 |
 |
|
|
The Future of the Texaco Parking Lot |
|
|
The Future of the Texaco Parking Lot
Questions and Answers regarding the Milwaukie-Metro Downtown Development
project.
Compiled and written by City Manager Mike Swanson
Main Street Village Phase 2
Milwaukie-Metro IGA
-
Does the IGA stipulate the City must support a building height of more than five stories?
-
Was this IGA considered and approved in a non-public process?
Q. Will the City close the Farmers' Market?
A. Not a chance. The City has not made nor will it be making plans to close the
Market. Past and present Mayors, Councilors, and staff believe that the Market
is a proven, invaluable, and vibrant contributor to Milwaukie's past, present,
and future. As the Market has grown it has significantly contributed to the
growth of community in the City. The only change that has been discussed is
location of the Market. Any decision to relocate it will include opportunities
for input from Market stakeholders, including vendors and customers. Moreover,
it will be made with the goal of ensuring the Market's future success. In fact,
a committee is already organizing to look into alternative locations, and
current vendors will have a strong voice on that committee.
Q. Does the Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the City
and Metro require the City provide indemnification with regard to contamination
of the Texaco site?
A. This comment suggests that potential liability was accepted without
consideration of the risks. The site was a filling station for years. Old tanks
were removed and new ones recently installed. A major issue considered by Metro
when deciding whether to commit $750,000 for the purchase of the Texaco site was
the possibility of contamination that would limit use of the site. Metro spent
$39,750 for environmental consultants to analyze contamination issues, including
migration of any contamination. It also spent $9,545 to demolish the existing
building and $19,050 to decommission and remove the underground tanks. At each
step of that process Metro coordinated with and informed the City of the
findings. In recent discussions with Metro representatives, they informed the
City that they would remove contaminated soil before the property is
redeveloped. It appears that most, if not all, of the contamination occurred at
the pumps, probably from gasoline spilling from nozzles as they were inserted
into cars or into the pumps. DEQ was consulted, and they determined that the
level of contamination would not prohibit a mixed-use commercial-residential
development. Paragraph (1)(L) of DEQ's Prospective Purchaser Agreement states
that "DEQ has further determined that the proposed development activities
at the Property will not contribute to or exacerbate existing contamination,
increase health risks, or interfere with remedial measures necessary at the
property." Paragraph (2)(C) of DEQ's Prospective Purchase Agreement
outlines possible remedial action, including the requirement of a separate HVAC
system for the residential units. Metro policy is not to accept liability
resulting from environmental contamination. Rather, they will purchase property
only when another party assumes that responsibility. In the purchase before us
Metro was spending $750,000 for the Texaco site, and the City was not required
to contribute anything toward the purchase price. We undertook an analysis of
the risk involved. Gary Firestone, City Attorney, who has worked on similar
transactions, participated. It was determined that the risk of future action was
low, taking into account (1)that the risk of contamination appears to be limited
to on-site and City-owned property; and (2)the Prospective Purchase Agreement.
If remediation was in fact required it would be in the form of soil removal, and
that cost was estimated at approximately $40,000. When compared to Metro's
investment of $750,000, this was deemed an acceptable proposition.
Q. Does the IGA stipulate the City must support a building
height of more than five stories?
A. Paragraph 3.6 of the IGA states that the "City will exert its best
efforts to amend its zoning and development ordinance and regulations to permit
a project to be developed on Block 14 consisting of residential over ground
floor retail, a minimum of 5 stories . . .." (Emphasis mine.) The IGA does
not require a 5-story building. Rather, it requires that the City "exert
its best efforts" to modify its Code. The IGA does not (nor could it)
require a unilateral Code change. Rather, any proposed change in height
requirements must be considered pursuant to the amendment process, which
includes notice, public hearings, and public input. This will be one of the most
prominent issues the citizen committee will consider.
Q. Was this IGA considered and approved in a non-public
process?
