minhpd 09-08-25

1 MINUTES OF THE HOUSING, PLANNING, & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Present: Councilmember Baker ( Chair), Bullock, Evans Also Present: Council President Kepple, Councilmember Steiner, Assistant Planning Director David Baas, Assistant Law Director Jennifer Murphy- Swallow, Building Commissioner Chris Parmelee, Council staff Call to Order: 6:31 p.m. Approval of the minutes of the June 23, 2025 Housing, Planning & Development Committee. Motion made and seconded to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2025 Housing, Planning & Development Committee. All members in favor. Motion passed. Minutes approved. Communication from Building Commissioner Parmelee regarding Addition to LCO 1775. ( referred to HPD 5/19/25) ORDINANCE 18-2025 - AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, or otherwise to take effect and be in force after the earliest period allowed by law, to amend Chapter 1775, Weeds, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of establishing regulations for front yard plantings. ( 1st read & referred to HPD 5/19/25) Chair Baker stated his intention to hear public comment on this ordinance tonight and to deliberate, but not to recommend adoption out of committee. He reminded the committee that the ordinance was introduced by the Building Department in May. As introduced, the ordinance allows for natural plantings in the front yard but calls for a buffer zone, or setback, around the perimeter of the property. He summarized that at the last meeting the committee discussed how to encourage residents to embrace a variety of plantings while at the same time empower the Building Department to cite problem properties. Chair Baker referenced his revised version of the ordinance that he distributed and explained his proposed changes, which include reducing the size of the setbacks to the approximate width of a lawnmower. He expressed that his intention is to craft legislation that affirmatively allows natural managed landscapes and to differentiate between a natural managed landscape and simply neglecting to cut one’ s grass. He discussed existing relevant sections of the Code to which his revised version refers. Essentially, the revised version of the ordinance would allow the Building Dept to cite obstructions around the perimeter of the property that are three feet in height or taller, which is consistent with existing Code. Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

2 Councilmember Evans voiced agreement with reducing the size of the setbacks. He expressed concern about the many existing gardens in the City and how the legislation may impact those. He agreed that it would be helpful to hear more feedback from residents. Councilmember Bullock expressed that the ordinance is a step in the right direction to affirmatively allow front yard plantings where no such permission currently exists in the code. He acknowledged that there remain details to work through. Chair Baker added that in the current environment there are front yard gardens that may be above five inches on the perimeter but that are not actually creating an obstruction. His intent is to make a determination about the presence or absence of an obstruction instead of going based off measurements. He acknowledged that this is a more flexible approach and may not be ideal for Property Maintenance Inspectors who are tasked with enforcement. Commissioner Parmelee pointed to issues with site lines around corners on main thoroughfares. He expressed a preference for an ordinance that sets a consistent standard and eliminates subjectivity and guess work. Through discussion it was established that the height of grass and/or natural plantings in the buffer zone ought to be six inches, instead of five inches to stay consistent with the City’ s high grass ordinance. President Kepple pointed out that grass and/or vegetation 6-8 inches, or even taller, does not necessarily create an obstruction. Chair Baker agreed that his draft intends to address that point. He explained that his revision calls for setbacks to be either regular turfgrass or low growth natural landscapes that are less than 36 inches tall and do not overhang onto the sidewalk. Public Comment: Allison Welch, Orchard Grove – Ms. Welch asked for clarification understanding Section 3 of the ordinance which addresses 1775.03(b)(4) Chair Baker acknowledged that this could be written more clearly and explained that with his proposed changes natural landscapes on the perimeter of a property would be acceptable as long as they were not creating an obstruction – even if they were over 36 inches in height. Agnes Michalak, Rockway – Ms. Michalak asked for clarification about the ordinance says about plantings on the tree lawn. Chair Baker responded that this ordinance does not address tree lawns. He explained that the tree lawn is regulated differently, and that it is the property of the City. Councilmember Bullock suggested that if the committee is able to establish a workable standard for private property, that it may make sense tot apply that standard to the tree lawn as well, since many residents take on the care and beautification of their tree lawns. Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

