city of portland bureau of planning and sustainability...

CITY OF PORTLAND

BUREAU OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

PORTLAND

INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENT

PILOT STUDY

March 23, 2011

FCS GROUP 4380 SW Macadam Ave. Suite 220

Portland, OR 97239

T: 503.841.6543 | F: 503.841.6573

This report was funded in part by a Periodic Review

Grant provided by the Oregon Department of Land

Conservation and Development.

City of Portland Bureau of

Planning and SustainabilitySam Adams, Mayor | Susan Anderson, Director

www.fcsgroup.com FCS GROUP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was funded in part from a Periodic Review Grant provided by the Oregon Department of Land

Conservation and Development, with in-kind support from the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and

Sustainability. We sincerely appreciate all the input that has been provided by City staff, Portland

Development Commission staff, and local community ―stakeholders‖ and real estate brokers that

participated in this study.

Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS)

Mayor Sam Adams, Commissioner-in-charge

Susan Anderson, Director

Joe Zehnder, Chief Planner

Steve Dotterrer, Principal Planner

Eric Engstrom, Principal Planner

Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Manager and Staff

Michelle Kunec, Study Manager/Management Analyst, BPS

Gary Odenthal, Technical Services Manager, BPS

FCS GROUP Consultant Staff

Todd Chase, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Project Manager/Economist

Angie Sanchez Virnoche, Principal

Tim Wood, Technical Support

Amy Florence, Technical Support

Bob Yakas, AIA, Technical Support

Additional project consultant team members included:

Cogan Owens Cogan (community outreach and graphic support)

Harper Houf Peterson Righellis (civil engineering and cost estimating)

Real Urban Geographics (local ESB firm specializing in GIS analysis)

Report produced by FCS GROUP; March 2011

This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials,

including the bronze wire binding and the front and

back cover, which are made from post-consumer

recycled plastic bottles.

page i


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I: SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

B. Case Study Typology Areas ................................................................................................................ 1

C. Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 2

D. Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 4

SECTION II: STUDY METHOD AND APPROACH ........................................................................... 8

A. Work Completed .................................................................................................................................. 8

B. Background Studies ............................................................................................................................. 8

C. Stakeholder Interview Findings ........................................................................................................... 8

D. Bus and Walking Tour ........................................................................................................................... 9

E. Infrastructure Assessment .................................................................................................................. 10

E.1 Water and Sewer ........................................................................................................................ 11

E.2 Stormwater .................................................................................................................................. 11

E.3 Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities ............................................................ 12

E.4 Parks and Community Facilities ............................................................................................... 14

E.5 Schools .......................................................................................................................................... 16

F. Development Readiness Indicators ................................................................................................ 18

F.1 Vacant and Underutilized Land Area .................................................................................... 18

F.2 Current Market Lease Rates and Sales Prices ....................................................................... 19

F.3 Recent Private Development Activity .................................................................................... 21

F.4 Demographic and Socioeconomic Overview ..................................................................... 22

F.5 Land Use Patterns ....................................................................................................................... 19

F.6 Local Growth Forecasts ............................................................................................................ 23

SECTION III: AREA ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................. 1

A. Outer Tabor Area .................................................................................................................................. 1

A.1 SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 2

A.2 Development Readiness Report Card ..................................................................................... 3

A.3 Infrastructure Report Card .......................................................................................................... 3

A.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements ...................................................................................... 4

A.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities .............................................................................................. 5

B. Lents Town Center ................................................................................................................................ 6

page ii


B.1 SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 6

B.2 Development Readiness Report Card ..................................................................................... 7

B.3 Infrastructure Report Card .......................................................................................................... 8

B.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements ...................................................................................... 8

B.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities .............................................................................................. 9

C. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area .................................................................................................................... 11

C.1 SWOT Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 11

C.2 Development Readiness Report Card ................................................................................... 12

C.3 Infrastructure Report Card ........................................................................................................ 13

C.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................................... 14

C.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities ............................................................................................ 15

D. Outer Division Corridor ....................................................................................................................... 15

D.1 SWOT Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 16

D.2 Development Readiness Report Card ................................................................................... 17

D.3 Infrastructure Report Card ........................................................................................................ 18

D.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................................... 19

D.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities ............................................................................................ 20

E. Return on Investment Considerations ............................................................................................. 20

E.1 Potential Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 20

E.2 Potential Development Activity and Fiscal Revenues ........................................................ 21

E.3 Comparison of Fiscal Revenues and Capital Costs ............................................................ 24

F. Buildable Land Inventory Considerations ...................................................................................... 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

A. Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study - Interview Summary - January 19, 2011

B. Portland Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study Bus Tour

C. Walk-Score and Transit-Score Methodology

D. Maps

E. Report Card Methodology

F. Cost Data

G. Potential Revenues

City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Portland Infrastructure Pilot Study

March 2011 page 1


SECTION I: SUMMARY

Public infrastructure serves as the ―backbone‖ for urban areas. All people who live, work and

recreate in cities depend on infrastructure for mobility, water, education, health , and human safety.

The Portland Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study documents existing infrastructure conditions and

potential public investments that can leverage desired private investment and can help enhance

community livability.

A. INTRODUCTION

The City of Portland is in the process of preparing the Portland Plan and an update to the City’s

Comprehensive Plan to guide land use and development patterns over the coming decades. In

recognition that each neighborhood within Portland is unique, this Infrastructure Investment Pilot

Study (Study) provides a methodology and approach that can be applied to any neighborhood or

designated opportunity area to better understand infrastructure conditions and infrastructure return on

investment (ROI) potential.

Infrastructure may be defined to include local, community, regional and national public facilities and

services. This Study focuses only on local (neighborhood) and community infrastructure facilities,

including: streets, transit, water, stormwater, sanitary sewer, parks, and school facilities . While the

scope of this study reflects infrastructure capacity and capital cost issues, a local or regional

government may desire to expand the infrastructure investment analysis to also include regional

transportation facilities (airport, railroads, and bridges); police and fire; energy/power; solid waste;

and public housing; and infrastructure operating and maintenance costs.

Key objectives for this study include:

Document existing local infrastructure conditions;

Document existing land use conditions and key demographic and socio-economic indicators;

Review local redevelopment and growth assumptions for housing and employment;

Summarize planned infrastructure improvements and related capital costs; and

Document potential measures of public infrastructure return on investment (ROI), including potential

property tax revenues and state shared tax revenues that could result following new public

infrastructure investment.

B. CASE STUDY TYPOLOGY AREAS

All urban areas evolve with time. Over the past century, Portland has dramatically expanded in

population, business activity, and economic and cultural diversity. Today, Portland is a regional and

international center for commerce with dozens of established neighborhoods, centers, and corridors.

The Portland Plan recognizes that the city’s neighborhoods located outside the Central City area fall

generally into urban typologies, such as Inner-Ring Streetcar era; Mixed-Era ―Mosaic‖; Mixed-Form

Hillside; Postwar Uniform Suburban; Clustered Topographical; and Mountainside.


March 2011 page 2


The city selected four case study areas in Southeast Portland for this infrastructure pilot study that

represent two primary typologies, including the Inner Ring Streetcar Era and the Mixed Era

―Mosaic.‖ The four selected areas (depicted in Figure S-1) include:

1. Outer Tabor (Division to Holgate/82nd

to 92nd

). This is an example of a Mixed Era ―Mosaic‖

neighborhood with excellent transit service (MAX Greenline station opened in 2009), and a mix

of large commercial ―big box‖ and smaller business centers. Development patterns primarily

include low-density, single-story commercial buildings, single family homes, and apartments.

Local residential streets generally lack sidewalks and there are many substandard (unpaved)

alleys.

2. Lents Town Center/SE Foster Corridor. This area includes a redeveloping ―historic‖

neighborhood center with excellent transit service (MAX Greenline station opened in 2009) and

established street grids block patterns. The majority of this area is located west of I-205, and has

streetcar era development patterns, with consistent street grids, mature street trees, and street-

oriented buildings.

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert (Powell to Harold/122nd

to 136th

). This is an outer Mixed Era ―Mosaic‖

neighborhood with a planned high-capacity transit corridor. Development patterns and lot sizes

are highly variable. Local streets generally have poor connectivity with substandard design and

missing sidewalks and bicycle facilities.

4. Outer Division Corridor (I-205 to 122nd

). This is also an outer Mixed Era ―Mosaic‖

neighborhood with a planned high-capacity transit corridor. Development patterns and lot sizes

are highly variable, but there are some relatively large tracts of vacant land. Local streets

generally have poor connectivity and substandard design, with inadequate or missing sidewalks

and bicycle facilities.

Figure S-1. Southeast Case Study Areas Location Map

SE Portland Case Study Areas


March 2011 page 3


C. APPROACH

This study builds upon several local and regional plans and studies that document land use patterns,

land needs, growth forecasts, infrastructure requirements, and related community development issues

for the Southeast Portland area. The consultant team supplemented the background studies with

additional local community and regional agency outreach, which included interviews and a

bus/walking tour of the four case study areas.

Project team members, urban planners, and civil engineers compiled local capital improvement

programs and long-range public facility plans to document planned infrastructure improvements and

related capital construction cost estimates. The infrastructure capacity/condition for each area was

evaluated using available GIS data provided by the City of Portland. The data was supplemented

with site visits (by civil engineers) to prepare an ―Infrastructure Report Card‖ for each area. Grades

are given for: transit service/facilities; roads, bicycle facilities; pedestrian facilities; water systems;

sanitary sewer systems; storm water management systems; parks facilities; community center

facilities; and public school capacity levels.

Economists and land use planners documented ―development readiness‖ indicators, including:

housing mix/diversity; residential and non-residential absorption (sales) levels; attainable rent/sales

prices; business mix; long-term residential and non-residential growth forecasts (prepared by Metro);

lease rates; vacancy rates; public and private investment levels; and redevelopment potential. A

―development readiness report card‖ is prepared for each area using available data to measure these

market indicators.

The project team prepared capital cost estimates for providing ―basic infrastructure‖ that is needed to

make each case study area a ―complete community.‖ Basic infrastructure elements include: street,

bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (improved to city standards); streetscape enhancements on collector

and arterial roads (street illumination, street trees, benches); and a new indoor community center (or

comparable local public gathering place or amenity).

Potential fiscal and infrastructure revenues to the City of Portland were determined based on the 25-

year development forecasts for each area (using Metro growth forecasts) and existing development

system development charge and property tax rates.

An infrastructure return on investment (ROI) analysis compares the potential cost of providing ―basic

infrastructure‖ with the fiscal benefits that would be generated if new jobs/households were attracted

to each area consistent with Metro’s long-range growth forecasts.

The Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study analysis results in separate overall grades (or scores) given

to each case study area for each of the following measures:

Infrastructure capacity and condition (overall grade from more detailed infrastructure assessment);

Development readiness (overall grade from development readiness assessment);

Infrastructure return on investment (relative indication of the number of years it would take for the

future fiscal revenues to equal the cost of providing basic infrastructure improvements);

Growth forecast (combined number of jobs and housing units expected to occur over next 25 years,

based on Metro’s growth forecast assumptions); and

Build-out potential (Portland BPS estimate of potential development floor area that is allowed in

comparison to the existing level of development floor area).

As indicated in Table S-1, the overall results of the analysis indicate that each case study area has

relative strengths and weaknesses. The highest overall grade (B) was given to the Lents Town

Center/SE Foster Road Corridor case study area. The lowest overall grade (C+) was given to the

Outer Division Corridor area.


March 2011 page 4


Table S-1 Summary of Overall Grades for Each Case Study Area

1. Outer Tabor

Area 2. Lents Town

Center 3. Powellhurst-

Gilbert 4. Outer Division

Corridor

Infrastructure Capacity & Condition B B C- C-

Development Readiness C+ C+ C- D

Infrastructure Return on Investment Potential C+ C+ A- A

Jobs & DU Growth Forecast (25-year) B- B A+ D

Build-out Potential (Development Capacity) A- A- C A-

Overall Grade B- B B- C+

Please refer to the technical Appendices for a summary of the detailed metrics used to create the

grading system used in this analysis.

D. FINDINGS

This study provides a consistent infrastructure investment analysis methodology that can be used to

document infrastructure conditions, development readiness, and public return on investment

measures to be used for evaluating areas for infrastructure investment.

Future infrastructure investment decisions and priorities should take into account prior infrastructure

investments and the current conditions/capacity of public facilities. Since public facilities are usually

constructed to last 50 to 100 years (with proper maintenance), a long-term (20+ year) infrastructure

investment strategy should be considered when prioritizing capital funding projects.

A systematic infrastructure analysis approach can be applied to specific neighborhoods or

―opportunity areas‖ to provide a relative comparison among diverse areas. Analysis factors should

take into account quantitative measures: infrastructure conditions/capacity levels; development

readiness; growth forecasts (usually measured in jobs or dwellings); development capacity (at build-

out); and overall infrastructure return-on-investment (which compares expected local public revenues

to potential infrastructure costs over a 20-30 year time frame).

The Southeast Portland study areas were found to have adequate water and sewer infrastructure and

adequate school facility capacity, but inadequate pedestrian, bike, street, stormwater and parks

(indoor community facilities). Strategic public investment that is targeted at providing ―basic

infrastructure‖ including pedestrian, bicycle, street network and indoor community recreation

facilities, would likely have a measurable net positive fiscal impact for the City, while also improving

the level of public health, safety and livability for neighborhoods.

