Community Advisory Committee (CAC) MEETING #2 SUMMARY April 28, 2010 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. SMILE Station, Sellwood

Executive Summary Meeting Objectives  Consider Stephens Creek crossing alternatives.  Brainstorm desired attributes of the river span bridge type to become the basis for establishing evaluation criteria. Recommendations  The CAC unanimously agreed to recommend the precast concrete arch culvert for the Stephens Creek crossing. CAC Question/Response Log  Is it possible to eliminate any of the bridge types based on material costs if global prices rise to the point that they are no longer feasible (example, if steel or concrete prices jump dramatically)?  Is it possible to present to the public a narrower range of bridge types than the 12 currently on the table for the CAC? Next Steps  Walking tour of the bridge, May 17th at 4 p.m. RSVP to Michael Eaton. Meet at the SMILE Station.  The next CAC meeting (#3) is scheduled for May 17th.

Attendees CAC Members: Barbara Barber, John Betts, Pati Brady-Gallagher, Tom Brown, Marie Dodds, John Hren, Laura Jackson, Heather Koch, Richard Marantz, Jeff Swanson, Scott Thayer, Paddy Tillett, Dan Weiland, Sharon Wood-Wortman Staff: Multnomah County - Ian Cannon, Michael Eaton, Mike Pullen; CH2M Hill - June Carlson, Steve Katko; TY Lin - John Ferguson; JLA Public Involvement - Alex Cousins, Kalin Schmoldt Guests: Rick Antonesia, John Costello, Rebecca Darr, Steve Drahota, Lee Perlman, Emory Powell, Patricia Powell, Diana Richardson, Katja Dillmann, Dick Springer, Mike Baker, David McCurry, Don Wagner Introductions / Review Agenda June Carlson welcomed the group and led introductions. Members attending who were not present at the first meeting include Paddy Tillett, Jeff Swanson, Barbara Barber, John Betts and Tom Brown. Multnomah County bridge staff and members of the consultant team are available to meet with community groups upon request. Interested parties should contact Michael Eaton for more information. At this meeting Sharon Wood-Wortman will provide information on the historic aspects of the bridge, Steve Katko will describe potential alternatives for the Stephens Creek crossing, and John Ferguson will discuss the evaluation process for selecting a bridge type. Public Comment Period There were no comments. Follow-up from last meeting John Ferguson noted the prior request for renderings, including the perspective of a driver on the new bridge. These renderings are being developed and will hopefully be available for the May 17 meeting. Historic Bridge Overview Sharon Wood-Wortman reflected that she would appreciate a symbolic link between the historic significance of the old bridge and the new. Portland is a bridge museum with examples of all of the main bridge and moveable bridge types. The is a steel truss built in 1925 and was the 13th bridge built in Portland. All of the Portland bridges in 1925 were steel truss bridges. The bridge was designed by noted engineer Gustav Lindenthal who previously designed bridges in New York City. Lindenthal also designed the Burnside and Ross Island bridges. Sharon suggested that the Sellwood Bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for several reasons. It is the only four-span continuous truss bridge in the US and possibly the world. It was the first highway bridge in Portland that was not designed to carry streetcars. Other bridges, though older, were designed with streetcars in mind and are consequently now capable of accommodating larger trucks. Fewer than 160 steel truss bridges remain in and this type is at risk of disappearing altogether. The Sellwood Bridge also represents an early example of recycling, as it reused girders from the 1894 when it was replaced. Sharon noted several reasons for replacing the bridge with a steel structure. A would be sympathetic to the steel used in the original bridge and the replacement of the Bridge provides some precedent for replacing steel with steel. That replacement also replicated the portals of the original through-truss design. Portland is a steel bridge city, with the concrete Glenn Jackson Bridge as an exception. Even the is a steel bridge that has been coated with a protective layer of gunnite. History has shown that steel bridges can last 100 years and do not necessarily need to be repainted in this climate, as evidenced by the Steel Bridge and the Burlington Northern Railway Bridge. Modern concrete bridges have not yet proven similar durability. Steel would likely better withstand a moderate earthquake than concrete, as the soils here are generally poor for bridge foundations. A steel bridge would also be a boon for bridge fabricators in the area, some of whom have been building area bridges for over 100 years. Tom Brown asked who built the original bridge. Mike Pullen said that Gilpin was the original contractor. Introduce Stephens Creek Crossing Components Steve Katko noted that input was needed from the group on several elements of the Stephens Creek crossing. A similar presentation was made to the City Technical Advisory Group and they also provided opinions and recommendations.

