Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2005-05-31 PM
os F � Foothills Plan if* Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda ORFG°N Tuesday, May 31,2005, 1:30-3:00 p.m. City Hall—Community Development Conference Room 1:30 Review of Development Scenarios and Phasing Tom Litster (Otak) 1:45 Review of Financial Analysis ECONW and Johnson Gardner 2:20 Review of Transportation Analysis DKS Associates 2:55 Next Steps and Adjourn For more information or questions,please contact Sidaro Sin at 503-697-7421 or e-mail at ssin@ci.oswego.or.us. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 1 Foothills District Refinement Plan (draft 5/31/05) Development Scenario 1 Public Improvement Costs Three generalized phases of development have been identified. Public infrastructure costs assume Main Street,rail road crossing,traffic signal,Willamette Boulevard,Willamette Steps Plaza, relocation of existing sewer/water service and franchise utilities. Other new streets and utilities are assumed to be private development costs. Phase A 114617 Main Street $300,000 54`" RR Crossing/Signal $750,000 ryl Willamette Boulevard $450,000 �4fjkotteri Replace Existing Sewer/Water $300,000 Franchise Utilities $450,000 Total $2,250,000 lait":04tPhase B AAil Main Street $1,000,000 Willamette Boulevard $350,000 Willamette Steps Plaza $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $600,000 Franchise Utilities $265,000 Total $2,965,000 Phase C Willamette Boulevard $600,000 Franchise Utilities $325,000 Total $925,000 Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 2 Development Scenario 2 Public Improvement Costs Three generalized phases of development have been identified. Public infrastructure costs assume collector streets,Tryon Creek Bridge,rail road crossing, traffic signal, second bridge to replace Stampher Road access, relocation of existing sewer/water service and franchise utilities. Other new streets and utilities are assumed to be private development costs. Phase A Foothills Road Extension $2,000,000 "Town Square"Park $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $600,000 Franc $400,000 Total $3,750,000 Phase B Main Street $1,150,000 Terwilliger Bridge $9,500,000 Railroad.Crossing and Signal $750,000 Tryon Cove Street and Bridge $1,500,000 Willamette Steps Plaza $600,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $320,000 Franchise Utilities $650,000 Total $14,470,000 Phase C "Treatment Plant"Park $1,000,000 Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 3 Development Scenario 3 Public Improvement Costs Phasing and cost assumptions are the same as Scenario 2. Phase A Foothills Road Extension $2,000,000 "Town Square" Park $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $600,000 Franchise Utilities $400,000 Total $3,750,000 Phase B Main Street $1,150,000 Terwilliger Bridge $9,500,000 Railroad Crossing and Signal $750,000 Tryon Cove Street and Bridge $1,500,000 Willamette Steps Plaza $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $320,000 Franchise Utilities $650,000 Total $14,620,000 Phase C Treatment Plant Park $1,000,000 Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 4 Summary of potential TIF revenue (present value), Foothills District Dev Scenario 1 Dev Scenario 2 Dev Scenario 3 Infrastructure costs $5,410,800 $16,046,138 $16,010,443 Infrastructure bond $5,465,865 $16,206,088 $16,170,675 repayment (2009-2041) Market value of new $220,273,941 $261,399,742 $199,141,529 development (2009—2028) Assessed value of new $179,963,810 $213,563,589 $162,698,629 development(2009-2028) Incremental tax collections $34,472,962 $37,067,105 $35,458,609 (2009-2028) Percent of infrastructure paid 631% 229% 219% for by incremental collections Minimum development to pay $34,925,564 $114,286,433 $90,817,240 for infrastructure Maximum infrastructure paid $34,125,667 $36,701,262 $35,107,256 for by development Source:ECONorthwest,2005. Potential for Additional Public Improvement Costs Given the maximum public infrastructure dollars potentially generated by each scenario, the City may want to consider using incremental tax collections to fully or partially pay for additional improvement costs associated with redevelopment. Those costs may include, but are not limited to: • Additional park and trail development and natural resource enhancements. • Implement a wide range of sustainable design and construction principles. • Environmental clean-up and/or mitigation. • High level of urban character through design and materials for key public spaces such the Willamette Steps Plaza, Willamette Boulevard, State Street Esplanade and the streetcar station. • Enhanced design and materials for the Terwilliger Bridge. • Assume additional street improvement costs to create a higher level of design and/or "greenstreet"treatments for stormwater management. • Development of a water taxi service on the Willamette River. ► � r ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Phone•(503)222-6060 Suite 1460 Other Offices FAX•(503)222-1504 888 SW.5th Avenue Eugene.(541)687-0051 info@portland.econw.com Portland,Oregon 97204 Seattle•(206)622-2403 May 31, 2005 TO: Denny Egner, City of Lake Oswego, and Tom Litster, Otak FROM: Becky Steckler,Terry Moore, and Carl Batten SUBJECT: ESTIMATE OF REVENUE FROM TAX-INCREMENT FINANCING This memorandum is the work product for Task 5, draft funding strategy, for the Foothills District Refinement Plan. It shows the potential tax-increment financing(TIF) revenue generated by expanding the East End Urban Renewal Area to include the Foothills District area; it compares that revenue the costs of certain infrastructure for three development scenarios. This memorandum has four sections and two appendices: • Background describes how this analysis relates to the Foothills District Refinement Plan. • Methods describes the research plan for the analysis. • Assumptions describes the assumptions for estimating the assessed and real market value of existing uses and development scenarios,the cost of infrastructure improvements, and the financial characteristics of bonds to finance infrastructure improvements. • Findings compares the infrastructure costs to the potential revenue generated by TIF funds. • Appendix A,Dealing with costs and revenues over time, defines constant and current dollars, and present value, and explains how each is used in an economic and fiscal analysis. • Appendix B,Detailed tables, shows the infrastructure costs and schedule, and the cash flow summary of bond payments and TIF revenues. BACKGROUND This evaluation provides an estimate of potential tax increment revenue within the Foothills redevelopment district as part of the District Refinement Plan. The results of this analysis, in part, will help decisionmakers understand the financing options for three development scenarios. Given the range of density and intensity of the proposed alternatives,' the analysis provides 1 The scope of work states ECO will estimate the TIF generated from a preferred alternative,however,the contract between the City and DKS indicates the analysis,"must estimate the amount of potential tax increment funds generated under each alternative and compare the amount with the cost of proposed public improvements."This memo provides an estimate for the three development scenarios for the Foothills District. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 2 estimates of the potential tax-increment funds that could be generated within the district, and compares them to the cost of certain proposed public improvements. The analysis addresses potential phasing of the project and the timing of public funding, including potential bonding. The primary question that this analysis answers is, What percent of the public development costs (infrastructure and public amenity)of each development alternative might the new tax revenues from the proposed development be able to cover?By answering this question,we provide information that will assist with a preliminary evaluation of development alternatives. This analysis does not address how to create, expand, or otherwise structure an urban renewal district so that the tax increment can be collected. Nor does it evaluate whether the City would get tax increment from the study area by expanding the boundaries of the Lake Oswego East End Urban Renewal Area, or by creating a new urban renewal district. We are examining whether, under either of those options, the stream of tax increment revenue from the new development as it comes on line is sufficient to fund the public expenditures deemed necessary to get the development to happen. Figure 1 shows the study area of the Foothills District used to estimate the potential tax increment revenue. The East End Redevelopment area is located directly to the south and west of the study area. Figure 1. Foothills District Study area, Lake Oswego, 2005 x.e .. • � 14,1 A'. 9 re h , ��T.1r-•, "yf, ' 04r1 ;:. b "., :eke' s is 5` 1 f �,< .-,'l• 11 . i '-'-`,:ij.:14 ''" .1,-, ';', tr.-.r. 3-, .‘-•.-_,-., ' ',,2 ,, . ) .#12,,, ,l-i,, i ,' , - 5�A --"'mot' j" � • Y i�'� t ,"�} 7 9 ` �r ^ter' '.' - 'S" : '- f ..:;,y 3 ;r; ' :l'4 . #r fit` 4 t 1 . # . 11 444 y a t" i _ . a� _ rt •n s'ia�t ...it y/ 1 ,yyp ."..I',s ''tt.i.. ,d.-‘,°-1--.(.1"-7fl,- .tk,- .'0 e-..,,O.r j �7 7 f I ua (AL'.IR •.;, .. . > f kO 1. �,ef yi ii '" "`s;.e. [ • r y 150 300 60D " 9D0 1,200 raf`,- : ' 1 a .., . Source:Metro DRC Taxlot He, February,2005. METHODS The research plan for this study comprised the following tasks: Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 3 • Develop assumptions. ECONorthwest worked with the City of Lake Oswego staff and the project team to create assumptions to use in this analysis. • Create a tax-increment-financing model. ECONorthwest created an Excel model to determine the potential revenue that could be generated from three development scenarios for the Foothills District, based on the bonding, infrastructure costs, and new development value assumptions described in the next section. • Compare potential revenue to infrastructure costs. ECO compared the potential TIF- generated revenue for each development alternative to the cost of infrastructure associated with that alternative. The techniques for correctly dealing with costs and revenues that extend out into the future can be confusing to the layperson. Appendix A provides some detail on definitions for those interested. We think the easiest way to understand the analysis is as follows: • Step 1. Assume that the entire development scenario were built today. That would require expenditures for infrastructure and buildings, and rents for the buildings would follow. All of the costs and revenues would be in today's (2005's) dollars. There would be no need to deal with the time value of money or inflation. • Step 2. Of course, the development will not all be built today. It will be built in phases over time. That means that much_the costs and most of the revenues will occur in y� ture years. So, make some assumptions that spread the costs and ensuing revenues out into a years. ,y !S • Step 3. Because costs and revenues occur in future ye. ' ,they will be affected by inflation. For example, if cost inflation is assumed to $e 3%per year, then something that costs $1,000 in 2005 (today)will cost $1,344 in W. 0 years in the future). Thus,the costs (and revenues) in Step 2 get converted from constant, 2005 dollars, to current dollars (that reflect the value in the year of the cost). Step 3 results in a stream of costs and revenues extending out 20 years. • Step 4. The financial questions are(1)What amount of money would the City have to raise now(via a bond)to pay for the future stream of costs? (2) What is the present value of the stream of tax-increment revenue? and(3) How do the results of`1' and `2' compare? The only way to make that comparison is to convert the stream of costs and tax revenues into what economists refer to as a present discounted value: the amount of money one would have to have today to be indifferent between having that amount or, instead, having the stream of future revenues. In general, the Excel spreadsheet used for our analysis incorporates all these steps. ASSUMPTIONS There are several ways of calculating the potential tax-increment funds generated in the study area. We created a model (in Excel) that considers the following inputs (based in part on the assumptions listed later in this section): • Infrastructure improvement timing and cost for each alternative. Each development alternative included the associated public improvements necessary for development (provided by Otak and DKS), along with an annual schedule of infrastructure Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 4 expenditures (the amount of timing of these expenditures will be approximate, appropriate to the level of evaluation required at this preliminary stage) (schedule estimated by Johnson Gardner). Note that the scenarios do not include the private improvement costs,including many local roads. • Redevelopment timing and value for each alternative. The model computes revenue based on when and how much the development alternative would add new assessed value to the tax rolls(estimated by Johnson Gardner). The model solved for the following outputs: 1. The present value of the flow of revenue to the renewal district given the increment associated with the development option. 2. The present value of the flow of bond repayments necessary to finance the infrastructure improvements associated with the development alternative. 3. The amount of infrastructure that could be financed from tax-increment financing given the increment in value associated with the development alternative. 4. The value of development that would be required to produce an increment sufficient to finance the infrastructure associated with the development alternative. 5. The extent to which the infrastructure associated with the development alternative could be financed through a renewal district. Table 1 summarizes the assumptions used in this analysis. It includes assumptions used for all of the scenarios, and assumptions unique to each scenario. