appeal Panel consisting of residents and other volunteers. After exhausting these options, applicants can either reconsider the project or proceed to formal submittal of the land use application (which includes appeal opportunities similar to those in Washington County).
LUT does not have a program comparable to Portland’s Early Assistance for Public Works program, but it does offer two processes that provide early notification of public facility requirements: the Pre-Application Conference (“pre-app”) and the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). As of July 2015, fees for pre-apps and TISs are $268 and $400, respectively.
The pre-app is intended to provide important, multi-faceted information about developing a property, including the plan designation, identification of any natural resources or special areas of consideration, and identification of all applicable CDC sections that require attention – including public facility requirements. Pre-apps are required for most Type II and Type III land use applications, though waivers are available. Pre-apps for Type I applications are voluntary.
A TIS is more detailed and provides development applicants with a preliminary, site-specific list of applicable county transportation improvement requirements. A TIS is mandatory for all development generating 40 or more average daily vehicle trips, including residential developments with four or more dwelling units. The TIS must be completed and submitted as part of the land development application.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 23 of 44
Staff believes that the pre-app and TIS processes, combined with informal phone and e-mail communication between staff and applicants, provide developers with adequate, early information on public facility requirements. In addition, LUT’s ability to address transportation-specific requirements prior to plan submittal has improved with the hiring of a Transportation Planner within the Current Planning section.
E. Walkway Provision through Public Projects
LUT has been proactively addressing walkway gaps in UUWC by investing public funds, from large capital projects that rebuild entire roadways for all modes of travel, to smaller infill projects that construct interim improvements. The sections below describe funding sources available for walkway projects and methods used to prioritize projects and measure progress toward completing the walkway network.
Funding Sources
Washington County has a number of different funding sources available to address walkway gaps. These are described below.
o Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) – Washington County’s property tax-funded MSTIP program addresses multimodal safety and capacity issues on the System of Countywide Interest, an agreed-upon system of Arterial and limited Collector roadways11. Through 2018, MSTIP will have invested $730 million in 130 multimodal projects since the program’s inception in 1986. Currently about $35 million is available annually through the program. MSTIP projects are significant in scope and have allowed dozens of miles of new sidewalk to be built in long, continuous stretches. Some MSTIP projects do not provide additional motor vehicle travel lanes and are therefore focused primarily on providing pedestrian, bicycle and lighting improvements. Examples include SW Oleson Road, SW 170th Avenue south of Farmington Road, and the upcoming SW 198th Avenue project. As of this writing, projects are being developed for the next round of MSTIP, called MSTIP 3e. This round of funding will construct projects over the five-year period from 2019 through 2023.
MSTIP also includes two offshoot programs:
• MSTIP Opportunity Fund – In 2012 the Board established a $5 million set-aside of MSTIP 3d (the current five-year allocation of MSTIP) for the purpose of providing matching funds for competitive grants. Project eligibility is broad, but is intended to focus on unique projects that would not otherwise meet the intent of the core MSTIP
11 The System of Countywide Interest map was endorsed by the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) in 2007 and subsequently amended in 2012 and 2015. The latest version is scheduled to be endorsed by the WCCC in January 2016 as part of the MSTIP 3e process.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 24 of 44
program, including stand-alone pedestrian/bicycle improvements, access-to-transit projects, travel demand management (TDM) and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The Board and Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) have indicated support for increasing the Opportunity Fund allocation to $7.5 million under MSTIP 3e.
• Residential High-Growth Transportation Funding Program – Approved by the Board in June 2015, this program is funded by bonds paid back by anticipated growth in the MSTIP fund. It is intended to address safety and capacity needs on county roads near major new development areas along the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary. The approved 10-year list of projects includes several projects that focus primarily on pedestrian, bicycle and lighting improvements, including NW Thompson Road near Bonny Slope West, SW Kinnaman Road near South Hillsboro, and SW Tile Flat Road near South Cooper Mountain. Other projects that add vehicular capacity are also constructing sidewalks in places where they do not currently exist, such as NW Springville Road near North Bethany and SW Roy Rogers Road near River Terrace.
o Transportation Development Tax (TDT) – The TDT, which replaced the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) in 2009, is a countywide transportation System Development Charge (SDC). TDT revenues, consistent with state statutes pertaining to SDCs, can be spent only on additional capacity for future users. Pedestrian/bicycle improvements are eligible for TDT spending because they increase the capacity of the roadway. TDT and TIF have been used to expand a number or roadways to include additional vehicle lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks. Washington County’s first TDT capital investment will be the widening and realignment of NW Springville Road between 185th and 178th Avenues, including complete sidewalks on both sides of the road.12 TDT revenues vary annually. Unincorporated Washington County collected approximately $8.5 million in FY 2014-15 and had an account balance of approximately $19.9 million on August 3, 2015.
o Minor Betterment Program – The Minor Betterment program was a small allocation of the county Road Fund originating from fuel taxes. The intent of the program was to provide small-scale improvements that were beyond routine maintenance but not large enough to be programmed as capital projects. Many (but not all) Minor Betterment projects filled gaps in the pedestrian network. These pedestrian improvements typically did not meet county sidewalk standards. Instead, asphalt pathways or wide shoulder walkways were provided to fill walkway gaps in a low cost fashion. Each year, project candidates were collected from the public and a joint citizen-staff selection committee scores and prioritizes projects based on Candidate Evaluation Criteria. The committee invited and reviewed public comments on the top candidates prior to making a recommendation. The Minor Betterment program is funded at $500,000 for FY 2015-16 and will fund three projects. There is currently no plan to fund the Minor Betterment
12 The project is in design phase as of January 2016. Several cities in Washington County have already spent TDT on capital improvements within their respective jurisdictions.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 25 of 44
program for FY 2016-17 and beyond. For the foreseeable future, the Road Fund is needed to address deferred road maintenance.
o Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) Safety Improvement Program – The URMD taxing district covers much of UUWC and is used primarily for maintenance of Local Streets and Neighborhood Routes. The URMD is funded through property taxes, with an assessment of $0.2456 per $1,000 in assessed property value. In 2011 the Board decided to set aside some URMD funds for safety projects, including pedestrian infrastructure needs. In FY 2015-16, $2.5 million was allocated to six URMD Safety projects. The citizen-led URMD Advisory Committee (URMDAC) uses a process similar to the Minor Betterment Program to prioritize projects, using the same Candidate Evaluation Criteria and public comment process. In addition, funded improvements draw from the same list of candidates and are constructed in a similar fashion to Minor Betterments. The URMD Safety Improvement Program is anticipated to continue until county roadways begin to approach minimum Pavement Condition Index (PCI) levels, at which time the funds will likely be redirected back to pavement maintenance. When the program was originally proposed, it was projected to have $17 million available over 10 years. Actual spending after four years has been $8.5 million due to higher project costs. URMDAC has recommended projects estimated to cost about $2 million for FY 2016-17. Assuming a continued allocation of $2 million per year, the program should be able to function through FY 2019-20 or FY 2020-21. It might last a year or two longer if pavement deterioration is slower than projected or if assessed valuations increase at a rate higher than currently projected.
o Local Improvement District (LID) – Per County Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.20, LIDs can be formed for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining public improvements financed wholly or in part by a special tax assessment on benefitting properties. LIDs have been used by LUT Operations & Maintenance Division to upgrade gravel roads and to chip-seal roads. A handful of LIDs are also in effect for traffic calming measures and ongoing road maintenance. So far, LIDs have not been used to build sidewalks on county roads, in part due to the relatively high costs of drainage, water quality, ADA compliance and utility relocations. These costs would likely exceed what property owners are willing to pay for sidewalk installation. However, CDC Section 502-8 (Developed Area Sidewalks) enables the Board to create LIDs for the express purpose of constructing sidewalks along already developed properties. For such LIDs, a petition must be signed by at least 51 percent of property owners within the proposed LID and those who sign must also represent a majority of the linear frontage of the proposed sidewalk.
o County Service District (CSD). State statute allows the county to form a service district and levy ad valorem property taxes for the purpose of constructing road improvements.13 The URMD is one such district. Washington County established another CSD in the North Bethany subarea to help finance new roads and improvements to existing roads in the area. Properties within that CSD are assessed $1.25 per $1,000 of assessed value for a
13 ORS 371 – Road Districts and Road Assessment Plans; ORS 451 – County Service Facilities.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 26 of 44
period of thirty years. It is anticipated that the North Bethany CSD will raise approximately $22 million over this time period. CSDs typically must be approved by voters who live in the affected area. A CSD specific to sidewalk improvements could be explored for other areas of UUWC.
o Federal transportation funds – Outside of pass-through funds to the state, most ongoing federal transportation funds are managed by Metro regional government and are programmed every three years through the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). A subset of these funds is made available to local jurisdictions through a competitive process known as the Regional Flexible Fund Allocation (RFFA). The last RFFA round allocated 75% of funds for “active transportation/complete streets” and 25% for freight projects. The next round (2019-21) is anticipated to have at least $38 million in competitive funds available for capital projects around the region. Policies are still under development as of this writing. Past RFFA active transportation funds have been used to fund trails, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and bicycle infrastructure.
Generally speaking, federal transportation funds have been stagnant while needs have been increasing. The Federal Highway Trust Fund has been eroded by inflation and reduced per capita fuel consumption and has required backfilling from the U.S. Treasury. After years of short-term extensions of the previous transportation bill, Congress passed and the President signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. While the bill does not solve the systemic transportation funding problem, it does provide five years of stable federal funding for transportation, including increased allocations for local governments and for Transportation Alternatives – the set- aside typically used for pedestrian/bicycle projects.
Other federal sources include the following:
• Federal Community Development Block Grants (CBDG) – Federal funds are available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund infrastructure in communities that meet certain demographic and economic characteristics. Sidewalks are an eligible and common expense of CDBG funds. In 2014, Washington County used CDBG funds to build a sidewalk on SW 173rd Avenue linking to Aloha-Huber School. During this project LUT Engineering staff found that it was not cost-efficient to use federal funds to construct such a small project.
• Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Now in its seventh round, the U.S. Department of Transportation offers discretionary grants for large, “shovel-ready” capital projects or major transportation planning projects. The 2015 grant round, called TIGER VII, had $500 million available nationwide. Stand- alone sidewalk projects typically do not compete well for TIGER funds, unless bundled into larger projects such as industrial access, corridor revitalization, bridge or transit capital projects.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 27 of 44
o State transportation funds – The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) administers state transportation funds, which are predominantly pass-through funds from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Prior to 2013, ODOT maintained funding set-asides for Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School. These programs were commonly used for sidewalks, including a 2013 Washington County project on NW 90th Avenue and Stark Street near West Tualatin View Elementary School. Currently all non- maintenance state transportation funds are bundled into an allocation called “Enhance” under the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements along Tualatin Valley Highway in Aloha have been funded through STIP Enhance. STIP Enhance funds are increasingly limited as federal transportation funds stagnate and more emphasis is placed on basic maintenance. Separately, a portion of Oregon Lottery funds are allocated into a transportation program called Connect Oregon. However, eligible improvements for past rounds of Connect Oregon have focused on off-street pedestrian/bicycle connections, rail freight and maritime improvements. Another effort to raise additional state transportation funds through increased fuel taxes and vehicle fees failed during the 2015 state legislative session but may be revisited in the 2017 session.
o Gain Share – Washington County receives a share of state income tax revenue generated by firms that have received tax abatements through the Oregon Strategic Investment Program. In 2013 the Board agreed to allocate $15 million in Gain Share funds (about 7% of projected Gain Share funds) to pedestrian/bicycle projects throughout the county. LUT selected 15 projects, drawing from the DOE and Minor Betterment project lists and other sources. Eleven of these projects, totaling $6 million, have gone to construction. In July 2015, Oregon Senate Bill 129 modified the Gain Share agreement, resulting in a $16 million annual cap on funds for Washington County. This had the effect of cancelling any Gain Share ped/bike projects that were not already underway. The County Administrative Office (CAO) reworked the Gain Share spending program and on December 15, 2015 the Board adopted a revised program that dedicates $2 million per year over ten years for “Safe Access to Schools.” Intent moving forward is to invest this $20 million in sidewalk, Taylor Street sidewalk constructed with Gain crosswalk and accessway projects identified in Share funding in December 2015. the 2015 School Access Improvement Study.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 28 of 44
Prioritization Methods
LUT has taken deliberate steps to prioritize sidewalk on county roads. Efforts have included the following:
o Small Road Improvement Candidates List / URMD Safety Public Comment Process – LUT Operations maintains a list of sidewalk gaps and other needs, populated by ongoing service requests from the public. Through the previous Minor Betterment and URMD Safety programs described above, LUT calls on the public to comment on nominated candidates. The process has been effective; however, some neighborhoods are more active than others in nominating candidates.
o Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project – The aforementioned DOE project identified over 500 sidewalk and bike lane gaps on Arterials and Collectors in urban Washington County. These gaps were evaluated using criteria including population density and land use mix, surrounding street connectivity, safety, and benefits to traditionally underserved communities. Outcomes included the identification of 30 high-priority sidewalk and bike lane projects with planning-level cost estimates.
o Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan – Based on direction gleaned from an extensive public involvement process, LUT staff identified and prioritized a list of 99 sidewalk, crossing and accessway projects that would provide safe, convenient walking access to public K-12 schools in the area. The prioritization involved pedestrian network modeling that estimated potential usage levels for home-to-school trips. The resulting prioritized list included 11 sidewalk projects.
o School Access Improvement Study – Completed as part of Washington County’s Safe Routes to School program in October 2015, this document identifies and provides planning-level cost estimates for key walkway and other pedestrian projects that would help students safely walk to public schools in UUWC. The study identifies over $98 million in projects for a total of 53 schools. Further prioritization of projects will be necessary.
o Transportation Improvement Master List (TIM) – GIS staff have developed an interactive mapping tool available to all LUT employees to keep track of the wide range of transportation improvement needs that have been identified in plans, by staff and through public comments. While TIM is not a prioritization tool per se, it allows users to view improvement needs in the context of other information in order to better inform decision making. It is a particularly good tool for identifying needs that appear on multiple project lists or have been requested by the public multiple times.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 29 of 44
Measuring Progress
As part of the TSP update in 2014, LUT staff developed performance targets for sidewalk and bike lane completion on urban Arterials and Collectors in Washington County.14 For sidewalks, the performance target is 84% of Arterial/Collectors having sidewalks on both sides of the street by the year 2040. This would represent a 50% increase in sidewalk miles in concert with the Metro Regional Transportation Plan performance target for “Basic Infrastructure” (2014 RTP Table 2.3). Complete implementation of the TSP Capital Project Candidate List would result in 70% of Arterials and Collectors having sidewalk coverage on both sides, moving Washington County about halfway toward the target. Staff intends to maintain and periodically update the Arterial/Collector sidewalk inventory as county projects and development incrementally move the county toward a complete sidewalk network.
Additionally, LUT Operations & Maintenance Division hosts a central repository of transportation asset information called the Integrated Road Inventory System (IRIS), along with a graphical user interface called Asset Browser. Together these tools document facility characteristics and conditions as well as facility permit information. Primary data classes available on Asset Browser include: Jurisdiction, Permits, Bridges, Signals, Culverts, Street Lighting, and Road Projects. IRIS and Asset Browser may be appropriate tools for developing a comprehensive sidewalk and bike lane inventory for county roadways.
IV. Analysis
This section provides a summary of key takeaways from the preceding Background section, then provides an analysis of different walkway types from a cost and safety perspective.
A. Key Takeaways from Background Section
Major findings from the Background section, which help inform the subsequent Analysis and Recommendations, include the following:
• While over half of the Arterial/Collector mileage in urban Washington County has walkways on both sides of the street, nearly one-fifth has no pedestrian facilities and one- quarter has interim and/or one-sided walkways. In Aloha-Reedville, one-third of walkways are missing on all roadway types.
• Different eras of development, stalled subdivisions, different county funding programs, and varied application of county codes and standards have resulted in a patchwork of standard, non-standard and/or absent walkways.
14 A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, Technical Appendix 3: System Evaluation, pp 64-65, October 2014.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 30 of 44
• There is strong policy and code guidance in the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban area, Transportation System Plan, Community Plans and Community Development Code to improve the walkway network in UUWC.
• Sidewalks are required for most development; exceptions include single family lots of record and single family lots with greater than 250 feet of frontage and/or no existing, adjacent sidewalks.
• The county sidewalk standard is a five-foot concrete walkway set back four feet from a six-inch curb; wider sidewalks are required or recommended in areas where more pedestrian activity is expected. Non-standard curbside sidewalks have been built in many locations due to right-of-way constraints and trade-offs with other features of the roadway.
• R&O 86-95 – the county’s process for determining transportation safety improvements by development – does not adequately address non-vehicular needs, especially off-site.
• The Transportation Development Tax code allows credit for building sidewalks only in rare circumstances, including if they are built off-site and/or larger than standard.
• Sidewalks that are required as conditions of development approval are subject to appeal based on the legal concepts of nexus and proportionality as established by U.S. Supreme Court case law (Nollan/Dolan/Koontz).
• Development applicants are increasingly exercising these appeal rights to oppose sidewalk and other public improvement requirements; Hearings Officers are increasingly deciding in favor of the appellants.
• The Homebuilders Association has requested earlier notification of what public facility improvements will be required; the county offers the Traffic Impact Statement process and pre-application conferences for this purpose.
• Washington County has access to at least 14 available funding sources to construct sidewalks, at least five of which are controlled or managed by the Board of Commissioners.
• State and federal transportation funding is stagnant and not keeping pace with inflation and system needs; it is increasingly unreliable as a source for enhancement funds, even with recent passage of the federal FAST Act.
• The CDC, Washington County Code and state statute enable the county to use LIDs and CSDs to construct sidewalks; however, property owners may not be willing or able to shoulder all of the associated costs, such as stormwater treatment.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 31 of 44
• Through several different processes, Washington County has prioritized sidewalk needs on urban Arterials and Collectors, near schools in Aloha-Reedville and in other locations in UUWC; matching these needs with funding is the next logical step.
• Washington County has tools in use to continually monitor sidewalk needs, including the Transportation Improvement Master List, the DOE/TSP Arterial/Collector sidewalk inventory, and Operations & Maintenance IRIS and Asset Browser.
B. Walkway Construction Cost
Staff performed an analysis of infill walkway projects recently built by the county to assess the cost differences between different walkway design and material types. Because of the variety of contexts and scales in which the projects were built, this analysis was inconclusive and is not included in this paper. Generally, walkway projects cost between $250 and $500 per lineal foot to construct. This cost covers engineering, project management, inspection, construction and contingency necessary to provide a walkway facility that is four to five feet wide. As with any cost estimate, unique circumstances at each particular project site can add or subtract from these numbers. In particular, stormwater improvements and right-of-way tend to inflate project costs significantly. Typically, a wide-shoulder walkway is less expensive to construct than a concrete separated sidewalk. Cost differences between concrete and asphalt construction were inconclusive. Long-term maintenance costs also must be considered.
C. Safety Analysis of Different Walkway Types
All dedicated walkway facilities provide improved safety for people walking. The Federal Highway Administration publication, Safety Benefits of Walkways, Sidewalks, and Paved Shoulders,15 notes that approximately 4,500 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles annually (representing 13% of all traffic fatalities), and that 8% of these collisions are “walking along roadway” crashes. FHWA cites safety benefits of both sidewalks and wide shoulder walkways, based on a literature review. Specifically, the agency finds that:
• Sidewalks on both sides of the roadway reduce “walking along roadway” crashes by 88%. • Paved wide shoulders (minimum 4-foot width) reduce “walking along roadway” crashes by 71%.
Providing guidance on appropriate contexts for the above walkway types, FHWA notes that:
Sidewalks should be considered the preferred treatment for accommodating pedestrians in urban areas and where frequent pedestrian use is expected. For less developed areas with occasional
15 US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Safety Program, 2010.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 32 of 44
pedestrian traffic expected, walkable shoulders (a minimum of 4 feet stabilized or paved surface) should be provided along both sides of rural highways.
The concept of “perceived safety” is also important to consider when making decisions about walkway types. FHWA makes the case that:
Providing walkways for pedestrians dramatically increases how well pedestrians perceive their needs are being met along roadways. The wider the separation is between the pedestrian and the roadway, the more comfortable the pedestrian facility.
