The document summarizes the results of a citywide workshop on Beaverton's Civic Plan. Participants focused on revitalizing the central city around the Round and Transit Center, enhancing Beaverton Creek as an amenity, and improving transportation connectivity. Ideas included mixed-use development north of Farmington Road, integrating creeks into new public spaces, and evaluating couplet systems or calming traffic on Canyon Road to better connect areas divided by rail and highways.

1. Beaverton Civic Plan
Citywide Workshop Results
September 27, 2010

2. Tonight
• Workshop Input
and Results
• Strategies &
Trade-offs
Emerging
• Instant Polling
Questions

3. Major Topics & Questions
1. Central City Revitalization and
Development
2. Central City Creeks and Amenities
3. Transportation
4. Neighborhood Centers and Connections
5. Citywide Creeks

4. Instant Polling – Everyone Has a
Clicker?
• Warm-up Questions

5. I am…
1. Under 18
2%
2. 19 – 25
0%
3. 26 – 45
18%
4. 46 – 64
60%
5. 65+
20%
6. Decline to answer
0%

6. I have lived in Beaverton (or nearby) for…
1. Less than a year
2%
2. 1 – 5 years
7%
3. 5 – 10 Years
20%
4. 10 + Years
48%
5. All my life
17%
6. Decline to answer
7%

7. What best describes you?
1. This is my first Civic Plan event
22%
2. I attended the Open House
2%
3. I attended the Workshop
18%
4. I attended the Drop-in Session
4%
5. I’ve done it all!
51%
6. None of the above
2%

8. My Biggest Interest in the Civic Plan is…
1. Revitalizing the central city
61%
2. Fixing transportation problems
13%
3. More and better housing options
2%
4. Economic Development and jobs
9%
5. Creek and Open Space amenities
7%
6. Other
9%

9. Exercise #1 Central City Revitalization,
Transportation and Amenities
Central
City
Basemap
Scissors
Starter Chipsets
Pens
Chipbank

10. Central City Maps (13)

11. Exercise #2 Neighborhood Centers &
Connections
Center Type
Stickers
Citywide
Basemap
Walkshed
Transparencies Scissors
Pens
Creek Amenity
Chips

12. Citywide Maps (12)

13. Workshop Results
After the workshop,
each table’s plan is
analyzed and
recorded…

14. Topic #1: Central City
Revitalization & Development

15. Chip Placement
Frequency
• New center of gravity is north
of Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy on
Canyon & Broadway between
Watson and Hall
• Activity primarily north of
Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy
• Transit stations second highest
placement

16. Starter Chips
• Activity focused north of
Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway,
at Hall and Canyon
• Beaverton Central Max
station area second area of
focus

17. Mixed-Use Chips
• Mixed-use centered north of
Beaverton-Hillsdale on
Canyon and at Hall
• Central Beaverton Max
Station area

18. Commercial Chips
• Around MAX stops
• Tualatin Valley and Cedar Hills
Blvd
• Some south of Beaverton
Hillsdale Hwy

19. Employment Chips
• Corridor along Watson, west
Canyon and up Cedar Hills
Blvd

20. Civic Improvement Chips
• Stream and trail
improvements, create
alternative bike/ped network
• Improve streetscapes an
dintersection crossings from
historic center into new core

21. All Chips
• Mixed Use corridor along
Watson, west Canyon and up
Cedar Hills Blvd
• Employment/Commercial
centered north of Beaverton-
Hillsdale on Canyon and at
Hall

