Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2011-03-14 AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Cen[ennia1191}201C PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 380AAvenue Monday, 369 March 14 2011 P, Box 034 � Lake Oswego, OR 97034 6:30 p.m. 503-635-0290 City Hall - Council Chamber www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan Contact: Iris McCaleb Also published on the internet at: Email: imccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/planning_commission Phone: 503-697-6591 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact Iris McCaleb at 503-697-6591, 48 hours before the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda (3 minute limit per individual) This is an opportunity to raise issues regarding Planning or Citizen Involvement. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE 5. MINUTES 5.1 January 24, 2011 6. WORK SESSION 6.1 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Proiect Review and discussion of the Local Preferred Alternative (LPA). Staff coordinator is Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Development. 6.2 PP 10-0007 Comprehensive Plan —Periodic Review Review and discuss draft vision statement and growth pattern scenarios. Staff coordinator is Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525)—Community Development Code - General Housekeeping and Minor Policy Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating sections, and discussing minor policy changes. Final review of previously discussed items, Package B (pages 71-233). This hearing is continued from February 28, 2011. Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. Nal� �Ax��iVi�A�1t'�fJl#tJ�r�` , �uwN;�L��t�rca�rorarst�l>�i��rvse, i�m�, r 5 �� ,a �,�a * , � . Jon Gustafson, Chair ■ Lynne Paretchan,Vice Chair Puja Bhutani ■ Julia Glisson ■ Jim Johnson ■ Russell Jones ■ Todd Prager ■ Jeff Gudman, Council Liaison Page 2 8. OTHER BUSINESS— PLANNING COMMISSION 8.1 Findings, Conclusions and Order Zoning Overlay for Industrial Park (IP) District (LU 10-0042) 9. OTHER BUSINESS—COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW 11. ADJOURNMENT CITY10 F LAKE OSWEGO LAKE C SWEGO Gntenno114102010 3181(1 A Avenue PO Box 2.6S1 Lake Oswego,OR S 7(1314 PIJANNING C C MMIS S S IO N 5104 31!1•0210 www.cioswiega.ocus REPOREII 71C1: Members'of the Planning Commission AROM: Brant Williams, Director of Econom is and Capital DEiveloflm ent SUBJECTI: Lake Oswego to Portlanc Transit Project Briefing DATE: March 9, 3011 PU RIHOSB To learn a boot and discuss the Loca Ily Preferred Alternative(URA) recommendation for Lake Oswego to Hortland Ttansiit Projecit. •DISCUSSION At itsi meeting on Hebruary 28,, 20111,th e Steering Committee for the lake Oswego to Hortlaric Transit project I LOPT)votes to recommend a Loa Hy Preferred Alternatives (LPA)to each of the local jurisic ictionis a rid agencies associated with the project. The IRA determines the rr odea nd general a lipinn ent for a potentiail federally-designated project that woulc advance into prelirr inary engineering anc the Final BIS. The Steering Committee's LPAI Recommendation is IIh e Streetcar Alternative. It is the preferred mode for fiture transit in th El Highway 43 corridor t etwleen Lake Oswego anc Portland(sIEiEi Exhibit 11. The Streetcar Alternative is prelerrec because it addresses th e project's HL rpose and Need better than either the Bnhancied Bus or the No-BL ild alternatives. In particular,th e Streetca r Alternative would meet th e following need for th El project: �1 Provic e an effective alternatli%e to th e traffics congestion in th e Highway 43 ciorric or; Decrease transit travel times and provide increasieic transit relic bility a s traffic ciori8estlion increases on Highway 43; I1 Significantly increase the overall capaicnty for transportation in the ceorridor; I1 Result in reduced transit operating expenses a nd help preserve scarce transit operating resources,; • Provide th El greatest 511 pport for local and regional land use and development)plarisi,goals and objectives', anc encioi rage development)to accommodate e>pest Ed regional population and err ploym ent growth; a1 HEiIp to decrease the region's dependency on the automat ile and meet the region's growing relic nce on pi blia transportation to meet futll re growth in trNel dem arid,; • Aldc rens the topographic', geographic and t wilt ens%ironment constraints in the corridor while Page 2 recognizing th El very limited options for El)Flansion of tF El existing Highway 43 aclrric or' anc •� Pr cit ide a vial le transportation option in a consitrairlElc corridor that has limitec oFIl ions for • transportal ion improvements riesulting from th El nElEld to protect nate,ral,, bi tit, socioaci anomia and environmental resources. it El LPA Reclorrirriendation also inch c est specific design options for the varioi s 91 reetcar segments along th El alignmeril. In Lake Oswego, tF El Steering Committee reaommeridsi that both the flootF illsi and U PRR c Elsi€!rl options' be aarnied forward for fi rther sti dy in conjunction with tF e City's Fool hills Framework lalan. hIF El Recommendation also spells out other issu,Else for additional siti dy as parr of 1 he rte>l steps in the process. For Lake Clswego,tF ese iricllu de: tF El riElEld ion ,and the design and operlations of the two parlk and ride faclilii ies; possible traffic impacts rlElsulting from tF Else parking facilities; property impacts'due to right- of-way acquisition in the Foothills area: development opporti nitiesi for tF e two c esi€In options; access to tF El streetcar from Stall El Street and B Aveni El; and of course,, funit'er fl.nding corlsic orations incllu ding mono aca.rate project costs and a finance plan. hF El Steering Committee's recommendation was based in part on tF e Citizen A c'isory Committee's LRA Recommendation. 9inmilarly, the CAC r€Iclom mended the 91 reetcar as the prelerrEic moc e for transit in the corridor. TF e CAC's LPA Recommendation isi attach ed as exhibit 2. The D19IS report and the put lice comments rElcleh Elc di ring the 60-day clommElnt FI€)riot ware 1 sed to inforlm the SltElering Committee's URA recommendation. 11F El DIEI9 as well as tF€i Ri blic Corrin Eints Report F ani El botF t€lEln Flrevioc sly distributElc to Cot.ncil mem tens. TF e executive Slummary cif the Put lice Comments Repoli is attached as E)F it it 3. The DIEISI document aric td El full Public Comments Report are available on td El Metro website al • www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/bv.web/id=227. City Council is schedi led to F oic a put lia F eariri€I on the Steering Committee's LRA Reclommeridation on April 12. A c Elclision by Council an tF El LPA isi siahedi lec for A Flril 119. REIgarc ing our prloject partner's, the City of Portland isi sichedi led to clorisiic er and c ecide on the UFA at its April EI City Counciil rri€l€)ting. Other) partnering.ii risdicltions anc agencies, including M ultriomah Cot.nty, Clackamas County,Tr fMet and Metro, will schedi le their meetings 511 bsecluerlt to the two cities making their decisions. ConsidEirai ion oil the IPA Recommeric ation t y Metro, whiaF is tF e final appro%al t ody, 151 anticipated to be mid-si cornier. City aric project staff will attend the Manning Commission's M arch 1141h meeting to brief Commissioners on tF El project, including tF e LPA recommendation and next steps. ACT ION No ad ion is required. ATTACH M0NTS 1. LC PT Locally Preferred A Iterniative—Steering Committee Recommeric ation 1Exhibit 1) 2. LC PT Locally Preferred A Iternai ive—Citizen Advisory Commits ElEI Recommendation IID F ibit 2] • I. LC PT Ri blia Comments Report--beclutive Summary!Ile)F it it 1 • • Lake Oswego ort an TRANSIT PROJECT LOCALJLJY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE S -WITH A LIG NM ENT OPTIONS FOR FIURTHER A NALYS LS- STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PRC JECT PARTNERS: City of Lake Oswego City of Portland Clackamas County M ulilriomah County Metro iriMet CIOCIT • Ada riled Aebruary 211, 2011 AT11AC H M E NT 1 BXECU11IVE SUMMARYI This document comprises ti"El Lake Oswego to Pori land Transit Project Steering Committee S recommendation for a Locally Flreferred AItennative 111.PAI for the LakEi Oswego to Flortland Transit Arojeat. In s1 rr, th e following is rEicicirr rr endEic: MODE The Streetcar Alternative is the recommended, preEiferred transit rr ode for the Lake Clsswego to RortlaInd Transit Carrie or. This alternative t est rr ElEitss the project's Fly,rpos es and Neea and the Eloalss and of jectives as oltliried in Chapters 1 anc EI of 1 he Draft Environmental Impact SltatErrrient IIC BIS). The Streetcar Alternative has garnered aommi nity 511 pport as sih own by the put Iia comments received and the strong endorsement of the Community Advisory)Committee ICA CI. AIIIGNN ENT OP11ICINS This c ocument recommenc si how the design and phasing options analyzec in th a DBIS sholld be addressed in slut ssegi ent study phases of the project. Specifically, it is recommended that: • Both the Willamette Shore Line anc th El Moody/Bone (Soilth Flortal] phasing options' in the City of Flortland t e carried far-ware for additional siti dy; 111"e Macadam Irl-SltrEiet option I El selected as the IRA alignment with in the Johns Lancing might orhood,; 110 Eoth the Willamette Shore Line anc Sellwood Bridge Flhassing options be csarriec forward for adc itional sti.dy,; Both the W illarreti El Shore Line anc RivEirwood Roac design options' in Di nth orpe/Rig erdale be carried forwanc foil additional sty.dy; and " Both the U IIRR and Flooth ills Roac design oFltioris in Lake Oswego be carried forward for adc itional sti dy. O11HEFI ISSUES ES This dom.rr ent prioritizes a series of ac ditional,, critical design anc program comic erations that require f�rther 511 udy and resolution. The issues that are identified as I nresolved in this document will be addressed anc resol%Eid in either a "Pre-Rrelirninaryl Engineering" phase cir during the Flrelimiinaryl BriginElering ph arse. MI issues will be resolved prion to completion of the final Environmental Impact Statement Ineisi. DBCISIION-N AKIN C PROCESS GOING FORWARD It is recommenc ed that,, after completion of ac ditional studies, the i.nresohec issi es identified herein should be broi ght batik to the Steering Committee for review, or, as appropriate,, resole tion. • 1 IJa a Csweigo lici Pcirtkirid Trcirisit Projedl Steering Commiitele LPA REicommenic ationi—Fat rt.aryl 2011 Flage 2 LOCALLY PREF ERRED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION • I] OVERVIBIN The Purl osie of tF e project is 110 optimize the rElgicinal transit s ystem by iml roving transit)with in the Latae Oswego to Portland Transit Corric or,, wF ilEI being fiscally responsive anc by siu pporting regional and local lanc use goals. 1IF Ei project shoo Id ma)in1zEi, to tF Ei extent posisit le,, regional resources, economic development anc garner public support. 11F El llrojEici siF cult t uiid on previous ciorridor transit studies, analyses anc conclusions and should be environmentally sensitive. The neec lbr the project results from: • Historic arid projected increases in traffic congestion in the Lal EI ClswEIgo to Portland Corridor due to increases in regional anc corridor population and err ploy Merit; • Lengthy anc increasing transit travel climes and deteriorating publics transportation reliability in i1F e corridor di El 110 growing traffic congestion; • Increasing operating expenses, ciomibinec with increasingly scarce operating rEisou rciEis,, while dem anding more efficient public transportation operations; • Local anc regional land u se anc development plans, goals anc objectives tF at target) the corridor for residential, commercial,, retail and mbec-use c evEilopmEintl to help accommodate forecast regional pope lation and employment growth and previous corridor transit situ dies„ analyses anc conch sicinsi; • TF Ei region's growing reliance on in blit transportation ilo meet futu re growl F in travel demand in the corridor; • TF e topograpF ic, geographic' and built environment constraints within tF e corridor that limit the ability of the region to expand the highway and arterial inirastructurEl in the ciorric or,; and • Limited captions for transportation improvements in the ciorric or caused by tF a is entificiation and protect ion cif important natural, bu alt and sociioeconomic environmental resources in the ciorridor. This dociu mlEintl presents the Steering Committee recommenc ation for a Locally RrefEirred Alternative (LPN for the Lake Oswego 110 Portland )transit Corridc r. 11F Eisie retic IT menc atic ris are based on inibrrration c ocumentEic ir tF a LlakEi Clswego to Flortlland 1Yansiit Piojecit DDOI Environmental Almpact Statement(DRIS) [Metro, December 2010]; from put lic ir pull received from Community Aldi isory Committee I CAC) deliberations di ring 2009-2011; and ciorr mEintsi received du ring tF El public comment period and in the pi blici hearing F Edd on January 24, 2010 t afore the Ulla Oswego to Flortland Transit Project Steering Committee. The LPA decision consists of several distinct decisions arc recommendations. first and foremost is the alternative decision that ciF ooses between the "'No Build"", "Enhanced Bu sr" and "9treeticar" alternatives. Secondly„ because the URIS analyzes a series of design and phasing ciptionsi for the Streetcar A ternativEi„ this dccumerit provides reciorr rr endations regarding tF Ei advancement of these design and phasing cptions into follcw-on situ dies. And lastly, this document provides recommiendaticns concerning a series of z dditic na I,, critical design arid programmailk issues that • have emerged during the course of the OBIS process. LaAle Oswego to Portland Ti ans it Preyed Steering Committee LRA Rec ommeindation—F ebruaryl]49191 Rages 3 II] LAKE OSWEGO TO POR1ILAND 11RANSIII PROJEC1 - LOCALLY PREFERRED ALl1ERNA1IVE A] llranslit Alterr ative- Silreelcar 1W El Streetcar Allterr ative is the recommenc ed, prefer-floc transit rr ode for the Lai El Osw ego to Flortlanc Transit Corridor. llF is alternative best meets the Flrojeat's Pu nP1olie and Neea and tF e goals and ok jectives as outlined in Chapters 1 and 6 of the CMTS. The proposed streetcar alignment i51 shown in Fligu re 1. Th El Streetcar Allternativei F as garnered community support as shown by the put lice comments received and tF a strong eric orsement of the Community Advisory Commits ere ICAC]. it El Street(ar Alternative is pref erred becau se: 11. TF e Streetcar Alternati‘e w oulc k est address tF el PurPlose and Need for tF a Lake C swego to Portland Transit Flrojecit as defined in tF e anis. In partici lar, tF e Streetcar Alternative woL Id rr eet tF a following new for 0-El prioject: ▪ Pros ide an effective alternative to 1 he traffic congestion in tF e HigF w ay 43 coriridc'r; ▪ Decrease transit triavel tirr as anc provide increased transit retial ility as traffic congestion incireiasres in tF El HigF way 43 corriidor; • Significantly incinease tF e Grail capacity for triansportation in the corridor; ▪ Result in rec ucerd transit operating expanses anc will F alp prieserve scare transit operating resouricies; • Pro%ide the greatest support for local and regional land u se and c evelcipment plans, goals anc ok jectives and encou rage development to aciaom m odate el)peciteid !legion. population' and employrr ent growth; • Held to decreases the region's dependently on tFe automokile and meet the region's' growing reliance on Flu blic triarisportatic'n to meat futL re griow1 F in triavel dein and; • Ac dress tF El topographic, geogriaphia and built environim ant constraints in the corridor m41.ile recognizing the very limited options for e)Klansion of the existing HigF way 43 aorridon; arid • Pros ide a viable tnarispartation option in a constrained aorric or that has limited option's for transportation im provem ants resulting from tF El need to prrotect nati ral, built, socioeconomic anc environm ental resources. Lake C!wego tc'Pari lar d Trcir sit Project Slteering Commit-lee LPA Rercommerlc a1iori—Feld n aryl 20111 Page 4 1 ; _ __ ___ _ , Lake 0 sweg a 'to Portland Portland r TRANSIT PROJECIT SEGMENT 1: ----.1 ,',......f. Locally PneferrE!c Dover town A Renal iv el and Options Rod lard _I PCIF'IA'4 .._ _ - . . C Eirl A, i '11 Figure 1 `_3 Locally Preferred Alternative-Streetcar ,r:- '" Streetcar ziltemathe t Streetcar eilterT atm EI ? ; I dEIElig.ln Option MGM EN7 r i ' Streetcar aiterrlati EI Soup h I Walteirfrort phasing option o station SEGNIENT 3: 4 el park and-rode Johns li♦nc irg Streeta9 a Minimum) . ' * Operable Segment IIMOS;0. - SEGMENT 4: 1 Slel lwood I Transit: existing/planned • . Bridge • Sheet am,existing Stueetcal,u nc er • constnl ct on/pla nr ec _ 1 MAX,(misting SEGMENT 5: MAN,pannec - Dunthorpel/ +r) .,,"' Por lalnd AElria I Tram Riverdale R2lilrclac SI SEGMEN it El: LAK11 La Ne Oswego oSwEC to iit t Milers 10.30.09 0 01.9 '1 0 hake Oswego tcl Porti ar d Transit Pr o:ect I 5Iteering CommitlEle IPA R+..w.'.1.d1ei I,cutiorI—IlEIt rL airy 20111 Hage 5 2. The Streetcar Altenrlaltive best add,IEI9'.IEI9 Goals and Cbjectives tor the Lake Oswego to Por(land Transit Hrojecl as defined in the MIS. In partici lar, the Streetcar Alternative w oLId: • A. Optimize reicnal tran1i11 ylnem blm improving transit withir the Labe Oswego ca nrid c r. • TF e Streetcar Alternative woe Id nElsult in 611-73% higher ridership 111-ain the No Build option and 14-329 F igher ric erslhip than the enhanced Buss option. The streetcar woi Id carry asppro>I imately 1,500 more trips a day tF an enharlclec buss. This translates to approximately 5100,000 mom transit trips a year compared to the enhanced Bis. • The Streetcar Alternative woe Id result in approximately 11.28 million new transit riders anni ally in 2035 compared to the No-Bi ilc. The Enhanced Bus would result in appno)imately 730,550 new transit ric ere anni ally in 2039. • Hor aIn average weekday in 2035 tF e Streetcar Alternative would nElduce veF icle rr ilesl travelEic I:y 65,40C to 68,000 miles; vehicle' F ours travElled by up to 5,700 hoi rsl; and veF icle hoi rsi oft c slay by 400 F ours when comparEic to 111-EI No-Build Alternative. TF a Streetcar Altlenriative w oulc reds cie vehicle miles) travElled t y i p to 24,400 to 27,,000 miles); vel-icle Fours traveled by up to 3,100 to 2,400 hairs; and vehicle hours) oil c elay by 200 hours based on ar avenge welElkc ay in 2035, compared to the enhanced Bi sI Alternative. • Streetcar woi Id provide fasten and more reliable travel option through the most congested parts of the Highway 43 corrdon. Streetcar would optimize tF e trans. system by ilacilitating irr prayed bis connections 110 the west of Lake Clsswego. Streetcar is the only alternative tF at woulc add capacity anc continue to operate quickly despite worsening traffics congestion on Highway 43. The Streetcar Alternative would provide small 'ming' in auto c elay di ring rush F cur1. However,, the streetcar alternative would provide a high quality transit option that would iiIEIEI up neec ed roadway capacity for autos. • The Streetcar Alternative woe Id result in an increase of i p to 9.4 miles cf additional exclusive transit right-of way in the ciorrder. Neither th e No-Build nor the Enhanclec Bi sI woi Id inclrease th e miles c11 El>cdi sig e transit rigF tall-way in the corridor. • The Streetcar Alternative woe Id provide access to faster more reliable llnanssit to approximately 12 080 households arid 24,920 jc bsi within a halt-mile of a new streetcar station. • The Streetcar Alternative would rec uce transit p.m. peak-period peak-direction in- vehicle travel times by up tc 113 to 14 minute's from HSL and Lowell Street to U ke Oswego, respectively, ciomFlared to the No-Build. 11FEI Enhanced Bis would reduce The SI re et cal Alternative would reduce lie i naffic volume on H ighway 43 by appnoximately 100 vehicles dulling the p.m.peak hour(mop.4-26 of C EIS) and woulc provide a reduction in vehiaie houns 131 c elay by 200 hours peer day(see p.4122,Th ble 4.311 of NI OEIS). Lade Cswego 10 Porticlr d Transit Proo'ect Steering Committee LPA Recommendation—Fel nen'3011 Page 6 tlnavel time by 3 minutes from PSU and Lowell Street to Lakes Clswego compared to the No-Build. The Streetcar Alternative woulc have a greater capability lbn fiture transit service expansion th an the No-Build or Enh zinced Bus alternatli%es, because: a] th El Streetcar Alternative woi Id result in a new transit right-of-way t atweerl La ka Oswego and the Soh th Waterfront; b)frequencies of llnarisitl vehicles'cot Id be increase: to respond to increasing demanc over time; and c; single-track sections aoi Id t El changed in the tut re into two-tracik sections, 1Ih ereby allowing even more freciuent streetcar service. With the no-build arid erill anced bis' alternate es, the corridor's trunk line bis routes woulc operate in mil ec ilnafflcl on th El congested Highway 43, th ereby limiting alternatives' ability to expand to increasing c errand. B. Ele fatality iespansiive and maximize regicnal►esauIrces, to de extent possible. •� The DBIS inc lutes that the capital cost for the Streetcar Alternative woulc be significantly high eir than that fbr the enhanced Bus Alteirnathe3. However, Streetcar represents lower anni al operating costwhen compared to the Brill anew Bi s Alternative. Initial projections show that the Streetcar Alternative would to $1.5 million per year less expensive to operate) than enhanced Bus. C%Eir the planning horizon fbr the project,, i.e., to th El Year 2039, streetcar would result in over $37.7 million' IYear of e)penditure) in operating costs savings over the enhanced Bis alteirnath e. II The DEIS indicates that th El No Build Allteirnathe woulc not provide sufficient service • to meet projected demand. The Ent anew Bus Alternative, while sufficient to meet) demaric, woulc t a more EDI pensive to operates than streetcar, aric would be suk jest to the same level of traffic)delays as automobiles travelling in the corridor. Factoring in capital costs,, ridership and long-term operating costs, the Streetcar Alternative would be it El most cost-effective option'.The Streetcar Alternative woulc be more effective in its use of local operating reveni es in generating new transit ric erst ip tlh an the enhanced Bus Alternative. The streetcar would cost up to $1.06 per new system wide transit person trips compared to $3.82 per new transit trip under th eI Ent zinced Bus A Iterriative. a The public already owns the Willamette Shore Line right)-of-way which would to utilized fbr the t ulk of the' project alignment. Not i sing it would mean losing a tremendous opportunity to itiliae a past investment as local match to significantly leverage federal flunc ing fbr 1 he project. C. Support iegicnaland local land we and transportation plans ano policies. The Streetcian Alternative would pro%ide additional support for activity centers with in th el corridor, over the Enh zinced Bus, by: a) providing additional tnarisit tnavel time improvements between the activity centers,; k; improving the reliability of the • 3 $51.1M for Inhanced Bus compared 10$379.611d-$458.3M fbr SI reetca n(I ea n oil Expenditure$$). See p.S-I11 of GEIS. See liable 5.1-3,p.5-5 01 DEIS. Lake'Csweigo tci Pcirtlar d Transit Pnojec I Steering Committee LPA Recclmmelrlc aticlrl—Relbruary 2013 Rage 7 connecting transit line throL gh the adc ition of exclusive transit night-of-wary; aric ci) wrist'''.citing visible streetcar stations integrated with in the varioL s activity centers. • The Streetcar' Alternative woe Id comply or would better aorr ply with regional an. local lanc usEI plans and policies through th e construction of a streetcar linea, @lErnerally using exclL sive transit right-of-way, connecting the cionridor's key activity centers. • The StnEIEltciar Alternative woulc result in up to 1,500 short-term jobs and 13 long term jobs. 11F El Enhanced BL s Alternative would rest.It in 240 shorl-term jot s and 28 lora€-1 firm jobs. • Based on regional and national el)periErnce, a stnEretciar line is likely to leverage higher levels of econorr is c eveloprr ent in the Johns Landing neighborhood and downtown Lake Oswego. Streetciar woulc provide enhanced opklortLriities for land use that fosters compact i.rban form, nErduced ‘Erhicle miles travelled anc h ighen transit rr ode split than bus transit alone cioulc provide. • The Streetciar Altennative is suklporl ive of other planning efforts to del Eilokl a m i.Iti- usEI path through the Lake Oswego to fortlarid ciorridon. In particular, th e in-street Macadam design option !las c isciLssErc below; woL Id allow the existing Willamette Shone Line to be consic ered for a biker/peat estrian path. • The Streetcar AltErrnath El could h elkl to ji rr p start other critical public transportation projects inch ding they South Portal project in Portland and foothills Road in Laker Oswego. • Streetcar woulc be rr ore likely to facilitates der%Erloklrr ent and redevelopment in thill ciorric on, because of til e major capital investrr rat th at would be rr ac e in th El ciorric or's transportation infrastructune aric t Eiciai.se of improved transit travel tin.e, reliability and visibility linking the ciorric or's rr ajor activity c intens. D. Be sensitive to the natural, L Will and sc tial envinonnr enlI • In Lake Oswego,, the Streetcar Allteirnative wog Id prci%ide fon safe fede<itriari connections, inclL c ing a rm.te unc er th Er Union faciific railroac connecting th Ei Starr phEir Road rifiightorhood with cowritown Laker ClswErto; a pedestrian connection between downtown and the foothills area with a safe cinossirig of the LI nion laciific Railroac and in. pro ad peat estrian faciilities between c ow ritow n anc they Oswego Village shopping center. • The Streetciar Alternative would nem ove about 40,000 tonisi of CO, from the environment on an average weekday. This is a significant arr ount anc is 15,C100 tons m011E1 than the Enhanced Bus AltErrnati%er. By comparison, the No Build option pnovides no nEic uctiori on CCI2. Stree1cian would also redLcie fuel const.nniption by about E10,000 gallons per yean, cion pared to th e No Build Alternative. • Streetciar'would create opportunities to in.pnciREl fish passage in replaciec or repairEic culverl s,, adc native vegetation, irr prove hat itats anc rem ove invasive ‘Ergeitation. It Lahl a Csti ego io Aortic nd Transit Projeai Steering Committee LHA RecicimmErric aticrri—Rat ri,ary 2011 Rage 8 would redevelop up to 7.EI acres of existing impervious surface to current standards, 111.ereby reducing run-off and improving water qi ality. • Streetcar woLId include remediation of i p to 311 known Fazardousi sited in complian'c'e with aFlplic!at le state and federal stanc ands. EL Garner t Ino a d p ubIic n upp c rt. 11 With in the city limits of Portland, streetcar has considerable community support as evidenced by comments arid testimony from community memt eirsi and organization's!. 41 Within take Oswego, vocal community support is more mixed. Howel%er, comments from community members arid organizations inc hate an i.nderstanding of the need and t einefits of high capacity transit relative 110 Lake Oswego achieving i11s goals under the Metno 2040 flan and local plans, incluc ing redevelopment of the FootF ills! area. Based on public!comments and impacts and pote'n'tial mitigation measures is entified in the DEIS, the citizen advisory committee IICAC) developed their recommendation to the Steering Committee. Four-fifllhs of tF e CAC members! at the final me'e'ting SIL ppc rted carrying the Streetcar' Alternative! into Rreliminaryl Engineering and the Final Brivironmental Impact Statement. IIIA STREETCAR DESIGN OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS The DEIS outlines a series! of Flhasing or design options in five location's! along the proposed stne'eitciar alignment (See Figures! 