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 5 Table 1. Assumptions for Foothills TIF estimates Assumption description Assumption value Assumption source Assumptions for all alternatives Assessed value increase 3% per year for both City of Lake Oswego frozen assessed value and incremental assessed value Bond term 16 years City of Lake Oswego Bond rate 5% City of Lake Oswego Issuance cost of bonds 1% City of Lake Oswego Property value increase per year 3% Measure 50 Total assessed value of Foothills $19,077,332 Clackamas County Assessor data District, 2005 (2004 assessed value * 1.03 = 2005 estimated assessment value) Rate applied to increment 0.016859 Clackamas County Assessor (2004 tax rate in Foothills District) UR begins (base year) 2009 Project team Term of UR (years) 16 ECO (equals the years remaining in the East End Renewal area at estimated date of expansion into the Foothills District) Infrastructure cost inflation 3% ECO Discount rate 5% ECO Development value inflation 4% ECO Development cost inflation 3% ECO Base year 2005 Project Team Development Scenario#1 Assumptions Infrastructure costs $5,410,800 Otak, DKS Assessed value of new development $179,963,810 Derived from market value provided (2009 —2028) by Johnson Gardner Development Scenario#2 Assumptions Infrastructure costs 1 $16,046,138 Otak, DKS Assessed value of new development $213,563,589 Derived from market value provided (2009 —2028) by Johnson Gardner Development Scenario #3 Assumptions Infrastructure costs $16,010,443 Otak, DKS Assessed value of new development $162,698,629 Derived from market value provided (2009 —2028) by Johnson Gardner Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 6 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS This section briefly summarizes the development scenarios. Additional detail is available in the Draft Foothills Report. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1 This scenario is the most intensive overall with regard building height, commercial development and potential for housing: • 1,070 residential units. • 70,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office. • 1,900 structured parking spaces plus on-street parking as available. The Highway 43 access is a Foothills Road and new intersection and rail crossing at D Avenue. Key development assumptions were: I N • Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment remains. Gam" ,, 0, \ • PGE substations have been relocated. f the substations were not relocated one building site soutliarthe Willamette Steps would be eliminated, reducing the potential number of residential units by approximately 30 units. • No new development west of the railroad tracks. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 This scenario illustrates the highest potential for housing development potential and second highest potential for commercial development, with additional development land assumed through relocation of the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant: • 1,200 residential units. • 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office. • 1,900 structured parking spaces plus on-street parking as available. Access to Highway 43 is at the current Foothills Road intersection and a new at-grade intersection and rail crossing at Terwilliger Boulevard. The Terwilliger intersection will require a bridge structure over Tryon Creek and the southwest portion of land set aside for Tryon Cove Park. With the bridge constructed,providing access to the park and existing residences would be problematic. It is likely a second vehicle bridge across the creek from the northeast corner of the district would be required. This second connection would only be possible if the wastewater treatment plant were relocated. Key development assumptions were: A • • Tryon Creek Wastewat re Treatment relocated. - Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 7 • PGE substations could remain or relocated depending on the alignment of Foothills Road. If the substations were not relocated one building site would be eliminated, reducing the potential number of residential units by approximately 45 units. • No new development west of the railroad tracks. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3 This scenario is based on the same street pattern as Scenario 2 but illustrates the least amount of commercial and housing development within the district: • 700 residential units • 13,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office. • 1,100 parking spaces (building garages or parking courts)plus on-street parking as available Access to Highway 43 is the same as Scenario 2. Key development assumptions are: • Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment remains • PGE substations are relocated. If the substations were not relocated one building site south of the Willamette Steps would be eliminated, reducing the potential number of residential units by approximately 30 units. • No new development west of the railroad tracks FINDINGS This section presents the tax-increment revenue estimates for Development Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 for the Foothills District. The primary findings are: • Based on the estimated market values, the area could generate between $34 million and $37 million in TIF revenue over a 16-year period. These funds would be restricted to district improvements and would not be available to fund government services until the URA term expires. • The tax increment revenue generated in all three scenarios is sufficient to fund the estimated public infrastructure costs (estimated between$5.4 million and$16 million) necessary for development. • All development scenarios generate more TIF revenue than the public infrastructure costs attributed to the scenario. • Development Scenario 1 has the lowest infrastructure costs and the second highest assessed value, resulting in the largest revenue surplus, compared to Development Scenario 2 and 3. • Development Scenario 2 and 3 generate approximately twice as much TIF revenue necessary to pay for the proposed infrastructure. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 8 Table 2 shows a summary of the findings of each development scenario. These findings are based on the assumptions listed in the previous section. Appendix A includes detailed tables. Table 2. Summary of potential TIF revenue (present value), Foothills District Dev Scenario 1 Dev Scenario 2 Dev Scenario 3 Infrastructure costs $5,410,800 $16,046,138 $16,010,443 Infrastructure bond repayment $5,465,865 $16,206,088 $16,170,675 (2009-2041) Market value of new $220,273,941 $261,399,742 $199,141,529 development(2009—2028) 91e Assessed value of new $179,963,810 $213,563,589 $162,698,629 C. development (2009-2028) Incremental tax collections $34,472,962 $37,067,105 $35,458,609 (2009-2028) Percent of infrastructure paid 631% 229% 219% for by incremental collections Minimum development to pay $34,925,564 $114,286,433 $90,817,240 for infrastructure Maximum infrastructure paid for $34,125,667 $36,701,262 $35,107,256 by development Source:ECONorthwest,2005. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 9 APPENDIX A: DEALING WITH COSTS AND REVENUES OVER TIME The tables in Appendix B show costs and revenues in 2005 dollars, current dollars, and present value. These are terms that economists use to deal with the fact that future dollars have a different value than current dollars. The price of a given set of goods and services will change from year to year. Since prices generally go up (get bigger), the overall change in prices is referred to as inflation. (It is possible for prices in general or for specific goods and services to decline, in which case it is referred to as deflation). If the issue of concern is the real change in price, should not compare dollars from different years without adjusting for inflation. For example, comparing a gas price of 400 per gallon in 1969 to one of$1.60 per gallon in 2000 makes good press but bad economics. In fact, the real price of gasoline(relative to other goods and services in a standard market basket)had remained roughly constant during that period. Constant or real dollars refers to dollars that have been adjusted for inflation. For the example above, the Consumer Price Index increased by a factor of four between 1969 and 2000. In 400 per gallon in 1969 dollars is equal to $1.60 per gallon in 2000 dollars, and vice versa. Current or nominal dollars have not been adjusted for inflation. In other words, they still have inflation in them. "Current"means that the dollars are denominated in the year for which they are being reported. The question"If I were at the cash register buying this thing five years from now, how much would I be charged?"is a question whose answer is in current dollars. If one had asked that question in 1969 about gasoline prices in 2000, the answer would have been$1.60. The potential confusion here is that one could reasonably think of the dollars that one would pay today—i.e., currently—as current dollars. In other words, constant dollars mean that they are dollars whose value is pegged to a single, constant year, and whose buying power is generally constant over time. Current dollars are dollars whose value changes year by year(primarily because of inflation)to the value in whatever year one is currently examining. Prices for different goods and services vary at different rates. Thus, it is important to choose a proper price index for adjusting dollars. For example, when adjusting data on household income economists usually use a price index for all consumer goods, which reflects the overall price level of all things households buy day-to-day. But to adjust a specific good, such as housing prices, it is better to use the specific index for that good, in this example a housing price index. When considering a stream of income or payments over time, analysts often want to know how much that stream is worth now. This is especially important when comparing the value of the stream associated with different alternatives; converting a stream of payments/income into a single value gives an"apple"that can be compared to the single value "apple"of another stream of payments/income. To estimate the value of a stream of income/payments, one must discount that stream using a discount rate. A discount rate has three main components: • Inflation • Time value of money Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 10 • Risk To select a proper discount rate, one must consider the stream being converted and the implication for each of these three factors. Typically a rate is selected that corresponds to an investment that has about the same amount of risk as the stream,with the assumption that the market has correctly factored in the expectation for inflation and time value of money. When considering a stream of income, the question is, How much money would I accept today to give up this future stream of payments? The answer is the amount of money needed to put into an investment with a similar amount of risk to generate that stream of income. When considering a stream of costs, the question is, How much money would I need to invest today to be able to cover this future stream of costs? The answer is the amount of money needed to put into an investment with a similar amount of risk to generate that stream of payments. If the stream of income/payments are in constant dollars, then the discount rate need not include a factor for inflation. Instead, use a real discount rate. That rate is typically around 3%. The 3% reflects the fact that having one dollar(or any resource) today is worth more than having that same dollar at some time in the future. Economists refer to this as a"positive rate of time preference."Jargon aside, the issue can be understood by thinking of a savings account. Is it better to have a dollar now,or the promise of a dollar a year from now? Most people would take the dollar now because (1) there is some risk of not getting the dollar a year from now, and(2)a dollar now could be conservatively invested in a savings account or bond and would be worth more than a dollar one year from now. If the stream of income/payments are in current dollars, then the discount rate does need to include a factor for inflation. Instead, use a nominal discount rate. The rate (for any given risk class) is typically the real discount rate plus the assumed rate of inflation. (This is an approximation that works well for rates of up to 10%. The actual arithmetic for converting from real to nominal discount rates is a little more complicated.) If inflation is assumed to be 2%per year over the relevant evaluation period,then the nominal discount rate would be about 5%(3% +2%). Finally, if one has a stream of future income and wants to know how much can be borrowed today and repayed with that stream of future payments, the answer is to discount that stream of future income by the interest rate one expects to get on the market, such as the municipal bond rate. If the stream of future income is in current dollars, then use market interest rates (which reflect the market's expectation of inflation). If the stream of future income is in constant dollars, then use a real interest rate, which is the market rate minus the expectation for inflation. p. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 11 , APPENDIX B: DETAILED TABLES Table A-1. Scenario 1 public infrastructure costs by year, Foothills District, 2006-2025 Infrastructure Category rtepiace RR Existing First Part of 2nd part of Public/ 3rd part of Total in Total in Main Street Crossing/ Sewer Franchise Main Street Willamette Willamette Willamette Franchise Willamette 2005$ Current Year (20%) Signal /Water Utilities (80%) Blvd. Steps Blvd. Utility Blvd (constant) Dollars Present Value 2006 $0 $0 $0 S0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO 2007 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 SO SO SO SO $0 SO 2008 $150,000 $750,000 $75,000 $200,000 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,175,000 $1,283,954 $1,109,128 2009 $150,000 $0 $75,000 $200,000 $0 $225,000 $0 SO $0 $0 $650,000 $731,581 $601,873 2010 $0 $0 $75,000 $50,000 $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $405,746 $317,913 2011 $0 $0 $75,000 $65,000 $250,000 $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,140,000 $1,361,220 $1,015,763 2012 $0 $0 $150,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $650,000 $799,418 $568,131 2013 $0 $0 $150,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $600,000 $760,062 $514,440 2014 $0 $0 $150,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $587,148 $378,481 2015 $0 $0 $150.000 $50.000 SO $0 $0 $0 $50.000 $200.000 $450,000 $604,762 $371,272 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $250,000 S346,058 $202,333 2017 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $250,000 $356,440 $198,479 2018 $0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 S0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $73,427 $38,940 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $75,629 $38,198 2020 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $77,898 $37,470 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $40,118 S18,378 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 2023 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 SO $0 2024 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 SO $0 2025 S0 $0 S0 SO SO $0 $0 SO $0 SO SO SO SO Total $6,140,000 S5,410,800 Source:Public infrastructure costs, DKS and Otak; public infrastructure timing,Johnson Gardner,2005. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 12 . Table A-2. Scenario 2 public infrastructure costs by year, Foothills District, 2006-2025 Infrastructure Category Foothills Replace Railroad Road Main Street "Town "Treatment Existing Franchise Main Street Terwilliger Crossing/ Tryon Cove Willamette Total In Year Extension (20%) Square"Park Plant"Park Sewer/Water Utilities (80%) Bridge Signal Street)Bridge Steps 2005$ Present value 2006 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2007 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2008 $1,000.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $943,939 2009 $1,000,000 $0 $750,000 $0 $200,000 $75.000 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,025,000 $1,875,067 2010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $181.664 2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $75.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $155,929 2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $152,958 2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $925,000 $793,095 2014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $462,588 2015 $0 $0 $0 SO S80,000 $200.000 $300,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $2,080,000 $1,716,100 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $200,000 $300,000 $4,750,000 $750,000 $0 $0 $6,080,000 $4,920,744 2017 $0 SO $0 $0 $80,000 $200,000 $0 $4,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,030,000 $3,993,403 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80.000 $50.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130.000 $101,243 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2020 SO $0 $0 $1,000.000 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $749.409 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2023 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2025 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO Total $19,370,000 $16,046,138 Source:Public infrastructure costs, DKS and Otak; public infrastructure timing,Johnson Gardner,2005. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 13 Table A-3. Scenario 3 public infrastructure costs by year, Foothills District, 2006-2025 Infrastructure Category Foothills Existing Trailroad Tyron Cove "Town Road Main Street Sewer/ Franchise Main Street Terwilliger Crossing! Street/ Willamette Square" "Treatment Total in Year Extension (20%) Water Utilities (80%) Bridge Signal Bridge Steps Park Plant"Park 2005$ Present value 2006 $0 $U $0 SU $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 SO 2007 $0 $0 $0 SO SO S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 2008 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 S0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $1,100,000 S1,038,333 2009 $600,000 SO $200,000 $100,000 $0 SO $0 SO $0 S350,000 $0 $1,250,000 S1,157,449 2010 $0 $0 $200,000 $100,000 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $272,496 2011 $0 $0 $200,000 $100,000 $0 SO $0 SO $750,000 $0 $0 $1,050,000 $935,571 2012 $0 $0 S120,000 $200,000 $300,000 $4,750,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,870,000 $6,004,712 2013 $0 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $4,750,000 $750,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $6,100,000 $5,230,139 2014 $0 $0 $100,000 $250,000 $300,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 $546,694 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $825,048 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2017 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 $0 $O $0 $0 $o $0 $0 2018 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2019 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO $0 SO $0 $0 2020 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 S0 SO SO SO $0 $0 $0 $0 2021 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 S0 $0 SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 2023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 2024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 S0 S0 $0 2025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 SO S0 $0 Total $18,320,000 $16,010,443 Source: Public infrastructure costs,DKS and Otak:public infrastructure timing,Johnson Gardner,2005. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 14 Table A-4. Development scenario 1 cash flow summary, Foothills District, 2006-2035 Incremental Tax Year Bond Payments Revenue Difference Present Value 2006 $0 SO $0 SO 2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 2008 $0 $0 $0 $0 2009 ($167,967) SO ($167,967) ($138,187) 2010 ($263,671) $519,575 $255,904 $200,507 2011 ($316,768) $1,067,364 $750,596 $560,106 2012 ($494,837) $1,606,504 $1,111,667 $790,041 2013 ($599,347) $2,015,556 $1,416,209 $958,546 2014 ($698,807) $2,887,326 $2,188,519 $1,410,739 2015 ($775,603) $2,973,946 $2,198,343 $1,349,592 2016 ($854,730) $3,862,889 $3,008,159 $1,758,808 2017 ($900,057) $4,229,987 $3,329,930 $1,854,230 2018 ($946,679) $5,076,560 $4,129,881 $2,190,164 2019 ($788,295) $5,669,513 $4,881,218 $2,465,347 2020 ($702,433) $6,199,357 S5,496,924 $2,644,114 2021 ($659,567) $7,198,216 $6,538,649 $2,995,430 2022 ($486,808) $7,850,997 $7,364,189 $3,212,971 2023 ($382,298) $8,678,754 $8,296,456 $3,447,349 2024 ($282,838) $9,086,169 $8,803,331 $3,483,777 2025 ($206,042) $0 ($206,042) ($77,655) 2026 ($126,915) $0 ($126,915) ($45,555) 2027 ($81,588) $0 ($81,588) ($27,891) 2028 ($34,966) $0 ($34,966) ($11,384) 2029 ($25,383) $0 ($25,383) ($7,870) 2030 ($15,541) $0 ($15,541) ($4,589) 2031 ($5,310) $0 ($5,310) ($1,493) 2032 $0 $0 $0 $0 2033 $0 $0 $0 $0 2034 $0 $0 $0 $0 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 Source: ECONorthwest, 2005. , Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 15 Table A-5. Development scenario 2 cash flow summary, Foothills District, 2006-2035 Bond Incremental Year Payments Tax Revenue Difference Present Value 2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 2008 $0 $0 $0 $0 2009 ($142,973) $0 ($142,973) ($117,624) 2010 ($441,093) $553,953 $112,860 $88,429 2011 ($471,397) $921,877 $450,480 $336,155 2012 ($498,722) $1,641,615 $1,142,893 $812,233 2013 ($526,824) $2,087,272 $1,560,448 $1,056,173 2014 ($680,028) $2,826,566 $2,146,538 $1,383,678 2015 ($773,919) $3,441,983 $2,668,064 $1,637,960 2016 ($1,139,510) $3,906,393 $2,766,883 $1,617,739 2017 ($2,240,299) $4,530,195 $2,289,896 $1,275,100 2018 ($3,178,301) $5,198,077 $2,019,776 $1,071,130 2019 ($3,060,322) $6,064,371 $3,004,049 $1,517,249 2020 ($2,762,202) $6,912,003 $4,149,801 $1,996,125 2021 ($2,935,738) $7,841,945 $4,906,207 $2,247,590 2022 ($2,908,413) $8,675,947 $5,767,534 $2,516,356 2023 ($2,880,311) $9,494,611 $6,614,300 $2,748,378 2024 ($2,727,107) $10,503,818 $7,776,711 $3,077,509 2025 ($2,633,216) $0 ($2,633,216) ($992,431) 2026 ($2,267,625) $0 ($2,267,625) ($813,947) 2027 ($1,166,836) $0 ($1,166,836) ($398,883) 2028 ($228,834) $0 ($228,834) ($74,502) 2029 ($203,840) $0 ($203,840) ($63,204) 2030 ($203,840) $0 ($203,840) ($60,195) 2031 $0 $0 $0 $0 2032 $0 $0 $0 $0 2033 $0 $0 $0 $0 2034 $0 $0 $0 $0 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 Source:ECONorthwest, 2005. Foothills District TIF analysis May 31, 2005 Page 16 Table A-6. Development scenario 3 cash flow summary, Foothills District, 2006-2035 Bond Incremental Year Payments Tax Revenue Difference Present Value 2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 2008 $0 $0 $0 $0 2009 ($116,960) $0 ($116,960) ($96,223) 2010 ($253,862) $527,668 $273,806 $214,534 2011 ($287,678) $1,164,459 $876,781 $654,267 2012 ($409,647) $1,855,435 $1,445,788 $1,027,495 2013 ($1,231,832) $2,358,352 $1,126,520 $762,473 2014 ($1,983,784) $2,910,553 $926,769 $597,404 2015 ($2,066,349) $3,631,512 $1,565,163 $960,874 2016 ($2,197,085) $4,270,146 $2,073,061 $1,212,076 2017 ($2,197,085) $5,031,512 $2,834,427 $1,578,315 2018 ($2,197,085) $5,829,700 $3,632,615 $1,926,453 2019 ($2,197,085) $6,490,373 $4,293,288 $2,168,402 2020 ($2,197,085) $6,689,591 $4,492,506 $2,160,972 2021 ($2,197,085) $6,890,279 $4,693,194 $2,150,006 2022 ($2,197,085) $7,096,987 $4,899,902 $2,137,811 2023 ($2,197,085) $7,309,897 $5,112,812 $2,124,479 2024 ($2,080,125) $7,529,193 $5,449,068 $2,156,381 2025 ($1,943,223) $0 ($1,943,223) ($732,380) 2026 ($1,909,407) $0 ($1,909,407) ($685,367) 2027 ($1,787,438) $0 ($1,787,438) ($611,035) 2028 ($965,253) $0 ($965,253) ($314,259) 2029 ($213,301) $0 ($213,301) ($66,138) 2030 ($130,736) $0 ($130,736) ($38,607) 2031 $0 $0 $0 $0 2032 $0 $0 $0 $0 2033 $0 $0 $0 $0 2034 $0 $0 $0 $0 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 Source:ECONorthwest, 2005. AI I jig I. JOHNSON GARDNER MEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 2005 To: Tom Lister OTAK,INC. FROM: JOHNSON GARDNER,LLC SUBJECT: Financial Analysis, Foothill Plan I. INTRODUCTION JOHNSON GARDNER has evaluated the financial characteristics of a series of generalized development scenarios within the Foothills District of Lake Oswego, Oregon. These scenarios are intended to be illustrative, and are based on some assumed development types assumed in the schematic development scenarios for the district generated by OTAK. The intent of this analysis is to test the general financial characteristics of a series of development forms,and assess the land values that these prototypical developments have the ability to support. An evaluation of the general viability of the concepts must include an assessment of the viability of the assumed development forms. To the extent that the development types assumed are not viable, additional public assistance would be needed to achieve the targeted development. The supportable acquisition cost, or residual land value', under the development forms indicates the ability of the programs to pay for underlying land and improvements. To the extent that infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the site area shifted to the developer, the development must either be able to bear the increased cost or will require additional support to be viable. The first development option evaluates the viability of a high rise mixed-use development consistent with Building 2 of Scenario 1 presented as Appendix A. The second option assesses the viability of a mid rise mixed-use development consistent with Building 15 of Scenario 2 and outlined in Appendix B. Finally, the third option weighs the viability of a low rise mixed-use development comparable to Building 18 of Scenario 3 and presented as Appendix C. II. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ANALYSES A pro forma evaluation for each of the assumed development programs was completed. Development programs were based on initial schematic programs developed for the area by OTAK Inc, while preliminary cost estimates were prepared by JOHNSON GARDNER. As is usual in these types of analyses, our expectation is that careful program evaluation and tuning by a developer will 1 A residual land value is defined as the maximum amount that a development program can afford to pay for property acquisition and still generate assumed necess.ary returns. 520 SW SIXTH AVENUE,PORT LAND,OREGON 97204 503/295-7832 503/295-1107(FAx) likely enhance the yield identified in this analysis. Lease rates and sales prices are based on professional opinion, and informed by internal market research. A. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS The development programs were evaluated using a ten-year cash flow, with a reversion value at the end of the ten year period. The scenarios assumed fee simple ownership of the property by the developer and conventional financing. As noted previously, estimates of construction costs were alw• based on Group McKenzie construction estimates and adjusted by JOHNSON GARDNER to reflect 1 recent steel and concrete cost inflation. Financial assumptions were made with respect to lending terms based on recent experience. The following is a brief summary of financial assumptions common throughout the analysis: Capitalization Rate/Income Properties: 8.00% Minimum Debt Coverage Ratio 1.25 Loan to Value Ratio Max 85% Construction Loan Interest Rate 6.00% Points on Construction Loan 1.00% Permanent Loan Interest Rate 7.50% Points on Permanent Loan 1.00% Threshold Return on Sales/Condos 15.00% Threshold Return on Cost/Income 9.00% Income and sales assumptions were based upon the professional opinion, and necessarily assume a fairly generic product. These included the following: Condominiums:Sales Price/S.F. High Rise $335-$365 per square foot Mid Rise $300- $340 per square foot Low Rise $290-$325 per square foot Parking Spaces Saks Price/S F. $30,000 per space 7 Retail Space Lease Rate/S.F. $18.00-$19.00 per square fo NNN Acquisition cost for all three pro formas assume a two acre parcel size at$10.00 per square foot. While we feel that these numbers represent appropriate baseline assumptions, developers evaluating project feasibility may vary in their assumptions, which would either increase or decrease their perceived need for assistance. The retail,office and industrial space was assumed to have a stabilized vacancy rate of 10%, while condominium sales were assumed to occur over an eighteen month period. LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 2 The analysis assumed threshold requirements in terms of a minimum return on investor's equity necessary for development to occur. A 9.0% return on investment was assumed for income properties. Return on investment is defined as the net operating income (NOI) during the first stabilized year divided by the total project cost. The threshold for condominiums was assumed at a 15%net return on sales,which reflects the net yield from sales divided by the cost. The yield that an individual developer or investor may be willing to accept can vary significantly, and these measures should be viewed merely as guidelines. B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following table outlines the general financial characteristics of the development programs modeled. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT Cost of Indicated Residual Land Value V tt�eR Description _ Development 1/ Value 2/ Total $/SF l O,44)61 46 HIGH RISE i t''t a a. a. I 2 V o VILLA Mixed-use condominium development consisting of $19,835,000 $23,980,909 $1,000,418 $91.87 65 dwelling units, 11,087 S.F.of commercial retail space,and 144 subterranean parking stalls. tl 3 Sloe MU)RISF - •r, n ,t tO 4 'D vA- Mixed-use condominium development consisting of $20,823,386 $25,133,646 $1.218,288 $27' �►" (6 54 64 dwelling units,3,000 S.F.of commercial retail space,and 132 subterranean parking stalls. e0 /tom IOW RISF •+'? r .rp A Mixed-use condominium development consisting of $9,852,208 S12,119,928 $1,484,554 51?.04 .-ff.' .