22. Public plazas were also placed near Hall,
Broadway and the Round
Plazas

23. Performing Arts Center Chips were all
near the Round and Transit Center
Performing Arts Ctr

24. Transit Center was very popular for Parking
Garages – 4 groups placed them here
4 Tables
Parking Garage

25. A New City Hall: Near the Round or Library
City Hall

26. Conceptual Diagram – Based on Workshop Maps
The
Round
Hall
Blvd
on R oa d
Cany Fred
Meyer
gton
Farmin
TV Hwy
Library

27. Residential areas around the center
The
Round
Hall
Blvd
on R oa d
Cany Fred
Meyer
gton
Farmin
TV Hwy
Library

28. Old city of Beaverton
The
Round
Fred
Meyer
Hall
Blvd
on R oa d
Cany Fred
Meyer
gton
Farmin
TV Hwy
Library
Library

29. Businesses in center, new plan should connect these places

30. MAX and WES Rail

31. Highway 217

32. Complicated traffic situation
The
Round
Hall
Blvd
on R oa d
Cany Fred
Meyer
gton
Farmin
TV Hwy
Library

33. Natural system (creeks) are hard to find, lack of quality
The
Round
Hall
Blvd
on R oa d
Cany Fred
Meyer
gton
Farmin
TV Hwy
Library

34. The heart of Beaverton
The
Round
Hall
Blvd
on R oa d
Cany Fred
Meyer
gton
Farmin
TV Hwy
Library

35. Workshop participants focused civic
uses near the Round & Transit Center
Plazas
Performing Arts Ctr
Parking Garage
City Hall Library

36. Existing Conditions
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

37. New traffic situation, repaired grid with
new street identity
water purification, green
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

38. To be connected…
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

39. … Using the natural System
Walkable, natural, bikes, informal
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

40. Maybe…a public market at the focal
point…
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

41. … connects the different areas, walk
able, community gardens
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

42. Expanding the new center with walk
able areas
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

43. Potential Location for Performing arts
center
The Round Transit
Center
Broadway

44. Get out your Clickers:

45. I think redevelopment efforts should be focused
North of Farmington
1. Agree strongly
48%
2. Agree somewhat
28%
3. Neutral
13%
4. Disagree somewhat
7%
5. Disagree Strongly
4%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

46. My priorities for adding development at the Round
would be:
1. To create employment opportunities
27%
2. To create housing opportunities
11%
3. To locate a new City Hall
11%
4. To locate a Performing Arts Center
27%
5. Other
20%
6. Don’t know
4%

47. Parking North of Canyon
Parking Garage

48. Washington Square Mall and Parking
Washington Square
Mall

49. I would like to be able to park once and walk to my
destinations if the walk is pleasant and a similar
distance to walking in Washington Square
1. Agree strongly
57%
2. Agree somewhat
36%
3. Neutral
4%
4. Disagree somewhat
2%
5. Disagree Strongly
0%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

50. I would support the creation of public
parking facilities in the central district.
1. Agree strongly
67%
2. Agree somewhat
19%
3. Neutral
2%
4. Disagree somewhat
2%
5. Disagree Strongly
7%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
2%

51. Workshop Participants Emphasized Mixed-
Use, Commercial and Housing Uses
• Few employment chips
were used
• This is an area for
further exploration and
public feedback
because most healthy
downtowns include
office workers along
with retail, housing and
civic uses

52. A good portion of available land for
employment uses is in the central city
Challenges:
• Small parcels
• Infrastructure
• Floodplains

53. Urban Renewal is one set of tools the city may have
to assist developers reuse or upgrade sites for
office or other employment
Before After

54. I envision the central district in Beaverton as
being:
1. Primarily for shopping
14%
2. Primarily for housing
2%
3. Primarily for office employment
2%
4. A mix of these three
80%
5. Other
2%
6. Don’t know
0%

55. The city should ensure that office and light industry
job growth can take place in the central city
1. Agree strongly
14%
2. Agree somewhat
34%
3. Neutral
23%
4. Disagree somewhat
25%
5. Disagree Strongly
2%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
2%

56. Tools such as Urban Renewal should be used to facilitate
projects to encourage office and light industry growth in the
central city
1. Agree strongly
30%
2. Agree somewhat
33%
3. Neutral
18%
4. Disagree somewhat
8%
5. Disagree Strongly
13%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

