Issue Area

Testifier/Source

Testimony or Summary of Testimony

Staff Comments

Amend-ment #

Staff-proposed Amendments

Trails

1  

Ann Gardner (Schnitzer Investment)

Bob Short

(Glacier Northwest)

Need language that preserves a continuous connected trail through this community but keeps it away from heavy industry for issues of safety operations and compliance with national security requirements.

The trail committee has proposed the language in amendment 3.a. Also see amendments 3.b. and 3.c.

3.a

Page 5-4. Remove policy #6 completely.

Add new policy #6 that reads:

“Using a variety of tools, develop a continuous trail over time along both sides of the Willamette River that complements the existing and planned riverfront uses and recognizes the vital contribution that river-proximate industrial uses make to Portland’s economy.”

2  

The Trail Group

•  Ann Gardner (Schnitzer Investment)

•  Clarke Balcom (40-Mile Loop Trail)

•  Steve Abel (Schnitzer Investment)

•  Zari Santner (Portland Parks and Recreation)

•  Gil Kelley (Bureau of Planning)

See all trail testimony.

The group supported the notion of convening a broad group of stakeholders to set the aspirations for the trail system, while being cognizant of other land and economic uses. This task would precede more detailed discussions to update policies and greenway zoning code. See amendment 3.b.

3.b.

Page 5-6 and E-11 Action Agenda.

Add the following action:

“Convene a group of stakeholders to help develop a long-term concept for the location and design of the trail system within the Willamette and Columbia River Corridors. Integrate the results of this discussion into the River Plan and an update of the greenway code.”

3  

Portland Development Commission Resolution

Recommend that:

▪  Policy guidance concerning the trail within industrial areas should reference Maritime Security Act and should delete statement that trail continuity is fundamental.

The Maritime Security Act is referenced with regard to the trails in the new language for page 5-3. See amendment 3.c.

Also see new trail language in amendments 3.a. and 3. b.

See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

Trails

4  

Scott Montgomery

Does not agree with staff amendment that deletes the “continuity of the trail.”

Does not agree with the proposed change that trail design “may” (rather than should) incorporate signage, displays, and viewpoints to educate people about Portland's working harbor.

Language regarding the trail was developed by the Trail Group. See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

▪  

Bill Maris and Ann Gardner

(Portland Freight Committee)

Urge City Council to reaffirm earlier commitments to the industrial districts and locate the greenway trail along the outside (landward) boundary of these industrial districts.

Language regarding the trail was developed by the Trail Group. See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

▪  

5  

Paul Pope (Northwest Industrial Neighborhood Association)

Page 5-4. Add:

▪  “Within the river corridor, the trail should be located away from the river’s edge to ensure the continued preservation of these areas for industrial uses.”

Language regarding the trail was developed by the Trail Group. See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

Trails

6  

The Trail Group

•  Ann Gardner (Schnitzer Investment)

•  Clarke Balcom (40-Mile Loop Trail)

•  Steve Abel (Schnitzer Investment)

•  Zari Santner (Portland Parks and Recreation)

•  Gil Kelley (Bureau of Planning)

See all trail testimony.

The Overview was amended to reflect all trail testimony and the work of the Trail Group.

See proposed amendment 3.c.

3.c.

Amend pages 5-2 and 5-3: Waterfront open spaces and trails to, along and across our rivers should be planned, designed and managed as a system so that they are interconnected and accessible to everyone. Further planning should explore community aspirations for the trail. Missing links need to be assessed and completed so that everyone all Portlanders, including those with impaired mobility, haves the opportunity to enjoy a riverfront park or trail loop. Such an assessment can better prepare us to take advantage of opportunities to expand the system as they arise.

