Opportunity Gateway Program Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

April 20, 2005

In attendance:

Staff and Guests in attendance:

Not in attendance:

1. Welcome from the Chair

Duke opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. and welcomed the members. He informed everyone that there might be a re-arrangement of the agenda, if necessary, to ensure that the Public Comment agenda item occurred prior to the meeting’s scheduled end time.

2. PDC Budget Update

Sara referenced the Summary of Preliminary Resources and Expenditures budget handout and stated that this budget version has been approved by PDC’s Executive Director and will be presented to the Commission in May. She noted that changes requested by the PAC in February had been discussed by staff and incorporated into this version of the budget. The revised budget was then reviewed by the Director of the Development Department and the Executive Director. She described next steps in the budget process which include an opportunity for public testimony at the Commission’s May 11, 2005 meeting and adoption of a final FY 05/06 budget in June.

Sara reviewed the revised budget item-by-item and pointed out any significant changes:

She then opened the discussion up for questions from the PAC. Doreen (acting as Chair while Duke left the room for a conference call) asked if there was consensus from the PAC that they would submit both written comments as well as plan to testify at the Commission’s budget hearings. There was general acknowledgement that this would occur.

Arlene questioned whether the $5 million for light rail was commensurate to the benefits that Gateway will receive—one station and a lot of track all of which depends on a Park & Ride. Sara responded that this figure was calculated based on PDC’s overall commitment of $20 million to the light rail expansion project. The total figure was divided evenly between outer east URAs (Lents and Gateway) and downtown URAs. She stated that while this appropriation is for FY 06/07, it would be appropriate for the PAC to bring up their concerns at the May Commission hearing and request a justification for division of costs.

Frieda asked about the alternative means that PDC has considered for dividing the cost. Dann emphasized that the PAC continues to support light rail, but would like more discussion on cost division. He estimated that the light rail outlay represents 92% of Gateway’s FY 06/07 budget which hampers the ability to do anything else in the URA. Frieda wondered whether it could be determined where cost expenditures will actually occur and use this as a basis for budgeting between URAs. Sara encouraged the PAC to present their concerns to the Commission, request additional information regarding the basis for decision, and indicate that they would like the costs to be more proportionately divided. Dann added that he would like to see the results of at least one of the models for apportioning (amount of track, number of stations, economic impact/benefit) and be able to weigh in on which model is applied.

Doreen summarized the PAC’s input on light rail budget allocation as follows:

Sara clarified that the $5 million is an allocation and not just a placeholder. She encouraged the PAC to testify on this item.

Bob cautioned that depending on cost of tracks and station and on economic benefit, various methods should be weighted since Gateway’s resultant cost could be greater than $5 million. Laurel added that there are economic development benefits and impacts on adjacent development that have occurred to-date due to light rail, and that the PAC should take a more comprehensive, holistic view in assessing benefits. Frieda agreed, but added that there have been costs as well. For example, development attracted by light rail is not necessarily attractive to neighborhoods. Alesia concurred and said that the focus should be on how to eliminate or minimize these negative consequences with future light rail expansion.

Dann asked about the timeline for responding to this item given that it is in the FY 06/07 budget. Sara responded that while the item is one year out, an increase or decrease in the allocation impacts spending abilities overall and is, therefore, important to consider now.

Frieda mentioned an infill design presentation sponsored by the Bureau of Planning that she attended and thought that Gateway’s housing projects should coordinate with this project. She asked how in sync PDC’s housing projects are with this effort. Sara stated that she was not fully familiar with the project as she would be attending the presentation in coming weeks. Steve gave a brief synopsis of the project—it is being run by Bill Cunningham at the Planning Bureau and they are attempting to determine neighborhood’s preferred infill designs and encourage quality infill development through example rather than regulation. He said that Planning staff are first going out to talk to neighborhoods and then will present to other agencies to discuss how to carry out the project. Allyson asked whether these were rental or ownership developments. Steve responded that the project is looking at all kinds of multifamily housing.

Frieda inquired whether the $300,000 for Business Finance Tools is enough to cover existing commitments. Ann responded that all current commitments come from this year’s budget and there are no existing commitments for the $300,000.

Herb Yamamoto with the Axis Business Center said that this tool was critical to small businesses in Gateway. In collaboration with PDC, they recently completed renovating a building at 111th and Stark and had held an open house earlier in the day. The new building will house up to 25 professionals and generate $2 million in gross income. He said that as a member of the Southeast Portland Chamber of Commerce, he knows that many small businesses could benefit from these programs. He asked whether the $300,000 could be increased to assist more small businesses.