3 Assistant Law Director Swallow stated that the tree lawn is City property and that there is an existing ordinance that prohibits plantings on the tree lawn. She noted that the City does not regularly enforce this ordinance but does follow up if there are complaints about obstructions. She said that she would like to include Public Safety in the conversation to evaluate the proposed setbacks. Ms. Michalak questioned who decides which plantings are managed natural landscapes. She pointed out that there could be differing opinions about which plantings are intentional, and which are a nuisance. She offered Keep Lakewood Beautiful ( KLB) to help draw these distinctions and to help clean up other sections of this ordinance. Chair Baker responded that it is the Building Department’ s Property Maintenance Inspectors that make this determination and that this ordinance is an attempt to provide the guidance. Ms. Swallow welcomed input from KLB regarding updating the Code’ s section on weeds and other areas. Councilmember Bullock pointed out that some residents have been intentionally working for years to cultivate the root systems of their gardens and that it doesn’ t feel right to ask them to undo this work. He suggested that the ordinance grandfather in existing gardens. He pointed to the sustainability benefits of natural landscapes and the City’ s support for them in separate discussions. Commissioner Parmelee responded that he is fine with existing gardens as long as they are not a safety issue. He stated that the Building Department has nothing against wild plantings, but that it needs to protect sight lines when drivers pull out onto major thoroughfares. He stated that the Building Department will support the final ordinance as long as it provides adequate buffer zones. Chair Baker stated that the Committee will leave Ordinance 18-2025 on the Committee docket. President Kepple suggested that when a version of the ordinance passes that perhaps KLB can work with the City’ s Public Information Officer to produce an educational video. Motion by Councilmember Bullock, seconded by Chair Baker to amend Ordinance 18-2025 by substituting with the red line version provided by Chair Baker. All members voted in favor. Ordinance 18-2025 substituted. Communication from Planning Director Byington regarding Transit Feasibility Study. (referred to HPD 7/21/25) Chair Baker invited Assistant Director Bass to present the findings of the Transit Feasibility Study. Assistant Director Baas shared that it has been over a year since they finished the study and that he will do his best to answer any questions that arise, but he may need to do some follow up research to answer any technical questions. He provided background on the history of the Community Circulator, which was an RTA service that lasted a little over ten years until the service was terminated due to funding cuts. In 2011 the City launched a pilot of their own Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

4 version of the Circulator called the Shopper Shuttle, but that was terminated in 2011 due to low ridership and high operating costs. In response to a question from Councilmember Bullock, Assistant Director Baas said he was unsure of the operating hours of the Shopper Shuttle but that he could look at the old contracts to try and determine that information. Assistant Director Baas then went on to review the four parts of the study starting with the background and reviewing the Transit Needs Survey that was conducted in April 2024. He said there were 550 responses to the five open- ended questions that were asked, and he went on to review the data points. He said that 90 percent of people that responded said they use four or more modes of transportation, and only 3% said that the RTA was their only mode of transportation. He also reviewed the most popular requested destinations with the top four being Lakewood Park, Lakewood Public Library, Marc’ s Plaza and Giant Eagle. He then reviewed part two of the study which looked at the destination data and compared the estimated daily destination trips with the existing RTA bus boarding data. In response to questions from Councilmembers he further explained how the different data points were gathered and what conclusions could be drawn from the data. Part three of the study explored which model of transportation services might be the best fit for the Lakewood community such as a fixed route system versus a demand responsive system. Based on the destination data survey and the service models the consultants proposed three fixed routes, of which the Planning Department selected two fixed routes to further explore. Assistant Director Baas then reviewed the final part of the study, which analyzed service hours and frequencies. From there the Consultant developed six different scenarios to compare, three of which were based on a fixed route model and the other three were based on an on-demand model. Assistant Director Baas went over the pros and cons of each scenario and explained that ultimately none of the options would be profitable for the City to run. Chair Baker thanked Director Baas for the presentation and requested that the report be made available on the City website for residents to access. He also suggested that in order for this to work the City would need to find a partner agency to help offset the operating costs such as the school district, since the schools do not offer bussing. He also asked if the RTA was engaged in any conversations and if they expressed any interest in partnering on this project. In response to Chair Bakers’ questions, Assistant Director Bass said that there have not been any conversations with the school about a potential partnership. He also said that the Planning Department did not interact directly with the RTA to collect data so he is not sure what their interest level is but he said they have their own struggles to maintain services so they likely are not looking to expand offerings. Councilmember Hamilton Steiner commented that she would like to see the ridership data from when the Circulator was in operation and she questioned how many residents that currently use Uber could be converted into micro transit users given the lower cost. She also spoke about how the government is not in the business of making money, but they need to make sound financial Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