Qualitative considerations regarding infrastructure conditions and development readiness should be

provided using information gleaned from local community stakeholder interviews, and site visits by

civil engineers, planners, and real estate brokers, and business owners/developers.


March 2011 page 5


A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F

Rel

ativ

e In

fras

tru

ctu

re R

etu

rn o

n

Inve

stm

ent

Overall Grade for Opportunity Area

The combination of quantitative and qualitative measures of local infrastructure conditions,

development readiness, growth forecasts; development capacity; and fiscal revenue potential, provide

a basis for documenting infrastructure ROI.

This study utilizes a ―grading system‖ for evaluating infrastructure conditions, development

readiness, infrastructure ROI, and development potential for each opportunity area. A grading system

approach could be used to apply a ―triage‖ approach for determining if an area is likely to achieve

positive growth and community livability benefits with or without additional public infrastructure

investment.

The findings in this study generally indicates that an area can be given an overall grade (or score)

that places it into one of three groupings, as follows (see Figure S-2):

1. Most likely to succeed without major additional public investment (overall grade of A or B);

2. In need of additional public investment to succeed (overall grade of C or D);

3. Less likely to succeed even after additional public investment (overall grade of D- or F).

Figure S-2. Expected Infrastructure Return on Investment by Opportunity Area

(long-term public fiscal revenues compared to infrastructure capital cost outlays)

Source: FCS GROUP.

Areas with Overall Grade of D+ to B+ are expected to

have higher upside infrastructure ROI

potential than other areas


March 2011 page 6


A recent Metro study documented a positive correlation between residential land values and public

infrastructure conditions based on a statistical analysis of three locations in the Metro region.1 The

Metro study indicated that public facilities, such as transit, parks, pedestrian connections, and

streetscapes provide a 5-25% enhancement in property values (other things being equal). If this

finding is applied to the opportunity areas in Southeast Portland, we can assume that investment in

―basic infrastructure‖ (including pedestrian, bike, street networks, streetscapes, storm drainage, and

parks/community facilities) could potentially result in a ―value premium‖ that produces higher

attainable sales/rental lease rates.

Once regional housing market conditions stabilize, it appears that construction of ―basic

infrastructure‖ elements could help induce attainable sales/lease rates in the case study areas by about

5-20% above current levels which range from $103-$118 per square foot of building floor area. An

increase of attainable sales/lease rates in these areas by 5-20% would enhance the financial feasibility

for new residential construction of single-family and multifamily developments, which now generally

cost slightly more to build than current sales/lease rates can support.

The overall findings from this Study indicate that development readiness factors (current business

mix/diversity, home sales levels, commercial/office/industrial lease trends, achievable lease rates,

home sales prices); infrastructure conditions; development potential; and infrastructure return on

investment, are critical elements to consider for determining where strategic public investments

should be made.

While it is important to provide ―basic infrastructure,‖ such as adequate and safe roads, sidewalks,

bike facilities, transit service, parks, water and sewer service in most areas of the city; there are

locations where these types of investments will result in a greater relative infrastructure investment

ROI. Opportunity areas that currently have ―average grades‖ are likely to have the greatest potential

infrastructure ROI.

Areas that have ―above-average grades‖ may not generate as much ROI as areas with ―average

grades‖ since they already possess ―basic infrastructure‖ and market conditions are already

favorable; hence, additional public investment may not result in extraordinary development activity.

Areas that have ―far-below average grades‖ are not likely to generate levels of future development

activity in comparison to the level of public investment required.

It is possible to evaluate each area in accordance with the logical approach used by this Study. The

relative results for the Southeast Portland case study area using the spider diagram analysis are

provided in Figure S-3. Areas that have the best relative grade for the key metrics will be closer to

the center of the ―spider diagram‖ and areas that have the worst relative grade will be located near

the perimeter. Areas with average relative grades will be located somewhere in between the center

and the perimeter of the diagram.


March 2011 page 7


Figure S-3. Relative Comparison of Case Study Areas

(areas near center have higher relative grade/potential)

Area 1: Outer Tabor (Division to Holgate/82nd

to 92nd

)

Area 2: Lents Town Center/SE Foster Corridor

Area 3: Powellhurst-Gilbert (Powell to Harold/122nd

to 136th

)

Area 4: Outer Division Corridor (I-205 to 122nd

)

This infrastructure investment analysis approach used in this study can create a better understanding

of the dynamic interaction between local infrastructure needs, potential infrastructure ROI, and

relative priorities for making future public facility investments.

The approach used in this Study can be modified or expanded in the future to include additional types

of public facilities/services, or new data sources. Local governments should aspire to understand

infrastructure conditions in each neighborhood, conduct long-term (25-50 year) infrastructure life-

cycle cost analyses, and consider local health, safety and livability benefits, when prioritizing the use

of scarce public investment dollars.


March 2011 page 8


SECTION II: STUDY METHOD AND APPROACH

The City of Portland and the Portland Development Commission (PDC) have been focused on

helping the East Portland area redevelop and improve neighborhood livability for several years. As

the greater Portland region continues to add population and business investment, the city is also

working with Metro (the regional government) and other local jurisdictions and infrastructure service

providers to ensure that local neighborhoods redevelop over time with a mix of housing, jobs and

recreational uses that create ―complete communities.‖

A. WORK COMPLETED

What makes a complete community? Addressing this question requires attention to environmental,

social, cultural, economic, and scientific/technical considerations. The method applied by the project

consultant team and the City staff assigned to this pilot study incorporated a mix of subjective and

objective input. Team members included planners, economists, engineers, and community

development experts. In addition to relying upon background data and studies, the project team

worked ―on the ground‖ with local community and business members to better understand local

issues and current priorities.

The review of background plans/studies, combined with stakeholder interviews and a local

bus/walking tour of each case study area helped determine overall strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats for each study area (SWOT Analysis).

B. BACKGROUND STUDIES

This study builds upon several local and regional plans and studies that document changing land use

patterns, land needs, growth forecasts, infrastructure requirements, and related community

development issues for the East Portland area. These plans and studies were conducted primarily by

the City of Portland, the PDC, and Metro. Key background documents are referenced in the

bibliography of this report.

The consultant team supplemented the background studies with additional local community and

regional agency outreach, which included interviews and a ―bus and walking tour‖ of the four case

study areas. A summary of the stakeholder interviews is provided in Appendix A, and results from

the bus and walking tour is provided in Appendix B, and further summarized in this section.

C. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Stakeholder interviews were conducted with representatives from TriMet, Portland Public Schools,

David Douglas Public Schools, and neighborhood and business organizations located in the study

area. All interviewees were asked to identify and discuss all local and community infrastructure

investments that may be needed in the area. Key interview findings included:

Future public investments should try to increase density and activity around transit modes. This

approach could leverage the substantial regional investment in the MAX (light rail transit), which


March 2011 page 9


includes the Greenline service (opened in 2009), Eastside MAX (operating since 1987), and

extensive frequent-bus service that serves the area.

A complete pedestrian network is also needed to help facilitate access to/from transit stops and local

neighborhoods. Safe pedestrian and bicycle routes to/from schools should also be a consideration.

The most dangerous intersections cited by interview participants included:

Powell at SE 82nd

Avenue (Area 1)

Powell at SE 92nd

Avenue (Area 1)

Powell at SE 122nd

Avenue (Area 3)

Powell at SE 136th

Avenue (Area 3)

Division at SE 82nd

Avenue (Area 1)

Division at SE 122nd

Avenue (Area 4)

Foster at SE 82nd

Avenue (Area 2)

Improved streetscapes and bicycle networks would also help enhance community image and mobility

in the area. Sidewalks were requested along Powell and along SE 122nd

Avenue.

Potential voter-approved school bonds by Portland Public Schools and David Douglas School District

could result in noticeable school facility upgrades and improve energy efficiency.

Additional parks and indoor recreational facilities would provide needed amenities to the area.

Particular park deficiencies were noted east of SE 112th Avenue. Creative ideas included providing

new ―pocket parks,‖ small-scale farming, and an equestrian center near Powell Butte.

Enhanced access is needed for unique local amenities, such as Zenger Farms.

New housing developments should be constructed near transit stops and should be marketed to a mix

of incomes and ages, with a mix of housing and open space (e.g., Russellville).

A better, more complete mix of local neighborhood-scale businesses and stores (within close

proximity to neighborhoods) would provide local alternatives for goods and services.

Localized flooding is another concern, particularly in the southern portions of the study area near

Johnson Creek. Other areas of concern include the need to enhance swales along 122nd

Avenue from

Foster Road to Holgate to address standing water issues.

Several ―eyesore‖ buildings and PGE substations were noted by the stakeholder participants.

Poor telecommunication service was noted in the area with poor or non-existent cell phone reception

and limited computer service.

Innovative ways to assist the retention and growth of small businesses were requested including a

small business development center, which could assist small businesses with planning, marketing and

business permitting.

Higher utilization of the industrial area south of Foster Road (east of I-205) could generate more

business activity and commerce in the area.

Redevelopment of Marshall High School presents an opportunity for the community, but also creates

new challenges in light of recent education program funding cuts.

Please refer to Appendix A for a more complete list of the interview results.

D. BUS AND WALKING TOUR

Project team members conducted a Study site tour on November 2, 2010. The objective of the half-day

tour was to ascertain subjective opinions from real estate brokers, planners, engineers, and


March 2011 page 10


development experts regarding the relative redevelopment potential for the four targeted areas in

Southeast Portland. The site tour focused on areas within Southeast Portland that generally depict

prototypical areas and neighborhoods that offer significant redevelopment opportunities.

Each area was evaluated by the site tour participants with regard to its perceived relative advantages

and disadvantages in regard to:

General Land Use Perceptions (i.e., neighborhood character, compatibility of surrounding land

uses, existing zoning, and the appearance of any development standards)

Local Market Perceptions (i.e., recent private or public investments, planned public or private

developments, site visibility, perceived safety or crime issues, and vacancy rates)

Development and Infrastructure Readiness (i.e., infrastructure capacity and condition,

development issues, site ownership/assembly issues, and site condition/preparation)

Transportation Perceptions (i.e., road access, road capacity, transit, multimodal including

pedestrian and bicycle connections/safety, and parking availability and proximity)

Environmental Perceptions (i.e., proximity to sensitive areas, site orientation and topography, noise

or heat islands, greenfield or infill development potential, potential brownfield/site cleanup issues)

The results from the Study site tour provide important information about the perceived ―first

impressions‖ for each case study area. While there are many redevelopment opportunities within

each area, the areas with the greatest number of positive attributes identified by bus tour participants

are:

Lents Town Center/Foster Corridor (Area 2)

SE Division Corridor (I-205 to SE 122nd

Ave.) (Area 4)

It appears that these two areas offer the greatest perceived near- and mid-term (1 to 10 years)

redevelopment potential and have the fewest overall infrastructure needs. Recent and ongoing public

facility and transit investments within these areas have already begun to leverage private investment,

and it appears that these areas present significant new private employment, residential and mixed-use

development opportunities in the near future.

The other two case study areas were deemed by the bus/walking tour participants to offer longer-term

redevelopment potential (years 10+) and would likely require significant investments in roads,

transit, pedestrian, bicycle and stormwater facilities before major private investment occurs.

Please refer to Appendix B for a more detailed summary of the bus/walking tour.

E. INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

In addition to the visual assessment of infrastructure conditions, the project team utilized available

background research by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and other city

departments, and conducted additional research and analysis to document measures of infrastructure

conditions.

The Portland Plan includes an Infrastructure Condition and Capacity background report that

documents and maps infrastructure conditions (listed in alphabetical order) for:


March 2011 page 11


Average Daily Traffic Flow

Bicycle Classifications

Bicycle Network

Bridges (City of Portland)

Emergency Classifications

Freight Classifications

Freight System

High Crash Locations (Automobile)

Improved and Unimproved Streets

Priority Pavement Projects

Portland Water Bureau Water System Inventory

Rights- of-Way and Route Jurisdictions

Signalized Intersections

Stormwater Constraints and Soils

Traffic Classifications

Transit Classifications

Transit Ridership

Transit System

E.1 Water and Sewer

Results from the Infrastructure Condition and Capacity (ICC) report (Fall 2009) were reviewed by

the project team. Key findings from this work determined that all of the case study areas are currently

connected to public sewer and public water service, with the exception of a small area located south

of Area 3 near Johnson Creek.

The ICC report found that approximately 30% of the City is served by combined storm/sanitary pipe

system. The Portland Bureau of Environmental Services has recently completed inspections of 55 -

60% of its combined sewers and 25-30% of its sanitary sewer pipes. Of the inspected pipes, the vast

majority are in good to very good condition. A significant percentage of the Lents combined sewer

pipes have not been inspected and over 60% of the Johnson Creek sanitary sewer pipes have not been

inspected. Assuming the Johnson Creek and Lents areas follow suit, the pipes are expected to be in

fair or better condition. The City is continuing to invest in both water quality and sanitary sewer

upgrades in East and Southeast Portland, but those investments are intended to provide increased or

redundant capacity and help meet new federal and state environmental standards.

Over half of the City’s water distribution pipes are over 50 years old and over half of those are i n

poor to very poor condition. Most of the City’s terminal storage facilities are classified as ―open

reservoirs‖ and must be closed or covered as part of the Federal LT2 regulations. Terminal storage

replacement is very expensive and requires transmission upgrades as well. The majority of the case

study areas are located within the Tabor 411 and Powell Valley 415 service areas, which have been

identified as passing preliminary screening for pumping, fire flow, storage, and outage service goals.