Completing the Willamette Greenway Trail while accommodating the needs of harbor industrial uses through the working harbor is particularly challenging. Trails may need to be located away from some industrial operations such as ship loading uses to protect the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. National security requirements also need to be considered. A continuous trail system can be achieved through creative design and by routing the trail away from the river’s edge where current or future uses would conflict with the trail. to accommodate river-dependent industry Signsage and strategically-located viewing platforms, and educational displays can enhance Portlanders’ understanding of the role the working harbor in the city’s economy. Trail spurs in compatible locations can provide public access to the river where a riverfront trail is not feasible. Creating a cohesive and continuous trail will take time, patience, creativity and a broad array of tools, but the result will be worth it. As more people explore Portland’s river systems we can more fully appreciate their importance to the city’s economy, environment, history and culture.

Trails

7  

Commissioner Randy Leonard

We need a continuous trail system on the Willamette that doesn’t cause safety issues for people. Trail should not go through truly industrial areas.

Page 5-4

6.  “Trail design and alignment in river industrial areas should be based on the following principles:

▪  Within the river corridor, the trail should be located away from the river’s edge where needed to enable river-dependent industrial functions (such as ship loading and unloading) to occur unimpeded.

▪  Trails should be designed to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic. Off-street locations for the trail are preferred.

▪  Access to the river should may be accommodated via trail spurs, designed and located to avoid interference with river dependent industrial operations, to provide direct access to the public where a riverfront trail is not feasible where possible.

▪  Safety and security for industry and trail users are critical; in the design and alignment of trails and river access points.the design and alignment of trails and river access points shall be consistent with applicable state and federal regulations and statutes.

▪  Trail design may incorporate signage, displays and viewpoints to educate people about Portland’s working harbor.”

Language regarding the trail was developed by the Trail Group. See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

Trails

8  

Commissioner Jim Francesconi

Not confident about the proposed wordsmithing below. There needs to be policy that enables river dependent industrial uses and ensures the future uses will be preserved. I don’t want to prohibit the trail from ever going through an industrial area but I want to make it really difficult to put the trail there if it is going to impede with existing uses.

Page 5-4

6. “Trail design and alignment in river industrial areas should be based on the following principles:

▪  Within the river corridor, the trail should be located away from the river’s edge where needed to enable river-dependent industrial functions to occur and to ensure that current and future river dependent industrial uses will be preserved.

▪  Where riverfront trails are not feasible, direct public access to the river should be accommodated via trail spurs. Trail spur locations must enable river dependent industrial uses to function and ensure that current and future river dependent industrial uses will be preserved.

▪  Safety and security for industry and trail users are critical. The design and alignment of trails and river access points shall be consistent with applicable state and federal regulations and statutes.”

Language regarding the trail was developed by the Trail Group. See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

See amendments 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c.

Central City Freeway

9  

Portland Development Commission Resolution

Resolution recommends following changes

▪  Policy guidance concerning I-5 should stress improved capacity for freight, rail, and auto traffic, improved connections to Central Eastside and the importance of not deferring ongoing improvements to existing system.

Amend existing policy and add new policy, overview discussion, and action to reflect the work of the Mayor’s Freeway Loop Advisory Group. See amendment 4.a.

4.a.

Page 6-4. Amend policy #4 and add new policy:

4. Ensure that any future relocation reconfiguration of Interstate 5 through the Central City enables improved access from between neighborhoods to and the river, and addresses the needs of freight, rail, and automobile traffic to and through the Central City.

5. Consider the urban and economic development implications of individual I-5/405 freeway loop concepts.

Add following to page 4-2, paragraph 3:

…to retain marine cargo diversity. While the I-5/405 freeway loop as currently configured limits access to the Central City riverfront, it serves a critical economic role and provides for the needs of freight, rail and automobile traffic.

Add following to page 6-2, paragraph 3

…limiting easy access. While these existing structures, like the I-5/405 freeway loop, serve a critical economic role, the current configurations present a barrier to access between neighborhoods and the river and limit opportunities to use valuable riverfront land for other community purposes.

