North Macadam
North Macadam District
North Macadam District
Urban Renewal Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2003
8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Portland Development Commission
Members Present: Rick Saito (Chair), Barbara Walker, Glenn Taylor, Homer Williams, Steven Shain, Mark Edlen, Will White, Lois Davis, Jerry Ward, Abe Farkas (staff), Cheryl Twete (staff)
1. Welcome & Opening Comments
Mr. Saito opened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. He welcomed the Committee members to the meeting. He noted that the Committee was short of a quorum, but said that it would not be a problem as the meeting was intended for informational purposes only. He asked that the Committee members introduce themselves.
2. Review & Approval of March 20, 2003 Meeting Minutes
Mr. Saito asked for any comments on the minutes from the previous meeting. There were no comments and the minutes were approved as submitted.
3. Transportation Updates
Streetcar Phase III Update – PSU to RiverPlace
Rachel Blakeman (PDC, Development Department) discussed the Portland State University to RiverPlace Streetcar project. The proposed Streetcar route extends from Portland State University to RiverPlace via Harrison Street and S.W. River Parkway. Design is approximately 90% complete with construction expected to begin in August 2003.
The Streetcar project is being approved as a Federal project to qualify as the city‘s match for future federally-funded infrastructure projects. One of the key requirements in this process is an environmental assessment, which this particular project does not require because it is entirely within the public right-of-way. All information required has been provided to the Federal government, and a Letter of No Prejudice is expected within the next two weeks.
The total Streetcar project budget is $15.1M. Project funding is provided by the city – PDOT and PDC – and LID funds. For the PDC funding, two PDC owned properties are being used as collateral for a loan. PDOT is working with ODOT to divide ownership on a jointly owned property. PDOT will then sell their portion of the property to help fund the Streetcar project.
A meeting participant asked for a map of the alignment and Ms. Blakeman responded that she would make such a map available. The participants also asked how long the construction would take and Ms. Blakeman responded that construction is expected to take one year.
4. South Waterfront Greenway Implementation Strategy
Kia Selley (PDC, Development Department) provided an update (and handout) on the Greenway Implementation Strategy. The Strategy will facilitate construction and operation and maintenance of the Greenway. In particular, the project will examine four key elements including Greenway ownership, funding of capital improvements, phasing of improvements and operations and maintenance.
Key objectives of the Implementation Strategy include:
- Research, analyze and develop Greenway ownership options to jump-start and encourage Greenway development and potentially increase the width of the Greenway setback while being responsive to private and public interests;
- Develop a Greenway Capital Improvements Plan and determine public-private roles and responsibilities;
- Prepare a Phasing Plan based on availability of funding (City, Regional, State and Federal), emerging public-private partnerships and readiness of private property owners to proceed with redevelopment; and,
- Research, analyze and develop public-private partnership models and agreements for near and long-term Greenway operations and maintenance.
The Implementation Strategy will involve a broad range of stakeholders both through the Greenway Development Plan public open house events and through the Partnership Group – an advisory group intended to make recommendations to the Commission. The Partnership Group will include broad-based representation with private property owner, community and non-profit representation as well as Local, Regional, State and potentially Federal partner participation.
Six major tasks will be accomplished as part of the Strategy (described below). Tasks are not presented in chronological order and some tasks may be concurrent. Tasks 3 and 4 will be completed by a selected consultant.
- Draft “Principles” of Participation
Develop principles that can act as “ground rules” for participation to develop a common set of project expectations for City bureau staff, private property owners, and community stakeholders.
Schedule: July 2003 through September 2003 - Develop Greenway Ownership Options
Develop options for public ownership of the Greenway to either expand the width of Greenway – where feasible – and/or implement early or phased Greenway improvements.
Schedule: October 2003 through November 2003 - Prepare Integrated Greenway Capital Improvements Funding Plan & Phasing Plan(s)*
Prepare a capital improvements funding plan that utilizes public and private resources for near and long term Greenway improvements per proposed phasing plan(s). Included in this task is development of a Strategy for pursuing alternative resources of funding for Greenway implementation.