% 2[al LZ 25 dwelling units,2,500 S.F.of commercial retail D space,and 52 subterranean parking stalls. I/Property acquisition assumed at$10 PSF 2/Reflects capitalized value at first stabilized year as well as bulk sale value of condominiums based on assumptions outlined.Not intended as a legal representation of value. Our analysis indicates that each of the development schemes will be largely driven by the strength of achievable condominium values in the area. The results of individual scenarios are summarized below,as well as in greater detail in the accompanying pro forms. C. HIGH RISE SCENARIO This development program assumes a ten floor mixed-use building comprised of 65 dwelling units averaging 900 square feet, and 11,087 square feet commercial retail. The development is thought to be similar to Building 2 of Scenario 1. The structure would be accompanied by 144 subterranean parking stalls. A general assumption loosely based on assessor's data of$10.00 per square foot was used as a proxy for land acquisition costs. Under our threshold assumptions, these figures demonstrate the viability of outlined development scenario. The calculations indicate a net equity requirement of$370,760 with an estimated negative 4.5%viability gap(as a percent of development costs). LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 3 \;■ HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT COST SUMMARY: MEASURES OF RETURN: Per SF Total Indicated Value @ Stablixation 523,980,909 Acquisition C art S1.32 S108.900 Value/Cmt 121% Direct Construction Cost $188.64 $15.532362 Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% Other Conswttion $0.00 $0 Return on Sales(ROS) 20.1% Soft Costs $50.93 S4,193.738 Internal Rate of Return(Income Component/ 26.6% Modified Internal Rate of Return @ 8%Reinvcntmene 201% ESTIMATION OF VIABILITY GAP TOTAL $240.90 $19,835,000 Targeted Return on Sales 15.00% EQUITY ASSUMPTIONS: Calculated ROS 20.1% Total Development Cost $19,835,000 Calculated Gap-Condos(includes parking) ($886,917) (-)Permanent Loan (2,026,949)Targeted Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% (-)Applied Condomium Revenue (17,437,291)Calculated RC)1 9.0% Calculated Gap-Income Components (S4.601) Total Calculated Gap (5891,518) Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 15.5% $370,760 Overall Gap as%of Development Cost -4.5% The indicated residual land value under this scenario is just over$1.0 million,reflecting a per square foot value of$91. In other words, under our assumptions, a developer could afford to pay up to$1.0 million for acquisition of the property and still meet his threshold yield requirements. This would include property acquisition as well as any additional charges for offsite infrastructure improvements. D. MID RISE The Mid Rise development scenario assumes a less dense five floor mixed use development consisting of 64 dwelling units averaging 1,150 square feet and 3,000 square feet of commercial retail. This development can be comparable to Building 15 in Scenario 2. The development would also include 132 subterranean parking stalls. MID RISE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT COST SUMMARY: MEASURES OF RETURN: Per SF Total Indicated Value it Stablivarion 525,133,646 Acquisition Cost 52.57 S435.600 Value/Cost 121% Direct Construttion Cost $94.71 S16,053375 Return on Investment(ROI) 13.2% Other Construction $0.00 SO Return on Sales(ROS) 17.5% Soft Casts S25.57 $4334,411 Internal Rate of Return(Income Component) 49.0% Modified Internal Rate of Return 9'8%Reinventment 29.1% ESTIMATION OF VIABILITY GAP TOTAL 8122.85 $20,823.386 Targeted Return on Sales 15.00% EQUITY ASSUMPTIONS: Calculated ROS 17.5% Total Development Cost $20,823,386 Calculated Gap-Condos(includes parking) ($502,119) 1-I Permanent loan (511.774)Targeted Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% (-)Applied Condomium Revenue 120.221199)Calculated ROI 131% Calculated Gap-Income Components ($280,570) Total Calculated Gap (S782,688) Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 15.0% $90,313 Overall Gap as%of Development Cost -3.8% LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 4 Despite a lower cost per square foot than high rise development, the assumed mid rise configuration will have slightly higher development costs due to the increase in units size and hence, a larger building in terms of square footage. The overall cost of the assumed development program is $20,823,000, with an indicated value at stabilization of$25,133,000. The indicated gap under this program is roughly negative 3.8%of total development cost, reflecting a total residual land value of $1.2 million ($28 psO. E. Low RISE The low rise development program is notably comparable to Building 18 in Scenario 3. The development consists of 25 dwelling units with an average size of 1,450 square feet as well as 2,500 square feet of commercial retail.The project will include 52 subterranean parking stalls. LOW RISE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT COST SUMMARY: MEASURES OF RETURN: Per SF Total Indicated Value @ Srablintion $12,119.928 Acquisition Cost $6.86 5871.200 Value/Cost 123% Direct Construction Cost $55.68 $7.071.660 Return on Investment(RO1) 9.9% Other Construction $0.00 SO Return on Sales(ROS) 21.0% Soft Costs S15.03 $1.909348 Internal Rate of Return(Income Component) 29.8% Modified Internal Rate of Return('8%kcinvcntmcm 22.1% ESTIMATION OF VIABILITY GAP TOTAL "i; $9,852,208 Targeted Return on Sales 15.00% EQUITY ASSUMI'TIONSi._ Calculated ROS 21.0% Total Development Cost 59,852,208 Calculated Gap-Condos(includes parking) (S564,002) (-)Permanent Loan (427.2531 Targeted Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% (-)Applied Condnmium Revenue (9.349.558)Calculated RO1 9.9% Calculated Gap-Income Components (S49351) Total Calculated Gap (S613354) Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 15.0% S75,398 Overall Gap as%of Development Cost -6.2% At 21%, this low density development scenario yields the greatest return on sales. The figures indicate an estimates viability gap of negative 6.2%of total development cost. While the percentage return is relatively high, this development format generates the lowest residual land value on a per square foot basis,estimated at only$17 per square foot. LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 5 ,t■ APPENDIX A FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1 • " 0 Via. rr—II-, .. - - _ ' .. � it .4tali 11., 2.Fr: 'SIR.. ' t j",.rpi- -P. ----t%_!••_ '- ;:T •\III), iu. .01- +1.. : at..,„:......,.. , . —am* . ••. ''''',- ,-r- ,•rly 11!... l,t-L. t1`.. IC �..e raw.lu"e ;O .4s,1,4•11m rill' -- smarm n.4% — FOOTHILLS DISERI(1 REEIREMEM1 PIAN a ,,, DEYELOPMEM'S(ERRRIO I ,1.•.. LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 6 ,;■APPENDIX B FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 -- •WWII ... t , Aa 0 in.F _. .t 11 %,-.11"4-11-0 Ilii -;, I -- ' l 1 �.� t' r � �c 'a iiiiiii ' -. n a � c0,,- ' lit r 0 . ,S fi. t4 i d44' ..'"V-4114. ..--- .- 1.. -':c, ' ..-:'''. �` £' L . RRismnilam.. ._. ® ,tM. - Own/O Smiley 0:ilOrt.PO f l0(NIIIS OIS(RKT 6Ef(9EMEN1 FUR "..'"""" um, lima 41) DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO i kr w Lai.Chno Mom'.sue., LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 7 ,;■ APPENDIX C FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3 5 ` '4 Witaillig- 7a ! y.ii t. # : I. ra c - • Rle \ [., [ yk: �n r _,il it✓.. .110)_ \_ 0.. ** p liti _At. ni. 'toe - 'il4t . i , ,. 41 . Oar 0/„,_ . ^ CID lirPiH' .. -. ,�! l[L.f1it.TIC RRyk . .'� '— . y jM».e 61....i.. .,. = .4.. w., .. _ _I._..HMI K. A ['_•••I Imool bat HD ao. ® s.uq Mamba IMMIliin rot MMMU..ay.K[RMLnn!W �in�n.n. di 1 +1 DfIFIOflIII Satan) IYftnr M[. LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 8 "Oa APPENDIX D DETAILED PRO FORMAS LAKE OSWEGO FOOTHILLS DISTRICT PAGE 9 HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUMS W/GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 65 Dwelling Units HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUMS SUMMARY INFORMATION May 20, 2005 AREA SUMMARY: CONSTRUCTION LOAN ASSUMPTIONS: Parcel Size(SF) 10,890 Construction Loan Amount $19,004,324 Building Size(SF) 82,337 Interest Rate 6.00% Efficiency Ratio 96% Term(months) 18 Saleable and Leasable Area(SF) 78,892 Drawdown Factor 0.55 Residential Units 65 Construction Interest $882,824 Density(Units/Acre) 260.00 Construction Loan Fee(%) 1.00% Construction Loan Fee($) $190,043 INCOME SUMMARY: PERMANENT FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS: Total Average Gross Sales DCR LTV SF Price/SF Income Interest Rate 7.50% 7.50% Residential Units 58,425 $387.45 $22,636,500 Term (Years) 30 30 Gross Income Debt-Coverage Ratio 1.25 Ofice/Industrial Space 0 $0.00 $0 Loan-to-Value 75% Retail 11,087 $18.90 $209,544 Stabilized NOI (Year 2) $216,208 $216,208 Parking 9,380 2.590618 $24,300 CAP Rate 8.00% Vacancy/Collection Loss _ ($23,384) Supportable Mortgage $2,061,436 $2,026,949 TOTAL 20,467 $10.28 $210,460 Annual Debt Service $172,966 $170,073 COST SUMMARY: MEASURES OF RETURN: Per SF Total Indicated Value @ Stabli,.ation $23,980,909 Acquisition Cost $1.32 $108,900 Value/Cost 121% Direct Construction Cost $188.64 $15,532,362 Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% 1 Other Construction $0.00 $0 Return on Sales(ROS) 20.1% Soft Costs $50.93 $4,193,738 Internal Rate of Return (Income Component) 26.6% Modified Internal Rate of Return @ 8%Reinventment 20.2% ESTIMATION OF VIABILITY GAP TOTAL $240.90 $19,835,000 Targeted Return on Sales 15.00% EQUITY ASSUMPTIONS: Calculated ROS 20.1% Total Development Cost $19,835,000 Calculated Gap-Condos(includes parking) ($886,917) (-) Permanent Loan (2,026,949) Targeted Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% (-)Applied Condomium Revenue (17,437,291) Calculated ROI 9.0% Calculated Gap-Income Components ($4,601) Total Calculated Gap ($891,518) Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 15.5% $370,760 Overall Gap as%of Development Cost -4.5% SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUMS INCOME ASSUMPTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM NO. OF TOTAL SALES PARKING AVG PRICE/ TOTAL UNITS SF PRICE/S.F. SALES i/ UNIT INCOME Floors 2-4 23 21,525 $335 $806,769 $348,593 $8,017,644 Floors 5-7 23 21,525 $350 $806,769 $362,631 $8,340,519 Floors 8-10 19 15,375 $365 $666,462 $330,439 $6,278,337 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 65 58,425 $348 $2,280,000 $348,254 $22,636,500 OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TOTAL NET/ LEASABLE ANNUAL ANNUAL SF GROSS SF RENT/SF INCOME Office 90% 0 $18.00 $0 Industrial 0 100% 0 $5.40 $0 TOTAL 0 0 $0.00 $0 RETAIL TOTAL NET/ LEASABLE ANNUAL ANNUAL SF GROSS SF RENT/SF INCOME Retail-Ground Floor 11,087 100% 11,087 $18.90 $209,544 TOTAL 11,087 11,087 $18.90 $20.9,544 PARKING #OF RENT/ LEASABLE ANNUAL OPERATING ANNUAL SPACES SPACE SF RENT/SF COSTS/SF INCOME Housing Parking 114 $0 0 $0.00 $0 Income Property Parking 30 $75 9,380 $2.88 $0.29 $24,300 TOTAL 144 $14 9,380 $2.59 $24,300 1/Assumes housing spaces sold to condominium buyers at$20,000 per space. SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE Area/ Total Basis Unit Cost Cost Acquisition Cost: 10,890 $10.00 $108,900 $108,900 Construction Costs: Site Work Ind. Construction Estimate 58,425 $160.00 $9,348,000 Design/Escalation Contingency 58,425 $9.14 $533,922 Ground Floor Retail 11,087 $120.00 $1,330,440 Structured Parking 144 $30,000 $4,320,000 TOTAL $15,532,362 Soft Costs Architecture/Engineering Studies 1.0% $155,324 Developer Fee 3.0% $465,971 Architecture/Engineering/Interior Design 6.0% $931,942 City Permit/Fee Allowance 2.0% $310,647 Other Soft Costs 15.0% $2,329,854 Subtotal $4,193,738 Total Soft Costs $4,193,738 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $19,835,000 SOFT COSTS % 21.1% SOURCE:Howard S.Wright and Johnson Gardner LLC HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUMS TEN-YEAR CASH FLOW- INCOME PROPERTY COMPONENTS s,.s,ra.e YEAR YEAR I 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 I YEAR 4 YEAR 5 I YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 I YEAR 9 YEAR 10 Gross Scheduled Income/Residential $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Scheduled Income/Office $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Scheduled Income/Retail 209,544 215,831 222,306 228,975 235,844 242,919 250,207 257.713 265.444 273,408 Gross Scheduled Income/Parking 24.300 25,029 25,780 26,553 27.350 28,170 29,015 29,886 30.783 31,706 Miscellaneous Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V,c.ncr at Collection Lou (12_8,6141_ (24.086) (24,809) (?5.553) (26,319) (27,109) (27.922). (28,760) (29.6231 (30.511) EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $105,230 $216,774 $223,277 $229,975 $236,874 $243,981 $251,300 $258,839 $266,604 $274,602 (-)Operating Expenses-Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (-)Operating Expenses-Commercial (566)- (566) (566) (566) (566). (566) (566) (5.66). (5.66)_ (566) NET OPERATING INCOME $104,664 $216,208 $222,711 $229,409 $236,309 $243,415 $250,734 $258,273 $266,038 $274.037 (-)Annual Debt Service 0 (170,073) (170.073) (170.073) (170,073) (170.073) (170,073) (170,073) (170.073) (170,073) CASH FLOW(PRE-TAX) $104,664 $46,135 $52,638 $59,337 $66,236 $73,342 $80,662 $88,201 $95,966 $103.964 Total Developer Cash Flow $104,664 $46.135 $52.638 $59,337 S66.236 $73,342 $80,662 $88,201 $95,966 $103,964 Return on Equity $370,%(ic) 28.23% 12.44% 14.20% 16.00% 17.86% 19.78% 21.76% 23.79% 25.88% 28.04% Present Value $1,308,302 $2,702,599 $2,783,889 $2,867,618 $2,953,858 $3,042,686 $3.134,179 $3.228,417 $3,325,481 $3,425,458 Cap Rare 8.00% Primary Debt Coverage Ratio 1.27 1.31 1.35 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.61 Return on Investment(NOI/Cost) 1.09% 1.12% 1.16% 1.19% 1.23% 1.26% 1.30% 1.34% 1.38% Assumed Rent and Cost Escalator I 3.0% SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC MID RISE CONDOMINIUMS W/GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 64 Dwelling Units MID RISE CONDOMINIUMS SUMMARY INFORMATION May 20, 2005 AREA SUMMARY: CONSTRUCTION LOAN ASSUMPTIONS: Parcel Size(SF) 43,560 Construction Loan Amount $19,772,937 Building Size(SF) 169,500 Interest Rate 6.00% Efficiency Ratio 52% Term (months) 18 Saleable and Leasable Area(SF) 87,646 Drawdown Factor 0.55 Residential Units 64 Construction Interest $922,902 Density(Units/Acre) 64.00 Construction Loan Fee(%) 1.00% Construction Loan Fee($) $197,729 INCOME SUMMARY: PERMANENT FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS: Total Average Gross Sales DCR LTV SF Price/SF Income Interest Rate 7.50% 7.50% Residential Units 73,390 $349.93 $25,681,550 Term(Years) 30 30 Gross Income Debt-Coverage Ratio 1.25 Office/Industrial Space 0 $0.00 $0 Loan-to-Value 75% Retail 3,000 $18.90 $56,700 Stabilized NOI (Year 2) $79,439 $79,439 Parking 11,256 2.590618 $29,160 CAP Rate 8.00% Vacancy/Collection Loss ($8,586) Supportable Mortgage $757,413 $744,742 TOTAL 14,256 $5.42 $77,274 Annual Debt Service $63,551 $62,488 COST SUMMARY: MEASURES OF RETURN: Per SF Total Indicated Value @ Stablization $25,133,646 Acquisition Cost $2.57 $435,600 Value/Cost 121% Direct Construction Cost $94.71 $16,053,375 Return on Investment(ROI) 13.2% Other Construction $0.00 $0 Return on Sales(ROS) 17.5% Soft Costs $25.57 $4,334,411 Internal Rate of Return(Income