57. Topic #2: Central City
Creeks & Amenities

58. Creeks & Amenities
• Creeks and how they
relate to the city was
a big topic of
discussion at most
tables

59. Where Participants put Creek Amenity
Chips Downtown

60. Areas with Existing Surface Creeks

61. Beaverton Creek – First Opportunity Area?
• May be best area to
focus on in the near
d
Blv
term
ls
Hil
r
– Much of the creek is
da
Ce
already at the
surface Hal
l
– Adjacent parcels
may be ready for
redevelopment
– Opportunity to orient
new buildings
toward the water

62. Building for Flood Resiliency
• Will require funding
for planning and
implementation
• Will require use of
some developable
land to manage
flooding

64. Get out your Clickers:

65. My top priorities for enhancement of
Beaverton Creek would be:
1. Flood mitigation and protection
0%
2. Enhanced water quality
4%
3. Development amenities
6%
4. Pedestrian and bike trail linkages
15%
5. All of the above
73%
6. Other
2%

66. I would support incentives for private development
to make the creeks into amenities
1. Agree strongly
73%
2. Agree somewhat
19%
3. Neutral
4%
4. Disagree somewhat
0%
5. Disagree Strongly
4%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

67. Topic #3: Transportation

68. Bridging the North-South Divide
R oad
yon
C an
TV High
w ay
Connec
t or
Beaverton Hillsdale Highway
o ad
n gt on R
Farmi
Historic Where
Ra
ilro
Downtown movements and
ad
uses connect
streets across
train tracks.
Build a Connector

69. Downtown Transportation Ideas:
Could we improve connectivity &
encourage new development?
One-way
or
Two-way
OR Other?

70. Groups Selected both Broadway and
Farmington as Couplet Pairs w/ Canyon
Canyon‐Broadway Couplet: 6 Maps
Canyon‐Farmington Couplet: 3 Maps
Two‐Way on Canyon: 3 Maps
One‐way streets

71. Broadway-Canyon Couplet
d.
Can yon R
St .
dway
Broa

72. Broadway-Canyon Couplet Trade-offs
• Broadway becomes One-way
much busier as a
couplet
• It could be a “festival
street” – closed to
traffic occasionally for
fairs or events Two-way Festival Street
• Heard strong feelings
from Broadway
businesses against
couplet on Broadway

73. Broadway-Canyon Couplet Trade-offs
Two-lane, One-way
• The crossing distance
of Canyon is reduced,
making it easier to
cross on foot or by bike
• Sidewalks can be
widened to 18.5 ft. with
the two-lane option, Three-lane, One-way
or13 ft. with the three
option

74. One way couplet two lanes ‐ Canyon

75. One way couplet two lanes ‐ Canyon

76. One way couplet two lanes ‐ Canyon

77. One way couplet two lanes ‐ Canyon

78. Existing‐ Broadway

79. One way couplet ‐ Broadway

80. One way couplet ‐ Broadway

81. Broadway as a Festival Street
• Street trees &
furniture
• On-street and pooled
parking
• Slow speeds for cars
most of the time
• Can be closed to
traffic for special
occasions

82. Canyon-Farmington Couplet
d.
Can yon R
Farmin
gton R
d.

83. Canyon-Farmington Couplet

84. Farmington-Canyon Couplet Trade-offs
• Potential to reduce Farmington
travel lanes from 4
to 3 on both roads
• Could reduce
pedestrian crossing
distances
• No likely difference
Canyon
in traffic volumes
on Canyon or
Farmington,
however

85. One way couplet three lanes ‐ Canyon

86. One way couplet three lanes ‐ Canyon

87. One way couplet three lanes ‐ Canyon

88. One way couplet three lanes ‐ Canyon

89. Canyon and Farmington: two-way calmed
option – Broadway as slow festival street

90. Two-Way Canyon Trade-offs
Advantages
Two-Way Canyon
• More pedestrian friendly
• Many examples of this
type of street that have
been successfully calmed
• Traffic would be calmed,
for the benefit of adjacent
land uses
• Pedestrian crossings can
be improved with bulb-outs
and medians