Schedule: November 2003 through February 2004 - Research & Develop Greenway Near-Term & Long-Term Operations and maintenance Models*
Research successful national models for parks/open spaces operations and maintenance that capitalizes on public-private partnerships.
Schedule: November 2003 through February 2004 - Obtain Implementation Strategy Consensus & Approval
Obtain Development Commission approval of plan for implementation by PDC staff as well as City Council approval of plan for support and implementation by City bureaus.
Schedule: April 2004 through May 2004 - Develop Public Involvement Strategy & Implement
Develop a public involvement strategy to ensure integration of community stakeholder interests including private property owner interests as well as City bureau and Regional agency interests, throughout the course of the project.
Schedule: July 2003 through May 2004
5. Presentation on NMI/RCI/OHSU Proposed Development
Mr. Homer Williams (Williams & Dame Development) presented on the NMI/RCI/OHSU proposed development by starting with some of the challenges facing Portland – slow economy, lack of jobs and school funding issues. North Macadam is an opportunity for the City and the time is right for development in the District. Further, expansion of Oregon’s largest employer, Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU), is limited on Marquam Hill and North Macadam presents a key opportunity for campus expansion.
The Pearl District and North Macadam are bookends to the City. The Pearl District builds out the last 100 years of the City and North Macadam will build out the next 100 years as a true live/work environment. There will be more steel and glass in the architecture of the North Macadam District. The Mission Bay, California, project took eight years to accomplish what North Macadam has already accomplished. Rent is at $275/sq. /ft. in Mission Bay and the closest hospital is an hour away. Housing in North Macadam is estimated to cost $300/sq. ft. with a hospital only a few minutes away.
Schools, residences (3,000 proposed), daycare, restaurants and shops have been planned to diversify the North Macadam neighborhood. Research will bring teams of people with expertise and funding, and the type of neighborhood that is being envisioned in North Macadam is supportive of this kind of working style. North Macadam offers an excellent opportunity to bring Oregon State, Portland State, Oregon Graduate Institute and OHSU together in one place – a collaborative environment in which people can work, live and recreate in one place. OHSU can produce thousands of research jobs if they have the facilities. With $1.5B in proposed new development, there will be new jobs brought in through construction, jobs associated with OHSU, and jobs associated with OHSU spin-offs.
Ms. Bookin asked if parking in the neighborhood will be intended to support the neighborhood or the OHSU Marquam Hill campus. Mr. Williams said that at different times in the District there may be parking to support OHSU Marquam Hill facilities but that the parking would ultimately be intended to serve the neighborhood. Mr. Farkas added that the parking is intended to be within or underneath (underground) the podiums of office and housing buildings. Mr. Williams said that parking for the buildings would be, for the most part, self-contained and that some parking is being discussed under the proposed neighborhood park.
Mr. White inquired as to how the economy would affect the project. Mr. Williams responded that the housing market is very favorable in the Pearl District and that the build-out of the proposed 3,000 housing units would likely take 12 years.
6. Discussion of Draft North Macadam Urban Renewal Area Funding Strategy
Ms. Twete began by saying that the Funding Strategy is the short and long-term plan to implement the District goals, but that it is not a budget for the District. In 1999, a long-term funding plan was prepared in conjunction with the Framework Plan. A number of things have changed in the planning of the District since 1999, including the adoption of the South Waterfront Plan. The Funding Strategy has been updated to reflect the new District vision and updated cost and revenue information. The handout (provided at the meeting) presents a draft Funding Strategy. Comments are requested from the URAC on the proposed Funding Strategy and the priorities that are inherent in the Strategy. Ms. Twete introduced Jane Blackstone, a new Development Department staff member in the North Macadam Urban Renewal Area.
Ms. Blackstone started with an overview of the Funding Strategy including some of the Strategy assumptions. The South Waterfront Plan is a guiding document that was approved without a companion Funding Strategy. This new Plan, updated tax increment projections, and more current cost and revenue information have been used to develop the Strategy.
The purpose of the following presentation is to get feedback from the URAC on the draft Funding Strategy. The draft Strategy will be presented to the Development Commission in June (2003) and adopted later this summer; the Strategy will be revised over the life of the District as necessary.