5 choices, and ultimately it is up to the residents if they want to place a high value on creating a community culture that prioritizes alternative modes of transportation. Assistant Director Baas responded that he does not think the Consultant was able to obtain data on the Circulator from the RTA. He stressed that while the Lakewood Circulator was the most used of the circulator services, the operation still lost money. He said that based on the response from the public survey, 80 percent of the public would prefer a fixed route option, but that would be the most expensive model for the City to operate. President Kepple spoke about how some government services should be revenue neutral while others are built into the budget and how community members and elected officials can debate which services should fall into which bucket. She also spoke about the importance of building a system that people actually want to use even if it costs more money than alternative options, as well as the tie-in to the active transportation plans the City has recently adopted. In response to a question from President Kepple, Assistant Law Director Swallow said that the Senior Transportation program only operates Monday – Friday since most of the trips are medical related. Councilmember Evans cautioned that this is an uphill battle since federal and state funding does not place a high priority on public transportation systems. Councilmember Bullock suggested that the definition of success for this project would be to design a system that attracts the maximum number of riders. He said it sounds like Councilmembers are in support of proposing some form of the Circulator and he suggested City Council keep working until they can get to a proposal that makes sense for the community. In response to question from Councilmember Hamilton Steiner, Assistant Director Baas said he could refer to the contract and reports to pull together data from the pilot project the City funded in 2011. President Kepple suggested that the City might launch a mini pilot to see if people are serious about using the service. Chair Baker suggested they continue the conversation at the Council retreat scheduled for Friday, September 12th. Housing, Planning & Development Committee adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Approved: Kyle Baker, Chair Housing, Planning, & Development Committee Maureen M. Bach, Clerk of Council 10/27/2025 Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

ORDINANCE NO. BY: AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, or otherwise to take effect and be in force after the earliest period allowed by law, to amend Chapter 1775, Weeds, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood for the purpose of establishing regulations for front yard plantings. WHEREAS, Lakewood has a tall grass and weed ordinance which requires property owners to maintain their lawn at 6” high or lower; and WHEREAS, residents have requested to have lawns inclusive of wildflowers, ornamental plants and natural landscaping to support the environment; and WHEREAS, regulation of such plantings in a front yard are necessary to preserve sight lines for pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 2.12 of the Third Amended Charter of the City of Lakewood, this Council by a vote of at least two thirds of its members determines that this ordinance is an emergency measure and that it shall take effect immediately, and that it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public property, health, and safety and to provide for the usual daily operation of municipal departments; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, OHIO: Section 1. That Section 1775.01 Weed, Tall Grass, Nuisance Vegetation or Growths over Sidewalks; Removal, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood currently reading as follows: 1775.01 WEED, TALL GRASS, NUISANCE VEGETATION OR GROWTHS OVER SIDEWALKS; REMOVAL. a) The owner, occupant or person having the charge or management of any lot or parcel of land situated within the City, whether the same be improved or unimproved, vacant or occupied, within forty- eight hours of notice to do so, shall cut or destroy, or cause to be cut or destroyed, the following: 1) Any tropical or semi- tropical grasses classified as " running bamboo" with monopodial leptomorph) rhizome ( root) systems when the plant has spread from its original premise of planting or is not being maintained. 2) Apple of Peru ( Nicandra physalodes). 3) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). 4) Columbus grass ( Sorghum x almum). 5) Cressleaf groundsel ( Senecio glabellus). 6) Field bindweed ( Convolvulus arvensis). 7) Forage Kochia ( Bassia prostrata). 8) Giant Hogweed ( Heracleum mantegazzianum). 9) Grapevines ( Vitis spp.), when growing in groups of 100 or more and not pruned, sprayed, cultivated, or otherwise maintained for two consecutive years. 10) Hairy whitetop or ballcress ( Lepidium appelianum). 11) Heart- podded hoary cress ( Lepidium draba sub. draba). 12) Hedge bindweed ( Calystegia sepium). 13) Japanese knotweed ( Polygonum cuspidatum). Substituted in Committee 9/ 8/ 2025Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