2 and 3). These design arid phasing options include: ]I] phasing options in Sot,th Waterfront in the locatic ri of the proposed South Portal Project; 2) three design options in Johns Landing; _IJ Flhaisling options at the Sellwood Bridge where the streetcar alignment w oL Id be impacted by the ultimate design arid constri c1 ion timeline for the Sellwcod Bridge replacement project; 41 two design options in DuntForpe/Riverdale were considered in order to 215151E15111 the impact) of the streetcar on el)isting residential properties; anc 9] two design options in Lake Cswego wenei considered in the foothills rede'velopme'nt area which are dependent on tF e character and timing of the Rooth ills! redevelopment. The following is neicommeinded fbr each oil tF este design or phasing options: A) South Waterfront(Phasing Option) The CRS assumed that tF a City oil Portland's! South Portal project is completed in 2035 and streetcar' would operate in tF e eixl ended Moody/Bond couplet. TF e u Itimate c esiign of tF El streetcar' in the Sotth Waterfront will be cepencent on the final design arid timing for constri cltion of tF a Son,th Portal Project. Basec on the conclusion of the South Portal Study, tF eI City of Portland along with the project team will recommend an alignment in this segment to the Steering Committee for approval. In the interim, it is recommended tF at both options! be carried fbrwarc ibr flurtF er study. I (Jake Cswego to Pcrticir d Transit Project Steering Committee LRA ReccimmelricAlan—Rebruary:101111 Rage 9 Lake Oswego JOHNS L rt DIKE! DUNTHORPi IREVBROME 10 Portland is r` 11R/IN7111 PROJECT JU ....i �C I,lame!!ta' a_ApEYur. A` „,: dip i Shore Streetcar Alternative ' Line '` vii: 1caduir . Ir (:esigrr ta. Design C ptlon Details .11;1,heel i 1 U,;tion ) 1,C lesi i i \ Otion i Ritienvooa .` WitnettC 1 F�4g ure 2 p ` liat•.-- I �' air, Sion Optioa ` Line 41 +�� L \\`� IIPT Opt! Johns Landing Desig n Options A- .m, r •. ., -Willamette ShoreL ne fMdcada'm r `,+¢-- -Macadam In-Street Ada ttiox'at 1 -‘ -Macadam Additional Large '~Lane sw DundwrpelRiverdele Desic n t iverwood O OOIRS tGrt � -- •Rd - imette Stow Line � ��`•' + '• 0 Lake Oa yoga Design!Options ® ` 1/E m I2 -UPfIR Right-al-Way ` Fool hills ' S .I • 51 `,r. t I stir ; '.•.:� GIra lin, St Si ree car alignmen :ommcu for as options L SI mile s111 •:, z tre*ra . it reetcau design options s`' LAKB OSWI3C U4111 ®� Briarwood O a Streetcar station Road• P and ride g t C Optional station P ` , r i e Tiiansit C enter Iti. Map Index t i1 Union Pati f:'c R R> Ii ucN hillsI rRigbf of-Wiry' O''cii kifnlyaf esigt. Des: nlOptaonOptimaI OSRG ir��'�,�ti - �4 i �i i ; "' ar ar• v., • •B?h enue 1a gyp 0,Park-and-lit lc: # k '1 101 sF aces DUIYTHORPE/ ILI RI%ERDALE 1 Lake Oswego lerminus �t• rk-and-ride 10'1 %' ; 300 spare . ... 4,0.11!4057 LAKE !. 0!1W1IGO ,3s r romdl m5l ahnG1d1tt40 laMIe C iwego io Portkind Transit Project Steering Committee LRA Reccimmer c aticir —F at rL ary 2011 PE 1€lEl 110 1 • B] Johns Landing(Design Option) llh Ee CBS aonsiderec three (3) design options for the alignment in the central pore ion of Joh ns Landing between approximately SW Julia Street extended to SW Carolina Street. The options included: a Willamette Sh ore Line. This option woulc have the streetcar alignment within the existing W illamiEette Shore Line right-of-way throe gh Johns Landing). • Macadam In-Stneeeet. This option wot.Id bring the streetcar alignment out of the Willamette Shone Line at approximately SW Julia Street extended, along SW Landing Drive (cIL rrently a prit,ate s'treell),, on 110 SW Bounds Ty Street, along SW Mau dam in the ex isting outside travel lanEes,, and return th tEl alignment to the Willamette Shore Line a t SW Carolina Street. • Macadam Adc itional La ne. This option would bring the streetcar alignment ot.t of the W illamiEitte Shore Line ata ppm))im ately SW it,Iia Street extended, along SW Landing Dri%Ee currently a private street), on to SW Boundary Street, along SW Macadam in the existing) outside travel lane south bound and in a new ex clusive streetica r/right)turn lane northbound„ a nd return the alignment to the Willamette Shore Line at SW Carolina Street. Hollowing review o1 1It El design options, inc uding detailed tra ffic a nalyses by k oth M Eetro and CICICIT, and discussions with neighk orhood representatives and th e CMC, th El Macadam In- Streel col is n is recommended for the following reea sons: 111 II. The Willamette St ore Line Option, while pro%iding the fastest travel times and highest ric ership, woulc be extremely close to a large nt,miber of residential i.nits in several condominium complexes. The proximity of the residential a nits to the streetcar in this' alignment, and 1Ih El potential creation of ac ditiona I barriers to river access, makes this the least desirable design option. 2. The difilereencies in traffic impacts between the Macs dam In-Street and Maciadam Adc itional Lane are relati‘ely minor. The Additional Lane option would require additional property acquisition and street construction', and is more ciostly. 3. Compared Ike the M acadam Adc itional Lane Cption, the Macadam In-Street option wot.Id help to preserve the \eigeitative be ffeir and visual screen between M acadami and the W Warr ette Shore c'onedomiriiu m s. 4. Streetcar on M aciac am could h elp to improve the pec estrian environment from SW Boundary to SW Carolina Streets. Th Ee neighborhood has long desired traffic ca!mined amenities such as moue fieequent crosswalks,, wicer sidewalks,, a lower speed limit and better bicycle/pec est-Ian accessibility from neighborh oods on both sic es of Macadam. The Streetcar AltEernathe can help a ddress'these objectives bit will need further analysis, design and engineering to determine w h at is feasible. 51. Bringing the streetcar a lignm Eent into Maciadam Avent,a for approximately one-hall mile w ot.Id inn prove the potential for the streetcar to bring at out additional development within • the neigh bort ood—a key Elm-I of the neighborhooc and the project. Llakei Cswe'go toe Pcirtlar id Tramit Pnojed Slteering Commit)Eve LPA P e commenc a tic n–Flea ru ary 201111 F a ge 11 IL t L-PHOJEC1 INTERIM 1LLAMETTE St.ORE Lake Oswego • CONSTRUCTION MOODY/BOND_LOUPLET_ - INt.P.HASING_OPTION_ III 0 Flort land �I �I,AI 'q6 f Ip,tc I— r 11;' 8 971 II Ilrl� SWI I TRAIN' IT PRCI,IEIT I i�l'II p ..,,,-,- • .;\ �ti ��,14 Bancroft p iI,' • •B an croft EXtE trial Pro eClt C ,� ► ` "t�'� e : St i t , C oaudir ation Halal ed t u1 ,e a qd"'^• a a ,I a• Phasing Options • �I 1 j ■ ;;;. I a ,//,� I a Figure 3 H `/ r J;� " er■it 1 %treat:in ''' '' " II �Y Sout11 Q'aterfron it Segment: // /� a F onJ f ii • Full flnujcal CvnarrucGon:Muu v/Boad % / i r 7 I a Couple roadway improvement are HarnItor Mani aA ;:i aSJ1' coi1truck.!beforeoni.oto'rmmyvilid'tle M Hamilton Srrretcan cnnstr tenon.interim / CCI -fni Mo eiyAllond Camilla and%Mill&irate Share • C / / .% Line Phasing I)ptions:St�leetca r is I // /Jconstrucrc prior tai he Moot 1/Bond - Couple iloadway tip rovemene. FULI-PRO,IECT WILL/Th/1E7111 SHORE LINE Scllwooc Bridge Scgalent: CONSTRUCTION PHASING OPTION rids ileojet C o stead ote New Selhuoot ' Bridge ane west utteraf aogg tmprtiven entr w e corntrucred before or concurrent y with \�\ \\ j/ � tali.: he sc eetcaa wostru tion Wilianlerte SI a ra C Lire Phasing(proal Streetca1 is �' rnt shwin in the Q611arnel e SI ore Line Tight of wan prion to the Scllwaxnl Bridge and utast interium a imps uranins. \1` LaaIf Oswego Segment Y Fait dhl Desrge Option the Faathilb ,yl redevelopment pIolea':i roadway improve Ur p, s 5-'1400d Sr a c: _I mei is would br t canuruered bd or 0 ,' Br<3a ?k, E sloe concvrrondywitl tht streetcar aonsauctior. C\,-, L° Foothr hl Interim Phasing Opriorc Screcicar m , is constructed prior to the neconsauation ol a re w Foothills Road acwxiatt d w th tht \kt) Foothills Rx__,_..1....,..,t ptoject 0 O l4 tooth streetcar a ignmcnt OSty,eeladr prgPrl aperdiittetOrl 7 t _ ` �e relater ohas ng option . � Streetcar phasing option,rt'ativrtq \\ ■a a unpgovements not complete 02 tt:tlel \� 612 mites \� 0 Sutlett rstation park and rids FCICITH ILLI FCICITF ILLI INTERIM DESIGN OPTION PHASING OPTION 1101 ap inc ex >// r I/ %/ // ; SOUTH 41,- /' : WA 1ERFRORIT .e' tit/ '// a . � � //r a � I . Iota . // . // a I 4. ,• J e l o SELLWOCI4 +� I I i BRIDGE e. A •IeAr1? • 'P C aA � I I s Ir - j F as 1 I l y+jA 7,41 o•Iit ~ ,�•s ��1rm e — 1 N j A • — — ? / , i I*".Ti-- yst URE Q t • CISW EGD W J! S �^ ,4Sry GL .t4E O!t s � 7 0 Q a,rMnt� r� tMiies .,-a rile i',' ' I1.2ard� CI 1 2 ID !lake Oswego to Portlland Trar sit Project 9teerirg Cclmrr ittelel LPA Reaorr mendation- Rebrualryl 3011 Pagel 13 6. Macadam Avenue is currently a state h ighway adrninisteneid by OCIC111. Implementation of the Macadam Ire-Street option as discussed above wou Id requ ire a set of disaneieit approvals from C10C111 as desaribec in the DEIST comments provided by the Agency e.g., approval of new traffic signals, c'rosswalNs and traffic calming measured]. If Macadam Avenue remains under state ju risdiction,, and tF e appropriate approvals' cannot be obtained„ modifications to thEl alignment through the Joh n's Ilaric ing aneia may become necessary. Discussions are currently underway between 00011 arid tF a prceject partners regarding a possible jurisdictional transfer of Macadam Avenue anc Highway 43 to Icicial governments. SIFouId tF id occur,, approvals neces's'ary tce implement the LPAI within the Johns Landing) aneva would fall exclusively to tF e City of Portland. Hor the reasons stateec above,, the Macadam In-Street option is strongly preferred. Contingent with this option: ]I) the public uses cif the Willamette Shone Line I W SL] shall be maintained for pedestrian and bicycle use; arid 2] c eveloglrrient of a plan tce equitably replace th e local match value of th e u nuseed WSN right of way in this portion of tF El alignment sit all be addneessed. These is's'ues sFoulc be resolved tce the satisfaction of the Steering Committee prion tie the ccirmeencementl of the Final Gnu ironmeental Impact Statement. C; Sellw oad Bridge (Phasing Option) The CIHIS ree%iewad two phasing options'for sitneveetcear construction in IIF El vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. 11F a diffeneer'cee between the two options is c efened by the ultimate design arid timing for constru ci ion of th e Sellw ood Bridge replacement prceject. It is recommended tF al both options be carried forward for additional study in coordinaticen with the Sleellwooc Bridge • replacement project. aJ Riverdale/Duntha rpe(Design Option) The DAIS considered two 12] design options' in this portion of the corridor: a) Willamette Shore Line; and b] Riverwood Road. The Riverwood Roac option resulted from early discussions with property owners who were interested in understanding the prod and cons of an alignment within an existing public street that would allow the streetcar alignment to move away from several houses that were built in seryl close prwirriity to the Willamette Shone Line. Linder th e Riverwood Road option, th e streetcar aligrinr sent would shift into Riverwooc Road fnomi apprcerinnately its intersection with Highway 43 to a point several hundred feet south of SW Military) Roac. It is receommendec that both option's' be carried forward for furth er study for tF El following reasons: 1. While tF tEl Riverw clod Roac option has supporters,the conceptual design defined in the cos woulc result in tF e proposec closu re of the intersection of F ighway 43 arid Riverwooc Rd. in orc er to accommodate tt e streetcar alignment. A site specific study should be undertaken to determine whether a practical engineering solution exists that wou Id allow this intersection of Highway 43 and Riverwood Road to terrain open, as well as mitigation measiu res for access, noise and vibration with the Willamette Shone Line right-of-way option and resolution' of concerns about the design of Riverwood. Based on further tech nical work and put Ha outreach, and discussions with C10CIT, the project team will make a recommendation'to the Steering Ccerrnmittlee regarding a preienred alignment tce advance for • furtF er study. flake OswE go tce Portia,d Trc r sit Project Steering Commitl Elee L PAI Aeecommenic ationi—Hest n,ary 201111 Pa gle 113 • 2. AI pre-cont itlion for possible future selection of 11F e Riverwood Road design optlion is development of a plan to equitably replace the local match value of tihe uric sled W511 right c1 way in this port ion of the alignment. llhisi issue sihoulc t Ei resell,ad to 1IF a satisfaction of th Steering Committee prior to the commencement of the Final Environmental impa Statement. E) Lake O5iwego (Design Optic n) The UHIS considers two 112] design options' within the Hootlhills Rede%EdoFlmientl area: a) the Hootlhills Road; anc b) tt a UPRR Right-of-Way option. The Rootlhills Road option would aonsdlrL ci the streetcar tracks as part of a new extension of Roothillsi Road that woi Id serve ft.tlure redevelopment in the area. The URRR option woi Id L tiliaEn EDI i5lIing Union Haciifici right- of-way. Ill is recommended that both design options be carried forward for further site,dy for the following reasons: 1. Detailed planning and preparation of a c evelopmient plan for the Hoothills area is currently unc erway and is expected to be ready for detailed Flubllic nEN iew over the next EI-]I2 months. Als such, the timing fon redevelopment, inch ding construction of new roads and infrastri ct L re is unaerl ain. U nail more is known about the redevelopment plans, ill is riot possible to ascertain the best option icr this area. Moreover,, st Quid the Rootlhills rede%elopmentl not move forward within the planning honizon for streetcar, or not move forward at all,, detenmination of 11F e best alignment may be delayec. More detailed,, joint) planning with the City of Lae Oswego siF ould be undertaken to establish the 1,lability of the Food ills Roac alignment. 2. While the UPRR alignment mists today and benefits from clown proximity to State Stree its a%ailabilityq and ultimata cicist for use as a streetcar alignment Iasi not been determine with certainty. During follow-on studies it will be possible 110 enter into c etailed discussions with 1IF a Union Pacific reganc ing the potential usia of 11F a right)-ell-way and the costs associated w itlh such use w ill be ascertained with greater accuracy. Basted on 1IF e conclusion of the Foothills planning process and discussion with the U nion Paoli io Railroad, the Steering Committee sit ould select an alignment to advance for further analysis in llt e HEIS. IV) OTHER CRITICAL DESIGN/PROGRAM C ONSICIBRATICINS The analysis in llF El DEIS and community discussions have resulted in the identification cf a series of additional design and programmatic issues that need to be addressed in future study phases of tF e project. Issues llF at change the scope of tF e gro;Eecl or add additicinal ciositlsi to the project)shoe,Id be reviewed by 11F e Steering Committee prior to advancement in th El HEIST.The following summarizes these oonssic eratlions: A) Streetcar!Ito p/Staltic ri Locations In addition to the streetcar stop/station locations identified in the DEIS, it is recommended the following adc itlional stations be studied: ]I. SIM Penaleton St. AI station location along the Willamette Shore Line at SW Pendleton Street was deemec infeasille c ue to pri%ate property impacts. At 11F El same time, the lack of station between SW Boundary) Street and SW Carolina Street in the Macadam In-SltreE Llakei Oswego to Pcirtlar d Trar sit Project Steering Commiti ee L PA Recommendation—February'3011 Pace 14 option creates a ®apt between !tabor's' in this criiticial stretch of Macadam /Went.El. Sitting of a station at SW Pendleton St. will requ ire specific appno%al by ODOT L niesss a it.risdiational • transfer of Macadam Avenue from ODOl1 to the City of Portland 151 approved IIsee 111.116. above). 2. SW Radcliff Rd. llheire appears to be support in the corm unity ion adc ing a station on the streestcsan alignment at/near 51W Radcliff Rd. AI station at this location shot.Id t e aluated during the next phase of study, along with safe pedestrian arid bike access and trail connections to arid from th e station and to Lewis! &Clank College. Rric r tc, or as part oi,, Prelim inary engineering, pos!sit le stations!at SW Pendleton Street aric SW Radcliff Road should tel re%ieweid arid station locations in the John's Lanc ing area optimized in consultation with appropriate juris!dici icns. Results!from a station area analysis aric th e study of Flotlential stations! at SW Pendleton and SW Radcliffe statiorss will be sh ared with the Steering Committee to confirm the final nu rr ber arid location of stations for inclusion in the HIS. El] Lake Oswego Park and Aide Haciilitiesi llh a Lake Oswego cc m m u nityi has! raised a number of issues cc neerning the two la proposed park and rice facilittieis! in Lake Oswego. During the next phase of the project the following issues, among potential others, shoulc be addressed: 1. Confirm 111.e need for anc site of th e proposed park anc ride facilities!. 2. Undertake ac ditional urban design studies of the propc sed park and ride facilities to address the impact ci the proposed park and rides facilities on adjacent properties! and • development potential. 3. Hollow-ori str.diets sh ould assess in more c etail mitigation mean res to address traffics impacts of th e park and ride facilities!. In addition,, mitigation measures for traffic impacts should address community concerns regarding potential im pacts to Nc rth Shore Rd. Cf particular concern is the potential increase in "cut through' traffic coming from the west slice of Lake Oswego arid im patting this narrow residential street. C) Other Critical Issues It is reiciom rr ended that the Ic flowing additional critical issues be addneis!s!ec during th e next study phaseis of the project: 11. FLndirig Camiaerations. Project ciosts should be further anelycec arid a concept!.el finance plan for the project brought forwarc flan review by the Steering Committee arid partner jurisdictions!. 2. Altcrnaiives tb Boundary Street Jon entry/exit point Jot Macadam iIn-Street option. The traffics analysis! in the OBIS shows that the intersection ci SW Boundary Street at Macadam Avenues represents a potential area req fining significant moc Hication to address future traffics congestion issues. One possit le approach to redL cos traffic congestion at this intensection would be to move the streetcar acscsess point to Maciac am A\enure approximately twlo blocks north to the vicinity of an extension of SW Richardson St. Consideration shoo Id alsc t e given to minim icing the num ber of 90 degree twirls with this • option to slave travel time. 111.is and otter options should be discussed with impacted /lake Oswego to Portland TransitPrcject Stewing Comm ittee LRA Recommendation—Rebruaryi 3011 Rage 1 51 • jurisidicl ions and siiluc ied prior 110 or during Flrelimiriaryl engineering. The re's'ults of the analysis' should be presented to the Steering Committee whict will determine thea final configuration for study in the HMS. 3. Sidewalk Widths on Macadam Avenue. llh e Johns Landing rieight orhood is keenly interested in increasing th El width of sidewalks along Maaadam, particularly along 1Ih a east side of Maaadam between Boundary and Carolina. The siaope of work for Preliminary' Engineering shoLld include a study of opportunities tic increase sidewalks.' widths and dis'cus'sion willh imipacted jurisdicticns Ialsc s_'eEi III.B.6 above). 4. FledEisbian improverr entsl in the Carolina to Nevada area of Macacam Avenue. The Joh ns Landing neiight orhood initially expressed some interest in seeing the silneieitcar alignment) continue s'out'h along M madam from SW Carolina to appro)imately SW Nevada. C iven right-of-wary and traffic issues in this stretch of N aciadam, this approach is not a viable c ftic ri. Alternatively, the neiighboncc od we uld be interested in pursuing a concEirted set of pec esstrian improvements in this area, including, bLt not limited to: a] s'lowe'r traffics speeds; b) improved pedestrian crossings; c) significant) pedestrian improvements between Maaadam and llhe station Ioaallions.' at SW Nebraska and 9W Nevada 9treetls; and d) pedestrian improvement's on Macadam, inclLding improved sidewalks, street lighting, bericih es and other pedestrian-scale amenities. lite siaope of work for Preliminary' Engineering s'h oulc incl.c e a study of opportunities' fon an improved pedestrian environment in this area and discussion with impacted jurisdictions regarding hew tic im'plem'ent such improvement1 I also sere III.B.EI abciNi El:. 5. Flotentiall for l'oca'l Improvement Districts in Johns llanair g and Foothills. Further studie sit ould be undertaken to assess th e potential for Locial Improvement District I LID) c r oth mechanism to provide Iota I match for 1Ih e felt eral fundin€I of 11h e project. In Joh ns Landing in particular, an IJICO could mitigate the loss.'of local match associated with not using the WSL in port'ons.' cf the Joh n's landing neigh bort cod. In Hootlhillsi, certain inc ustrial property owners ha%e already agreed 110 511 pport an LID for the project. 6. Use of the Existing W ililan ettei Shore Llir e Right-of-Way for bicKle/pedestriar rr pnovementsL 1lh e Johns Landing neigh bort ood is open to cc nsidering the usiei of tlhei existing Willamette Shore Line right-cf-way 1br improvements' tc the bicycle and pedestrian facilities should 11hei streetcar move forwarc i nden the IV madam In-Street alignment as recc mmended herein. Th e legal steps necessary tic evaluate this idea she uld be ac dressed di ring the next phase of study. 7. Resolution of Env ironmentall Issues loentified in the DELIS. As detailed in C h apter 3 of the DEI9, certain environmental issues h Ei been identified. These iss i Eis1 will be fL rther analysed and m'itligatic n meas.'s res.' identified and dei%elc pad in the course of undertakir'@ the Pneli urinary EinginEVEirinF'and preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 8. Flroperty Iry pacts Due to /cpuisitlion. Work with affected property owners along the alignment to minimise the im'pacl due to prc perty acquisitic ri. In Lake Oswego, property acquisitic n in the Flootlhills area needs to be coordinated wilt the Hoothills Planning work to maximize the t Einefill of the project to property owners arid to facilitate qt.ality rec evelopment opportunities as th ey beicic mei known. !Icike Oswego to Portland Transit Project Steering Committee URA Recommendation—Rehm ary 2011 Rage 16 151511.esi thail change tF El scope of the project or aidd additionail costs to the project will be reviewed by tt e Steering Committee as part of ills determination of what siFould be aidvanced in • the FEIS. V) OTHER FU11UIIH V C1HK PLAN CCINSIOBRA1AONS Eb h ibit"A" to lit is recommendation provides a list of secondary i51511 esi/concerns than shot.Id be consiiderec di ring the follow-ori study phases of the project. — HND OH IRA RECOMMENDATION — S I Llakei OswEgo to Portilar d Tay sit Project Steering Committee LPA Ile commeric a tiori—Felt rt.a ry 2011 Page 117 :- AFF ENCIUII A CITHER FL 1U Re WCIRK PLAN CONSIDERATICINS GENERAL 11. Further define nespansibilities 11an operation, ownership zinc maintenance of th e extension. JCIHNSI LANDING 11. Consic en ways to calm tnaffici, including rec a cling th El speed limit on Macac am, ac c itional enforcement anc oth sir traffic claiming measu res. 3. While there is community support fon SW Linc ing Drive t ecoming a FIu t lic s1 rest, th a ciammu nity is interestec in keeping the necianstru cted stneet as naumaw as possible Qi.ei.,th El cammu riityj is looking fcir street c esign flexibility] I eryond the normal City ail Ficirl lanc stanc anc s;. 3. Property owners want transpzireincry with re€land to a potential local improvement di91 nict. They want to k now a n front wF at their share all the project will be and the geograplh ici boundaries of 1 h El ppiajeicts ciosl s th at will be borne ty pnoperty owners. 4. The Aneliminaryi Bn€lineening studies sh ou Id include c evelopmenl ail specific noise and vibration mitigation anc visual screening ciFll ions and recommendations. Rarl icular attention shoulc bei given to th ei OPB faciility anc aFIFIraFlrial El v it ration mitigal ion to ensu ne comFlatit lei operal ions. RIV ERCIAILB/DU NTHORRB • 11. Th El Riverdale/DL ri1 F arple ciammu nity is interested in wF at II appens to W511 ri€Ih 1-of-way if Rh erwoac Rd. is selected, i.e., will it I El al anc aped or said? Ruture c isposil ion cif th El right-of-way sh au Id t e resolvec in the riext FIh ase ail 1 h e project. 3. Th El ciammu nity is ciancernec about the visu al impact of the aaienaryl wire and su pport system. options for rec u cling the v i<i a al impact of the catenary wine sy si elm sh au lc be addressed in the next ph ase of the project. 3. Ru r1 h en c EIV elaplment of 1h e Riverwooc Road apll ion sh au Id consid en shifting th El riga t-ail-way to th a west at th El south end c11 Riverwaoc in cmc em 1 a fu ri h en I u filer h au SEIS from 1 h e alignment. 4. Th El cammu nity is condemned at au t commuters parking in the neigh t anh aac, particu larly near the Riverwood station, anc it is felt that strong measures wou lc be neer sic 1a prevent su ch park ing. More specific apt ions in this regard sl-au Id be considered in the ne)t Fib aSEI cif th El project. 9. With regard to th a Riverwaac Roac option, ciammu nity concerns about pedestrian arid I ike safety and diminish ment cif the neigh t anh aad character neec to t e acidnessec in the next phase of the ppiaject. E. The Rneliminaryl Eln€lineae nin€I sl u c ies should include de%elapment cif specific noise anc vit nation mitigation and visual screening optians anc recommendations. 3. Improvements to the intersection all Highway 43 and 51% Military Rd. cm Id Le considered as parr cif the project. Lake C swesla to Partlland Trar sit Flro jeict Steering Clammittee IPA Recommendation—Rebruaryl 30111 Pa€lei 11E1 • F. Community concern about the potential for additional traftlici on Military'Rc. near Riverdale School should be ac c reis9eic in the next phase of the project. 1110 LA N E CISIWBC CI ]I. In consic errinEI the iwci alignment options for th e Rcicith ills area, consideration shou Id be given to the benefit] cif th El Hoothills Road apt ion 1 ci Flncivide development ciplplcrrI u nil IEIS or t cit h sic EIS till the streetcar alignment as companerd 1 ci the UR option,, which would pro%is El fan new development on only orae side cdi 1 h e alignment. 3. Additional details aria needed as 1 ci how to creel El a "special" and in%itintl acciess to th er Si reetcian option from _'Itate S1. and 9 Aver., plcii einitially th rot Eli' an overpass Giver the UP tracks, incilu c incl stairs and elevator. 3. Th El studies undertakers in the next phase cif 1 h El project should ac c rens the relationship between 1 h Rcicithills development plan and streetcar, e.g., c cies an alignment c eiaision need 1 ci I e tied 1a the Roothills de%elcrpment? Is it possible to u nc ers ake phasec development of the alignment? 