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 2/9 Stephens Creek is located in Willamette Moorage Park at the north end of project area on the west side of the river. The City has spent time and resources there to restore the area where the creek meets the to create a fish friendly environment. Existing culverts under an earthen berm for a trolley track that runs through the park are 24” and 36” and are considered unfriendly to fish passage. The proposed plans call for an 18’ greenway trail, 26’ of right of way for double trolley tracks, and 20’ for a Macadam Bay access road. The stream between Hwy. 43 and the crossing would also be restored. Options for the crossing include:  100’ Span Bridge – Would use steeply sloped walls to avoid fill impacts to the park. The walls would be vegetated to create a screen of greenery. The design would create thirty feet of space for vegetation adjacent to the creek. A “dead-zone” under the bridge would be void of light and water and would not be vegetated. The inlet to outlet distance would be about 70’. The design would require a new footbridge for the existing park trail.  50’ Span Bridge – Similar to the 100’ span, but would use a sheer vertical wall instead of a 2:1 side slope under the bridge. This would shrink the dead zone beneath the bridge and create more space for vegetated walls. Culvert options would look similar to the bridge plan views from above:  Box Culvert – Would be cast in place with a closed bottom that uses a simulated streambed to mimic the natural stream. Would use vegetated sloped walls.  Arch Culvert – Made of concrete or metal with an open bottom. The natural stream bottom creates benches for habitat. Maximizes vegetation area for screening.  Metal Plate Ellipse – Uses a metal pipe with simulated streambed on a closed bottom. Although the top portion of the culvert berm will be widened, the steeper retaining walls allow the berm to be narrower at the bottom. Richard Marantz asked about use of two trails. Steve explained that Portland Parks wants to separate Greenway Trail users (commuters and through traveling cyclists) from the Willamette Moorage Park trail footpath users. The footpath may eventually have its paving removed. Tom Brown asked whether this area is in an E zone. Steve said that most of project is in E zone. Steve described the relative advantages and disadvantages of the bridges and culverts. Bridge spans could be built at any time of the year and would limit the amount of in-stream work. The bridges also have natural bottoms. The 100’ span offers a larger opening that would be attractive for larger animals, though the 50’ span should also be adequate. Both types of bridge would require additional maintenance. Culverts would take more time to construct and would require more in-stream work. The concrete box culvert would be cast in place. The size of the culverts is dictated by ODOT and Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) standards. Animals won’t use culverts that are too small. Use of the smaller concrete box culvert may require further discussion with permitting agencies. The simulated river bottom with the closed bottom culverts would provide for animal passage but could be blown out and require restoration in the future. Both ODFW and the City of Portland would prefer to use a natural (open) bottom. All of the culverts provide better opportunities for vegetation than the bridges. The City has indicated that they don’t like metal culverts because of long term maintenance issues. The TAG also recommended against using a closed bottom option and they did not see the benefits of the 100’ bridge span. They recommended either the 50’ bridge or the concrete arch culvert. The final decision will be made by the City of Portland as they will be responsible for maintenance. The CAC will discuss and provide a recommendation that the project team will submit to the city. Scott Thayer asked whether the cost of the metal and precast concrete culverts would be roughly the same. Steve said it would be, but noted that the City didn’t want to use metal which is prone to corrosion.