14) Johnsongrass ( Sorghum halepense). 15) Kochia ( Bassia scoparia). 16) Kudzu ( Pueraria montana var. lobata). 17) Leafy spurge ( Euphorbia esula). 18) Marestail ( Conyza canadensis) 19) Mile-A-Minute Weed ( Polygonum perfoliatum). 20) Musk thistle ( Carduus nutans). 21) Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri). 22) Perennial sowthistle ( Sonchus arvensis). 23) Poison hemlock ( Conium maculatum). 24) Purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria). 25) Russian knapweed ( Acroptilon repens). 26) Russian thistle ( Salsola Kali var. tenuifolia). 27) Serrated tussock ( Nassella trichotoma). 28) Shatter cane ( Sorghum bicolor). 29) Water Hemp ( Amaranthus tuberculatus). 30) Wild carrot ( Daucus carota). 31) Wild parsnip ( Pastinaca sativa). 32) Tall grasses or other undesirable vegetation blooming or going to seed, or exceeding a height of six inches ( excluding maintained ornamental grasses), or spreading pollen which may be harmful to human health, or creating a fire hazard, or refuge and breeding place for rodents and other vermin. is hereby repealed. Section 2. That new 1775.01 Weed, Tall Grass, Nuisance Vegetation or Growths over Sidewalks; Removal, of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances is hereby enacted to read as follows: 1775.01 WEED, TALL GRASS, NUISANCE VEGETATION OR GROWTHS OVER SIDEWALKS; REMOVAL. a) The owner, occupant or person having the charge or management of any lot or parcel of land situated within the City, whether the same be improved or unimproved, vacant or occupied, within forty- eight hours of notice to do so, shall cut or destroy, or cause to be cut or destroyed, the following: 1) Any tropical or semi- tropical grasses classified as " running bamboo" with monopodial leptomorph) rhizome ( root) systems when the plant has spread from its original premise of planting or is not being maintained. 2) Apple of Peru ( Nicandra physalodes). 3) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). 4) Columbus grass ( Sorghum x almum). 5) Cressleaf groundsel ( Senecio glabellus). 6) Field bindweed ( Convolvulus arvensis). 7) Forage Kochia ( Bassia prostrata). 8) Giant Hogweed ( Heracleum mantegazzianum). 9) Grapevines ( Vitis spp.), when growing in groups of 100 or more and not pruned, sprayed, cultivated, or otherwise maintained for two consecutive years. 10) Hairy whitetop or ballcress ( Lepidium appelianum). 11) Heart-podded hoary cress ( Lepidium draba sub. draba). 12) Hedge bindweed ( Calystegia sepium). 13) Japanese knotweed ( Polygonum cuspidatum). 14) Johnsongrass ( Sorghum halepense). 15) Kochia ( Bassia scoparia). 16) Kudzu ( Pueraria montana var. lobata). 17) Leafy spurge ( Euphorbia esula). Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