41. Th El studies undertaken in the rEDt ph asei of th El pinojeict should ac c cess 1 h e question: what would be 1 h e ciosi to increase the width of the UP right-cif-way fcir fu 1 u ire dot t ler track frig? S llcike Oswego to Portland Tiansiit Aroject Jteering Committee.'LPA Recommendation—Pet ru aryl 3011 Page 119 Hebruaryl ]i(I,2C1]I]I Lake Elsvvego Carlotta Collette,Chair to Portland • Lake Oswego to Hcirtland'liransil Pnajact Steering TRANSIT PROJECT Committ(IEI ci/o Metrlo 600 NH(rand Ave. Portland,OR 9721321 I]ean Canlatta, A:I you are aware the Community Advislary Committee has bean meeting since October 2009 to learn about and consider the alternatives,design options,station locations,potential environmental impacts and other ism as analyzed in the lake Oswego to Part]and mrar.isit Praject Draft Environmental lmpaci Statement(DEIS).After much thoughtful canverslatlan,at n recent disaL ssions have Moused on ti e I malts and tradeoffs associated with ti a alternatives and impacts identified in ti a LIHIS. A summary of our key comments are reflected in the attached notes. In addition,from our final deliberations,we offer majority and minority opinions to the Steering • Committee as you pnepane to make your own neccmmendatian on a locally Preferred Alternative (LPA;. C n Fat.7,the CAC held ita final meeting to ccnisidar an LPA necammendaticm.Of the 23 members of ti a CAC, 1( voted in favor of streetcar Qtwo votes provided in writing di;a to absence from meeting),2 favored enhanced ti,s, 11 no-bt ild and 11 abstained from voting.Three members wene absent from the meeting. Two-thirds of the CA(I members sIu pporl carrying ti a Sltteetcar alternative and the fcdlawing design options)into Preliminary Engineering and the Hinal Erlvinor.Imental impact Statement: 411 johns landing: Macadam ln-Street design'option 411 Riverdale/Elnthonpe: carry bath design options,the Willametle Shane Line and Riverwood Road design options 41 Lake Omega: carry both design aptians,ti e U PRIR night of way and Foothills Road design options ofalternative i l r e t for avalua an of station locat ansa and other • Support the.Itneeltcian includes mit Is s ti .i I design ciansidenatians to be nefir.ied in advance of or during Preliminary Engineering and the Final Environmental Impact Statement,as fcdlaws: Analyze stations'at SIW Pendleton Stileet and in the vicinity cif SW Radcliffe Road neap t1 es Lewis and Clark trail/bc at ramp II Study apportu nitles 1 to enhance the pedestrian environment and alternatives to Boc indary entry)/exult witt the Macadam In-Street design option 41 Seek to add pedestrian improvementsl between SW Carolina and SIW I\eivada al Ging SIW Macadam,with particular emphasis on creating strong aonnect'cns between Macadam and the proposiec streetcar stations at SIW Nebraska and SIW Nevada. U Consider the pciteintia] for ldeepingl t1 El intersection of Riverwood and Highway 43 open under the Riverwood Road design option Two CA C members supporl Enhanced Bus as described below: I1 Support fon enhanced bus includes nequestt fon evaluation of bus stap locations and other design considerations during Preliminary Eng;Ineering and t.1 El Final Environmental Impact Statement,as follows: o Review number of stops and stop locaticns,especially near Rac ciliffei Road o Consider new buss vehicle techncdogy • o Consider exr fess bus service41 With enhanced bus or no-build there may be an option to use the Willamette Shore Dine right of way for another use,potentially a multi-use path,pending legal analysis and eng'Ineeesring feasibility. C nes CA C member supports No-Build for the following reasons: t No-build maintains limited local transit service in the corridcr with na additional capital investnl ent Thank you for yciun thaugt tfu 1 consideration of the CAC recommendation fon a Locally Preferred Alternative. Please feel free to contact me if there is something I can clarify or additional information I can provide. Slinc ierely, Ellie McPealc Chair Lake Oswego to Portland 7lransitl Project Community Adv'soryi Committee ccs: CA C Members Ellcsuglas C bleta,Project Manager LAKE OSW E GO TO PORTLA ND TRANSIT PROJECT Notes for Cc rr rr unity)Advisory Committee Reccrr rr Eindatic n • Below are rioted from the Cleiaem t eir anc Jant.ary Ccirr rr unity Advisory Comm itteier meetings. As CAC discussion fock sed first on design options'for streetcar in order to consider a "imposed streetcar concept" alongside the enhanced bus, this outline is onganiaeid ty streetcar design option, alteirnati%Els enhanced bus, streetcar', no-bL ilc;, stop's')station locations and other outstanding issues. SITREETCAR DESK N OP1IIIONS II.Johrisi Landing: support jot Macadam In-Silreet design opIVon • Willametlle Shone Liner: o Sltreetcar on the Willamette Shore Line right of way will impact quality of lifer (not just noise,vibration and visibility Int they iritangit le quality). If on Macadam,, irr pacts are eliminated. • N madam In Street (notes: no preferreiriaer fon Macadam Additional Lane caption): o Sltreetcar in-street on N aaadam pLtsi stops whew they need to be to serve neigh borh oods and avoids many property in-pacts. o Sltreetcar in Johns Landing is all aboi t might orhood redevelopment w h ich means diffenearat math fon residents who live there—it's not about ciost they'll Flay ot.t bt.t IP money aorr ing t acik in property taxes and system c evelopment ah arges to irr prim,El the neigh I orh ood. o There rr ay be a sihorl-term benefit ilusie of rr ore of they W illarr etile 9h ore Line right of way values) to the Wiliam-let-Ile Shore Line design option, but that is uraacaceptatle to Johns Landing residents I eclat,se it blocks access to the river,, has properly impacts and c oesn''t provider the same benefits. Stneieitaar has far rr ore benefit to the aorr rrii nity if operated in-street on N aaadarri w h ere the neigh borh ood wants to see increased c evelopment and rr ore transit riders.Th El th inking is that th ere will be rriore riders than the OBIS predicts since it can't aot,nt th e effects of ft.ture development. Th ey 51(1(1 streetcar as a way to increase pri%ate investment in development wh ich will, in tt,rn, produce gut stantially mone pnciperty lax as and system development charges for ira%estmenats in water and sewer systems. It can also lead 10 a better balance of jot s and housing in Joh nsi tanadinag 510 some people don't have to commute out of the area to work,ft.rther decreasing traffics. o Because they LID coraeeipt being disci sisieid in Johns Landing h as always included residential pnoperty owners as well as commercial, the ciosit burc en will be spreiac over rrore people and will be more reasonable than the recent one in South Waterfront w h ich was diffiat.It for property owners th are to bear. All of Joh nsi IP Landing properly owners will benefit for less ciost per properly owner. o W h ilei an IIID is riot feasit le in the unincorporated areas of Clackam as and Mt.Itnorrah counties anc Lake Oswego will Haat to deciic e whet err to use an LID and how.Johns Landing h as a legitimate option to use the LID to recoup right of way costs so that streetcar cant Einelit tihe neigh bort ocd and the whole City of Portland. of With tt e streetcar alternative rt.nning in-street an M aciadami Alvent.e, Bicylcle Transportation Piliance wants to see streetcar on Macao am and the right of wary used for a t Ike/pedestrian path.Th ey challenge tt e conc o associations to change u rrent ri8l t of way easements to allow that, something 1Ih ey have El)pressed interest in doing. 2. Riverdale/DunlltorpEl:suitport for situdsirig botlhldes igri(4 tIicnsijunk r(WildannettleShcne Mince and Riverwocd Road) 3. LakEl Oswego:sup;ort foil studying both design options further(UPRR night of waiyl and Foothills Road) ALTERNATIVE(MODE] 1. No Build • Phluses o Maintains transit service within Rivenc ale neighborhood o Col Id consider right of wary fon bike/walk trail instead • o Less money spent on money could be sipEirit in other corridors • Minusesi o Head in tt e sand opt on—pretends system is okay today and nothing will change in the fL ture to affect corridor conditions o Not a siatislactory choice, especially in the ft.ture because Highway 43 corridor remains a at oke point o Doesn't benefit jobs, developrr ent or h ousing o Iri%estment less likely with flexible transit(bus] because development is encouraged by anc benefits from improved transit o Trends here and world-wide show th is value of nearby transit is real and rises over time o No opportunity'to leverage federal money o Doesn't set value out of Willamette Shore Line Right of Way o Urban reserve expanded to include.'Itafford/Bdrland neighborhood and it's irresporisit le not to plan for better transit o Doesn't address Elfleatsi on environment 2. Enhanced Bus: 41 Pluses o Anyone on transit takes clans off the road and makes loom for someone else o NEiw technology', if pnopesed in the fLture for enhanced bus, COL Id reduce air duality afi ectsi • o May LEI able tci use Willamette Shores Linea ri@1F t of way fcir someth ing also iIbike/pedeisitriari trail) • • Minuses o BL ses get stuck in tnaffia and frequent F elcic%aryl will bei dims ptiv El o Doesn't address congestion on High way 43 o IllregLariciy of service riot as good as streetcar o Means loss of service in JoF ns Landin€I di,El to removal of five stops ciomFlared to today's service and this will make buses so full tF at people can't get on o Means loss of service di,El to removal of a stop in Riv arc ale, leaving a 11.7 rr ilei sitreitcih between the Sallwood and Riverwaod stops o Buses too full le.g. CAC rr amber boarded I us on bus mall in c owritown Portland 1- 18-1111. By the edge of downtown, bus was "packed." In mic-.ohns Laric iri®, when sF El got off, bus was still "'standing room only' at only 4:20 p.m., not even the peak aamm ute) o Morley is wastec on enF zinced I us because In les are well-i,sed now I ut th ere is still flat or c isinvestrnient in Johns Landing. Evers in economic loom times JoF ris Landing dic riot seien investment. Properly values ane flat or c ecreasing.The retail environment is Floor. Reisic ents ones cion iri€I by tt e th ousands to South Waterfront and aai Id use JoF ns Landing as a place to find services newt y if there ware better • travel connections. o Bus F as riot 8erierated nei€Ihborhooc aric community preservation or development. Alggnessive action is rieedec to overcome theses long-term trends and take advantages of existing locations far neisideints, services anc ,jobs close to downtown. o Enhanced bi s is the lower volume option at 100,000 riders/yeah "streetcar is 11.118- 1.:8 million ric es/y ear] o Enhanced bi s t riri€Is 300 park ing spaces to the Old flown rieiight orh ood in Lake Oswego with out the potential loll redevelopment tt at has I Bien proven to oca.r with rail investment, like stneetaan. Impacts withoittFEl benefits. o Basac on a non-scientific email survey completed ty sclm1El Cid Town neighbors, only aboit 25% like enhanced bus anc many dic not neialize th ere was a park and ric e planned with the enhanced bus alteirnativEl. o Enhanced bi,s requires$20 million in local matct that cannot include the value of the Willamette Shore Lines night of way and rr akes system development charge reveniei in Lakes Oswego less likely. According to Williams,, Dame arid White, property owners in Rooth ills will not su,pport an LID for ent anceid t us. ()then sources woo'Id be reqi ired to fund Icicial match. o Operation and maintenance cost is higher. Over;0 years, this means$30 million 111 iIdiffeneinciei between enh ariaec bi s arid streetaan) will be needeic hams llriMet s payroll tax or it will be taken away from other service. • o Enhanced bus vehicle h olc si fewer ric Eirs than sitneetciar and c oesn't last as long. Average usefi I lite of a bus is ]ISI years wi He average i.seiul life of a rail vett icle is 40 Eiars. a Buses pollutes environment more than streetcar N CITEI: duning ti e discussion of ens zinced t use, a suggestion was rr ace that enh anaeic bi s cioi,Id be a benefit in corn t ination with streetcar from F ortlarid to Jot ns Lanc ing and across the Slellwooc Bridge. Another suggestion was to add express'service to th El Line #35 insiteiac of the enhanced bus. 3.Streetcar a Puluses ci The streetcar woL Id carry 1,500 more 1 rips a day than ens anceic bi S which adds un to over 900,000 more tnips a yean. ci Not leveraging th El past investment in ti El Wiliam etle St ore liirie night of way means losing a trerr endous opportunity to pit its current value to i se as locial rr atcih. o If you UNE!the ca Flital locial match range f or streetcar and si btract th El capital locial match f or enh anaec t I.s to get the difierenc a and divide ti at t y the ac ditional operations and rr aintenanciei cost reqs,ired to openate the enhanced bi s11$11.54 million per yean, ac ji sted down t y 113 to make them 2010$ not 20]l7;1], it only takes 18-32 years to Flay oft ti e adc itional capital cost.The streetcar will be operating far longer ti an ti at so ti is is a good investment. ci Streetcars have more seats than buses, actually adc capaciity arid provide a tnavel option besides High way 43. More streetcar vehicles'oo1.Id be added to the route in the futune. Even those wh o say traffics isn't that bad today sit ould ti ink to what it w ill be by 2(35. ci Facilitates quality and a variety of housing, access to jobs, arid c ensity where we want it (in Lake Oswego), which cioi.Id have a posiith,e effect on schools and enables all kiridsi of people will to Lind it easien to leave ti eir cars at home. ci Streetcar is faster than enhanced bi s and will cionitini,El tc operate fast despite gric lock on High way 43. ci Streetcar provides a siavings' in auto delay dulling ri sh hoL r ti at may be small now but at least moves us in the direction of addressing long commute times. o Streetcar rEimiovEisi 41-42 tons of CO2 from the environment daily.This ac ds up to aboit 15,000 tons per year,, a significant am ount. o Streetcar plugs Lake Oswego into the regional transit siysitem. o Cost to bi ilc streetcar will never be leiss than it is today 1111 o Streetcar will likely happen someday and cost will only increase. 'M'ile waiting, other pnojects rr ay move ahead in the line for federal resources and wEl won't have a team at the fedenal level to support ti e project and project funding a Everyone pays their federal taxes and tF zit money is budgeted arid spent for prograrr si inch,ding New Starts func ing for rail projects, whetF er Ilortlarid gets any . of di e ft rids on not. TF is project provic es an opportunity bring siorr El federal dollars horr El to benefit F ow we grow as a region. a W EI Si"ould compete strongly for federal fi rids. Clregonl ssElridsi rr uch rr ore money to DC di an we get back. E o for it. a For the West Linri residents, k oth enharlcElc t t.si arid streetcar have some benefits. Streetcar requires a transfer in Lai El Oswego but rriay provide better bi s connElct ions to oth Elr place's' IIi.EI. Beaverton] in tEl El futi re,, emits less CC2 arid is more pnElc ictablEl/reliat le. EnF zinced I us doesn't rnElquire a transfer t ut gets stuck in traffics. a Many professionals El in West Linn arid ridEl transit di El to environmental benefits'. Thinking abot.t th El need to trlarisfer in Lake Oswego,, there one many ways to get to the streetcar connection—some may be dropped off, others may walk or bikEl, oth E'rs rr ay take tF e t us'and transfer. ci LE'aa%E's' more room on Highway 43 for arid test support s infrastructunEl fors pec Elsstrlians and bicycles th rough out the corridor. a Better connects Johns Landing to kith Waterfrlont arid c ow ritown. a Streetciar is a regional soli tion th at provides connectivity between centers so it makes sense to do now • M6ir'usie l a Some residents in the Birlc shill area think that streetcar is a gooc project in is Elal times tut di esEl are riot ideal times when scih ools may (iloslE1 anc people are withoit jobs. a Concern level of c etail provided in th e DIEM regarding costs anc funding and abaut wh ere ft.nding will come from. Lake Clswe®o has other EI) pensive projects going on. a Density arid ridership c oesri't sr.pport trlarisit investment in a dumt bell situations (development potential only at two Elrsds of project]. Irl%Elst finds elsewhere, o Think of this as a regional decision/investment. a Streetciar could iriarElase traffic. a Concern about Imo)imity of streetcar tracks to river. a lb address traffics,, streetcar should go on IS,, 1205. o Concern that ow riElrs'F ip of Willametile Shore Line right of way F as influenced analysis in OBIS arid that if the right of way wasn't owriEld,, this would be last corrlidor to have HCT. Maybe the Willamette Shore Line night of way sh ould t El sold or used another)way. • ci Hard to believe WiliametllEl Shore Line is worth about$E10 million. Johns Landing cont o values down about one-third in economic recession. Has tF El vali El of the Willamette SlhorEl LinEl decreased ty a similar amounts' c Including lederal and local funds for capital cosi and the operating dost savings of streetcar oven enharuieic bis l$1I.54 million per year],1I El capital cost will take time to pay off. c Lake Oswego residents may riot want to see streetcar arid rieiw c eveloprr giant Ipeir Rig esrdales/DuntF orpes] N011e: c uririg the discussion o1 the tt ree alternatives a couple of CAC rr err bens noteic split opinions in the community aboL t tF e choices between enhance bus and streieitaan.ift is was reflect EIC in testimony at the public hearing and can be summed up in statements at out tradeoffs such as tt ese:tough financial projesci ions/losing opporl L nity and accepting fut.re traffic' cost dauniting/strectaus benefits most peoples over the longest term, arid opportunity cost and high er lutL re cost/ht.ge cost for small benefit. S11OR/S1IAl1ION ioc riiION S • enhanced Bus: necammend stops as identified in I]E1S • Streetcar: necammend stop in DEIS plus analysusi of twa additional an different stops in Pbielimina ry Ehg in eerin g a r d the FEVS:Pen diet ton and in the vicinity'of Flivendalle Aa ad and the ilewis and Clath trail' • OUTSTANDING ISSUES The following ac ditional isssL esi should be considered in Preliminary engineering and the RBIS: • Potential revision's to enhanced Bu51 conceptual design: none noted • Stt.dy potential revisions 110 Streetcar conceptual desiign: sidewalA improvements and altlern a tives'to Ela and ary en tlryl/emitl with Macadam iIn-StIleeil;pedestrian impna vemer t between Cam fina and Nevada along Mlacadam andpotlential'Jon Aeepirg intersection of Riverwa c d and Highway 43 open S LAIKEI OS WEIGO TO PORTLAND TRANSIT PROJECT Ca mat nity Advisory Committee interest! • In anticipation of Commit,nity Plc visary Corr rr itileer action to make a reciorr nnenc ation to they project Steering Committee,, they cion rr itterer too' tin.El at di eir Feb. 7 rr eeting to recogriaa that thenen are a nurr ber of n.err t ersi the CAC who have rr I Itipla interests' in the process. Many of own property in the corridor, resiidential or cion rr arcual, or t aNe employrr ent/development interests'. F dor to their votes on ai recommenc aitiori, CAC rr an.bers were as ad to disclose any Flotentiail conflict cif interest they have with the project by resiporc irg to a haric ful of questions abot,t tt 051E1 interests'. Fon the punposies of responding, ownership or err ployrr ant)c evelopment interastsi within tt ree t locks of tt e alternatives'arid c esign options'was consic ered. Responses aria recorc ed h ere for yorr r information: Residential property ownec adjacent to tt e t 151 or streetcar ailterriaitives or design options' Beiv Book'n Ken Love hanc alternate Kerry)Chipman w h o was present far tt e votes; II Heather Ch risrr air a Meryl Beth Cofileiy •� Jahn Hedlunc •I Dave Jorlirg II Lyc is Liprr an hand alternates Joh n Oh rr an who was present fora the vote) II Ellie McPeak IIEli Morgan hand alternate 9liaabeth English wh o was present for dia vote: • •, Bob Sac' II Kath wine Scih ulta Corr rrercial property owned ac jacent to the t us on streetcar alternatives or c esigr options II Heather Ch risirr an ▪ Tom N ciisan ▪ Pasquale Pasci aai 9mployment on development interests' associated with properties adjacent to th e t i s or streetcar alternatives or design options •� Maul Brown •� Katharine Scih ulta NOTE: during th e c isct,scion of interests in th a project, CAC rr err bens acknowlec€led tt at th e interests reprasientec aria positive aric part of w by they were sieleci ad to participate on tt El CAC in tt e first place.Their firsitt and nowledga of di e cionridor provides ai useful wind unique Flarspeciive on the tradeoffs' t etweiarl alternatives'wind c esiign options. February 110,21(1111 Lake Osv.iego to d Canlottai Collette,Chair Portlan Lake C swego to Porti anc Transit Project Sltleeri ng 1RAN 5I I T F FI a J e C T Committee c/o Met o 600 NE C rand AVE!. Portland,CR 9121212 Dear CaiilottA, As you are aware the Community A dvisory Committee has been meeting sine e October 20C1S to Isar about and consider the altlennatives,design options,station locations,potential envrronmentll impacts and other issues ana yzed in the hake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Dnafll Environmental Impact 5ltstement(DEIS).After much thoughtful conversation,our recent discussions have focused on the benefits and tradeoffs associated with the alterr atives and impacts iclentified in the DHIS. A summary of our key comments are reflect ed in the attar heel notes. In addition,from our final delibenaticinsi,we offer majority and minority opinions'to the Steering Committee as you prepare to make your own recommendation an a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). C n Feb. 1,the CAC held its final meeting td eonsicleir an LPA recommendation.Of the 23 members of the CAC, 16 voted in favor of streetcar (two votes provided in writing due to absence from meeting;,2 favored enhanced bus, Il no-build and 1 abstained from voting.Three members were absent frc m the m eeting. Tlwo-ti irds of the CA C members support carrying the Streetcar alternative and the fallowing design options into Preliminary Engineering and the Final Hnvironmental Impact Statement): • Johns Landing: Macadam In-Street design option Riverdale/Dunthorpe:carry both design captions,the Willamette Share Lines and Riverwood Road design options Lalke Oswego: carry bath design options,the UPRR right)of way and Foothills Road deisign options Support cif the Streetcar alter alive includes request for eva luatian of station locations and either deisign c onsii deira tions to be refined in advances of ar du ring Pileliminany Engineering and the Final Hnvi nonmental Impact Statement,as fall ows: PAGE 1 '1119 AT11AC HMENT 2 • Alnalyze station;i at SW Heir.idleton Street and in the vi c.'nity cif 51W Radcliffe Road near the Lawisi and Clark tiail/boat'lamp • • Study oppartunities tc enhances tt a pedestrian environment and alternatives to Boundary eintryl/axit with the Macadam In-Stileet design option • Slaeik to acid pedestrian impnovementl bEstwleEsn SW Clarolina and 51W Nevada along SW Macadam,with particular emphasis on mating stilcing ciann(iotlonsi betwlean Macadam and tha pnoplcised stiieetcian sstaltior.is at SW Nebraska and 51W Nevada. • Consider the potential fon keeping the intensect'cin of Riverwood and Highway 43 open unden the Riverwood Rciad design option Iwo CAC members support Entlanced Bus as described bedew: • Support fcir enhanced bus includes nequesits fon evaluation of t us stop locations and other design ccinsidenations during Preliminary Hngir.ieiering and the Final Hnvironmentil lmpaci Statement,as fallowsi: o Review ew numben of stops and situp Icioatlans,especially nean Radcliffe Road o Clonssiden new bLis vehicles technology ci Clonssiden express buss serv'ce • • With enhanced buss on no-build ti Eire may be an option to use the Willamette 511 ane Line night of way Ibn another use,potentially a multi-use pate,pending legal analysis and engineening feas'bility. One CAC member supports No-Build fcir the following reasons: • No-build maintains limited local transit service in the aarnidon with no additional capital investment Thank you fon ycun thoughtful con.udenatizon of the CIAIC neaommendatian fan a awayPreferred Alternative. Please feel f'lee to contact me if theme is something 1 can clarify or additional information 1 clan provide. Sincenedy, Hllie MciPeak,Chair hake Osswegla to Portland Tnansit Project Camsmunity Advisory Committee ccs: CAC Memt Ears I ouglass C bletz, Prajecst Managen PAGE 2 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 LAKE OSWEGO TO FORTIAND TfIANSITIFROJEICT • Notes for Community Advnsc ry Cc m!mLitt ee Recommendation Below ane note s fnorn tt e December and January Community Advisory Committee meetings.As CAC discussion loaused first on design options for streetcar in order to consider a "proposed streetcar cic merit" alc ngside 1IH El ent zinced bL si,,this outline is organised t y stne!etciar design opttion,, alternatives (ent armed bL si,streetcar, no-build),stops/station locations and otlhen outstanding iss!L est. SIRE E TICAR DE SIIGN OPTIONS II. Johns Landing:s!uppert fon Macadam iln-St,eetl design opftan 41 Willamette SIH ore Line: ci Stneietean on the Willamette Shore Linea riE H t of way will impact qt.ality e1 lile IInotl us!t nc ise, vibration and visibility but tt e intangible quality). If on Macadam, impacts ahem eliminated. 11 Macadam In Street(nolle: no preference 1c r Macadam Additional Lane c Fltic n]: ci StIneeitcar in-street on Macadam nuts stops where they need to be to 5iervie neighborhoods and avoids many property impacts. ci Streetcar in Johns Lanc ing is all about height oncood redevelopment whit. means different rr ath for neisic ants w.o live there—it's not about cost they'll pay out but me ney coming back in property tar,es anc system c evelc Flmentl charges to improve 1IH a neighbonccc c ci llheire may t e a short-term benefit (use c11 rr ore of the Willamette SH ore Line rig.t cf way value] to the Willamette Si ore Line design option, t ut tt at is I.nacceptable to Jo H ns Landing residents because it blocks access to 1IH a river, has property impacts anc doesn't provide tt e sarr El benefits. Streetcar has fair more benefit to tt e community if operated in-street on Macadam w.ere tt e neighborhood wants to see increased development and more transit!riders.The thinking is that them will be more riders than the OBIS predicts since it can't count t!H a effects!of future development.TH ey see streetcar as a way to inc neiase private investor ent in development w.ich will,, in 1k.rn,, produce substantially more prcipe rty taxes and system development charges kir in%eistments in water and sewer systems. It can also lead to a better balance c11 jots and Housing in Johns Landing so some people don't have 110 commute out o1 tt a alma to work,lune her c ecreasing traffic. ci Because tt a LID cic merit being c isaL sse!c in Jot ns LandinE has always include d residential property owners as well as commercial, the cost bi rden will be spreac over more people and will be mc re reasonat le tt an tt a recent one in South Waterfront wI ich was c iffiault 1br property owners there to bear.AIII of Jot ns Landing property owners will benefit 1c r less cost per property owner. ci W H He an LID is not feasible in tt a unincc rpo railed areas o1 Clackamas!and Multnc mat counties and Lake Oswego will need to deciide whether to use an LID RAGE 31 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 anc haw.Joh ns Landing has a legitimate option to i.see the LID to recoup riot t cif way costs so that streetcar can benefit tt a neigh k ort ood and the whale City of Flortlaind. 1111 o With the streetcar alteirnati\a running in-stneet on IV madam Alveriue,, Bicycle llnansportatian Alliance wants to see streetcar on IV acac arr anc they rigt t cif wary L sed for a bil a/pedestnian path.They at alleirige tt e conc o associations to change current right of way easements to allow that,, something tt ey have e)i pressed interest in c oirig. 