Component) 49.0% Modified Internal Rate of Return @ 8%Reinventment 29.1% 1 ESTIMATION OF VIABILITY GAP TOTAL i $122.85 $20,823,386 Targeted Return on Saks 15.00% EQUITY ASSUMPTIONS: Calculated ROS 17.5% Total Development Cost $20,823,386 Calculated Gap-Condos(includes parking) ($502,119) (-) Permanent Loan (511,774) Targeted Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% (-)Applied Condomium Revenue (20,221,299) Calculated ROI 13.2% Calculated Gap-Income Components ($280,570) Total Calculated Gap ($782,688) Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 15.0% $90,313 Overall Gap as%of Development Cost -3.8% SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC I MID RISE CONDOMINIUMS INCOME ASSUMPTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM NO. OF TOTAL SALES PARKING AVG PRICE/ TOTAL UNITS SF PRICE/S.F. SALES 1/ UNIT INCOME Floor 1 11 12,710 $300 $330,000 $376,636 $4,143,000 Floors 2-4 40 45,510 $325 $1,200,000 $399,769 $15,990,750 Floor 5 13 15,170 $340 $390,000 $426,754 $5,547,800 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 64 73,390 $324 $1,920,000 $401,274 $25,681,550 OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TOTAL NET/ LEASABLE ANNUAL ANNUAL SF GROSS SF RENT/SF INCOME Office 90% 0 $18.00 $0 Industrial 0 100% 0 $5.40 $0 TOTAL 0 0 $0.00 $0 RETAIL TOTAL NET/ LEASABLE ANNUAL ANNUAL SF GROSS SF _ RENT/SF INCOME Retail-Ground Floor 3,000 100% 3,000 $18.90 $56,700 TOTAL 3,000 3,000 $18.90 $56,700 PARKING #OF RENT/ LEASABLE ANNUAL OPERATING ANNUAL SPACES SPACE SF RENT/SF COSTS/SF INCOME Housing Parking 96 $0 0 $0.00 $0 Income Property Parking 36 $75 11,256 $2.88 $0.29 $29,160 TOTAL 132 $18 11,256 $2.59 $29,160 1/Assumes housing spaces sold to condominium buyers at$20,000 per space. SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC MID RISE CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE Area/ Total Basis Unit Cost Cost Acquisition Cost: 43,560 $10.00 $435,600 $435,600 Construction Costs: Site Work Incl. Construction Estimate 89,500 $125.00 $11,187,500 Design/Escalation Contingency 89,500 $6.43 $575,875 Ground Floor Retail 3,000 $110.00 $330,000 Structured Parking 132 $30,000 $3,960,000 TOTAL $16,053,375 Soft Casts Architecture/Engineering Studies 1.0% $160,534 Developer Fee 3.0% $481,601 Architecture/Engineering/Interior Design 6.0% $963,203 City Permit/Fee Allowance 2.0% $321,068 Other Soft Costs 15.0% $2,408,006 Subtotal $4,334,411 Total Soft Costs $4,334,411 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $20,823,386 SOFT COSTS % 20.8% SOURCE:Howard S.Wright and Johnson Gardner LLC 1 MID RISE CONDOMINIUMS TEN-YEAR CASH FLOW- INCOME PROPERTY COMPONENTS LeaJr-up Stabilised YEAR YEAR 1 1 YEAR 2 1 YEAR3 1 YEAR 4 ] YEAR 5 I YEAR 6 1 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 I YEAR 9 I YEAR 10 Gross Scheduled Income/Residential $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Scheduled Income/Office $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Scheduled Income/Retail 56,700 58,401 60,153 61,958 63,816 65,731 67.703 69,734 71,826 73,981 Gross Scheduled Income/Parking 29,160 30,035 30,936 31,864 32,820 33,804 34,819 35,863 36,939 38,047 Miscellaneous Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy&Collection Loss (47.223) (8.844) (9.109) (9.982) (9,664.1. (9.9541 00.252) (10.560) (10.876) (11.203). EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $38,637 $79.592 $81,980 $84,439 $86,973 $89,582 $92,269 $95,037 $97,888 $100,825 (-)Operating Expenses-Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (-)Operating Expenses-Commercial (153) (154) (153) (.53). (153). (153) (153) (153) (153) (1531 NET OPERATING INCOME $38,484 $79,439 S81,827 $84,286 $86,819 $89,429 $92,116 $94,884 $97,735 $100,672 (-)Annual Debt Service 0 (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) (42,941) CASH FLOW(PRE-TAX) $38,484 $36,498 $38,886 $41,346 $43,879 $46,488 $49,175 $51,943 $54,795 $57,731 Total Developer Cash Flow $38.484 $36,498 $38,886 $41,346 $43,879 $46,488 $49,175 $51,943 $54,795 $57,731 Return on Equity $90,313 42.61% 40.41% 43.06% 45.78% 48.59% 51.47% 54.45% 57.51% 60.67% 63.92% Present Value $481,049 $992,989 $1,022,836 $1,053,579 $1,085,243 $1,117,858 $1,151,451 $1,186,052 $1,221,691 $1,258,399 Cap Rare 8.00% Primary Debt Coverage Ratio 1.85 1.91 1.96 2.02 2.08 2.15 2.21 2.28 2.34 Return on Investment(NOI/Cost) 0.38% 0.39% 0.40% 0.42% 0.43% 0.44% 0.46% 0.47% 0.48% Assumed Rent and Cost Escalator I 3.0% SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC LOW RISE CONDOMINIUMS W/GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 25 Dwelling Units LOW RISE CONDOMINIUMS SUMMARY INFORMATION May 20,2005 AREA SUMMARY: CONSTRUCTION LOAN ASSUMPTIONS: Parcel Size(SF) 87,120 Construction Loan Amount $9,601,928 Building Size(SF) 127,000 Interest Rate 6.00% Efficiency Ratio 32%Term(months) 18 Saleable and Leasable Area(SF) 41,081 Drawdown Factor 0.58 Residential Units 25 Construction Interest $473,933 Density(Units/Acre) 12.50 Construction Loan Fee(%) 1.00% Construction Loan Fee($) $96,019 INCOME SUMMARY: PERMANENT FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS: Total Average Gross Sales DCR LTV SF Price/SF Income Interest Rate 7.50% 7.50% Residential Units 36,080 $339.05 $12,232,900 Term(Years) 30 30 Gross Income Debt-Coverage Ratio 1.25 Office/Industrial Space 0 $0.00 $0 Loan-to-Value 75% Retail 2,500 $18.90 $47,250 Stabilized NOI(Year 2) $49,680 $49,680 Parking 2,501 2.590618 $6,480 CAP Rate 8.00% Vacancy/Collection Loss ($5,373) Supportable Mortgage $473,676 $465.751 TOTAL 5,001 $9.67 $48,357 Annual Debt Service $39,744 $39,079 COST SUMMARY: MEASURES OF RETURN: Per SF Total Indicated Value @ Stablization $12,119,928 Acquisition Cost $6.86 $871,200 Value/Cost 123% Direct Construction Cost $55.68 $7,071,660 Return on Investment(ROI) 9.9% Other Construction $0.00 $0 Return on Sales(ROS) 21.0% Soft Costs $15.03 $1,909,348 Internal Rate of Return(Income Component) 29.8% Modified Internal Rate of Return @ 8%Reinventment 22.1% ESTIMATION OF VIABILITY GAP TOTAL $77.58 $9,852,208 Targeted Return on Sales 15.00% EQUITY ASSUMPTIONS: Calculated ROS 21.0% Total Development Cost $9,852,208 Calculated Gap-Condos(includes parking) ($564,002) (-) Permanent Loan (427,253) Targeted Return on Investment(ROI) 9.0% (-)Applied Condomium Revenue (9,349,558) Calculated ROI 9.9% Calculated Gap-Income Components ($49,351) Total Calculated Gap ($613,354) Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 15.0% $75,398 Overall Gap as%of Development Cost -6.2% SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC LOW RISE CONDOMINIUMS INCOME ASSUMPTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM NO. OF TOTAL SALES PARKING AVG PRICE/ TOTAL UNITS SF PRICE/S.F. SALES 1/ UNIT INCOME Floor 1 7 10,660 $290 $246,400 $476,829 $3,337,800 Floors 2-3 18 25,420 $325 $633,600 $494,172 $8,895,100 TOTAL 25 36,080 $315 $880,000 $489,316 $12,232,900 OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TOTAL NET/ LEASABLE ANNUAL ANNUAL SF GROSS SF RENT/SF INCOME Office 90% 0 $18.00 $0 Industrial 0 100% 0 $5.40 $0 TOTAL 0 0 $0.00 $0 RETAIL TOTAL NE'li LEASABLE ANNUAL ANNUAL SF GROSS SF RENT/SF INCOME Retail-Ground Floor 2,500 100% 2,500 $18.90 $47,250 TOTAL 2,500 2,500 $18.90 $47,250 PARKING #OF RENT/ LEASABLE ANNUAL OPERATING ANNUAL SPACES SPACE SF RENT/SF COSTS/SF INCOME Housing Parking 44 $0 0 $0.00 $0 Income Property Parking 8 $75 2,501 $2.88 $0.29 $6,480 TOTAL 52 $10 2,501 $2.59 $6,480 1/Assumes housing spaces sold to condominium buyers at$20,000 per space. SOURCE: Johnson Gardner LLC LOW RISE CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE Area/ Total Basis Unit Cost Cost 1 Acquisition Cost: 87,120 $10.00 $871,200 $871,200 Construction Costs: Site Work Incl. Construction Estimate 41,660 $120.00 $4,999,200 Design/Escalation Contingency 41,660 $6.30 $262,460 Ground Floor Retail 2,500 $100.00 $250,000 Structured Parking 52 $30,000 $1,560,000 TOTAL $7,071,660 Soft Costs Architecture/Engineering Studies 1.0% $70,717 Developer Fee 3.0% $212,150 Architecture/Engineering/Interior Design 6.0% $424,300 City Permit/Fee Allowance 2.0% $141,433 Other Soft Costs 15.0% $1,060,749 Subtotal $1,909,348 Total Soft Costs $1,909,348 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $9,852,208 SOFT COSTS % 19.4% SOURCE:Howard S.Wright and Johnson Gardner LLC rm.... LOW RISE CONDOMINIUMS TEN-YEAR CASH FLOW- INCOME PROPERTY COMPONENTS Le-up Stabilized YEAR YEAR 1 I YEAR 2 I YEAR 3 I YEAR 4 I YEAR 5 I YEAR 6 I YEAR 7 I YEAR 8 I YEAR 9 I YEAR 10 Gross Scheduled Income/Residential $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gross Scheduled Income/Office $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 Gross Scheduled Income/Retail 47.250 48,668 50,128 51,631 53,180 54,776 56,419 58,112 59.855 61.651 Gross Scheduled Income/Parking 6,480 6,674 6,875 7,081 7,293 7,512 7,737 7.970 8,209 8,455 Miscellaneous Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy&Collection Loss (29.552)_ (5.5341 (5.70.01 (5.8Z1). (6,047) (U 2291 (6A161 (6.608) (6 8-06)- (7.011) EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $24,179 $49,808 $51,302 $52.841 $54,426 $56,059 $57,741 $59,473 $61,257 $63,095 (-)Operating Expenses-Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (-)Operating Expenses-Commercial (1781 (128) (178) (128). (128)_ (128). (128) (128). (1281 (128) NET OPERATING INCOME $24,051 $49,680 $51,174 $52,713 $54.299 $55.931 $57,613 $59,345 $61,130 $62,967 (-)Annual Debt Service 0 (39,079) (39,079) (39,079) (39.079) (39.079) (39,079) (39,079) (39,079) (39,079) CASH FLOW(PRE-TAX) $24,051 $10,601 $12,095 $13,634 $15,219 $16,852 $18,534 $20,266 $22,050 $23.888 Total Developer Cash Flow $24,051 $10.601 $12.095 $13,634 $15,219 $16,852 $18,534 $20,266 $22,050 $23,888 Return on Equity $75,398 31.90% 14.06% 16.04% 18.08% 20.19% 22.35% 24.58% 26.88% 29.25% 31.68% Present Value $300,637 $621,002 $639,680 $658,918 $678,733 $699,143 $720,165 $741,818 $764,120 $787,092 Cap Rate 8.00% Primary Debt Coverage Ratio 1.27 1.31 1.35 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.61 Return on Investment(NOI/Cost) 0.50% 0.52% 0.54% 0.55% 0.57% 0.58% 0.60% 0.62% 0.64% Assumed Rent and Cost Escalator I 3.0% SOURCE:Johnson Gardner LLC DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: Lake Oswego Foothills District TAC Members FROM: Carl Springer DATE: May 31, 2005 SUBJECT: Transportation Performance Findings P/A No. 04199-000 We evaluated the transportation system impacts associated with the proposed Foothills District Plan development, and we report our findings to date in the following memorandum. Site Trip Generation and Distribution Three alternative forms of the site were developed through the planning process. The assumed number of housing units,commercial and office space were evaluated to estimate the expected peak hour trip generation for each alternative. The trip rates were based on the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers published information, with an additional factor to account for the expected higher transit usage for this central site. Because of the proximity to several fixed bus routes and a planned streetcar service, the standard trip rates were reduced by 10 percent during commute hours. The resulting trip tallies for each scenario are suminanzed in Table 1 below. The total number of one-way vehicle trips(in and out of the site) ranged from 376 for Alternative 3 up to 602 for Alternative 1. Table 1: Foothills District Trip Generation in PM Peak Hour Alternative Total Number of Vehicle Trip Ends 1 602 2 576 3 376 The trip patterns to and from the site were developed using the Metro travel demand model inforation,which accounts for trip patterns throughout the region. The Foothills site was isolated during the peak hour of travel, and the resulting patterns showed the distibution shown in Table 2 on the next page. The majority of site traffic is expected to travel to and from the west via A Avenue (35%) , the next highest proportion of trips would be to and from the north on State Street(25%), and the remainder of the site traffic would have DKS 2 YEA _. 1400 S.W.5^,Avenue Suite 500 Portland,OR 97201 5502 (503)243-3500 (503)243-1934 fax www riksasstvriatas ram DKS Associates TRANSI'ORfATION SOLUTIONS origins or destinations south on State Street(20%)or on McVey Avenue (15%). Approximately 5% of the site trips were expected to start or end within the immediate study area during the peak hours of travel. Table 2: Foothills District Trip Distribution (PM Peak Hour) Origin !Destination Percentage of Site Trips West on A Avenue 35% North on State Street(OR 43) 25% South on State Street past McVey 20% West on McVey Avenue 15% Local 5% Performance Implications on State Street Traffic volume forecasts were made for 2025 to account for planned growth around the region. Since the 2020 forecasts, significant additional employment and housing growth has been anticipated in two site that areas that contribute significant traffic to the study area. The first is the Foothills site itself,which previously was targeted for high density employment center, given its central location and access to quality transit service. The second site is the Stafford Triangle area which is being considered for significant housing growth (up to 8,000 new units). For the purposes of this study, the previous plans for high density employment within the Foothills District was adjusted to be more compatible with the current plan alternatives. However, no adjustment was made for the Statfford area, despite the planned growth not being incorporated into the Clackamas County comprehensive plan, to date. The volume forecasts along State Street were compared with recent peak hour counts,as summarized below. Table C' State Street Traffic Volumes (PM Peak Hour Two-Way Total) State Street 2005 2025 Without Percent Growth South of Foothills Project Terwilliger 2,700 3,700 37% "A"Avenue 3,400 5,100 50% North Shore 3,200 4,700 47% McVey 2,300 3,100 35% The 2025 future No Build(without the Foothills Project alternatives) shows major traffic volume increases on State Street, ranging from 35 to 50% over 20 years. Project Name 2 Date DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Intersection Performance As shown in Table 4, the 2025 conditions during the PM peak hour will degrade to heavy congestion at most of the intersections, most notably"A"Avenue, Foothills and North Shore. Scaling back the development intensity in Foothills would reduce congestions levels, but further steps need to be taken to work towards the performance targets set by ODOT and Metro. These could include: • Higher transit services, especially those with dedicated right-of-way. • Traffic signal coordination • Reversible travel lanes, or additional travel lanes for north-south through capacity. • Restricted side street turning movements during peak periods. • Implement improvement to major regional routes that parallel State Street (OR 43), including Interstate 5. Findings 1. Relative to the High Employment Plan for downtown, the Foothills District alternative generate less traffic and have less impacts on the system. 