Meeting Notes
Urban Renewal Advisory Group

Council Chambers – City Hall
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Advisory Committee in Attendance: PDC Commissioner Mark Rosenbaum; City Commissioner Erik Sten (Co-Chair); City Commissioner Dan Saltzman; County Commissioner Jeff Cogen; Planning Commissioner Don Hanson; and Jon Kruse.
Committee Members Absent: PDC Commissioner Charles Wilhoite (Co-Chair).

Presenters: David August, New River District; Patricia Gardner, New River District; Patrick Gortmaker, New River District; Richard Harris, New River District.

Public Attendees:  Bob Alexander, Morgan Masterman, Lynne Coward, Debbie Aiona, Jan Oliver, Terri Warpinski, Karen Whitman, Tom Corrollo, Steve Sivage, Doug Butler, Howard Weiner, Elaine Howard, Jeff Tashman, Carly Riter.

1) Welcome 

Commissioner Sten began the meeting by stating that Commissioner Wilhoite would be running late to today’s meeting.

2) Approval of Meeting Notes   

The meeting notes for the 6/26/07 meeting notes were approved as submitted.

3) Review and Adopt Criteria

Commissioner Cogen began by asking the group to review the tenth criteria. He proposed an eleventh criterion be added that would read: “To what extent would this action impair the ability of other taxing jurisdictions to deliver services to their constituents.” Commissioner Hanson asked if that was just a variation of criterion number ten. Commissioner Cogen responded that it was different because criterion ten refers to advancing goals of taxing jurisdictions, however it does not refer to the possible negative impacts such as taking revenue from other jurisdictions.

Commissioner Sten drew the Group’s attention to criterion number four and suggested this was also somewhat similar to Commissioner Cogen’s proposed addition. Commissioner Sten asked the Group to consider if they wanted both criteria four and ten. Commissioner Cogen suggested the Group eliminate criterion number four. Commissioner Rosenbaum agreed with Commissioner Cogen’s sentiment, but stated that there is an assumption that any change is going to negatively impair County services. There is a follow up question to ask: is the impairment worth it? Commissioner Cogen responded that this was the decision about whether or not to make the expansion.

Jon Kruse commented that what Commissioner Cogen was suggesting is similar to an impact analysis and his perspective is on the negative impacts, whereas criteria four and ten focus on the positive impacts. Kruse suggested we roll these items into one new criterion. Commissioner Rosenbaum suggested they could change the wording in criterion number four to read, “Given the amount of public investment and lost government revenue, would taxing jurisdictions see a net benefit?” Commissioner Saltzman suggested criterion four is difficult to understand and proposed to delete it and add Commissioner Cogen’s proposal.

Commissioner Sten asked if everyone agreed to delete criterion number four. Commissioner Cogen agreed and proposed to strike criterion number four and replace it with the following language: “To what extent would this action impair the ability of other taxing jurisdictions to deliver services to their constituents.” Commissioner Rosenbaum seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Sten asked if there was any more discussion on the criteria.

Commissioner Saltzman then drew the Group’s attention to criteria number one and asked if this was the official definition of blight. Bob Alexander of PDC responded that they were the key components of blight, in accordance to ORS 457. Commissioner Saltzman was concerned about the “real estate based needs” component. Alexander said ORS 457 discusses the condition of buildings in the area. That is what the real estate wording refers to. Typically PDC is asked to look at the relative value of a building to determine blight.

Jon Kruse wanted to verify that criterion numbers three and eight contemplated the existing framework that PDC operates under, particularly the 30% set aside for low-income housing. He asked if the set aside was binding. Commissioner Sten said yes it was binding. Commissioner Sten asked if Jon Kruse thought they needed to add criteria here or specify the 30% set aside more explicitly. Kruse said no; he just wanted to make sure he understood their purpose.

Commissioner Cogen proposed to adopt the Criteria as amended. Seconded. The criteria was adopted unanimously.

4) Pearl/Visions Land Use Committee’ Perspective and Preliminary Recommendations

 a) Presentation

Alexander stated that the New River District committee was the first presenter in a series of panels that would be providing recommendations to the Advisory Group. Alexander introduced the committee members and stated that their official committee name was now the New River District. The committee was represented at the meeting by David August, Patricia Gardner, Patrick Gortmaker, and Richard Harris.

Patricia Gardner began the presentation by stating that the two groups who formed the New River District Committee (Pearl District Neighborhood Association and Old Town/Chinatown Visions) have been working on this issue for years. Their efforts began with the adoption of the 1988 Central City Plan. At the time there was a lot of blight in the area. In 1992, citizen groups on both sides of Broadway formed the River District Steering Committee. They had a series of common goals, which were eventually instituted into the River District Urban Renewal Area (RD URA) Plan. Important in these goals was density, specifically in diverse housing. Gardner stated that people tend to think of the River District as consisting of high-end condos, when in fact close to 30% of tax increment does actually go to low-income housing. She also mentioned other goals such as historic preservation and the creation of connections throughout the neighborhood. One important idea that came out of the Steering Committee was the concept of one River District, but the area got split apart because the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Area (DTWF URA) already existed, so the money got split into another URA, the River District. However the concept of one district was the underpinning of it all.