2. Riverdale/DL nthorpe:support for stluidying bath design options further (IMillamette Share Leine and Rh erwc od Road) 3. Lake Oswego: siuippart far studying bath design options fuirthei(UPAIR light of way and fdothiM5 Rae d) ALTBFANA11IVFt (MOOR ]I. No BL ilc • Pluses o Maintains transit senmice within Riverdale might ort ood o Coulc consider night of way for bike/walk trail instead o Less money spent or money aoL Id be spent in other corridors1111 • Mlinusies o Head in the slant option- pretends system is okay toc ay and nott irig will chane in tt El futL re to affect corridor'conditions o Not a satisfaciary choice, especially in the fi ture because Hiot way 43 aorridar remains a choke point o Doesn't benefit jobs, dei%eloflrrierit cir t ousting o Investment Tess likely wi1 h fiery ible tnansit(bu s) k eciaL se development is encouraged ky and benefits'from impna%ad transit o lineridsi here and world-wic e show tt is value of nearby 1 ransiit is rieal and rises a%Err time o No opFlortL riity to leverage federal money o Doesn't get value out of Willamette Shore Liner Fight of Way o Unkan reserve EDKlandec to include 5ltafford/Borland neighborhood and it's irresiponsik le riot to plan for I etten transit o Doesn't adc rests effeats on environment 2. 9rihainced Bus: PID• lusiesi o Anyone on transit takes ciarsi off the roac and makes room fora someone else o New technology', if proposed in the future fora entarwec bi s, coy Id reduce air quality affects PAGE 4 cf 9 ATTACHMENT 2 o May be able to Usel Willamette SIF ore Line right of way for sametF ing else I t Ike/pedestrian trail) I • • Minuses' o Buses gest stL ak in traffic anc frequent headway s will I El disirL ptive o Doesn't address congestion on Highway 43 o Hresquencyl of service not as gooc as streetcar' o Means losisi of servicie in Johns Landing c ue to neuro%al of five stops comparec to today s service and it is will make I uses so lull that people can't get on o Means loss of servicie due to removal of a stop in Riverdale, leaving ai 1.7 mile stretch between th El Sellwood and Riverwood sillopsi o Buses too fill (e.g. CHIC member boarded buss on bi,s mall in c ow ntown Aortlard 1- 18-11. By the cc gel of downtown, bi,ss wars'u'paciked." In mic-Johns Landing,mit en she got off, bis was still "standing room only" at only 4:20 p.m., not even the peak ciornatte] o Money is wasted on enhanced bus because IL saes are well-used now bit there is still flat or disinvestment in Jot ns Landing. 9%ein in economic t oom times Johns Landing c id not seen investment. Property vale,EIS are flat or decreasing.The retail environment is poor. Residents are comirsg by the thousands to South Waterfront IIarsd cos,Id a se Johns Landing as a place to find services neart y if there were better tram el conned ions. o Bus has not genenated might orhood and community Alresermation or c eveloprment. Aggressive action is needed to merciorriei these long-term trent s arsd flake advantage of existing locations for residents, serMiaes anc :obs close 110 downtown. c 9nhanced bus is the lowen voli.me option at 100,000 riders/year I streetcar is 1.18- 11.28 million rides/year) c 9nhanced bus brings 300 packing spaces to the Old mown neighbc rhoc c ir Lake Oswego withoi.t the potential icer rec eivalcprrlE nt tF at has bean proven to occur with rail investment, liNEl streetcar. Impacts withoit the benefits. c Based on a nor-scientific E mail Eli rve y completed t y 5101711E101c Town neighbors, only about 29% like enhaniaec bi,s arc many dic not reali;Ei there was a park anc nide planned with the enhanced bus altEirnatli%El. c Ent anted IL s requires$20 million in local rratah that cannot incl.c e 1Ih El vale,e of the Willamette Shore Lire right of way and makes sy stem c evelopment charge revenL e irs Lake Oswego less likely.According to Williams, Dame and White, property owners in Hootlhills will not support an LID for enhanced bus. Other sources would be reqs,ired to fund local match. 0 c Operation and maintenance cost is h igher. Over 20 years,tt is means$30 million (difilerEirscEe between enhanced ix ss arc streetcar)will t El neck ed from TlriMet ss payroll tar or it will be takers away from other service. RAGE 9 of 9 ATTACH MENT 2 o 9nhancied buss veh idle h olc si feeweri ric ersi than streetcar anc doesn't last as long. Average usefL I lifei of a bus is 112 years while average usef.I lifei of a rail veh icle is 40 • y ears. o BusE'ss pollutes environment more than streetcar NCTO: c uring th e discussion of enhanced bus, a 511€1€IEisstion was made that enhancec t L s cm Id be a benefit in torr t ination with streel car from Pori land to Johns Lancing and across the 9ellwooc Bridge. Another ssiggEssticrn was to ac d Esgpress service to th El Line #215 inssteac of the enhanced bi s. 3. Streetcar • Piluses o The streetcar'woi Id carry 11,500 rr ore trips a day than enhanced bis which adds t,p to over 900,000 more trips a year. o Not leveraging th tEl past investment in the Willamette Shore Line right of way rr cans losing a trerr endows opporti pity 10 Flit its ci rrent Vail,El to USEI as local match. o If you take the capital local match range for streetcar and subtract the capital local rr atch for enh zinced I Us to 8El1 the difference anc divide that by the adc itional operations and rr aintersance cost requinec to operate 1 he enhanced bus 691.54 million per year, ac jt,sited down by 11/3 to make th em 3010$ not 2017$], it only taNElss 18-33 years to pay off the ac ditional capital cosst.llh El streetcar will I El operating fan longer than that so this is a gooc investment. o Streetcars have rr ore seats th an I i ses, acts,ally add capacity anc pnovide a traN Esl option besides Highway 43. Mare streetcar eh icles cos,Id be ac ded to 1 he route in the futune. Even those who say traffics isn t th at bad today sh ould th ink to what it will be by 3035. o Facilitates quality and a variety of h ousirng, access to jabs, and c Elnsity where we want it (in U NEI Oswego], which coulc ha%e a positive effeci on schools and enat le all kinds of people will to find it easier to lea%E'their tsars at home. o Streetcar is faster th an enhanced I us anc will contini,El to operate fast despite gridlock on Highway 43. o Streetcar pros ides a savings in at,i o c day during ri sih hot,r th at may t El sir all now bit at least moves is in th e direction of adc resssing long commute tirr as. o Streetcar removes 491-43 tons of CO2 fncirr th El environment daily. 11h is adds t,p to at out 119,000 tans pen year, a significant arr ount. o StrsmEli tsar plt,gss Lake Oswego into the regional transit system. o Cost to build stneetdan will never be less than it is today o StnEIEIl can will likely happen someday and cost will only increase. W hile waiting, • other projects'rr ay rr ove ah clad in 1 he line for federal nesOL roes arid we won't have a team at the federal 1E1%el to s1 pport th e project and project funding PAGE 6 cf 9 AT1IACHMEN'T 2 c Everyone paystheir federal ta}e151 and that money is' bi,dgeted and spent for programs Indic ing New Starts funding for rail prc,ects,, we ether Portland gets any oil the lluridsi or not.1I-15i project provides an cpportL riity bring same federal dollars' homier to benefit how we grow as a region. c We should compete strongly for federal lune s. Oregon sends much rr ore money tc DC than we get back. C o 11c r it. c For the West Linn residents', both enhanced buss and streetcar have some t enefits. Streetcar requires' si transfer in Lake Oswego tit may provide better bi,s connections to other plaices (i.e. Bere%eerton) in the ft.ture,emits less CO2 anc isi more preic ictaeblee/reliable. Enhanced bi s doesn't reqi ire a transfer t ut gets stuck in traffic. c Many professionals' live in West Liriri anc ride transit due to environmental t Benefits. Thinking sibcut the need to transfer in Lake Oswego,th ere area many ways to get to the streetcar connection—some may t Be dropped off,, cth ears rr ay walk or bike,, others may take the bus aric transfer. o Leaves more roorr'c ri High way 43 for wind best 111 ppc rts infrastructure for pedestrians wind bicyciles'throughcLt the ciorric or. o Better connects'Jc h ns Landing to South Waterfront wind c c ritow ri. o Streetcar is a regional solution that provic es cic rinectivity between centers so it rriakees sense tc do now • Minuses o Some residents in the Birdsih ill area think th it streetcar isi a good project in ideal times bit these awe not is earl times when soh cc Is rr ay close and pec ple sire without jcts. o Concern level of detail provic ed in the DAIS regarding cic stsi wind funding one at out where funding will came 1rcirri. Lake Clsweego has oth er wpelrishee projects going on. o Density wind rideersh ip doesn't support tnaerisitl iri%vestment in a dumbbell site.ation (de%e lopmeent F otential only at two ends oil project]. Invest tunic s elsewhere, o Th ink of th isi isi a regional decision/investment. o Streetcar mule increase traffic. o Concern sibs t,t pro)im ity of streetcar tracks to river. o Tci address traffic, streetcar should Pio c ri I5, l]09. c Concern that ownership of Wiliam ette 9h ore Line right of wavy has influenced analysis' in DAIS and that ii the right of wavy wasn't owned,th is would be last corridor tce have HCT. Maybe the Willamette Shore Line right of way should t El sold or usec • another way. c Hard to believe Willamette St ore Uine 151 worth at out$80 million.Johns Landing condo vali EIS'c own about one-third in economic recession. Has the value of th e Willamette 9h ore Line decreased by a similar amount? RAGE 71 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 o Including felt eral and local furic si for ciapital ciosit and the operating cost sa'ings of 511 reetcar eir enh anted k us 10$1.94 million per year), the ciapital dost will take time to pay off. o Lakes Oswego residents may not want to see streetcar anc new c eiveilopmeint Ilper Riverdale/Dunthorpei] NO110: c uring th El discussion of the thrice alternatives a couple of CAC members noted split opinions in th El community at out the ch oice k eitween enhance k us and stneieitciar.This wase refleuiteic in testimony at the put lice h eariri€ and can El summed i p in statements aboi t tradeoffs siucih as 1 hese: tough financial projections/losin€ opporti riity and accepting ft,ture traffic, cost daL ritin€/streetcar t eiriefits most people over th El longest terms, and opportunity cost and hi€her ft,ture cost/huge cost fcir smia II benefit. STOP/STATIOIS LOCATIONS 41 Enh aricieic Bi s: retic/TIT end stops ass identified in DEIS e Streetcar: recommend step in DEIS plus analysis of two aadidonall or different sticpsi in FlrelliniMary Eriginee►uing and the FEU:Pena:etc ri and in the vidnity]of Riverdale Abad and the Lewis and Clark trail OUTSTANDING ISSUES • 111'El followiri€ additional issues shoL Id be cionsic ered in Preliminary Ongineiering anc the FEI9: •l Potential nes%isions to Enhanciec Bi s conceptual design: none notlea •I Study potential revisions to Streetca r conceptual design: siidewagl imp pavements and alterriaUves to Boundary entry/exit with Macadam In-Street!pea i!strian imFravementl bletweeri Carolina and Neiada along Mlaccdam ana potential jar keeping irte►siedion of Riverwood and Highway 43 cpen RAGE 8 (1119 ATTACHMENT 2 LAWIEI OSWEIGO 710 PORTLAND TRANSIT PRCJEC7 Community Advisoil Committee interests In anticipation of Corr rr unity Advisory Committee action to rr aikei a reiciom rr eiridallion to 1Ih ei project Steering Corr rr itilee,the committee took slim ei at their Feb. 7 rr eietlirifl to recognize th at there are a rn rr ber of members'th ei CAC who have rr ulhliple iriteresits in the proces'si. Many of own property in the corridor, residential or commercial, or h a%El employrr ent/developrr enll interests. Prior to their votes on a 'mom rrendatlion,, CAC rr elm bers ware asked to disclose any potential conflict of interest they h ave with th e frojeci by responc ing to a hark ful of qL esstlions abciutl those interests. fiorIIhEl P1 rpose5l of responding, owreirship orerr ployment/de%eloprrerit interests with in three blocks o1 the alternatives and design options was consider(d. Responses are recorded here for y our in1 orm atiori: Residential property owned ac jacentl to the bus or sillneetaar alternatives or design options • Bev Bookiri • Ken love Land alternate Ke rry C h ipm an w h o was presse nt 1 or the vote) • Heather Chrissman • Mary Bath Coffey • John H edit.nd • Dave Jorling • Lydia Lipman (and alternate John Clhman who was pre sent for the vote • 011ie i1 ciF eiak • Oli Morgan (and alternate Oliaabeilh English who was present)for th a voile) • Bot Sacsk • Katherine Schi Iiia Commercial property owned adjacent to the bus on Mire a tcar alternatives or design options • Heath er Chrissman • Toni W oisan • PassgL ale Passcuaai Employment car de%a lopment interests associated with properties adjacent to the bus on Mire Man alternatives or design options • Matt Brown • Katherine Schulte N 01E: dL ring the discL sssior o1 interests in tlh a project, CAC members acknowledged that th e into rests represented are positive arid part of why they were selecied to participate can the CAC in the first place.lit a it firsthand knowledge o1 the corridc r provides a L seful arc unigi e per!peci ive can th e tradeoffs betlwe e n alternatives arid c es ign options. 0 PAGE 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 • . tel + ,a �• ... �rrl -•. .*�j,.4`.1. Lake Oswego Portland .` l?Ara If :1 "ii7., - tm Portland •-'144"...6* 14.9 fI �i: TRANSIT PROJECT •: } Ji�'t r _ Vi f DROF7 ENVIFOINMENTAL IMPACT SI1L TEMENII f�0, •- -4- 4 PU MAC CC M W ENT REPORTI ~' L. :4 ffds. -r. , , - 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x 1c D_ ;•N. art ,.. I introduction 11 is '4 e S umimary of outreach activities Q. .� \, comments of commnts received`� y.� ) ' during public comment period t I i 1 N -,` �z��— ,, �' 1 , y 1 Y a 1 . i , 1 1 iy/iP A, 9 ,.„ ,41" ' 'I tile tuft ti 4�.- , .51t 'lc(1ta 1 r 1 y1 i [II I —.I I 41 1 4', 2- tir .z. lI .s n '3 1 d 0 IV o s t r 'NIL.' v0 i _, NN,,,.,. / 1 Ark Ave • Bake -; e o _ (.ouat,, 11_lull e� Omg a w COU11JKy Av -& 0 p. fill 4 _ ______ t• rani MI, f. 0 t. F.4. ATIIACHMENT 3 % 1 • 11, IrTRCIDUCTIOI' Thi<i doc t mEirii prElsEirits tN El record cif Flu t lice comment for the Lake Oswegcl to Portland Tririsit Project.The Flu b lication of 1 h a projects Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Dec.3,2011, iriitiatec a 60-cay publics comment period that cr.Imiriated or Jan.311, 30111. The public ccimmelrii period provided the opportunity for people to review the DHIS aeric give their opinions,concerns anc fElEic t acik to project si aff aric decision-if akElrs. It El DEIS plieiseinits c Eii ails of the project alternatives aric tii air environmental and trarisportatiori pElrfcirmanae to c eicisicirrmakersi and it e Flu t lic to help them identify a prefEirned alternative.The DEI'_I examines three alternatives:streetcar, enhanced t us arc no-bu ild. Ti-El streEli car altElrrlathe proposes to ext end the existirg Hosts lard streetcar traced aric service t etween Soul h west Bar'croft Street in Portland's Sault Waterl ront District to LakEl Clswegcl,gEIriElrally panallEll to Highway 413,adding appronimately six miles cif new strElEltcan track, 10 new s1 rEletcar staticiris and two park-and-ride facilities. For moist of the alignment, th El streetcar tracks woulc use the right of way purcih ased t y the Willamette Shore LirlEl Consortia iii inl 11988.Th El Elrlh arca bus alternative proposes tcl modify bus service between Lake CIswElgo and Hors lapid and i cI conlsii ru ct a pari-anc-nide falcilityl in LakEl Oswego.The no- bu ild alternative proposes na majcirtransit investment in the corridor. N etro aric prciject partners created nu merous opportunities for people to engage in'the isissu esi includec in the DEIS aric learn about the benefits and tnadeofils of th El alternatives. WE at fclllows is a description'of the outreach activities a n c Elr)akElrl c u ring the ccClu'SEI of th El project stu dy and public'comment perioc,a synopsis of the cicimmenits rElcleivElc c u ring thEl pu blic comment pericic aric copies of the actual comments received and outreach materials. 1 Lake Oswego is Portant Tnansil Prcjeci I]raft Envircinnenial Impact Stalemenl pi blic ccimmenl repqrt L I i In ■ a • • • 2 l aE a Oawega to liar la nd Tnansil Prcgecl draft Envincinmenial Impact Stale ment public comment hepar i I , . 1 0 Th is docu ment provides a su mmaryl of all publics outreach cont u cted during the gneparation of th El Dnafil 9rivircirimerital Impact Statement for the Lakes Oswego tci Portlarc Transit Project. 9 PREVIC US PHASES Public oMeladd far previous)project pH ases are documented in the refinement study report, public scoping report and the alternatives analysis public comment report ant addendum.ill EIS reports are available an the project website at www.oregonmetro.gov/lakeoswego. E1002 CCORDINhTION Slee the 6CICI2 Coordination Plan for federal,state and local agencies,available an the project website at www.aregcmmertrcr.gciv/lakeioswego. CCIMMUTEIR OUTREACH In fall 2009 and winter 20110,the ii Mark!'Woods • project reached out to High way 43 ii Lewis and Clark Call ege commuters through employer-based discussion giloups,presentations to luring the discussions,the project team commu nity groups and information explored participants'values about booths at farmers'markets. transportation cihoice:l and asked for feedback on topic's,like: Emplc yElr-based groups ii WI at are the biggest The employer-based discussion groups ' ccmcrerns/issI ess you see in the were held in t Mo formatS: 1)with Ideiy Highway 43 corridor today? business groups to bring them up to al How do you commute?What speed on the project,ask for feedback influences your decision about how and revisit)them as appropriate and 2) to commute?I with the assistance of large employers recruiting their employees to a Wh at factors could change your participate in lunchtime discussions. commute model? Buisinessi groups: • When you decide How to commute, how big a fad or is tralvel time? al Part]and Business A liancle What about relic bility? liransportatlon Committee a Da you support adclitianal travel a Lake C swergo Chamber of choices in the corridor?If yes,what Commerce would you think if that additional a Portland l3neigHt Clcrmmittee travel choice resultsl in longer travel times for people in cars? a Clackamas County Business Alliance Employee/student/resident discussion groups: a C H SIU lWith employees) ila PSU (with employees) a Marylhurst Lake Oswego to Port and ire nsit Pi oject Di aft EmiironmenO I Im pact Sh aterrient qublio ham ment reipon 3 Farmers' marl ets Cc rrimunitY1 group preslentlailic ris The flroject team hosted booths at Sellwoad-Moreland Improvement 1 farmers'markets in West Linn,Lake Eclogue(Dec 2,21010) Clswego,Milwaukie and Hillsdale)and in i� Slouth Portland Neighbonhccid front of Albert ons in Lake Oswego to As sociiaticln (Jan.E,2010) noise awareness about the project The project team asked visitors sieriieral Either Councilor Bober! Liberty on questions about)commuting,allowing Counciilor Carlotta Collette,project people to share their thought)in steering committee co-chairs,attended response to open-ended questions,such each of the events with the exception of as: the Sellwaod••Moreland lmiprowiment League meeting. a Do you commute on Highwayl43? H ow often?H ow(by car,transit, Each discussion led to different etc.)?Fon what purpose(work, concerns and presumed benefit!of the recreation,etc)?i project,based on location of the discussion,origin(home)of the 11 you commute on Highway 42I, commuter,past issues with transit where do you lime?Where do you service and industry interests.Business wont+r gi gaups ofilen focused on potential On this list of things that may affect de'elopmieint opportunities,advising your choices on how to commute, that access needs to be balanced with which are neleivant for you(check commute speed in order to maximize all that apply)? ridership of the potential transit • What do you think of the possibility solutions.Interest was piqued by the Ak of streetcar between Lake Osiweigo economic,commuter and recreational and Portland?Would you consider travel opportunities that streetcar could riidine ill? offer • What do you think about)the posisibility of stileetcian cm High way 43 between Willamette Park and dowr.town Porti anc I? COMMUNITY ADVISORY(ICIM M ITl EE The Lake Oswego to Portland ttlansit • input)about potential strip locations project community advisory committee and other design refinement provided"on the ground"input and a input about the project s LAA guidance to project staff and the project including transit made and route steering committee on isisuesi of importance to community members)and a input)about community-siupflorted other project stakeholders during the remedies to potential community development of the DEIS and selection impacts as a result of the LPA. cif a locally preferred alternative(LPA). CAC members include a mix of The gioup will provide: residential, witness and advocacy • ongoing;input)about issues that grloup members who mat between should be addressed in the DHISI October 21009 and February 2011. Several members selected an alternate to regularly represent them at any CAC 4 Lake Oswego 1ci Pcatlanc llaansil Pdcject Dnaft Ervironmental Impact Sltkterrlenl put lic uimneml report a meeting 1±em wane not abler to attend Discussion from(]AIC meetings informed peirsonially.Thein meetings inclucleicI the project team of specific local issues presentations of project information and conte rns as they drafted the DEIS anc time Ion questions and discussion. and identified items fan furth er study. As appropriate,project staff followed T hese items for futune study were up with individual members on included as part of thein question on concerns thnoughout the recommendation to the project 5lteering process. Committee on a loco 113 preferred A ssignifi cant number of non-miembens alternativiai.T hays expaesssed a attended each CAC meeting,with paefenence for streetcar to adwancei for several attending almost all of them anc enforth stud);rather than enhanced bus some people attending periodica]lyl or no-build,identified stiiectcan cleisiign when they had times.Reporters,must options d at should adwancsei anc also ssignificaint]y'onei from the Lake Oswego cataloged ideas cm station]titration, Review,also attended CACI meetings impnowemieints and park and that will be studied ride frequently and wrote news stories f<Icilitiesi more about d El meetings. ass the project advances. COMMUNITY C ROUFI OUTREACH Beginning in fall 20C 5I and ongoing,the March 21010 project team has melt wr-t1 community • South Portlanc Business gr pups anti business associations, Association _ providing an overview of the project ., South Port and Businesspurpose and need,alternatives,Draft) Environmental Impact Association Menchant Fair Statement)/National Env.'nonmental • Old Town Evergreen and Lakewood ' PolicyiAci process,project timeline and Neighborhood Associations,Lake the locally'preferred alternative Oswego decision making process.As more April 2010 information became available through the DEIS study,results wane shaned as • Lake C swego Rotary Club appropriate to 1±a geographical Iocaton N ay 21010 and/on i ntenests of the groups. Questions and comments from ti Else Remiax rea estate agents),Kruse presentations informed ti El DEN Way office analysis and content. Lake Oswego Adult Community Th es fulll list of community groups is as Centen (two sessions) follows: • Lake Oswego City Council (toun) No%ember 20051 • Southwest Neighborhoods Inc. • Clackamas County BusinessAlliance T nanssportation Committee • Laka C swego Women's CoalitionFlebruary 2010 • Lake C swego Neigl bonhood Action • Lake C swego city staff Qtoun) Coalition T ravel Portland •' South Waterfront Community • Adult Community Centen Association a Southwest Neighborhoods Inc. L�ke Oswegci tci Portianc Transit Project C raft fnv'nanmenral Id pad Sul ter public comment report 5 Ju Iy 2010 • flake Oswego Lions Clc b ■ Lake Oswego event:Thirst • Portland Freight Cammitl ee • Quencher Thursday,materials at (second visit) three events) • Portland Bicycle Ac vislary • Lake Oswego event: Millenium Committee Concert Band,materials only • Lake Oswego Rotalry « Elden in Action Board • Lake Oswego City Council work • Lake Oswego event: Sounds of session (second visit) Summer Concert,materials'at foun a Portland Heclestrlian Advisiaryl events) Committee « Lake Oswego event: Lake 0 farmers' a Lake Oswego Chamber Boancl manket,information booth at two (second visit) events) « Lake Oswego Centennial Aesitival, « Sltampher Roacl Homeclw�nen's Association information booth « North Macadam UrHari Renewal October 21C1110 Aclvisort'Committee (secloric visit) 41 BirdsIi ill Community Manning Decor bEir 20110 Organization • Lake 0 swego City Council] work 41 Soutt Portland Neigt bonhoocl Associationsession (third visit) • Lab e O swego Chamber' (third visit) 41 Hort and Business.'Alliance Tnansportatlon Committee(second • Lake Oswego Planning Commission • visit) • Portland Alarming and 41 Sloutt Portland Business' Sluistainatility Commission (second Association (second visit) visit) • Old Town Evergreen and Lakewood January 2011 Neighborhood Associations', Lake • West Finn'llrarisportation and Oswego (seconc visit) Sustainability Advisory Boards and • Portland State Univensity Flarmer'si Neighborhood Chains Market,information booth • Cid 'Mown,Hvergreen, Lakewood • Portland Planning and Neighborhood Associations and Sluistainal ility Commission Bindshill Community Planning Novem d EUI 714]10 C nganizatiorl « Portland Flreight Committee • North Macadam Urt an Renewal members meeting(third v-sit Advisory)Committee 41 Clackamas County Bt siinesisi Alliance,materials only 1110 6 Li ke Omega to Partla nd Tnansit F rcgecl Draft Environmental Irn pact Statement put lin ramment nepart • ENVIRONMENTAL]JUSTICE OUTREACH 5.lensitive populations'dentified in this • published information through corridor through the 20(1(1 U.S.Census! elementary still oo] newsletters to include people age 65 and older,people reach parents of low-income and with]ciw income and minorities.The minority children(SW Charter project has tsrgelled these populations School,Portland Branch Slcihool, through specific outtteach,i ncilud'ng: Riverdale C rade Scihool, Barest Hills a i ncilusiion of a nine representativesH1 emesnts rY1 Scihool,Our Lady of the on the 213-parson CAC that are over Bak a School,Metropolitan Learning 65 Cantor,Cathedral Scihool,Hmsrson Slchool,Pad f9 c North west Collage of a direct mauling to residents!in South Art,PSLI,sit Mary's!Academy Portland speciifi c all y reached low- Northwest!Ac iademy,Intlern atonal income pens ions School,G reenhcluse Altlerr atives a ciommun:'tygrpup briefings lb High Scihool,Lewis and(Ilankj existing neigh boyhood associations OHSU' and other organizations with a a heisted an information booth at the majority of senior members(Lake Zui an'ss griocieryl stone in Johns Oswego Adult Community Center Landing and Elden i i n A ction Board,Lake C swego Women's Coalition) a provided information in newsletters,on web sites for • ensuring At A-aicessiibility at all bulletin boards(Meals on Wheals, public meetings and events. Jewish Federation of Greater 'Ho further reach out to people with low- Portland,Multnomah County incomes,elderly and minorities,the Central Library, Ride Connection). project: • canvassed door-to-door in the Collins View and Evergtleen neighborhoods PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOC, OREN HCIUSESI ANC PUBLIC HEARING The public comment period began Dec. people testified t el the project 3, 21010 and concluded on Jan.2111,3(1111. steering committee. luring that tlmie„th es project hosteicl two The comment period,open houses and open houses in December,one in South publics hearing were advertised on the Portland and one'n Lake Clswego,to: project web page(on Metra's wtebssitle; a present the background,Purpqse and through newspaper ads,emailsi to and Need,and timeline of the DEIS interested parties,information passed a share the abler r atives analyzed and out during community grpupl briefings the findings from the DEIS and public meetings ant a posi card mailed to property owners and • provide an opportunity for interested parties throughout th e residents to talk with the project corridor. team anc provide ciamiments cm the LIDS. In addition,notices i were provided to several blabs: Portland Transport, The public!hearing was held on January Bicycle Transportation Alliance,Bike 24, 2011 in Lake C swego.Sleventy-nine Lake Oswego to Pular d llrar sit Project Draft Env'rcv mertn I IMF'act temeint putfc ccimmert neport 7 Portland,Slouth Waterfront Community Seminal area newspapers carried stories Association,Oregon Lime, about the DEIS release and comment davellcrlawsl.ong,maxfaqs, period,including information about trrmietbpinionist,plantificieint, how and where to send ccimimentl on transiitlleuth.It was also announced on how to participate in open houses on TriMat'si twitter account and faceibcicik the publics hearing. page and on the following websites: Comments1 remised throughout the Lake Clswieigo Adult Community Center, public comment period,at open houses meimbers@lakeoswego.com,Portland Chamber of Commence community and at e flublic Hearing are event page and News for Neigh bars. summarized in the following section PROJECT WEBSITE During the public comment period of Deice.cl, 2010,1b Jan.cls,21(111,the project website, www.oregcmmetro.govif lakeoswego, was visited'1,1921times by 1,5821 unique visitors. 