2. The Foothills alternative plans have very similar impacts relateive to each other. 3. The intersection of State/Terwillger will require a traffic signal to function adequately during peak hours. 4. Several key locations (State/A, State/North Shore) are expected to have severe congestion with other potential growth, and alternate solutions need to be considered by the city. . J. I x-drive:projects:2004:p04199-000(lo foothills district):summary memo.doc • Project Name 3 Date 1,., (9. Lake Oswego Foothills District Plan ii� Table 4: Summary of Traffic Performance Findings AlP 2004 Existing PM Peak 2025 High 2025 Moderate 2025 Moderate+ 2025 Moderate+ 2025 Moderate+ Conditions Employment Employment Foothills Alt. 1 Foothills Alt. 2 Foothills Aft. 3 ODOT Target State Street Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Intersection with V/C Ratio Service V/C Ratio Service V/C Ratio Service V/C Ratio Service V/C Ratio Service V/C Ratio Service V/C ratio McVey 0.78 B 1.00 D 0.98 D 0.98 D 0.98 D 0.96 D 1,00 Middle Crest 0.76 A 1.19 F 1.14 F 1.12 E 1.12 E 1.11 E 1.00 Leonard -- F/B -- F/C - F/C F/C -- F/C -- F/C 1.00 N. Shore 0.79 B 1.30 F 1.25 F 1.23 F 1.22 F 1.21 F 1.10 Foothills 0.68 A 1.17 E 1.07 D 1.02 C 1.02 C 0.99 C 1.10 ._ AAve 0.93 C 1.30 F 1.28 F 1.27 F 1.27 F 1.26 F 1.10 B Ave 0.78 B 0.92 C 0.91 C 0.90 C 0.90 C 0.90 C 1.10 D Ave -- F/B -- F/C -- F/C 0.76 B -- F/C -- F/C 1.10 Terwillinger -- F/B -- F/C - F/C -- F/C 0.97 D 0.97 D 1.10 DKS Associates Volume-capacity ratio for all 2025 scenarios.xls: Overview 5/31/05 at 1:30 PM , I I FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN IDraft Alternatives Evaluation and Refinement ITask 5—ODOT—TGM ATA #13397 I Prepared fora City of Lake Oswego IMay 31,2005 I I a eim ! u ' - _a II* Ili IT. .. 1767JI I _ in t '_,TP,L 14111441 .- i ' ism 1 t` . -- - 4 #.7:: _ , �m e,I. 1,� a kl ,IT: tie �, E •17�. / ,..,:_ -:* ,t.,....41...." ‘.0111,0x41171::.: , lira* i mmit bi. - , -4 w Ada Alp 44,1 I 1 r.4 _.M _ 1 ---- IP I tip.t.VKT(L c ivcs2 'lobe : __ r 1 am, - .. - (_ h..... m,�. i 1: 1 alk.R koel'Mie Iewp I X11tt/19liI Iva AEEIWEIHIT P1A R�ltO-= a I1IEMI S(DAIIU I MS Caw y d We ewer ''I 7 DOW I I oa IIn association with DKS Associates I ECO Northwest Johnson Gardner URS Corporation Project Management, City of Lake Oswego ' Sidaro Sin,Project Manager Dennis Egner,Long-Range Planning Manager ' Project Management, ODOT TGM Program Ross Kevlin,TGM Grant Manager ' Technical Advisory Committee City of Lake Oswego Hamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner ' Elizabeth Papadopoulus,Principal Engineer Jane Heisler,Assistant City Manager Robert Galante,Redevelopment Director Tri Met Alan Lehto,Manager of Transit Corridor Planning ' ODOT Ross Kevlin,ODOT TGM Program ' Portland.BES ' Amin Wahab PGE ' Art Krueger Consultant Team ' Otak, Ineoiporated Tom Litster,Urban Design,Consultant Project Manager Joe Dills,Senior Planner ' Sinan Gumusoglu,Architect Steve Dixon,Landscape Architect Mandy Flett,Project Assistant ' DKS Carl Springer,Transportation Planner,Consultant Contract Manager ' John Boskett,Transportation Planner ECO Northwest ' Becky Steckler,Research Analyst Terry Moore,Principal ' Johnson Gardner Jerry Johnson,Principal 1 UTable of Contents ' Introduction 1 Scenario 1 3 Scenario 2 1 Scenario 3 ' Public Improvement Costs 3' ' Transportation Analysis 38 Financial Analysis 39 1 1 1 t Introduction ' The transportation and development scenarios evaluated in this report are illustrative of a series of workshops with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Each development scenario is essentially a kit of parts with regard to transportation and land use. It is the intent of this task to identify a preferred set of transportation,land use,and open space elements to move forward in the plan refinement process. It is possible that specific elements or entirely new development scenarios may emerge from CAC and public comment. As the results of analysis,along with input from the CAC and the public,are fully evaluated,elements from each scenario can be ' reconfigured to create plan refinements. It is expected these refinements will lead to a preferred plan during Task 6 of the project. The CAC workshops identified opportunities and constraints and a set of desired development themes for the Foothills District. The endorsed themes were: • Transit-Supportive. • Accessible and Pedestrian Friendly. ' . Preserve Views. • Unique District. • Natural Resource Enhancement. ' . Open Space Focal Points. • Sustainable Design Principles. ' Three draft development scenarios were reviewed with CAC, each of which embodies the endorsed development themes. However, there are significant comparative questions with regard to some themes. Transit-Supportive—Whether the scenarios are more or less transit-supportive is partly a ' question of land use intensity reflected in the amount of commercial space and the number of housing units. Since Lake Oswego will largely be a trip origin station for future streetcar service,higher amounts of residential development is generally considered more transit- supportive. The mix of housing types with regard to income and age is also a likely factor in actual transit ridership. ' Natural Resource Enhancement—Each scenario affords opportunities for natural resource enhancement,particularly with regard to Tryon Creek and a"daylighted"connection to the ' upper reaches of the creek. Scenarios with the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant relocation,provide the most physical space for enhancement and public access to the environment of the creek. However,as currently illustrated, these scenarios require vehicle ' bridge connections across the creek with the potential for visual and environmental impacts to the riparian zone. L•\Project\12600\12699\REPORTS\Tuk5\Foothills lltstnct Refinement Plan Revuedmfdoc 1 1 • ' Open Space Focal Points—Each scenario affords opportunities for significant new open spaces and civic amenities such as the Willamette Steps. Key preferential questions include: • Balance of open space types between paved plazas/steps vs softer green spaces. • Best locations for open space as focal points for the district. • Amount of land for open space compared to land for development. • Financial feasibility needs for development land vs. open space. ' Significant variations for transportation solutions are: ' • Location of a second Highway 43 access point. • Character of the internal street system. • One option (Scenario 4) explored a northbound couplet for Highway 43 rather than a ' collector street for the district. No conceptual land use plan was developed for this option. ' Two key development assumptions are: ' • Whether or not the existing Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is relocated out of the district. Two scenarios assume it remains in district and two scenarios assume relocation out of district. • Relocation of existing PGE substations. All scenarios assume relocation;however,in three of the scenarios, the substations could remain and the development potential recalculated based on one less building site. ' The endorsed development scenarios have been to further feasibilityanalysis as P subjected Y part of this task of the project. Feasibility analysis includes: Transportation— to be completed. ' Potential Public Improvement Costs—Potential public infrastructure costs are assumed to include a portion of the costs new street costs and costs for bridges,railroad crossing,traffic signals, ' replacement of existing sewer/water services, franchise utilities,Willamette Steps, and new public parks. These costs were utilized in the financial analysis. ' Potential City costs for relocation of the treatment plant or substations were not included as public infrastructure costs. Including them in the financial analysis would have skewed the ' analysis in a misleading way with regard to development feasibility within the district. However, these will be substantial costs if and when agreements for relocation are reached. Financial Analysis and Potential Phasing— to be completed. L•\Projeet\12600\12699\REPORTS\Tasks\Foothills Distntt Refinonent Plan Rcsasedm1doc 2 Scenario I Development Scenario I ' This scenario is the most intensive overall with regard to building height, commercial development,and potential for housing: • 1,070 residential units. • 70,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office. ' • Range of building heights is three to ten stories • Access to Highway 43 at the existing Foothills Road intersection and a new intersection at D Avenue. Key development assumptions are: . Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment remains. • PGE substations have been relocated. If the substations were not relocated,one building site south of the Willamette Steps would be eliminated,reducing the potential number of residential units by approximately 30. • No new development west of the railroad tracks. Key urban design features: • Willamette Steps Plaza. • Main Street. • Willamette Boulevard. • State Street Esplanade. • District gateways. • Street pattern that reflects the downtown grid. ' • Pedestrian-friendly streets and streetcar station. • Open space buffers for Oswego Pointe and the treatment plant. • Pathway and open space linkages. • Preserved view corridors. L•\Pcoject\126W\12699\REPORTS\Tasks\Foothills Distract Refinement Plan Rcv sedmf doc 3 I �\ .- f _ __._J. ) l , ' 1) i ce))' .��.' ; f '� AY \ \,\\ - ..._ _ ___ ..______ r__. „.., ____ , I qta—C'- „ isi y/ .....fit .,,, s„,,.!, v , 1 it Afil ri /L,;,. ---,,, ......, _ weer. , _r: 1111 „.._ 1 i 4. -- \I mot_(__, lift _-- -— L 6. -� f " __- '<`"_".� z: 8' / $�-(ti r--2--- w�S TaG aiDas f %i I srerrS `--------- c 1 _ _ T sr acre ) �'�= / i = ��r" f i um k ,., ....11-----Lir,. .,\-- .67,.(Tii,.._.,_.:7-111;t7....,,,...: -If_ 7 <-4--.., ___a.--R 1•.. .. - • & ) A. .::lit-__.... • . . ' -....Alt_27t. Ink 1"..r.",,i....-- ,‘\'‘.\12:7:: II° , ft/ I\ A; .,ram - /` Fov�ftlu RL14D - rJ►f :..• ._ - �, r.✓. `- ..Ir,tir1 ... • - /. A Milt �' 1. s r = 7 ww 2; � +�' f .\, ,'�.i, , - �11► �� .t �:., t: !. ems. �• g> +' i'� .r '� ors f, '. la _ M I t'�, ! �'` 11• my ,. ...Ill". it .C s Y. jv .: 1 :{ �� —_'. F! - - ,4 a ` '"ar�,atal srrrryr et.�•�ta - - li. aa-.,AMU,- r _,�rrrwr• 1: ,!tia. h ,� �, �. ; .i,, 1.7.1.1.:41 , -,' . !-t, ..,1_, _ • � Av ♦ �--,...- yl,,,. , r t ry i f' �f�fi `-�1 i si r :1,----- _, , „�% �.�� `4� 10., _if 11 IIPI +' O7 �' .y'� i r -,a /` �:P _ S . ��'i�'' I Irt-1 I ji ' lis ;� I� r tawir , ? ( s \ itok• C\,_ i .1', 2 III. ./ / ii.,:----- , fie r' A• •1 t i ���-` �� � `� �: ecix•o+s- ill i t' 'At - _ �I ,: .. - :.lir_astL4iTiRge ,.'{ilt \\ 1 r 1) J • '11, '', t - \ 4 zi J (1441/1 �?; 4, r� 4--. a-E steer Er— Y, C\\ sl) 9111 :s. ‘ ,, �;' . e;: At N 1� t i 1 — (' lii •••••••,---- ..-- -a ir, -_,,,,,,. —.'`�1 . �, lif _ .., . , a ":4;11..."4:1,,, .:. 2; 4-4'4 '1"i (") 1 ..' ' ------------dr I I '---- r‘ i \i, .2 ---___ 1. / l J '`^ .�r�v/1►*1J _.. �� / j t�rr _ 1 ``..vim/` l `�_ \.._ \ �` '� r Ter: f \ : 1 1® .: :1.,; ,1:1) I #' i 4-40, mit , I • Cl ilit \ > sv+tW srvbs- G- �,a.:...-, ) \ 1 f \� f F6srt.,r,wT fI4 J ' - l � efi ,,. �` x , r f J+ / C F�l V - 7 a .f a t•. W l l 1-�11�.T�i V 1 II r/V-------.' - ao7,1I iff f ,�,_. , i„ , MW,f� AW - Legend Development Summary f ,.. Residential 1010 Units I _ 6. .. Commercial/Retail/Office 10,000 sq.U. *.-- Structured Parking 1900 spaces \` ?". `� r DEVELOPMENT PLAN In Association with: I FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN DKSAssociatesAi ECONorthwest ° 6 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO I U7 RCorp. "e` City of Lake Oswego April 7,2005 I I I I I I Ie';• --- . . ' . • . "r 1 I Wasalliolipwl U....repo...O. . limas flolm . I .• . • I I -1 . . _ '2' _ . . . ..c., ' .71 ....‘ ..,.. , . t . SI • . , . . • , , • I ., i 4•••••11,1mComl.d. War 1.•••611•61mall •••-.-S•••, Om.rte.Cosor--,.. 11,.....an...a %tome R•owl .• i Fbadras Renew,. ill . ..4 Ripamoll. kill. ' - i A II • • I INNLAMMITIE 1101111.EVAPB ELEVATION-Looking North k*. . _ .......... ! I OM vEk VEW V.E A vVir C.C14:11)00. Cali:3,35 IX.110014 CORM,. COMM - YIEWOVIIIIXIIholtIlmOm•limo . . , . . .- . _ r 4 . . ....- • . •• I • 4 . •-'..1,.' 7,-...it- - ' OB. I - I . '.,, kw. . . lie, ^- . _ li m m.melam C lams. " Mb Rondo ham .- Powlele Ro - i .1.I.• 4 Av.,.Mb hiNINYMMIIII 'MUM*lig s - Noillogli ••,..,„.• we Pl.-As:4r,est 0 Ammo or:resin*.IIMII III•sortem Me Mite/ems hitorm• I STAIN STREET ELEVATION-Lookng East ....MI, I I I I I I ___ I 1 I 1 ' CORRIDOR VIEW CORRIDOR 1 I 1 Oswego Pointe Partdng ' New Street Parking Court/ Residential Willamette Res dermal Oswego Pointe Private Open Space Boulevard OSWEGO POINTE SECTION - Looking West S ax r 1 1 Scenario Site Diagrams ' Building Height—The range of building height is from three to ten stories. The tallest buildings are organized around Main Street and the western end of Willamette Boulevard. The development benefits are: ' • Proximity to streetcar of high residential density. • Proximity to State Street access points for greatest number of vehicle trips. ' • Reinforce street hierarchy. • Use site topography to construct multi-level parking structures. ' Unobstructed Views—Downtown street corridors at A and D Avenues offer fully unobstructed views of the river and Mt. Hood. The B Avenue view corridor is defined by Main Street buildings set 180 feet apart and by Willamette Boulevard. The C Avenue view corridor is somewhat mote restricted. Street Cinwlation—The street pattern reflects the existing downtown street grid and block size and has been designed to allow expansion in the future onto the wastewater treatment plant ' site. Street hierarchy is defined by two streets. • Main Street connecting the Foothills Road to the D Avenue intersection. Main Street t provides unique character opportunities along the central two to three blocks.This character would be reinforced by the Willamette Steps Plaza and commercial/retail uses. Main Street would also provide street frontage for high density of residential uses and in ' close proximity to a future streetcar station • Willamette Boulevard.The boulevard is an organizing spine for the district,with retail uses, a riverfront restaurant and residential uses creating an active pedestrian environment and a strong connection to the riverfront. ' Pedestrian Circulation—The Willamette Steps Plaza would be the primary pedestrian entry into the district. A second pedestrian entry is from A Avenue,passing through the linear park and along State Street. Both entries provide links directly to the State Street Esplanade and ' offer strong linkages between downtown, the Foothills District, and the riverfront. Primary on-street pedestrian circulation involves Main Street and Willamette Boulevard and ' would be activated by both commercial and residential uses. The pathway system includes: • Kincaid Curlicue connecting directly to Main Street. ' • Riverfront pathway. 