The Powell Valley Raymond service area (located in Southeast Portland) has no storage and relies on

pumping to meet demand for domestic and fire flows, but no specific deficiencies were noted in these

service areas. Overall the water systems within the study areas have minor needs and can handle

projected flows through 2030.

E.2 Stormwater

The Infrastructure Condition and Capacity report identifies stormwater deficient locations north of

Powell Boulevard in Area 3, and in vicinity of Johnson Creek along Foster Road (within Area 3).

These areas have inadequate storm drainage facilities and/or soils deemed unsuitable for water

infiltration. However, the majority of stormwater in the Johnson Creek area is directed to

underground injection systems (i.e., drywells and cisterns). In the long-run this could be an issue, as

injection regulations require stormwater treatment prior to injection.

The City is currently working with the Portland Development Commission on major Johnson Creek

restoration efforts that are being designed to enhance wetlands and conservation areas south of the


March 2011 page 12


case study areas. The Johnson Creek project includes purchasing properties within the Johnson

Creek floodplain and developing flood control, habitat restoration and water quality facilities. The

City is also retrofitting ―green streets‖ with stormwater management facilities throughout the city.

E.3 Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities

The Infrastructure Condition and Capacity report identified the following intersections as high crash

locations:

Powell Boulevard at SE 92nd (Area 1)

Powell Boulevard at SE 122nd (Area 3)

Holgate Boulevard at SE 82nd (Area 1)

Foster Road at SE 82nd (Area 2)


Foster Road at SE 96th (Area 2)


I-205 on-ramps on Foster Road (Area 2)

In addition to these intersection locations, the Infrastructure Condition and Capacity report also

indicates that all of the case study areas exhibited some level of street system constraints, including

deficient street networks and inadequate bicycle and pedestrian networks.

FCS GROUP conducted supplemental analysis of the roadway and pedestrian network using GIS

information provided by the City of Portland. The GIS analysis determined the amount of

substandard streets (as a percentage of total street length) and the percentage of street edges that do

not include sidewalks. These findings are shown in Table 1.


March 2011 page 13


Table 1. Analysis of Substandard Roadways by Case Study Area

Street Classification

Linear Feet Percent

Substandard Total Substandard

1. Outer Tabor Area

Arterial 10,629 981 9%

Minor Arterial 13,316 - 0%

Local 49,976 12,096 24%

Private 15,398 - 0%

Unimproved ROW 3,065 3,065 100%

Total 92,385 16,143 17%

2. Lents Town Center

Arterial 29,677 1,533 5%


Local 99,980 11,752 12%

Private 118 - 0%


Total 143,496 17,247 12%

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area

Arterial 15,265 3,484 23%


Local 70,672 22,069 31%

Private 13,015 - 0%


Total 117,545 29,515 25%

4. Outer Division Corridor

Arterial 9,682 - 0%

Minor Arterial 826 - 0%

Local 16,253 1,842 11%

Private 4,215 - 0%

Unimproved ROW - - -

Total 30,976 1,842 6%

Source: Real Urban Geographics and City of Portland.

The project team also conducted a similar analysis of streets with ―missing‖ sidewalks to ascertain

the adequacy of existing sidewalk facilities. The sidewalk facility analysis summarized in Table 2

indicates that far more sidewalks are provided within the Lents Town Center than the other case

study locations. The percentage of ―missing‖ sidewalks along streets in the Lents Town Center area

is 39 percent (based on the linear feet of roadways in the area). In comparison, sidewalks are non-

existent along 77 percent of the roadways in Powellhurst-Gilbert Area.


March 2011 page 14


Table 2. Analysis of Substandard Sidewalks by Case Study Area

Location

Total

Street

Length

(LF)

Length of

Street Edge

(Both Sides

of Street in

LF)

Existing

Sidewalk

Length (LF)

Existing

Sidewalks as

Percent of

Street Length

(Both Sides of

Street)

"Missing"

Sidewalks

as Percent

of Street

Length

(Both Sides

of Street)

1. Outer Tabor Area 89,320 178,640 81,706 46% 54%

2. Lents Town Center 139,534 279,068 171,313 61% 39%

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area 113,583 227,167 52,617 23% 77%

4. Outer Division Corridor 30,976 61,952 28,226 46% 54%

LF = linear feet.

Source: City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability; GIS analysis by Real Urban Geographics.

FCS GROUP conducted additional analysis of the local pedestrian and transit environment using data

provided by www.walkscore.com. Specific local intersections were evaluated in each case study area

and compared against citywide statistics to ascertain the relative level of pedestrian and transit access

in each location. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3. Please refer to Appendix C

for the methodology used for the pedestrian and transit walk score analysis.

The walk scores generally indicate that the Outer Tabor Area, Lents Town Center, and Outer

Division Corridor have slightly above average walk scores, while the Powellhurst-Gilbert Area has

very poor walk scores in comparison with the citywide average for all neighborhoods outside the

Central City. The transit scores were found to be higher for areas inside the I-205 freeway, with the

Outer Tabor Area and Lents Town Center receiving much higher transit scores than the Powellhurst-

Gilbert Area and Outer Division Corridor.

Table 3. Walk and Transit Scores by Case Study Area

Area for Comparison Avg. WalkScore

Avg. Transit

Score

Number of

Intersections

in Talley

1. Outer Tabor Area 71.9 (fair) 54.9 (good) 10

2. Lents Town Center 76.5 (good.) 55.8 (good) 8

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area 41.8 (poor) 41.6 (poor) 15

4. Outer Division Corridor 77.0 (good) 46.7 (fair) 3

Citywide Average (outside Central City) 71.0 (city avg.) n/a n/a

Portland Top 10% Neighborhoods Score 95.0 (top 10% in city) n/a n/a

Source: Based on analysis from Appendix C. Compiled by FCS GROUP using data from

www.walkscore.com.

E.4 Parks and Community Facilities

Parks and community facilities (such as indoor recreation centers and community gardens) are

important public facilities and provide wonderful neighborhood amenities and help promote health,

education and social interaction among people that live and work in an area. To help understand the

level of service of local park facilities, the project team documented existing parks, trails, community

facilities, and open space areas within each of the case study areas using the City’s GIS system. The

GIS data was supplemented with a review of local parks and recreational amenities in the Southeast

Portland area, including recently completed parks projects by the City, the PDC, and Metro.

http://www.walkscore.com/


March 2011 page 15


Parks and open spaces are one of the relative strengths of Southeast Portland. The area contains

several large regional parks and is served by the Springwater Corridor trail system. Selected park

facilities within close proximity to the case study areas include:

Brookside Park

Kelly Butte Natural Area

Lents Park

Mt. Tabor City Park

Powell Butte

Recently completed parks and community center projects in the Southeast Portland area include:

Brookside wetland restoration

Bloomington Park lighting project

Boys and Girls Club remodel

Earl Boyles park

Ed Benedict Skate Plaza

Glenwood Park lighting project

Lents Park lighting project

Lents Park Little League improvements

Portland Youth Builders on 92nd

Avenue

Raymond Park

Zenger Farm renovation

Ongoing projects by the City and PDC also include Springwater wetland restoration and Johnson

Creek Flood mitigation work.

In order to evaluate the relative sufficiency of local parks, the project team analyzed existing GIS

data to identify the amount of parks acres within each of the case study areas, and compared the

findings with the City’s Parks and Recreation level of service (LOS) standards. The City’s current

LOS standard equates to 2.21 acres per 1,000 persons.2 A comparison of park facilities within ½ mile

of the case study areas generally indicates that local parks are sufficient, but there may be an

additional unmet need for ―citywide access facilities‖ like community gardens and indoor recreation

centers, particularly in the outer case study areas east of I-205 (see Table 4).


March 2011 page 16


Table 4. Park Facility Assessment for Case Study Areas

Location/Facility Type

Existing

Parks &

Open

Space

(acres)

Population

(2000

Census)

Current

Local

Parks

Supply

(acres

per 1,000

residents)

City LOS

Standard

(acres

per 1,000

residents)

Existing

Parks vs.

City LOS

Standard

1. Outer Tabor Area 2,747

Local Parks 1 19.00

6.9 2.21 4.71

Trails 2 0.06

0.02 0.54 (0.52)

Citywide Access/Other 3 0.36

0.13 1.54 (1.41)

2. Lents Town Center 4,688

Local Parks 1 20.37

4.35 2.21 2.14

Trails 2 -

- 0.54 (0.54)


0.43 1.54 (1.11)

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area 4,445

Local Parks 3.92

0.88 2.21 (1.33)

Trails 2 2.66

0.60 0.54 0.06


0.02 1.54 (1.52)

4. Outer Division Corridor 960

Local Parks 3.68

3.84 2.21 1.63

Trails 2 2.42

2.52 0.54 1.98

Citywide Access/Other 3 -

- 1.54 (1.54)

Notes: 1 Includes local parks within case study areas plus assigns half of Lents Park (19 acres each) to areas 1.

Outer Tabor, and 2. Lents Town Center. 2 Does not reflect the added area associated with the Springwater Corridor Trail. 3 Reflects public open space and community gardens.

Source: Compiled by Real Urban Geographics based on City of Portland GIS data, and adopted City of

Portland parks standards (outside Central City).

E.5 Schools

Educational facilities and the quality of the school system are important attributes, especially for

younger families choosing to stay or move into a community. While this study does not attempt to

judge or evaluate the quality of the educational facilities or services, the project team conducted an

analysis of existing school capacity levels. The findings shown in Table 5 generally indicate that

most of the public schools within the case study areas have above-average student capacity levels

compared to the district averages, as measured by student-to-teacher ratios. The average for Portland

Public Schools (which serves the Outer Tabor and Lents Town Center Areas) is 17.7 students per

teacher. In comparison, the David Douglas School District (which serves the Powellhurst-Gilbert and

Division Corridor Areas) has 17.9 students per teacher, according to the Oregon Department of

Education.

Input received from the stakeholder interviews reflects a desire by both the Portland Public School

District and the David Douglas School District to reinvest in local schools with new energy saving

measures, such as new windows and heating and cooling systems. There is also continued interest in

repositioning the former Marshall High School building/campus as a continuing community

education and business training or incubator facility.


March 2011 page 17


Table 5. School Facility Assessment for Case Study Areas

Location/School Name Grades School District

Student

to

Teacher

Ratio

%

Deviation

From

District

Average*

Relative

Capacity

1. Outer Tabor Area

Harrison Park K to 8

Portland Public

Schools 15.2 -16%

Above

Average

Lent K to 8

Portland Public

Schools 16.3 -10%

Above

Average

Marysville @ Rose City

Park K to 8

Portland Public

Schools 15.5 -14%

Above

Average

Madison High School 8 to 12

Portland Public

Schools 15.2 -16%

Above

Average

Franklin High School 9 to 12

Portland Public

Schools 17.0 -6% Average


Kelly K to 5

Portland Public

Schools 15.0 -17%

Above

Average

Marysville @ Rose City

Park K to 8

Portland Public

Schools 15.5 -14%

Above

Average

Woodmere K to 5

Portland Public


Lane 6 to 8

Portland Public

Schools 12.7 -30%

Above

Average

Franklin 9 to 12

Portland Public



Gilbert Park K to 5 David Douglas 19.0 5% Average

Earl Boyles K to 5 David Douglas 17.5 -3% Average

Gilbert Heights K to 5 David Douglas 20.0 11%

Below

Average

West Powellhurst K to 5 David Douglas 17.7 -2% Average

Mill Park K to 5 David Douglas 17.2 -4% Average

Ron Russell 6 to 8 David Douglas 16.6 -8% Average

Alice Ott 6 to 8 David Douglas 16.6 -8% Average

David Douglas 9 to 12 David Douglas 17.6 -2% Average


Mill Park K to 5 David Douglas 17.2 -4% Average

West Powellhurst K to 5 David Douglas 17.7 -2% Average

Cherry Park K to 5 David Douglas 15.8 -12%

Above

Average

Ron Russell 6 to 8 David Douglas 16.6 -8% Average

Floyd Light 6 to 8 David Douglas 15.8 -12%

Above

Average

David Douglas 9 to 12 David Douglas 17.6 -2% Average

Source: Oregon Department of Education; compiled by FCS GROUP, reflects 2009 school year.

* In comparison to the combined districts average of 17.8 students per teacher.


March 2011 page 18


F. DEVELOPMENT READINESS INDICATORS

In addition to the analysis of infrastructure conditions, this infrastructure pilot study considers

―development or market readiness indicators‖ to help determine the likelihood of future private

investment within each case study area. Development readiness indicators take into account:

Existing vacant and underutilized land area by land use zoning classification

Current market lease rates, sales prices and vacancy rates

Recent private development activity

Projected growth rates for households and employment (Metro forecasts)

F.1 Vacant and Underutilized Land Area

The analysis of existing vacant and underutilized land is primarily based upon the City’s buildable

land inventory (BLI) for employment and residential planning. The City’s BLI methodology takes

into account vacant and part-vacant tax lots, and includes a comparison between existing floor area

and dwelling units and potential/allowed development. A summary of the vacant and underutilized

land area analyses is provided in the maps shown in Figure 1.