'llhei project website presented the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in full and by ch apteir.Visitors were also able 1b access supporting documentation, including technical report and plan eats. The situ advertised the open houses and public hearing and informed the publics on how tci comment on the document, including the online comments form,byq email,by1 posts or at the public hearing! THe site al so notified the public of upcoming meetings cif the community advisory and steering committees, flnesienting meeting materialsi and summaries of pasts meetings.Current and previous newsletters and fa ct sheets were also accessible on the site, summarizing the project process, alternatives,and the benefits and trade- offs presented in the Draft Environmental Impact statement 8 Lake Oswego to Portland llrmm it Plo ect Diaft Eniv rcinimieintal Impact Statement pqb is commEirn repos 1 J Includirigl publics testimony at the hearing, 494 comments were received c u ring the public comrr elnt perioc of Dec.3, 20110,to Jar.311, 301111. In circ er to fairly inch.C El those ressidentst who wish EIC to participate,th El 17 eorr rr ems th at were neleeived within three c ayss before(nine)corr rrents; arid after(eight) comrr chits)were also accepted as part of 11.is public comment report. In total, 4711 cion merits on th El Lake Oswego to Portland Transit!Project Draft Onvironrr eirital Irr pact Stlaterr eiritl from Nov.30, 20110, to Feb.3, 2(11111. Corr m erits have been tallielc to pros ide a sense of their content and sentiment, but th e pu blic comment process was not designed as ai vote on sicientlifici survey, near sshou Id it be interpreted as!IL cih. THA NRBD RC R COMMUNITY INVBSTM ANT "Bus seruicie is not A Hem tradeoff explressied in the economic conditions of the nation„state) sufflciient as it is... comments dealt with the question of and Lake Oswego,often referring tcl the Ass au r pcspu lotion whether transportation invelstnient is need fon school funding oven other inev itably grows needed in 1±a corridor connecting Lalde types of invesstment th el bu ses will t e Oswego and Portland. Nine comments acknowledged a need further sstuained... I 2E3 ciammentsl called fon transportation far transit investment,but in h we to grow old in investment,expressing hi'.at Highway)43 consideration cif current economic talk e Oswego but is not sustainable in its current form cionclitions statlelcl that now is not the and highlighting the importance of time fon such inveistntant!to take place. the availability cif transportation connections in transport ation isp Sixty-eight comment!,inciludIng sib siusltaining a vibrant community.Most of aonciennl." did not these comments expressed a need Ion from state and federal agencies clearly)address the issue of whether —Anne Woodbury, transit i mprovementsl,typ i calltransportation investment is needed in !lake CL<w ego focussing support fon one of the build It a corridor. alternatives presented in the Draft Environmental Impact St2tement:. "Clregon as a mil.ale Several included a call fon is struggling, and I •Neea« improvement!far bicylcle users such as M thirsk allocating the a dedicated trail an bike lanes added to ■Needec- t not now money 1a soh ools HigHway 43. o Na needec and investing in th el 141 aommentl stated that there is no futu re of Oregonneed fon transportation investment in Investment no addressed the cicirridor,often stating that (sch ocd agleid congestion is not that bad on,in y I ch ildrenj would t contrast,an changes would add to the a far heti en congestion th Hough Lallde Oswego that is option." already)bad.Ar other theme of tt else —Mat ie Spcsdcl, comments)referrecl to the current llcIke Oswegc S L�ke Oswesci tci Partlrinc lransil Project Duaft nnvimcnmiental Impact Sltaterrenl public canimEnt iieport 9 'The aom t iration SUMMARY CIII RUBLIC HEARING TBS1IIMC NY 0 of simarlublic and P Seventy-nine people testified to the Comments apposed to one at the private investment Lake Osiwagcl to Portland Transit alternatives together is bu ildirg Project Steering Committee can Jan.24, X1111. Streetcar Twenty-two testimonies a thriving,Ni ibrarit, opposed the street(la r without desirat lel For this summa ry,comments'are expi eissing a preferred alternativle.The community, and categorized bM their support for or majority cif these cam menti cited the that's what opposition to one ar moi a of the project cosi of the streetcar a ternatime,often alternatiiesi:stxleeitciar,enhanced buss or stating tha t,as taxpayers,they weer e streetcars arc light no-li uild,Wth language of support fcir unwilling to pay'for the streetcar!with rail in fad c ca.They one of the al term times taking priority'. federal or local fulndss.Many)statics(I that go well bey arc the the projected reduction cif cars from transportation Cammerit9 sly pportive cf c ne cf the Highwayl4'cl during peak hours did not solutions.They alilernatlivesl justify the expense,and others said that t u ild communities Streetcar Thirty-one tesstim caniesa Lake Oswego residents would not and that s why supported the streetcar alternative.The sut sstantiallyl use the stiieeticcar. getting this main focusof these comments Scam e nisi dent.)expressed that the addressed the need for better streetica r would change the Gomm unity si reetcan c own transportation options connecting Lake of Lake Clswego for the worse,a few h ene is so Clswego with down town Port and and stating that the satxleetcan would irr pori ant." the employment center of C HSIU. encourage unwanted development -•David Vader Slemenal cconi menti addressed the while others stating that it would not Lake Gswesgo bemefita cif streetcar in sustaining a encourage development ill thriving community in Lake Oswego, BnhairIced hs No comments expressed reducing grleenhouse gals emissions a nd "TI.a primary reliance an foreign ol,and fa oil Rating an opposition to the enhanced bus problem for th e development)that woulc I meet)the needsalternative without)cafllering a preferred propose( sstreeicar of aging residents as well as yloungen alternative. from Portland to fa miliess. No-bu ilc 'hwo testimonies addressed the Lake Oswego is(last These residents'alsohighlighted the need lbn the pnojed w.'thoutl specifying as y ou will hear ownership of the Wli]la mettle Shone L ire an al tiearnatime preference,citing the right)of wa A ti a t(could t e used to need for a reliable public tra nsporta tion over and over system and the need to reduce i nereas sea trawl capacity in the corridor again. No matteras well as for a significant portion of the dependence on foreign oil. wh case money,, locaa match. federal on local,400 Comments w itihoutl an expnessic n cf EnNinced In s Four testimonial altenriative prefener Ice a r a ppc sitic n plus(million seams supported the enhanced buss to be an al ternative.These Eee si dents saw this a s Ten testimonies addressed other issues u rcaonscionable the most economical alternative that without stating a preference for or amount to speared could meet(comm utter needs. opposition aga'insst any of the alternath es.Some of these corns ments on a project with No-build Eight testimonies advocated addressed streetcar design options,and limited Mc ership" the no-build altc rnatiWe,stating that others spoke to concernss with the' —Judy blmaAli, LaAle new trlansi t investment neat a priority' process of or information in the Draft the corridor. Environmental Impact Statement. Oswego • 10 U ke Oswego to Portlanc Transit Prgjecl Draft EnviuonmentE I Implaci 5taternerirt pule tic comment impart 0 C omimienils addressing design optic ns options thnau&LlunthorIle/Rivtenda El "[ThEl longer we tar the streetcar alternative and Jahns Landing.C nee resident stated use the street car that the Riverwood Road design option Four comments ispecificiallM adcIness:leed a in Riverdale/Llunthorpe should not be ttl a greater pneference for on against)one cir move of sellecl ed duo to the impact on th art rec a ctionn cif the streetcar design options.Not all of stiieet.Two Johns:Landing nesiidentl subsic las that airee these commientl supported the testit ed in support of streetcar on regu ired by TriM et sitreeetkiar alternative generally,non Macadam Avenue through that area to to support it.Just were they counted as siucih. support businesses and aastlide users C rel residentsta tied that the full]value of while avoiding impact to properties tt EI opposite is true the right of way)should be utilized, along the Wiliam ette Shore Mine. far tt El arch ariaec preferring the Willamette Shore Line bus option... [I]t is clear th at EDI panding High may 9UMMP RIY OE WRITTEN COMMENTS 413 is not an opi ion. Metro received 2175 comments during C ornmienils siuppa dive of one c fl the Brit anciec d u sses the 60-day publics comment period. alternatives ane competing for Comments that were received within tl nee days befone (nine comments)and 5ltrEietcair 147 comments stated support i t El same space. aflen (eight comments)were also for the stileatcan alternative.Many Howeve n i h a accepted as part of this public comment eammentl preferred the streetcar as a streetcan rail line report,bringing the total aacaptleed clean,reliable transportation option in adds capacity that written comimentl to 392.The 11 the cecerridon,stating th at the stleletkiar is already 1 h Euee" commeentS were aligner generally with would add capacity in a carridon that is ` the alternative preferencesexpressed currently often congest ed. —Duncan Castle!, duringthe putlie comment period. Lade Oswego pp Comments in favor of the streetcar The majority of written aommient w©nee emphasized the transit travel time from inclividuals,largely residents living savings,impnowemielnt on greenhouse gas in the Lake Oswego to Portland emissions and lower operations cost)cif transportation corridor on within Lake sttleetkiar.A number of comment) "As a senion wt ci Oswego.Businesses submitted 10 undenseorec the adva ntage provided t y t as decic ed to age comments,community organizations the Willamette 51hone Line right of way as in place, I am submitted 15,andublici a enciee1I I otlh an existing public nesauncie for a p g transit alignment and the opportunity to Ellie1 Esc 1a hear six comments. pp hr 1 t at th e Si reetcar use itS value as to help meat local For this summary,comments are funding. may bEi heading to categorized byl theirssupporl for on Like Oswego... opposition to one or mora of the project Residents of both Lake Clswiego and altiernatimess:streetcar,enhanced buss on Johns Landing saw the streetcar as Sltreeei cars are safe no-build,with language of support fon offering the best)t enesfitl to businesses and affcirc at lElaeric one cif the altlernatiwess to king priority. and community vibrancywill h alp with 1 h a Sevaral comment highlighted support aging process to be fon the redevelopment potential of more meet ile Foothills!,seeing the streetcar as the au tside of our cit]." most supportive of an area that could —Mcercia offer living options for younger familiess 0 and olden nessident cif Lake 0 Oswego who Robertson, Lake want to age in place. Oswego Lake Oswego 10 Portlanc loam ii Pnojec C raft Enviionmenl al Impact Stalement pyblic ccimmenl report ■ l II Many comments spoWe simple s upporl As with those comments s upportime of fon the sti eetcalr without giving the the enhanced bus,s eiveral of the ip, commenters'rational, comments suppart've of the no-build Enhanced bL s Forty-five ciommEmts altlerr ativie included recommendations "BL SETS offal'di El supported the enhanced bus altlern atve. to meet current and future comment] on the tiians'porta>a'anreeds'.TheseTt Else ca mass cosi efilectiveneciamimendat'ons included creating flexibility cif busiest to change routes and nevlers'ible'!cries'on Hi wa 4:1,building zinc efficient way to schedules.Hlesidentsl also stalled that the nave more people enhanced bus is the less expensive build an east-west rail line across the between Aortlanc alternative,which is an impcirtanitl Willamette Rives through Lake Oswego- cons'iderat'an inthe current economic possibly tunneled-creating a multi-use zinc Clswefla. path using the Willamette Shore Line Busies clan be easily climate.Severn comments highlighted right of ways,and building a bypass'route that the enhanced bus would area to few fan Highway 4 3. 21C C etc far] EIC L zed changes 110 the lives of residents al ang g as required, aric the alignment and would fit with the they L se atmosphere of Lake Oswego. Corrirrients op posed to one of the eget lisp ec public alternatives e Several cif the comments in suppart of roac s." the ent anced bus option included Streetcar Ninety-five comments opposed -Chris tine and additani I recommendations to meet the streetcar alternative without Petal Nickeuls on, transportation needs such a s building a addressing a preferred a]ternative. multi-use path along the Willamette Commenters opposed to the streetcar C,ladiamas County Shore Line night of way,increasing stalled thalI the cost of the stleetcan C a nthonce transit service cm Terwilliger Boulevard alternative is unacceptable,often stating neighbonfl oc id and Hoones Ferry and Taylors Ferry that the current econcimiyi should retard 41) rciacls,and building a MAX extension spending of fecleral money and local from Milwaulde,either an a new bridge money should be focused on schools ar or on the Portland and Western Ralilraad to meet other commitment!.Clthen bridge. comments highlighted the streetcar s No-build Fifty-six comments advoca ted pc tential impaci to wildlife,floodplai ns the no-build ahen ative ar stated and park,say rig the environmental cosi "I F ave cam mu 1 ec opposition fon the project genera]Nis tc'cI high. to c c'wril ciwn without specifying oppc sition ta a Several comments stated that there is no Rom land an hwy 43 specific build alternative.Residents need for the streetcar,some stating that stated that transit investment)wa s not Highway 4 3 congestion is manageable' since 11987 and c o needed an wanted,and that a transit Some commenters cicmtlested the not flric the traffic project waul d not be Lised enough tc' ridership and traffic'projections L r't earable. I never justify the spending needed tb presented in the Era ft Hnvironmental eirncou ntEm traffic in implement)it.Slome commenters Impact Statement,stating that the the homing] referred to their abservatians that the numbers were implausible basecI on current local bus service ta and from their a ssessment of developable la nd in commute and the Lake Oswego is currently!underutilized Lae Oswego,their perceptions of their Iever'ing]traic is ar that the traff c an Higt way 43 is neighbors'likelihood of using transit or manageable." manageable.A few questioned the pcilicyl their belief that the projections relied on -Jacin CO hake of investing in transit improvements)that a high density development)of Hciathills. would benefit a primarily more affluent Cswego community. Some comments expressed opposition to development of Foothills,seeing Slevenal Lake Clswego commenters stated streetcar as a first step toward tha110 that a transit project would encourage development. development that they did not want. 12 Lake Oswec o tc Pcirtlanc llransil Ncgect Draft Envii air mental Impract St ter eni put lic comrr Elm report , ,. 0 A few comments lamented that the Maker Om ego No comment expressed "i sea this... t eririfl a debate for or against streetcar was specifics preference for ether the knife that will au causing strife between Lake Oswego Foothills ar Union Pacific Railroad right residents. of ways design option. th Km gh th e Manyi comment spoke simple Du rich cirpes/Riverdale Twenty-three community apposition to the streetcar without csommantS supported the Willamette separating the giving the commenters'rational. Slhore Line design option.The majority of wcrrk'rig folks i sing Bnhane EIC bus Na aommerrrts1 expressed these stated that it wasthe mostfiscally th e line and the an apposition to the enhanced bus responsible since it used the value of the h crmeowners who alternative without offering a preferred right of way.A few mentionlercl that it are opposed 1 ci it alternative. would prevent the closure of the River ood Road/Highway 43 t scat ser of th aril No-build Eights comimientsl spoke to the intersection and would preserve the feel very'expensive need for the project without specifying cif River%ood road. h crmesite values an alternative preference.Most of these Sleven commentsl favored the Riverwaad t eirlg impacted." comments referred to the importance of the project lb meet transport 11 on needs, Road design option,citing impacts to —Joan Call, CaAle residential pro citing the benefits of ccrnvernlienceproperty with the Willamette Oswego reduced greesnhausse gas emissions and S hone Line design option. increased access between Labe Clswergo Joh nis Larding llwenty-seven csomments1 and Portland. suppqrted the Willamette Shorey Eine design option.Commenters stated that it C omments w itlhc utl an exp resssion of was thea most fiscally!responsible since it "Th e option of 0 alternative p rerflerence or op p ossition used the value of the right of w ayi, hav inrfl 1 her Forty-one comments addressed other diked the best travel time,would nal streetcar on affect traffic on Macadam Avenue ants portions of issues wither t stating a preference for cin would not div'der Heron Pointe p opposition against anyi of the , Mem am woulc property. e alternatives.These commentsl included p p hav e traffic calming those from state and federal agencies Sixteen comments preferred that the that did not take a position an a streetcar be routed to Macadam Avenue. efilects zinc would preferred alternative.S evera of these Commenters stated streetcar on be mare resider i1 comments]contested then figures,findings' Macadam Avenue would most benefit ussefu I.We also or process of the Draft Environmental business along and riders east of the support stops ori Impact Statement.Some stated inquiries highway"would avoid impacts to ti el Nara h,central or requests)to be addressed as one of the propert'es along the Willamette Shone alternatives mousers forward. Line and would offer the opportunity to clic Jot th and for convert the right of wary)ti a mild-use the benefit cif Comementls addressing design options trail through that segment Fouir of these residents, for the street(ar alterriativre comments)specified a preference for the commuters and Macadam in-street design option.No shoppers." Fifty-seven comments adIdnesised a comimentsl specified the Macadam preferenc ear opposition for cine on more additional lamer design option. —Mcserecr Macadam of the streetcar design options.Not all of Mc Met, these ccrmimentsl supported the streetcar Pcirtlar 00 r s alternative general lyi,nor were they Landing counted as such. r eui51hborhood S U ke Oswegq tci Partlanc lransil Projleci Diiaft Anvircinmeintal Impact St2temuni public comment import 13 ISS UES RAISED BY COMMEN19 "'C ne fourth cif t h e ill eo<It hof th a Commenters indicated issuesto be businesses,apartments and nesolwicl if eithenth ci sttleetkiar on cionslomiiniums in Johns Lafndingl and sited ear enhanced t us moves fbrwa rc l lb the Lake Clsvr ego under th e sttieetkian alterriative]will be next phase of project planning In alternative should t El miinimized. croverec by a simarl aclheringto the requirement!of the decision made 20 National Environmental Policy Act,the Hine nce years ago to project will respond lb th a issues raised Hederal fu nding As stated above,several in the Final Environmental Impact acquire 1 h el righ i of Sltaltlememt if one of these altErrnativaed is comments stated that federal fu Inds way.The fec anal selected as the Locally)Preferred should not be used lb invest in the gov emir ant will A1tErrnative. corridor given the current state of I th e y} cantribule a major economClthers quesitlancIcl the Ce nmrr unity)effects lildelihood of the 60 percent federal share,and 1 h e local funding levier outlined by the f nance areas all clang th a Noise aric vibration Comments from plan,asidng what the ccmtingency is ifI route benefitElc by those with property al ongl the the federal portion is less. the lire will at ip in alignment for the streetcar alternative lace funding Rask lents!asked far mone to cov er th a cost." requested details and assurance about detail on how the local fulndsr would be mitigation measures for noise and —Doug Cushing, vibration. raided,several stating)than they were llcrke Oswego Streetcar have taxes raises to pay for Itreedtcar crossiries In neighbonhoocls the project,especially in light of other al ong the alignment resident! kola funding ciomimitniants or cu tt acid. TIjhe stlleetcar requested details)an how the praject SOME!that presumed nedevlelopm enol alternativa] would Elnsurel safe crossringsr for the opperturides under the streel car • proposes spending streetcar altiarniatime without degrading alternativhle slug este that the funds nearly a half billion autb access lb neighborhoodsor could on should be raised as part of parking,especially!during construction. redevelopment projects. dollars to kr prove commute'tin as by Historic resources A few comments Operations and maintenance Although a few minutest an a stalled the importanceof preserving the most comments rent-ding operations three t uildingsr designed by Lakel and maintenance costs!Highlighted the route that already Oswego architect Richard SundelEraf,a annual savings of the streetcar has lesisi traffic) couple suggesting that the terminus a ternadvie,a few comments contested congest ion than should be sided in Hcrathills to amoid any the figures on the premise thad streetcar marry glari<.i of the impact lb the properties. riderswould be less)lilieely to pay their region, aric will Equity)A few comments addressed fate. Orr seirve one equity,approaching it from different Value of th a Milan Ertl el St care tire right of th a weah h jest anglers.A few stated that the project will of way Manystated that the potentia tc priimiart y serve an affluent community. use the val uEr of the Willamette Shore and most racially On the other hanc I,others stalled than I ine right of way as part of the local seglregal ec those that would use it especiially miatkih camimitnient is a unique comm unities in th el transit dependant)riders,would not be apportu nity that should not be missed. stale." paying their fair share. Several comment!questioned the —Dowd Acqu isitions aims displacements Two pinojercted val uer ofl the right of way to ba Aichitdicturel, t usiinedses that may be affected bythe used as pall of the local match streetcar alternative stated that requirement for th e shieetcar Penland,J ohm' alternative,requiring more detail and 0 Landing displacements are unacceptable.Other confirmation of the appraisal process. comments stated that loss of parking to 14 L ke Oswega 1a Portianc Tnansi1 Pncfect Onaft Enuinanment I Impact Siaterren1 put tic cart mEint report IF el closet of c oing nothing Same Hydrolo8Y!A few comments mentioned "People move and ! c!oma ants felt that the long term cost of apprehension far the level of nesic a Fl are not investing should be better WE laniette River floodplain loss and quantified,citing policy'shifts to wet and and waterwaydisturt ance Eeau se it is small, address aarbcln emis'sio'ns,the economic during construction under the streetcar cozy arc qu set. threat created by peak oil,and the cost alternative. Most people prod er of roadway maintenance.A few others EalrtH CIL a ke and landslide risk Some to h ave a single- stated that waiting until the triafic problem is urgent would aril increasecammentS questi aned the wis!dam cif a family h anh e wit the cost nail line spanning the fault lines in the land.Condos and corridor.A few coma'eritsl stated that tow nhomes are Land use gird planning only ft'on of the streetcar alternative only punch orad by would increase landslide risk.Others Poplu laition forecast Several ccimmentl asked for detail an the Height of those w o car r of contested the pap,iulatlon forecast fon retaining wal:s that would be needed. afibnd mud'." Lake Oswego,Olen stating that since —Midi lei the city is musty t uilt out,the numbers Public sal etyI and siEIcIurity Boulanger, LaMle were unreliable. Streetcar crossings As mentioned, g Os we cl Redevelopment Several residents residents!from neighborhoods along the expressed enthusiasm for the potential alignment requested details cm How the housing optians that would be project would ensures safes crossings. "I CIL rrerltly live cu.t enc'o'uraged by thes!hleetcan in Wiisarville Crime rates A few commenters!stalk I alternatives!in the Aaathills!district, their belief that the streetcar alternative because there's riot es ciall for older residents)lookin to fiadownsizelwHile staying in Lake Cls!wego would bring increased crime;However,, vary mart'options and for the opportunity to attract a similar number proactively rebutted far 25-year-olds younger families to the city.In contrast, with their belief that this would not who are looking to same commenters did not want to colour mave back to Lake encourage redevelopment in Lake Transit sect rity A few comments!asked Clswego.My family Clswego,stating that they wanted to for details regarding the protocol for still(hes or Rac cdif protect the village feel of the city.Still security for the sitileetklar alternatives. Roac...Wel re ally others1 fellt that the s!tileetcan'si development)advantages were not Section 4(f,I preliminary findings of de believe th at Flitting rut stanta ailed. minify us lir pacts 110 public parks a streetcar into A few con mientl stated that the flak a Oswego will Natural enuinoinm a nilh alp the busiin esseis s!trleetcan woul dl impact parkland or Greenhouse)rias emissions'Several traditional access to parksi.One and communities comments stated the importance of the comment stated that in complying with and enhance au ii streetcar alternative's benefit of Section 4(f designation,the l]rafll is entity F ene.1 ftIl) reducing greenh ouse gas emissions!. Environmental Impact Analysis did not su priori bu ildir @I a Ecosystem s Several residents expressed fully express the impact to lands!that ynxP Hoothillss be concern for the impacts to habitats of could cine day :included in a park. wildlife and aquatics spec ies that may be master plan. development for imposed by the streetcar alternative, people my age to with a few stating that the species!audit T ranislportallia n moi e t ack ta flak e was nat thorough enough A related Congestion Comment!often Oswego." 