Sara replied that with the Gateway Transit Center legal commitments and current light rail allocation, this figure probably cannot be increased. She added, however, that the budget is based on forecasting revenue from increases in tax assessments assumed at 4% annually, which is a conservative estimate. Half way through the year, staff will revisit this estimate to see if additional funds are available. If funds are available and if all $300,000 has been used, then more could be allocated. Ann thanked Mr. Yamamoto for attending the PAC meeting. She pointed out that while the original budget had included $100,000 for this item, staff had increased it to $300,000 on the advice of the PAC.

Frieda asked whether, if there was a lot of demand for these funds, additional economic development funds could be borrowed against future revenue. Sara said that this is not possible as dictated by the City. However, she added that there are possible means for increasing the funds—1) if all contingency funds are not required or 2) if the resources are underestimated and additional income is received.

Arlene stated that these types of tools are critical for economic growth since most economic development is not through signature projects introducing 200 new jobs, but through smaller business growth of 10-15 jobs at a time. She expressed concern that the PAC and PDC not lose sight of the $50,000 opportunities in addition to million dollar projects. Alesia added that while signature development is exciting, small businesses are the backbone of the neighborhood and the PAC should support economic growth from a business sense and a community sense. Doreen added that limited economic development funds are another consideration in mitigating the impact of light rail spending.

Alesia mentioned the allocation for parks in FY 09/10. Sara clarified that this item is far out in the budget without clear commitment. Alesia responded that nevertheless there are more immediate open space opportunities, such as potential hardscape sites as part of the 102 nd Boulevard improvements, which could support parks development in an innovative way.

Given the PAC’s general consensus to submit both written and oral testimony on the budget, Sara requested that volunteers contact her if they are interested in testifying on the budget at the May Commission hearing.

3. PAC Member Nominations

Duke reviewed the process and schedule for nominating PAC members. He said that PDC will confirm a new PAC in July 2005. There have been numerous referrals for some new members as well as some renewed members. Sara clarified that some proposed new members are nominees designated by stakeholder agencies. Duke listed the proposed new members as follows:

Other suggestions for new members to pursue included representatives from:

Duke added that the Chair and Vice Chair positions are also up for nomination. There was discussion whether these positions are one- or two-year terms. Sara said she would clarify this matter. To determine nominees for the positions, the PAC needs to form a Nomination Committee. Last year’s committee included Renee, Arlene, and Fred. Arlene described what was involved with serving on the committee: recruiting people, drafting and compiling a list of nominees, and presenting the list to the PAC for review. Renee and Arlene offered to serve on the committee again this year; Bob said he would join as well.

4. PAC Meeting Schedule

Duke said that the Commission Chairs had discussed moving PAC meetings to every other month rather than every month starting next term (July 1). Meetings would occur bimonthly unless there was a significant discussion item in which case the PAC could reschedule monthly meetings.

Frieda responded that it is easier if monthly meeting are prescheduled and then canceled at a later point, if necessary. Alesia added that, with a significant number of new PAC members being brought on board, it might be better to continue with monthly meetings especially at the beginning of the term. Duke, Sara and Jon discussed the staff and advertising requirements that might be involved with having a meeting canceled at relatively short notice. It was determined that the PAC will continue to meet monthly. If a meeting is going to be canceled, it will be announced at the prior month’s PAC meeting. Steve added that the Chair and Vice Chair should recommend to cancel the meeting, if appropriate, so that the decision happens in a more efficient manner.

Doreen inquired whether a routine notice of upcoming and ongoing meetings could be sent alongside any other mailings, as was done in the past, to keep everyone informed. There will be an effort made to include this notice, when possible.

Sara said that PDC will offer an orientation session for new PAC members as well.

5. Public Comment

Duke invited public comments from guests. No comments were given.

6. Update on Federal Funding for Gateway Transportation Improvements

Laurel said that there was both good news and bad news regarding federal funding for Gateway transportation projects. The good news is that Earl Blumenauer has $4.7 million earmarked in the federal transportation bill (TEA-LU or Transportation Equity Act:

A Legacy For Users) for similar projects to the 102 nd Avenue improvements.

The bad news is that the Gateway TOD (Transit Oriented Development) project will not receive $500,000 in MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) funds. These are federal funds that are run through Metro. Laurel said that it was not for lack of trying and was not a reflection on the committee, but rather on how TOD monies work and can be applied. The decision was related, in part, to the existing benefits from light rail that have already been realized in Gateway: TOD requires a project to demonstrate a large increase in ridership which Gateway has already experienced. She added that this does not preclude the PAC from trying again next year and encouraged the PAC to do so. Sara and Laurel said that they will be meeting to discuss how to pursue other MTIP funds in the future, perhaps street improvement monies rather than TOD monies.

Duke described testifying at the MTIP hearings. He said that there were many elected representatives in attendance and many many testimonials. Numerous Gateway representatives turned out to testify, but there were also many projects region-wide under consideration. He emphasized that the PAC’s participation was extremely important and he thanked PAC representatives for attending. He also thanked Laurel for working on behalf of the PAC and said the PAC looks forward to moving ahead with next year’s efforts.