1 L\Project\12600\12699\REPORTS'assk5 Poodulis Dntacr Refinement Phn R,,scdnfdoc 1 Scenario 1 • A future Tryon Creek trail to the upper reaches to Tryon Creek. Development of this trail would require completion of a project to"daylight"Tryon Creek as it passes under 1 the highway, probably including a bridge structure to replace the existing culvert. • State Street Esplanade within the linear open space at the west edge of the district.The open space would provide a range of design options. Natural Resources/Open Space—Tryon Creek and Foothills Park are fully protected. New public open space amount is the least of the scenarios. Open spaces include: 1 • A linear open space along State Street. 1 I . Willamette Steps Plaza. This would be a civic focal point for the district. • Green space buffers for Oswego Pointe and the wastewater treatment plant. • Roofs of parking structures could be developed as building courtyards or rainwater gardens. These would be private open spaces visible from State Street. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:\Roject\12600\12699\REIX>RTS\Tasks\FoothIls Duo Refincmcm Plan Rrv.sedmf-3oc 8 1 11 ELE fti il 1 5.. [ lair -..... — 1 ---.. .. ig. 1 li , . 1 MO i ill 4111% 4 III 4 lir 1111 NE a I 7..0. ' ' 1 . 1 r in , ... irell_ ✓ im• M awe '- i a � III P ir, ri Rig iIy7a NMI 4, . 4, „...„ 111111111 �� .>x 8 It _ to _ — 7 4,..P la 0' 'is I s;„.. L.4 I ___,/, ,,, y ,, p' 11111_— III : r1111,4°7 ) : , __ , .�# 4,;* r " f L ...... , •a Al*\ ,-- . -do . c ; 1 ()), I • i 1 \ { ....- 1.. 1 Vow" ( 1 0. in 1-: , .. ? 4b % %It •t1'" ill 111 Ng ill lip 2+ • Y 1 aimC mm rnpi ) '. . _ -+ r ,,.� i„, - - 0 J FOOTBIUS PARR 1 rcinw � AM Err i� w BDILDING HEIGHTS DIAGRAM In A,„,eln11,1,1.,.101 F 0 Si `O FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN D°KS4mw,wr., DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Iler k**on(th'IRS Corp COf lake Oswego April 7.2005 ( EN EN NE NIB VIM En =I 111111 EMI EN Ell 11E1 11111 OM EN MIN MI M Ell i I lin. YW•f , — 1._ . ,i _ ,., A ) all Weill �._u ; i i ii s at 101 ' um . • \\ • 77.--1 [ $ ,. ,..7. •• ..• I ,.-.,j -- 2.-1 . / /----_ _ , . _,<,,, / ...___ ... , ..., r Ii4 40:„04,0„ . . .--:....." :41:-.1. ..I._.; •. •1111 Iiir 4011! . r i° 4Irs ••••.• \-111i AL0)--- :: s • g. • ==sw •. '� . , afM AAfI 0 .J ,�� ✓ O// _.. . 0. j Iltf Mk 4,00). ' fD UNOBSTRUCTED VIEWS DIAGRAM An AM..iulum will, w UKS A o imc. FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN Ecol....0,wr.l O John .<7mtlIM1 o ..DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO I UR%A'mp - April 7,2005 City of take Oswego a N E 1 MI 1 MN MN EN Me EN E EN MI — NM all MI i N i 1 ! mill ii.i . umili rir mom 1 , Illk .. -k ala ,,',1, 11011..11 I Ai. I ( In 11.111411_ WV UIli APRIL f =i .01* 'di] (III P ir 1 V III • ii imin ce GATEWAY] _ nm Rner w• / — —. __ { �E� 1 g' 18•10 ____ iii.iiii IIII 0 .." IINI..J—__,]___Q:i at _ _ palatal', c'-\-- f g 1 �� \ i J a ♦ a ,� 4 •t I A&11..E 'I ! —18111 MI N ' ►' . . :...: ) ; • • ow 0144 rat ., Ills lir 4j,_ illi .471, ..� i mr ndu — e. 11411 A. al , ,- Ili. i...ma ua -- • /4011 .,.. �` ` ----EMUS PAAA W1 � ,, RIVE l ( 4MET -- 011114 n r T f .- fn w STREET CIRCULATION DIAGRAM In nonmIm on wob - -:K O `"' FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN I1Kti orthweAvaveas, — 1'.C(1Vonhwcn hiMtim(union TRANSPORTATION SCENARIO I URS Corr April 7,.005 Cityof Lake Oswego I= l Eon � j![ Ij . r It UENN i!.1 ■i_Al PARK i i, ■ . 'i'[: iiil `i�a ' } P. _. u ' sue S• „. rgrog i m „A� man IPEDESTOOM ElTRYHi it- ,n lf1}If g r r� t; a 1 ri 771-fj '--1 7 , ....V ar 0 II ail I . . . ., ,„, . • ,. ,. , _ , . ..,,,,,, „, ., \ i I J---1111 ., 1 i• .. •.III I p s.-1, ile A, 00- gm 1 • I 1 se _____ _ _ A ii. ipli„,„.• „1,411 (1) SI '47 I 1 • -- �'� i irlii s n e Foo1NIUS PAMR A lam" ' ` Ir M f T r ECA ;A al _ w PEDESTRIAN QIUULA11DN/OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM IT ANNrKlotlrm with; i t 0 MS FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN CONO unNtI f J ECONonhacvt Johmon Gardner DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO I ORS Corr City al Lake Oswego April 7.2005 1 i - Scenario 2 Development Scenario 2 ' This scenario illustrates the highest potential for housing development potential and second highest potential for commercial development,with additional development land assumed through relocation of the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant: ' • 1,200 residential units. ' • 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office. • Range of building heights is three to six stories. • Access to Highway 43 is at the current Foothills Road intersection and a new at-grade intersection at Terwilliger Boulevard. The Terwilliger intersection will require a bridge structure over Tryon Creek and the ' southwest portion of land set aside for Tryon Cove Park. With the bridge constructed, providing access to the park and existing residences would be problematic. It is likely a second vehicle bridge across the creek from the northeast corner of the district would be required. This second connection would only be possible if the wastewater treatment plant was relocated. ' Key development assumptions were: • Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment is relocated. • PGE substations could remain or relocated depending on the alignment of Foothills Road. If the substations were not relocated, one building site would be eliminated, ' reducing the potential number of residential units by approximately 45. • No new development west of the railroad tracks. ' Key urban design features: ' • Willamette Steps. • State Street Esplanade. • New parks. t • District gateways. • Pedestrian-friendly streets and streetcar station. • Street pattern skewed toward Mt. Hood views. ' • Open space buffer for Oswego Pointe. • Pathway and open space linkages. • Unobstructed view corridors. I Lllhoject\12600\12699\RPPORTS\Tasks\Foothills Dstnct Refinement Plan Revsedmtdoc 13 • \� ? r ! i t I ( T / r ir---,• "-- IT 1, L_________/ - -:'\':Imir- IRO ,,,:-..--%-- - .-... I ., I ' 5li.c,a1•4 irm41e4(41' LII_I,I 1__L____IS 7(, _ _ ... ____,_.._.. 44 I 14 --\ _ _ _ ,,., � 1 9 '1 / 0 / ___. 1I 1 il_::_%.l... ,.._, ...:,•-.----,)-_--_:.-,,--:'z7't,_L'(:..i,.w.„r-.7N.i-ffi—li..-,--.0-4m-1-u'1r.,x,k r STRstT / STiIiRT CNL s„rre>!+ �� a 9i /g, .K 417;: " --- -- _ A „..„_ ! Nu4ANB►fi 'rev-, �` Ifl�,*r „pi,. /% , , __ . I �.�- _ t _ �,� C�±.�..+:....�... wry .�'�_ -- - - - �_ -�`� ,i `, r�� �� ,,,....A.:,„ it I.. ,,,. .._,,,, , , . __,,, _„________=_:_ r".--(4114, -- I ( '- L L.) 1 ''Ga •-4. „ irrr'w //7"-t , viz - . -,n 4 , 77 : __ _____ _ )) , _, . *; ' - - ' - - ..,....- ,.. . ..,,,, , k.- . 1 .. \,r}" �� .r —�� i. .' .-_ �'' �� 'wC.�`-'' - --- kJ ;"a ' -'i, ,,, f.:6tie .,�sS4 ' �. :y� © _ lik, 1„,4 or{ _ s. '' -i.', ' - . ... tilik .—06_____ / ,/ ,, .....-. :*'-_ - , , „ ,_,.„ , _ ,. _ it.' --- --1-. hil Jill, , v., _:.,.. ......,„ -�/ / `; PRE-smi. .',: , ...„,„-_, ____;,../......„.7-----.-__..„..-4-48‘.,1 \, 6....e4,,,,,-. IV C u; © 7--------‘--'- -- _ _ • 7 / • .g.'•••.;.. s .1iii r L �� i _ iti 4.0-1/ a " a . ;it 3 �I / 1 v' ��• �. �I�� • :s; k;:* li! vfs ( Ecob`rs \?.___. \ ` - \ e ./ . j, ,./:/iort 17: . I ' ` 1 , .. , ,,,, ,,. . ",,. ,,,,,,.,,„,_ < , }A fw�r : r 1 ::',6; :::4,,i'_110 ' (' 1•YZ?N Covg •t i..4 i _ IIN.,....,___ - ( 4 If 1111 aiiir ----,--73-- -. , l Q kA 1 s,, �1 .t ` A .� / / W,' 71i,� t lot \ ` ____ I,,a, '''. \\ AIN , -4...4,...,7:-. _, ______ - 41.41/11. _—_---.--- ----1 _d-P" \ '', i s\k‘ 4- ‘,._., . \ .,. ,,,. \ ii,_...,____.,,,,_,i, i 0 i„,., 4 fp t _i._ ... rc_...s..;•_;1- 4.41,tt_ ___,Otvr,,,4 , . --•-k___I\_ \, i ii 0 io : ' VI 6 0 .::----'\...\---:\\------ .‘\\\k ,, , ,....... (---- : \ i , ) ' \ -- —411PI- t° . ) 1_ la \ \\,.. _,..,-... . ) •' r ,\ .'"1":-,- T . Edla wit-1-00'%TT5 9.Iv R 1 I �.- \ _-:, 5 \ illelibeip.AI 0 lb _dadulit ,_ hipipirelik .- ---- /- . 1 S 4 I 4*- ,.,-- it''t i f 1. .'ylik ,vooT+t i LLS i>V.R,,c _w "Iyt, 1 _ ...._. l. 't�,�=yam` AA,, JN A- .Y .. , Legend Development Summary LL f .. s. 1 .� s, ... Residential 1200 units 1 k _ Commercial/Retail/Hite 30,000 sq.It. I Structured Parking I900 spaces I / 't DEVELOPMENT PLAN In Association with: 1 FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN DKS Associates ECONorthwest s°' '°° 2°°' A DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 Johnson Gardner 1 URS Corp. City of Lake Oswego April 7,2005 I I I I I I ftlr� rre. VIM VIEW 4A I i - ao�Iun aa rwal m�a , Re all IIM IWO Mftmll•NW Ise.II* MI6 NIP' r 111111111 �• �i • tl..•U..nrwsy 4""` Gam RS Cow•ai.....G eruerercwo.•PINY' irarlr.. Low:nevi*. tow WY fboamil IWILLAMETTE BOULEVARD ELEVATION•Locking Norn INB,CCIPROCII ..P. ern • - . �.r�r s i j - -,� . . 11 ‘' ._�..... T Mom ate. t %oar* sad Warr Oa .iahe/ealq nl..Onrr ONr.r IO,ea.Yr Cant P•doms Mt, I C Maw OS Ted.{i.b STATE STREET ELEVATION-Looking East I I I I I I I ._ . _ _ _ . _ — fi i I ,. ' _ -, .1 - ilia 'Miles 1 11 I ReeidentM Roundabout Park •Residential OS+rtgo Pointe I ( }' • O$INIOO POINT SECTION- Looking West eear,•�r I I I I I I 1 Scenario 2 Site Diagrams Building Height—The range of building heights is from three to six stories. The tallest buildings are organized around the streetcar station and major open spaces. This provides the following development opportunities: highor residential• Proximity to streetcar fdensity. • Reinforce street hierarchy. • Activate key open spaces. • Use site topography to develop multi-level structured parking. Unobstructed Views—Given moderate buildingheights and the topography o h of the district, there would be fully unobstructed views of the river and Mt. Hood throughout downtown. Stint Circulation—The street pattern does not reflect the existing downtown street grid and block size. The layout has been skewed relative to Highway 43 to focus view corridors toward Mt. Hood. Unlike Scenario 1,there is no single collector street connecting Highway 43 access points. Street hierarchy is defined by the three streets: r • Foothills Road east to Foothills Park. • Foothills Road north to a Terwilliger Boulevard intersection. • Central spine street leading directly to a Terwilliger Boulevard intersection. Pedest ian Circulation—The Willamette Steps would be the primary pedestrian entry into the district, leading directly to a new park in the heart of the district and onto the riverfront. District gateways would also offer pedestrian access,particularly at the existing Foothills Road intersection across from Millennium Park. Primary on-street pedestrian circulation is Foothills Road to Foothills Park and the central. spine street to the Tryon Creek Bridge. The pathway system is essentially the same as Scenario 1. Additional pedestrian linkages to Tryon Cove Park could be developed via foot and/or vehicle bridges across Tryon Creek. A vehicle bridge across the creek(near the ' proposed hotel site)would likely be necessary to provide access to the park and residences currently served by Stampher Road. Natural Resources/Open Space—Foothills Park and the natural resource values of Tryon Creek and the riverfront are protected. With the wastewater treatment plant relocated,there are significant enhancement opportunities for Tryon Creek. This scenario creates the greatest amount of new public open space. Open spaces include: . Linear park along State Street. • A"village square" style park,central to the greatest concentration of residential and commercial uses.The park also organizes the street and pedestrian circulation. L\Project\12600\12699\REPORTS\Task5\Foothills District Re&nanent Plan Rensedmf.doc 1 Scenario 2 • Open space on the current site of the wastewater treatment plant. This open space links Foothills Park and Tryon Cove Park into a large and seamless open space for use by the community at-large as well as district residents and visitors. • Green space buffer between Oswego Pointe and new development. • Rooftops of structured parking could be developed building courtyards or rooftop gardens. These would be private open spaces visible from State Street. I i 1 r I I t I 1 I I I r L•\Project\12600\12699\RETORTS\ruts\roodvRs Dntnet Refinement Plan Rectsedmf doc 1 8 ■ M ■ ■ MI ■ i ■ NM ! ■► ■ A ■ ■ ■ ! I ■ W111/111 SUr11 a ~ ■� ! ■ 4 ir ! 7 Ii-al l �J� 1 1.4 _ ��V • jai I II. 3 ) IIIIP !in. ■ iawn i. 9 mg an g' r • -' 4 SrOftY �; • 7 iikir.. ....---.---:-.....„ 1 tiff. 411Ip S . %�" t S 3TbRY ? I•,•0♦ i I . all • 1:111, ' .: .:..4..-- ' ; .lr 0� �' Ir 4 SPRY TRYON Mg ` lir,f ivBe ■ PAU, al • 11111 III '. . 4 4 . i ' 5 STOi�Y I 14 ♦ ram ' �' •♦— —�. ii u kii ir- ---I, ..._ . . __._.1-- 1 ■ '-PARK6:.....,,.....„-- •-..,--. / . .. - �.- , J1 POOTH PARK �'- '1-11 • 1 J M ._1 T ."-, n In Asricrm>un with 0 11 FOOTHILLS 0511a IIERIENENT PLAN DK5 A•nn.n, I` Sohmon GhnIncr DEVELOPMEMf 1 EI■ 2 ,IRS Com el i_ April 7.2005 — 111111 MIN NMI MN NIP X MINI 01111 MS MI NMI MI Mil NM MN . ii mi._.. • I.jiiTj![k I4NJ'I `dum el 1 0b i ill _ ..--U ille milimillaimaja rf a t_ JIM i ,-JM, . . ,.. .. „. . ':irrr . - NMI =4 EMI ._...ma;11 - • It ,...:_, ---›-,. ' ., 5 iiiir4lp lb . \ -'''.7-7.. - A g \ ,__________A_......._,,,..--...'6).--- ( • •*••4.4iii, 1 , 4011 \_---------------A, At .r- •._ �a� 1 I _or \ je.,,.-__i-----,,cr \\ 1 . (..---1• 11 '�iIj, SJt 11, TIIYON CE 416, I, ,,,,, 11 S PARR • II4i '. ,`J1I \fl# ..---sw•'' '.,, 4 gig L_____.-- .,7 — - Air no r mos \ imr r , ,. .\ , ., up • pr Nip., t J ,,r Jr, 7 f00lNillS PARK j f 4;'� W' < < A • 1 � R�� ER M f T r ` cn �� 1 0- fD UNOBSTRUCTED VIEWS DIAGRAM in Amovidien•ritit: 0• r� FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN N Mow Widow DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 & 3 irRsc..p. CO of Lake Oswego April 7.Z003 me ma me no gm on — MI at — ME RIM M s n UK — M MI 3, ■ ~n l 3, I[ Mil. 1111 1 din iirelli_ wmmii • Iowa a a. .?., .1 ill ir 7 I- li • ill air main , ' / (4 i1kIdj!1: I _ u -4.. “:F Sea �� . _ ii li g:1 i. S*4 I litil' - • . -•-— ,n • Z ---•�'''• e•� ;;, 1 i •�� 1 . .. 1 # meiri \ .1. \ i % � • _• • �:1,--- \p, 11°r 1---1 r 40' ; menus F111I , y �, Iliiirria,a._ 40,,,o n w NW MOWN WIWI PO Mileisiniirin wile 111 n. I..) FOOTHILLS DISTRICT Ali rum Alma Garde. TRANSPORTATION]ENNNNO 2& 3 misc., N April 7.2005 City or L .amp ME ! — — — — 1 N ! MI r I MI 1 — — = — = 1![ . r _ ,.." y� • t iiii 7 F . [ =IL _ i: klimil ! ' g Or irellill_ wir MN U ll lima a . N jell tr IIII . al. — e. "-icy ' WAENAd f9EflAWtEMN 7 P +• ,. `94A711o. 1 i �, — _.__ z- , WTEWAY 1 f w 1 �',' 1.4i J.' ii*. *,... ,, AiiI . ,„ \„... ,....., ...A.74. ..,,,,- .. ,.. ,_..... 111, III • I . -�• �,-' •� �I ill'I I . ill ill lik 1\11 IRt011 COVE 4111 1 ; re PARK W. III•l.r . 1 iiiiiik ����� % .__________K___ ,,,,, �, e. ..- __ ._ ti -_ -__ _ I r . 11111\ (A mraa.