0 concern was the potential of retaining contradicted each other,with several —Mere ditll Scar Ilion, walls impeding wildlife movement stats nig that traffic an High way 43 is not Wifsionviille Laker Oswega ta Portland tsar:it Pioject Daft Er viranmeintt 1 impact SU tamer t public aarrimeni reipor '15 a pinobleim an at least manageable and state( that the enhanced bus or no- several citheirs stating that current I uild alternatives would ciffen the I est • congestion is alneady a problem anc ciptiori fan West Linn transit users,since "Public will acint1n ie to worsen.Slome ti ay would ncit nequine a transfer. 1 ranisplarl atiari expressed 1±at a pnojecit that c ciesn't Trail Thirty-three aclmimentsl stated the helps neduce siggificianty neduca congestion should mac fan a trail in the corridor,same @lnaenhou se Bases, not moves farwiarc. stating)that the safe,imipnoved bicycles res a cies%niear and La Nei Clswego traffics Slevenal comments ciommuten access in the conic an is just tean circ roac si, and stated aanclenn that the stiiaataan as if not monei important than improved the street Car] altannative would nat alleviate an wciulcI transit access. would t a a more exacerbatetraffic'ti nough Lake 0swegci on States Sit-teat/Highway 43,especially Additional issues enijoyat lei near the tenmiinusi at C swego Village. altarriative than Publics involvement process A few Transit efficiency Slevenal aomimentl clamiments exprcissed disappointment taking the t Ls.The stated the importances of the streetcar with the public invcilvemient pnoaesisi, ciommu riityl awes it altennative's travel time savings), feeling til at theme was not enaugli detail to fu to re clanryjng capacity and capacity. pnesientec leading up tci and c uning the €lerienationis to Trarisit flexibility Several comimientsl publics comment pciried and call ars builc ars stated the importance of the enhances saying that there was nat enough infrastru cltune that bus on no-build alternative flexibilityopportunity to expnesls themselves to to Despond tci demurs on ciatastilci het decision-makers. allows those lig inigl p AI in t h ese alrelac y with temponarm an long-term noLitel Willamette St ore Line rig h t of way A few changes. acimimentsl stated that the Willamette Ill built-out su bu rbari Shone Line awnenship typesarid Trarisit aiccess Several comments hubs to get 1 a authority needs)to be cleanly high lightec the need fon an efficient downtown." documented.One owner stated its) tltlansiit cionnectiari to the MAX system.A expelctation that if at andoned fon nail —Ro<elrriarm few resicleritS menticincicI the need fon CliCandi lo,, Lae better local service tci aanneict to ti El purposes,the right cif way would nevcirt streleltcan or enhances bus.'there was a on trlansfen tci adjaccint propcirty ownan i Oswego nathein than being usieicl fon a trail. specific cionaenn fcir senion arid disablcid pensonsi access and the need fon an Stat ion siting A few clamimentsl from "I tru ly lleel nae additional transfer to the strleetclan in Johns Landing stated the need fon a enough people will orc ler to connect to their destinaticin.A station I etwcien BoLindaryi and Canolina couples cif ciommcintsi expressed concern sitrleets.Another stated the import ancei actually u t ilizel this that the park and rice facility would of a station to serve the Riverdale area. route to mak a it a encciunagei auto traffic on Narth Shores Cammientl wene t alarmed on a ware hwh ile project Roac and McVey Avenues. Riverwood Road station under ti El for the amou nit ofpark and ride facility A few comments strleetcian altennative,with a few money that it is stated eithen that til El pank and nide comments excited to have easy access pinajected to cost." structure woulc not fit with the feed cif to a sltatian and a few stating that it Lake Oswelglcl on that it should be would cause parking ar cemel issues in —Leslie N Mier, Lake aria Ciackama< County, designed cianefully to ensure iF at it dcieis. Clunthorpei rieti51hboihood Traffics south of Lake Oswego Some comments stated that di el noot cif the IIItraffic problemclomels frame West Linn and C regcin City.A few comments' 16 La ke 0a wegci to fl artla nd Tnansil f ncgec1 Draft Enviuonme nlal In pact Statement public comment impart iik SPECIFIC CICIMMEIS TSI FIROM EU SINBSSIBS "llhe SI reietcar can 111111, Commeinit. from businesses contained inaccurate.The project will not do very'little more specifics issues and hig'hlig'hted the need optimize the regional transit sys tam in regarc s to fan continued coordinations,which is and does not servae hisi oric and traff,c dev eloping 1 h a typical as a project advances. needs.More detail is needed for those foothills area aver Dowd Archil elctu re"Hari land Johnsdirectly'and inc lirect]yi impacted by the project.If the Wlillamiette Shore Rinse what enharsceic bus Landing neighborhood] Dciwd right of way is abandoned for rail service can c ci." A rchitectu rel apposes the streetcar us osiers, '-01]H expects the right of wa alternative because of potential impacts p xAl g Y —Erickson'_ to the business/residence property to revert to prcipeirty owners and not be A utorr olive, Lade along the Willamette Share Line right of used fon a trail. OsweSlci way.Specifics ccincernsi include noise Naseco Macadam Market(Portlaric, arid viii ration and zcming negulaticins Johns tart ing neighbcirh tick] The that would prevent additional streetcar alternative isi the better option "I strongly believe strulcturersi.Congestion is not a problem fon future development of the siciuith that an Inv es.Merit an Highway 43.The Draft Macadam Avenue area.Aar the benefit in the 'streetcar Environmental Impact Statement does of residents,commuters and shoppers, not adequately present impacts to the there should be north end,central and alterriative] will Miles Strleet/Alacie area,exaggerates the siciuth end stopsi in]ahnsi La'n'ding. eiricouragle good streetcar's delve'cipmsent advantage and Oswego Ler Idesr, LLC'Lake Oswego, bu siness anc y oung underestimates the impacts of r.lciisiei Flcicith ills districi Oswego Ldnden,DDC families to mcsve to and vibration.The streetcar isi socially' support the streetcar alternative,but our area... inequitable because transit service is requires cor.lsult�tion on several issues: • needed in areas that are more q something we are congested,are less wealti y and have a Plansfor access the park and ride all looking fon.A higher cif minorities. at C swego Village shave an impact to i percentage g p gC swego Paint Apartments)parking;the v it rant con mu nifty Erickson's A lu 1 om otiv a jLake Oswego, parking garage is a potential eyesore fon that attracts good Foothills districi)The country,state and nesidentsl;visibility arid curb appeal cif jobs and citizens." counties ane in financial trciuble and the apartments wciuld be impacted by - ,ennings cannot)afford the streetcar alternative, streetcar operations;and noise anc IInsurance Agency, arid the enhanced busi will do just as vibration cluriing construlction and much for the develcipmsent cif Fcncithills. cipenatiori of the streetcar alternative !Ale Oswego The population projections in the Draft would need to be msitigaltled to Environmental Impact Statement)are satisfalctian. inaccurate. Clresgon Pu blic Broadcasting(Porl lank, VA]e look forward Jennings Ins a ranee Agency(Lake Joh ns Landing neighborhood] Ti a project to warking with th el Oswego, c owntown] investment in the could directly benefit 0 PB by)providing [p]rcrject team as streetcar alternative will encciunage transportation ofltions far employees, the engineering good businesses and yloung falmilies to volunteers and the community.Noise anc planning mcive tci the area.Efficient transit is and vibration is a concern moving necessary'for employees to wcmrI in forward,especially with the planned process mcives Lake C swego. streetcar stop at Nevada Street.C PB forwarc." KOH LLC'Clackamas.'County[, DL nth csrFle bold forward tci cantinlused consultaticm —Onegcin Public nieiiglh L art cicic] The Draft Environmentalwith the project team an thins issue and Bnoadaasi ing,, Impact Statement does not sufficiient]yi to ensure safe access. Portiland,Johns ac Idness fundamental issues to move the Landing project forward.The prcijectionsi are neliigfltlorhood Lt ke Oswecci tci Partla nd tansil Projeci Draft Invincmmental Impact Stlten ien1 public comment rt port 17 "Th es challenges Publics SItouage(IlakEW Clswe@Icl, tooth ills Terre mar Retail Centers shale)Clsweflcl, incliu c el t alanicing district I Put lic Storage apposesthe Old Town neigh t arF ciao C swego Village • the Flu t lice u se of strEleitcan alternative,because it will is an anflpnopniate terminus)fan the displace Hublici.JtanagEl in Laken Oswego. streatcan,aflering the potential ta th a IpIropertv with Lake C slwEngo is an excellent manket, facilitate redevelopment of the th a existing puiv ate and relocation within)the area is nat property.A parking management plan improvements aric fclasit le.The funding plan needs)to be cneatcld between then th El cl lematior al ovenesstimateis the valuers cif ti El agencies anc Ilernamiar to enssune that needs cif ou r Willamette Shane Line night of way and Oswego41i]]agEi netailesns andcustomer's the federal match.The populaticin ane not negatively affected.The City of tenants,while tH El projections in the Draft Envinanmieirital 'Jake Osswegcs needs)ta adopt a zoning potential Impact Statement are inacicunate. designation that allows flhassed opKlori u r ities roc Er lielopmcmt as strieetaar ridenslhip lulu c El increasedincreasesand facilitates the manket fon Potent ial for private eucmomic development rec Enrelopmerit of ICIswego]Village SPECIFIC COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS arc relates 1 Slevenal community onganiaatlansl react to trlanssfens. Birdslhill public/private ciflened strlong suppcirt fon then stcleetciar recommends a publics vote as to Result parr nansH ips ias anitennativlie,while ethers seamed tcl from the unanswered questions)about provide enhancedsupport it but identified issues ta be computer'miadelsl,codapnavislions and infrastrucstu ne worked out with more ac viaricled study. impacts'to personal property and Sleivenal groups opposed the strieetclan finances. Bindshill neaamimendsl a new necessary to serve alternatives,with twa facussing an alternatives analysis to incluc El an new • any such enhanced buss as a vial le alternative. streetcar alignment: an Southwest Hood redevelclFlment." Finally,clammentens offered aptimissm and Virginia avenues)through Johns —1lerresmar Reitan at out the Wanda] for a va niaty of Landing,alcing TaylorsFerry anc Cer tern, LaNle housing stock in LakeC swego and the Beams Ferry needs,through a tunnel need to protect t isstariia strrictunes. from the Gneenwoac Hill Cemetery to Oswego 'Bryon Creek State Hark,along the bikes Biuc shill(111C/NAI The Draft path through Tryon Clneak State Park!, Envinorimienta] Impact Statement ill and csntci First Abenue in Doke Oswego. flawed as it does not sufficiently "(11]he enhanced address I he issues of neighbanhood Casa c e Policy Institu tel The Uraftl Sus option is ricst Residents,thar;igt this is flnimarily due Enviranmiesr.ltal Impact Statement does very)"enhancsed"... to a lengthy Clackamas Caunty and Lake not include all miasmal le alternatives, It still h as too many Oswego neighborhood recognition and tJ a einhancled bus is poorly stops to ten calledprocess,which hindered delineaticin conceived as an altennativEl.Analysis and neptsessesrltation of issues specific to should have focused on csurnent service an Empress t L s Birdslhill,and the prElcicuiupationi of augmented with morning and evening versicin, and it r€lsiclesnts with day to day necessities to peak express t us service connecting inclu des a detour engage Elected off dials). Unnesolvied mei 0neigon City anc Portland as the lElast- ofil cd(Highway]43 details neganding ssunfacle waster cost transit impnovemcsnt option. to tsar nett with the management,the system cif law enforcement and deterrence, !lake Clswegc interaction with bikeways anc Transit Center..." pIEIC elstrlan movement,safety with —Casccsdei Policy respect to the Macadam Avenue in- • Jns titutei strleet design afltion and how nidens will 18 LI ke Oswegci 10 Portland Transit Pno'ect(haft Envinonmenlal Impact Slatemeni public comment nepart Citizens for Sltewardllh ip of Le He CIswEIglo Lake Oswego Historic Renounces Advisory un el DIEIS rr akes Lands If the project purpose is ta be Band The historic building ana ysis in the argu ment that Einviranmentallyl sensitive,the stileetcian the Draft Envinonmiental Impact the E 1.1!I alternatives cannot be selectee.Ti a Draft Statement is incomplete.Iii did nat Env'ronmental Impact 5 tatememt list! consider tWo of the three buildings are mare c oma®iri® alarming potential imipacta to protected designed by Lake Oswego architect to the ecosystems wildlife and fish habitat!,species' Richard Slundeleaf,all three of which as th ely do rat ofiler movement.There is concern that should be preserved as part of the the aplpclrl a nits to minimization and mitigaltion measures heritage of the city.Additionally!,itis restore h abitlat, far potential impact to Olregon White important that designs fcir the streetcar Cak and stream channel alteration are terminus at Cswego Village not distrb repair eulvelrts, not viable or would not be fcdlowed. the character of the Clld Towr. etc... [R;Ielstoratiari There is concern that the analylsiis cif neighborhood. pplojects cou Id I e parklands and recreation areas is Bort kind Bicycle Aldvillor i Com mittee funded and incomplete due to the criteria fon The project creates a critical link in the accomplished at lelct'cm 4(f)compliance delsigrlation. regional transit system.The BA C any time Disability Serriices Aldvisoryl Cou nicil of supports the streetcar alternative and inc elpelr>Ident of a Clac lamas County Access far seniors the Macadam Avenue in-street design transit project.'" and people with disabilities v auld be option,recommending that the designs' impactec if there are changes to Line support safe bicycle and pedestrian - Citiaens Jo, 35.If them need ta transfer ta the access and enhance neigh i cmhoods. Stewc MAO of streetcar and then tiansfen again to get Unused portions of the Willamette Lade Oswego lands to their destination,it may i elcomel Slhore Line eel t cif way should be pnohibitiie. considered for a multi-use path through "[The Slouth Johns Landing,though the BAC also Rail land Hair Hou sing Cau ricil of Oregon The relcommenc s bicycle access project is required lb complete a Neighborhood comprehensive equity analysis to impnonemelnts to Macadam Avenue. Association (!domino whether the benefits and gore land Pedestrian Advisory Com mittee eijmph asiaesl the burs ens of the Lodally Preferred The PAC recommends the streetcar importancle of this Alternative fall fairlm on all affected alternatiMe and recommends that Project's phy sinal communities.The Lake Oswega housing designs support pec eistrian and bicy pie stock excludeseven most moderato- access and enhance neighs cmhoods.The kr plrovem ents to and middle-income households,but has project should not preclude use of the the Pedestrian an opportunity to develop a more Willamett el Slhore Line right of way for a environment alarg diverse housing stock with the multi-use path,particularly north of the M acladarr Ar elm e development of Foothills. Slellwocid Bric ge. in the Johns Lake Oswego Natural Resources Aldvisorli South Rortland Neighborhood Laric ingl Board The streetcar is the cleaner, Association The SIPNA supports the rielighborhood, environmentally preferable alternative. stiieetcan alternative and the Macadam inch c irlJ?l wider If the streetcar is selected,the crossing Avenue in.street design option through of Tryon Creek must be desiigned to Johns Landing.High qua ity transit in sidewalks arc mane avoid negaltivel impact to fish and the corridor is funs amental ta frequent wile life habitat. maintaining the region's quality of life pedestrian and providing efilect've and convenient crosswalks" connections'. —South Portland 1111 Neighborhciod Association Lake Oswecp 10 Pcutlaru llnansit Project Draft EnvinonmEin1a1 Impact Statement public cummEnl report '9 "The URACI Stant pher Roac Hom e-Owners' Willamette Shores)Cciric om iniu mise The aFlFlile'ciai EIS the' Alssociiation The:treat can alternative Willamette Share Lina nigt t of way110 will have negative consiagtrenncesi far the design apltion thnough Jahns Ilanc ing project's goals to neighbonhood as it will anoss 1 t a noad wciuld negatively impact property implore transit into the neigt bonhaacl,nequiring signals' valuies.'III a Board of Directors and aonnecticns to and warnings of an aippnoaclhirl8 owners support the Macadam Avenue South Waterfront streetcar.The Draft Envinonmental in-street clesign opticin,wt ich also and supportsImpact Statement lists) direct and affardsl the best redevelopment extending the city's indirect impacrtI to wildlife and fish I uit opportunity fan the neighborhood. does!not supply siuffllcierlt information Oregon Public HeaN H Institute The Errisl ini�I streetcar neganding the other effects,inducing8 sys1elm, le%enaging those!of constnictacirl of the freight sltreeltaan alternative providers the past public and unc ercrras's'ing,the'prylorl Creek trestle greatest imipnovements in ciplportu nitles and the catenary s'ystemi. fon physical activity,greatest Deductions' Flri%ate investmentin futune air pollutant levels!,greatest in the system,and Trim el Portland With the scenic!route improvement in acmes!'to health Flnavic iniEI imprcr%ed along the Wlillamiette Riven,II a supportive services and grleatesst access into and out streetcar could become a visiton nedLict'crn in traffic cnash nates. destination in itslelf,aplerling the Recommendations fon mitigation to ci11 h e c'strut." siauithern section of the region a!!an Deduce air polluitdritsl duiri ng - North Macadam attractive day-trip destination far ccinsitrucrtion include'working with the Urban Renewal visit ars!to Portland.The streetcar Departn-ant of Envinonmental Quality dr isor}il alternative carinect! majon regional to develop emissions-based Committeeamenities and is inkeeping with the acinsrtnlcrtion equipment fleet negicin'si strong brand as a sustainability requirements,developing information "(11,a streetcar and transportation leader. and outreach pnogramsi tci alert411 alternatives] would North Modelers Urban Renewal residents of construction sacheclules'and Aldviso Corr mittelei Concern.!ne �rndin educate therm on how to avoid exposure! pnavica the ry g" g to air toxic!!!gerierateicl by ccrn!itruation, great est financing the streetcar ane cosh and clevelaping manitoring pinogram!i to eiffectivenessi of the alignment and impnovement ir' prcipielrty ownelr cast slhar ng.'phe better as'ses's'canstnlcfion site 0 ori u nit ies for concentrations of air toxics!. FIFI prajeat should pu i ir.'e1 the most cosst- Flh ysical ac ti%ityl affective alignment to best leverage t ecau sEr of its transit efficiency,land use and higher ler el of development goals at limited cost If a Local Improvement Distrlictt is being servicer,greaten considered as part of the final fulrlding impnovemenits in package,the current credit uinden tf park arlc trail Gibbs-Lowell UID Onclinance sihauild be aiiaessid ility, arnc ext ended an additional 10 years. pnavision of greaten amou rats of tic' ale and piedestniari irlfrastnu atu res in th a corridoir.." —C regon Public' Hecllth institute) 111 20 L ke Oswego 10 Portland Tnansi1 Pnolect Onaft Enviiionmenlal Impact Stttemen1 public coni ment 116 port • 51F BCIIIIC COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AC ENCIBS "We support the Public agencies offereeI comment' an the monitoring an other geotechnical hales, project purpose to alternatives,without taking a posiitlon on related to the project ane cIdIlecI. pnovide enhariciec them,,rather highlighting areas that need C WRI]also pnovidecI criteria and options, transit in the aclditional analysis,,clarification or for local jurisdictions regarding well gnoject comic or. coordination in Preliminary Engineering abandonment Ultimate, th a and the Final Environmental Impact y Sltatememt United States Department of Interim, If decisiari regarding the sltreetcan alternative movers forward, selection of an Hederal High way Administrat ion HHWA the Final Environmental Impact aslled for details in the Draft Statement sihoulcl include speicific alternative arc Environmental Impact Sltatememt to be information regarding the level and F atentially of clarified or addressed as the sti eetclar on extent of the proposed mitigation to c esiglri options,will enhanced bus alternative moves adverse,impact; to fish and wildlife t e locally t ased. forward. species and resources.Resit management Wei encourage that Oregani Department of Transportation A practices should be developed to avoid storage facility unc ler the Marquam, and minimize impacts to native trees, th e selectee Bridge for the streetcar alternatives wildlife and aquatic species. alternatives be would require ongoing negotiation to Compensatory mitigation sihoulcl c esigried to aehie%e accommodate competing demands,for concentrate on areas that provide the ma),imum benefits the space.if the state continues to best benefit to I F a erivinonimert maintain owr ership of Highway 43, United States Environmental F rate ction and the local Macadam Avenue design options Agency Region 10 Based on patlemtial community." 0 through J ahns Lalnding will be subject to impacts tci aquatic resources,the C DOTS,Highway)Design Manual,require enhanced bus,alternative,would be -°United Staled further research,analysis andconsidered the Least Environmental y 9nvinonmentail development of bicycle and vehicle Damaging Practicah le Alternative,but Proiecl ion Agency safeit5l measures,for installation cm a the streetcar alternative may be state high way,and modernize the environmentally preferred overall arc l drainage and stormwater trieatrient could be considered the LEI]HA with facilities,. compensatory mitigation.The Oregon Department of Stale Lands There Willamette Shores Line design option is mem h El impacts to state waters, preferrec in J ohms Landing and the including wet ands,.Clomflensatoryl Union Pacific Railroad right)of way) mitigation concepts sh ould be design option in Lal+le Oswego.Once the cicicmdina,ted with appropriate agencies. Locally Prefers ed Alter-native is,selected, more detail and commitment will need I]9L also provided information cm its' to be provided in the Final permitting process. Environmental Impact Statement Clregoni Water Resources Depart ment No regarding mitigation measures,for comments directly)relating to the Draft impacts to hydrology,water qualit5l, Environmental Impact SItallement,but floodplain,and trlans,itl access as,well as, C WRD requesltil contact before ccrostnlction impacts. 0 Lake Oswego 10 Portland Moans it Pncfect Craft Envinunmenlal Impagp Statement plubl'c cummEint regcirt 2 Planning and Building Services cmimmzi�sio-xoio Department Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner DATE: March 9, 2011 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007) - Vision and Scenario Drafts ACTION Provide suggestions to clarify the intent of the vision statement and respond to the set of questions listed under the scenarios description below. INTRODUCTION On February 28, 2011, at a study with the Planning Commission (Commission), commissioners indicated that they wanted to be more involved in providing input on key issues and policy discussions related to the update of the Comprehensive Plan. This meeting is intended to provide the opportunity for Commission feedback on the draft vision statement and scenarios. Planning Commission comments on the draft vision will be forwarded to the Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) along with the City Council's comments for the CAC's review at their next meeting in April. The CAC is meeting on March 10 with the Goals 9 & 10 Work Group to review and provide comments on the scenarios in preparation of the March 29 open house. The Commission's comments will be forwarded to the CAC prior to the open house. DISCUSSION The short introduction and related attachments are intended to provide the Commission with background information in preparation for Monday's meeting. Draft Vision Statement(Attachment 1) The purpose of the vision statement is to broadly yet succinctly articulate, from the community's perspective, what the community wants Lake Oswego to be and look like twenty-five years into the future. The vision is intended to be used as one of many tools to help guide the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. The following attachments are included for the Commission's review. • CAC Draft Vision Recommendation to Council Memo, January 24, 2011 (Attachment 2) • City Council Vision Statement Endorsement Memo, February 7, 2011 (Attachment 3) • CAC Draft Vision Statement Memo, March 1, 2011 (Attachment 4) Scenarios Development The scenarios are intended to reflect the vision and graphically illustrate different potential growth patterns for Lake Oswego. At the March 29 open house, participants will be asked: what they like about the scenarios, what concerns they have and which scenario best meets the vision for 2035. Following the open house, the scenarios will be evaluated to determine which scenario best reflects the community vision, housing needs, economic development aspirations and transportation needs. Staff is also looking into the possibility of conducting a high level fiscal assessment of the three scenarios. A second open house is scheduled in May to share the results of the evaluation and solicit further public input on a preferred scenario. Comprehensive Plan Update Page 1 Planning Commission—March 14, 2011 The following questions were provided for the CAC's consideration as they reviewed the scenario matrix. • Are the scenarios distinct enough? • Outline the appropriate implications? • Are the descriptions simple enough for"non-planner" to understand? • Do the scenarios reflect what CAC members have heard from the public up to this point? • How can they be improved prior to the open house? The following attachments are included for the Commission's review. • March 29 Open House Outline (Attachment 5) • March 4 CAC Alternative Land Use Patterns & Implications Matrix Memo (Attachment 6) • March 10 Scenario Maps (Attachment 7) • Housing Density Examples (Attachment 8) ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Vision Statement (February 15, 2011) 2. CAC Draft Vision Recommendation to Council Memo, January 24, 2011 3. City Council Vision Statement Endorsement Memo, February 7, 2011 4. CAC Draft Vision Statement Memo, March 1, 2011 5. March 29 Open House Outline 6. CAC Alternative Land Use Patterns & Implications Matrix Memo, March 4, 2011 7. Scenario Maps Drafts, March 10 8. Housing Density Examples Comprehensive Plan Update Page 2 Planning Commission—March 14,2011 Lake Oswego Community Vision for 2035 2/15/11 Draft WE LO Planning lot People.PIK"dnil ProW,,,,y In 2035, Lake Oswego is a thriving,sustainable city, meeting the community's needs without compromising the needs of future generations.Our community is recognized for its quality of life, exceptional schools, and excellent local government. Our multigenerational neighborhoods, healthy natural resources,vibrant mixed-use shopping, employment districts, and diverse services and activities are accessible to all. Our educational,cultural and recreational opportunities strengthen the social fabric of the community.Our top-rated schools offer excellent education and reinforce the value of the community COMMUNITY as a desirable lace to raise a family.Our outstanding library,CULTURE P Y• g � ry, parks, and community amenities provide a wide range of programs and special events. Public art and historic resources enrich our cultural identity. e; We manage growth by providing the opportunity for a variety of attractive and compatible housing that serves a range of ages, incomes and households.Our distinct and walkable neighborhoods COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS contribute to the city's small town feel. Mixed-use districts enhance adjacent residential areas by &HOUSING providing access to quality jobs, housing,transit,entertainment, services and shopping. Higher density housing is located along transportation corridors and town centers to preserve the character of our existing neighborhoods. 