The analysis of existing versus potential/allowed development within each of the case study areas

indicates that all of the areas are presently below 10 percent of their allowed development floor area

capacity. Hence, the areas have significant redevelopment potential based on current zoning.

Figure 1. Redevelopment Potential and Development Capacity by Case Study Area


March 2011 page 19


F.2 Land Use Patterns

The land use mix (as reflected by existing comprehensive plan land use designation) within the four

study areas is dominated by low density single family residential housing. As indicated in Figure 2,

multifamily accounts for about 11 to 14 percent of the total land area within the case study areas.

Combined single-family and multifamily land area accounts for between 51 percent and 84 percent of

the land area, as reflected in Table 10. Vacant land area only accounts for 5 percent to 8 percent of

the land area. Commercial is most prevalent within the Outer Tabor case study area, with significant

highway commercial and community shopping centers along SE 82nd

Avenue and along SE Division

Street.

Figure 2. Land Use Percent Distribution, Case Study Areas

Table 10. Land Use Percent Distribution, Case Study Areas

Land Use Type

Outer Tabor

Area

Lents Town

Center

Powellhurst-

Gilbert Area

Outer Division

Corridor

Commercial 33% 11% 5% 19%

Multifamily 13% 11% 13% 14%

Single Family 43% 56% 71% 37%

Industrial 0% 7% 1% 5%

Vacant 5% 6% 8% 5%

Other (parks, etc.) 6% 8% 2% 20%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: City of Portland; GIS analysis by Real Urban Geographics. Data reflects percent distribution of

2010 general land use classifications (acres).


March 2011 page 20


F.3 Current Market Lease Rates and Sales Prices

The case study areas are generally reflected by two Southeast Portland housing submarkets that are

tracked by Zillow.com, including the Lents Town Center market area and the Powellhurst-Gilbert

submarket. As indicated in Table 6, these market areas each reported about 235 dwellings sold over

the past 12 months (as of December 15, 2010) with an average home sales price of about $145,000.

The average home sales price in these submarkets is $101 per square foot of building floor area for

the Lents Town Center area and $114 per square foot for the Powellhurst-Gilbert area. The achieved

average home sales prices in these market areas are currently about 30 to 40 percent below the

citywide average in Portland.

Table 6. Home Sales Statistics for Residential Market Areas

Lents Town

Center Area

Powellhurst-

Gilbert Area Portland

Homes Sold Year-to-Date* 234 235 6,424

Average Sale Price $143,914 $145,000 $282,100

Average Square Feet 1,422 1,272 1,741

Average Lot Size 5,942 5,870 N/A

Average Sales Price per Square Foot $101 $114 $162

Median Sales Price per Square Foot $106 $107 $162

* Reflects 12 months prior to December 15, 2010.

Compiled by FCS GROUP based on Zillow.com data.

In light of the fact that current development costs for basic new residential construction for wood

frame construction in Portland (excluding land cost) typically ranges from $90 to $125 per square

foot, the current achievable market sales prices for homes in the case study areas are generally below

what is needed to construct high quality new housing at this time. The market readiness for

residential construction appears to be relatively stronger in the Lents Town Center and Outer

Division Corridor Areas based on the current average home sales prices per square foot data

presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Home Sales Statistics for Case Study Areas

Average

Sales Price Building SF

Average

Sales Price

Per SF

Average

Lot Size

Year Built

(Avg.)

1. Outer Tabor Area $143,624 1,481 $103 6,392 1957

2. Lents Town Center $139,658 1,309 $111 4,502 1941

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area $154,589 1,438 $106 6,911 1979

4. Outer Division Corridor $200,375 1,792 $118 6,694 1973

Source: Analysis by FCS GROUP based on Zillow.com data, reflects year-to-data trends as of January 11,

2011.

The project team also evaluated commercial and industrial lease rates based on current COSTAR data

for each area. The results are based on the detailed building lease inventory provided in Appendix D.

Absorption estimates reflect the amount of business expansion or contraction that is taking place in

an area. A summary of findings is provided for each case study area in Table 8. The results indicate

that the current market for retail, office and industrial development in the broader Southeast Portland

market area is relatively strong with overall vacancy rates at 5.7 percent for retail, 8.2 percent for

office and 7.0 percent for industrial buildings. Overall net absorption in the broader Southeast


March 2011 page 21


Portland market area for the year-to-date (as of 3rd

quarter 2010) reflects a positive absorption of

21,460 square feet for retail space, but a negative absorption of -20,119 square feet for office and -

34,145 square feet for industrial floor area.3

The vacancy rates were found to be much higher within the four case study areas than in the larger

Southeast Portland market area. Lease rates, with the exception of retail space in the Outer Tabor

Area, were much lower than the Southeast Portland average.

Hence, the market readiness indicators for commercial development appear to be relatively higher for

the Outer Tabor Area than the other areas.

F.4 Recent Private Development Activity

In light of the recent economic recession that began in December 2007, there has been little new

private investment within the four case study areas in recent years. However, significant public

investment by the PDC is beginning to leverage private business and development investment

activity within the Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Area. The Lents Town Center Urban Renewal

Area includes three of the four case study areas (Areas 1, 2 and 3). Selected accomplishments that

have occurred in this urban renewal area include:

Several completed streetscape, paving, and safety projects

Several parks upgrades, a new community garden, and the Zenger Farm renovation

Establishment of the Lents Tech Center at Marshall High School

MAX light rail station area facilities and access enhancements

Provision of about 115 storefront grants

Provision of about 37 business loans

Development of the ROSE multi-family housing project (24 affordable dwellings with onsite

daycare)

Days Theater Project (public/private development underway focused on key sites, storefronts, and

buildings including the former Days Theater along Foster Road in the Lents Town Center)

Redevelopment at SE 92nd

and Harold (public/private mixed-use residential and commercial

redevelopment underway in Lents Town Center)

The Southeast Market Region is defined by Co-Star primarily includes: Mall 205, SE Close-In, and

Clackamas/Milwaukie areas.


March 2011 page 22


Table 8. Retail, Office and Industrial Statistics by Case Study Area

Buildings

Listed

Rentable

Building

Area (SF) Vacant SF

Vacancy

Rate

Net

Absorption

(year to

date)

Median

Rent

(asking)

1. Outer Tabor Area

Retail 11 196,879 68,908 35% - $26

Office 2 6,392 3,196 50% - $10.70

Industrial - - - - - -


Retail 8 163,701 109,680 67% - $14

Office 1 10,049 10,049 100% - $9.80

Industrial 1 5,000 -- -- - $10.80


Retail 4 214,661 32,199 15% - $12

Office - - - - - -



Retail - - - - - -

Office 5 76,774 18,272 23.80% - $9


Southeast Market Region*

Retail 1,961 19,783,892 19,783,892 5.70% 21,460 $15.83

Office 751 7,115,843 581,721 8.20% -20,119 $17.46

Industrial 1,186 29,672,411 2,084,795 7% -34,145 $5.14

Source: Capacity Commercial Group and CoStar, 3rd Quarter 2010. Note, the Southeast Market Region

is defined by Co-Star primarily includes: Mall 205, SE Close-In, and Clackamas/Milwaukie areas.

F.5 Demographic and Socioeconomic Overview

Demographic findings indicate that there is a relatively high (above average) home ownership within

all of the case study areas, with the exception of the Outer Tabor area, where home ownership is

below the citywide average. As indicated in Table 9. Median household income levels were

significantly below the citywide average in all of the case study areas based on 2000 Census data.

Low income levels persist today in the case study areas, but new mixed-income housing

developments are underway to help attract new mixed-income residents into the Lents Town Center

Urban Renewal area.

Table 9. Resident Tenancy, Vacancy and Income, Case Study Areas

Dwelling Unit/

Tenancy Distribution

Outer Tabor

Area

Lents Town

Center

Powellhurst-

Gilbert Area

Outer Division

Corridor

Portland City

Avg.

Vacant Units 5% 5% 6% 7% 6%

Owner Occupied 49% 57% 54% 55% 53%

Renter Occupied 46% 38% 40% 39% 42%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Median HH Income $ 34,099 $ 36,275 $ 33,908 $ 34,794 $ 40,146

Source: US Census data (2000); reflects median household income levels in 1999 dollars.


March 2011 page 23


F.6 Local Growth Forecasts

Long-term growth forecasts for the greater Portland region indicate positive levels of residential and

employment growth in the Southeast Portland area. As indicated in Table 11, Metro forecasts a net

increase of 5,420 households and 3,370 new jobs over the 2005 to 2035 time period in the four

combined case study areas. The growth rate in the four case study areas is about half the regional

growth rate for jobs and about two-thirds the regional growth rate for households.4

The Powellhurst-Gilbert Area is forecast to add the most significant amount of net new households

(2,804 households) during this time frame. The most significant level of job growth is forecast to

occur within the Outer Tabor Area and the Lents Town Center with each of these two areas expected

to add over 1,500 new jobs by year 2035, according to Metro.

In addition to these market readiness indicators, the project team also involved local and regional real

estate brokers in the site tours to provide their objective perceptions regarding the overall

development environment. The survey input completed during the site tour of case study areas is also

useful for determining the potential alacrity of real estate brokers and developers with regard to

future development potential for each area. Please refer to Appendix B for the detailed results from

the site tour.

Table 11. Household and Employment Growth Forecasts by Case Study Area

Location 2005 Proj. 2035 Change

1. Outer Tabor Area

Households 2,169 3,353 1,184

Employment 2,787 4,323 1,536


Households 3,396 4,556 1,160

Employment 2,163 3,687 1,524


Households 5,714 8,518 2,804

Employment 1,653 2,217 564


Households 2,613 2,886 273

Employment 2,502 2,247 (255)

Total

Households 13,893 19,313 5,420

Employment 9,105 12,475 3,370 Source: Draft Urban Growth Report, Dec. 2009, Metro traffic analysis zone data (TAZ). Reflects TAZs 172-175, 180

and 181 (area 1); TAZs 162-164, 168, 169 and 359 (area 2); TAZs 353-356, 360-362, 375, 377 and 378 (area 3); and

TAZs 349-351 (area 4).

Regional growth rate forecast comparisons are provided using draft Urban Growth Report assumptions

(December 2009) for the seven-county region, consisting of: Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas,

Yamhill counties (OR), and Clark and Skamania counties (WA).


March 2011 page 1


Population (Metro est. for 2005) 5,242

Jobs (Census est. for 2007) 3,952

Miles from downtown Portland 6

Median home value (Zillow est. Dec. 2010) $143,914

Land area (in acres) 299

Outer Tabor Area at a Glance

SECTION III: AREA ASSESSMENTS

After compiling and evaluating the data described in Section II, the project team prepared

assessments for each case study area to document their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and

threats (SWOT analysis). The analysis of existing infrastructure conditions also resulted in an

―infrastructure report card‖ for each area. Next, listings of the long term planned infrastructure

improvements were compiled (from background studies and plans) to determine if there are potential

public facility ―gaps‖ or needs for the areas. Appendix E provides a more detailed description of the

metrics used for the grading systems. Please refer to separate area brochures for more detailed

information for each case study area.

A. OUTER TABOR AREA

The Outer Tabor Area includes the portion of the

Tabor Neighborhood located west of I-205 between

SE Division Street and SE Holgate Street and

between SE 82nd

Avenue and I-205 (SE 92nd

Avenue). The Outer Tabor Area is shown in

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Outer Tabor Area (looking north)


March 2011 page 2


Source: Google Maps.

A.1 SWOT Analysis

The findings from the SWOT analysis for the Outer Tabor area are provided in Table 12. This area

was found to have several strengths and opportunities that could outweigh local weaknesses over

time. Potential public infrastructure investment that helps remove the ―threats‖ in the area, such as

the need to address high-accident locations and need to provide alternative mode pedestrian and

bicycle facilities (to address the current weaknesses and threats caused by auto orientation), could

make this a more attractive location to live and work.

As part of the Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Area, there is the opportunity to leverage tax

increment financing (TIF) for public facilities, such as intersection crossing and pedestrian

improvements. The potential reuse of Marshall High School campus presents an exciting new

opportunity to address small business job creation and work force training, and could help fill the

need for additional indoor recreation and community meeting facilities that enhance ―social

infrastructure.‖

Table 12. Outer Tabor Area SWOT Analysis

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Established neighborhoods Low land use Intensity

MAX Greenline Station (Powell & Holgate) Inadequate pedestrian environment

Frequent bus transit (3 bus routes) Incomplete local street network

I-205 freeway access Lack of neighborhood commercial

Portland Community College proximity Low attainable home sales prices

Favorable student-teacher ratios in PPS Lack of indoor recreation facilities

Seven nearby parks

Community shopping centers (2)

Diverse small businesses in area

Dozens of large national chain stores

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Well organized business groups Deferred maintenance on some properties

Well organized neighborhood groups Automobile domination

Urban Renewal District High retail vacancy rates

8 storefront grants awarded (TIF & Non-TIF) High accident intersections (2)

1 business loan (Non TIF) Negative office & industrial absorption

Infill & redevelopment potential

Recent planning around MAX station

Lents Park Master Plan

Recent public streetscape investments

Potential reuse of Marshall High School

High commercial lease rates in the area

Positive housing sales absorption

Cultural and ethnic social diversity


March 2011 page 3


A.2 Development Readiness Report Card

The project team compiled a ―development readiness report card‖ for each case study area taking into

account the existing market conditions, trends and development indicators, such as amount of

absorption, attainable sales/lease rates, vacancy rates, and amount of private development completed

or underway. Information from the interviews and case study tours (with broker input) was

considered along with the data presented in Section II.