For this reason, separated sidewalks are the design and construction standard for many jurisdictions, including Washington County. LUT staff have received feedback from individuals and entities with safety concerns about wide-shoulder walkways and curbside sidewalks. Beaverton School District staff has stated that wide-shoulder walkways will not be considered as part of a school-sanctioned “safe routes to school,” particularly if located along busier roadways.
However, wide-shoulder walkways, curbside sidewalks and other non-standard walkway facilities will continue to be installed in certain situations to fill critical gaps in the walkway network at a reasonable cost.
V. Recommendations
To better address walkway gaps in UUWC, staff recommends further consideration of 11 different options, including six potential administrative changes that can be implemented by staff, and eight potential legislative changes that would require adoption by the Board of Commissioners. Each recommendation below is accompanied by supporting information. The word “potential” is included under both headings to indicate that the Board and Planning Commission may want to weigh in on these recommendations.
Potential Administrative Changes:
1. Expand capabilities and usage of the Transportation Improvement Master List (TIM) for documenting, characterizing, mapping and monitoring walkway gaps and programmed projects.
The county has a well-developed Geographic Information System (GIS) that is being used to keep track of walkway gaps and to monitor progress toward meeting sidewalk completion goals. TIM was developed with the purpose of consolidating and digitizing a number of different project or project candidate lists maintained by county staff in different divisions. The consolidated list is mapped and made available to all staff through a web-based GIS tool. TIM is a good platform for finding sidewalk project opportunities that have been identified on multiple lists. For example, a certain segment of county roadway may appear on the DOE
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 33 of 44
list and the Small Road Improvement Candidates List while also receiving multiple public requests for improvement.
Another desired function that could be integrated with TIM is providing Current Planning (and other) staff with better information on committed sidewalk projects in the area of proposed development, including Trust & Agency accounts and Facility Permits. For example, if it is known that a particular developing property is located immediately to the east of a funded county sidewalk project, and immediately to the west is a Trust & Agency account dedicated to frontage improvements, LUT staff could work together to deliver a cohesive sidewalk project connecting all three locations.
In concert with TIM and IRIS, the Arterial/Collector sidewalk inventory created through the DOE project and updated during the 2014 TSP update should continue to be updated as sidewalks are completed by county projects and development improvements. Doing so would provide staff with an indication of how well the county is progressing toward its goal of 84% of Arterials and Collectors having sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The process of updating TIM should continue, including adding new project needs that arise, as well as changing the status of projects once they are funded and constructed. Staff from multiple LUT divisions would be involved in this effort, with Long Range Planning GIS staff in a coordination role.
2. Add walkway presence/absence information to the Integrated Road Inventory System and Asset Browser.
The Integrated Road Inventory System (IRIS), maintained by LUT Operations and Maintenance Division, is the county’s centralized digital repository for transportation-related features and assets. Asset Browser, also maintained by LUT Operations, is a graphical user interface that depicts IRIS information along with a variety of other features and details drawn from database and GIS platforms. IRIS is generally more spatially precise and updated more frequently than TIM. As a result, IRIS is probably the most appropriate platform for storing and updating walkway information for county roadways. LUT Operations staff have begun integrating and quality-checking walkway information from a variety of sources, including the DOE/TSP Arterial/Collector inventory, the 2015 School Access Improvement Study, the Aloha-Reedville Study, and as-built development. Unique walkway information is shown for each side of the roadway for superior visualization, and any walkway typology information is being preserved from the source data (for example, standard sidewalk vs. non- standard walkway). Sidewalk data will continue to be updated by LUT Operations staff on an ongoing basis as data becomes available and resources allow, with the ultimate goal of completing walkway information for all road segments maintained by Washington County. Walkway information stored in IRIS will be graphically depicted in Asset Browser. Staff may also consider adding Trust & Agency account information to Asset Browser.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 34 of 44
3. Focus walkway project development efforts on gaps identified in the following sources: o Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project (“DOE project,” 2012) o Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan, Addendum C: Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2014) o School Access Improvement Study (2015) o Small Road Improvement Candidates List (ongoing) o External sources, including the TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis, ODOT Pedestrian/Bicycle Inventory, and the Metro Regional Active Transportation Plan o Future studies that identify and prioritize sidewalk gaps.
LUT staff has spent considerable time and resources over the past four years identifying and prioritizing the most critical sidewalk gaps on county roads. The DOE project addressed Arterials and Collectors; the Aloha-Reedville and School Access Improvement Study efforts identified needs on all roadway types near schools; and the Small Road Improvement Candidates project list is a good source for other gaps identified by the public. Funding allocated through recommendation #11 should be applied to these identified sidewalk priorities.
4. As part of future capital projects and facility permits, identify opportunities to strategically and efficiently address walkway gaps on other roadways in the immediate vicinity.
Common practice during major Washington County capital projects has been to address some deficiencies on nearby, adjacent roadways. For example, the NW Cornelius Pass Road project between U.S. 26 and Cornell Road is constructing missing bike lanes along intersecting Evergreen Parkway. The SW Farmington Road project in Beaverton is realigning 141st and 142nd Avenues to create a standard, four-point intersection. The 124th Avenue / Basalt Creek Parkway project is improving the geometry of Tonquin Road in both directions. Some LUT staff have been referring to these efforts as “backpack projects” – one or more small projects attached to a larger project. A backpack project can be accomplished more efficiently as part of major capital project than as a stand-alone project because of overhead and mobilization costs.
As future capital projects are scoped, efforts should be made to scan the immediately surrounding area and reference the plans and studies listed under recommendation #3 to identify walkway gaps that could be addressed without taking significant funds away from the core project.
Similar efforts could be implemented when private contractors are completing required right- of-way improvements through the Facility Permit process as part of development. The county would reimburse the developer/contractor for any work above and beyond the conditions of approval.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 35 of 44
5. Identify interim system completion targets for different roadway functional classes, or for different locational contexts (such as Pedestrian/Bicycle Districts or areas near schools).
One way of helping ensure that walkway investments are being made in the most sensible, beneficial locations is to identify different system completion targets for different contexts. The System Evaluation16 performed as part of the 2014 TSP update proposed a target of 84% sidewalk completion along Arterials/Collectors by the year 2040. This target could be bifurcated and broadened to identify different walkway completion targets for different roadway functional classes. Presumably, Arterials would have the highest targets and Local Streets would have the lowest.
Alternatively, a more context-sensitive approach could be taken in which walkway completion targets are determined by location with respect to one of more of the following adopted or non-adopted features:
o Public schools (e.g., one-quarter-mile radius around schools) o Transit stops (e.g., one-quarter-mile buffer of streets with transit, or a radius around Major Transit Stops adopted in the Community Plans) o Pedestrian Parkways and/or Streetscape Overlays adopted in the TSP o Pedestrian/Bicycle Districts adopted in the TSP
Completion targets developed based on this recommendation would likely take the form of an unofficial department policy. If more formal action is desired, the policy could be memorialized by a Board Resolution and Order. Complex performance targets with multiple gradations and contexts are probably not appropriate to adopt into the TSP.
6. Institute a more coordinated, intra-divisional effort to prioritize transportation projects (including walkway projects) and match them with appropriate internal and external funding sources, including a regularly-scheduled transportation project “super- committee.”
Washington County is fortunate to have several local transportation funding programs established by current and past Boards and voters (MSTIP, TDT, URMD, Gain Share, etc.), and to have access to external funding (RFFA, STIP, etc.). While these programs are effective, they are also somewhat “siloed.” Different staff manage different programs, and often times priorities must be re-evaluated at each funding opportunity. Instituting a formal, consolidated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has not been the recent practice at LUT, mainly due to concerns about inflexibility and the uniqueness of each funding program. LUT’s closest analog to a CIP is the Capital Project List included in the Technical Appendix to the TSP.17
16A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, Technical Appendix 3: System Evaluation, pp 64-65, October 2014. 17 A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, Technical Appendix 2: Capital Project List, October 2014.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 36 of 44
Short of developing a CIP, LUT could revise internal procedures and create a transportation project super-committee that meets regularly to discuss current transportation priorities, upcoming funding rounds, and how to best match the two. This would include discussion of what projects to propose for regional, state and federal grant opportunities, what projects to prioritize for county MSTIP and TDT funding, what smaller-scale needs (such as stand-alone walkway projects) to address with URMD and Gain Share, what improvements are proposed to be built by development, and how to take advantage of any leverage or efficiency opportunities.
A similar effort took place in 2013 during the planning of the initial round of Gain Share pedestrian/bike projects. LUT staff from Planning & Development Services, Engineering & Construction Services, Operations & Maintenance, and the Director’s Office came together to assess previously-identified priorities within different funding silos and arrived at a prioritized list that addressed multiple needs. This effort was very effective and could be reinstated.
Potential Legislative Changes:
7. Replace or revise Resolution & Order 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance – Process Documentation) with a multimodal transportation development improvement process with guidance from the 2014 Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards report.
After 30 years, R&O 86-95 continues to be an effective tool for identifying vehicular safety issues and requiring development to address them, as appropriate. However, overhauling or building upon the procedure is necessary to better incorporate pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. Doing so would provide the county with a better-informed, more effective process for requiring on-site and off-site walkways during development. It would also provide greater certainty and fairness for the development community by basing pedestrian improvement requirements on measurable, objective criteria.
The grant-funded Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards project in 2014 explored several ways to better address multimodal transportation performance in the context of development review, corridor/area plans, and transportation system plans. For development review, it recommended the following series of actions:
o Define system adequacy in terms of system completeness and system performance. o Assess existing conditions. o Define an impact area (four options were explored, including a district-based system, routes to essential destinations, distance along the network, and a set radius from the development). o Determine development impact, including data on pedestrian trip generation. o Develop mitigation strategies. o Determine the multimodal impacts of the mitigation, including trade-offs between modes. o Determine proportional share.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 37 of 44
In September 2015, Long Range Planning staff organized a cross-divisional work group and kicked off a process to update the R&O 86-95 function, pursuant to the 2015 Long Range Planning Work Program. As of this writing, the work group has reviewed the current functions of R&O 86-95 (“what’s working, what’s not”), explored the recommendations of the Multimodal Performance Measures and Standards project, and divided into sub-groups to explore the following four topics that have shown the most promise for agreed-upon action:
o Cumulative impact and safety – Are existing mechanisms such as the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) adequately documenting multimodal safety issues, particularly pedestrian/bicycle network issues? What can be done when multiple developments cumulatively cause a safety issue but no one development triggers the issue individually? There is general agreement that emphasizing safety (rather than system completeness) puts the county in a better position if improvement requirements are appealed.
o Capacity-based approaches – How can LUT better leverage private development to provide transportation improvements, particularly when those improvements are not triggered by safety issues but rather capacity and system completeness needs (such as widening a road and adding sidewalks)? How have other jurisdictions in the county accomplished this and made it a “win-win” for both the developer and the public? Tools being discussed include voluntary conditions of approval to build capacity/ system improvements that result in 100% TDT credit for eligible improvements.
o Proportionality – Given that U.S. case law (Nollan/Dollan/Koontz) restricts what and how much can be asked of development, how can improvements such as off-site walkways be required in a way that is fair and that demonstrates nexus and proportionality to the development’s impacts? Are tools such as CDC 501-10.2 (which requires walkway connections to nearby pedestrian generators in North Bethany) appropriate for wider implementation?
o Off-site right-of-way acquisition – Even if LUT and a developer agree to a condition to build off-site walkways, it is often difficult for the developer to negotiate the required right-of-way from a third party. Since LUT is better equipped to purchase right-of-way, could a special fund be established specifically for purchasing right-of-way for off-site development improvements?
It is recommended that the desired updates to R&O 86-95 be codified in the CDC to make it easy for staff, developers and the public to know the associated rules and processes in one document.
8. Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required.
As referenced earlier in this paper, CDC sections 501-2.2 and 502-1.4 are conflicting: The former indicates that development of a single detached dwelling unit or duplex is exempt
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 38 of 44
from public improvement requirements, while the latter indicates that those developments must build a sidewalk if the lot frontage is less than or equal to 250 feet and sidewalks exist (or will exist) along adjacent properties. Current Planning staff have developed an administrative interpretation to exempt sidewalk requirements for single family detached homes on existing lots of record.
A CDC amendment is recommended to remove the conflict between these two provisions and to instate a requirement that matches current administrative practice.
This also may be an opportunity to address other conflicting or unclear sidewalk requirements in Article V, such as whether the eight-foot sidewalk required along certain state highways includes or does not include the four-foot planter strip indicated in county road standards (CDC 502-13.3).
9. Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Exempt Projects).
Article VII (Public Transportation Facilities) is intended to provide a review process for major transportation capital projects to ensure that they do not adversely impact the surrounding community. Projects are either categorized as being either exempt from Article VII, or are classified in Categories A, B or C, with increasing discretion and legal judgement required under categories with higher letters. CDC 702-3 allows “operational improvements within existing right-of-way and ancillary easements,” including “pedestrian ways,” to be exempt from Article VII.
This recommendation would expand the Article VII exemption of pedestrian ways to include those that require right-of-way acquisition, but that otherwise have minimal impacts. To define minimal impacts, criteria in CDC 702-4 could be applied:
o No removal or displacement of buildings occur; o No new land parcels result; o The facility is not located in a flood plain, drainage hazard area or Significant Natural Resource Area; o No change or alteration to a designated historic or cultural resource occur, pursuant to CDC Section 373 (Historic and Cultural Overlay Districts); o No additional travel lanes result; and o No reduction in bicycle and pedestrian facilities result.
Discretion may be needed in some circumstances. For example, if major grading and retaining walls are needed to construct the walkway, an Article VII review may still be appropriate.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 39 of 44
10. Take limited actions to address improvement needs on non-county public roadways in UUWC.
A small number of public roadways in UUWC have not been “accepted” as county roadways and are therefore not eligible for Road Fund expenditures based on state statute.18 In many cases this is not a problem. However, if the surrounding community desires walkways or other improvements on these roads, the county cannot legally provide any help unless the Board takes special action. ORS 368.031 (2) states:
A county governing body shall spend county moneys on the local access road only if it determines that the work is an emergency or if: (a) The county road official recommends the expenditure; (b) The public use of the road justifies the expenditure proposed; and (c) The county governing body enacts an order or resolution authorizing the work and designating the work to be either a single project or a continuing program.
In limited circumstances where deemed appropriate, the county could take one of the ORS actions above, or it could bring the road into county maintenance. Alternatively, URMD could agree to address the issue.
A similar challenge prevents the county from constructing or maintaining accessways in off- street public rights-of-way. As a result, the county generally has not been improving these locations. Several recent plans and strategies, including the Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan and the School Access Improvement Study, recommend specific accessway connections to improve connectivity and access to key destinations such as schools. As with the non-county public roadways, the Board would need to take special action to improve these locations.
11. Examine, consider, and discuss other financial tools listed in “Appendix A”. These can come back to the Board as separate work sessions discussion.
Recent Board discussions and direction that influence future decisions on walkway gap funding include MSTIP 3e and Gain Share.
The MSTIP will continue to address multimodal capacity and safety needs on Arterial and limited Collector roadways, including projects where pedestrian/bicycle needs are the primary focus. (For example, the SW 198th Avenue MSTIP project will provide sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting and a center left turn lane, but will not provide additional vehicle travel lanes). For the next round of MSTIP (3e, construction starting in 2019), the Board has tentatively indicated support for funding some stand-alone pedestrian/bicycle projects along eligible roadways, in addition to projects that fully rebuild entire roadways. Several cities in Washington County are interested in using MSTIP funds for these smaller infill projects. Standard separated concrete sidewalk is recommended for all MSTIP projects.
18 ORS 368.031 – County jurisdiction over local access roads.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area May 9, 2016 Page 40 of 44
MSTIP 3e – The Board has already set parameters for the MSTIP 3e funding program, which includes an increase to the MSTIP Opportunity Fund to $7.5 million dollars. The opportunity fund can continue to leverage outside grants to build pedestrian focused projects. Unlike the core MSTIP funds, the Opportunity Fund can be applied to projects on Local Streets, Neighborhood Routes and off-street pathways. The County is currently working with partner cities to develop the MSTIP 3e funding program for 2019 through 2023. MSTIP 3e is expected to have elements very similar to those noted for MSTIP 3d. The public will be asked to weigh in on the MSTIP 3e program this spring. The Board of Commissioners is expected to adopt the MSTIP 3e program in fall 2016.
Gain Share – On December 15, 2015 the Board adopted a revised Gain Share program that dedicates $2 million per year over ten years for “Safe Access to Schools.” The intent moving forward is to invest this $20 million in sidewalk, crosswalk or accessway projects identified in the 2015 School Access Improvement Study. Traffic safety improvements identified in the study vary by school and include sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalk treatments, and trails. Decisions on the next set of projects are anticipated by summer of 2016.
VI. Conclusion
Addressing the significant backlog of walkways gaps in UUWC requires a strategic, multi- faceted approach involving both private development and public investments. LUT staff has presented 11 potential actions that would help implement this approach and work toward gradual completion of the walkway network, with an emphasis on the most critical gaps.
If desired, the Board of Commissioners can direct staff to further investigate any of these recommendations, and/or to move some of them forward as ordinances, as part of the 2016 Long Range Planning Work Program or future Work Programs.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Appendix A May 9, 2016 Page 41 of 44
Appendix A Potential Financial Tools to Consider to Address Walkway Gaps
1. Develop a fee-in-lieu sidewalk program that allows development along certain Local Streets with low vehicle volumes to pay into a fund dedicated to completing higher- need sidewalks identified in a neighborhood sidewalk plan.
On Local Streets with very low traffic volumes and little potential for additional traffic in the future, an alternative public improvement requirement could allow developers pay a fee-in- lieu of constructing sidewalk. The fee would go toward constructing a nearby sidewalk or walkway that is deemed to be more beneficial to the community. A neighborhood sidewalk plan would be necessary to identify which roadways are eligible for exemption from sidewalk construction and which roadways would be targeted for walkway improvements using the collected fees. Neighborhood sidewalk plans could build upon previous efforts such as the School Access Improvement Study, but would still require significant staff time.
Additional considerations include the following:
o The applicability of this provision should be limited because development is often the only opportunity for Local Streets to be improved with sidewalks. In addition, state law requires sidewalks along “most local streets in urban areas.”19 Limitations should include the following:
• Development of multiple lots (adjacent or otherwise) on the same street by the same developer should not be able to use this provision. • Eligible streets should have very low traffic volumes and speeds. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance on woonerven (plural of woonerf, a shared street concept originating in the Netherlands) recommends no more than 100 vehicles per hour, and speeds between 8 and 15 miles per hour.20 Future traffic volumes should be considered along with existing volumes.
o Developers should still have the option of constructing the sidewalk rather than paying the fee.
19 Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0045. 20 Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, Lesson 20: Traffic Calming, July 2006. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05085/chapt20.cfm Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Appendix A May 9, 2016 Page 42 of 44
o Fee-in-lieu does not eliminate nexus and proportionality concerns, particularly after the Koontz case. Some developers may ask why a fee is being charged in addition to the Transportation Development Tax (even though TDT cannot be used on Local Streets).
2. Continue County investment in walkways using funding sources that are controlled or managed by Washington County, including: o Transportation Development Tax o Urban Road Maintenance District
Typically the County has relied on state and federal grants to fund stand-alone pedestrian/ bicycle projects that do not otherwise fit into the County’s existing portfolio of funding programs. For example, the County received an Oregon Safe Routes to School grant and a federal Community Development Block Grant earlier this decade to complete sidewalks on non-Arterial roadways near schools in UUWC.21 However, even with the recent passage of the FAST Act with its modest increase in Transportation Alternatives funding, federal and state transportation funds remain scarce and competitive. County transportation funding may be a superior option for funding walkway projects in places where development is not likely to provide them. Local funding would also avoid the costs and complexities of federalization, which can be particularly problematic for small projects.