18) Marestail ( Conyza canadensis) 19) Mile-A-Minute Weed ( Polygonum perfoliatum). 20) Musk thistle ( Carduus nutans). 21) Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri). 22) Perennial sowthistle ( Sonchus arvensis). 23) Poison hemlock ( Conium maculatum). 24) Purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria). 25) Russian knapweed ( Acroptilon repens). 26) Russian thistle ( Salsola Kali var. tenuifolia). 27) Serrated tussock ( Nassella trichotoma). 28) Shatter cane ( Sorghum bicolor). 29) Water Hemp ( Amaranthus tuberculatus). 30) Wild carrot ( Daucus carota). 31) Wild parsnip ( Pastinaca sativa). 32) Tall grasses or other undesirable vegetation blooming or going to seed, or exceeding a height of six inches (excluding maintained ornamental grasses and Managed Natural Landscape as defined in Section 1775. 03), or spreading pollen which may be harmful to human health, or creating a fire hazard, or refuge and breeding place for rodents and other vermin. Section 3. That new Section 1775.03 Front Yard Planting, of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances, is hereby enacted to read as follows: 1775.03 FRONT YARD PLANTINGS. a) Purpose and Definitions. The purpose of this section is to encourage the use of vegetation throughout the City to maximize ecological and aesthetic benefits while respecting existing community values regarding landscaping to include well-maintained yards, preservation of sight lines, compatibility with existing structures, and public safety. Ecological benefits of “ managed Managed natural Natural landscapesLandscapes” include enhancement of pollinator support habitat, stormwater management, carbon sequestration, and preservation of biodiversity. The following defined terms are used in this Section: 1) “ Managed natural Natural landscapeLandscape” means a planned, intentional, and maintained planting of native or non-native grasses, wildflowers, ferns, sedges, shrubs, or trees, including but not limited to rain Rain gardensGardens, meadow Meadow vegetationVegetation, and ornamental Ornamental Pplants. 2) “ Rain gardenGarden” means planting designed not only to aesthetically improve an area, but also to reduce the amount of stormwater and accompanying pollutants from entering the watershed. 3) “ Meadow vegetationVegetation” means herbaceous ( non-woody) vegetation of grasses and flowering broad- leaf plants that are commonly found in meadow and prairie plant communities, excluding noxious Noxious weedsWeeds. 4) “ Noxious weedWeed” means any plant that has been identified as being harmful to the local natural environment and included in the list promulgated by the Director of Public Safety or his or her designee; or as listed in Section 1775.01(a). 5) “ Ornamental plantPlant” means grasses, perennials, annuals, and groundcovers purposefully planted for aesthetic reasons. 6) “ Turf-grass Grass lawnLawn” means a lawn comprised mostly of grasses commonly used in regularly cut lawns, intended to be maintained at a height of no more than five six inches. b) Right to Install and Maintain a Managed Natural Landscape. 1) An owner, authorized agent, or authorized occupant of any privately owned lands may, consistent with this subsection and all other applicable laws, statutes, rules, and ordinances, install and maintain a managed Managed Nnatural Llandscape, free of noxious Noxious weedsWeeds, in front of the building line as established in the Zoning Code. Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