91. Two-Way Canyon Trade-offs
Disadvantages Canyon with bike lanes
• If bike lanes are
included, sidewalks
will be narrow 7’ (use
Broadway as alternate
bike boulevard)
Canyon with wider sidewalks
• Cannot have on-street
parking without
additional right-of-way
acquisition

92. Two-Way Canyon with 12.5’ Sidewalks

93. Two-Way Canyon with Bike lanes and 7’ Sidewalks

94. Strategy #1: Existing Conditions w/Narrower Travel Lanes, Planted Median
and Sidewalk Improvements
•Sidewalks widened to 12.5 ft.
•Travel lanes reduced to 11 ft.
•Center turn lane converted to planted median except at key intersections
•Street trees

95. Two‐way calmed option on
Canyon

96. Two‐way calmed option on
Canyon

97. Two‐way calmed option on
Canyon

98. Two‐way calmed option on
Canyon

99. Get out your Clickers!

100. Broadway should: (choose one)
1. Remain as it is today
6%
2. Become part of a couplet with Canyon
12%
3. Remain two-way and become a festival street
71%
4. Other
8%
5. Don’t know / Decline to answer
2%

101. Canyon Road should: (choose one)
1. Remain as it is today
4%
2. Become part of a couplet with Broadway
4%
3. Become part of a couplet with Farmington
61%
4. Remain two-way, but be calmed
26%
5. Other
2%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
2%

102. Today, I would lean toward…
1. Leave Farmington,
Canyon, and Broadway
as they are today 60%
2. Canyon and Farmington
as 3-lane, one way
couplets and Broadway 38%
as a festival street
3. Canyon and Farmington
as calmed two-way
streets and Broadway
as a festival street 2%
1 2 3

103. Workshop Input:
North-South Connectivity & Grid
Two‐way streets

104. Bike/Ped Connections Across
Farmington, Canyon and On Lombard
Bike/ped
improvements

106. Central City Streets – Improvements
Connect Millikan
Public Market

107. Public Market

108. Public Market

110. R d.
C anyon

111. R d.
C anyon

112. R d.
C anyon

113. R d.
C anyon

116. Get out your Clickers!

117. Improving pedestrian connections and walkability
in the central city areas should be a top priority
1. Agree strongly
79%
2. Agree somewhat
13%
3. Neutral
2%
4. Disagree somewhat
2%
5. Disagree Strongly
4%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

118. Moving more traffic through the central city areas
should be a top priority
1. Agree strongly
41%
2. Agree somewhat
18%
3. Neutral
4%
4. Disagree somewhat
20%
5. Disagree Strongly
12%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
4%

119. Topic #4: Neighborhood
Centers and Connections

120. Exercise #2 Neighborhood Centers &
Connections
Center Type
Stickers
Citywide
Basemap
Walkshed
Transparencies Scissors
Pens
Creek Amenity
Chips

121. Types of Center Chips
Mixed‐Use Center
• On-street Parking
• 1-3 story buildings up to
the sidewalk
Neighborhood Center
• On-street and surface
parking
• One-story buildings
• Mix of uses
Shopping Center
• Surface parking on-site
• One-story buildings
• Retail-focused uses

122. Shopping
Centers
• Were the least-used
chips

123. Neighborhood
Centers
• Were distributed
around the city

124. Example:
125th and Longhorn

125. Mixed Use Centers
• Were concentrated
in a couple key
areas:
– Hall and Allen
– Murray and Allen

126. Example:
Hall and Allen

127. Get out your Clickers!

128. I would support small mixed-use and neighborhood
centers outside Beaverton’s central city core
1. Agree strongly
64%
2. Agree somewhat
13%
3. Neutral
11%
4. Disagree somewhat
9%
5. Disagree Strongly
4%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