At least two County transportation funding programs could be further used to address walkway gaps in UUWC:
o Transportation Development Tax (TDT) funds, which are limited by state statute to providing additional capacity for future users of facilities listed on the adopted Capital Project List, can be used to build sidewalks that increase overall travel capacity on those facilities. The TDT Capital Project List includes a discrete set of Arterials and Collectors, as well as a small number of off-street or Local Street connections to transit service. In practice, TDT has typically been used for roadway widening in newly growing areas (such as NW Springville Road near North Bethany). However, TDT may also be an appropriate source for funding sidewalk projects in infill development areas such as Aloha, Cedar Hills and Metzger. Re-evaluation of TDT is an identified Tier 1 task on the 2016 work program.
o The Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) Safety Improvement Program is anticipated to continue funding walkway projects at about $2 million per year through at least FY 2019-20, until such time that the funds are needed for road maintenance. The URMD Advisory Committee (URMDAC) will continue to lead the project selection process and to advise the Board on the use of URMD funds. Based on stakeholder feedback and research guidance documented in this paper, URMDAC and LUT may want to consider limiting the application of wide shoulder walkways in favor of
21 NW Leahy/Stark project in West Haven funded by Oregon SRTS; SW 173rd Avenue project in Aloha funded by CDBG.
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Appendix A May 9, 2016 Page 43 of 44
walkways with greater separation from vehicular traffic. However, doing so would limit the buying power and reach of the program. A potential compromise is to set maximum traffic volume and speed thresholds for the use of wide-shoulder walkways.
3. Develop an LID matching program in which property owners agree to pay for a portion of the cost of a particular walkway improvement and the County pays for the other portion.
The County has intended to utilize LIDs to build sidewalks since at least 1983, when CDC Section 502-8 (Developed Area Sidewalks) was adopted. That section – still in effect today – gives the Board the authority to create LIDs for sidewalk construction when 51% of affected property owners representing a majority of the project frontage sign a petition in favor. Washington County Revenue and Finance Code (Title 3) also enables this action and further defines four different types of LIDs. Infill walkways would most likely be accomplished by either a Neighborhood LID, “in which the assessments may be levied to pay the actual cost of capital construction benefiting primarily developed properties,” or a Frontage/Off-Site LID, “in which assessments may be levied to pay the actual cost of capital construction of off-site or frontage public improvements benefiting developed or undeveloped properties.22 Each type of LID has a number of requirements set forth in the County Code.
While LUT staff found that LIDs for sidewalk construction may not be financially feasible for property owners by themselves, a partially subsidized LID program could provide just enough leverage to be financially viable for property owners. Such a program was implemented by the Portland Development Commission in the Lents neighborhood of southeast Portland. In that case, property owners covered half of the cost of the sidewalk improvements, while city urban renewal funds covered the other half. Washington County could consider using Gain Share, URMD or other funds for its contribution to such a program. County Road Fund cannot be used to match LID funds. Early and throughout the process, care must be taken address cash flow issues and potential cost overruns. If a project is intended to be built immediately, the county would have to finance the project up front.
4. Initiate a ballot measure that would create either a new County Service District or an additional assessment under the existing Urban Road Maintenance District for the purposes of funding a specific set of identified walkway projects.
The Board could ask UUWC voters to approve a new County Service District (CSD) or an increased assessment in the county’s existing Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD, which is legally a CSD) to fund walkway projects. Identifying a specific list of projects is a best practice that often improves the odds of transportation-related ballot measures.
22 Washington County Code 3.20.040(A)
Attachment A Long Range Planning Revised Issue Paper No. 2016-01 Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Appendix A May 9, 2016 Page 44 of 44
An additional $0.25 per $1,000 assessed value under URMD would generate approximately $4 million annually, based on recent URMD revenue figures.23 This would essentially double the URMD assessment. For a home with an assessed value24 of $200,000, the annual payment of $49 to URMD would increase to $99. Staff would work closely with URMD Advisory Committee prior to bringing any proposals to the Board.
A new CSD, or multiple CSDs, could be applied in a more targeted fashion, both geographically and financially. Geographically, a CSD could be applied to specific neighborhoods where sidewalk/walkway completion is low, such as Aloha or Metzger. In this case, the residents that are being taxed receive the benefits of those revenues. However, limiting the assessment area also limits the revenue.
Multiple CSDs would provide the opportunity to establish different tax rates based on median household income or other factors. For example, a CSD for sidewalks in Aloha- Reedville could have a lower tax rate than a CSD for sidewalks north of Sunset Highway. This would help alleviate concerns about a regressive tax structure, but may not be universally popular.
23 The URMD property tax, which is $0.2456 per $1,000 assessed value, generated $4.1 million in FY 2013-14, according to the URMD FY 13-14 Annual Report. 24 Assessed values of residential properties in Washington County tend to be approximately 70% of market values due to statewide ballot measures in the 1990s.
Attachment B
SOUTHWEST Service Enhancement Plan Final Report Attachment B
December 2015
Dear Reader,
I am proud to present the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan, with recommendations to get you and your fellow community members where you need to go. This report provides a vision for future TriMet service in the Southwest portion of the region (for other areas, see www.trimet.org/future). The vision for future service in the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan is the culmination of many hours of meetings with our customers, neighborhood groups, employers, social service providers, educational institutions and stakeholders. Community members provided input through open house meetings, surveys, focus groups, and individual discussions. Extra effort was put into getting input from the entire community, especially youth, seniors, minorities, people with low incomes, and non-English speakers. Demographic research was used to map common trips, and cities and counties provided input on future growth areas. Lastly, TriMet staff coordinated closely with Metro’s South- west Corridor Plan process to ensure that both efforts complement one A note from another and expand transit in the southwest part of our region. TriMet The final result is a plan that calls for bus service that connects people to more places, more often, earlier, and later. The plan also recommends GeneralManager, improvements to the sidewalks and street crossings to support transit service and new community-job shuttles to serve areas that lack transit service because the demand is too low for traditional TriMet service to Neil McFarlane be economically viable. The service enhancement plans are not just visions of the future, but commitments to grow TriMet’s system. This commitment was recently bolstered by employers’ support for an increase in TriMet’s payroll tax rate. This new revenue will be used to implement recommendations from the service enhancement plans. New improvements to the system will begin in March 2016. In the following months, TriMet will be revising visions for Eastside, Southeast and North/Central Service Enhancement Plans based on data analysis and discussions with input from riders, neighborhoods, employers, social service providers, educational institutions, cities, and counties. Those visions, together with the Southwest and Westside Service Enhancement Plans, will represent a new era of growth for the TriMet system. While you read through this plan, I hope you are as excited about the future of transit in the Portland Metro Region as we are. Regards,
TriMet General Manager Line 12, 43, & Orange Line MAX Rider Attachment B • the Tualatin Industrial area • 72nd Avenue employment area and the Tigard Triangle • Kruse Way/Meadows Road • the Hillsboro/Beaverton employment areas Supporting Southwest Corridor: The Southwest Corridor Project is a community development project that will leverage public investments to make land use and transportation improvements in the Southwest part of the region. Led by Metro, our regional planning agency, a primary focus of the project is the develop- ment of high capacity transit connecting Portland, Tigard, and Tualatin. TriMet and Metro have closely Over the past year and a half, TriMet has engaged the coordinated on the Southwest Corridor Project and communities of Durham, King City, Lake Oswego, SW the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan. Together, Portland, Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, and West Linn in the projects aim to reduce congestion, improve a process to develop the Southwest Service Enhance- connections and serve those with limited ment Plan (SWSEP), a long-range vision to improve bus transportation options. service and bus stops, and to recommend pedestrian improvements. Enabling Heath, Research, Education and Job Training: Home to four hospitals (OHSU Hospital, The SWSEP outlines a future vision for transit in the Dornbecher Children’s Hospital, Shriners Children’s Southwest part of the metro region (all areas in the Hospital, and the VA Medical Center) Marquam Hill TriMet Service District south of Scholls Ferry Road to is the largest transit destination in the SWSEP study the Willamette River and not including Downtown area. With limited parking for students and employ- Portland). The vision was developed with the help ees, transit plays a vital role in facilitating access to of dozens of partner organizations (cities, counties, and from Marquam Hill. OHSU’s expansion to South business groups, social service providers, etc.), existing Watefront includes the Center for Health and transit riders, and the general public. The plan aligns Healing and the Collaborative Life Sciences Building, future improvements with current and projected with future developments still to come. needs by recommending better transit connections, improved frequency, safer pedestrian facilities, and increased access to jobs and community services. The plan also highlights opportunities to partner with local cities, Washington County and the private sector to make it easier for people to reach and use transit. The plan identifies: • near-term service enhancements that can be made with little or no additional cost • long-term service improvements and expansion when revenues allow • opportunities for partnering with public and private sectors to improve access to transit including walk- ing and biking to the bus and WES. The Sylvania campus is the largest of Portland The plan supports the Southwest communities in the Community College’s (PCC) four major campuses, following ways: serving over 26,000 students per year. Students, Getting to Work: As employment grows throughout faculty and staff from throughout the metro area the region, long gone is the day when Downtown attend PCC Sylvania. However, the campus sits atop Portland was the only concentration of jobs. While a hill, has constrained parking, and is surrounded by there will always be strong demand for fast, frequent single-family homes, creating conflicts with transit transit service to Downtown Portland, there is also operations by single-family homes, creating potential more need than ever for transit service within South- conflicts with transit operations. Yet, TriMet bus west, particularly in employment areas with a large service to the campus is well used, as is the inter- number of entry level and middle wage jobs such as: campus shuttle provided by PCC to its students.
3 Attachment B Lewis & Clark College has over 5,100 students, faculty, & staff. Though most students live on campus, the college offers a free shuttle to Down- town Portland to supplement TriMet’s service to the campus. Parking at the college is currently maxed out. Communities of Tomorrow: Several areas on the edge of the region are being planned for large-scale development. These areas will accommodate future housing and employment. These areas include: • Basalt Creek: Only in the concept planning phase, Basalt Creek will host a mix of light industrial employment and residential development on vacant land between Tualatin and Wilsonville. Work will begin soon on an extension of SW 124th Avenue to Tonquin Road, which will be a catalyst for future development in the area. • River Terrace: Located west of Bull Mountain in Tigard, River Terrace will predominately be composed of single family homes with a small commercial corridor east of SW 175th Avenue. • South Cooper Mountain: Technically outside SWSEP study area, South Cooper Mountain will impact both Beaverton and Tigard significantly. The plan calls for a mix of residential and commercial development and a new Beaverton School District high school located at Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers/175th Avenue. “With over 90% of our employees commuting in and out of Tualatin every day, transit will play a huge roll in reducing congestion. For the first time ever, Tualatin Sherwood road will have a new bus line starting in 2016.” — Linda Moholt, CEO, Tualatin Chamber Southwest’s Story of Commerce Transit in Southwest From early town plats centered on train stations in Tualatin, Tigard, and Lake Oswego to the Southern Pacific Red Electric interurban rail network, transit service has helped define the southwest communities for many years. Still today, transit is very much a vital part of life in this part of the region with 24 bus lines (one of which is Frequent Service; three of which are express/limited stop lines), the region’s only commuter rail line (WES), one streetcar line (NS Line), an aerial tram, four transit centers and over 2,000 TriMet-dedicated and shared-use park and ride spaces. Yet, in some ways, the transit service hasn’t changed much in Southwest. The core of the transit service was originally designed decades ago to get workers to and from the central business district with 14 of 24 bus lines and the streetcar line serving Downtown Portland and five bus lines serv- ing Marquam Hill – leaving only five bus lines and WES serving southwest communities without going to Downtown Portland or Marquam Hill. 4 Attachment B Additionally, 11 bus lines and WES only operate in the morning and afternoon peak hours and don’t provide weekend service. As the region has grown, the need for all-day transit service to areas other than Downtown Portland or Marquam Hill has grown as well. Where the Jobs Are The Southwest part of the region has a diversity of job centers ranging from white collar jobs in the Kruse Way/Meadows Road and Lincoln Center areas to middle wage jobs in the Tualatin Industrial Area and the 72nd Avenue employment corridor. Southwest residents are also drawn to jobs on Marquam Hill, in Downtown Portland and the Silicon Forest. Furthermore, the area has seen significant retail job growth in Bridgeport Village, Downtown Tualatin, and Progress Ridge in addition to the long TriMet’s Future: established retail centers of Washington Square, Sherwood Town Back on Stable Center, Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, and along Barbur Boule- Financial Footing vard/Highway 99W. Finally, nearly all the communities in the In October, 2014, TriMet and southwest part of the region are actively pursuing Downtown the Amalgamated Transit development plans which will bring additional employment and vitality in Downtown communities throughout the area. Union Local 757 worked together to approve a new labor contract that places the agency on a sustain- able financial path moving forward. The new contract continues to provide a robust compensation package for TriMet’s employees while also ensuring long-term, fiscal health for the agency. As a result, TriMet will be able to focus future revenue growth on expansion of services and maintenance. Additionally, the contract allows for certainty in TriMet’s future plans and begins a Regional Changes Impact Southwest new, more collaborative Several trends will impact Southwest and the entire region over chapter for TriMet and the the next 20 years, including: ATU. Growth: According to Metro’s 2014 Urban Growth Report, the met- ro area will grow by 400,000 residents and 260,000 jobs by 2035. • Residential growth will occur by way of infill development along corridors and in centers, while available land for new single- family residential development will remain in the suburbs (e.g., River Terrace, South Cooper Mountain, Basalt Creek). • Among the fastest growing industries in the region are professional services and manufacturing/distribution. Large parcels for manufacturing and distribution are primarily available on the edges of the region, especially in Southwest (e.g., Tualatin Industrial Area, Basalt Creek), while professional services are accommodated in centers and corridors (e.g., Lincoln Center, Kruse Way, town centers). 5 Attachment B Transit will become increasingly important as this Transit into the Future: Southwest Corridor growth increases traffic congestion. The region can expect to see a significant increase in Changing Income Levels: According to the 2014 Urban traffic congestion as the population grows substan- Growth Report, much of the Southwest part of the tially over the next two decades. Traffic congestion region experienced a drop in the median family not only impacts people’s lives by adding time to their income between 2000 and 2008-12. This has resulted travels and worsening air quality, but it also imposes in a greater mix of incomes in Southwest and a an economic cost as companies can’t deliver their greater demand for transit services. goods to customers and workers can’t get to their jobs, stunting the region’s ability to grow economical- ly. Increased congestion will be especially true along the major corridors connecting Downtown Portland to the surrounding suburban communities. Many of these corridors have already received investments in high capacity transit to help deal with congestion— Highway 99E, Highway 84, Highway 26W, Interstate 5 North, Interstate 205. However, the Highway 99W/ Interstate 5 South corridor has yet to receive a high capacity transit investment, and is feeling the strain of the rapidly increasing number of vehicles on the road, especially as the economy has recovered from the recession. Consequently, the Southwest Corridor Plan was envisioned as a means to comprehensively address congestion in this part of the region. Community of Color and Language Diversity: Washington County has: Metro is leading the Southwest Corridor Planning pro- cess with help from TriMet, Washington County, ODOT, • a higher percentage of Asian or Pacific Islander and the cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, residents (8.6%) compared to the state (3.7%), and Portland. The project aims to leverage major • a higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents infrastructure investments—predominantly a high (15.7%) compared to the state (11.7%), capacity transit line—to also make improvements to • almost double the proportion of foreign-born roads, trails, sidewalks, crossings, and bikeways. With residents (16.8%) than statewide (9.7%), and help from project staff, the Project Steering Committee will decide to pursue either a light rail or a • a higher percentage of residents speaking a bus rapid transit option. Project staff and the language other than English at home (22.7%) steering committee are also evaluating potential compared to the state (14.3%).1 routing options, though the project aims to connect Because communities of color and language Downtown Tualatin, Bridgeport, Downtown Tigard, diversity populations often rely on TriMet, these the Tigard Triangle, PCC, Barbur Transit Center, changes in growth and demographics illustrate a Marquam Hill, Portland State University, and the growing demand for more and better transit service Portland Transit Mall. Some destinations may not be in the southwest communities directly served with high capacity transit, but would connect to the line via improved transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In addition to helping reduce vehicle congestion, the Southwest Corridor Plan will help make communities along the alignment safer for transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Moreover, the plan will be the catalyst for downtown development efforts in Tigard and Tualatin, bolstering their civic and economic vibrancy. Revisions to the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan will be required after the Southwest Corridor Plan is completed to ensure that the two efforts complement one another and provide a complete transit network for the southwest part of the region. 1Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014, A-En- grossed Ordinance 768, Exhibit 4 6 Attachment B The Southwest Service Enhancement Process The process for developing recommendations for Southwest’s transit future included significant outreach to residents and businesses, data mapping, and conversations with cities and counties about future growth. Community Outreach: TriMet staff reached out to community members in a myriad of ways including surveys, community workshops, special events, individual stakeholder meetings, newspaper articles, neighborhood meetings, and focus group discussions. Participants included existing transit riders, neigh- borhood associations, employers, business associations and chambers of commerce, jurisdictions, and social service providers. Additional outreach events were held to reach out to traditionally under-represented groups such as low-income, senior, youth, and communities speaking languages other than English (especially Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali).