Page 6-6 and E-13. Add a new action:

4. Conduct an urban development analysis of the Central City districts through which the I-5/405 loop passes. Analyze land use, urban design, and economic development implications to determine both the urban growth scenarios that support individual freeway loop concepts and the urban growth implications of individual freeway loop concepts.

Central City Freeway

10  

Staff

Discussion among staff and stakeholders.

Page 6-6.

Use term “reconfiguring” rather than “relocating” and add the phrase “and reconnecting”. These changes more accurately reflect the work of the Mayor’s Freeway Loop Advisory Group.

4.b.

Page 6-6: #3

Continue with the next phase of the Freeway Loop Study, which will be an in-depth evaluation of the options for improving and relocating reconfiguring portions of the I-5 and I-405 freeways through the Central City. The next phase should advance the ideas in the study of how to provide for the needs of freight, rail, and automobile traffic to and through the Central City, the needs of the districts through which they travel, and the potential for reclaiming and reconnecting riverfront lands.

11  

Planning Commission

Page 6-4 # 4: “Ensure that any future relocation and alteration of the I-5 freeway through the central city enables improved access from neighborhoods to the river.”

Staff believes that the text in amendment 4.b. addresses the Planning Commission’s concern.

See amendment 4.b.

12  

Susie Lahsene

(Port of Portland)

Amend policy guidance #4 to read: “Ensure that any future reconfiguration of the I-5 Freeway through the Central City improves capacity for freight rail and auto traffic and enables improved access from neighborhoods to the river.”

See amendments 4.a. and 4.b.

See amendments 4.a. and 4.b.

13  

Bill Maris and Ann Gardner

(Portland Freight Committee)

Paul Pope

(Northwest Industrial Neighborhood Association)

The I-84/I-5 interchange is not receiving the focused attention it requires. Encourage the city to focus discussions on this.

Staff believes that amendments 4.a. and 4.b. address this comment.

Floating Homes

14  

Planning Commission

Add: “Conduct research and work with the public to determine future policy for floating home communities.” The current document is practically silent on this historic component of the Portland waterfront.

See amendment 6.a., 6.b., 6.c., and 6.d.

6.a.

Page E-13. Under “Research and Analysis” add:

“Conduct research and work with the public to revisit existing city policy for floating home communities. “

15  

Waterfront Organization of

Oregon (WOOO)

The strategy does not say anything about river communities. Add a new policy:

“Recognize and encourage floating home moorages, marinas and water-related businesses as an essential defining characteristic to Portland’s waterscape.”

The City plans to discuss the role of floating homes in a future study.

See amendment 6.b.

6.b.

Page 6-4 Add a new policy that says:

“Acknowledge the role that floating home moorages, marinas, water-related businesses and recreation play in the vitality of Portland’s waterscape.”

Also see amendment 6.a. above

16  

Waterfront Organization of

Oregon (WOOO)

Page 5-6. Be sure that the water-based recreation study includes an inventory.

The water-based recreation study would include an inventory of recreation facilities, etc.

See amendment U.

17  

Waterfront Organization of

Oregon (WOOO)

Page 6-4. Policy guidance should address river communities and neighborhoods.

See amendment 6.c.

6.c.

Page 6-4. #1. “Act to enhance the Willamette River as Portland’s centerpiece by shaping the city’s urban form, industrial development, environmental health, public spaces, river communities and neighborhoods.”

18  

Waterfront Organization of

Oregon (WOOO)

Page 6-5. Reduced local permitting time, cost and complexity should be a measure of success.

A similar measure listed in the harbor chapter addresses permitting time and complexity. See #6 on page 4-5 in the strategy.

N/A

19  

Waterfront Organization of

Oregon (WOOO)

Page 6-6. Add Floating home moorages, marinas and water-related businesses as potential partners in actions 1 and 2.

See amendment 6.d.

6.d.

Page 6-6. Add #1: floating home moorages, marinas and water-related businesses as potential partners.