17 We have safe,efficient and convenient transportation choices. There are frequent and reliable public transportation options that make it easy to move around our city and the region. Pathways,sidewalks, CnA COMMUNITY roadways and bike routes encourage residents of all neighborhoods to walk and bike safely. COMMU (` We are a community where people can live,work, play and meet their daily needs for goods and ECONOMIC services.We build upon the intellectual capital of the community to attract new ventures, retain local VITALITY businesses and connect to the global economy. We are business-friendly and a regional model for employment and mixed-use centers that attract quality jobs. '$ We are good stewards of our environment.Our urban forest, natural areas and watersheds are valued and cared for as essential environmental,economic, and cultural assets. We are recognized for HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS effectively balancing today's community needs with the need to preserve clean air,water and land resources for future generations. The built environment is designed to protect, enhance and be integrated with natural systems. f�; Our community is a safe place to live and supports lifelong active and healthy living. We are known COMMUNITY for excellent public safety response systems that work together with an involved community to ensure HEALTH peace and safety. There are opportunities for active lifestyles that promote the health and social & interaction of our residents. Easily-available foods from local community gardens and farmers' PUBLICSAFETY markets su pport healthy nutrition. POur architecture and natural setting inspire people to live here. Development respects the physical INSPIRING SPACES environment and meets the highest quality of community design to foster the distinctive character and &PLACES beauty of this special place. We are a regional leader. By sharing the example of our successes and our active engagement with other metropolitan area governments,we help preserve the region's quality of life and Lake Oswego's unique place in it. Attachment 1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE 06WEG0 centenmai ie�o-zoto 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 MEMORANDUM 5-0270 www.ci.oswei.oswego.or.us TO: Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner DATE: January 24, 2011 SUBJECT: Draft Vision Recommendation to Council (PP 10-0007) ACTION Staff would like the CAC's recommendation to forward the draft vision for City Council endorsement.The Council is scheduled to receive the CAC's recommendation on February 15. BACKGROUND As noted previously,the purpose of the vision statement is to broadly yet succinctly articulate,from the community's perspective,what the community wants Lake Oswego to be and look like twenty-five years into the future.A Council- endorsed vision statement will be used to help guide the development of: • A preferred scenario that graphically articulates the vision;and • Goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) There were two primary sources for the draft vision statement.The first was the web-based community survey conducted from July 17 through September 26,2010 that received 832 responses.This survey was not intended to be statistically valid; rather it was intend to gauge the"pulse" of the community.The second resource was two workshops conducted on October 12 and 16,where approximately 115 community members participated. In developing the draft vision statement we also looked at the draft Council vision (2008), board/commission input on the Council's draft vision, and existing plans since 1994 of which 18 had documents included a vision or vision-like statements. The CAC reviewed the initial draft vision statement and spent several meetings refining the draft. Prior to doing the statistically valid phone survey, we tested the draft vision statement to gauge the level of support through a web-based survey.There were 108 responses to the 2035 Draft Vision Survey.The survey respondents were asked if they strongly agreed,somewhat agreed,found the vision acceptable, mostly disagreed,or strongly disagreed with the introductory vision statement and seven action area statements. Results indicated support of the statement, with 80%of respondents responding with ratings of"acceptable"or above. DISCUSSION In order to use the vision as the "goal post"for the remainder of the process, it is important to ensure that the vision accurately reflects the majority of residents'vision and values.The purpose of the validation process was to gauge the level of support for the vision statement from a demographically representative,statistically valid sample of residents who live within the Lake Oswego urban services boundary(USB).Another aspect of the validation process CAC Meeting January 26,2011 Page 11 Attachment 2 Page 2 was to determine the level of importance and the perception of how the city is currently performing in the different action areas. The report concluded: • There is a high level of agreement that the draft vision statement reflects residents'vision of what Lake Oswego should be like in 2035. On a scale of 1-10,with "0" indicating the statement does a poor job of summarizing the vision and "SO" indicating an excellent job,75%of residents rated the vision statement on the high end of the scale (8-10) and 4%rated it on the low end of the scale(0-4). • The 12 action area-related statements also appeared to do a good job of reflecting the community's desired future. For all, but two of the statements (related to managing growth and regional leadership), at least 6 in 10 respondents provided a rating of 8,9 or 10. 54%rated managing growth at the high end of the scale (8,9 or 10)and equally significant is that only 1 in 10 provided ratings below the midpoint of 5. • The overall mean or"average" rating for both managing growth and regional leadership is around 7, still an endorsement for support of the statements. Page 13 of the report shows the mean rating for the 12 action area-related statements. Overall,the lowest mean rating of 6.8 for the "leader in the region"statement is still pretty supportive. Managing growth through housing options has a mean rating of 7.1. Below is a summary of the methodology and other key findings. Methodology: • 300 residents were interviewed by phone(mostly land lines, but some cell phones) between January 2 and 9, 2011. • Age and gender quotas were established to reflect the 2010 FCS Group demographics report • 6 in 10 have lived in Lake Oswego for at least 10 years • 87%are homeowners • 97%are registered voters • 96%live in the city limits (4%in the urban services boundary, but outside the city limits) • 57%have no children under age 18 in the home • 75%have at least a college degree Other key findings: • Focus on maintaining core community strengths such as: 1) Quality schools, 2)Safe and peaceful place,3) outstanding library, parks,cultural and community amenities.These ranked high in importance to include in the vision statement as well as in the "performance versus importance" mapping. • Finding better ways to improve transportation options for residents is currently an unmet need (walking, biking,and public transit). It ranked high in importance, but low in performance, meaning it is important to residents and there is an opportunity to focus on improving rather than just maintaining. • Growth management/Housing-While at least 50%of respondents rated this statement on the high end of scale, indicating that it should be included in the vision statement,there is some indication that we still need to provide some clarity as to what this means. Campbell DeLong believes the statement did receive support in part because it included language about preserving neighborhood character. • Lake Oswego's leadership role in the region—While this statement did receive the lowest rating,there is still support to include it in the vision statement.The report indicates that "it is likely that those who are not interested in the City taking a leadership role in the region do not see enough connection between such a role and protecting and elevating what makes Lake Oswego a desirable community and unique place to live" Ultimately we need to ensure that the City's regional participation supports the community's goals and vision. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO t.nt:>:oswEco cm:N,w„s,o-m,o 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT www.cSowegoor.rus TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner Planning and Building Department SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update—Vision Statement Endorsement (PP 10-0007) DATE: February 7, 2011 ACTION The Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) recommends that the City Council endorse the City's 2035 Vision Statement(Exhibit F-1). BACKGROUND The vision statement was developed through an extensive public involvement process that started with the Luscher Farm Centennial Celebration in July 2010. Outreach efforts were focused on reaching out to those that typically do not participate in these types of processes. There were two primary sources for the draft vision statement. The first was the web-based community survey conducted from July 17 through September 26, 2010 that received 832 responses. This survey was not intended to be statistically valid; rather it was intend to gauge the "pulse" of the community.The second resource was a set of two workshops conducted on October 12 and 16, where approximately 115 community members participated. In developing the draft vision statement we also looked at the draft Council vision (2008), board/commission input on the Council's draft vision, and existing City plans since 1994. The CAC reviewed the initial draft vision statement and spent several meetings in November and December refining the draft. DISCUSSION Lake Oswego 2035 Vision Statement—Why and How? Where is this community going and what does it look like? Currently, the City does not have a document that simply and clearly describes what this community values, where the community is going and what it will look like in the future. The purpose of the vision statement is to provide a one-page overview to broadly yet succinctly articulate what the community wants Lake Oswego to be and look like twenty-five years into the future. The draft vision statement is comprised of an over-arching statement followed by Attachment 3 Page 2 seven more focused action area statements. The "action areas" were developed in an attempt to make the Plan easier to read and more user-friendly. The endorsed vision statement will be used as a framework to help guide the update of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) including scenario development, goals, policies, and implementation items. The Council will not be asked to adopt a final vision statement until the completed Plan is ready for adoption because the CAC may make additional recommendations for small refinements in the vision based on the review of the Plan goals and policies. Vision Validation Report (Exhibit F-2) To test the draft vision statement,the City conducted a statistically valid phone survey in January 2011. The survey was conducted by Campbell DeLong Resources, Inc. (CDR[), which also conducts the City's biennial community attitudes survey. Prior to the validation survey, in November 2010 a draft vision statement very similar to the current draft was put through a web-based survey to gauge the level of community support and to determine if the draft was moving in the right direction. There were 108 responses to the survey. The survey respondents were asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, found the vision acceptable, mostly disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the introductory vision statement and seven action area statements. Results indicated support of the draft vision statement, with 80% of respondents providing ratings of "acceptable" or above. The CAC made some minor refinements to the November draft vision and recommended that the revised draft vision statement be used for the validation process (Exhibit F-1). In order to use the vision as the framework for the remainder of the Plan update process, the phone survey was conducted to ensure that the vision accurately reflects the majority of residents' vision and values. The purpose of the validation process was to gauge the level of support for the vision statement from a demographically representative, statistically valid sample of residents who live within the Lake Oswego urban services boundary (USB). A scale of 0-10 was used to gauge the level of support for the vision statement, with 8, 9, and 10 indicating strong community endorsement and anything below 4 indicating low support. Another aspect of the validation process was to determine the level of importance and the perception of how the City is currently performing in the different action areas. The report noted: • Overall, most of the statements in the draft vision are considered very important to include in the City's Plan for 2035 by a majority of residents and none of the statements received high negative ratings. • There is a high level of agreement that the introductory statement of the draft vision reflects residents' vision of what Lake Oswego should be like in 2035. On a scale of 1-10, 75%of residents rated the vision statement on the high end of the scale (8-10) and 4%rated it on the low end of the scale (0-4). • The 12 statements related to the seven action areas do a good job of reflecting the community's desired future. For all but two of the statements (related to managing growth and regional leadership), at least 6 in 10 respondents provided a rating of 8, 9 or 10. Fifty-four percent rated managing growth at the high end of the scale (8, 9 or 10) and equally significant is that only 1 in 10 provided ratings below the midpoint of 5. Page 3 • The overall mean or "average" rating for both managing growth and regional leadership is approximately 7, which statistically qualifies as an endorsement of the statements. Page 13 of the report shows the mean rating for the 12 action area-related statements. Overall, the lowest mean rating of 6.8 for the `leader in the region" statement is nonetheless considered supportive. Managing growth through housing options has a mean rating of 7.1. In summary, the CDRI Vision Validation Report concludes that there is statistically validated community support for the City's Draft 2035 Vision Statement. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT In June 2010, the Council approved a professional services contract with Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC (CDC) for planning-related consulting services to assist with the Plan update. The contract was for an amount not to exceed $275,000 over a three-year period between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2013. It was anticipated that $175,000 (which includes a $74,000 grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development for housing and economic development updates)would be used for fiscal year 2010-2011 and the balance would be used in subsequent years. The cost of the vision validation report was$15,000. RECOMMENDATION The CAC recommends that the City Council endorse the City's 2035 Vision Statement(Exhibit F-1). Reviewed by: Department Director Alex D. McIntyre City Manager EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances B. Findings and Conclusions C. Minutes D. Staff Memoranda/Reports E. Graphics F. Written Materials F-1 Lake Oswego Community Vision 2035 F-2 Lake Oswego Community Vision 2035 Validation Report, Campbell DeLong Resources, Inc. January 2011(Full version of the report with verbatim comments and data printout can be found under the January 26,2011 Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee meeting materials at: http://welovelakeoswego.com/citizen-committees/cac-meetings/) G. Letters CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO I19j 380AAvenue PO Box 359 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 MEMORANDUM 5-0270 www.ci.oswei.oswego.ocus TO: Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Sidaro Sin,Senior Planner DATE: March 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Draft Vision Statement(PP 10-0007) ACTION Staff is recommending that the CAC delay their discussion on the draft vision statement until April when it is expected that comments on the draft vision statement will be received from the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND At the last CAC meeting on February 28,staff requested that the committee delay their discussion on the draft vision statement until members had the opportunity to review the video of the February 15 City Council meeting where the Council discussed the CAC's recommendation to endorse the draft vision statement. At the Council meeting,four of seven Council members acknowledged that the vision statement was moving in the right direction. Council members recognized the time and effort that went into this effort,but also provided direction for refining the draft vision. The recommendations and comments included: • Sustainability— o The word and concept was questioned if it was just a passing trend and if it should be in the statement. o In addition a question was raised as to its definition and how much it would cost to implement. • Community Health and Public Safety Action Area-The sentence"Easily-available foods from local community gardens and farmers' markets support healthy nutrition"is a good idea,but other action areas lack the specificity of this. Perhaps this should be more of a concept. • Inspiring Spaces and Places Action Area—The sentence"We are a regional leader.",did not define what we were a regional leader of. • Complete Neighborhoods& Housing Action Area: o Other sections talk about what we"have"or"are", but this one talks about how we"manage". Maybe it should say we"have"a variety of attractive....etc as opposed to how we"manage". • Healthy Ecosystems—There does not appear to be a need to say"we are recognized for", but just"We effectively balance the community's needs with the need to preserve clean air,water and land resources for future generations." • The vision statement is too long and needs to be more concise. • It was suggested that a glossary of terms be developed to help define terms such as"connected community" CAC Meeting March 10,2011 Attachment 4 Page I i Page 2 and "efficient" (in reference to the Connected Community action area). DISCUSSION On February 28,staff met with the Planning Commission to provide an update on the Comprehensive Plan process. The Commission requested that they have the opportunity to provide additional comments on the draft vision statement to help refine it further. Staff has tentatively scheduled a meeting in late March to receive the Commission's comments. It would be the most efficient if the CAC considered both the City Council's and Planning Commission comments at the same time. Since a majority of the City Council acknowledged that the draft vision statement was heading in the right direction, it is still appropriate to use the draft to help guide discussions, but keeping in mind the City Council comments received thus far. As the CAC considers comments from both the City Council and Planning Commission, it may want to keep in mind the level of public involvement and the validation process that was used to develop the draft. In addition,the more amendments to the draft vision that are made,the more the validity of the vision may come into question because it moves it further from the original vision statement that was statistically validated. REVIEW DRAFT CAGWORK GROUP MEETING MARCH 10,2011 City of lake Oswego WF LC) Comprehensive Plan Update MARCH 29 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE OVERVIEW Vision and Scenario Development Process Based on the input from more than 800 community members, the draft Lake Oswego community vision for 2035 is an important milestone in the Comprehensive Plan update. This vision is intended to articulate where the community wants to be in 25 years and set a framework for updating the Comprehensive Plan. The draft vision is a work in progress and is being refined at this time, but nonetheless, still provides guidance as to what this community wants to be and look like in the future. Concurrent with the visioning process and through public and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) input, two land use scenarios , "Village Centers" and Lake Oswego-focused economy or "LOconomy" been developed to illustrate the City's 2035 vision. A baseline scenario representing existing, adopted plans (e.g., Comprehensive Plan, Urban Renewal) has also been developed. The "Village Centers" and "LOconomy" scenarios assume that Lake Oswego: • Will grow to some extent in population over the next 20 years • Is a "full-service" community that meets its residents' daily needs for housing, employment, recreation, and goods and services (i.e. live, work and play) • Offers a diverse supply of housing for all incomes and ages • Provides connections within the City and to the surrounding region through a multi-modal transportation system • Places a high value on education and the arts • Has an integrated network of parks and open spaces that contribute to a healthy ecosystem and healthy people Open House The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is inviting residents to participate in an open house on March 29 from 4 to 7 p.m. at the West End Building. The purpose of this open house is to solicit community-feedback on the working draft scenarios.The scenarios are intended to reflect the vision and graphically illustrate potential growth patterns for Lake Oswego. Participants will be asked what they like about the scenarios, what concerns they may have and which scenario best meets the City's vision for 2035. Following the open house, the CAC will use the public comments to help evaluate the scenarios. In addition, the scenarios will be evaluated against other work done to-date, to determine which scenario best reflects the community vision and housing, economic development and transportation needs. A high-level fiscal assessment of the three scenarios will also be considered. A second open house is scheduled in May to share the results of the evaluation and solicit further public input on a preferred scenario. Format and Logistics The open house will be held at the West End Building. Open house participants are welcome to come and go at their leisure. Participants will be asked to visit a series of stations, described below, that provide background information and answer questions about what they like and do not like about each scenario. Residents that are unable to attend will be able to view the Attachment 5 March 29 Public Open House 1 REVIEW ORA"CACNORK GROUP MEETING MARCH 10.2011 materials on the We Love Lake Oswego website (www.welovelakeosweao.com) and complete an online questionnaire. Station Materials • Sign-in sheet 1. Registration • Name tags • Comment forms 2. Introduction Schedule • Comprehensive Plan Process Sustainability handout • Sustainability Draft 2035 vision • Draft 2035 Vision • Description/implications 3. Baseline Scenario Map Comments/questions Description/implications 4. Village Centers Scenario Map • Comments/questions • Description/implications 5. LOconomy Scenario Map • Comments/questions Note: Need to integrate growth forecasts into scenario descriptions for Open House. Questions (by Scenario) • What appeals to you about each scenario? • What concerns you about each scenario? • Which scenario or which of the scenario attributes best meets the 2035 vision? March 29 Public open House 2 f1 Y„ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ?�"1°"""�1°�o-�01 •' 380 A Avenue - PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 MEMORANDUM i.oswe 5-0270 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Laura Weigel,Associate Planner DATE: March 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Alternative Land Use Patterns & Implications Matrix Memo ACTION Make recommendations for changes to the scenario matrix that will be presented with other materials at the Community Open House scheduled for March 29, 2011. BACKGROUND Based on the draft vision statement and the five themes that were explored at CAC design workshop on January 6, staff and the consultants presented two narrowed themes-Centers, and LOconomy(a.k.a. Glocal, but still open to suggestions for a theme name) in map format to the CAC at the January 26 meeting as well as a baseline scenario (Comp Plan as it exists today). Based on that discussion the scenario maps have been revised and text has been developed to describe the differences between the three alternatives. DISCUSSION As we prepare for the Community Open House on March 29 we need to be sure that these alternative land use patterns and their implications are distinct enough for the general public to understand the differences between the scenarios in order to provide feedback on what they like and/or dislike about each scenario.The language also needs to be simple enough (no jargon)for people to understand what is being discussed. Question to consider as you review the matrix: Are the scenarios distinct enough? Outline the appropriate implications? Are the descriptions simple enough for"non-planner"to understand? Do the scenarios reflect what CAC members have heard from the public up to this point? How can they be improved prior to the open house? CAC Meeting March 10,2011 Page 11 WE LO DRAFT March 3, 2011 wwgw,reaMe.w,e.