“I appreciate that instead of asking a smart and brilliant engineer they asked the public to help solve the problem. They took our ideas, which are like uncut and un- polished pieces of gems that are hidden inside of a stone, and made them into something of beauty and value.” — Tyra Tanaka, Data Analysis and Mapping: TriMet staff mapped concentrations College Student of jobs and housing throughout the study area and were able to connect where people live with where they work. TriMet verified this information with data from the Oregon Household Activity Survey (OHAS) provided by Metro. TriMet also mapped data based on equity factors such as minority, low-income, and limited English proficiency households in the study area. This data was also used to ensure that outreach was provided to traditionally underrepresented communities. Future Growth: Individual jurisdictions best understand where future growth will occur in the next 20 years. TriMet spoke with elected leaders and city and county staff to better understand where and how southwest communities will grow in the future. City and county plans for growth were taken into account when developing the SWSEP recommendations. An initial Draft Vision for future transit service was developed using the information gathered via the methods outlined above. 7 Attachment B It was then released to the public with a survey asking for input on the recommendations contained within the Draft Vision. The Draft Vision was then revised and re-released to the public as the Refined Draft Vision, again with a survey. Last tweaks were made based on input received and a Final Vision was developed. TriMet will begin implementing the service improvements called for in this vision during its annual service plan process, with each year’s en- hancements leading toward the long-term vision. The vision was made flexible enough to take maximum advantage of the future Southwest Corridor Project, regardless of its final mode and alignment. Final Vision The SWSEP Final Vision addresses four key needs:
Service 1. Transit Connections Enhancements The existing transit network is historically oriented towards trips to Downtown Portland during the rush hours. Many job centers outside the on Lines 47 Downtown core are not connected with other suburban residential areas and 48 Show where many employees live. In addition, some lines have indirect routes Ridership Gains and could benefit from streamlining and some lines that overlap could be In Fall 2013, TriMet moved to serve areas that lack bus service. implemented routing and Opportunities for Action frequency changes to We’d like to realign bus routes to provide more connections between Lines 47-Baseline/ suburban residential communities and suburban employment centers Evergreen and 48-Cornell and streamline routes and fill service gaps. as called for in the West- New Destination for SW Vermont Street Service (Line 1) side Service Enhancement Plan (serving Beaverton, Eliminate the low-ridership, residential loop and serve Washington Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Square via Shattuck, giving the line a regional destination that can support midday, evening and weekend trips, improving service for riders and Corneilus). Between along the line. Fall 2012 and Fall 2015, average weekday Downtown Lake Oswego to King City (Line 36) ridership increased by Extend the South Shore Boulevard line from the Tualatin Park & Ride 62% on Line 47 and 106% to King City via 72nd Avenue and Durham to improve east-west on Line 48. connections between Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Tigard, and King City, and add trips. Extend the line to Jean Way to better serve businesses in the Lake Oswego Commerce Center. Downtown Lake Oswego to Kruse Way, Tigard TC, and Progress Ridge/ Murrayhill (Line 37) Change the Lake Grove bus line to serve Downtown Lake Oswego, Kruse Way, Tigard Transit Center, Progress Ridge and Murray Hill to improve east-west connections between Tigard and Lake Oswego. Add midday, evening, and weekend trips. Replace service in Lake Grove with an extension of Line 44. New Service to Wilson High School, Bonita Road and McDonald Street (Line 38) Change the Boones Ferry Road line to serve Wilson High School and Burlingame to help students get to school. Change route to serve Bonita, McDonald and Tigard Transit Center to improve east-west connections in Tigard. Provide all-day service in Mountain Park with an extension of Line 44. 8 LOMBARD 1! Vancouver MARINE
RD A
G R y
SKY U
LINE B 1! ST HELENS Expo Center C o l u m 7%LOMBARD b i a PORTLAND R i v Delta Park e FESSENDEN 1! r MARINE Delta Park/Vanport 4$ COLUMBIA 7) "L Portland 1! "S r 7% Roosevelt HS y International 1^ r !` Airport WILLIS Kenton/N Denver MANTOWN W GER i LOMBARD r l D l a m " R L 3
e 4$ 3 t 3% De La Salle North W F o Per sta kr t WILLAMETTE N Lombard Transit Center %d EST e Catholic HS "S U S TC 21ST N S R 7% COLUMBIA IO A i 7% N P v Mt Hood Ave S e IU r "S L E KAISER 8% N University BASIN DENVER Rosa Parks "S PCC - Rock Creek GREELEY i 7% R " Cascades of Portland 4$ Concordia S NAYA Family Center Liberty HS CO S 1^ K ST HELENS "S LE Y PCC - University GVIL L 3% 82ND " N I 15TH S 6&4& PRI N Cascade
S 27TH KAISER E y LAGOON ALBINA Y N Killingsworth "S L 8& 7@ L 5@ KILLINGSWORTH U AIDLAW CHANNEL "L C 8* L 7@ 7@ r"S ALBERTA Hillsboro 7@ 30TH Jefferson HS 7@ EVERGREEN Stadium "L Parkrose/Sumner Transit Center TC Westview HS N Prescott PRESCOTT 42ND MHCC AIRPORT Ig YEON GOING 1& 7) 2! " G PRESCOTT Maywood S R SANDY E E 4$ 1@ " Blue Lake HORNECKER L 3% L S D T E "L Glencoe HS O BETHANY 1% 7! 8& O O EVERGREEN H Y 7% SHAVER "S 15TH
GLENCOE 4& O
33RD O W M 8% 229TH " K P L
MISSISSIPPI "S H SON Parkrose HS O K C Overlook Park 2$ FREMONT S O E "L L 35TH Legacy 2$ 2@ 2# R C 6& B Kasier Emanuel 2$ 2@ 7! N 4^ O 1^ FRON L SALTZMAN GUAM O Westside "H Attachment B 7TH 2! A S " I 4& H ROSE
SHUTE 5 8& K K BRONSON T 1@ Madison HS
148TH C C 5) Albina/ 15TH
NICOLAI 24TH MARTIN LUTHER KING JR A 29TH 162ND Fairview A M U " 25TH BE S J RW Grant HS 2# CORNELL OOD T Mississippi SACRAMENTO 1% 82ND 7& 4* S 5) SANDY 1% VAUGHN "S SANDY Vibra !b 2! 1ST CORNELL 1& Orenco/NW 231st Ave 4* r y i 7) " Specialty 4* OHSU West Campus "L BROADWAY L 7@ Hollywood/NE 42nd Hospital 122ND 143RD THURMAN 1% 20 Southwest Service119TH Enhancement Plan Vision for Future Service 238TH Hawthorn "S Legacy Good Samaritan 1& 7& Transit Center NE 82nd 102ND "H SAN RAFAEL 8& 5TH WEIDLER
5( 185TH Hatfield 7 Sunset HS TC T 8)8! Tuality Hospital/ Farm 7) 7& HALSEY HALSEY H Government Fair Complex/ Quatama/ 23RD "H HALSEY Glenn "S "L TC 7& 7& BUXTON Center SE 8th Ave NW 205th Ave 4* 7% TC 7& Wood Otto Hillsboro Airport 231ST 5@ 1* Gateway/NE 99th Transit Center TC Benson HS Multnomah University "L "L MAIN 21ST GLISAN 6^ 5& " BASELINE 8* 5( LEAHY "S "H NE 60th "S Village RY PARK H 257TH Hillsboro Washington/ D HMT 7& BURNSIDE 1( Providence 1% 7! GLISAN 181ST ER Troutdale Tuality 2) 1@ 1( 2! C H "S Central/SE 3rd SE 12th Ave Recreation BARNES 5) Portland BURNSIDE 2% 158TH 7! 2% Reynolds HS Transit Center Community Willow Creek/SW 185th Ave TC Complex Ig 2) E 102nd E 122nd E 148th 8) 4& BASELINE " Central 2) E 162nd E 172nd E 181st "L Transit Center TAYLOR 5) BARNES S STARK D WALKER 6@ Catlin Catholic HS STARK 6# GRAND MORRISON
223RD Sunset Gabel 2) 5! BELMONT STARK "L Rockwood/E 188th 242ND 8! Jackson MURRAY 2) STARK BROOKWOOD Hillsboro " 1% WASHINGTON 2) Bottom Transit Center S y " 1% "L 6& 2) " Providence St Vincent Washington Park 5% 7) L "S 2) Wetlands Elmonica/SW 170th Ave PARK TC H HAWTHORNE SE Main St Ruby Junction/E 197th " 7@ " TROUTDALE 60TH David Douglas HS H S Preserve Century HS VISTA Mt Tabor " Adventist Medical Center 8) JENKINS 6@ 1$ " H B RI 4^ " Merlo Rd/ 1) Park S URN Legacy Mt Hood Mt Hood 76TH HILLSBORO S " S VE S Walla Walla University ID 8! Community College R LINCOLN Portland E 5& SW 158th Ave CESAR E CHAVEZ PCC - Southeast 5* 20TH 50TH Adventist CORNELIUS PASS Civic Drive Beaverton Creek LS DIVISION " " Academy 8* 5( IL 3( S S 182ND 148TH HAZEL H 162ND CH TUALATIN VALLEY HWY Tualatin Hills 5^ r 112TH Gresham City Hall T R 122ND I Shriners Clinton/SE 12th Ave Franklin HS BIRDSDALE Warner Pacific KANE Hillsboro HS W Nature Park D A " r DIVISION DIVISION "S Gresham HS D H POWELL Cleveland HS " College SE Division St r " 5@ E OHSU " S S 5& C PATTON H o " 6^ r 2) Council Doernbecher 3! 6^ S 1$ TC " 62ND Millikan Way 5* Crest i H " 9^ POWELL 7! 8& Gresham Central Transit Center CANYON 5! H 3@ SE 17th Ave o "L Cleveland Ave Beaverton Central 2) "L VA Med Center 9@ 1( 1& POWELL Centennial HS 5& TC 5% & Rhine St o 160TH POWELL Beaverton Transit Center HAMILTON 9$ 3# SE Powell Blvd "S 8)8!8$ 6! 7) POWELL o 4& Aloha HS Valley Catholic HS "S BEAVERTON-HILLSDALE HWY 9( 6! 4% HOLGATE " 1& AN 3* SE 17th Ave & L SE Holgate Blvd TM R 4^ "S " 1& S O S 5$6! 5$ 6$ 1& A B 209TH 5@ E "S 5% Holgate Blvd E Beaverton HS "L K FOSTER R
28TH HOGAN POWELL VALLEY 198TH
7% 7! H C T Jesuit HS U CAMERON 6% S T 3% STEELE I T Powell Butte G 14TH SCHOLLS 3( 1) 82ND A 185TH HAROLD H PALMQUIST FERRY 111TH Nature Park 8& H Reed College 136TH L MURRAY 6! "L 3^ 92ND LUSTED S 1) AN ALLEN 5$ "S D "S WESTERN OAK 52ND Lents Town Center/ MCLOUGHLIN " FARMINGTON DAVIS 8* 5# WOODSTOCK 1$ Springwater S ARCTIC VERMONT " Oaks S q SE Foster Rd 1) Gresham ORIENT Sam Barlow HS B " 7@ Trail HS 209TH L
4% Wilson HS MILWAUKIE 5^ Gabriel ERTHA Bottom DUKE ROSEDALE 8* 7* q FOSTE 170TH R Park 32ND 1( 1) 8$
7^ M 7! 9 DENNEY SE Bybee Blvd PLEASANT VIEW
45TH
B Beaverton 2 4% 4$ A A C N N PALMBLAD
Y 45TH
D Wildlife TOWLE HART MULTNOMAH A 1( 72ND "L D 9@ A REX FLAVEL Refuge 17TH R M 13TH "L SE Flavel St RIGERT 4% GARDEN E HOME 7% BUTLER N SE Tacoma St/ 112TH HALL TAYLORS TACOMA EG OLESON 6$ FERRY 4# Johnson Creek 7! R 6@ Y 1@ A H 1( Willamette TELFORD W T 9^ UMATILLA JOHNSON CREEK 162ND N 5 CLATSOP National E Hall/ 4 9$ 6% 6& E Washington Square BARBUR 3! Cemetary CLATSOP BROCKMAN CAPITOL R Nimbus 4# LINN G 3( M Transit Center TAYLORS FERRY R Lewis & Clark 3@ T 190TH 4# Barbur Transit Center E HALL TC 32ND L 7) 42ND Southridge HS TC L "S Law School 3% S 3# U C " Providence F O Service in Westside SEP Area S 62ND Riverdale HS 3^ SE Fuller Rd T G " WEIR 80TH S Milwaukie T R 9(
STANLEY L U
L BELL " 3* 2* 132ND B L " is displayed as proposed future routes I "S H IDLEMAN
145TH
125TH MURRAY 9@ N H 6@ KING 7@ 5^ E LOCUST Lewis & Clark E K TEAL " R 35TH L R 4$ College 3! 175TH G A 7* 7% 3!7! KING L Westside 1@ Tryon "S Portland Waldorf MONROE HWY 26 C 3& 7^ 6$ BORGES "L AÚ 49TH Y Christian HS 7* STEPHENSON 172ND R 9$ Milwaukie 82ND 9@ ER 121ST Creek "S Milwaukie S F " Milwaukie/Main St LL S PCC - "S HS RA TERWILLIGER O D FERRY 1b@ La Salle HS H 135TH State I TIL C 34TH L 129TH E FLAT S A Sylvania RO STEVENS A "S STANLEY LINWOOD 6& TIEDEMAN R Park 3) D SUNSHINE 282ND T M 4$ BOONES Clackamas Town Center Transit Center Happy VALLEY WALNUT OUTH LAKE TC 2( 147TH TC KNAUS 2* Kaiser Sunnyside Tigard Transit Center K Valley Damascus A E " HU 68TH R Lake Oswego HS Y 7( H 5^ 3& R HARMON "S NZ FOSBERG SE Park Ave IKER MELROSE "S CCC - Harmony 1b% 9^ Lake Oswego A 272ND Tigard LD Mt Talbert 1b% " COUNTRY " 3% E 1b@ 3) 97TH L L R K
3* 222ND C Nature Park 242ND 7*3& COURTNEY RE S SUNNYSIDE Boring GAARDE MCDONALD CLUB 3^ ST U LAKE %d 9$ R KRUSE WAY ATC 1b^ BUL L 9# 3$ 2( 132ND " MOUNTAIN HILL L OUN Lake Oswego JOHNSON MATHER BONITA 3* M TAIN OAK 82ND A N Clackamas HS RICHEY 3& W RO Transit Center GROVE 3) LAWNFIELD I THIESS 152ND EN 122ND N A "S A L o 3@ M U e g
72ND R 142ND KELSO w 3# WEBSTER A G s HALL C HUBBARD A O RIVER 1b^ S 9(
150TH R CLACKAMAS E 7^ MCVEY
G O DURHAM L a k e A HWY 224 O EFBEND T HWY 212 BE 3^ L R OR F H E L 3^ LAKEVIEW H S CONCORD IE ROOTS " T E 3) Y Y S L OU "L D O King City Tigard HS BOONES FERRY S GREENTREE N R R A A 135TH O MCLOUGHLIN
R 3$ JENNIFER 4$ C S W
BRYANT Lakeridge HS T 232ND Cook " R 130TH NE E S
I ROETHE A S " W
L Park V S "S RIVER BE T Putnam HS E 3^ YC BERGIS JENNINGS R CAPPS JEAN O E R AMISIGGER R S OVERLOOK 7( Y SCHOLLS SHERWOOD E Marylhurst
W University 82ND CLACK TUALATIN 3% AMAS R 3# Gladstone RIV 3) Tualatin River OS E PILKINGTON CASON R EM National Wildlife 9$ O 9( Gladstone HS LEBEAU 9# A Tualatin CHILDS N Refuge PACIFIC HWY T "S 3) "L NYBERG 3@ G Tualatin RO ND Legacy Meridian Park S Mary S Young 3$ NLU ERRY
F G
WILLAMETTEState Park N " S A `! H I FORSYTHE PR "L R S Meldrum E R K 7^ BORLAND A O D SAGERT HIDD E N Bar B Y O R O AVERY ARLINGTON HWY 224 OGERS SHERW %d EDY TUALATIN
A 3@ N
R O J SWAN E ELWERT
O S HATTAN West Linn R H H HO N C LC O "L E O S S 3% 3# M P 3$ I 9^ B A O M P STAFFORD B Sherwood OREGON N A PARKER A E 9$ A AL West Linn HS " 3) Tualatin HS S S 7(Oregon City
9# "S Transit Center BRADLEY Sherwood HS "S Y "L R 1b$ TC 16TH KRUGER R FE SUNSE Willamette Falls
S JACKSON
E R T 7TH 9TH "H 65TH
HARDING SUNSET MAIN " N E L 5TH L O ANKEN BL SH N CHAPMAN O IP N A B AN HIGH I O T DIVI S DOWTY SCHAEFFER HOLLY EADEN BROOKMAN LLS REDLAND TE FA 3# OSTMAN 1b$ MET ILLA Oregon City DAY MOUNTAIN W NEWLAND A L HOLME S MOLALLA L Y E LINN N R HOLLY N R MOUN O E S TAIN SPRINGWATER
F ELLIGSEN E HWY 99E FI STROWBRIDGE T WARNER PARROTT S BELL CC E NE C P A H M L E S E R RIDDER APL S M Wilsonville HOMESTEADER M FERGUSON A MILL H A PARTLOW BAKER R THAYER G 3# TOOZE D BEAVERCREEK N 3@ E 9( TH U 145TH SO Clackamas LELAND "S S CENTRAL POINT AM BOECKMAN Community U ADVANCE E College L "S Oregon City HS S HEIPLE Wilsonville Wilsonville HS "S Bus Service Rail Service Community/Jobs Connector Frequent Service MAX Blue Line Service Area Standard Service MAX Green Line Landmarks MAX Orange Line Park & Ride S High School or College Rush-Hour Service September 2015 MAX Red Line Secure Bike Parking H Hospital 5& Proposed High Capacity Transit Service MAX Yellow Line Transit Center L Library Proposed new bus service Miles NORTH WES Commuter Rail 0 1 2
9 Attachment B Southwest Hills to Hillsdale, Lewis & Clark/Collinsview (Line 39) Merge existing Lines 39 and 51 to serve Terwilliger, Capitol, Sunset, and Dosch, connecting Lewis & Clark College/Collinsview, Hillsdale, Southwest Hills and Downtown Portland. Add midday, evening, and weekend trips. Downtown Tualatin, Lake Grove, PCC Sylvania, and Downtown Portland (Line 44) Extend existing PCC Sylvania service to provide all day service from Downtown Portland to Mountain Park, Lake Grove, Bridgeport Village, Durham, and Downtown Tualatin. Garden Home, to Denny Road, and Downtown Beaverton (Line 45) Change the Garden Home Line to provide new service to Denny Road and Downtown Beaverton. Add trips. Council Crest to Downtown Portland (Line 51) Due to low ridership, create a single line serving Council Crest and run during the weekday commute hours only. New Service on Shattuck Road (Line 55) Due to low ridership, change the Hamilton bus line to connect the Southwest Hills to Downtown Portland via Hamilton, Shattuck, Patton “OHSU is building a and Vista. world class campus for South Cooper Mountain to Progress Ridge, Washington Square, and Washington Park MAX Station (Line 56) healing, teaching and Extend the Scholls Ferry Road line to provide new service to Murrayhill, discovery, dedicated to Progress Ridge, and the future South Cooper Mountain community. improving the health Provide new service on Scholls Ferry Road and the Washington Park MAX of Oregonians. Transit Station. is a key part of mak- ing this campus work in South Waterfront’s urban environment.” — Brian Newman, Associate Vice President, Campus Planning
Hillsdale to Marquam Hill (Line 65) Connect Marquam Hill, Hillsdale and Lewis & Clark College/Collinsview via Terwilliger, and Palatine Hill. Provide all day and weekend service between Marquam Hill and Hillsdale. South Beaverton to Tigard Transit Center (Line 67) Extend Line 67 from the Merlo Road/SW 158th Avenue MAX Station to provide new north-south service to South Beaverton via 170th Avenue, 10 Attachment B Brockman, and 121st Avenue. Connect to Tigard via New Service on Pacific Highway and SW 124th Avenue Gaarde and Pacific Highway. Create a new line connecting homes and jobs in the New Service to Metzger and Allen Boulevard (Line 78) future Basalt Creek community with the Tigard Transit Provide new north-south service on Hall Boulevard Center via SW 124th Avenue and Pacific Highway. north of Highway 99W and connect with jobs in the Raleigh West employment area north of Allen 2. Frequency Boulevard. Frequency is a prime concern for transit users. Frequen- cy equals convenience, and more frequent service puts South Beaverton Express via I-5 (Line 92) fewer restrictions on riders’ travel. Because waiting is a Connect Murrayhill, Progress Ridge, Washington part of transit travel time, frequency can be as, or even Square and Downtown Portland via Scholls Ferry, more important, than speed of travel on the bus. Some Multnomah, and Interstate 5, providing new coverage. bus lines in the Southwest communities operate with New Service on Salamo Road such insufficient frequency, making them unattractive to a broad range of riders. Potential customers are Create a new line during weekday commuter hours deterred from riding transit if they fear missing their only connecting residents to West Linn’s Willamette bus and having to wait a long time for the next one to commercial area, City Hall, and the Lake Oswego Tran- arrive. Frequent Service Lines eliminate this concern sit Center. because they arrive every 15 minutes or better most of New Service to Sellwood the day, every day. This means the average wait if a rider The development of the Southwest Corridor Project doesn’t check the schedule is seven to eight minutes. would allow for a new bus connection between Opportunities for Action Southwest Portland and Sellwood. One possiblity for this connection could be an extension of the Taylors Expand the Frequent Service bus network and work Ferry Road line (Line 43) across the Sellwood Bridge with cities and counties to deploy transit priority connecting Washington Square, Barbur Transit Center, treatments, like signal timing and bus lanes. Sellwood, and the SE Tacoma Street/Johnson Creek New Frequent Service Bus Lines MAX Station (see map on page 9). However, other scenarios may exist for connecting Southwest Port- Maintain and expand the Frequent Service Line net- land with Sellwood. In the coming years, TriMet will work, upgrading the highest ridership bus lines to 15 work with the Southwest Portland communities to minute frequency most of the day. Better frequency on determine which bus line should connect with the following lines would significantly improve service Sellwood once the Southwest Corridor Project is built. to Portland, Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, Durham, Lake Oswego, and West Linn. Barbur Boulevard (Line 12) TriMet’s commitment to improved transit service in the Southwest part of the region includes the restoration of Frequent Service on Barbur Boulevard/ Highway 99W, which was completely restored to pre-recession service levels in Fall 2015.
New Service on Tualatin-Sherwood Road and SW 72nd Avenue Create a new line connecting to jobs in the Sherwood Town Center, Tualatin Industrial Area, Downtown Tualatin/WES Station, Bridgeport Village, 72nd Avenue, the Tigard Triangle, Downtown Tigard, and the Tigard Transit Center.