A. The IGA was discussed at two regular meetings of the City Council-August 16,
2005 and September 20, 2005. Both meetings were regular public meetings of the
City Council, and consideration and possible action on the IGA was included on
both of the published agendas, which are made available ahead of time on the
City's website. At the August 16, 2005 Council meeting the City Manager
presented the draft IGA for Council consideration, but he recommended adoption
only after two matters were further discussed with Metro. Given deadlines that
were approaching, it appeared that it would be necessary to execute the IGA
before the next scheduled Council meeting. Therefore, the Council delegated
authority to the City Manager to "negotiate and execute" the IGA. The
outstanding issues were resolved, and a new draft was prepared. Even though the
August 15, 2006 action permitted execution of the IGA without further Council
consideration, because the timing issues that had given rise to the delegation
of authority to the City Manager were no longer an issue, the new draft was
submitted to the Council for consideration, discussion, and action at its
September 20, 2006 regular business meeting. Technically, the IGA could have
been executed at the staff level. However, owing to the importance of the
agreement as well as the public interest in the transaction, it was brought
before the Council for final action in a public forum.
Q. Why does the IGA permit the City and Metro to select a
developer without public notice and without a public process?
A. Paragraph 3.2 of the IGA provides that a "Joint Offering may be made
either through an open competitive process or an unsolicited proposal process,
upon mutual written agreement of the Parties." During the past year the
City was presented with an unsolicited proposal that it rejected because of its
commitment to an open, competitive process. A competitive, open RFP has always
been the City of Milwaukie's preferred process, and it will be used for this
project.
Q. Is the City's primary motivation for this project to
increase tax revenues?
A. The motivation for any project of this magnitude is more complex than simply
increased tax revenue. Revenue growth without new revenues from additional
development will not allow the City to keep up with increasing costs, and
General Fund departments like the Library and Police Department are placed in
jeopardy. New development and the additional taxes they provide enable us to
continue to operate those functions at the level demanded by the community.
(Moreover, the new resources provide services throughout the community. For
example, the Police Department does not limit its patrol function to only the
area that generated the new revenue. The City 's easternmost NDA-Linwood-benefits
as much from Downtown development as Historic Milwaukie.) However, there are
additional reasons for a project on this site. For example, if the Downtown is
to recapture its vitality and potential it needs people willing to support
Downtown businesses. The addition of new housing adds people who can easily
access those businesses. They also contribute to the creation of a vibrant
space. Much has been said about retaining Milwaukie's small town character, and
new development and the new residents are seen as threatening it. People define
the character of a place. For example, the Lower East Side of New York remained
a "small" community for decades amidst the towering buildings and
traffic of New York City. It lost that character when the old population moved
to the suburbs and others moved in. Individuals create a community by engaging
in the hard work of relating to others as valued community members with whom
they share common goals and interests. Attributing alienation to new buildings
and traffic plans misses the fact that community flows from human
interaction.
Q. The City began with ownership of half of the block (the
parking lot), but now it has ownership of only five percent because of the IGA?
A. This is not accurate. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. The City now
owns 52.5% of the block. Before Metro purchased the Texaco site the City owned
the parking lot-one half of the block. The Texaco transaction did not affect the
City's ownership of the lot. The IGA grants the City a 5% interest in the Texaco
site. Paragraph 2.2 states: "At closing, the City shall take an undivided
5% interest in title to the Property, and Metro shall take an undivided 95%
interest in title to the Property as tenants-in-common." Paragraph C of the
IGA defines "Property" as the "Texaco filling station site
located at 10700 SE McLoughlin Boulevard." The IGA resulted in a net gain
of the City's ownership in the block.
Q. This is the only successful space for the Farmer's Market,
and a decision to move it places the Market in a compromised position that will
not be supported by the people. Why wasn't the Market consulted before anything
happened?
A. There is no proof to a claim that this is the "only successful space for
the Farmer's Market." (I suspect that similar arguments were made when the
Portland Farmer's Market moved from the Albers Mills site to the PSU Parks
Blocks.) Using the Metro purchase of the Texaco site as a rough guide, the block
is valued at between $1,250,000 and $1,500,00, an expensive investment for a use
that occupies twenty-five days a year. The Market is an important piece of life
in Milwaukie. It is an important part of the definition of the City. But the
success of the past few years can be repeated at other sites like the Riverfront
or Main Street.