(Ms. Blackstone walked through a PowerPoint presentation on the Funding Strategy 2003 Update and provided handouts. Refer to the handouts for detailed information.)
Strategy Assumptions:
|
Phase I Project Activities:
|
Phase I Project Activities:
|
Phase I Project Activities (Overall):
|
Phases II – III:
|
Funding Sources:
|
Mr. White asked how SDCs would be used as a source of funding. Ms. Blackstone replied that SDCs could be applied to projects, for example, Parks SDCs could be applied to land acquisition for parks/open space in the District. Ms. Twete added that the idea in the District is to use SDCs generated in the District for District projects as well as use some City-wide generated SDCs for District projects.
Leveraging:
- Total value of development estimated at $1.6B over 20-years
- 1:6 Ratio of Public Project Investment to Private Development Value (conservative estimate)
Current TIF estimates are lower now than in the 1999 Framework Plan, but the amount of public funding available, including Federal and city funds, has increased.
Mr. White asked if the increase in housing funds assumes more City funds or Federal funds. Ms. Blackstone replied that the increase in housing funds includes more Federal funds.
Ms. Blackstone discussed the amount of TIF that is being used for different types of projects in the District. There are $272.9M in projects – the majority of expenditures is focused on infrastructure and transportation and parking.
Ms. Blackstone asked the Committee to review the draft Funding Strategy and comment on the proposed projects as well as the project allocations (handout provided). She also provided a handout of the PDC Proposed District Budget for FY03/04.
A question was asked about the economic assumptions of the Funding Strategy. Ms. Blackstone responded that the TIF projections are conservative. It is not assumed that there would be an economic issue that would prevent build-out of the District from occurring; however, the difficult economy could slow down District build-out. Ms. Twete added that since the funding strategy assumes a 17-year horizon, the assumptions for the later years in the Strategy are very conservative. Ms. Twete also said that the requirements for bonding and indebtedness are more stringent now, which is another reason why TIF estimates are lower now than projected in 1999.
Ms. Walker urged PDC staff to think of parks as infrastructure not just as an amenity.
Mr. Ward asked for an explanation of what the street and utility costs include. Ms. Blackstone responded that the Strategy does not represent broader transportation planning in the City but is limited to the urban renewal area. Street projects include Macadam Avenue improvements – access and otherwise, and Bancroft and Curry intersection improvements. Mr. Ward said that he urged the City to fund additional neighborhood transportation projects because of the transportation problems that the District redevelopment will cause for Corbett Terwilliger Lair Hill neighborhoods.
Mr. Shain pointed out that although the Strategy is intended to be District-wide, Phase I focuses on Gibbs Street to Lane Street in terms of infrastructure improvements. He also asked for committed funding to be differentiated from anticipated funding. Ms. Blackstone responded that there is a Phase I allocation for Moody Avenue from Sheridan Street to Gibbs Street with the Streetcar development and for Bond Avenue to Bancroft, along with parks and transit improvements that benefit the District. In Phase II, build-out of additional streets outside the Central District is anticipated. In total, there is infrastructure development planned outside of the Central District, both to the north and to the south. Phase I improvements do include projects that benefit areas outside of the Central District including Greenway planning work and North/ South street improvements.
Ms. Walker asked how early development will be possible and potentially feasible outside of the Central District. Ms. Blackstone replied that projects outside of the Central District could be possible within the next 5 years, and likely in Phases II and III.
Mr. Ward asked where the Macadam Avenue funding would come from. Ms. Blackstone said that this money has been requested from the State since Macadam Avenue is a state highway. Ms. Twete added that the most dramatic change in the new Funding Strategy is the appearance of more significant Federal and State funding.
Mr. Shain asked if it would be possible to understand potential and committed funding for the District so that property owners know how to help the City with this effort. Ms. Blackstone replied that this information could be made available by the next URAC meeting. Ms. Twete said that approximately $15M in other funding sources is solid (can be counted on) and is within the City’s control. With regard to Federal funding, however, it could be as long as 9 months before this funding is confirmed. Mr. Shain noted that there appears to be more certainty of funding in the early years as opposed to future years. Ms. Blackstone agreed noting that in Phase II the major assumption is that Federalization of the Streetcar will be successful. Also, for the Greenway there are several potential grants, as well as other funding sources available, that will be examined through the Greenway Implementation Strategy process.