2) On a corner lot, managed Managed Nnatural Llandscapes shall have a setback of no less than 4’ 2’ from the public right-of-way, 4’ 2’ from a side property line and shall maintain a sight triangle at each corner of the lot from the 8’ setbacks. ( See Fig. 1, Corner Lot) 3) On any other lot, managed natural landscapes shall have a setback of no less than 2’ from the public right-of-way, 2’ from a side property line and maintain a sight triangle at each corner of the lot from the 6’ setbacks. ( See Fig. 2, Interior Lot) 4) The setback from the public right-of-way and side property lines are to be comprised of turfgrass Turfgrass lawn Lawn or low groundcover vegetation not exceeding five six inches in height, managed natural landscape, meadow vegetation, or ornamental plants so long as the compliance with Section 1775.01(b) and 1175.02 are maintained.. 5) Managed natural landscapes shall not include exclusively turf-grass lawns left unattended for the purpose of returning to a natural state without further management action. Figure 1 Figure 2 Section 4. It is found and determined that all formal actions of this Council concerning and relating to the passage of this ordinance were adopted in an open meeting of this Council, and that all such deliberations of this Council and of any of its committees that resulted in such formal action were in meetings open to the public in compliance with all legal requirements. Section 5. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, property, health, safety and welfare in the City and for the usual daily operation of the City for the reasons set forth and defined in the preamble to this ordinance, and provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, this ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor, or otherwise it shall take effect and be in force after the earliest period allowed by law. Adopted: Sarah Kepple, President of Council Maureen M. Bach, Clerk of Council Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6-EA28-4262-9A4B-39DA7A94838D Approved: Meghan F. George, Mayor

Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Housing, Planning, and Development Committee Meeting (September 8, 2025) Photo: John Kuntz / The Plain Dealer ( 2009) Agenda 1. Background/ Need & Benefit 2. Destinations 3. Transportation Services 4. Options/ Conclusion Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 1: Background/ Need & Benefit Background Prior low cost, circulator transit line service: Jan 1998: RTA starts 804 Lakewood community circulator service. Sep 2009: RTA ends community circulator service. Mar 2010: Lakewood starts pilot “Shopper Shuttle” service. Apr 2011: Lakewood ends pilot (cost vs. low ridership) Current regional service (five bus lines: 25, 26, 55, 78, and 83; two rapid stations: W117th, Triskett) Transit Needs Survey ( April 2024)– Five Questions, received 550 responses. 1. How do you travel for trips within Lakewood? 2. How do you want to travel for trips within Lakewood? 3. What are your challenges for using public transportation in Lakewood? 4. Preferred destinations in Lakewood 5. Transit service preference Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 1: Background/ Need & Benefit Multiple modes: 35 % (two or fewer modes) 70 % (three or fewer modes) 90 % (four or fewer modes). One mode: 75% said in a car or carpooling 9% said existing local transit (i.e. STC) 3% saidRTA transit. Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 1: Background/ Need & Benefit Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 2: Destinations Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 3: Transportation Services Definitions Demand Responsive System Fixed-Route System Paratransit Microtransit Ridesourcing Contracted Services Options Analyzed GCRTA Senior Transportation Connection City of Lakewood SHARE Mobility Via Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 4: Transportation Options – Fixed Route Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 4: Transportation Options – Alternatives Service Hours and Frequency 8-hour (8am – 4pm) 12-hour (7am – 7pm) 14-hour ( 6am – 8pm) 5-day (Weekday) or 6-day (Weekday + Saturday) Critical Factors and Scenario Assumptions Factors: Stop Condition, Marketing/ Promotion, Pricing Assumptions: Routes ( Madison/ Detroit Loop, Extended Loop) Ridership ( forecasting – FTA STOPS Model) Service ( 20-, 30-, and 40-min headways) Fares ($ 1.25/ RTA Senior to $2.50/ RTA Standard) Costs (Operating, Start-up, Annual Management) Rider behavior/ diversion, external cost savings ( congestion, noise, safety, CO2 emissions) Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D

Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Part 4: Transportation Options – Alternatives/ Conclusion Lakewood Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Contact: David Baas ( planning@lakewoodoh. gov; 216-529- 6630) Housing, Planning, and Development Committee Meeting (September 8, 2025) Photo: John Kuntz / The Plain Dealer ( 2009) Agenda 1. Background/ Need & Benefit 2. Destinations 3. Transportation Services 4. Options/ Conclusion Docusign Envelope ID: 2A3D82F6- EA28-4262- 9A4B-39DA7A94838D