Richard Harris stated that both neighborhoods, River District and Old Town/Chinatown, had plans with goals and objectives with the seeds for the New River District. He continued with an overview of a document containing three plans, the Visions Plan, Development Plan, and the Revisions Plan. The Visions Plan realized that there was conflict in the neighborhood. Efforts were made to involve everyone in the Visions Committee because they wanted to pursue one set of goals. The goals focused on diversity in the neighborhood. They wanted to recognize that there needed to be a balance between the competing elements so it wasn’t just a business district, a nightlife district, a site for homeless people, or a site for low-income housing. Second, the Development Plan included the types of goals believed to be the salvation of the blighted community.  Some main focuses from this plan were a concentration on the edges and barriers of the neighborhood and on the Burnside Couch Couplet. Thirdly, the Revisions Plan revisited the elements in the Plan that were left undone and focused on where to go in the future

Gardner then referenced the 2004 Central City Urban Renewal Area Study and a River District Accomplishments map showing where a majority of the projects are focused mainly in the RD URA and not in the DTWF URA. She added that the areas started as one and they should end together as well.

The Committee moved on to discuss their mapping exercise. Harris mentioned that all of the unfunded projects do not fit into 61 acres, so they started with their own set of four criteria:

1. Project considered part of Visions Plan, Old Town Chinatown Development Plan, and/or Pearl Development Plan, and is congruent with neighborhood priorities
2. Project has high level of impact to River District development
3. Project is feasible and has a likelihood of happening within the remaining funding cycle of DTWF URA or New River District URA
4. Project is already in the current PDC budget as an unfunded project

Patrick Gortmaker stated that The New River District focused on areas with numerous unfunded projects to develop four zones. Zone 1 includes the permanent home for Saturday Market in Waterfront Park and other improvements in and around Ankeny Square. The Burnside Couch Couplet is included in this zone. Also included in Zone 1 is the redevelopment of Block 8, including the renovation and activation of the Globe Hotel into mixed-use opportunities, preservation of rental housing, addition of workforce housing and preservation of historic buildings

Zone 2 is described as the north bookend of Old Town/Chinatown and includes development on Blocks 24 and 25, including finding a permanent home for the Blanchet House, and developing the Dirty Duck Block. Projects here include the citing of an Access Center to provide better neighborhood amenities like public restrooms, and finding a permanent home for Transition Projects. The committee supports in-fill development in this zone and sees the need for PDC business loan programs to stimulate economic development. As with Zone 1, the committee stressed the need for preservation of historic buildings.

David August continued, Zone 3 is described as the south bookend of Old Town/ Chinatown. Priorities include development of the Goldsmith Blocks, Louis Lee’s Chinatown DOS project, and workforce and multi-family housing. As with Zone 2 the committee supports in-fill development, PDC business loans and the preservation of historic buildings.

Zone 4 projects include the U and R blocks, 511 Building, an addition to the park blocks, and the completion of the deferred improvements on Union Station.  The North Park Blocks serve as the development line of transition between the Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association and the Pearl District Neighborhood Association. The possibilities for the City of Portland in this area are incredible. Again, the committee supports in-fill development consisting of a mixture of commercial and residential and the preservation of historic buildings.

The New River District concluded their presentation with a series of recommendations for the Advisory Group. First they encouraged the Advisory Group to extend DTWF’s last date to issue debt to 2010 and then allow it to expire. Second, they recommended extending the South Park Blocks Urban Renewal Area (SPB URA) to 2014 and let it expire leaving no money on the table. Thirdly, they recommended completing the River District Vision and expanding the RD URA by the full 61 acres as they identified by the four zones.  They added that the Group should leverage the entire RD URA to accommodate the 30% set aside for low-income housing. Harris added that there is a possibility to set some of the 61 acres aside and reserve for later additions, but he stressed that there is already a larger need than 61 acres so they should use it all now. The fourth recommendation was to expand the capacity of the River District to complete the projects. Gardner stated that by 2011 the district would be out of money.  And the fifth and final recommendation suggested that the Group work with the Bureau of Planning on the Central Portland Development Capacity Study to identify areas outside of the RD URA to be included in a new urban renewal area. Gardner added onto the fifth recommendation that by having the date of DTWF URA and SPB URA extended it would allow the city to do the Central City Plan study logically.

 b) Discussion and Directions to Staff

Commissioner Hanson asked the panelists about the ownership of a North Park Block that August had mentioned. Gardner noted it was the block in front of the 511 Building currently being used as a parking lot. She explained that it was given to the neighborhood by the federal government with the condition that a park would be developed within 5 years and there was an understanding that the 511 Building would develop with this block.