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 3/9 Sharon Wood-Wortman asked about earthquake resistance for both. Don Wagner noted that all of the options would be designed to earthquake standards, but the arch option would probably be the strongest. Tom Brown said that he thought there was a rule requiring 25’ of clearance from the center of the creek. Steve said that only a 13’ opening is required. Jeff Swanson asked whether there were concerns about the galvanized steel leaching zinc into the creek. Steve said that the primary concern was with maintenance. Tom Brown asked about the rest of the creek and how it passes under Hwy. 43. Steve surmised that the creek uses a metal culvert that will probably be replaced eventually. The rest of the creek is outside the limits of the project. Richard Marantz asked how the creek came to be included as part of the project. Michael Eaton said that the stream restoration is part of the mitigation efforts for the project. It made sense to address the crossing since it was necessary to move the entrance to Macadam Bay. Portland Parks also wanted the regional trail to have its own alignment. Ian suggested using several independent bridges instead of a wide span for the trail, trolley, and road. This would allow some light and water into the dead-zone under the bridges. Tom Brown noted that the use of the 100’ span bridge would create a space for transients. Steve said that the issue had been discussed. John Hren commented that the 50’ span would have the same problem. Heather Koch asked about stream function and maintenance of the stream habitat with the precast arch. She noted that the Army Corps of Engineers has shifted away from box culverts towards naturalized stream banks that are allowed to define themselves over time. She asked which option would give the waterway the most flexibility if stream passage under Hwy. 43 is eventually improved. Steve said that all of the designs will accommodate the correct hydraulics and expected flows. Michael noted that ODFW staff have advised that the creek upstream from Hwy 43 is not fish habitable because of its steepness. The work at Stephens Creek is largely to provide refuge for small fish traveling down the Willamette. Steve said that culverts at the south end of the project would also be considered. One culvert collects road runoff and another is fed by irrigation from the cemetery and storm water. Neither would be fish friendly because of the steepness but would be more habitat friendly for other animals. Storm water management facilities for the bridge itself will be addressed at a future meeting. Steve asked whether the group could make a recommendation regarding which crossing option to use. Paddy Tillett noted that the concrete arch culvert seemed the most obvious choice because of the open bottom, structural advantages, and cost. Heather Koch questioned whether there had been consideration of the habitat benefits of allowing the morphology of a natural stream (under a bridge) versus an arch culvert. Richard Marantz said that it would be helpful to know if there are future plans for the creek that should be considered prior to making a decision. He asked whether any of the sizes were important for future restoration. Rick Antonesia said that the creek is laterally stable and wouldn’t move much from side to side. A 30’ opening would provide good hydrology from a geomorphology standpoint and would be nearly identical to the conditions with a 50’ bridge. The CAC unanimously agreed to recommend the precast concrete arch culvert. River Span Bridge Type Introduction of Evaluation Process and Brainstorm desired attributes / Evaluation Criteria Michael Eaton has offered to take the group on a walking tour of the bridge. This might be helpful to those who are new to the project. The tour will meet at the SMILE Station at 4 p.m. on May 17 prior to the next CAC meeting. Michael will bring a van.