The results of the development readiness report card for the Outer Tabor Area are provided in Table

13 and indicate favorable grades for: residential absorption trends, business mix, non-residential

lease/vacancy rates, public investment activity, and residential and employment growth forecasts

(grades of B or better).

Average grades are given for non-residential (commercial and office) absorption trends, private

investment activity and vacant land/redevelopment areas.

Below average grades are given for: housing mix/diversity, and attainable residential sales/lease

rates.

Overall grade: C+

Table 13. Outer Tabor Area Development Readiness Report Card

Infrastructure Grade Notes

Housing Mix/Diversity C Limited housing options near transit areas

Residential Absorption

Trends C+ The local area continues to attract homebuyers

Residential Attainable

Sales/Lease & Vacancy

Rates

D+ Home prices are very low, making new

construction less feasible

Residential Growth

Forecast C

Expected to add over 1,180 dwellings over 20

years

Business Mix B There are several local and national “corporate

chain store” businesses

Non-Residential Absorption

Trends C-

Positive retail absorption but negative office

absorption levels

Non-Residential Attainable

Lease & Vacancy Rates B-

Relatively high commercial lease rates and

average office lease rates, but high vacancy rates

Employment Growth

Forecast B Forecast to add about 1,540 jobs over 20 years

Public Investment Activity A- Recent investment in MAX Greenline by TriMet and

Urban Renewal Area initiatives by PDC

Private Investment Activity C-

Not much private housing or commercial

development activity since 2007, except for retail

centers

Vacant Land &

Redevelopment Sites C+

Opportunities exist with Marshall High School

property and near MAX Station

Overall Grade C+

Source: analysis by FCS GROUP.

A.3 Infrastructure Report Card

The project team compiled an overview of infrastructure conditions for the Outer Tabor Area, using a

combination of qualitative and quantitative information that was described in Section II. A summary


March 2011 page 4


of selected infrastructure conditions can be compared with regional or national standards to derive an

―infrastructure report card‖ which is based in-part on the methods advocated by the American

Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) of Oregon (see Appendix E).

The results of the infrastructure report card for the Outer Tabor Area are summarized in Table 14.

The results include favorable grades for transit, roads, water, sewer, stormwater, parks, and public

schools (grades of B or better).

Average grades are given for bicycle network, pedestrian network, and community centers.

No below average grades were given.

Overall infrastructure grade: B-

Table 14. Outer Tabor Area Infrastructure Report Card

Infrastructure Facility Grade Notes

Transit B

Served by MAX Green line at Powell & Holgate

Station. Bus service provided along 82nd Avenue,

Holgate Boulevard and Powell Boulevard

Roads B-

East-west access along Powell Boulevard is near

capacity during peak travel times. One high

automobile collision intersection exists at 92nd and

Powell and an area of SE 82nd Ave. does have a

high rate of pedestrian collisions. Several local

streets are substandard and unpaved.

Bicycle: On Street C Bicycle facilities are in fair condition on major

roads

Pedestrian C- Sidewalks are in fair condition, but missing along

key routes to MAX station and schools.

Water B No constraints identified

Sanitary Sewer B No constraints indentified

Stormwater B- Some standing water along substandard streets

Parks A- Good proximity to local and regional parks and

trails

Community Centers C- Indoor library and community facilities are

needed

Public Schools (Capacity) B Favorable student-teacher ratios

Overall Grade B-

Source: FCS GROUP and Harper Houf Peterson Righellis.

A.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements

Local agencies have already identified several important infrastructure project improvements as part

of capital facility plans. As indicated in Table 15, the current identified list of project improvements

in the Outer Tabor Area include a mix of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, roadway and parks facility

improvements. These projects are anticipated to be completed by year 2035. Total known costs for

these projects are estimated to exceed $25 million, with the Bus Rapid Transit project accounting for

the majority of the estimated costs.


March 2011 page 5


Table 15. Outer Tabor Area Planned Infrastructure Investments

Project Name

Infrastructure

Facilities

Addressed

Lead

Agency

Time

Frame

Capital

Cost In

Millions Benefits

Scope of

Benefit

92nd Avenue (Powell

- City Limits): Bicycle

& Pedestrian

Improvements

Pedestrian and

bicycle

network

PBOT

2008

to

2017

N/A Capacity Community

BRT (Powell &

Division)

Public transit

network TriMet

2008

to

2035

$20 Capacity Regional

East Portland

Sidewalk Infill (82nd)

Pedestrian

network PBOT

2010

to

2030

$0.25* Safety Regional

Lents Park Synthetic

Soccer Fields with

Lights

Parks and

recreation PP&R

2010

to

2030

$4.5 Safety Community

Division Street (60th -

I-205): Multimodal

Improvements

Traffic safety,

traffic

capacity,

pedestrian,

bicycle and

transit facilities

PBOT

2026

to

2035

N/A Safety Community

Holgate Boulevard

(52nd - I-205):

Bikeway, Phase I

Bicycle

network PBOT

2026

to

2035


Source: compiled by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and FCS GROUP. * Denotes

if project is also included in the “fiscally constrained” long range project capital project listing.

A.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities

The Outer Tabor Area is a former ―streetcar suburb‖ with established neighborhoods, community

shopping centers, and a diverse mix of commercial businesses. With the recent addition of the MAX

Greenline transit service (opened in 2009), further public investment could help create a more

pedestrian and transit-oriented development environment and help induce private investment over

time. The area includes substantial redevelopment opportunities, particularly with the planned reuse

of Marshall High School, and is expected to accommodate 1,184 new households and 1,536 new jobs

by 2035 (according to Metro).

Recommended infrastructure priorities for this area include:

Bicycle and Transit Network: The bicycle and pedestrian improvements that have been identified

as part of long-range capital plans in the area (see Table 15) do not have adequate cost estimates or

budgets attached to them at this time. Additional work should be undertaken to identify preliminary

design plans and cost estimates and potential funding, particularly for streetscape and pedestrian

improvements along SE 92nd

Avenue in vicinity of the MAX Greenline station area.

Road/Bus Corridors: Efforts to convert substandard local streets to paved green streets could induce

additional private investment. Long-term regional investment in east-west transit service

improvements (e.g., Powell and Division Bus Rapid Transit) will help alleviate traffic on an at

capacity Powell Boulevard as well as make short commutes easier in and out of the area.

Continued efforts to undertake transportation investments, including the Division Street corridor

improvements identified in Table 15 should be made.


March 2011 page 6




Miles from downtown Portland 6.5



Lents Town Center Area at a Glance

Additional public investment in the Lents Tech Center at Marshall High School could help serve as a

local business incubator for the city and help stimulate job growth in the area. PDC should work with

the city and local stakeholders to make the Marshall High School campus a focal point for the

community to help foster greater civic involvement and provide missing indoor community

recreation and meeting facilities. The fact that current land/home values are well below the city

average means that there is significant upside for future residents and businesses.

B. LENTS TOWN CENTER

The Lents Town Center/SE Foster Corridor

Area includes the Town Center core area (Lents

Park to the north and SE Duke Street to the

south) and extends along Foster Road from

about SE Holgate (to the west) to SE 104th

Avenue (to the east). Please refer to Figure 4.

Figure 4. Lents Town Center Area (looking north)


B.1 SWOT Analysis

The SWOT Analysis for the Lents Town Center area is provided in Table 16. Similar to the Outer

Tabor Area, the Lents Town Center Area was found to have several strengths and opportunities that

could outweigh local weaknesses overtime. Recent and ongoing public investment is helping to

address the ―weaknesses‖ and ―threats‖ in the area, such as the need to address high-accident

locations and provide alternative mode pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Area has created the opportunity to leverage tax increment

financing (TIF) for investment in public facilities, public/private mixed-use developments, and local

business/storefront improvements.


March 2011 page 7


Table 16. Lents Town Center Area SWOT Analysis



MAX Greenline station (Lents Town Center Station) Inadequate pedestrian environment

Good bus transit (4 bus routes) Incomplete local street network

Five nearby parks Lack of neighborhood commercial

Springwater Corridor trail nearby Low attainable home sales prices

Boys & Girls Club community center Lack of neighborhood library

I-205 freeway access

Streetcar Era street grid

Favorable student-teacher ratios

Unique "historic" buildings in town center

Diverse mix of small businesses


Well organized business groups Deferred maintenance on some properties

Well organized neighborhood groups Automobile domination

Urban Renewal District High retail vacancy rates

40 storefront grants awarded High accident intersections (2)

14 business loans Negative office & industrial absorption

Underutilized industrial land near Johnson Ck. High perceived crime rates

Recent planning in Town Center

Lents Park Master Plan

Recent public streetscape investments


25 storefront grants awarded by PDC

Cultural and ethnic social diversity


Streetcar planning study underway

B.2 Development Readiness Report Card

The ―development readiness report card‖ takes into account the existing market conditions, trends

and development indicators, such as amount of absorption, attainable sales/lease rates, vacancy rates,

and amount of private development completed or underway. Information from the interviews and

case study tours (with broker input) was considered along with the data presented in Section II.

The results of the development readiness report card for the Lents Town Center Area are provided in

Table 17 and indicate favorable grades for: residential and employment growth forecasts, public

investment activity, and vacant land/redevelopment sites (grades of B or better).

Average grades are given for residential and non-residential (commercial and office) absorption

trends, attainable lease/sales prices, business mix, and private investment activity.

No below average grades are given.

Overall grade: C+


March 2011 page 8


Table 17. Lents Town Center Area Development Readiness Report Card


Housing Mix/Diversity C+ PDC is working with developers to create new

mixed-income housing developments


Trends C+ Area continues to attract homebuyers



Rates

C+

Home prices and attainable rent levels are

beginning to increase relative to other areas in SE

Portland

Residential Growth

Forecast C

Expected to add over 1,160 dwellings over 20

years

Business Mix C- There are unique local owned businesses but not

much neighborhood retail development yet


Trends C-

Positive retail absorption but negative office and

industrial absorption, and very high vacancy rates


Lease & Vacancy Rates C+

Relatively low commercial & office but relatively

high industrial lease rates

Employment Growth

Forecast B Forecast to add about 1,524 jobs over 20 years

Public Investment Activity A Recent investment in MAX Greenline by TriMet and

Urban Renewal Area initiatives by PDC

Private Investment Activity C+

Recent housing & commercial investment and

business lending as part of public/private

development strategy

Vacant Land &

Redevelopment Sites B

Opportunities exist with PDC as part of Days

Theater project and 92nd/Harold project and in

underutilized Johnson Creek industrial area

Overall Grade C+

Source: Analysis by FCS GROUP.

B.3 Infrastructure Report Card

The project team compiled an overview of infrastructure conditions for the Lents Town Center Area

using a combination of qualitative and quantitative information that was described in Section II.

Results of the infrastructure report card for the Lents Town Center Area are provided in Table 18.

Favorable grades are given for: transit, roads, water, sewer, parks, community centers, and public

schools (grades of B or better).

Average grades are given for bicycle network, pedestrian network, and stormwater facilities.

No below average grades were given.

Overall infrastructure grade: B

B.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements

As indicated in Table 19, the current identified list of project improvements in the Lents Town

Center Area includes a mix of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, roadway, and stormwater improvements.

These projects are anticipated to be completed by year 2035. Total known costs for these projects are

estimated to exceed $145 million, with the bicycle/pedestrian network improvements and Johnson

Creek restoration improvements the highest cost items.


March 2011 page 9


Table 18. Lents Town Center Area Infrastructure Report Card


Transit B

Served by MAX Green line at Lents Town Center

Station. Bus service provided along SE 82nd, SE 92nd,

SE Foster Road and Woodstock Boulevard

Roads B-

East-west access along Foster is near capacity

during peak travel times. Two high automobile

collision intersections exist at 92nd and Foster Road

Bicycle: On Street C+ Bicycle facilities are in fair condition on major

roads

Pedestrian C Sidewalks are in fair condition, but missing along

key routes to LRT station and schools



Stormwater C+ Some standing water along substandard streets

Parks A- Good proximity to local and regional parks and

trails

Community Centers B+ Boys and Girls Club recently remodeled

Public Schools (Capacity) B Favorable student-teacher ratios

Overall Grade B


B.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities

The Lents Town Center Area is a former ―streetcar suburb‖ with established neighborhoods,

community shopping centers and a diverse mix of commercial businesses. With the recent addition of

the MAX Greenline transit service (opened in 2009), further public investment is already beginning

to establish and leverage private investment. The area includes substantial redevelopment

opportunities with PDC assistance. The area is expected to add about 1,160 new households and

1,524 new jobs by 2035 (according to Metro).

The list of project improvements in the Lents Town Center Area is considered to address all known

infrastructure deficiencies. However, some of the projects and their costs have yet to be defined.

Recommended infrastructure priorities for this area include:

Bicycle/pedestrian networks: Three pedestrian/bicycle/streetscape enhancements are planned to

enhance safety and access to transit in near-term (2011 to 2017). These projects will improve

circulation within the Lents Town Center.

Road/Bus Corridors: Long-term plans include adding a turn lane on 82nd

Avenue to address safety

and capacity issues. Long-term regional investment in east-west transit service improvements (e.g.,

the Foster Road streetcar and the Powell and Division Bus Rapid Transit) could provide long-term

benefits to the Lents Town Center area.