11 Attachment B Highway 43/Macadam Avenue (Line 35) New Frequent Service between Downtown Portland, Lake Oswego, West Linn and Oregon City to better meet demand in this corridor as future development occurs. Capitol Highway (Line 44) Improve the connection for students with new Frequent Service between Downtown Portland and PCC Sylvania via Hillsdale and Multnomah Village. Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway (Line 54) New Frequent Service between Downtown Portland, Hillsdale, Raleigh Hills and Beaverton Transit Center to increase transit use in this high volume corridor. Phasing and Hall Boulevard/Greenberg Road (Line 76) partnership New Frequent Service to serve the job centers along the line, including opportunities Downtown Beaverton, Washington Square, Downtown Tigard, Bridgeport Implementation of the Village, Downtown Tualatin and Legacy Meridian Park Hospital. Southwest Service Increase Frequency of Local Service Enhancement Plan All local bus service in Southwest communities should operate every recommendations will 15-30 minutes or better during the morning and afternoon commute occur incrementally as times whenever possible to keep it attractive to a broad range of users TriMet’s revenues and reduce delay for all riders. Midday service frequency will be increase. Among the determined by demand. implementation criteria, favor will be given to Implement Transit Priority Treatments service improvements Many riders wish for buses to get them to their destinations faster. in conjunction with Delayed travel time also has a negative impact on reliability. Through-out pedestrian and transit Portland and in key locations in Gresham, signal technology extends green priority improvements signals when a bus is running late. On 82nd Avenue in Clackamas, ODOT provides bus-only lane treatments to reduce delay to bus passen-gers. in the same area. If TriMet will be looking to apply similar treatments to the Southwest part of jurisdictions invest in the region to decrease delay and increase reliability. transit priority treatments, sidewalks, crossings, and 3. Passing Through Federal Funds for paths to get riders to transit, TriMet will work Transit Services with them to potentially Often times fixed outer transit by TriMet is not economically viable in prioritize service areas with low-income residents or entry-level jobs, because the number enhancements in those of residents or employees is too few or the street network is under- areas. developed. However, even when TriMet cannot operate transit services, it has a long history of helping economic development opportunities by passing on federal funds to other organizations to operate their own shuttle services to meet the needs of residents and employees. Opportunities for Action In November 2015, Ride Connection, a non-profit transportation provider serving seniors, people with disabilities, and low income popula- tions, began operating the North Hillsboro LINK shuttle between Orenco Station and the North Hillsboro Industrial Area. This service is a response to the significant increase in the number of low-pay, entry level employees in the area that have difficulty getting to work because of the lack of near- by TriMet service. TriMet fixed route bus service was not an economically viable option because the area is still developing. Ride Connection, in partnership with the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, the City of
12 Attachment B Hillsboro, Washington County, and the State of Or- home and the nearest bus stop. egon, was able to launch the North Hillsboro LINK Much of the difficulty siting pedestrian and bike im- shuttle because TriMet is able to pass on state and provements is the result of hilly terrain and the need federal grant funds specifically intended for this type to provide storm water runoff facilities with improve- of service. Similar pass through arrangements exist ments. Such conditions significantly drive the cost of for shuttle services in Tualatin, Swan Island, and Forest improvements. This is especially true in Southwest Grove. Portland, where the topography can be particularly Other areas in Southwest where TriMet could pass steep. However, Southwest Portland’s trail network through federal funding to serve low income residents can help ameliorate the challenge of providing access or low paying, entry-level jobs and where fixed route to transit in some areas. transit service is lacking due to the street network or population size include: Opportunities for Action TriMet will continue to partner with local cities, counties and ODOT to improve pedestrian environments. However cities, county and ODOT must also make pedestrian improvements a high priority. Pedestrian Network Analysis TriMet’s Pedestrian Network Analysis report (available at www.trimet.org/walk) identifies locations near transit stops where pedestrian improvements are needed (e.g., sidewalk infill, curb ramps, landing pads, and safer crossings using signals or “flashing beacons”, etc.). The report specifically points to needed pedestrian improve- ments in the Hillsdale area, Tigard Transit Center, and Raleigh Hills. Cities, counties, and ODOT can provide access to transit and improve the local quality of life Tualatin-Oregon City and safety by using the Pedestrian Network Analysis as a blueprint for where and what to include when Connect retail jobs at Bridgeport Village and down- building safe crossing treatments and sidewalks. town Tualatin with low income residents in Tualatin and downtown Oregon City via Borland and I-205. King City-Tigard-Beaverton Connect senior and low income residents in King City with jobs and services in Progress Ridge, Murrayhill, and the future River Terrace and South Cooper Mountain areas. Sherwood Connect low income areas on the east side of Sherwood with jobs and services in downtown Sher- wood, the Sherwood Town Center, and the YMCA. 4. Pedestrian/Bike Environments Every transit rider walks, uses a mobility device, or Partnering for pedestrians rides a bicycle at least a short distance to and from TriMet, ODOT, the counties and the Southwest the bus, MAX, or WES. Safe sidewalks, crossings, paths, jurisdictions have a strong history of partnerships on and bicycle infrastructure are critical to building pedestrian improvements. The most recent example is and sustaining transit ridership. Pedestrian and bike seen in the 2015-18 State Transportation improvements are especially needed in the Southwest Improvement Enhancement Program (STIP Enhance). part of the region. More than half of all respondents Administered by ODOT, the STIP Enhance grant to our survey reported that there is missing side- program will fund pedestrian improvement projects walk between their homes and the nearest bus stop. along Highway 99W, including sidewalk Additionally, only 35% of respondents reported having improvements, rapid flashing beacons, and bus stop either signalized or other safe crossings between their upgrades. The project came together with TriMet as 13 Attachment B the applicant and matching fund support from TriMet and the cities of Tigard, Tualatin, and Portland, with technical support from ODOT. TriMet will continue to look for opportunities to partner on pedestrian improvement and access to transit projects. However, cities, counties and ODOT must also prioritize safe and comfortable access to transit for this goal to become a reality. Safe crossings vs. road widening Roadway widening to accommodate increased traffic conflicts with transit access by making it more difficult to cross the street safely to reach a bus stop. The counties and individual Southwest jurisdictions must continue, in partnership with TriMet, to seek a balance between all means of transportation in order to address current and future challenges. Making walking easier by making crossings shorter Increasing the Reach of Transit with Cycling Connections Because intersection crossings are so important for access to transit and for residents and employees More and better bike paths and bike lanes can help to walk anywhere in Southwest, TriMet encourages to expand the reach of transit, as customers who are cities, counties, and ODOT to re-evaluate standards combining their transit trip with a cycling trip can and existing dimensions of curb radius at intersec- more quickly cover a larger distance than by walking tions. Large curb radii increase crossing distances and or rolling alone. The rolling hills and challenging invite faster turning speeds for motor vehicles, leaving topography in this area might be a natural deterrent pedestrians exposed to dangerous interactions with to some, but others do choose to use a bicycle as a fast-moving vehicles. Consider treatments such as means to connect to transit service, especially along truck aprons to reduce turning radius and crossing facilities like the Fanno Creek Trail, the Tualatin River distance. Reducing crossing distance can also reduce Greenway and the Willamette River Greenway Trail. the amount of time intersections need for each TriMet will continue to support safe and comfortable individual signal cycle or traffic movement, potentially bicycling facilities to reach transit services, provide reducing delay or at least the perception of delay, to bike parking at appropriate locations, and work with pedestrians and drivers. Cost-effective pilot projects our partners to promote cycling as a means to can be implemented using striping or plastic “candle- increase the reach of transit connecting to stick” pylons. The Federal Highway Administrations employment, commercial and residential areas. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selec- tion System website provides a good starting point for cities and counties considering pedestrian safety improvements (www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE). Bus stop landing pads Concrete pads between sidewalks and curbs allow people with mobility devices to board and de-board buses from the sidewalk and encourage transit use from those who can walk or bike to the bus stop. Without the landing pads, riders must either walk through wet, muddy, and potentially unstable surfaces or worse, step into the street itself to get on the bus. The concrete pads provide opportunities to install shelters at stops with high ridership, making riding transit more attractive and competitive with other options.
14 Attachment B In Our Rear View Mirror Frequent Service Restoration During the Great Recession, TriMet was forced to increase the time between trips on the 13 Frequent Service Bus Lines and MAX. With the improving economy, TriMet has restored service back to pre- recession level. TriMet’s Frequent Service Lines carry more than half of all bus passengers on the system, and MAX carries more than one-third of all TriMet customers. Frequent Service and MAX restoration has been vital in helping people access jobs, reducing congestion, and meeting the region’s adopted land use and air quality goals. With the restoration of all Frequent Service and MAX lines, TriMet now provides Conclusion more service than it did prior to the recession. Current Frequent Service Bus Lines in Southwest include: As congestion increases with population and job growth, and as more people rely on transit out of need Line 8-Jackson Park/NE 15th Avenue or choice, TriMet intends to enhance the transit Line 12-Barbur/Sandy Boulevard network to meet these increasing demands of the Line 54-Beaverton Hillsdale Highway growing southwest communities. TriMet will continue to serve the high demand for transit service Line 56-Scholls Ferry Road to Downtown Portland, but also aims to provide service to neighborhoods, job sites, and other destination between the southwest communities. TriMet is committed to supporting the southwest part of the region by increasing the effectiveness and importance of transit via new or realigned lines, better frequencies and service hours, and new partnerships for innovative service and pedestrian improvements. The Future of Transit will include many more opportunities for Southwest residents to travel throughout the region to jobs, school, shopping, medical care and recreational activities while freeing space on roads for freight and other needs.
15 Attachment B
Available in other formats. 1150300 • 1/16 • 500 Attachment C
Memorandum Date: July 27, 2016
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Steve Kelley, Senior Planner
RE: Responses to Questions from Commissioner Enloe, Re: Ordinance No. 814
Following are Staff’s responses to Commissioner Enloe’s questions.
1. Is the discussion on whether to become more lenient on when to include sidewalks a result of the applicants appealing the inclusion of sidewalks under proportionality? Based on the white paper it seems to be the first but I want to make sure I am understanding correctly.
Staff Response: Proposed Ordinance No. 814 address two legislative recommendations from the Walkway Gap Issue Paper: • Recommendation #8: "Clarify or revise conflicting Community Development Code (CDC) sections regarding the circumstances in which public improvements are required." Proposed Ordinance No. 814 addresses this recommendation by amending CDC section 502-1.4. The proposed amendments clarify that exceptions are only listed in 502-14.
• Recommendation #9 "Amend Article VII of the CDC to exempt from land use review walkway projects that would require additional right-of-way but would otherwise meet the requirements of CDC Section 702-4 (Exempt Projects)." Proposed Ordinance No. 814 addresses this recommendation by adding new section 702-13.
An issue paper that will address recommendation #7 (Transportation Development Review Procedures for New Development) is under development and is expected to be discussed by the Planning Commission later this year. The issue paper is expected to address (at least partly) questions about proportionality. Recommendations #10 and #11 are outside the ability of staff to advance. The administrative recommendations (#1 through #6) are all at different stages of being addressed by staff.
2. Is the discussion on whether to become more lenient on when to include sidewalks a result of the applicants appealing the inclusion of sidewalks under proportionality? Or is there something else? Based on the white paper it seems to be the first, but I want to make sure I am understanding correctly. – added note – I think maybe my question should be, are Recommendations #8 and #9 resulting from the need to adjust when sidewalks are required as a result of push back on nexus of proportionality?
Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services · Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue Suite 350, MS 14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-3519 · fax: 503-846-4412 · www.co.washington.or.us
Attachment C
Staff Response: Proposed Ordinance 814 is not expected to result in more lenient sidewalk requirements. The change to CDC Section 502-1.4 (Recommendation #8) will address a conflict within the CDC between Section 501-2 and Section 502-1. CDC Section 501 requires sidewalks for more than one house, while CDC Section 502 requires sidewalks for more than four houses. The ordinance clarifies that CDC Section 501 applies by removing the conflicting language from CDC Section 502. The intent of this amendment is to strengthen and clarify the sidewalk requirements consistent with the recommendation of the ‘Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area’ Issue Paper.
CDC Section 702-13 (Recommendation #9) will exempt sidewalk capital projects from land use review requirements. Article VII functions as the development review requirements for public transportation projects. New capital construction improvements within unincorporated Washington County must meet the requirements of Article VII. This land use review procedure is beyond the level of review and scrutiny that most public agencies require. The proposed exemption would allow the acquisition of right-of-way and development of walkways, sidewalks, bike lanes, trials and other improvements intended to exclusively serve bicycles and pedestrians without an Article VII review. The criteria proposed in the Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Issue Paper recommendation has been expanded to ensure that multimodal improvements are reviewed appropriately. Walkway improvements are generally minor improvement projects and this exemption is intended to reduce the administrative costs of such improvements.
Neither change is intended to addresses concerns regarding proportionality.
3. If the first is true, , can the County develop a white paper or letter from the LUT Director that addresses a way to assign proportionality? For example, if the development triggers any amount of new vehicular traffic, could the County issue a standing that it assumes that pedestrian traffic could also be reasonably assumed? Or if the development adds any additional square footage, therefore it can accommodate more people, that proportionally its required to provide for all modes? Something along those lines?
Staff Response: An issue paper on development review procedures is forthcoming and it may address this issue, proposed Ordinance 814 does not.
4. The white paper references ADA requirements, but it doesn’t clearly provide whether the ADA requirements provide design requirements IF sidewalks are included, or do the ADA requirements themselves REQUIRE that sidewalks be included? I’d like more information on this. Check the ADA code and PROWAG.
Staff Response: In general, ADA requirements are outside the scope of long range planning and are part of design and construction standards. The walkway gap solutions issue paper does not address ADA requirements. The forthcoming issue paper on development procedures is also not expected to address ADA requirements.
The Public Rights-of-Way Access Guidelines have been reviewed by the both the Engineering and Construction Services division and the Operations and Maintenance division of the Washington
Page 2 of 3
Attachment C
County Department of Land Use and Transportation. Where appropriate, administrative changes to address the revised ADA requirements, are being incorporated into ongoing engineering, construction, operations and maintenance activities.
S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Testimony\Ord814 Staff Response Enloe.doc
Page 3 of 3
Attachment D
Memorandum Date: July 27, 2016
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Steve Kelley, Senior Planner
RE: Responses to Questions from Commissioner Manseau, Re: Ordinance No. 814
Following are Staff’s responses to Commissioner Enloe’s questions.
1. The Walkway Issue Paper Recommendation #8 was for clarification or revision to code to remove conflict that exempted construction of single family residences or duplexes on "lots of record" from dedication of ROW and constructing 1/2 street improvements along the frontage of the site, but required construction of a sidewalk along the site frontage. How are we working toward elimination of walkway gaps if we allow a complete exemption from any sidewalk requirements for these homes as proposed in this ordinance? Is the some other way to remove conflict without removing the requirement for sidewalk construction?
Staff Response: Proposed Ordinance No. 814 address recommendation #8 from the Solutions for Addressing Walkway Gaps in the Urban Unincorporated Area Issue Paper. Proposed Ordinance No. 814 removes the exemptions from to sidewalk construction in CDC Section 502-1.4. No new exemptions are created. No requirements for sidewalk construction are eliminated. Proposed Ordinance 814 is not expected to result in more lenient sidewalk requirements.
2. Has dedication of ROW for all development actions to current standards been considered?
Staff Response: An issue paper on addressing transportation development review procedures for new development is forthcoming and it may address partially this issue. Safe driveway access, on-site local and neighborhood route connections and street lighting are also high priorities along with the dedication of right-of-way for Arterial and Collectors.
3. Staff has stated that new "lots of record" are not being created without a requirement for sidewalk construction. What about the new lot created via Casefile14-365?
Staff Response: Reviewing Casefile 14-365 the applicant requested an exemption to sidewalk standards under CDC Section 502-14. Staff found the proposal did not meet the requirements of CDC Section 502-14 and denied the exemption to sidewalk construction. On appeal, the hearings officer agreed that the site did not meet the criteria in CDC Section 502-14. Yet, agreed with the applicant and ruled that the sidewalk would not be required in this case.
Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services · Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue Suite 350, MS 14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-3519 · fax: 503-846-4412 · www.co.washington.or.us
Attachment D
The final order in this appeal case states on page 12: “Nevertheless, as found above, the sidewalk cannot be required as the proposed 2-lot partition does not generate any pedestrian traffic. In addition, the evidence presented at the hearing documents the lack of sidewalks in the vicinity of the site, and how the construction of the sidewalk would require removal of a tree that they wish to preserve. The CDC does not take these factors into consideration, and thus they cannot form a basis for approval of this exemption.”
And on page 13: “The proposed partition meets the criteria of Section 502-14.2A-C. The criterion of section 502- 14.2.D is not met ... An exception to sidewalks is not warranted because criteria in Section 502- 14.2A.D and E are not met. Despite the fact that the proposal does not meet the exception criteria, as discussed in the findings above, the sidewalk is not being required in this case.”
The casefile and appeal seems to be appropriate role for the hearings officer. The CDC is intended to be followed in the vast majority of circumstances and the hearings process is available to examine the merits of a particular case or circumstance. The hearings officer can apply impartial judgement to determine if there are particular constraints outside the scope of the CDC that merit consideration that staff is otherwise not allowed to apply.
4. From the Community Development Code: Application of the Public Facility and Service Standards shall apply to the Urban Unincorporated Area as follows: 501-2.2 To all new construction or expansion of an existing structure, except for construction of a single (one [1] only) detached dwelling unit or duplex on an approved duplex lot (Section 430-13.3), or other structures which meet all of the following:
Since code requires the Public Facility and Service Standards to apply to expansion of an existing structure (CDC 501-2.2), why isn't current planning apply these standards to expansion of existing structures?
Staff Response: The expansion of an existing structure refers to a commercial or industrial expansion. Remodeling of single family residential unit is exempt from public facility requirements. CDC Section 501-2.2 continues and qualifies the other structures that are exempt as those that meet all of the following: A. Contains two thousand (2000) square feet or less; B. Does not, in itself, generate more than fourteen (14) vehicle trips per day, as defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Information Report; C. Contains no plumbing fixtures, or has less than twelve (12) additional fixtures attached to an existing, approved septic system or public sewer; and D. Does not pose any unique public health or safety issues. The intent is that a minor (as defined by the above criteria) expansion of an existing commercial or industrial structure would be exempt from the public facility requirements of Article V. Staff is applying the development review requirements consistently and appropriately.
Page 2 of 3
Attachment D
5. Why is there an exemption from Public Facility and Service Standards allowed for single family dwellings or duplex--particularly when code apparently requires expansion of an existing single family dwelling or a duplex to meet the Public Facility and Service Standards?
Staff Response: As explained above, this section of the code is not applicable to the expansion of an existing single family dwelling or duplex.
6. What is the purpose of the exemptions to sidewalk standards found in 502-14? Is there a particular neighborhood where sidewalks are not needed?
Staff Response: The construction of sidewalks is needed in all neighborhoods but the implementation on certain local streets may not be practicable. CDC Section 502-14 establishes the criteria for when sidewalk construction is not considered to be practicable. CDC Section 502-14 requires the proposed development to proceed through a Type II or Type III procedure and prove that it meets the requirements.
7. Why aren't the exceptions to 1/2 street improvements found in Section 501-6 used when determining exemptions to sidewalks? Aren't the provisions is Section 502-14 redundant and possibly conflicting with the provisions in 501-6?
Staff Response: The requirements under CDC Section 501-6 address all critical and essential services not only sidewalks. A development proposal may be eligible for an exemption from ½ street improvements as described in CDC Section 501-6.3(C) and yet still required to construct sidewalks under CDC Section 502. This may be particularly true in circumstances where topographic constraints make construction of a roadway impracticable (which is likely due to storm-water treatment requirements).
8. We seem to be carefully dancing around Nollan/Dolan--trying to sidestep having to address either the nexus or rough proportionality issues. When will staff research what is being done in other jurisdictions? Isn't it important for new development to pay for their fair share of impacts on the transportation infrastructure? Do we need for LR Planning staff to draft an issue paper on options to address nexus and rough proportionality? Doesn't something need to be done to aid Current Planning is resolving Nollan/Dolan issues?
Staff Response: Much of this effort is underway and may at least partially be addressed in a forthcoming issue paper addressing transportation development review procedures for new development. This question is outside the scope of proposed Ordinance 814.