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 4/9 John Ferguson noted that the display boards show 12 different possible bridge types. The CAC will be recommending one of the structure types and it will be necessary to define how that recommendation will be made. An evaluation framework is “an organized process to establish criteria for comparing the performance of alternatives against stakeholder values” and is essential before evaluating alternatives. The framework will help channel the evaluation into a quantifiable discussion and provide a defensible end result if there are any challenges to the recommendation. A good evaluation framework provides a logical process that demonstrates how a decision was reached. The results should clearly show the trade-offs based on how each structure performs. The results should be responsive to stakeholder issues and desires, and should be thorough and defensible. John showed an example decision matrix that listed goals, structure types, and whether the type received a good, fair, or poor evaluation. Each answer was then given a weight and quantified. Ian noted that a similar process was used to evaluate the original 127 alternatives in the Draft EIS. The decision matrix requires identifying the alternatives to be considered, developing performance measures and how to measure them, assigning weights to the different criteria, scoring the alternatives, applying the appropriate weights, and creating a sum total. Evaluation criteria are used to identify tradeoffs and differentiate amongst the alternatives. Evaluation Criteria should also: represent a full range of stakeholder values, relate to topics that matter, help distinguish between options, avoid double counting outcomes (for example, considering both “maintenance costs” as well as “lifetime costs”), allow for clear comparisons, and be defined so that everyone understands what they mean. John shared examples of typical evaluation criteria categories. Constructability asks whether the structure is easy or difficult to build. This can sometimes be considered as an element of cost, but it can also affect whether construction by local builders is feasible or whether the structure can be built while leaving the existing bridge in place. Impact categories are typically among the most important considerations. The evaluation criteria themselves are goals that go beyond the value. They start with a verb and describe a desired outcome. Performance measures define tradeoffs and quantify how to measure the extent to which the options satisfy the criteria. Measures can be in natural scales such as cost, acres, number of delays, or periods of time. Constructed scales are less quantifiable and measure criteria such as safety or intrusion on neighborhoods. A constructed scale for evaluating motorized vehicle safety might look at how well different options achieve specific operational features, such as sight distances. Criteria are often weighted to represent their relative value. This can be helpful for calculating tradeoffs, and capturing which ideas are more important than others. The final product will be a matrix with twelve alternatives, evaluation criteria, performance measures, and a measure of how well each criterion is satisfied. Weights will be applied to provide a ranking of the alternatives, but does not give a final answer. The matrix provides a basis for further discussion and justification of the choice. It is still possible to reach a different conclusion for the final recommendation. John opened the floor to the CAC to suggest possible attributes that could be used in evaluating the structure types. Paddy Tillett asked whether any of the attributes could be ruled out at the start. John reminded the committee of the threshold criteria already established per the Draft EIS for choosing the possible bridge types. (All of the options would not use a median, would be under $170 million, would minimize impacts to the environment, businesses, and residences, and would have a variable width cross section.) Richard Marantz said that he was still unclear on whether the bridges with above deck superstructure could accommodate variable deck widths. John said that all of the options are capable of accommodating

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 5/9 the deck and future renderings will show how that can be done. All of the options can be accommodated within the prescribed budget, though there will be a large variation in cost. Dan Weiland suggested that some of the types appeared to have greater pier footprints on land than others. The symmetry of how the piers accommodate the varying bridge width could also be a factor. Pati Brady-Gallagher suggested that it would be important to minimize the footprint on the land. Richard Marantz called for a balance between the piers in the water and the piers on land. The number of piers is a measureable criterion. Paddy Tillett said that minimizing the piers may help minimize interference with the social and natural environment. Laura Jackson suggested that the square footage of each pier, especially in the water, also is important. Recreational fishing near the bridge may be affected. Jeff Swanson said that he was concerned about impacts to the navigation channel. John said that those impacts would be addressed and would probably not be a differentiator. Sharon Wood-Wortman said she would like to see a reference to the historical structure. Mike Pullen suggested that such criteria could be based on shape, material and color. Paddy Tillet noted the importance of scale with regard to aesthetics. There should be a balance between bridge components and other nearby objects. They should