Commissioner Cogen asked the panelists if the current RD URA were to run out of money, what is the price tag on the projects within their four proposed zones. Gardner responded, at least $100 million, and said PDC could provide a better number. Gardner reminded the Group that $30 million of that would go into low-income housing.

Commissioner Saltzman brought up the issue of moving all 61 acres in at once. He stated that they had not come to a conclusion on this issue. Gardner responded by saying that the Group knows there will be a new urban renewal area developed as a result of the Central City Plan update, so there is no need to reserve acreage. Commissioner Sten responded that if all the acreage was used now there is no flexibility to add land in the future, no matter how small or contiguous. Harris stated that if the Group didn’t use all 61 acres now they would be consciously leaving out part of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Rosenbaum commended the panelists on a great presentation, then asked how they would deal with a circumstance where a compelling project came up that was adjacent to the River District, but not in Old Town/Chinatown. Harris responded by saying that all of their recommendations were based in planning efforts made over the years.  They need to focus on prioritizing projects that are on the table now, not on what may come to the table in the future.

Commissioner Hanson asked if you moved all 61 acres now, could you swap land in the future. Alexander said that was not possible.  You can subtract land from a URA but you don’t get credit for it.

Gardner reminded the Group that all their recommendations, because they’re based in planning efforts, are based on increasing density. She asked, out of two areas, the first being two blighted lots with successful development all around them, and the other being ten empty lots with nothing around them, which would get included into the URA? The two lots would be picked up by surrounding development momentum; the ten lots would not, so they would be included in the URA.

Commissioner Saltzman pointed out that out of the projects they listed, he didn’t see much job creation. Gardner stated that the Post Office was an incredible opportunity. Commissioner Rosenbaum agreed.

Commissioner Cogen asked the Group if there comes a time when urban renewal is no longer needed because momentum has taken over. Gardner responded that the River District takes pressure of the Urban Growth Boundary. She mentioned that the only way to challenge architects and developers to build low-income housing and increase density is through the leverage of zoning and urban renewal areas.  They take pressure off the city. Once the River District is completed, there should not be a URA there. However, places that would benefit from a URA could be the Conway properties or Lincoln High School.

Commissioner Cogen then drew the Group’s attention back to a previous comment made by the panelists pertaining to SPB and “leaving money on the table.” He wanted to make sure people realize that this is not free money and that there is a tremendous cost associated with it. When it is in a URA it is not available for other services, specifically social services and public safety programs. Gardner replied that she knew it wasn’t “free money” and apologized for any misunderstanding. She continued, there is concern about the loss of low-income housing in the SPB URA and if there are funds available in this area, they could help solve this problem. If the URA expires, what do you do about housing?

Commissioner Sten suggested the Group move on, as this could easily become a larger conversation. Harris quickly added that they recognized the fact that the URA is another tool to use along with County services.

5) Review and Approval of Panels

Commissioner Sten reminded the Group that they had agreed not to meet in August and that they needed to adopt the schedule for panel discussion for the following meetings. Alexander stated he was open to suggestions for panelists. He proposed to start each panel with an umbrella overview. An example for the Policy Perspective panel would be someone from the Central Portland Plan. PDC wants a broad perspective and is trying to determine who would provide this for each panel topic. They had hoped to provide draft findings early in December, but don’t think there will be enough time. Alexander proposed meeting twice in November or moving the final findings to January. Commissioner Cogen felt that moving to January would be best because there will be a lot to discuss. Commissioner Sten agreed.

Commissioner Rosenbaum asked if there would be a workforce housing discussion. Alexander stated that would be included in the Housing panel. Commissioner Rosenbaum also asked if retail capacity fit in with the Jobs and the Economy Panel and asked if streetcar and light rail discussions would be included in the Infrastructure panel. Alexander responded that streetcar was thought to be included in this panel. He wasn’t positive about light rail, but it could be added if the Group would like it to be.

Commissioner Cogen asked where the role of support services appeared. Alexander responded that was part of community facilities under the Housing panel.

Commissioner Sten reminded the Group that the following meetings would be three hours long. Along operational notes, Alexander asked the Advisory Group if they would be interested in meeting for the remainder of the meetings in the PDC Commission Room, which is more conducive to presentations. The Group agreed it was a better meeting space.

Alexander added a final note to explain the mapping exercise to the Group. Alexander explained that with GIS we could create individual maps for each meeting indicating possible areas to be moved into the RD URA. Alexander used a PowerPoint to visually show the Group that outlines could be used for each recommendation, and a color fill could be used for intersecting areas. This would allow the Group to easily see if an area has been proposed numerous times. The Group agreed that this was a good way to represent the panelists’ proposals. 

6) Public Comments

Commissioner Sten asked if anyone had any comments or questions. One audience member asked if there could be more copies at the next meeting, especially of the panelists’ presentations.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 2:00 P.M.- 5:00 P.M., Commission Room, Portland Development Commission, 222 NW Fifth Avenue.

---

for PDC's News & Information E-Mail Lists
Archive of sent E-Mails
Unsubscribe from our E-Mail Lists