+n r,wp..Rr City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Update SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS AND PRELIMINARY IMPLICATIONS Concurrent with the visioning process and through public and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) input, two land use scenarios have been developed to explore alternative ways to create a more sustainable Lake Oswego consistent with the 2035 vision. The scenarios are described below along with a 2035 Baseline scenario that is derived from the existing Comprehensive Plan. In line with the draft 2035 vision, the "Village Centers' and "LOconomy" assume that Lake Oswego: • Population will increase over the next 20 years • Is a "full-service" community that meets its residents' daily needs for housing, employment, recreation, and goods and services (i.e. live, work and play) • Offers a diverse supply of housing for all incomes and ages • Provides connections within the City and to the surrounding region through a multi-modal transportation system • Places a high value on education and the arts • Has an integrated network of parks and open spaces that contribute to a healthy ecosystem and healthy people The following table provides a description of the three scenarios organized by the seven action areas of the draft 2035 vision and a preliminary assessment of how they compare to the City's sustainability principles. Scenario Baseline Village Centers LOconom The baseline scenario reflects the existing "Centers" of various scales and intensities accommodate new jobs and housing Builds on Lake Oswego's professional services economy and existing land designations/zoning/and policies of the and are equipped with services to meet most daily needs of Lake Oswego use pattern with a focus on employment districts at the east and west ends Comprehensive Plan and other adopted residents. This network of centers builds on existing locations of vibrant, of the city. Employment and housing intensity of uses is focused in the two plans such as the East End walkable nodes and supports the concept of the "20-minute community"where areas, thereby reducing development pressure on neighborhoods and Redevelopment Plan. The scenario services are within walking distance of homes. The character of each center will preserving neighborhood character. assumes an average annual growth rate be unique, with identities varying from housing to employment to education to East End (Downtown/ Marvlhurst University/Foothills). A walkable, mixed- Description of 0.45% for population and employment civic/cultural. Employment and housing is focused in existing centers or nodes use village serving as the city's civic and cultural center. following recent trends. The growth is throughout the city and the intensity of uses is increased to accommodate the assumed to be accommodated by the vision and state requirements. This strategy is intended to preserve West End (Kruse Way/SW Industrial Area/Boone's Ferry Road). A existing land use pattern. Housing is neighborhood character and reduce development pressure in single-family regionally competitive, 21s' Century mixed-use center with a focus on distributed throughout the city and neighborhoods by focusing new development in centers and nodes. employment and regional connections (1-5, Hwy 43, and high capacity continues the existing land use pattern. transit) to attract new economy professionals. • May not comply with state law (Metro housing rule Continues current policies in existing Centers are designed to create a more sustainable, walkable community. Efforts focus amenities such as streetscape improvements and public 2040 design type centers and corridors Pedestrian and bicycle connections to centers are well designed and safe. gathering spaces in the east and west end of the City. Redevelopment Vkry within the city. Centers throughout the city include small to medium-scale parks, plazas and/or results in walkable districts that are well connected to high capacity transit. • No growth into the Stafford area. public spaces for gatherings and community events. • This strategy may require new design standards to ensure development Inspiring • Maintains a high level of aesthetics and • This strategy may require new design standards to ensure development is is compatible. spaces&Places design for development. compatible. Continues existing housing development Centers of various scales accommodate the majority of new residential and Job and housing growth is concentrated in the east and west end areas patterns, accommodating population commercial development and are equipped with services to meet most daily through infill and redevelopment, including mixed-used development, while increases through infill on vacant and needs. The larger, downtown and Lake Grove centers include affordable and preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods. Mixed use partially vacant lots in low-density senior housing opportunities and are well served by transit. Smaller commercial housing offers a diverse range of residential types across multiple residential areas throughout the city. centers at Mountain Park, Pallisades, and Marylhurst provide a mix commercial demographic and socio-economic groups. Aspires to provide a range of housing services and housing. Neighborhood nodes are located within residential • Does not encourage increased densities in existing neighborhoods by options based on existing goals and neighborhoods (i.e., schools, Luscher Farm, Mt. Park)to provide gathering concentrating new housing in the east and west end near jobs and Complete policies. places for community members. The Foothills neighborhood includes a range of transit. Neighborhoods &Nousing . No clear direction on how to implement residential housing types serving both seniors seeking to down size and first-time • Does not significantly improve the opportunity for residents of single goals and policies for affordable home-buyers. The district addresses the needs of multiple demographic and family areas to meet their daily needs without an automobile. housing. socio-economic groups. • Designed to provide a range of housing that benefits the local economy. New 1 WE( ' LO DRAFT March 3, 2011 housing for seniors who wish to remain in Lake Oswego frees up existing single family dwellings for new families with school age children. Includes the 0 ortuni for walking to meet daily needs live, work, play). Maintains the seven commercial, two Mixed use centers are neighborhood centers are equipped with services to meet The west end continues to serve as a significant professional services industrial and five mixed-use or split zone many of the daily needs of residents. Major employment centers are located cluster within the regional economy. The district is focused on attracting areas that allow commercial along Kruse Way and in the southwest corner of the City. The downtown center is and growing knowledge-based businesses and professionals. Emphasis is development. Assumes Foothills remains a local commercial destination with shops, restaurants, office employment, and on regional connections (1-5, Highway 217, and high capacity transit), and as an industrial area. Consistent with boutique hotels. Smaller neighborhood commercial nodes are enhanced with advanced communication technology. The east end is a local commercial v existing policy discouraging regional draw new housing and commercial uses, including small to medium-scale retail for and civic destination with shops, restaurants, offices, and boutique hotels. retail uses. neighborhood or sub-area needs and scaled opportunities for limited employment It has strong connections to Portland's South Waterfront and Oregon Economic uses. Health and Science University (OHSU). vilanty • Employment activity is dispersed and intensity of commercial uses is spread • Employment activity is more centralized and capitalizes on the out over the city. successes and locations of the east and west ends. • More focus on proactive strategies to attract new businesses and retain local • More focus on proactive strategies to attract new businesses, retain businesses. existing local businesses, and provide opportunities to connect to the global economy. Assumes existing Transportation System More emphasis is placed on transportation opportunities within the City. High- Emphasis is placed on transportation opportunities connecting the city's Plan improvements. Most citizens must quality regional transit crosses the city and supports development in the two ends and connecting the city to surrounding communities. The west drive to meet their daily needs. Continues downtown and the Lake Grove centers. Local intra-city transit and autos connect end is served by regional connections including 1-5 and high capacity '� to support current goals and policies that: neighborhoods to centers. Hwy 43 and high capacity transit provide connections transit to Washington Square and Beaverton. Hwy 43 and high capacity • Minimize impacts on air quality. along the Willamette River from the East End to Portland's South Waterfront. A transit provide connections along the Willamette River from Marylhurst to A Connected . Address mobility needs of residents for citywide network of walkways and bikeways connects centers and adjacent Portland's South Waterfront. Local transit connects the east and west Community all modes of travel. neighborhoods and provides increased opportunities to meet daily needs through ends. Walkways and bikeways connect neighborhoods to each end of the • Reduce energ consumption. pedestrian and bicycle options. City. The City continues to place a high value Downtown is the civic and cultural center of Lake Oswego with civic institutions Educational/cultural opportunities are concentrated in the east and west on education and the arts. Challenges (e.g., City Hall, Library), cultural institutions, a community center, small ends. The east end includes the downtown as a walkable, mixed-use exist for maintaining current levels of convention center, shops and restaurants, offices, and boutique hotels. village serving as the city's civic and cultural center (e.g., City Hall, Library). funding and support. Marylhurst University is an educational hub of the city; however, The City provides cultural arts facilities and programs that meet the needs ' educational/cultural opportunities are dispersed among centers. The City, in of the community. An additional cultural and recreational center is partnership with private and non profit organizations, provides cultural arts developed in the west end and serves local residents as well as the facilities and programs, professional services job cluster along Kruse Way. Connections to Community educational opportunities (e.g., Marylhurst, OHSU, PSU, and PCC) are Culture strengthened through regional transit. This scenario emphasizes Lake Oswego as a "Learning Community" with a focus on educational and civic institutions serving as the anchor of each center and a greater emphasis on attracting both families with school-aged children and adults & seniors seeking lifelong learning opportunities close to their homes. The City maintains existing park and open Air quality is improved and green house gas emissions are reduced due to New development is concentrated in the east and west ends of the space facilities. Trail and pathway shorter vehicle trips between residential uses and the range of services available community where there is good access to transit. Transit oriented projects continue to be developed. in centers. development requires less reliance on the automobile to meet daily needs qVV • Infill in low-density residential areas thus helping to improve air quality. IV increases impervious surfaces. By concentrating new development in centers, less infill development is required Healthy within existing single family neighborhoods resulting in more private open space The development pattern results in less infill development and more private Ecosystems and better stormwater retention. open space on single family lots and better stormwater retention. In general, concentrated development reduces need to expand amount of im ervious surface with Greenfield development. 2 WE LO DRAFT March 3, 2011 The City continues to maintain its high Residents continue to be served by an excellent public safety response system Residents continue to be served by an excellent public safety response standards for public safety. Challenges with neighborhood/district level police stations that are more responsive to local system with police services located in the east and west ends. Fire stations exist for maintaining current levels of needs, but require more coordination. Emergency response is strengthened by continue to provide fast response through multiple city locations. funding and support. new police/LOCOM facilities in seismically stable facilities & locations. Smaller Emergency response is strengthened by new police/LOCOM facilities in ;i recreational facilities and programs are dispersed throughout the city. Healthy, seismically stable facilities/locations. The City provides larger centralized local foods are available to citizens through gardens and markets in recreational facilities and programs in each end of the community. Access Health neighborhoods and village centers. Availability of goods and services within to healthy foods through farmers markets in each end and centralized Safe Pee pie walking distance of many residences, along with enhanced walking and biking community gardens. Regional transit connections provide opportunities to routes and local transit help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, reducing greenhouse gasses. quality. 3 :/— • 11 p, - pw sass - • r -- - -- � /( � GZT `V f - ---- ' WEST END t --- t DOWNTOWN'BUILDING = .�.a --- .._�.. .•�arv- } i , , - -- 001, LAKE ��//�� GROVE o tt�,.luk` w y 1 C WESY4 iZ11 A _ E l EryIPL YMEN - ISTR T ARM LYS M .., «. ,ter,,,,,.., ; .�a _ �.,�. ;,..� -� '���"����q��{{•. l I` T 1, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCENARIOS Primary Commmasi r M�ea-Uee aster }Nei�nbomooe Mi.elUse come. P.M topes sP.os a`ewurcallCiaic Noes �Lo eiy llrMa M•primaPeh+Eon trL F°e1 _ ^ o soo t,aoo z,oao °�"S Baseline p ri..anuwm,.,r.w...ewm.n, c°caN �i Primary Eimloyercml Mue6Alae lNaMtl Nei866eMooe Notle School WalksbeE LO Urban Semcef8wneary d2R MaP-Ia 6iW35idIPNpOSeS PMY °3.1011 I r- - �I � 13MOUNTAIN 0 PARK _+ !• w r WEST END ., DOW BUILDING :..w.....��. -.•.1...>,.,.,.� - I'--ry��ll1 vl T�, _ KE" -- - - - - - rA OE Al B � P� A Yll%PALISADES ' E 7 nNn6. . Nmrl �n m i - � - � r�nKml `7 y EMPL YMEN A URST QISTR 1 • )AISCHER iL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCENARIOS D,mi, Nel°hw.haae MneaUse linter PaM1(0pen Space Cunu.au Cnc Noes LO Cey Uma MWT.,,.P MwnL k Pen 0 Boo 1,Bao 2.M, N.•ek• ®= Village Centers iPrimary E.WI,,y Ml%..aU,e N.tW Is Neghho6moe Noes f_J Scwol 1 Mtkahee LO Ul r%Services BounW, HghCa tyT..WlMk OraA Map-/P'ei5W551M pOry05e5 aMy 03,10.11 !! ' T De r L r a MOUNTAIN r'I Ri,mvP 1 i-010 \ + ter 01 I to—w WEST ENID BUILDIN(i1 OW ILL l TA Kf' aOOopN.Oa s! j� ftlon OVE I sn ` ij-" r `4 WEST ., .,,. �� � 4 � XA E i �. IJi ` y EIAPL P" MA URST —1 1 Nee ,,ia�ll.„ R , b.,:' FASCHER LJ 1`` �� •,. / / i,to S I ona..Ole as / 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCENARIOS PamaO Com rvaf I Moaa-Uae oevia j Neinn.m..a ke.e"se center Pea/Coon Spare eanx..vei.;c Nod. El eay Lirrlit. My..rr.ny,amwn Lk.w Eee1 ca4AN \.. g o sao l ooa z,00a OWENS �e N.•e.wwwemn. CLAN LOeonomy ■Pmnary Empleyment r rn.ed-Uee Ciamn 0 Neighborhood NodeSchool Walkshed LO Urban Senkee Boundary �NigbGapedly(ramn Unk Dra�Map /a Ci5W55gr1 purya5PS Mly 03.10-11 14DUTACRE 1 - 2 STORIES ; HASTINGS GREEN SE PORTLAND F. t a7 20 DU 1 ACRE 2 STORIES . TOWN HOMES i LAKE OSWEGO46 w 30 DU 1 ACRE ff- y e ' 3 STORIES _ '�' _ "� '� v— STANDARD DAIRY r NE PORTLAND _ e_ 40 DU 1 ACRE n� 3-4 STORIES f STAFFORD COMMON _ LAKE OSWEGO 50 DU / ACRE - 5 STORIES BELMONT DAIRY SE PORTLAND _ . 60 DU 1 ACRE 4 STORIES 555 2ND STREET y LAKE OSWEGO I in 100 DUI ACRE 6 STORIES „y ; PATTON PARK APTS. N PORTLAND — -- — " - 140 DU 1 ACRE - 5 - 7 STORIES KEARNY PLAZAAPTS. Ilk ,- � NW PORTLAND CL WEI- lo � w Housing Density Examples From: Lynne Paretchan [maiko:lynne@Iparetchan.coml Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 6:23 PM To: McCaleb, Iris; Sin, Sidaro Cc: idolisson@earthlink.net; Jim Johnson(iohnsonjw3(dfrontier.com); Jon Gustafson(jngstfsn(daol.com); Puja Bhutani (bhutaniouia(dcal.berkelev.edu); Russell Jones (Jonesrus45(dvahoo.com); Todd Prager (toddepraaer@gmail.com) Subject: Re:- draft comp plan scenario input Hi all - sorry I can't make mtg tonight. Here are a few thoughts on draft comp plan scenarios. My main observation is that the city of lake oswego we have now is given short shrift in the scenario posited as 'baseline'. Even the name baseline' implies that the other sceNarios are improvements that can't be accomplished under our current comp plan. That is not accurate. For example, I see little difference between what is espoused under 'community culture' in the baseline and village scenarios. And all the LOeconomic scenario,the only truly unique aspect is to suggest an additional west end rec center, which really could be implemented under current comp plan if we so desired. I suggest that ONLY what is truly unique in each new scenario be identified. And Let's call them scenario 1, 2 and 3 to eliminate language biases implicit in category names, or at least change the name baseline'to ' LO Today'. And we should make sure that much more text is used to highlight what us possible under LO Today and our current comp plan, especially those area actions/activities that are described in scenarios 2 and 3 when in fact they are a realistic part of an LO Today option if the community decided to prioritize such efforts. Lynne Lake Oswego Community Vision for 2035 WE DLO LO 2/15/11 City Council Supported Draft wmm�gb,seope.Hxesanen.wedty 5/19/11CAC Revised based on CC, PC and Open House Comments In 2035,lake Oswego is a thriving,sustainable city,meeting the community's needs without compromising the needs of future generations.Our community is recognized for its quality of life,exceptional schools,and excellent local government. Our multigenerationat neighborhoods,healthy natural resources,vibrant mixed-use shopping, employment districts,and diverse services and activities are accessible to all. Our educational,cultural and recreational opportunities strengthen the social fabric of the community.Our top-rated schools offer excellent education and reinforce the value of the comwuxrsr communityas a desirable lace to raise a family.Our outstanding library, community aMN P N• B ry,parks,and amenities provide a wide range of programs and special events.Public an and historic resources enrich our cultural identity. frCY We haveawidevarietvofneighborhoodswith a NarWq}high quality.d attractive and compatible housing that serves a range of ages,incomes and _ . umment[Wtl]:the word'manap"..adCOMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODShouseholds.O distinct d walkableibh s small town feel.Mixed- Inconsistent wxh the language In ath mma arstatea we removed.n 6 HOUUSINGSING use Our an wa e neighborhoods contribute to the city use districts enhance adjacent residential areas by providing access to quality jobs,housing,transit, suchas'wn have, are emsw it se,wasmggestea line'hah Qghte or Lo entertainment,services and shopping.Higher density housing is located strategically and sensitively, neyhbod,ocde was mewing so it was addw. includirl along transportation corridors and town centers to preserve the character of our existing comment[Wu]:on.comment euggeged eha neighborhoods. - high density housing slmeld be'nretagb.gy.rq sensitively located,Including along...and this raeC �g We have safe,efficient and convenient transportation choices. There are frequent and reliable greed. �I public transportation options that make It easy to move around our city and the region.Pathways, ACONINEcomMUNITY sidewalks,roadways and bike routes encourage residents of all neighborhoods to walk and bike safely. 17 We are a community where people can live,work,play and meet their daily needs for goods and services.We build upon the Intellectual capital of the community to attract new ventures,retain ECONOMIC VITALITY VITALITYv m local businesses and connect to the global economy. We are business-friendly and a regional model for employment and mixed-use centers that attract quality jobs. We are good stewards of our environment.Our urban forest,natural areas and watersheds are valued and cared for as essential environmental,economic,and cultural assets. We_ ed HEALTHY 1"""" ECOSYSTEMS 'feffeffeetively balanceing today's community needs with the need to preserve clean air,water and I nxmtmmt[Illi The word.'ara neggnlaW land resources for future generations. The built environment Is designed to protect,enhance and be tor•did not seam necessary. _integrated with natural systems. Our community Is a safe place to live and supports lifelong active and healthy living. We are COMMON" known for excellent public safety response systems that work together with an Involved community HEALTH to ensure peace and safety. There are opportunities for active lifestyles and to obtain locally grown a food that promotes the-health and social interaction of our residents. co:nmmt[WLa]:Revised baeml on comment Pueuc sASEn that community pi-dens hould'tand b farmersision b vary specific eM shouldn't be in Me vision gatemen,but In the comp plan as.gwl or p Our architecture and natural setting Inspire people to live here. Development respects the physical objective.Also In 25 years then mkht be coon environment and meets the highest quality of community design to foster the distinctive character optbns,so Hisa goad logo cob nwre 6mad. t viaxc SPACES B 9 Y Y B a PLACES and beauty of this special place. comment[wEs];Th..wore s.yea comllN"I Questioning what%0Is la regbnai ludo Qn",so it was removed,but wHl be saved for oonsidantbn In funher drafts later In the process.The CAC agreed that the lag two lines didn't add any new Info,-nation. bcenario Assessment Roadmap 05/23/2011 Using the sustainability filter's four strategic questions, which scenario best implements the Community Vision? C"...q radbxe rpmpirte x•hmdei Connected commomnc E,onamic wnrey Healthy Ecosystems communhr Inn" msphing spew& Existing Comp Village [O[onomy 11o,oYx{ Puhh,safes `Places Plan Centers Overall Assessment Rating ? ? ? Sustainability Filter-4 Strategic Questions Attributes Considered I. Is the proposal moving the Community towards the community ?vision? ? • Community Culture • Opportunities for more community interaction and civic insert Insert insert gathering spaces X X X Assessment Assessment Assessment •Strengthen social fabric and public art X X •Support schools and recreation programs X X • Complete Neighborhoods& Housing • Medium growth forecast for dwelling units against Housing Needs Analysis X X • Range of housing options X Insert Insert Insert •Walkable&connected X X X Assessment Assessment Assessment • Preserving neighborhood character X X fy • Connected Community • Identifies which corridors would be most impacted X ♦ • Relative differences between trip capture rates between Inset Insert Insert pedestrian, bike,transit X X X Assessment Assessment Assessment • Economic Vitality • Medium-high growth forecast for jobs in the Economic Opportunity Analysis X X Insert Insert Insert • Implementation of mixed-use centers X X Assessment Assessment Assessment •Ability to draw intellectual capital in the community and attract new ventures X VTV • Healthy Ecosystems • Impact of land use patterns on natural resources X Insert Insert Insert v .Air quality X X Assessment Assessment Assessment j • Community Health& Public Safety • Police,fire and emergency services X •Opportunities for more walking and biking based on land use X X X Insert Insert Insert pattern Assessment Assessment Assessment •Opportunities for more access to fresh and local foods X n • Inspiring Spaces & Places •Continued excellence in community design and aesthetic X Insert Insert Insert • (Regional leaders through examples of efficient and functional x Assessment Assessment Assessment urban design?) conmun;q cwwe complete x hoods a connected EammuMW E<onumm vx.ar Healthy E(esp.tems cmnmmxv H.."L msPld•E spaces• Existing Comp Village tOconomy eosme .s P.Edcsarep Pleas Plan Centers U ? ? ? II. Is the proposal consistent with the sustainability principles? 1.What we take does not build up and harm nature or • Requires the least new infrastructure people. X X X Reduce and ultimately eliminate our community's dependence on nlzr-rt Insert Insert ossil fuels and wasteful use of scarce metals and minerals. Use Assessment Assessment Assessment renewable resources whenever possible. • Reduces green house gas emissions. e.g. more choices X for alternatives modes of travel • Minimize development footprint X X X 2. What we make does not build up and harm nature or • Minimize development footprint people. Reduce and ultimately eliminate our community's dependence upon X X X X Insert Insert Insert persistent chemicals and wasteful use of synthetic substances. Use Assessment Assessment Assessment biologically safe products whenever possible. 3. We protect natural systems from degradation. • Requires the least new infrastructure and promotes Reduce and ultimately eliminate our community's contribution to development/redevelopment of areas already served X X X new encroachment upon nature (e.g. land, water, wildlife,forests, Insert Insert Insert soil, ecosystems). Protect natural, life-sustaining ecosystems. Assessment Assessment Assessment • Minimize development footprint X X X • Impact of land use patterns on natural resources X X X 4. We support people to meet their own needs. • Produces/reduces green house gas emissions. Reduce and ultimately eliminate conditions that systematically e.g. more choices for alternatives modes of travel X undermine people's capacity to meet their own needs. Insert Insert Insert • Promotes diverse local economic opportunities X Assessment Assessment Assessment • Promotes diverse housing types and price ranges X • Strengthens social fabric X • Personal security & safety X X III. Is the proposal a good financial investment? ? ? ? • Relative costs and revenues in general & utility funds for new dwellings and jobs - based on low, X X Insert Insert Insert medium, and medium-high growth forecasts Assessment Assessment Assessment IV. Is the proposal a step on the path towards sustainability? Does it promote resiliency (the ability to adapt to changing insert Insert Insert circumstances)? Not specific to anyone action area, Assessment Assessment Assessment Is it flexible and adaptable approach to accommodate _ Insert Insert Insert future.innovations? Assessment Assessment Assessment Goal 1: Citizen Involvement " Goal S, Section 8: Historic and Cultural Resources Section 7: Oswego Lake . '$' Goal B: Recreational Needs Community Goal 11:Section 5: Administrative and Government Services,Energy, Culture Communications and Schools . Goal 1S: Willamette River Greenway Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1: Land Use Policies&Regulations `^ Section 2: Community Design&Aesthetic 11, Goal 14: Urbanization Inspiring Spaces&Places Goal 5: Open Spaces,Scenic and Historic Areas,and Natural Resources Section 1: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Section 2: Vegetation Section 3: Wetlands Section 4: Stream Corridors Heathy Section 5: Sensitive Lands Ecosystems Section 6: Open Space Section 7: Oswego Lake Goal 6: Air,Water and Land Resources Quality Section 1: Air Resources Quality Section 2: Water Resources Quality Section 3: Land Resources Quality(Solid Waste Management Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Section 2: Storm Water Management Goal 13: Energy Conservation Goal 6: Section 4: Sound Quality Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Section 1: Flood Hazards I ) Section 2: Earthquake Hazards HeaiYly Section 3: Landslides,Erosion and Unstable Soils gaga PaoPb Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Section 1: Public Safety Police and Fire Protection Section 3: Water Treatment and Delivery Section 4: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Goal 10: Housing Special District Plans •Marylhurs[(1979) •First Addition(1996) •Palisades(2008) ,_, •Forest Highlands(1986) •Lake Forest(2002) •Lakewood Bay Bluff(1986) Complete • Waluga(2002) •Lake Grove(1989) •Evergreen(2005) Neighborhoods •Old Town(1989) •Lake Grove Village Center Plan(2008) &Housing Goal 9: Economic Development v Economic vitally Goal 12: Transportation Section 1: Major Street System Section 2: Inter-governmental Coordination 0110,14 Section 3: Neighborhood Collectors and Loral Residential Streets Section 4: Land Use and Transportation Relationships IF Section 5: Transportation Demand Management Section 6: Walking A Connected Section 7: Bicycling Section 8: Transit System - Community Section 9: Commercial Rail and Water Transport Section 10: Citizen Involvement Section 11: Parking