+,e¢ I PEDESTRIANCIRCULATION/OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM In I ) rocs Antedates 0 e N FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN ocolumma 'anntmm Gardner TRANSPORTATION SCENARIO 2 b 3 [Ills Cmr. April 7,2005 City of Lake Oswego Scenario 3 Development Scenario 3 ' This scenario is based on the same street pattern as Scenario 2 but illustrates the least amount of commercial and housing development within the district: ' • 700 residential units. • 13,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office. • Range of building heights is three to four stories. • Access to Highway 43 at the existing Foothills Road intersection and a new Terwilliger Boulevard intersection. 1 Issues related to the bridge and intersection are the same as Scenario 2. The potential loss of Stampher Road access must be mitigated. Key development assumptions are: • Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment remains. • PGE substations are relocated. If the substations were not relocated, one building site south of the Willamette Steps would be eliminated,reducing the potential number of residential units by approximately 35. • No new development west of the railroad tracks. Key urban design features: • Willamette Steps. • State Street Esplanade. • New parks. ' • District gateways. • Pedestrian-friendly streets and streetcar station. • Street pattern skewed toward Mt. Hood views. • Open space buffer for Oswego Pointe. • Pathway and open space linkages. • Unobstructed view corridors. I I I I L•\Ptojea\12600\12699\REPORTS\T sk5\Foot-Mils Ihsma Refinement Phn Rensedmf doc 23 I � .: -- , t _Yr__,_ . , ',..._I,PI's tle T_ ,,fi,UI .» 1 -----PT*.;„\ ,_k 4, Icy, f, Li:Hllj.. 11.'.,'1 - 41I -:..__._-i1.. .1.....'.._1_ I \\\\,\\\\\\4 < { — _ ft ,....,,,..,_,,,, 7 ftpit ,..,,,,,-- , ,,, \ 15 -311,-alt-:L___. i - : /I Ili _ , , / . , I ) L... _. . k ,,,,_............AIIU= /-,)-) 0.41? --=---........., /I. I_ii„,,l,l____5 6_r-,- /,,r)a- :,*.%_2:t.,-----,,-,_-a-------t-a_-i-.-,-.s-..-.-.-,_--__'-----/p4-1101. "r I4sP'ol a16r � � SnaT } i' 9,-,-r--. sin-rra�.r 1.....__ ----------,_-____, { -Q.e'� r-N�tLANErtrc yT}y ���' j � ,co.. _____.._..-_- __11_... 1,.,f7_1_, -,-- 'P 4 2--_---a.....l...t...______ _,- ____...„-._._.__________._.._.._._._...;.._.._._.„__. _ _01,,,„1,0 4/)i„.1,,,: N -- ��� _ �- E!! ; 2 « i, „, , ‘1,,, I M it 0 - , it 1 ,list c i '�' \L 1! (z il_)_e__),,./2c/•'" Cr 0 r a'rr, ti iwl0al. \ K ll6La1411 54"Iir8'...• , , liirrill, , L___iir `,.. I 7," 11, lik:\w Ilk „ ....,„ it, .t. io, , 0. ‘m, cp, , . . -: ...„,, _.-�-yi ../ ' - ':` ♦ k tom+ ,. ,„...._ _...., ..,..... .,__ '_-^ gi,_ r.i., s 0 . r ;1'1'1 II i l ✓ j I -,', 5 , �. S rY 1 .1k=±�r '.�: i •:��� L \ J /'' , \\ .. • 111 Ns41 wrf,1O, 1h(1'P e .c t1,4y-. IIII „_, ___\__)__ ,,,,_,#:_6,.\\__\__ z R k° 11 l "' y '0'1„1:1 4'A".,.....d'.:1.7••0‘ sage rte & Pua+P STkj- ' �� \:\" iIi (411 .' :t- ' ' '3.1; '. . Iiiiris ilk q II Ii,__ll,,_d.•. J-0.....4_.- ,,•...,..-_il, s1\I, . \\01,,if .,.,...„,4. '' --__r.__-_rA-c_ :-i---i..i,-... r f / _vI li K-._• i, Ci �' l p05/s.64e V' ♦ ,J, ._':al%) ------ i Iii`.-7"...-.7.i''i,-.-,i--:-,:_ t ,...Al ' ":. 0 s"\-, ________,}1112 •..., .',1 10.`,,..,, • till 1___11_1_. :\._ ii.. i.v ._._..---,--\-Ni,-i-,i•,,\\,:‘,, Willilit Ilk • -1). • '' ''' 4 „...t• : 1 \\,.., ( , 0__, -"/A_—m „\\.1.\ ,.. ,•__.------. a„ ___It_I_tI__i_I l /) \„ 1 tA 7 , ( ! 4 .-. I IIIIIIIIIrjri ..., _-_,---1 / 0 \ \ _ la - ill• \AN• ...1 lir 2 v"." fil,,, - - i -N.,,..„___..._ I, rC-- C°1111-g_ _.,\\ _ } I' L. , ICICI ------..._.., W I L-l-,/\t-t TTE RIVER )) ..,,,, lira jaitee—_ _ -, -A, ilt/ * 1 ''. --- t J-, _I _ ..., „ X • k 00Ti1 1 BLS FY,RK 4,w.4..rt ' . Nib \ ,,. '; ' , legend Development Summary ... Residential 700 units 1r Commercial/Retail/Office 13,000 sq.It. �__ I Structured Parking 1100 spaces I4,r DEVELOPMENT PLAN In Association with: O ' I FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN DKS Associates ECONorthwestt °' S° '°°' 2°°' AI, DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3 Johnson Gardner I uRs Corp. City of lake Oswego April 7,2005 1 I I I I I SW 411` II hi Anw I lad 111 Nob End IIgO•I4 Mr CO,,,, MY Yb iam CMQCOR Vili COMMA r • 4 * - I , Isrt11 ad W.aO M WILIAMETTE ISOUVASD.E ELEVATION•lacEiv N_ l VIVO..1R5Shog Mil C0=011 COMM • ., a Y . --_ • Yrrb Iwo Ammo • 1�rr dna WMrf.►.< II.4fts Often RerAr.SOON IOJJ Yw Cr.' 4a0.44Sae p A•..+-.. !OM d`/w Cv'Ibl Ivey 9 STATE STREET ELEVATION-Ltnhmg East I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iit° "1111111,11,' { t fill illkt 1 wooC IRes dent al Roundabout Residential Oswego Pointe OSWEGO POINT SECTION-Looking West Soft i+oo • I I I I I Scenario 3 Site Diagrams Building Height—The range of building heights is from three to four stories.The four story buildings are organized around the streetcar station and major open spaces. This provides development benefits similar to Scenario 2,although to a lesser degree: Proximity• to streetcar for medium residential density. ry • Reinforce street hierarchy. • Activate key open spaces through residential uses. Unobstructed Views— Given the relatively low building heights and topography of the district, there would be fully unobstructed views of the river and Mt. Hood throughout the downtown area. ' Street Circulation—The street pattern and hierarchy is the same as Scenario 2,with no single and direct collector street for Highway 43 access points. Pedestrian Circulation—The Willamette Steps would be the primary pedestrian entry into the district,leading directly to small parks on either side of Foothills Road. Since this scenario includes relatively little commercial development,pedestrian linkages would be activated largely by residential uses. Primary on-street circulation is alongFoothills Road to Foothills Park and the central spine rimarY P street leading to the Tryon Creek Bridge. The pathway system is the same as Scenario 2.As with Scenario 2,pedestrian linkages to Tryon Cove Park could be developed via foot and/or vehicle bridges. ' Natural Resources/Open Space—With the wastewater treatment plant relocated, there are significant enhancement opportunities for Tryon Creek. Compared to Scenario 2, less new public open space will be created since the"village square"park is not fully developed. The remaining new open spaces are similar to Scenario 2 and provide the same opportunities and benefits: • Linear park alongState Street. • Open space on the current site of the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Green space buffer between Oswego Pointe and new development. I I 111 L•\Project\12600\12699\REPORTS\Task5\Foothills a mct Refinement Plan Re zsedmfdoc 27 — al ■ N NI 1111111 Ole IIIIII ■ MI N ■ MI ■ ■ OM ■ MIN M 1[ 1911.1 ami 1 1 al ; in �''':' , a ..§ 111 i 0. 7 Ir Cr IN ,„,,, peps -17 MN t sa ft .*---- 1*I I 3 , e ■ . ,. rrs �l 3 5,,_ ,c. I 1:0i il4 1l7 IMrn E/. , F 1 IF Y. 4 ,rimer,,,,: 3 ## il • s ;' . ' air .,-;,- ,___-- a* ..a I .:I 1 _1 111 . I S 91'01t'r TRYDN COY! 411 • 40 PARK 411 • IIII 111 • $ , 4 -"\ ar ii � i� simi m m \.) id_ w • •, ' ■ , *lir • iii,.. ...,_, -t�s-r--� ( J ,,,,,. , - - _ - , MOMS PAU / �. -_,F .j _ _. ill M :-.. -�, V, ,3Et f T T E'` -,--,.. N co BUILDING HEIGHTS DIAGRAM tin wcmwnmin. iii -. OKS n,.,.,aew. O ra FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN Ecciw.ne.,m x Johnwm C..Nna �"� DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3 URS(oil April 7,2005 City of Lake Oswego UM — = — — — A MID s r r — .sue — ON OM E OM i \., 5.5J!rir.j![iNiNI uii . `i ti Y 3 _ . . • I 1, MI rellill_ =.emu : ��ji i ide i o 111,o0 i .... ., (40 0 •.%--7-'----__LLIF 0"9111 F: Ell in T Mg - r , :I "`• 7 I :igr - --,: . , II O. ITS , .. .'.-.••'------- •- i' ____----. - -_---- ' ig ---"\ 74. ii . e 1 \- r ►r 1 �1, r4GIN N ,. 44 ,.. ' -''''\' ----\\-,-\\,......._.,_.. (,.-,.,. /4.. i, 2. 'i ;♦ ♦• St l-11.11.b. 11 \---,\ 4 4,r'fJ • b .s. . a4' , , \., TRTONF ¶J% ii.1 1.p.i ' * \ \\ ...\ ••4. I, eta'` �: '- pm - "�: J. J FO ius pm j 1 r- -.L., J u CA J n cD w UNOBSTRUCTED VIEWS DIAGRAM d M �irw.unmit A O' CJ FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN LaJohn...(kw., DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 & 3 misc.,,. April 7.2005 City of Like Oswego am am NIS S IIIIII IIIIII NS NS OM NMI MI NB N MI MN ISM 61111 - .111.111A1 II 4 Nil. in Illma II ', ____ .... � 5 -1, I[ 7 ,,,, .-- - ,,,, MI M 2. JP NIP liririll_ ur-1-U _I • illi di Pow . 5 Ell I. ._ -- isi i. Il • s ilk_ in • II II , , :!, A -7 r. ♦ !" •11 . . at 1-^ 0 o• IT E . , .. .� ' es. '10„,„ ii 1 C 1; 1 {TIt1 ON COPE ills` 1r ost 11, .411P... ... . :..i T 1` ,1 l PART re Nwilm 111k.- % . % 1°1 iis . 4164.1 mmum so • 0 \op ar w , 1/. . to 4lit PAAK 'ems EDOiNl- PARR �► /r � =� -.� - 2 Iv STREET CIRCULATION DIAGRAM In Aswrioc with4/11 O' OKS FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION SCENARIO 2 & 3 (IRS Corp April 7.2005 City of lake Oswego L NM r SI I n ■r■ Mr MB r — — — — E r r — — 1111 JfL' ' aiti c 2. z . ' "mu—. .1[ .9r LI L 112M— c, § Ir- 11 c MI Wirel_ w-mmill • = alma m i PEOESTAUN ENTER i p I I 111 , i GAMUTSIM ,• plot Ii PENMAN Ear d d�ia _.---7---------../tir UM - : .. ...,.' i ; - . ' Et — il ��•• '1111 • ll�.f t1t1 V1 J• 1�C3 S 0. ,......„... , `�, ` TTATON COVE ` a,,s.. „,„$11 ... '. \ ' ` ri AP AA 4 lir 41r. I. *I . III 4 \ I . ..._________..) ' " . IS ....- .. air - -44...,c.., , • Will l air T.T....• i. . • \ ist 111 PA(IA d. iu.PAAA _ ,.'' Cn CD i A9 PEDESTRIAN EIRCULATION/OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM In A.wm,rnin with, — DKS A.ao ia*s4iii FOOTHILLS DISTRICT REFINEMENT PLAN ecoNon),wc W Johnson G dncr TRANSPORTATION SCENARIO 2 & 3 I INS Cop ay of Lake Oswego April 7,2EIEIS Ci L Public Improvement Costs Potential Public Improvement Costs Generalized phasing of development within the district was identified in order to clarify the potential public infrastructure costs for each development scenario. The phases and costs are further evaluated in the Financial Analysis section of this report. Development Scenario I Three generalized phases of development have been identified. Public infrastructure costs assume Main Street,rail toad crossing,traffic signal,Willamette Boulevard,Willamette Steps Plaza,relocation of existing sewer/water service and franchise utilities. Other new streets 1 and utilities are assumed to be private development costs. Phase A Main Street $300,000 RR Crossing/Signal $750,000 Willamette Boulevard $450,000 ' Replace Existing Sewer/Water $300,000 Franchise Utilities $450,000 Total $2,250,000 Phase B Main Street $1,000,000 Willamette Boulevard $350,000 Willamette Steps Plaza $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $600,000 Franchise Utilities $265,000 Total $2,965,000 Phase C Willamette Boulevard $600,000 Franchise Utilities $325,000 Total $925,000 I I I I 1 4•\Project\mom 12699\REPORTS\Tuk5\I^nnzfidl:Disnut Refinement'L,Rcvuedmfdoc 32 NI — Ell 111111 MIN MIN all Ell IIII1 ell 11111 Ell 11111 Mill MINI Ell Mil MINI Mil .t' g _mon :; 1 __ _BR "It_11111:•__ -_1 11111_2',._""...!"•_...._r_.1; . s , e ' I — -11"1 , • Amiga , " g Ili Its ' •••:L... n arrair-. ., li 1 irli - 111<1 3' I MI • .7-•'---t...`----- •AP.--- -- -. ....,-: cil I Eti ---_,.. _ -. 1,r: i _ • .i,..„ _li I its" , , _. , .. _ . .. . ,,, -......,........... . .':-.71 illt ....,,,,,..1101::, • ' - ,:' t cj.4 ,PR tri. ir!- .', ,.`Lt/ire, . • AillIF ' Ilks, - ..\,ro: . , -,, , . -- ..f a 21 I II• .1..0: • q.' 4111".a .. ,... . , !: .:- " - ..rt•••rime-••-•••,...-- = - '•• 4 ' . , , * 1 . ..• 1111, - „:- " !tilt , • ' ', 1011111104ibk.I 1 411.11: ; ,f el ill .. ., ....4_, ....._ •... ... 1111 doMigar i , lig um 1111,aut i i."' .;g• ' , 1 _____ , ...„...._ sare * ‘ al si, *sum 17 _ --"'" (-1 Itriti*411VIIIIF•;0- •- , _ , ..„ A•L P' 0.- ..----- r-I •....„,eur_ o - _ < ..... , Foothills District Refinement Plan CD - Development Scenario 1 3 ....-41V Phasing Option 1 CD -- = IOW — ''..11° limir _ —Wu lav n 0 In r+ Loa vi IPublic Improvement Costs ‘4411.4ror. :,,,--- ... , . 4 ::i U ry i 1, 0 ill iii \ .r. ' , r . rr• :E-6 - III I . I. 1 I l o l� 1 ��, ' ' I 1, ••. 1 I . .. `. .4. 414 m''' f.1 \. t ' ' ' . 1- ' ' Mit ilig rrt..--ire; Ill.--4i %i!' .. ' ) *' ✓ y• i I g 'ii , .� III I 1 t.' ; . : ter ilk L/1/il i . :_i: -:-__Li_=:--=,I: , ,i,, ... is - • __ if -.'_--- - . lt,-,! i 4 ', PI i ; -,_, ,1 .. / ) i I . - • ,, 4P,►,,. ' 11 ' t $ 1 %%...11L110, li , I 4 4 ' N ) 4to ■ •� I I L\Propect\126001176471RPPORTS\Tuk5\foothills Dum t Rcfincment Plat Rc.trdm1doc 34 I Public Improvement Costs Development Scenario 2 Three generalized phases of development have been identified. Public infrastructure costs ' assume collector streets,Tryon Creek Bridge,rail road crossing, traffic signal, second bridge to replace Stampher Road access, relocation of existing sewer/water service and franchise utilities. Other new streets and utilities are assumed to be private development costs. Phase A ' Foothills Road Extension $2,000,000 "Town Square"Park $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $600,000 Franchise Utilities $400,000 Total $3,750,000 Phase B Main Street $1,150,000 Terwilliger Bridge $9,500,000 ' Railroad Crossing and Signal $750,000 Tryon Cove Street and Bridge $1,500,000 Willamette Steps Plaza $600,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $320,000 Franchise Utilities $650,000 ' Total $14,470,000 Phase C ' "Treatment Plant" Park $1,000,000 1 L•\Protect\12600\12699\REPOR7j\Txsk5\Foothills Distract Refinement Phn Rechalm1der 35 Public Improvement Costs Development Scenario 3 Phasing and cost assumptions are the same as Scenario 2. Phase A Foothills Road Extension $2,000,000 "Town Square"Park $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $600,000 Franchise Utilities $400,000 Total $3,750,000 Phase B Main Street $1,150,000 Terwilliger Bridge $9,500,000 ' Railroad Crossing and Signal $750,000 Tryon Cove Street and Bridge $1,500,000 Willamette Steps Plaza $750,000 Replace Existing Sewer/Water $320,000 Franchise Utilities $650,000 Total $14,620,000 Phase C ' Treatment Plant Park $1,000,000 I 111 1 L\Prolect\12600\12699\REPORTS\ras►i\toothdIs pima Refinemc t PILL Rensedmfdoc 36 1 Public Improvement Costs I 11 . 1 1 1 gi OM 0 ri ) i 1 Nikiif/ , ''' '''.7-- - - .. i g- -., ,,)., „, yR AE8- f x iii ; lgl il ft\ ` §- u.l�a a 1 III � 1 tIgg I __ , , t fPaMM.4 lett: , , .s _, _ _. -61. ' I r..1 r, 11 IIIW- ' !! U '2 ' . 0 1 i • R A` Ike � :itt.�1 1 "NOW VA ,i- b:lb , ' �, ND- _ 1 . i 1 ..7...-40 .L. . . ......40 I 46 :- - - . f � 3, 1 :, !¢ :,.t],�,• • sue i ' i slw.nr!4 - 0 O ` e. I 1 , ,iii,1 ! I . 1 k. - ' :� "1 + r iI 1 1 4., :.sa.Go i 1 � �• ♦ .00. I . , - I I.1 f+i' . ..■ ■,a I I I,\Pro ject\12600\1?699\REPORTS\TsskS\F«tth.Ps Duhct Refrn mmt Plan Rcvncdmf.d<x 37 1 Y Transportation Analysis P ' Insert DKS Memo t I I I L•\Project \12600\12699\REPORTS\Taski\Foothills Dwnct Refinement Plan Rensedmfdac 38 Financial Analysis ' Insert ECONW and Johnson Gardner,LLC Memo 1 I 1 1 t 1 ' L•1'ormt\12600\12699\REPORTS\Task5\Foothd15 Damct R tirrc•ment Plan R v dmt.do 39