Stormwater: Regional stormwater facilities and flood mitigation and restoration projects along

Johnson Creek could provide indirect benefits to this area and reduce local flooding.

Continued efforts by PDC to encourage small business redevelopment in the Lents Town Center (i.e.,

Days Theater Project) and larger public/private housing developments in the area could serve as a

catalyst for additional private investment. The fact that current land/home values are beginning to

increase to the highest levels in Southeast Portland indicates that the attainable rents are beginning to

reach levels needed to stimulate private redevelopment in the Lents Town Center area.


March 2011 page 10


Table 19. Lents Town Center Area Planned Infrastructure Investments

Project Name

Infrastructure

Facilities

Addressed

Lead

Agency

Time

Frame

Capital

Cost In

Millions Benefits

Scope

of Benefit

Foster & Woodstock (87th - 94th)

Street Improvements

Traffic safety,

traffic

capacity,

pedestrian &

streetscape

PBOT

2008

to

2017

$13.8* Safety Community

Foster & Woodstock (94th -

101st): Street Improvements

Traffic safety,

traffic

capacity,

pedestrian &

streetscape

PBOT

2008

to

2017


Foster Road (82nd - 87th): Lents

Town Center Street

Improvements

Traffic safety,

traffic

capacity,

pedestrian &

streetscape

PBOT

2008

to

2017


92nd Avenue Bicycle &

Pedestrian Improvements

Pedestrian &

bicycle

network

PBOT

2008

to

2017


Lents Town Center Active

Transportation Demonstration

Project

Pedestrian &

bicycle

network

PBOT

2010

to

2030

$57.0 Safety Community

& Regional

East Portland Sidewalk Infill

(82nd)

Pedestrian

network PBOT

2010

to

2030

$0.25 Safety Local

Lents Storm-Sewer Basin Design

and Construction

Stormwater

management

facilities

BES

2010

to

2030

$21.6* Capacity &

Safety Regional

West Lents Flood Mitigation

Stormwater

management

facilities

BES

2010

to

2030

$5.9* Capacity &

Safety Community

Johnson Creek Restoration

Program

Stormwater

management

facilities

BES

2010

to

2030

$30.7* Capacity &

Safety Regional

Lents Pedestrian District Pedestrian

network PBOT

2018

to

2025

N/A Safety Local

82nd Avenue (Schiller - City

Limits) Street Improvements

Pedestrian &

bicycle

network,

streetscape &

stormwater

PBOT

2018

to

2025

N/A Capacity &

Safety Regional

Foster Road Pedestrian

Improvements (102nd-Foster

Place)

Pedestrian &

transit access PBOT

2018

to

2025


Ellis Street Bikeway (92nd-Foster) Bicycle network PBOT

2026

to

2035


Foster Road

Pedestrian/Bicycle/Safety

Improvements (Powell-90th)

Pedestrian

network,

streetscape &

transit access

PBOT 2026-

2035 N/A Safety Community

Source: Compiled by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and FCS GROUP. * Denotes



March 2011 page 11







Powellhurst-Gilbert Area at a Glance

C. POWELLHURST-GILBERT AREA

The Powellhurst-Gilbert Area includes the area

east of I-205 with SE Powell Boulevard to the

north and SE Harold to the south. The area

includes areas surrounded by the north-south

corridors defined by SE 122nd

and SE 136th

Avenues. The neighborhood typology is

considered to be ―Mixed Era Mosaic‖ and there

are very low density residential development

patterns with a substandard roadway and poor pedestrian/bicycle network serving the area (see

Figure 5).

Figure 5. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area (looking north)


C.1 SWOT Analysis

The SWOT Analysis for the Powellhurst-Gilbert Area is provided in Table 20. This area was also

found to have several strengths and opportunities that could outweigh local weaknesses overtime.

Primary strengths in this area include access to parks and regional trails (including the Springwater

Corridor trail), good bus transit service, and plenty of residential infill and redevelopment

opportunities.


March 2011 page 12


In light of the fact that this area is located within the Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Area, there

is the long-term benefit of providing TIF for investment in public facilities, public/private mixed-use

developments, and local business/storefront improvements.

Table 20. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area SWOT Analysis



Good bus transit service (4 bus routes) Inhospitable pedestrian environment

Recent infill housing developments Incomplete local street network

Established community shopping center Lack of neighborhood commercial

Five nearby parks Low attainable home sales prices

Springwater Corridor trail nearby Lack of indoor recreation & library facilities


I-205 freeway access & nearby MAX service

Large vacant and part vacant lots


Urban Renewal District (south of Powell Blvd.) Localized flooding around Johnson Creek

6 storefront grants awarded Automobile domination

1 business loans High office vacancy rates

Recent park & streetscape investments High accident intersection at Division & SE 122nd

Vacant land, infill & redevelopment potential Negative office & industrial absorption

Streetcar planning study underway High percent of very low income residents


Johnson Creek could become attractive

amenity

High capacity transit planning for Division

underway

C.2 Development Readiness Report Card





The results of the development readiness report card for the Powellhurst-Gilbert Area are provided in

Table 21 and indicate favorable grades for residential growth forecasts (B or better)


trends, attainable lease/sales prices, employment growth forecast, and public and private investment

activity.

Below average grades are given for housing mix/diversity and business mix.

Overall grade: C-


March 2011 page 13


Table 21. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area Development Readiness Report Card


Housing Mix/Diversity C- Very low density development patterns


Trends C+ The local area continues to attract homebuyers



Rates

C Home prices and attainable sales are among the

lowest in Portland. May be a good time to invest

Residential Growth

Forecast B+ Forecast to add over 2,804 dwellings over 20 years

Business Mix D Very little neighborhood commercial


Trends C- Little competitive office or retail supply


Lease & Vacancy Rates C-

Relatively low lease rates and about 32,000 SF of

vacant commercial

Employment Growth

Forecast C- Forecast to add about 564 jobs over 20 years

Public Investment Activity C- Most focus has been on Johnson Creek restoration

Private Investment Activity C- Little recent housing infill has occurred

Vacant Land &

Redevelopment Sites C+

Infill and redevelopment opportunities exist but

may be limited without public land assembly

Overall Grade C-


C.3 Infrastructure Report Card

The project team compiled an overview of infrastructure conditions for the Powellhurst-Gilbert Area

using a combination of qualitative and quantitative information that was described in Section II.

Results of the infrastructure report card are provided in Table 22.

Favorable grades are given for water and sanitary sewer facilities (grades of B or better).

Average grades are given for transit and bicycle networks, parks, and schools.

Below average grades were given for roadways, pedestrian facilities, stormwater facilities, and

community centers.

Overall infrastructure grade: C-


March 2011 page 14


Table 22. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area Infrastructure Report Card


Transit C- Area served by bus routes along Division, Powell,

Holgate, Harold, Foster Road, and SE 122nd Ave

Roads D

East-West access along Powell Boulevard is near

capacity during peak travel times. High

automobile collision intersection exists at 122nd

and Powell Blvd. and 122nd/Foster Road. Several

local streets are substandard and unpaved.

Bicycle: On Street C+ Bicycle facilities are in fair condition on major

roads

Pedestrian F Sidewalks are missing along key routes to LRT

station and schools



Stormwater D Some standing water along substandard streets

Parks C+ Good proximity to local and regional parks and

trails, including Springwater Corridor

Community Centers F Indoor library and community facilities are

needed

Public Schools (Capacity) C+ Favorable student-teacher ratios

Overall Grade C-


C.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements

As indicated in Table 23, the current identified list of project improvements in the Powellhurst-

Gilbert Area includes a mix of pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements. These projects are

anticipated to be completed by year 2035. Total known costs for these projects are estimated to

exceed $28.5 million, with the planned Powell and Division Bus Rapid Transit improvement being

the highest cost item.

Table 23. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area Planned Infrastructure Improvements

Project Name

Infrastructure

Facilities

Addressed

Lead

Agency

Time

Frame

Capital

Cost In

Millions Benefits

Scope of

Benefit

BRT (Powell &

Division) Transit Service TriMet

2008

to

2035


122nd Avenue

Sidewalk Infill

(Powellhurst/Gilbert

Neighborhood)

Pedestrian

Network PBOT

2026

to

2035

$2.4* Capacity Community

SE 136th Avenue

(Division to Powell)

Bikeway

Bicycle Network PBOT

2026

to

2035

$6.1* Capacity Community

Source: Compiled by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and FCS GROUP. * Denotes



March 2011 page 15







Outer Division Corridor at a Glance

C.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities

The Powellhurst-Gilbert Area consists of a very low density neighborhood with few commercial

businesses. The area has a very weak pedestrian and street network with poor stormwater drainage at

this time. There are no local indoor community recreation or library facilities and limited

neighborhood commercial. Despite these limitations, the area is included in the existing Lents Town

Center Urban Renewal Area and there are several part vacant infill sites in the area. This area is

expected to add about 2,804 new households and 564 new jobs by 2035 (according to Metro).

The list of project improvements in the Powellhurst-Gilbert Area is considered to be a good start, but

in no way addresses all infrastructure deficiencies. Recommended improvement priorities for this

area include:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Network: A long-term (2026 to 2035) sidewalk infill project directed at the

stretch of 122nd Avenue in the Powellhurst-Gilbert area to help provide improved access to the

existing commercial center near SE 122nd

and Powell Boulevard. A 136th Avenue bicycle lane

project slated for the same time period will also help improve multimodal circulation on the eastern

edge of the neighborhood.

Roadway Networks: Efforts should be made to bring streets to standard and complete a pedestrian

and bicycle network. Improved streets would also help localized flooding (standing water) that

occurs.

Transit: Long-term regional investment in east-west transit service improvements (e.g., Powell and

Division Bus Rapid Transit) could provide direct benefits to the area.

Stormwater: Regional stormwater facilities and flood mitigation and restoration projects along

Johnson Creek could provide indirect benefits to this area and reduce local flooding. However,

additional storm drainage improvements, like swales or catch basins, are needed to address localized

flooding in the area.

Public Community Facilities/Other: To help create a sense of community, new indoor meeting

and/or recreation and library facilities would be beneficial. Continued efforts by PDC to provide

mixed-income housing and business investment in the area can help provide a more balanced and

complete community over time.

D. OUTER DIVISION CORRIDOR

The Outer Division Corridor includes the area extending from I-205 (to the west) to SE 122nd

Avenue

(to the east) along SE Division Street (see Figure 6). The neighborhood typology for this area is

considered to be ―Mixed Era Mosaic‖ with a mix

of low density residential and commercial uses and

vacant underutilized sites along both sides of

Division Street. A community commercial center

is located near the intersection of Division and SE

122nd

Avenue.


March 2011 page 16


Figure 6. Outer Division Corridor (looking north)


D.1 SWOT Analysis

The SWOT Analysis for the Outer Division Corridor Area is provided in Table 24. This area was

also found to have several strengths and opportunities that could outweigh local weaknesses over

time. Primary strengths in this area include access to parks, good bus transit service, and plenty of

residential infill and redevelopment opportunities.

The fact that this area is not located within an Urban Renewal Area may limit the level of public

investment that is available to help construct infrastructure that leverages private development.


March 2011 page 17


Table 24. Outer Division Corridor SWOT Analysis



Good bus transit service (2 bus routes) Inhospitable pedestrian environment

Recent infill housing developments Incomplete local street network

Several local businesses Lack of neighborhood commercial

Five nearby parks Low attainable home sales prices

Established community shopping center at

122nd & Division

Lack of indoor recreation & library facilities

Not located in an Urban Renewal Area

I-205 freeway access & nearby MAX service

Large vacant and part vacant lots

Powell Blvd. "Mainstreet" designation



Well organized neighborhood groups Presence of "eyesore" buildings

Recent park and streetscape investments Localized flooding (inadequate storm drainage)

Vacant land, infill, and redevelopment potential Automobile domination

High capacity transit planning for Powell Blvd. High office vacancy rates

Powell Blvd. "Mainstreet" designation Negative office & industrial absorption

Low retail vacancy rates High percent of very low income residents

Relatively high attainable housing sales price

levels

High accident intersection at Division and SE

122nd

Positive housing sales absorption levels

D.2 Development Readiness Report Card





The results of the development readiness report card for the Outer Division Corridor Area are

provided in Table 25 and indicate favorable grades for vacant land and infill/redevelopment sites (B

or better).


trends and attainable lease/sales prices.

Below average grades are given for housing mix/diversity, residential and employment growth

forecasts, and public and private investment activity.

Overall grade: D+


March 2011 page 18


Table 25. Outer Division Corridor Development Readiness Report Card


Housing Mix/Diversity C Primarily low-density detached housing


Trends C The local area continues to attract homebuyers



Rates

C+ Home prices and attainable sales are among the

lowest in Portland. May be a good time to invest

Residential Growth

Forecast D Forecast to add only 273 dwellings over 20 years

Business Mix C- Some neighborhood commercial and office


Trends C- Little competitive office or retail supply


Lease & Vacancy Rates C-

The area has relatively low lease rates and about

18,000 SF of vacant office, but few retail vacancies

Employment Growth

Forecast F

Forecast by Metro to lose jobs over the next 20

years

Public Investment Activity D- Most public investment has been to south and

west

Private Investment Activity D Little recent housing or commercial infill has

occurred

Vacant Land &

Redevelopment Sites B-

Infill and redevelopment opportunities exist but

may be limited without public land assembly

Overall Grade D+


D.3 Infrastructure Report Card

The project team compiled an overview of infrastructure conditions for the Outer Division Corridor

Area using a combination of qualitative and quantitative information that was described in Section II.