7. Gateway Transit Center Master Plan Update

Sara gave an update on the status of the Gateway Transit Center Master Plan which was recently submitted to the City for review. She said that many of the PAC’s suggestions at the design charrette are evident in the Master Plan. She thanked Ted for testifying at the Design Advice Request hearing with the Planning Commission. On May 4th, the plan will go before a Hearings Officer and on May 5th will go through Design Review. She said that she will solicit PAC testimony (written and through attendance) prior to these dates.

She described Phase I to include:

Phase II includes a one-story or more expansion of the Oregon Clinic. PDC proposed additional floors will likely be housing. More specifically, PDC is looking at senior housing given the proximity to medical services and that senior housing requires less parking. In addition, this phase includes the construction of a turnaround and roundabout to the south of Oregon Clinic to accommodate future development at the south end of the site.

Alesia asked whether Phase II addresses pedestrian access across to Fred Meyer. She emphasized that this is an important accessibility and safety consideration since cars so often cut east-west through the Fred Meyer/Mervyn’s parking lot. Pedestrians are often not visible to auto traffic due to the parked cars on both sides of the street. Sara said that both TriMet and the federal government were adamant about keeping the pedestrian crosswalk at its current location, but that perhaps it could be remarked. Steve added that this should be a design discussion with PDOT to determine alternatives; for example, a raised table crosswalk could be constructed.

Sara said that approval of the Master Plan would be based primarily on Phases I and II since Phase III is very conceptual. However, conceptualizing Phase III has been helpful to understanding issues that may arise in the future. She added that Phase III is anticipated to be at least seven years out. Phase III includes:

Alesia inquired about what Fred Meyer and other tenants across 99th were doing to address new development at the transit center. She said that the Gateway Transit Center development would be improved by partnering with Fred Meyer. Sara said that there had been discussion with PAC Trust (the site’s property owner) in the past. However, there have been two significant issues to partnering. First, by nature, PAC Trust is a conservative development entity. She said she hoped the development at the transit center will encourage them to be more willing to cooperate. Second, they have a complicated development agreement on the site which requires bringing all parties to the table to renegotiate terms. Since many of the tenants are not local this makes any renegotiation difficult.

Frieda said that perhaps the Gateway Transit Center development will put the economics in place for PAC Trust to be more interested in change. Alesia added that when PAC Trust representatives are invited back to the committee, there should be an emphasis on partnership and on coordinating early with transit center development. Steve said that Gateway’s design and development guidelines include recommendations for the PAC Trust property. Including these recommendations in Master Plan drawings could flesh out the relationship between the two properties.

Steve then asked if a façade treatment is being considered for the parking garage since it is the first thing that many people will see coming off of the freeway and from light rail. He said that the garage could act as a “bill board” or marker of Gateway. Sara responded that a 3-level garage is not highly visible, but the plan does include having the visible elevation with a checkerboard of green screens and vines. Steve asked why there was an attempt to hide the garage behind screens rather than identify it. He added that he hopes the lighting will not be like that at the Portland Airport parking garage. Sara discussed the tension between the Design Commission and TriMet on both of these design elements and the need to balance design and operational/maintenance issues. Jerry offered the Station Place garage at the foot of the Lovejoy ramps as a good example of a well designed garage. Sara agreed and added that the cost to construct that garage was beyond the budget available for the transit center garage.

Steve inquired if there was a way for the PAC to provide input to TriMet or the Design Commission on the garage design. Duke asked if there was consensus from the PAC to push TriMet to integrate art on the garage (which they say they cannot do) and be more flexible about design treatments.

Bob asked whether one percent for art was being banked for this development and, if so, must it be used on this site or could it be used elsewhere. Sara said yes, there are art funds included and that she thought these could be used anywhere in the Gateway URA. Alesia suggested the funds could be spent to create a landmark elsewhere on the site at ground level.

Sara described Phase IV of the plan to include future additional light rail tracks to Vancouver. With additional tracks, TriMet would eliminate the bus turnaround and relocate the transit center to the west of the garage.

Duke adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

###

The next meeting of the Opportunity Gateway Program Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, May 18, at 6:30p.m. at the East Portland Community Center located at 740 SE 106th Avenue.


Sign-up title graphic  for PDC's News & Information E-mail Lists Go back to top of page
View the e-mail archive | Unsubscribe from our e-mail Lists
 
Find us on:  
FacebookYouTubeTwitter  


Portland Development Commission | 222 NW Fifth Ave | Portland, OR 97209-3859
Phone: 503-823-3200 | Fax: 503-823-3368
Banner picture of Portland Skyline
Background for Banner