1. RIVERSTONE CONNECTION STUDY Task Force Meeting #4 June 19, 2013

2. Purpose and Scope Thoroughfare Plan Update Identify Suitable Connection Riverstone Development Agreement Riverstone Connection Study Examine connections within the network Existing and projected traffic volumes Determine network alternatives Research constraints and solutions Develop recommendation

3. Riverstone Development Agreement Approved in 2003 Includes mechanisms for major roadway construction University Blvd South construction LJ Parkway (Spine Rd) construction and connection to Commonwealth at Palm Royale Intersection of LJ Parkway and Commonwealth to have City Council authorization of design Amendment #1 in 2009 Clarified obligations and thresholds for University Blvd South Amendment #2 in 2011 Clarified obligations from revised TIA Included signal at LJ Parkway and University Blvd Maintained City Council approval of intersection of LJ Parkway and Commonwealth

4. Existing Constraints Utilities CPE Gas Lift Stations Pipelines Municipal Utilities City of Sugar Land U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levee Improvement Districts First Colony LID Fort Bend LID #2 Current Roadway Network

5. Items for Consideration Riverstone Community Connection Connection to Commonwealth is required and necessary Location of the connection under determination Natural and built constraints need to be accommodated Balanced Roadway Network Connected roadways improve mobility and traffic safety Provide alternate routes and reduce travel times Enhances the community and improves quality of life

6. Task Force Meeting #3 Task Force Ranking of Final Options Shortlist of 3 – Option 2, Option 3, and Option 8 Highest Score by Task Force considered as Preferred Second Highest Score considered as an Alternate Option #8 – Score of 4.1 Option #3 – Score of 3.5 US Army Corps of Engineers/ drainage aspects need further study CPE unknowns are a driving factor on ultimate connection Consultant and City to further evaluate task force rankings

7. Additional Assessments of Options Option #8 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Mitigation of wetlands required by USACE Longer and more intense approval process Additional costs due to wetland mitigation and drainage improvements Less eco-friendly LID #2 outfall conflict and redesign required Greater noise impact to Lakes of Austin Park due to location and height of road at levee crossing Land use impact due to roadway alignment Option #3 No USACE issues No LID #2 outfall conflicts and impacts Minimal noise impact to Lakes of Austin Park due to location of crossing More congruent with land use plan of development Increased mitigation possibilities for an at-grade intersection

8. Discussion and Recommendation Both options provide the same levels of mobility Both options have CPE issues Both have to cross FBC LID #2 Option 8 Connects between Travis Park and Austin Park Crosses wetland area and will require mitigation Potential conflict with FBC LID #2 outfall Greater impact on Lakes of Austin Park (height and location of road over levee) Longer and more intense approval process Probable cost ~ $0.8 Million more than Option 3 Option 3 Connects adjacent to Travis Park Does not impact FBC LID #2 outfall Minimal impact to Lakes of Austin Park (due to road over levee) Most cost effective of the two options

9. Task Force Consensus Pros and Cons presented for both options Consider all facts presented Natural and built constraints need to be considered Cost is a consideration Recommendation from the Task Force to City Council What other mitigation measures need to be included? Roadway and intersection treatments?

10. Next Steps City Council Workshop – June 25 th Amend Major Thoroughfare Plan Planning & Zoning Commission Review and recommendation City Council Public Hearing Adoption Amend Riverstone Development Agreement (if needed)