Results of the infrastructure report card are provided in Table 26.

A favorable grade is given for water facilities (grades of B or better).

Average grades are given for transit, bicycle network, parks, and schools.

Below average grades were given for roadways, pedestrian facilities, stormwater facilities, and

community centers.

Overall infrastructure grade: C-


March 2011 page 19


Table 26. Outer Division Corridor Infrastructure Report Card


Transit C+

Served by MAX Green line at SE Division Station.

Bus service provided along 82nd Avenue, Holgate

Boulevard and Powell Boulevard.

Roads D+

East-west access along Division Street is not at

capacity, but local street network is poor. No high

collisions, but many pedestrian-related accidents

along Division. Several local streets are

substandard and unpaved.

Bicycle: On Street C- Bicycle facilities are in fair condition on major

roads

Pedestrian D+ Sidewalks are intermittent or missing along street

sections


Sanitary Sewer C No constraints indentified

Stormwater D Some standing water along substandard streets

Parks C Good proximity to local and regional parks and

trails

Community Centers F Indoor library and community facilities are

needed

Public Schools (Capacity) C+ Favorable student-teacher ratios

Overall Grade C-


D.4 Planned Infrastructure Improvements

As indicated in Table 27, the current identified list of project improvements in the Outer Division

Corridor Area includes a mix of pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements. These projects are

anticipated to be completed by year 2035. Total known costs for these projects are estimated to

exceed $20 million, with the planned Powell and Division Bus Rapid Transit improvement being the

only item with a cost at this time.

Table 27. Outer Division Corridor Infrastructure Report Card

Project Name

Infrastructure

Facility Addressed

Lead

Agency

Time

Frame

Capital

Cost In

Millions Benefits

Scope of

Impact

BRT (Powell &

Division) Transit service TriMet

2008

to

2035


Division Street (I-

205 - 174th):

Multimodal

Improvements

Bicycle,

pedestrian and

streetscape

PBOT

2018

to

2025

N/A Safety &

Capacity Community

111th/112th

Avenue Bicycle &

Pedestrian

Improvements

Pedestrian and

Bicycle network PBOT

2026

to

2035


Source: Compiled by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and FCS GROUP.


March 2011 page 20


D.5 Public Facility Gaps and Priorities

The Outer Division Corridor Area consists of a very low density neighborhood and one community

shopping center and a few scattered small businesses. The area has a very weak pedestrian and street

network with poor stormwater drainage facilities. There are no local indoor community recreation or

library facilities and limited neighborhood commercial. The area does have some vacant infill and

redevelopment sites, and relatively high housing sales prices (relative to the other case study areas).

This area is expected to add only 273 new households but lose 253 jobs by 2035 (according to

Metro).

The list of project improvements in the Outer Division Corridor Area is considered to be a good start,

but in no way addresses all infrastructure deficiencies. Recommended improvement priorit ies for this

area include:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Network: Division Street is slated to be improved from I-205 eastward,

including improvements to sidewalks, crossings and bus shelters. This will help increase foot traffic

on Division Street, but no cost estimates have been provided at this time.

Street Network: The existing street network is lacking with no formal street grid or block pattern.

As the area develops in the future, it would benefit from a local street network plan that could

include special sources of funding, such as SDC overlays and/or urban renewal district expansion

areas. A more formalized street network would also help facilitate non-auto mobility for pedestrians

and bicycles and help address the localized flooding that currently occurs in this area.

Transit Service: Long-term regional investment in east-west transit service improvements (e.g.,

Powell and Division Bus Rapid Transit) looks to make Division Street an important part of the transit

mix going forward.

Stormwater: Localized flooding (with standing water) occurs along the south side of Division Street

today. There are no current projects identified by the city to address this issue. It is recommended

that the Division Street project be planned as a green street improvement project to help mitigate

local flooding.

Public Community Facilities/Other: To help create a sense of community, new indoor meeting

and/or recreation and library facilities would be beneficial. Without the benefit of an urban renewal

district, this are may be dependent upon local public investment in new local library facilities.

The development of a greater community aesthetic is an important step in this process. BRT and

streetscape improvements in the near future give this area significant upside in the coming years.

Property values are far lower than the rest of the city, which is favorable since a majority of the land

is along Division Street, an area that has excellent exposure.

E. RETURN ON INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS

This section includes a comparison of the long-term fiscal revenues and capital costs that may be

realized from development of these case study areas.

E.1 Potential Capital Costs

The potential public facility improvements needed to optimize development within each of the case

study areas are expected to consist primarily of local pedestrian, street, and bicycle facility

enhancements with stormwater and/or greenstreet elements. Preliminary capital cost estimates were

developed by Harper Houf Peterson Righellis (consulting engineers) based on results from actual

construction bid results for Portland roadway projects. Unit construction cost estimates are provided

in Appendix F, and include separate estimates for interim versus full street improvements.


March 2011 page 21


Using the City’s GIS coverage layers, the project team calculated the linear feet of substandard

streets by roadway classification and amount of unimproved roadway rights-of-way (missing street

network).

Additional cost estimates were prepared for a prototypical indoor recreation center or library fac ility,

since such facilities were determined to be lacking in the case study areas. The analysis for each area

includes a range of potential capital costs that vary from small incremental projects to larger full

roadway and streetscape projects. The potential capital costs for streetscapes (lighting, benches,

street trees), roadways (pedestrian, bicycle and stormwater facilities), and community facilities are

shown in Table 28. While these findings reflect full-street improvements for existing substandard

roadways and new roadways inside each case study area, a more incremental project-phasing strategy

could be considered (see results shown in Appendix F).

Table 28. Potential Streetscape, Roadway and Community Facility

Infrastructure Cost Elements by Case Study Area

Case Study Area

Streetscapes

(lighting,

benches,

tree, etc.)*

Roadways

(bike, ped. &

stormwater

included)*

Community

Facilities

(adding new) Total

1. Outer Tabor Area $2,302,212 $8,129,001 $ 3,125,000 $13,556,213

2. Lents Town Center $2,338,676 $8,519,339 $ 3,125,000 $13,983,015

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area $4,498,317 $15,074,290 $ 3,125,000 $22,697,607

4. Outer Division Corridor $324,187 $898,771 $ 3,125,000 $4,347,958 Source: derived from City of Portland GIS data; analysis by Real Urban Geographics; unit-cost assumptions by Harper

Houf Peterson Righellis; compiled by FCS GROUP. Derived from Appendix E. * Reflects improvements to existing and

new collector and arterial streets. Costs stated in 2011 dollars, and exclude land acquisition, and extra-ordinary

construction requirements (e.g., retaining walls, wetland permitting, etc.)

It should be noted that the potential infrastructure capital costs shown above are considered to be

what is necessary to deliver the basic level of key infrastructure to the case study areas. Some of the

roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and streetscape elements included in Table 28 are already reflected in

the long-range planned infrastructure improvements described earlier in this section. It is likely that

additional infrastructure investment will be needed in the form of transit service and facilities. The

benefits from additional transit service investments would only be optimized if such investments

were made after the basic infrastructure investments described in Table 28 are made.

E.2 Potential Development Activity and Fiscal Revenues

The development readiness indicators described previously indicates that the private real estate

markets are generally more favorable inside the I-205 freeway than outside the freeway. However, a

long-term view is needed to ascertain the relative benefit from public facility investments since most

public facilities are constructed to last 50 to 100 years (or longer with proper maintenance). For

comparison purposes, FCS GROUP utilized the recent Metro 2005 to 2035 household and

employment forecasts that were provided as part of the 2009 Metro Urban Growth Report and

Regional Transportation Plan assumptions (shown earlier in Table 11).


March 2011 page 22


The infrastructure study is used to compare the basic infrastructure improvement requirements with

the Metro growth forecasts for each case study area, as indicated in Table 28.

For analysis purposes, the project team provided preliminary estimates for the following fiscal

revenue categories:

Property Tax revenues based on current millage rates for Southeast Portland

System Development Charge revenues for roads, sewer, water, stormwater, parks and other

facilities based on a current estimate of blended SDC rates for a mix of single family, multifamily and

employment development.

State Shared-Tax revenues, including potential formula allocations provided from the Oregon

Department of Revenue to cities based on population levels for revenues associated with

miscellaneous taxes, including fuel taxes, liquor, gaming, etc.

Utility Franchise Fee revenues that reflect the excise tax payment received from energy and

telecommunication utility providers.

While it may be also be valuable to consider other potential revenues from city-run utilities, such as

Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for water and sewer rate charges, those types of

infrastructure revenues are primarily for enterprise funds that are designed to charge customers the

rate needed to breakeven given current operating and debt expenses.

Key assumptions for the fiscal revenues analysis are reflected in Appendix G. The preliminary

findings denote positive fiscal revenues for each case study area.

If growth occurs as forecast by Metro, and adequate public facilities are provided, the case study

areas are expected to generate significant increases in housing and non-residential development floor

area. This in turn would generate additional assessed value creation that is expected to range from

approximately $39 million in the Outer Division Corridor Area to $417 million in the Powellhurst

Gilbert Area. It should be noted that these forecasts tend to extend slightly beyond the exact limits of

the case study areas shown previously, so exact geographic estimates for these fiscal revenues are

difficult to measure. As indicated in Table 29, the increased assessed value in the case study areas

would result in new property tax revenues for the City and other special taxing districts.

Table 29. Potential New Assessed Value Created and Property Tax

Revenues by Case Study Area (2011 to 2035)

Potential New

Assessed Value

Created

Net New

Property Tax

Revenues - All

Districts

Net New

Property Tax

Revenues _

Portland City

Share

1. Outer Tabor Area $222,136,630 $4,811,291* $1,600,028

2. Lents Town Center $218,318,067 $4,728,584* $1,572,523

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area $417,147,667 $9,035,064* $3,004,673

4. Outer Division Corridor $38,650,493 $837,137 $278,396 Note: a share of the total “net new property tax revenues – all districts” would be captured by the

Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Area, and could be utilized for local tax increment financing

projects. Source: derived from Appendix G.


March 2011 page 23


If growth occurs per the Metro forecasts, the level of potential SDC revenues that would be realized

by the City is expected to range from approximately $3.8 million in the Outer Division Corridor to

$4.2 million in the Outer Tabor Area and Lents Town Center area (each), and $16.3 million in the

Powellhurst-Gilbert Area, as indicated in Table 30.

Table 30. Potential SDC Revenues by Case Study Area (2011 to 2035)

Potentia

l New

ERUs*

Added

Misc.

Constructio

n Fees

Road

SDCs

Water

SDCs

Sewer

SDCs

Stormwater

SDCs

Parks

SDCs Total SDCs

1. Outer Tabor Area

1,243 $952,469 $564,553 $438,832 $943,507 $66,023 $1,278,165 $4,243,550


1,221 $945,078 $560,167 $435,420 $936,185 $65,500 $1,268,250 $4,210,600


2,430 $3,666,292 $2,171,558 $1,687,126 $3,631,760 $250,602 $4,921,277 $16,328,616


227 $844,854 $500,410 $388,778 $836,897 $57,748 $1,134,051 $3,762,739

Source: based on the preliminary analysis and assumptions provided in Appendix G.

* For analysis purposes, one equivalent residential unit (ERU) is equal to one household or five jobs

added to the area.

If growth occurs as forecast, the level of potential cumulative state-shared revenues and utility

franchise fee revenues that would be realized by the City is expected to range from approximately

$50,404 in the Outer Division Corridor to $604,427 in the Powellhurst-Gilbert Area, as indicated in

Table 31.

Table 31. Potential State Shared Tax Revenues and Utility Franchise Fee

Revenues by Case Study Area (2011 to 2035)

State Shared Tax

Revenues

Utility Franchise

Fee Revenues Total

1. Outer Tabor Area $49,608 $240,907 $290,515

2. Lents Town Center $48,603 $236,550 $285,153

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Area $117,471 $486,956 $604,427

4. Outer Division Corridor $11,432 $38,973 $50,404 Source: based on the preliminary analysis and assumptions provided in Appendix G.


March 2011 page 24


E.3 Comparison of Fiscal Revenues and Capital Costs

For relative comparison purposes, the results from the preliminary estimate of capital costs can be

compared with the potential long-term (year 2011 to 2035) fiscal revenues to determine a relative

fiscal return on public investment for each case study areas. In light of the fact that the Lents Urban

Renewal District has been established to capture the incremental tax revenues that would accrue for

properties located in three of the four areas, the potential revenues shown in Table 32 are considered

to be lower than the amount that the city (Portland Development Commission) would receive if the

Metro 2035 development forecasts occur as projected.

This preliminary analysis generally indicates that the level of public investment for the two case

study areas located inside the I-205 freeway area would be expected to yield a fiscal return that is

about one-half the cost of the basic infrastructure public investments required for those areas.

However, if we add in the additional tax increment revenues that would be captured by the Lents

Urban Renewal Area, another $3 million of revenue could be counted and the expected level of fiscal

revenues would more closely match the basic infrastructure requirements.