be in context with the surroundings. Richard Marantz said that he appreciated the help breaking down aesthetics into elements such as scale to help others who don’t necessarily understand why things do or don’t look good. Paddy Tillett noted that color goes beyond historical context. It is important that the bridge look good in all conditions within the context of all seasons. Scott Thayer noted that materiality also matters. Matte or reflective green paint would each create a different experience. John said that there will be a meeting devoted to aesthetics and that an architect would work with the CAC to develop criteria based on their input. Heather Koch noted that a subset of aesthetics is character. It’s important to consider context but it’s hard to envision how the bridge will fit in. Renderings will be helpful in that regard. It may be that an iconic structure doesn’t fit the character of the area. Laura Jackson noted that the bridge is a gateway for river traffic, but its features also contribute to the experience of users traveling on the bridge. Sharon Wood-Wortman suggested that the portal experience of traveling on the bridge feels separate from scale. Paddy Tillett described a sense of “arrival on the bridge.” Barbara Barber asked whether there is a way to specifically impart the sense of entering the neighborhood and differentiate between east -west and west-east travel. Scott Thayer suggested that perhaps the bridge should provide a sense of gateway into Sellwood as well as a gateway into Portland for northbound river travelers. Heather Koch suggested thinking about scale from various perspectives. Scott Thayer noted the importance of scale from a distance and scale for travelers over and next to the bridge. Paddy Tillett suggested further distinguishing between vehicle travelers and travelers on foot. Dan Weiland noted that the new bridge generally could be distinguished as old classical, new classical, or modern in appearance. He noted the challenge of measuring aesthetic criteria. Michael Eaton noted that several important elements have already been decided. The bridge will be two lanes, and isn’t giving in to pressure from auto traffic. The bridge will also dedicate 36’ to bikes and pedestrians. This represents a huge statement about trying to develop the connections between the Sellwood neighborhood and the west side. Richard Marantz noted that high water performance for the bridge piers is a differentiator. Sharon Wood-Wortman asked whether earthquake tolerance is a differentiator and Marie Dodds asked whether any of the bridges were safer in general. John said that all of the structures would be up to

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 6/9 seismic code, though some would have more reserve capacity. Ian said that the roadway shape would be the same for each type. John said that any visual perception of potential safety issues could be evaluated. Heather Koch questioned whether there were any safety impacts associated with above-deck structures. John Hren noted that even if the design is the same, perceptions of safety will affect behavior. Sharon Wood-Wortman suggested the importance of using local craftspeople, workers, and materials. Paddy Tillett suggested considering materials under the larger umbrella of sustainability. John said that it would be possible to evaluate the sustainability of specific materials. Tom Brown asked whether different types of structures radiate or absorb more sound. John said that there would be some slight variation between structures with the superstructure above or below the deck. Tom suggested that minimizing sound travel would be beneficial. Laura Jackson asked whether the different bridges allow degrees of play or deflection. John said that some structures move more than others. Laura noted that the movement can affect perceptions of safety. Richard Marantz asked whether there were any criteria that specifically help differentiate the bridges with above deck features, such as cables, amount of deflection, or the above deck experience. Mike Pullen noted the sense of portal and gateway. Scott Thayer noted the views of and from the bridge. John Hren noted the question of whether the bridge should be an attraction or be unobtrusive. Heather Koch noted how the bridge might affect air flow and light. Tom Brown noted the type of shadows that would be cast. Sharon Wood-Wortman noted the view of the bridge from the Portland Aerial Tram. The CAC confirmed that cost is an important value to consider. Tom Brown mentioned that it would be important to build in safety features. He noted disappointment with the use of steel barriers on the inside bridge railings on the . Ian noted that the Ross Island Bridge required a compromise between preserving the historic elements and being acceptable by modern safety standards. Paddy Tillett suggested that some of the elements should become design criteria for the bridge itself. He suggested that perhaps the design could satisfy necessary safety requirements and still allow views of the river. John Hren expressed concern about distracting drivers with the view. Laura Jackson noted that the current bridge has wildlife habitat including peregrine falcon nests. Other bridges host bat colonies. Though this may not be a maintenance benefit, there is some community pride in the peregrine nests. John said that the different types could be distinguished based on their ability to provide habitat. Heather Koch stated that the selection of the bridge type will define the context for many of the later design details. It will be important to recognize that spending less now could mean that more can be spent later. John said that the team