February 15, 2005

Setting The Stage For Round Two Of Burnside Bridgehead Process

Items From Last Wednesday's PDC Meeting

Last Wednesday's regular meeting of the Portland Development Commission diverged slightly from its agenda, and from normal procedure, as the Commission permitted a citizens group to offer its testimony regarding the Burnside Bridgehead at the top of the meeting, rather than waiting for a scheduled time for public comment on the development.

(But first, we've been asked to pass along a request, and we need to do so up front, where people will see it. Documentary filmmaker Brad Yazzolino said that he had heard there might have been someone filming the Saturday public workshop on the Burnside Bridgehead project which was held a few weeks ago. While we don't recall noticing any camera, it's certainly possible. If indeed it was being filmed, we ask that any of our readers who know anything about it, or can put Yazzolino in touch with whoever filmed the session, please email him and help him out.)

Representatives of the Alliance for Responsible Inner Eastside Development ("a neighborhood and small business coalition that advocates responsible and sustainable development at the Burnside Bridgehead") presented to the Commission information from a set of recommendations and concerns also made available in printed form before the meeting.

Emily Simon, co-chair of the Kerns Neighborhood Association's land use committee, thanked the Commissioner "for being willing to flip the agenda on its head" and asked the Commission to take the coalition's testimony into consideration "as we have taken to heart your efforts to be more open in this process".

She stressed that the neighborhoods and businesses represented by the coalition were not opposed to development at the Burnside Bridgehead. But, she said, there was a "general distress and dismay" at the possibility of big box retail "sneaking back into the process" after a developer is selected.

The coalition, Simon said, also had two great fears: That if the development were to include a big box retailer, it might go "belly up" and leave the district to contend with the ramifications, and that any project that was half-funded through public dollars might end up half developed.

After warning the Commission that the project might be "coming to a loggerheads" with the committee responsible for the Burnside/Couch couplet plan if the development calls for changes to that plan, Sion focused on the coalition's recommendations on "process transparency". Contained within the coalition's printed testimony is a set of seven such recommendations.

• Expand the Evaluation Committee.
• The Evaluation Committee's report should be available to the public with ample time to absorb it and provide meaningful feedback.
• PDC staff's role in the Evaluation Committee should be refined and reformulated.
• PDC staff should write a separate report with their recommendations regarding selection of the developer and their reasons why.
• The developers, Commissioners, and all members of the Evaluation Committee should make a greater effort to attend the workshops and public testimony meetings.
• Direct presentations by developers.
• Once a developer is selected, interested individuals and groups should be directly involved in planning until completion of the project.

At this point we should note that originally we had planned a much more extensive item than this is going to turn out to be. We delayed it a little too long, and now we need to just get the gist of things posted. So now that you know the basics of what AFRIEND presented to the Commission, let's get down to the basics of what Lew Bowers presented to the Commission later in the meeting, during the regularly-scheduled agenda item regarding an update on the Burnside Bridgehead.

Bowers gave a presentation (swf) which gave an update on the process and an overview of public participation. Available at the meeting was a "hopes and concerns" compilation (pdf) from the Saturday workshop which was held a few weeks ago.

Also available at the meeting (although we don't see it on the Burnside Bridgehead project website at the moment) was a summary of the public comments received by PDC prior to February 9. Since that doesn't appear to be readily accessible, we will take a few moments here to offer up what it says. What followed, then, is taken verbtaim from that handout.

Input Received Prior To February 9, 2005

Total Public Inputs: Approximately 1,033.

• Total Emails & Letters Received: 693
  • Emails Received: 326
  • Form Emails Received: 347
  • Letters Received: 17
  • Neighborhood Associations & CEIC Letters/Resolutions: 3
• Comments Gathered from Public Sessions: Approximately 340 Total Attendees
  • December 9: Questions & Comments
  • December 13: Questions, Comments, Flipshart Stations
  • January 22: Hopes & Concerns

Total Comments Tallied: 3,202

Compilation of Themes from Public Comment

Very Frequent > 500

• Opposition to large format retailers, Home Depot, Lowe's
• Support for local business and economy
• Support for Beam development proposal
• Concerns regarding traffic impacts and importance of alternative modes of transportation

Frequent > 100

• Need to maintain character of Central Eastside -- gritty, funky, not the Pearl
• Desire for gateway development with high design quality

Less Frequent 10-50

• Support for affordable housing
• Need for job creation, including live/work and business/artist incubator space
• Don't trust PDC -- want more public involvement
• Project should be environmentally sustainable, LEED certified
• Project is too large
• Project needs to be compatible with adjacent uses, including skate park
• Site needs to be redeveloped

Least Frequent < 10

• Support for large format retailer, Home Depot, Lowe's
• Concern regarding public subsidy for project
• PDC shouldn't do anything on site
• Should do something different -- don't like any of the proposals
• Opposition/criticism of specific proposals -- Beam, Gerding/Edlen, Opus
• Concern regarding economic feasibility of prject
• Concern that implemented project will very greatly from proposal
• Support for Opus development proposal
• Make decision soon -- stop postponing
• Support for Gerding/Edlen development proposal

Interested parties should be able to check the Burnsidge Bridgehead project page from PDC for details and information on the public process from here on out. Bowers did indicate that this Friday's deadline for developers' revised proposals is firm. "At that point we will close the door," he said.

One last thing that should be mentioned. During public testimony, Opus trotted out three representatives of organizations or entities which deal with affordable housing and related concerns to speak on behalf of the Opus proposal -- representing Homestead Capital, Rehabilitation Center of Oregon (although "Portland Rehabilitation Center" was said instead), and Catholic Charities.

So it would seem that while Opus has made some noise about extensive public involvement at this stage of the game being the incorrect way to go about things, they have responded to some of what Beam did from the beginning, by going out and finding some specific potential partners and/or tenants.

But it should be noted that Deborah Saweuyer-Parks, President and Chief Executive Officer of Homestead, said this during her testimony: "While the big box concept may not be embraced by many, we still think that there's room for consideration with respect to the big box."

Take the fact that Saweuyer-Parks said she was there "on behalf of Opus" and combine it with Opus' continual public reluctance to rule out big box retail, and we think it's reasonably safe to ask that the media covering this development stop saying that both Gerding/Edlen and Opus have backed away from the big box approach.

Posted at 04:23 PM | PermalinkComments (8) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Design & Development, Livability

« Previous Next »