S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2016 Ord\Ord814_TSP\Testimony\Ord814 Staff Response Manseau.doc
Page 3 of 3
Land Use & Transportation APPLICANT / OWNER: Planning and Development Services Catlin Gabel School Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS14 8825 SW Barnes Road Hillsboro, OR 97124 Portland, OR 97225 503-846-3519 Contact Person: Eric Shawn
Phone: 503-203-5100 Casefile No. 16-107-PA Catlin Gabel School Plan Amendment APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Winterbrook Planning Staff Report and Recommendation 310 SW 4th Avenue #1100 For the Planning Commission Hearing on: Portland, OR 97204 Contact Person: Ben Schonberger
Phone: 503-827-4422 August 3, 2016 ASSESSOR MAP AND TAX LOT NO(S): 1S102AC09500, PROCEDURE TYPE: III 1S102AC09700, 1S102AC09800, 1S102D000500, 1S102D000600, 1S102D000700, 1S102D000800, COMMUNITY 1S102D000200 (portion), and 1S102AD01400 (portion). CPO: 1 PLAN: Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill SITE SIZE: Approximately Eight (8) Acres LAND USE DISTRICTS: ADDRESS: 8825, 8735, 8705, an 8685 SW Barnes RD Existing: TO: R9-12(Transit Oriented: Residential - 9 to (one parcel not address) and Tracts G, I and J of the 12 units per acre), TO: R12-18 (Transit Oriented: Creekside at West Haven Subdivision Residential - 12 to 18 units per acre), and R-5 LOCATION: On the north side of SW Barnes Road (Residential - 5 units per acre) between SW 84th Avenue and SW 90th Avenue. Proposed: Institutional (INST)
REQUEST: The applicant requests a Plan Amendment to change seven parcels and a portion of two parcels from Transit Oriented: Residential - 9 to 12 units per acre (TO: R9-12), Transit Oriented: Residential - 12 to 18 units per acre (TO: R12-18), and Residential - 5 units per acre (R-5) to Institutional (INST) to match the plan designation of the abutting lots that make up the Catlin Gabel School Campus. The campus is currently approximately 59 acres in size and the area under consideration for the Plan Amendment is an additional approximately eight (8) acres.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the facts and findings provided in this report, staff finds that the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with applicable LCDC Statewide Planning Goals, the State Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060), the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007), the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP) Policies and Implementing Strategies, Washington County Transportation System Plan Goals, the Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill Community Plan, and the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) as these apply to quasi- judicial Plan Amendments.
Additionally, the applicant has provided necessary evidence of feasibility for provision of adequate services from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tualatin Valley Water District, Clean Water Services, the Washington County Sheriff, Beaverton School District, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD), and TriMet, subject to compliance with related requirements determined through any future development application.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this Plan Amendment request.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 2 of 28
I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
A. LCDC Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14
B. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060)
C. Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007)
D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan: Titles 1, 2, 7, and 12
E. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan Policies (and Implementing Strategies): 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18(INST), 22, 30, 32, 33, 39, and 40
F. Washington County Transportation System Plan Goals: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
G. Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill Community Plan: Overview, General Design Elements 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 16; and Westhaven Subarea and Barnes Road Peterkort Subarea (Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Protected Natural Resources Map)
H. Washington County Community Development Code: Section 302 R-5 District (Residential- 5 units per acre) Section 330 Institutional District (INST) Section 375 Transit Oriented Districts Section 421 Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development Section 422 Significant Natural Resources
II. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES:
Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Tualatin Valley Water District Clean Water Services (CWS) Washington County Sheriff Beaverton School District Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD) Metro TriMet Department of Land Conservation and Development
III. FINDINGS
A. General
Applicant: See page 1-2 of the applicant’s narrative.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 3 of 28
Staff: The applicant requests a Plan Amendment to change the current TO: R9-12, TO: R12-18, and R-5 land use designations to INST. The following is an analysis of the subject property, including the current uses and land use history of the proposal on the subject site and the surrounding area.
Property Description The subject property is located on the north side of SW Barnes Road east of SW 84th Avenue and SW Leahy Road in unincorporated Washington County. The identified eight acres is part of the 67-acre Catlin Gabel School for which the applicant is requesting a Plan Amendment from current designations to an INST designation. Approximately 59 acres of the campus is currently designated INST, and the proposed Plan Amendment, on approximately eight (8) acres would result in one land use designation for the entire campus. Figure 1 shows the location of the affected parcels and Table 1 lists the current land use designations along with the current uses of the parcels.
Figure 1 Map of Parcels Current access to the parcels is from SW Barnes Road. Limited access is provided on SW Leahy Road on the east side of the campus. The applicant completed property line adjustments between lots 1S102D000200 and 1S102D000100 and between Lots 1S102AD01400 and 1S102AD00400. The property line adjustment expanded the campus boundary while the existing single family homes located on Lots 100 and 400 remained. The Plan Amendment includes the newly added portions of lots 200 and 1400. Figure 1 shows the location of these four parcels.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 4 of 28
Table 1 Affected Parcels
Tax Lot Existing Plan Designation Acres Current Use 1S102AC09500 Transit Oriented (R12-18) 0.08 Open Space Tract 1S102AC09700 Transit Oriented (R12-18) 1.32 Open Space Tract 1S102AC09800 Transit Oriented (R12-18) 0.56 Open Space Tract 1S102D000500 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.45 Residential Dwelling 1S102D000600 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.42 Residential Dwelling 1S102D000700 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.18 Vacant 1S102D000800 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.45 Residential Dwelling 1S102D000200 (portion) Transit Oriented (R9-12) 3.30 Vacant 1S102AD01400 (portion) Residential (4-5 Units/Acre 0.79 Vacant TOTAL 7.55
The site is within the Westhaven and Barnes-Peterkort Subareas of the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill (CH-CM) Community Plan. The community plan’s Protected Natural Resources Map (Figure 2) identifies a portion of the site as being part of a Significant Natural Resource Area (SNRA).
School Campus Boundary
Project Area Affected
Figure 2 Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill Community Plan Protected Natural Resources
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 5 of 28
Land Use History A 1969 tax map (Figure 3) shows past zoning of the site and the surrounding area as R-10 (Residential). The R-10 zoning was intended “to provide for and protect medium density residential property...” The principal permitted use in this district was single family detached dwellings. This tax map lists the area as the Catlin Gabel School.
In 1983, when the CH-CM Community Plan was adopted, this area was comprised of single family residential (R-5: 2 to 5 units per acre), multi-family (R-15: 10 to 15 units per acre), institutional and commercial areas. Figure 4 shows multiple parcels surrounding the Figure 3 Prior to 1983, the project area and its surroundings Catlin Gabel Campus were were designated R-10. designated INST (in blue). All other adjacent parcels were designated R-5, the lowest density provided at the time. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 484-A (1997) incorporating Transit Oriented designations in the Sunset Transit Area, the land use designation for most of the subject area was changed from R-5 to TO: R9-12 and TO: R12-18 (see Figure 5). In response to Metro’s minimum density requirements, Ordinance No. 555-A (2000) added a minimum density of four units per acre for parcels designated R-5. This still remains the lowest density of all residential districts in urban unincorporated Washington County.
The INST designation of the Catlin Gabel parcel was consistent with the use of the facility at the time the Community Plan was developed. Catlin Gabel School had purchased their original properties in 1958. A Special Use permit was approved for the school Figure 4: Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill land use designations (1986). expansion in 1986 and they also obtained master plan approval from the County in 1997 to add an additional 76,603 square feet on their site. Catlin Gabel has been an established institutional
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 6 of 28
use for over 50 years. In the last several years the School purchased parcels totaling approximately eight (8) acres to expand the existing campus. This Plan Amendment is to change the designation of these properties to INST to create a consistent land use designation for the entire school campus.
Neighboring Land & Vicinity Shown in Figure 5, the Catlin Gabel Campus today is mostly designated INST, except the approximately eight acres identified in this Plan Amendment. St. Vincent Medical Center is located to the west and West Tualatin View Elementary School to the north; both are designated INST. The Oregon College of Art and Craft is located approximately 500 feet Figure 5 Current Land Use Designations east of the Catlin Gabel Campus and is also designated INST.
Other parcels adjacent to the project area are designated R-5, R-15, and Transit Oriented Residential (TO: R9-12 and TO: R12-18). Many are single family detached dwellings with some lots large enough to further divide.
Testimony At the time of writing this staff report, one comment was received. Attachment A is correspondence from David Genrich and staff’s response regarding concerns with the natural resource impacts associated with this Plan Amendment. Should any additional written testimony be submitted after the completion of this report and preparation of the Planning Commission (PC) packet, it will be presented to the PC for review and inclusion in the record at the public hearing.
B. Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
Washington County’s Comprehensive Plan includes the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP), which complies with the policies of the Statewide Planning Goals. Goals applicable to this proposal are identified under related policies from the CFP.
C. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060)
Applicant: See pages 26-30 and 40 of the applicant’s narrative and the Traffic Impact Statement prepared by the County (TIS #02028383, dated November 9, 2015).
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 7 of 28
Staff: Per the attached Transportation Report, the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule and Goals 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Transportation System Plan, and would not significantly affect the capacity or levels of traffic on the nearby transportation network defined in OAR 660, Division 12. The Transportation Report is included as Attachment B.
(The findings in Attachment B also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12, Transportation).
D. Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007)
“The purpose of this division is to ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metropolitan Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development process and so to reduce housing costs. OAR 660-007-0030 through 660-007-0037 are intended to establish by rule regional residential density and mix standards to measure Goal 10 Housing compliance for cities and counties within the Metro urban growth boundary, and to ensure the efficient use of residential land within the regional UGB consistent with Goal 14 Urbanization.
OAR 660-007-0035 implements the Commission's determination in the Metro UGB acknowledgment proceedings that region wide, planned residential densities must be considerably in excess of the residential density assumed in Metro's ‘UGB Findings’. The new construction density and mix standards and the criteria for varying from them in this rule take into consideration and also satisfy the price range and rent level criteria for needed housing as set forth in ORS 197.303.”
Applicant: See pages 11-13 and 36-40 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: OAR 660-007-030 provisions of the Metropolitan Housing Rule (MHR) require new construction of housing in Washington County at an overall average of eight units per acre in urban Washington County to encourage the development of needed housing. This is to be accommodated via a mix of land use designations that provide opportunity for 50% of total new housing as attached units. THE MHR defines buildable lands as that “likely to be redeveloped that is suitable, available and necessary for residential uses…” and excludes publicly owned land. Metro does the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) for Washington County and has excluded the Catlin Gabel owned land, including the subject parcels, from the Buildable Lands.
The proposed Plan Amendment consists of seven parcels and portions of two others totaling approximately eight acres. There are three existing dwellings on Lots 500, 600, and 800. Lot 700 is vacant (see Figure 1 for lot location). Lots 9500, 9700 are identified as open space area in the Creekside at West Haven Subdivision and are not developable. Lot 9800 is also part of the Creekside at West Haven Subdivision and is listed as an open space tract, but the recorded plat notes also state that the tract “…may be developed through a subsequent land development.” Lot 200 and 1400 were expanded through property line adjustments with abutting parcels to expand the campus boundary. The existing single family home located on the abutting lots (100 and 400) remained. Table 2 shows that for the developable lots, redevelopment of the affected area could provide a maximum of 68 new dwellings based on the current plan designations.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 8 of 28
Table 2: Maximum Residential Dwellings by Affected Parcels
Tax Lot Existing Plan Designation Acres Maximum Density 1S102AC09500 Transit Oriented (R12-18) 0.08 Undevelopable 1S102AC09700 Transit Oriented (R12-18) 1.32 Undevelopable 1S102AC09800 Transit Oriented (R12-18) 0.56 10 1S102D000500 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.45 5 (existing dwelling) 1S102D000600 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.42 5(existing dwelling) 1S102D000700 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.18 2 1S102D000800 Transit Oriented (R9-12) 0.45 5(existing dwelling) 1S102D000200 (portion) Transit Oriented (R9-12) 3.30 40 1S102AD01400 (portion) Residential (4-5 Units/Acre) 0.79 4 Maximum Dwellings 7.55 71 (68 new dwellings)
The applicant has identified land constraints that may preclude building 68 additional dwellings on the subject parcels. The constraints include:
• Access to SW Leahy Road is restricted to lots 200 and 1400 by the existing dwellings on lots 100 and 400 (see Figure 1 for lot location). • Lots 200 and 1400 contain steep slopes. • Lots 9500 and 9700 are protected open space tracts (see Figure 6). • Lot 9800 requires a bridge over John Creek and is constrained by an identified drainage hazard area. • Lots 500, 600, 700, and 800, total approximately 1.5 acres with three existing houses. The sizes of the lots are such that it would likely not encourage multi-family development consistent with the TO: R9-12 land use designation.
Figure 6 Creekside at West Haven Subdivision open space tract, picture taken from the NW section of the school campus facing south (St. Vincent Medical Center in the background).
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 9 of 28
The applicant states, “Metropolitan Rule recognizes that public-owned land is generally not available for housing; the same is true for land owned by private schools-especially when school has no intention of developing the land for housing purposes.” (See page 36 of the applicant’s narrative) Staff concurs that since the subject area is owned by Catlin Gabel School, the area would unlikely be developed for residential uses and should not be factored into housing calculations for the County, similar to the majority of the Catlin Gabel School Campus and the Oregon College of Art and Craft, another private school, located east of the subject site. As noted above, Metro has excluded the project area from the BLI.
The proposed Plan Amendment to INST would decrease the number of dwellings permitted in the area; however the school has determined the additional acreage is needed to accommodate the growing requests to expand their enrollment. Schools support residential lands by providing educational services. Catlin Gabel School has been an established school at this site since 1958 and is unlikely to sell off the school-owned lands, especially with the school’s needed expansion. Mitigation for the housing capacity loss may include construction of student residential facilities as part of the school’s master plan, potentially providing a different housing type than the single family residential uses in the area. This could be further discussed during the master plan process.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing)
E. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Section 3.07.810.A. of Title 8 of Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) requires that “After one year following acknowledgement of a Functional Plan requirement, cities and counties that amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall make such amendments in compliance with the new Functional Plan requirement.” The following are findings for the applicable UGMFP Titles:
1. Title 1, Housing Capacity, states:
The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a “fair-share” approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity except as provided in section 3.07.120.
Applicant: See pages 40-42 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The project area could provide a maximum of 71 dwelling units on the parcels affected by the proposed Plan Amendment shown in Table 2. The applicant states, “...it is extremely unlikely minimum densities would be achieved on the 7.47 acres proposed for designation due to access, topographical and regulatory constraints.” The portion of Lots 200 and 1400 requesting the Plan Amendment (see Figure 1 for lot location) is approximately four acres in size and has no direct access to SW Leahy Road thereby restricting residential development. The four parcels, adjacent to SW Barnes Road are small and would also have access issues since the signalized school entrance is located less
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 10 of 28 than 300 feet from SW 87th Place, an unimproved street (see Figure 7) adjacent to these parcels, and 500 feet from Lot 800 (the parcel furthest from the signalized intersection).
Figure 7 Picture of SW 87th Place (unimproved) taken from SW Barnes Road facing north.
The parcels that make up the Creekside at West Haven open space tract (Lots 9500, 9700, and 9800) have barriers that restrict development of the parcels. The area is irregularly shaped, requires a bridge to cross the creek, and is located in a Drainage Hazard Area. The school expects to incorporate this area into their environmental education program. Title 1 permits a reduction of the “zone capacity” to protect natural resources such as these parcels.
Title 1 also permits a reduction of the “zone capacity” for educational facilities. Metro Title 1 states the following:
3.07.120 Housing Capacity (d) A city or county may reduce the minimum zoned capacity of a zone without increasing minimum zoned capacity in another zone for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To re-zone the area to allow industrial use under Title 4 of this chapter or an educational or medical facility similar in scale to those listed in section 3.07.1340(d)(5)(B)(i) of Title 13 of this chapter;
Catlin Gabel has been an established school in this area for over 50 years and owns the properties affected by this Plan Amendment. It is unlikely that Catlin Gabel would sell off the parcels in the subject area in the near future since the school has identified a need to expand their campus to accommodate the additional students applying to their school. Schools support residential lands by providing educational services to the area. Catlin
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 11 of 28
Gabel, as the current owner, has the option to seek Plan Amendment approval in the future to re-designate these parcels as residential and to sell it for residential development should their needs change. As noted in other findings in this report, Metro has excluded this land from the BLI.
Staff finds the subject parcels better serve the area as part of the campus and are not calculated in the housing capacity for the County. Therefore, staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Title 1.
2. Title 2: Regional Parking Policy (Repealed)
Applicant: See page 42 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: Title 2 is not applicable to this application request since the Title has been repealed. Issues pertaining to parking are addressed in CDC Section 413 Parking and Loading with a future development application.
3. Title 7, Housing Choice:
Applicant: See pages 42-43 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: Title 7 encourages the availability of housing for all levels of income. A designation change to INST would remove approximately eight (8) acres of residential land from the inventory of land available for housing. As discussed in this report, there are access, natural resource and physical constraints that make residential development unlikely. This includes Catlin Gabel’s ownership of the subject properties and the school’s identified need to expand their campus. As noted in other findings in this report, Metro has excluded this land from the BLI. The amendment would allow Catlin Gabel the opportunity to expand their existing campus and better serve the community.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Title 7.
4. Title 12, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods states:
Existing neighborhoods are essential to the success of the 2040 Growth Concept. The intent of Title 12 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is to protect the region’s residential neighborhoods. The purpose of Title 12 is to help implement the policy of the Regional Framework Plan to protect existing residential neighborhoods from air and water pollution, noise and crime and to provide adequate levels of public services.
Applicant: See page 43 of the applicant’s narrative and the Service Provider Letters submitted by the applicant.
Staff: As described in the Neighboring Land and Vicinity section of this report, approximately 59 acres of the Catlin Gabel Campus is designated INST. The remaining eight acres owned by the school and subject to this Plan Amendment, have a Transit Oriented or Residential land use designation. The hospital/ medical center abutting to the west, the elementary school abutting to the north and the Oregon College of Art and Craft
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 12 of 28
located 500 feet to the east are also designated INST. The remaining parcels in the area are a combination of R-5, R-15 and Transit Oriented Residential designation (see Figure 5). A Plan Amendment to change the subject area to INST would be consistent with the current designation of the Catlin Gabel Campus, which has been there for over 50 years, and the other institutional uses in the surrounding area and would maintain the existing neighborhood character.
The applicant has submitted Service Provider Letters indicating there are no adverse impacts to public services with the proposed Plan Amendment. Letters submitted are from: Clean Water Services, the Washington County Sheriff, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R), Beaverton School District, Tualatin Valley Water District, and Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD). The applicant also submitted a Transit Availability Statement indicating TriMet’s Bus Line No. 20 (Burnside/Stark to Beaverton Transit Center) along SW Barnes Road is the nearest provision for public transit. The Sunset Transit Station, shown on Figure 4, is also in close proximity to the school campus. Service Provider Letters will again be required with any development application to ensure adequacy for site development proposed at that time.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Title 12.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and services)
F. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area
1. Policy 1, the Planning Process, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to establish an ongoing Planning Program which is a responsive legal framework for comprehensive planning and community development and accommodates changes and growth in the physical, economic and social environment, in response to the needs of the County's citizens.
It is the policy of Washington County to provide the opportunity for a landowner or his/her agent to initiate quasi-judicial amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on a semi-annual basis. In addition, the Board of Commissioners, the Planning Director or the Planning Commission may initiate the consideration of quasi-judicial map amendments at any time deemed necessary and a landowner or his/her agent may initiate a quasi- judicial map amendment in a New Urban Area at any time during the year.
Applicable Implementing Strategy:
f. Approve a quasi-judicial plan amendment for properties outside of New Urban Areas to the Primary Districts on the Community Plan Maps and/or the Future Development Areas Map, including the implementing tax maps, only if the Review Authority determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan. Where applicable, the proponent must also establish with the Review Authority compliance and conformance with the following:
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 13 of 28
• The provisions of Policies 40 and 41; • The Community Plan Overview and sub-area description and design elements; • The policies, strategies and systems maps of the Transportation Plan; and • The regional functional planning requirements established by Metro.
The proponent may also be required to demonstrate to the Review Authority that the potential service impacts of the designation will not impact the built or planned service delivery system in the community. This is a generalized analysis that in no way precludes full application of the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided in the Code.
Quasi-judicial and legislative plan amendments for property added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary through an approved Locational or Minor Adjustment, to any plan designation other than the FD-10 or FD-20 Districts, shall include documentation that the land was annexed into the Urban Road Maintenance District, the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District and, where applicable, the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Annexation into these districts shall be completed prior to the County’s determination that a quasi-judicial plan amendment application is complete and prior to the County’s adoption of a legislative plan amendment.
In addition, the proponent shall demonstrate one of the following:
***
5. If an Institutional designation is sought, compliance with the applicable locational standards of the Code and that the site is needed to adequately serve the users of the proposed institutional use.
Applicant: See pages 6-8 and 15-17 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: To qualify for plan amendments from one plan designation to another, quasi-judicial plan amendment applicants must successfully demonstrate that the request complies with, satisfies, or otherwise implements each applicable plan policy as noted under Implementing Strategy 1.f.
Policy 1 identifies other agency and County requirements that are applicable to this policy that have been addressed in other parts of this report. Policy 41, Urban Growth Boundary Expansions is not applicable because the subject properties are already located within the Urban Growth Boundary.