is compiling a catalog of options to show features that create an above-deck experience for the deck-only bridge types. Paddy Tillett suggested both day and nighttime elements. Scott Thayer noted the importance of above deck amenities, but acknowledged that they may not help differentiate the types. Ian noted that lighting could be added to any of the types though some might appear more dramatic than others. Marie Dodds noted the importance of considering construction time, closures, and the times when neighborhoods and commuters are affected. John said that sometimes these factors overlap. Sometimes longer closures can reduce the overall construction time. A visitor to the meeting asked whether any of the alternatives lend themselves to sequencing and facilitating continuous cross river use or construction. John said that some were better than others. Richard Marantz asked for clarification on the expected closure times. Ian said that the criteria is to minimize (not eliminate) closures. Specific closures are to be determined, but are anticipated as being less than one month. The closures won’t be a big differentiator between types. Richard noted that the impacts

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 7/9 from closures are more significant for bicyclists than for cars. Facilitating bicycle passage is important to consider. John Hren asked whether a percentage of the cost is required to be dedicated to art. John Ferguson said it was not. Ian suggested that the whole bridge could be considered art. John Hren noted the justice center atrium as part of the 3% for art requirement that was incorporated into the building structure, something similar may be incorporated into the bridge. Ian said that there would be opportunities for art within the project. John Hren questioned whether some of the types lend themselves to incorporating art more than others. Pati Brady-Gallagher asked about further refining the types of impacts. Ian suggested that staff put the committee ideas into a framework and bring back for evaluation. Richard Marantz suggested merging the CAC ideas with John’s example list provided earlier. John Hren asked about impacts from different construction styles to non-bridge traffic in the parks and on trails. Michael Eaton said that there would be no impacts or closures to either trail. Mike Pullen noted that there are no views of the bridge from Hwy. 43 because of trees. Ian noted views from Sellwood Park. Scott Thayer noted views from the South Waterfront. Heather Koch noted views from the Springwater Corridor. Heather Koch suggested preferences for the bridge profile as being thinner or lighter, regardless of the style. Scott Thayer noted that the character of the bridge could be defined by words such as strong, elegant, clunky, etc. Ian asked about the importance of maintainability. Richard Marantz added the importance of minimizing opportunities for graffiti. The CAC agreed that maintainability also included lifecycle considerations. A visitor noted that it may not help differentiate, but it may be worthwhile to explore opportunities for using quiet pavements. Ian said that such features could be saved for consideration later. Tom Brown asked whether there would be an open house during this phase, whether any of the options would be eliminated before then, and whether the public will be able to weigh in on the alternatives. June said that a July open house would kick off a month long online survey that will provide the committee with feedback. John Ferguson said that options would probably not be eliminated beforehand. Tom suggested that it may be prudent to reduce the number of bridge types because of the limited number of meetings to consider the options. Jeff Swanson noted previous experiences with preliminary scoring and then revisiting those scores. The public might be asked to comment on the CAC’s initial assessment. Paddy Tillett suggested letting the consultants do an initial scoring and then bringing the findings back to the CAC for review. Paddy suggested that the new bridge should be able to accommodate over head signage and lighting without mucking up the bridge appearance. Ian noted that the bridge currently has unlimited clearance above the roadway deck, which is important for moving large objects. Laura Jackson added that while all of the options may be adaptable to future streetcar use, some may accommodate overhead power lines better than others from an aesthetic standpoint. Richard Marantz suggested separating construction impacts from built impacts. He questioned how offsite work or cast-in-place work would have different impacts on construction phasing. Alex Cousins suggested that the committee may want to consider whether a new type of bridge for Portland should also be a criterion. Mike Pullen asked whether variable steel prices could lead to eliminating some of the options. John Ferguson said that price variations affect concrete as well, but that price variability can be considered.

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 8/9 Jeff Swanson noted that carbon footprint as a consideration. Concrete has a relatively large footprint compared to steel. Most steel is recycled and can be produced from scrap metal. Richard Marantz asked whether it was possible to eliminate any of the options based on the global properties of the material used or whether it would be necessary to look at each type individually. Ian said that some types would require more temporary work to build. June said that the team would consider the question. Close June said that the team will organize and categorize the CAC ideas for the next meeting.

Sellwood Bridge CAC Meeting #2 April 28, 2010 9/9