Q. What was the process of developing the downtown plan, and
how much public process was involved? Why is it not strictly followed? Why not
change the plans for this site?
A. The Plan, at page 5, states: "[t]his Land Use Framework represents the
leadership of a skilled volunteer Riverfront Board and the input of the more
than 2000 community members who have attended meetings, returned surveys,
provided focus and ideas, and directed the plan." At page 1 the Plan
states: "This document serves as an ancillary document to the Milwaukie
Comprehensive Plan. On its own, this Framework is not a regulatory document. Any
part of the Framework that is intended to have a binding effect will have to be
adopted as part of, or pursuant to, a code to have regulatory effect. . . . This
Framework establishes and guides the development of publicly and privately owned
parcels of land, and outlines specific land uses." At page 7 of the Plan
two major guiding principles are stated: (1)"Creating a livable
community;" and (2)"Ensuring economic success." "Priority
Projects" are listed at page 22 and include a "Bus Transit
Center" on the old Safeway site. When a transit center was further
considered the site was found to be too small, as projections showed buses
staging on Main and Harrison. The Plan's designation of a transit center at the
old Safeway site was abandoned, and alternative uses that would meet the twin
goals identified above were sought.
Q. The North Main project was changed after approval. How can
anyone be assured that this project will not also be changed once
approved?
A. Elements of the North Main project were changed to meet challenges posed by
increasing costs stemming from both Hurricane Katrina and the demand for
building materials from China. No one anticipated the impacts on construction
costs arising from these two events. Any changes that were made were done so in
order to bring the costs in line with available funds, but changes were not made
to items required by the Code. Many changes were made to tenant finish items
that do not affect external appearance. The major change in North Main was
elimination of the basement. The basement was to be used for tenant and owner
storage, and its elimination represented a loss of a major marketing tool. At no
point was the basement area designated for parking. Other design changes were
focused on the area facing the courtyard (e.g. window "eyebrows") so
as not to impact the external appearance of the buildings.
Q. Are efforts being made to protect the site's trees?
A. It remains to be seen how designs submitted through an RFP process will
propose to affect the existing trees. If it is necessary to eliminate some or
all of trees, the developer could be required to plant trees elsewhere in the
City as mitigation.
Q. Why has the 2000 traffic study not been finished, and how
will parking problems from, for example, North Main be addressed?
A. The City required the developers of North Main Village to submit a traffic
study as part of the land use application. This was completed in 2004 and
demonstrated that the project would not create more than 25 trips per day on
surrounding residential streets. Neither the City nor ODOT required mitigation
of traffic impacts as a result of that study. The City is fully aware, however,
of the concerns expressed by the Historic Milwaukie NDA and others about
increased traffic in Milwaukie generally and specifically on residential
streets. The City secured a $138,000 grant in 2006 to update its Transportation
System Plan. The work will begin this fall and will allow us to study the
situation carefully and make any necessary or desired policy changes, based on
what we learn. A Downtown Parking and Traffic Management Plan was completed in
2003. Staff has been and will continue to implement the suggestions from this
Plan, both through traffic calming measures and the management of downtown
parking. Because the North Main project is building angled parking where
parallel parking existed before, it will add 16 short-term Main Street parking
spaces. On-street parking time limits will be enforced, so the parking spaces
will be available to patrons of downtown offices and businesses. The City is
selling permits to employees of downtown businesses for the temporary parking
lot on the Texaco site. We can conclude that for now based on the fact that
eighty percent of the available spaces have been sold, that there is more supply
than demand for permitted parking spaces downtown. Over time the City will stop
selling parking permits to people park-and-riding from downtown Milwaukie to
Portland. On-street parking in the downtown will be prioritized for shoppers and
visitors. Downtown employees and residents will park in designated lots or in
areas where the on-street parking is less used. Though parking areas between
Scott Street and Monroe Street are well-used, only approximately fifty percent
of all downtown spaces are currently used on a regular basis. Parking demands
from new development projects will be managed using all of these principles, and
location-specific issues will be tackled if and when they arise.
A Copy of the Metro-Milwaukie IGA for the Texaco Site
|