129. A planning process involving neighborhood residents
and businesses should be used to help define
neighborhood centers.
1. Agree strongly
80%
2. Agree somewhat
7%
3. Neutral
7%
4. Disagree somewhat
7%
5. Disagree Strongly
0%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

130. City and Neighborhood Connections
• Participants focused mainly south of the
central city
• These maps do not represent complete
networks
• Are a starting place for further investigation

131. Bike/Walk Connections from the Workshop
Desired Bike Connection
City Boundary

132. Metro’s Classification of Unsafe or
“Unsuitable” Biking Streets
Desired Bike Connection
Currently Unsuitable for Biking
City Boundary

133. Existing Bike Lanes
Existing Bike Lane
Desired Bike Connection
City Boundary

134. Potential New Bike Connections

135. Bike Boulevards for “Average” Cyclists
• Bike boulevards are a safe, comfortable,
low traffic alternative to bike lanes on busy
city streets.

136. Lower Traffic Connections
Existing Bike Lane
Desired Bike Connection
Currently Unsuitable for biking
City Boundary

137. SW Allen
SW Main
SW Hall
Existing bike lane:
4 Lane, High Traffic
SW 127th
Potential Bike Boulevard
along SW Main

138. Existing Bike Lane
Desired Bike Connection
Currently Unsuitable for biking
City Boundary

139. Low Traffic Alternatives to Hall
• Either Main or Watson could provide
connection North-to-South
• Crossing Canyon/Farmington
• Connect to Transit Center & the Round

140. Connections North to Transit,
n
New Centers of Activity
anyo
SW C
SW Farming
ton
SW Main
SW Watson
Existing bike lanes end
at Canyon / Farmington
SW Hall

141. Existing Bike Lane
Desired Bike Connection
Currently Unsuitable for Biking
City Boundary

142. Connections Needed for New Centers
SW Allen & Murray SW Allen & Hall
Existing Bike Lane
Desired Bike Connection
Currently Unsuitable for Biking
City Boundary

143. Allen is currently considered
“unsuitable for biking”
SW Allen & SW Hall

144. Get out your Clickers!

145. I Consider Myself
1. Not a biker
48%
2. Beginning Biker
2%
3. Occasional Biker
39%
4. Commuting Biker (to and from work)
2%
5. Experienced Biker (everywhere)
9%

146. In the future I would like to be…
1. Not a biker
17%
2. Beginning Biker
2%
3. Occasional Biker
43%
4. Commuting Biker (to and from work)
13%
5. Experienced Biker (everywhere)
24%

147. Topic #5: Citywide Creeks

148. Exercise #2 Citywide Creeks
Center Type
Stickers
Citywide
Basemap
Walkshed
Transparencies Scissors
Pens
Creek Amenity
Chips

149. Citywide:
Creek Amenities
• Integrated creeks
tended to be
focused in central
city area

150. Citywide:
Creek Amenities
• Buffered creeks
chips were placed
outside of the
central city

151. Challenges to day-lighting underground
creeks
• Expensive
• Creeks cross
private property

152. Will require further study
• May be best to
focus in areas
where
development
will occur at the
same time
• Coordinate with
trails/pathway
development

153. Get out your Clickers!

154. Focusing Beaverton’s creek enhancement efforts in areas
where it can be coordinated with new development is a good
strategy
1. Agree strongly
76%
2. Agree somewhat
17%
3. Neutral
0%
4. Disagree somewhat
4%
5. Disagree Strongly
2%
6. Don’t know / Decline to answer
0%

155. Next Steps
• Analyze your feedback
• Write Strategy Documents (October)
• Roll-out of Public Working Draft (November
or December)
– Includes a check in with you: presentation and
clicker questions
• Refine into Final Strategies and
Recommendations (December)
• City Council Presentation (January)

156. Thank You!
www.beavertoncivicplan.com