Mr. White asked for the percentage of other funding sources in Phase I that are committed. Ms. Twete responded that staff will come back to the URAC with more information on the certainty of the funding sources.
Ms. Walker asked about the neighborhood pedestrian/bicycle access improvements. She said that the $2M noted for these improvements was understood in the TRAM competition process to be too low. She asked that PDC make sure that this funding is enough to provide the neighborhood with meaningful pedestrian/bicycle improvements.
Mr. Shain made the point that the Strategy is dynamic and will be updated frequently. Ms. Blackstone concurred. Ms. Twete pointed out that the Strategy is a guiding document for the District and that it will be updated annually, at least.
Mr. Ward asked for a description of the Jobs/Economic Accelerator Fund as well as some detail as to where these funds originate. Ms. Twete replied that one of the major District goals is job creation. One of the ways to do this early on is to help emerging businesses, which could include underwriting rents for bioscience firms because of the high costs of their space. Ms. Twete said there is potentially some State and Federal funding that will help with this commitment; however, commitment of these funds is uncertain at this point. Mr. Ward questioned the use of funds for what he believes to be an undefined process. He questioned whether this investment would be fair to businesses in other locations such as Hillsboro or Lake Oswego. Ms. Davis commented that in other parts of the country, a significant public investment has been required to jump-start bioscience industries and that in comparison the proposed funding is a modest investment.
Mr. Saito commented that several Funding Strategy line items have regional benefits and are based on regional funding, not necessarily District TIF. Mr. Ward replied that there is still an issue of fairness for property owners in other locations that do not have funding available to them or to the potential businesses that could want to locate there. Ms. Twete responded by stating that the real goal is to create synergy between OHSU, PSU and OSU and to grow a bioscience industry that will provide more long-term stability for Portland’s economy. Mr. White pointed out that Mr. Ward is addressing an on-going national debate over the ways that jurisdictions are bidding against each other to entice private businesses into communities.
Ms. Walker congratulated Ms. Twete and Ms. Blackstone for incorporating all of the goals of the new District vision into the Funding Strategy.
Ms. Blackstone offered her assistance in fielding any questions about the Funding Strategy. She can be reached at (503) 823-0137.
7. Housing Strategy Update
Jane Ediger (PDC staff, Housing Department) presented the Housing Strategy for the District that is intended to achieve the affordable housing goals. Copies of the Strategy will be made available to the public prior to its presentation to the Development Commission in June 2003. Based on the estimate of 3,000 housing units planned for the District, a minimum of 788 affordable housing units are required in the District.
Two ways to achieve affordable housing is through development of PDC owned land or through allocation of affordable housing tax credits. PDC does not own any land at this time in the District.
The Strategy recommendations are intended to establish targets to achieve various levels of affordability.
Mr. White asked how much of the residential emphasis area is included in the Central District. Ms. Twete responded that most of the residential emphasis area is included in the Central District.
Ms. Ediger said that land acquisition is a targeted way of implementing affordable housing goals by ensuring reasonable costs for future development. She added that the Strategy is also supportive of job creation as a Smart Growth principle.
Mr. Saito asked if the new Strategy would relate to what was done in the Framework Plan process. Ms. Ediger said that the new Strategy does relate but is updated given new redevelopment assumptions.
Ms. Walker asked for the new Strategy to be emailed in advance of the meeting.
8. Other Discussion/Public Comments
(None)
9. Closing Remarks
Mr. Saito adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Next meeting:
Thursday, June 19, 2003
8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Portland Development Commissio
 for PDC's News & Information E-Mail Lists |
 |
| Archive of sent E-Mails | |
| Unsubscribe from our E-Mail Lists |
Portland Development Commission | 222 NW Fifth Ave | Portland, OR 97209-3859
Phone: 503-823-3200 | Fax: 503-823-3368
Survey
Page