As stated by the applicant, “…the expansion is needed to accommodate up to 180 new students and additional teachers to the school.” The applicant’s narrative describes that the additional campus area is needed to accommodate the growing demand to expand their enrollment.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 14 of 28
The subject properties are located within an established urban area with access to urban services. Service Provider Letters were provided showing that no adverse impacts on service provisions are expected with the proposed Plan Amendment. Figure 8 identifies parcels (shown in green) that are in the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD), Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) and Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District (ESPD). The subject properties (outlined in red) are within all three service district boundaries. In a letter Figure 8: Special District Boundary Map (areas in dated February 17, 2018 [sic], THPRD green are in THPRD, ESPD and URMD) has indicated the project area is within their service district boundary and that adequate park service will be available to the site with a future community park. THPRD also identified an interest in placing a regional trail through the Catlin Gabel Campus which would be addressed at the time of development or master planning of the school campus. A Service Provider Letter from ESPD has also been submitted showing adequate sheriff services are available. Service Provider Letters were provided with the applicant’s submittal showing adequate urban services are available to the subject properties.
Staff cites the findings above and applicable findings elsewhere in the report as providing support that the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 1.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services)
2. Policy 2, Citizen Involvement, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage citizen participation in all phases of the planning process and to provide opportunities for continuing involvement and effective communication between citizens and their county government.
Applicant: See pages 17-18 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: A quasi-judicial plan amendment such as this must be considered through a Type III procedure. In accordance with CDC Section 204-4, the county placed a legal notice of the hearing in The Oregonian at least ten days prior to the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission hearing date (published July 22, 2016), and sent a notice of the public hearing to all owners (of record) of property within 500 feet of the subject site at least 20 days prior to the hearing (mailed July 13, 2016).
A copy of the plan amendment application was also mailed to the representative for the local Citizen Participation Organization (CPO 1) on June 29, 2016. Finally, the staff report was available to all interested parties at least seven days prior to the hearing as required by CDC Section 203-6.2.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 15 of 28
Based upon the actions listed above, the requirements of Policy 2 have been met.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement).
3. Policy 10, Biological Resources and Natural Areas:
It is the policy of Washington County to protect and enhance significant natural areas.
Applicant: See pages 14-15 and 18-19 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The primary focus of this Plan policy is to protect and enhance the Significant Natural Resource Area (SNRA). The applicant has identified three significant natural resource/ hazard areas on the Catlin Gabel Campus as shown on Figure 9 of this report and discussed in the applicant’s narrative.
Figure 9 Applicant’s Map of SNRA (Figure 6)
The green area is the SNRA identified on the Protected Natural Resources map in the CH- CM Community Plan (see Figure 2), the light blue is part of the Drainage Hazard Area, and the dark blue is a stream corridor. The CH-CM Community Plan identifies the green areas as “…areas where conflicting use is allowed, as specified in the Community Plan text (see Design Element 7).” The County Board found that while there may impacts to the SNRA, the advantages to allowing some conflicting uses in these areas outweighed the impacts. The applicant states the school’s goals include campus expansions minimizing impacts to SNRA, and wildlife habitat for Lots 9500, 9700, and 9800 (see Figure 1 for lot location) to protect these stream corridors for use in the school’s environmental education program. The additional parcels added to the main campus provide the school with options to place
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 16 of 28
future expansion further away from the SNRA. No development is proposed with this Plan Amendment and the applicant acknowledges that future master planning or development will warrant further review of these significant natural areas through Section 421 and 422 of the County’s CDC.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with Plan Policy 10.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces).
4. Policy 14, Managing Growth, states: It is the policy of Washington County to Manage Growth in Unincorporated Lands within the UGB such that public facilities and services are available to support orderly urban development. This policy applies to urban unincorporated lands, except in New Urban Areas which are subject to Policy 44.
Policy 15, Roles and Responsibility for Serving Growth, states: It is the policy of Washington County to work with service providers, including cities and special service districts, and Metro to ensure that facilities and services required for growth will be provided when needed by the agency or agencies best able to do so in a cost effective and efficient manner.
Applicant: See pages 19-20 of the applicant’s narrative and Services Provider Letters submitted with the application.
Staff: As addressed within the findings for Urban Growth Management Functional Plan compliance, Title 12, Service Provider Letters have been received from the following agencies:
• Tualatin Valley Water District (water), • CWS (sanitary sewer & drainage), • TVF&R (fire), • Beaverton School District (schools), • Washington County Sheriff (police), and • THPRD (parks).
The applicant also submitted a Transit Availability Statement indicating nearest provisions for public transit. The Service Provider Letters provided by the applicant show the proposed Plan Amendment does not affect availability of public facilities and services. Future development applications will require new Service Provider Letters to ensure that mitigation needed to address a specific development proposal is adequately provided.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with Plan Policies 14 and 15.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 6 Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality and Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services).
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 17 of 28
5. Policy 18, Plan Designations and Location Criteria for Development, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to prepare community plans and development regulations in accordance with land use categories and location criteria contained in the Comprehensive Framework Plan.
***
Institutional (INST) Characterization: This class of uses includes publicly owned facilities and lands (e.g., parks, schools, public open space, government offices), lands owned by utilities (power line easements), and uses serving the general public (e.g., hospitals and religious institutions).
Location criteria: Due to the diverse nature of these uses, an optimal location cannot be defined for the class. Instead, as these uses are needed, their location should be reviewed and determined through special studies or plans and the community planning process.
Applicant: See pages 20-23 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The CFP addresses designation of land under the INST classification by providing “location criteria” as indicated above. The CH-CM Community Plan applies polices and plan designations of the CFP to its planning area.
The majority of the Catlin Gabel properties are appropriately designated INST, since it is a school. The school facility serves the general public, which is consistent with the CFP’s characterization of lands designated INST. The proposed Plan Amendment would expand the existing institutional uses to seven parcels and portions of two other parcels that abut the school campus and are owned by Catlin Gabel, as shown on the Plan Figure 10 Plan Amendment Site Plan Amendment Site Plan (Figure 10). Lots 500, 600,700, and 800 (see Figure 1 for lot location) are located south of the campus and the INST designation surrounds these parcels to the east, west, and north. Lots 9500,
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 18 of 28
9700, and 9800, located northwest of the campus, abut parcels designated INST (Catlin Gabel and the Hospital/ Medical Center) to the south and east. The portion of Lot 200 added to the main campus is surrounded on the north, west, and south by the school campus. The portion of Lot 1400 added to the campus property abuts Beaverton School District’s elementary school. The CFP’s locational criteria does not identify an optimal location for INST designations; however, as shown on Figure 10, the areas added to the existing campus appear to be a logical extension of the existing institutional uses found in the area.
The proposed Plan Amendment would create a unified plan designation for the entire Catlin Gabel School Campus and allow school uses on the site that are currently restricted with the Transit Oriented Districts. Both the TO: R9-12 and TO: R12-18 allow elementary schools, through a Type III process, but prohibit middle and high schools. The Catlin Gabel Campus is a Preschool through Grade 12 program. Developing the campus with restrictions on certain areas of campus would be difficult.
The applicant states the additional properties were purchased to accommodate potential student and faculty growth, which may increase by 23% over the next 10-20 years. Many student applications have been turned down based on lack of available space. The applicant has discussed the development of a new master plan to include expansion of the campus into these new parcels while limiting impacts to the SNRA that runs through portions of the existing campus. A master plan with one plan designation would create a cohesive school campus.
Catlin Gabel School has been an established institutional use in this area for over 50 years and acknowledged as a school site since the adoption of the CH-CM Community Plan. The proposed expansion is needed with the projected increase in enrollment identified by the applicant. The proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the INST designation found adjacent to the project area.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 18 and the CH-CM Community Plan.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning).
6. Policy 22, Housing Choice and Availability, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the housing industry to make a variety of housing types available, in sufficient quantities, to the housing consumer.
Applicant: See pages 23-24 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The proposed Plan Amendment request to INST is consistent with the land use plans for the subject site. Since Catlin Gabel plans to add the additional eight acres as part of their school campus, the residential potential is low especially with access and natural resource constraints discussed in greater detail in other sections of this report.
Staff finds that this Plan Amendment is complies with Policy 22.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 19 of 28
(These findings also apply to Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing).
7. Policy 30, Schools, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to coordinate with school districts and other educational institutions in planning future school facilities to ensure proper location and safe access for students.
Applicant: See page 24 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The applicant has submitted a Service Provider Letter for the proposed Plan Amendment from the Beaverton School District. The letter states “District does not anticipate impacts to the Beaverton School District as a result of this proposal.” The proposed Plan Amendment would create a cohesive plan designation for the Catlin Gabel School. The school is planning to expand the existing campus to accommodate a larger student population potentially reducing demand on the public school districts.
Staff finds that the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 30.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services).
8. Policy 32, Transportation, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to regulate the existing transportation system and to provide for the future transportation needs of the county through the development of a transportation plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant: See pages 24, 26-30, and 40 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: Policy 32 directs the development of a Transportation Plan as an element of the overall County Comprehensive Plan. The County has developed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that meets both the intent of Policy 32 and more recent Regional, State and Federal transportation planning requirements. This TSP is updated as needed to maintain compliance with such requirements. Conformance with applicable standards and requirements of the TSP is discussed within the Transportation Report for this Plan Amendment (Attachment B).
Staff finds that the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 32.
9. Policy 33, Quantity and Quality of Recreation Facilities and Services, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to work to provide residents and businesses in the urban unincorporated area with adequate park and recreation facilities and services and open space.
Applicant: See pages 24-25 of the applicant’s narrative.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 20 of 28
Staff: THPRD has indicated the subject area is within their service district boundary and that adequate park service will be available to the site with a future community park. THPRD also identified an interest in placing a regional trail through the Catlin Gabel Campus which would be addressed at the time of development or master planning of the school campus. The site contains recreational facilities, sport fields, playgrounds, and walking paths along with extensive amounts of open space, specifically within the SNRA that runs through portions of the school campus. The proposed Plan Amendment does not result in adverse impacts to the development of adequate park and recreational facilities and services in the area.
Staff finds that the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 33.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreation Needs).
10. Policy 39, Land Use Conservation, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to develop land use strategies which take advantage of density and location to reduce the need to travel, increase access to transit, increase the use of alternate modes of transportation, including transit, and permit building configurations which increase the efficiency of heating and cooling residences.
Implementing Strategies The County will: a. Limit low-density sprawl development, and create a multi-centered land use pattern in the preparation of Community Plans to decrease travel needs. b. Encourage infilling of passed-over vacant land and revitalization of older areas, especially where a major transportation corridor is close by. g. Support planning for alternative modes of transportation as a means of conserving energy.
Applicant: See page 25 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The subject parcels are part of an active school campus with a master plan that was approved in 1997 by the County. The proposed Plan Amendment to INST is to accommodate additional properties added to the existing campus for the future expansion of the school. The school intends to update their master plan to address the expansion of the school to accommodate increases in the student population while minimizing impacts to the SNRA found on the site. The school’s close proximity to the Sunset Transit Center and access to TriMet’s bus line benefits the school by supporting alternative modes of transportation. The school also encourages carpooling and provides a school busing service. The additional access to education services would help reduce the need to develop other school uses further away from existing services and residential areas.
Staff finds that the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 39.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation and Goal 14, Urbanization).
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 21 of 28
11. Policy 40, Regional Planning Implementation, states:
It is the policy of Washington County to help formulate and locally implement Metro’s Regional Growth Management Requirements in a manner that best serves existing and future residents and businesses.
Applicant: See pages 25-26 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: Policy 40 was adopted through Ordinance No. 561, which applied Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept Design Types to all of the unincorporated urban areas of Washington County. Metro identified ten urban design components: Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, Station Communities, Main Streets, Corridors, Employment Land, Parks & Natural Areas, Neighborhoods and Urban Reserves.
The subject properties are identified as “Corridor” and “Neighborhood” on Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept Plan maps. The main campus was developed as a school, consistent with the existing INST plan designation. Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan encourages mixed uses within the “Corridor” design type which includes: “Institutional uses, including schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, medical offices and facilities.” This description is consistent with the uses found in the surrounding area of the project and with those proposed in this Plan Amendment.
Staff finds that designation of the site to INST will create consistency with surrounding institutional properties and create a cohesive expansion of the Catlin Gabel School Campus, an established facility in this area for over 50 years.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with Policy 40.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning).
G. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) and Washington County Transportation System Plan
Applicant: See pages 24 and 26-30 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: A Transportation Report (Attachment B), incorporated into this staff report by reference, contains discussion on Plan Amendment compliance with the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Transportation Planning Rule. Based on the applicant's written materials and the findings in this report, staff concludes that this proposed Plan Amendment will not significantly affect the capacity or levels of travel on the nearby transportation network as defined in OAR 660-012-0060. Based on the findings in the Transportation Report, therefore staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goals 11, Public Facilities and Services and 12, Transportation).
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 22 of 28
H. Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan
Applicant: See pages 30-35 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The CH-CM Community Plan does not specifically address this area or the existing institutional uses in this area. The Overview states:
COMMUNITY PLAN OVERVIEW In areas outside the three just described, increased residential densities are suggested only for those lands which seem appropriate. For example, an area encompassing large-sized residential lots located near a Collector is a good location for increased density if the land is also relatively free from steep slopes or drainage hazards. There are several such cases in Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill. Frequently, lots in these areas already are developed with detached homes. Further development of the land in these situations will, of course, be contingent upon such things as the desire of the landowner to seek infill development on part of a lot and the physical characteristics of the lot itself.
The CH-CM Community Plan overview “suggests” areas such as the subject properties in the proposed Plan Amendment increase their residential density if it is appropriate and contingent upon the desire of the landowner to seek infill development. The subject parcels are owned by Catlin Gabel School and are intended to be part of the school’s future expanded campus. The INST plan designation would be more consistent with the current use of the Catlin Gabel school campus and any future expansions. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment complies with the CH-CM Community Plan overview.
GENERAL DESIGN ELEMENTS
1. In the design of new development, flood plains, drainage hazard areas, streams and their tributaries, riparian and wooded areas, steep slopes, scenic features, and powerline easements and rights-of-way shall be: a. Used to accent, define, or separate areas of differing residential densities and differing planned land uses; b. Preserved and protected to enhance the economic, social, wildlife, open space, scenic, recreation qualities of the community; and c. Where appropriate, interconnected as part of a park and open space system.
Staff: The Plan Amendment application requests a change to the plan designation for the subject parcels to INST. While the applicant has indicated plans for future expansion of the campus and a need for an updated master plan, this application does not review nor approve development or master plan proposals on the site. Future land use applications will need to take into consideration the natural features and the necessary mitigations to address impacts associated with any development. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with these general design elements.
2. Master Planning Primary Use or Planned Development procedures and standards specified in the Community Development Code shall be required for development on land which includes a Significant Natural Resource as a means of protecting the resource while accommodating new development. A density transfer from the resource
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 23 of 28
area to the buildable portion shall be allowed for any Significant Natural Resource site as specified in the Community Development Code.
Staff: The applicant stated the school plans to update their master plan to address future expansion of the campus that is mindful of the SNRA on the school campus. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not prevent future expansion plans from complying with this design element.
3. Trees located within a Significant Natural Resource area shall not be removed without first obtaining a development permit for tree removal as provided for within the Community Development Code. A permit shall not be required for tree removal from powerline rights-of-way, public parks and playgrounds or mineral and aggregate sites. 6. Open space shall be utilized for park and recreation facilities or passive recreation and dedicated to the appropriate recreation service provider wherever feasible. 8. Bicycle parking facilities shall be required as a part of all commercial, institutional and residential developments. Residential developments which have parking lots of 20 or more spaces shall provide bicycle parking facilities. 9. In the design of road improvements that are required of new developments to meet the county’s growth management policies, pedestrian/bicycle pathways identified in the county’s Transportation System Plan shall be included. 15. The county shall emphasize non-auto (transit, bicycle and pedestrian) measures as an interim solution to circulation issues. These measures shall be used to facilitate access to transit centers. 16. The required amount of parking for development shall be determined by the Parking Maximum Designations and the standards of the Community Development Code.
Staff: The subject parcels will be part of an active school campus. The applicant has future plans to expand the campus though a master plan process that would look at development components such as multi-modal circulation and access, SNRA impacts, open space and recreation, design of the campus, and parking. With the existing plan designations for the project area, certain school uses (middle and high school) would be prohibited; thereby complicating the review of the campus. The proposed Plan Amendment would create one plan designation for the entire Catlin Gabel School Campus, allowing expansion of the school if a special use permit application were submitted and approved.
When future expansion is proposed through an updated master plan, there is an opportunity to require improvements to the transportation system in the area. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement, prepared by the County (TIS #02028383, dated November 9, 2015), indicating public improvements that will likely be required at the time of development. These include, but are not limited to, right-of-way dedication, road and sidewalk improvements, and access meeting County standards with adequate sight distance (CDC Section 501, Public Facilities and Service Requirements). Transit impacts will need to be addressed since bus and light rail access is in close proximity. Submission of a neighborhood circulation plan per CDC Section 408, including provisions for any pedestrian and bicycle accessways prescribed by that section, is also required by the TIS. See also, findings in the County’s Transportation Report (Attachment B).
Prior to approval of any future development, conditions for public urban services as well as public improvements will be applied as conditions of approval through a land use review
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 24 of 28 application specific to a proposed development. Engineering review of plans required in conjunction with a development application will ensure that pedestrian and bike improvements are provided as prescribed by Washington County standards and policies. Once development is determined, adequate public services, mitigation for impacts such as noise, and adequate parking for any future development will be addressed as part of a land use application. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with the General Design Elements of the Community Plan.
WESTHAVEN SUBAREA
The Community Plan recommends limited changes to the present low density land use pattern in the Westhaven subarea. The only exceptions are (1) the designation of a large parcel of land along SW Leahy (south of Leahy Terrace) as R-9, (2) the designation of properties fronting on 90th Avenue south of Leahy and south of Westhaven Drive east of 95th Avenue as TO: R12-18, and (3) the allowance of accessory dwelling units for single family detached dwellings in the area.
Design Elements 1. Stands of trees and dense vegetation bordering the west side of the area shall be retained, to the extent reasonably practicable and consistent with public safety concerns, as a buffer between existing low density neighborhoods and new attached unit residential areas included in the Peterkort property development, as required by screening and buffering standards in the Community Development Code. 2. SW Brookside shall be kept as a dead-end street due to topography. 3. No increase in the Neighborhood Commercial area at SW 90th and SW Leahy shall be granted through the quasi-judicial Plan Amendment process.
Staff: Lots 9500, 9700, and 9800 (see Figure 1 for lot location) are part of the Westhaven Subarea and were part of the Creekside at West Haven Subdivision developed at 12-18 units per acre. The Subdivision created these lots as an open space tract, and the applicant has stated Catlin Gabel School’s intent is to preserve the open space character for “environmental education purposes” and to retain the vegetated buffer between the houses and the school. The Plan Amendment proposes to consolidate the planning designation of the school campus to INST and to master plan the site as one campus with the main access on SW Barnes Road. No commercial areas are proposed nor will vegetation be removed as a result of this Plan Amendment application. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with these design elements.
BARNES - PETERKORT SUBAREA
This area includes the largest amount of vacant buildable land in the planning area. This land also is located close to two regional traffic ways (Highways 26 and 217) and two Arterials (SW Barnes and NW Cornell Roads). As a result, the currently undeveloped area is proposed for intense urban development over time, including high density residential, retail, and office commercial uses. For the most part, residential densities on the buildable land are “stepped down” next to existing single family neighborhoods. Where this is not the case, new attached unit development will be required to include buffers which protect existing neighborhoods from possible impacts (including noise and lights) of increased densities.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 25 of 28
Varied natural features in the subareas - streams, slopes, and wooded areas - provide a backdrop for development designs which accomplish a degree of protection while accommodating new residential and commercial uses. Satisfactory implementation of the land use plan for this subarea will depend to a significant extent on development of the subarea’s planned transportation system, including connection of new streets developed on the Peterkort property to streets in adjacent neighborhoods.
Design Elements
***
7. A portion of the Peterkort Property has been identified as significant wildlife habitat in an inventory of natural resources in this subarea conducted by Washington County pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5 (see the map “Protected Natural Resources in the Sunset Transit Center Area”) (See Section 431). This area is outside of a “safe harbor” riparian corridor, does not include significant wetlands, and is outside areas subject to requirements of Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
After considering the environmental, social, economic and energy consequences of allowing “conflicting uses” of the site, as required by OAR 660-23-040, the Board of Commissioners found that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, notwithstanding possible impacts on the resource site, due to the importance of the conflicting use relative to the resource site. The conflicting use is any use allowed by the land use districts applicable to the resource sites, including the TO: R9-12, TO: R12-18, TO: R18- 24, TO: R24-40, TO: R40-80, and TO: R80-120 districts, all of which allow medium to high density residential and limited non-residential development which is supportive of public transit and takes advantage of the region’s investment in light rail transit. Commercial forestry operations not conducted in conjunction with an approved development of the resource site under the listed land use districts is not an allowed conflicting use. Commercial forestry operations independent of development applications may only be conducted pursuant to Section 407-3.5 of the Community Development Code, after addressing wildlife habitat impacts.
Staff: Figure 2 (Page 4 of the report) identifies the location of the SNRA which appears to be located within the Catlin Gabel Campus, but not in the area of the proposed Plan Amendment. While these design elements would not apply to the project area, these additional parcels in the Plan Amendment are part of the school campus which could potentially provide development options outside the SNRA when looking at expanding the school as a whole. At that time further review of the natural resource impacts would be discussed. The applicant has also discussed using the open space tracts from the Creekside at West Haven Subdivision as an environmental education resource for the school with no plans for development of this area. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with these general design elements.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not prevent future development from complying with these applicable policies from the Cedar Hills - Cedar Mill Community Plan.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 26 of 28
I. Washington County Community Development Code
1. Article III, Land Use Districts: 302 R-5 DISTRICT (RESIDENTIAL 5 UNITS PER ACRE) 302-1 Intent and Purpose
The R-5 District is intended to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas designated for residential development at no more than five (5) units per acre and no less than four (4) units per acre, except as specified otherwise by Section 300-2, Section 300-5, or Section 302-6. The primary purpose is to protect existing neighborhoods developed at five (5) units per acre or less. Infill development on all parcels two (2) acres or less may occur only through application of the infill policy (Section 430-72).
330 INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (INST)
330-1 Intent and Purpose This District is intended to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan by providing standards and procedures for reviewing proposed institutional facilities necessary for support of community development. The purpose of the District is to provide for identification of existing and proposed institutional facilities on the Community Plan maps. This District is intended to allow the public service providers and governmental agencies the assurance that future sites identified through long range and capital improvement planning will be available for the uses specifically identified when they are needed.
375 TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS
375-1 Intent and Purpose The intent of the Transit Oriented Districts is to direct and encourage development that is transit supportive and pedestrian oriented in areas within approximately one-half mile of light rail transit stations, within one-quarter mile of existing and planned primary bus routes and in town centers and regional centers.
The purpose of the Transit Oriented Districts is to limit development to that which (1) has a sufficient density of employees, residents or users to be supportive of the type of transit provided to the area; (2) generates a relatively high percentage of trips serviceable by transit; (3) contains a complementary mix of land uses; (4) is designed to encourage people to walk; ride a bicycle or use transit for a significant percentage of their trips.
Applicant: See pages 13-14, 20-21, and 35 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: In 1983, the CH-CM Community Plan designated the subject parcels R-5 and the Catlin Gabel School as INST. In 1997 the Transit Oriented Districts were established in the Sunset Transit area, designating parcels in the project area either TO: R9-12 or TO: R 12-18 except for the portion added to Lot 1400 which remained R-5 (See Table 1 and Figure 5).
Lots 500, 600, and 800 (see Figure 1 for lot location) contained existing homes on each lot that were built in the 1940’s. They remain used as residential dwellings until the school expansion plans are determined. Lot 700 is a vacant parcel. The Creekside at West Haven open space tracts (Lots 9500, 9700, and 9800) were built in 2008. The existing homes on lots 400 and 100
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 27 of 28 were also built in the 1940’s, but the property line adjustments added vacant portions of Lot 100 and 400 to Lots 200 (September 2014 - Casefile #14-309 PLA) and 1400 (July 2015 Casefile # 15-245 PLA) owned by Catlin Gabel. The existing dwellings remained on the original lots (100 and 400), thereby the Plan Amendment will not impact the residential use of these two parcels and would add additional buffer to the residences to the north and east of the campus.
The subject parcels are owned by Catlin Gabel and are expected to be part of the school campus expansion. While the INST and R-5 designations permit schools through a special use permit, the TO: R9-12 and TO: R12-18, in the County’s CDC, do not allow middle, or high school uses and provide the following restriction for elementary schools:
375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses in Transit Oriented Districts
20. Elementary (primary) schools in the TO: R9-12 and TO: R12-18 Districts shall be located on sites that do not exceed seven (7) acres in size. For purposes of calculating compliance with minimum floor area ratio standards, up to two (2) acres used by the school for play equipment, covered play areas and play fields may be subtracted from gross site acreage.”
These varied restrictions and prohibitions would make tracking uses on the campus difficult. The proposed Plan Amendment will provide the school campus with one land use designation allowing the school the opportunity to update their school master plan in a cohesive manner.
For the parcels that are designated TO: R9-12 on SW Barnes and Leahy Road, the sites are not suitable for TO residential development since they would not provide an adequate buffer between high density and low density development consistent with the locational description of this designation in Policy 18 of the CFP. The portion of Lots 200 and 1400 (see Figure 1 for lot location), are blocked by dwellings on the abutting parcels (Lots 100 and 400) from accessing SW Leahy Road. Access to these lots would be located on the school campus, making residential development difficult. The parcels that make up the Creekside at West Haven open space tract (Lots 9500, 9600, and 9800) are intended to be part of the school’s environmental education mission since they contain riparian and wildlife habitat value. Therefore no residential developments are expected on these lots. The school campus expansion is consistent with St. Vincent Medical Center to the west, the Beaverton School District elementary school to the north, and the private school campus to the east.
Transit Oriented Districts encourage developments that create high transit use through sufficient density of people with appropriate mix of land uses. The site currently has 758 students and employs 175 staff to serve the student population. While the school encourages transit use by informing employees and students of available transit options (Sunset Transit Center and TriMet Bus Line No. 20), but the school also works to reduce vehicle trips on the site through carpooling information and incentives as well as providing their own bus service. Findings in other sections of this report show that the proposed INST designation for the project area would be more compatible with other institutional uses found in the area (see Figure 5) than the current Transit Oriented and Residential designations.
Casefile No. 16-107-PA Staff Report for the August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing Page 28 of 28
The proposed Plan Amendment to INST is consistent with CDC Section 330-1 and existing designations and development patterns in the immediate vicinity. Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with these CDC requirements.
2. Article IV, Development Standards:
421 FLOOD PLAIN AND DRAINAGE HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT 422 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES
Applicant: See page 35 of the applicant’s narrative.
Staff: The proposal is to modify the land use designation on seven parcels and a portion of two parcels and does not include approval of a specific development. Future expansion is expected by Catlin Gabel School beginning with an updated master plan. At the time of any future master plan review, potential issues with the Drainage Hazard Area and SNRA will be addressed in compliance with CDC Sections 421 and 422.
Staff finds the proposed Plan Amendment would not preclude future development from complying with these CDC requirements.
(These findings also pertain to Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality).
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report and evidence provided by the applicant demonstrate that the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with applicable policies and strategies of the CFP.
Per the attached Transportation Report, the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule and Goals 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Transportation System Plan, and would not significantly affect the capacity or levels of travel on the nearby transportation network as defined in OAR 660, Division 12.
Local service providers can currently provide or have the ability to provide an adequate level of public facilities and services to the property.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings in this report, staff recommends that the Plan Amendment be APPROVED.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: E-Mail correspondence from David Genrich dated July 19, 2016 with staff response dated July 27, 2016. Attachment B: Transportation Report
S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\Casefiles\2016\16-107-PA_CatlinGabel\StaffReport\StfRpt16-107-pa TOR6 to INST REVISED.docx
Sambo Kirkman
From: Sambo Kirkman Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:23 AM To: 'Genrich, David' Subject: RE: Case 16-107-PA
Mr. Genrich,
The applicant is proposing a Plan Amendment to change the current land use designations from Transit Oriented: Residential ‐ 9 to 12 units per acre (TO: R9‐12), Transit Oriented: Residential ‐ 12 to 18 units per acre (TO: R12‐18), and Residential ‐ 5 units per acre (R‐5) to Institutional (INST). There is no physical development proposed on the subject sites at this time. The applicant has indicated plans to update their school master plan to expand the existing campus, requiring a separate land use application in the future. At that time the school will address impacts and necessary mitigation to the Significant Natural Resource Areas associated with any future development plans. Any necessary drainage or environmental studies will be provided at that time.
Below is a map of the Creekside at WestHaven Subdivision showing the open space tracts owned by Catlin Gabel Schools (Tract I, G, and J). The notes of the recorded subdivsion show Tract I and G are listed as open space tracts subject to storm sewer, surface water, drainage, and detention easement over its entirety to Clean Water Services, thereby limiting potential development on these tracts. However Tract J is an open space tract that may potentially be developed through a subsequent development. The area is within a Drainage Hazard Area which will require further analysis if development were planned in this area. At this time the applicant has stated the school expects to incorporate this area as part of their environmental education program. While no development is proposed at this time, the applicant is aware that future master planning and development will warrant additional review of these significant areas through Section 421 and 422 of the County’s Community Development Code. I can send you a copy of our staff report on the Plan Amendment request once it is completed. Feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Sambo Kirkman | Associate Planner 503‐846‐3593 [email protected]
1
From: Genrich, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:11 AM To: Sambo Kirkman Subject: Case 16-107-PA
I live near the proposed rezoning area from the above referenced case number for Caitlin Gabel. In looking at the tracts to rezone, I have concerns with the tract on the western edge of their property. This is currently part of the protected green belt. This area slopes and drains downhill to the west. Has an environmental study been completed for this specific parcel as to how it will impact the adjacent green belt and water shed?
Thank you for any insight you have on this matter.
Respectfully,
David Genrich
David Genrich, CPM, LEED GREEN Associate General Manager Jones Lang LaSalle tel +1 503 295 5555 Ext. 2 cell +1 503 307 4163 [email protected] www.jll.com
2
Attachment “B”
July 19, 2016
TRANSPORTATION REPORT CASEFILE NO. 16-107-PA
Applicant: Catlin Gabel School Location: 8825 SW Barnes Road Tax Map/Lot: 1S102AC09500, 1S102AC09700, 1S102AC09800, 1S102D000500, 1S102D000600, 1S102D000700, 1S102D000800, 1S102D000200 (portion), and 1S102AD01400 (portion) Site Size: Approximately 67 acres Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the applicable transportation planning policies and rules and submits the following findings and recommendations.
FINDINGS A. General: 1. The proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment would change the plan designation on a 7.6 acre portion of the subject site from Residential (R-5, TO: R9-12, and TO: R12-18) to Institutional (INST). 2. The primary access to the subject property is located on the north side of SW Barnes Road, between SW 89th Avenue and SW 88th Avenue. SW Barnes Road is designated an Arterial and planned to ultimately be widened to 4/5 lanes. SW Barnes Road is under Washington County jurisdiction. The applicant states that the portion of the property subject to the plan amendment is will continue to take access from SW Barnes Road. 3. The following standards are applicable to this request and are addressed in this staff report: a. OAR 660, Division 12, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule: Section 060 - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments b. Washington County Transportation System Plan Goals and Objectives:
Goal 1: Safety Provide a safe transportation system for all users. Objective 1.3 Review all development proposals, including those within incorporated areas, to continue the safe operation of county roads. Goal 2: Economic Vitality
Goal 3: Livability Preserve and enhance Washington County’s quality of life for all residents, workers and visitors. Objective 3.1 Strive to maintain and enhance the livability of existing and future communities and neighborhoods. Objective 3.2 Coordinate transportation and land use planning. Goal 4: Natural Environment Casefile 16-107-PA Attachment “B” – Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 2 of 6
Goal 5: Mobility Promote the efficient and cost–effective movement of people, goods and services by all modes. Objective 5.3 Utilize the Interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures to manage congestion. Objective 5.4 Encourage Travel Demand Management efforts to reduce total vehicle travel, and vehicle travel during peak hours. Goal 6: Accessibility Provide safe and efficient access to destinations within Washington County. Objective 6.1 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of the community. Goal 7: Connectivity Provide improved and new transportation connections within and between developed and developing areas. Objective 7.1 Provide an interconnected transportation network that offers multi-modal travel choices and minimizes out-of-direction travel for all modes. Goal 8: Active Transportation Create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users. Objective 8.1 Provide a network of “complete streets” that safely and comfortably accommodate road users of all ages and abilities, including people walking, cycling, using mobility devices, taking transit and driving. Objective 8.2 Provide a pedestrian network that is safe, comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. Objective 8.3 Expand and improve the quality of bicycling infrastructure. Objective 8.4 Assist partners in developing and maintaining an off-street trail and accessway network that serves both recreational and transportation functions. Objective 8.5 Improve access to and encourage the enhancement of transit service in Washington County. Objective 8.6 Encourage and promote the use of active transportation options through programmatic approaches. Goal 9: Coordination Implement the Transportation System Plan by working with the public, community groups, transit providers, cities and other government agencies.
Goal 10: Funding Create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users. Objective 10.2 Promote equitable, sustainable and fiscally responsible transportation system funding.
B. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule 1. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, requires an analysis of the impact of a proposed plan amendment on the planned transportation system
Casefile 16-107-PA Attachment “B” – Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 3 of 6 to determine whether the proposal will ‘significantly affect’ the planned transportation system in the area. 2. Pursuant to the OAR, the proposed plan amendment would ‘significantly affect’ SW Barnes Road and/or the surrounding transportation network if it does any of the following as measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP (year-2040): • Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; • Changes the standards implementing a functional classification system; • Allow types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; or • Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the Transportation System Plan or comprehensive plan; or • Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. 3. Considering the criteria above, in order to determine if a plan amendment will result in a ‘significant impact’ on transportation facilities, the County generally requires a comparative analysis of a reasonable worst-case development of a site under current and proposed land use designations. A ‘reasonable worst case’ development would be one with the greatest potential trip generation based on a reasonable build- out of the site over the planning horizon of the adopted TSP. 4. The county evaluates roadway performance based on the volume to capacity ratios (V/C), measured at signalized intersections. Table 3.1 in the Washington County TSP Users’ Guide sets forth the applicable performance criteria for plan amendment requests. For this plan amendment, performance of the signal controlled access was considered. 5. The applicant provided an estimate of peak hour and daily traffic under a reasonable worst-case scenario as compared to existing zoning. The analysis is based on a build-out of the subject site as a private school (ITE code 536) with 180 additional students for the basis of the reasonable worst case scenario. The existing zoning analysis is based on Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE code 201). A total of 210 less daily trips and 38 less PM peak hour trips are anticipated as a result of the proposed zoning. 6. No changes in functional classification are proposed or required in order to accommodate the proposed plan amendment. Furthermore, the plan amendment will not affect the standards implementing the functional classification system as set forth in Objective 5.3 of the County’s TSP nor will it significantly affect the capacity of the surrounding transportation network. Based upon these facts, staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level-of-service for affected transportation facilities, consistent with Section 060 of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. 7. Considering the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment will not significantly affect the capacity or levels of travel on the nearby transportation network as defined in the Transportation Planning Rule.
Casefile 16-107-PA Attachment “B” – Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 4 of 6
C. Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan For The Urban Area
This plan amendment request is subject to Policy 1.f. from the County’s Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP). This policy states the following:
A quasi-judicial plan amendment to the Community Plan Maps, including the implementing tax maps, shall be granted only if the Review Authority determines that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed designation conforms to the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, the Community Plan Overview and the sub-area description and design elements, complies with the regional plan, and demonstrates that the potential service impacts of the designation will not impact the built or planned service delivery system in the community. This is a generalized analysis that is no way precludes full application of the Growth Management Policies to development permits as provided in the Code.
STAFF: As it pertains to transportation, this policy requires the County to analyze the existing transportation system as well as the planned system. With the proposed plan amendment, the future performance of nearby transportation facilities will comply with the adopted performance thresholds of the TSP. Based on this, the plan amendment will be consistent with Policy 1.f. of the CFP with regard to transportation.
D. Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) The proposed plan amendment is subject to fourteen objectives from the County’s TSP, which are listed and addressed below.
Goal 1: Safety Provide a safe transportation system for all users. Objective 1.3 Review all development proposals, including those within incorporated areas, to continue the safe operation of county roads. STAFF: Significant impacts on capacity or roadway safety are not anticipated under the proposed plan designation. Any traffic safety impacts associated with potential future development on the subject property will be subject to the traffic safety regulations set forth in the Community Development Code and Resolution and Order 86-95 which implement Objective 1.3. As explained above in this report, the proposed plan amendment is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the capacity or level of service on any of the transportation facilities in the impact area. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 1.
Casefile 16-107-PA Attachment “B” – Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 5 of 6
Goal 3: Livability Preserve and enhance Washington County’s quality of life for all residents, workers and visitors. Objective 3.1 Strive to maintain and enhance the livability of existing and future communities and neighborhoods. Objective 3.2 Coordinate transportation and land use planning. STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations set forth in the Community Development Code. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 3.
Goal 5: Mobility Promote the efficient and cost–effective movement of people, goods and services by all modes. Objective 5.3 Utilize the Interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures to manage congestion. Objective 5.4 Encourage Travel Demand Management efforts to reduce total vehicle travel, and vehicle travel during peak hours. STAFF: The proposed plan amendment will not result in significant degradation of the planned motor vehicle system nor will it affect the Functional Classification of any nearby street or highway, nor result in land uses that are inconsistent with those identified in the TSP. Therefore, the amendment will be consistent with the performance measures set forth in the strategies for implementation of Goal 5.
Goal 6: Accessibility Provide safe and efficient access to destinations within Washington County. Objective 6.1 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of the community. STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations for neighborhood circulation set forth in the Community Development Code. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 6.
Goal 7: Connectivity Provide improved and new transportation connections within and between developed and developing areas. Objective 7.1 Provide an interconnected transportation network that offers multi-modal travel choices and minimizes out-of-direction travel for all modes. STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations for neighborhood circulation set forth in the Community Development Code. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 7.
Casefile 16-107-PA Attachment “B” – Plan Amendment Transportation Report Page 6 of 6
Goal 8: Active Transportation Create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users. Objective 8.1 Provide a network of “complete streets” that safely and comfortably accommodate road users of all ages and abilities, including people walking, cycling, using mobility devices, taking transit and driving. Objective 8.2 Provide a pedestrian network that is safe, comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. Objective 8.3 Expand and improve the quality of bicycling infrastructure. Objective 8.4 Assist partners in developing and maintaining an off-street trail and accessway network that serves both recreational and transportation functions. Objective 8.5 Improve access to and encourage the enhancement of transit service in Washington County. Objective 8.6 Encourage and promote the use of active transportation options through programmatic approaches. STAFF: Any future development on the subject property will be subject to the regulations for neighborhood circulation set forth in the Community Development Code. Redevelopment the subject properties may result in frontage improvements on SW Barnes Road and/or SW Leahy Road including the installation of pedestrian and/or bicycle improvements. The Catlin Gabel campus is designated as a part of a Pedestrian/Bicycle District. Barnes Road is designated as Pedestrian Parkway and Enhanced Major Street Bikeway. Leahy Road is designated as a Major Street Bikeway. No impact to the existing for future transit services is expected. Functional Classification Design Parameters Table 3.9 in the Washington County TSP Users’ Guide indicates that additional right-of-way and setbacks are required to accommodate these features streets. The proposal therefore does not conflict with Goal 8.
Goal 10: Funding Create a built environment that encourages safe, comfortable and convenient active transportation options that are viable for all users. Objective 10.2 Promote equitable, sustainable and fiscally responsible transportation system funding. STAFF: If development occurs on the affected property, it will be subject to payment of the appropriate Transportation Development Tax (TDT) toward future capacity improvements. Payment of the TDT is consistent with the objectives included under Goal 10.
CONCLUSION Based on the findings in this report, staff concludes that this plan amendment proposal will NOT “significantly affect” a transportation facility as defined in OAR 660, Division 12.
S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\Plan Amendments\Casefiles\2016\16-107-PA_CatlinGabel\StaffReport\16-PA-Attachment A CatlinGabel_TranspoReport.doc