The case study areas located outside the I-205 freeway could yield a favorable long-term return on

public infrastructure investment. As indicated below, the two outer areas could provide significant

new redevelopment potential that exceeds the basic infrastructure investment levels. This potential

return on investment would be reduced if additional project cost items (like right of way purchases)

are included in the cost estimates. Even without the added potential benefit of additional tax

increment revenues (a large portion of area 3 (Powellhurst-Gilbert) is contained within the Lents

Urban Renewal District boundary yet those added revenues are not counted below), these two areas

show a positive fiscal return on investment over the long-term.

Table 32. Comparison of Potential Fiscal Revenues and Basic

Infrastructure Costs by Case Study Area (2011 to 2035)

Total Potential

Fiscal & SDC

Revenues 1

(years 2011to

2035)

Potential Basic

Infrastructure

Construction

Costs 2

Potential

Revenues as

Share of Capital

Costs

Potential

Payback

Period 3

1. Outer Tabor Area $6,134,093 $13,556,213 45% 53 years

2. Lents Town Center $6,068,276 $13,983,015 43% 55 years

Combined Areas 1 & 2 $12,202,369 $27,539,228 44% 54 years

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert

Area $19,937,716 $22,697,607 88% 27 years

4. Outer Division

Corridor $4,091,539 $4,347,958 94% 26 years

Combined Areas 3 & 4 $24,029,255 $27,045,565 89% 27 years

Notes: 1 Derived from Table 28. 2 Derived from Tables 29-31. Only reflects the City of Portland share of property tax revenues. 3 Reflects number of years it will take before local fiscal revenues exceed infrastructure capital costs.

Source: preliminary comparison compiled by FCS GROUP. Costs are in 2011 dollars.

F. BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY CONSIDERATIONS

The Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has created a factual basis for evaluating the

buildable land supply and unique methodology for evaluating the potential development capacity for

all land area within the City of Portland. The approach used by the City currently complies with


March 2011 page 25


Oregon state requirements for conducting a Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) and is useful for

determining the available residential (dwelling unit) capacity and employment capacity that exists.5

After analyzing the Southeast Portland case study areas and related data/assumptions provided by the

City of Portland and Metro, the project consultant team offers the following suggested methodology

refinements during future periodic review estimates of buildable land development capacity.

1. Consider tax lots smaller than ½ acre in the BLI. While the Oregon state requirement for

conducting buildable land inventories does not require cities to consider vacant lands on tax lots

smaller than ½ acre in size; there are probably hundreds or thousands of vacant tax lots below ½

acre that are potentially developable for housing or employment uses. The city may desire to

count or at least keep track of the vacant land areas on tax lots between ¼ and ½ acre in size in

addition to the other larger tax lots, especially for medium and high density locations, such as

Central City, corridors, centers and light rail station areas.

2. Take into account minimum site dimensions (site length and width) in the BLI analysis. It is not

apparent whether the city’s existing BLI requires minimum site dimensions as it considers parcel

development constraints. In some instances, a GIS analysis of vacant lands can create small

―slivers‖ of vacant or part-vacant land area (especially after deducting various physical or

environmental constraints) that are not suitable for development.

3. Consider applying a ―low or medium‖ capacity reduction for employment zones if located in

slopes over 25%. The current BLI methodology has a 0% capacity reduction for employment

zones when located on slopes over 25%, noting that there is ―an insignificant amount of

commercial/employment land coincident with these steep slopes.‖ While, it appears that this type

of methodology adjustment may have little potential impact on the city’s BLI or development

capacity assumptions, employers or developers rarely consider building on steep slopes (with the

exception of OHSU campus which could be inventoried and counted as a special planning or

PUD area). This change in methodology may enhance overall credibility for the City’s BLI

methodology.

4. For ―public land ownership‖ it is recommended that the city include separate categories for

public parks, public right-of-way, and other public-owned parcels to refine the level of capacity

reduction that is likely. For parks and unimproved public right-of-ways, a 100% capacity

reduction is recommended.

5. It is recommended that the city further define subjective measures used to ascertain whether an

unconstrained parcel is either ―likely‖ or ―unlikely‖ to develop. The current Development

Capacity Analysis GIS model appears to allow BPS staff to ―manually‖ flag a parcel as either

―likely‖ or ―unlikely‖ to develop, but does not include objective measures for doing so.

6. For non-vacant parcels, the Development Capacity Analysis GIS model includes single-family

and multifamily zoned parcels if they are at 20% or less of their zoned development capacity.

This assumption should be monitored in the future to ascertain whether it tends to undercount

underutilized residential land area. As the City continues to build out over time, a combination

of factors will likely come into play to determine if an area should be counted as underutilized,

including percent of remaining development capacity, land area (larger vacant tax lots tend to be

developed more economically/efficiently than smaller tax lots), and some measure of

―development readiness.‖

5 Detailed buildable land inventory methodology is provided in the Portland Plan, Appendix C: Buildable Lands

Inventory Constraints Methodology. Refer to the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, Portland

Development Capacity Analysis GIS Model for additional detail on methods used to estimated development capacity

on buildable lands in the city of Portland.


March 2011 page 26


7. For the development capacity calculations, the City currently assumes there to be a ―low

constraint‖ for parcels that are immediately adjacent to substandard or unimproved streets or

right-of-ways. Findings from a recent Metro study (Appendix 2: How Public Investments

Stimulate Private Development, August 2010), also support similar findings, but go a bit further

in defining the scope of the impacts. The recent Metro study generally indicates that the impact

is not limited to adjacent parcels, but also parcels that are ―proximate‖ or ―close to‖ ―pedestrian

environment and streetscapes‖ and ―transit and connectivity‖ that receive ―value premiums.‖ For

analysis, purposes, it is recommended that the City’s BLI methodology be refined to include a

―low constraint‖ for areas that are within ¼ mile of locations deemed to have a ―substandard or

unimproved‖ pedestrian environment.

8. An additional consideration for determining whether residential lands are relatively constrained

could focus on transit accessibility, including distance from ―high capacity‖ transit service.

Parcels that are outside ¼ mile distance from high capacity transit may receive a ―low constraint‖

relative to tax lots that are closer to such transit service.

9. Another consideration for determining development constraints includes proximity to ―citywide

access facilities‖ such as indoor parks and recreation centers and community gardens and

community libraries. It appears that the lack of such facilities in Southeast Portland is one

limitation on development there today. It is recommended that the city BLI methodology be

refined to include a ―low constraint‖ for parcels that are located more than one mile from such

facilities.

The existing BLI and development capacity methodology utilized by the City of Portland complies

with Oregon state requirements and is likely one of the most scientific and comprehensive methods

utilized in the Pacific Northwest. The various refinements suggested above are intended to enhance

the accuracy and credibility of the city’s methodology even further. As cit ies face the continued

challenge of attracting private investment and job creation, the ability to accurately determine where

public infrastructure investments have the most beneficial impact becomes even more critical. The

analysis, findings and recommendations included in this Portland Infrastructure Investment Pilot

Study can help inform public investment decisions and prioritize facility investments on the specific

types of infrastructure as part of targeted-area redevelopment strategies.


March 2011


BIBLIOGRAPHY


March 2011 Bibliography - page 1


Area-Wide

Metro 2040 Growth Concept (http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=29882)

Metro Centers and Corridors Report

(http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=31931/level=4)

Metro Efficiency Study

(http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//2010_growth_management_assessment-ap_2.pdf)

Metro Regional Infrastructure Analysis

(http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/regionalinfrastructureanalysis.pdf)

Portland Plan & Comprehensive Plan Update (http://www.pdxplan.com/)

Infrastructure Condition and Capacity Report

(http://portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=51427&a=270882)

Ec. Dev. #1: Trends, Opportunities, & Market Factors

(http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/regionalinfrastructureanalysis.pdf)

Ec. Dev. #4: Alternative Choices

(http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=51427&a=270873)

Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis

(http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?mode=search&search_action=SearchResults&filter_categ

ory_tree_id=25777&search_words=draft+economic+opportunities+Analysis)

City of Portland Economic Development Strategy (http://pdxeconomicdevelopment.com/)

East Portland Action Plan (http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=214221)

Corridors

Division Street/Main Street Plan (http://portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41524&)

Foster Corridor Exploratory Study (no Web site available)

Metro High Capacity Transit System Plan

(http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26680)

Portland Streetcar Development Oriented Transit

(http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development.pdf)

SE 122nd

Avenue Enhancement Study

(http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=38978&a=203123)

SE 122nd

Ave Study (http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=50636)

82nd

Ave Corridor Retail Market Analysis

(http://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/8912/Portland_82nd_Avenue_Co

mmercial_Corridor_Retail_Market_Analysis_207.pdf?sequence=1)

82nd

Ave of Roses High Crash Corridor Safety Plan

(http://222.portlandonline.com/Transportation/index.cfm?a=176656&c=44634)

Inner Powell Streetscape Plan

(http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/index.cfm?c=44307)

Foster Streetcar Feasibility Study (no Web site available)

Outer Powell Boulevard Concept Plan (no Web site available)

Division RFF/MTIP Project (no Web site available)

Industrial Areas

Freeway Lands Property Industrial Site Assessment

(http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/lents_town_center/Lents-Industrial-Site-Analysis.pdf)

Station Communities

Foster-Lents Integration Partnership (no Web site available)

Metro TOD Typology Study (no Web site available)


March 2011 Bibliography - page 2


Lents Town Center

Lents Town Center – General (http://www.pdc.us/pubs/type_list.asp?id=6)

Lents TC Redevelopment Feasibility Study

(http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/lents_town_center/urac/2009/2009-11-10/LTC-Redevelopment-

Feasibility-Study.pdf)

Lents TC Market Analysis (http://www.pdc.us/pubs/inv_detail.asp?id=832&ty=6)

Lents Economic Development Strategy

(http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/lents_town_center/lents_ecdev_strategy_adopted.pdf)

Parks and Greenspaces

Powell Butte Master Plan

(http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/index.cfm?a=279979&c=51822)

Powell Butte Park Improvement Project

(http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/index.cfm?c=50003)

Natural Area Acquisition Strategy

(http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=43222&a=130583)

Metro Intertwine (http://theintertwine.org/)

Bi-State Regional Trails System Plan (http://theintertwine.org/BiStateTrails/)

Transportation

Regional Transportation Plan (http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=25038)

Transportation System Plan (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=52495)

Streetcar System Plan

(http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=49304&a=252726)

Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030

(http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44597)

Sewer and Stormwater

BES System Plan (no Web site available)

Johnson Creek Watershed Management Projects

(http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/index.cfm?c=33212)

Grey to Green Initiative (http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=47203)


March 2011


APPENDIX A. INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

PILOT STUDY

INTERVIEW SUMMARY


March 2011 Appendix A - page 1


City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study Interview Summary

January 19, 2011

Introduction

Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC, conducted nine interviews with representatives from

TriMet, Portland Public Schools, David Douglas Public Schools, and

neighborhood and business organizations located in the study area of southeast

Portland bounded by Division Street on the north, Foster road on the south, 82nd

Avenue on the west and 136th Avenue on the east. All interviewees were asked

about infrastructure investments needed in the study area. Additionally, TriMet

and the school districts were asked about their existing and planned

infrastructure improvements.

The purpose of the interviews was twofold: 1) to learn more about planned

infrastructure projects in the study area, and 2) to ascertain attitudes and points

of view among those who live and work in the study area about infrastructure

needs, how critical those needs are and what might motivate needed public or

private investment.

In each interview it was necessary to explain what is meant by infrastructure. For

the purposes of these interviews it was defined as streets and roads, sewer and

water lines, curbs, sidewalks and stormwater facilities as well as

telecommunication systems, schools, parks and playgrounds, community

centers, police stations and other publicly financed projects or measures that

are generally needed to support modern urban life.

TriMet

Existing Infrastructure

Eastside MAX since 1987

Greenline since 2009

Extensive bus service

Planned Improvements

No major projects planned.

Needed Study Area Investments

Focus new investments on increasing density and activity at transit nodes. For

TriMet the key to stable and improving service is ridership. The better the

development intensity, the better the service.

A new model is needed for the area with a mix of incomes, ages, housing

and open space (e.g., Russellville)




Focus on amenity values – schools and open space and streetscape

A complete pedestrian network accessing mass transit

Streetscape improvements and biking networks

Quality middle class housing quality and mixed use areas

Connectivity of systems

In-fill development with a mix of ages and incomes

Other Comments

TriMet will need intense coordination with the City if the streetcar system is

expanded and streetscapes are improved in station and other areas.

Portland Public Schools (PPS)

Existing Infrastructure

Marshall High School

Marysville k-8

Planned Improvements

The context for the school district is PPS’ proposed bond issue with new projects

every six years.

PPS will be developing a Master Plan for the closed Marshall High School

that provides opportunities for coordination with the City.

Reconstruction of Marysville after fire damage is a high priority of the

proposed bond issue.

Other school improvements:

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/schoolmodernization/Work_by_School_01_1

2_11.pdf

Other study area improvements:

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/schoolmodernization/CS-

Neighorhood_Work-Southeast.pdf


Safe Routes to Schools

Other Comments

PPS welcomes City collaboration.

David Douglas Public Schools (DDPS)

Existing Infrastructure DDPS has multiple school buildings with limited investments being made due to funding

limits and low property valuations in the area. DDPS is extremely constrained by their tax

base. They are poor and getting poorer with 78 percent of students on free or reduced

lunch programs.




Planned Improvements DDPS is preparing a major capital needs study that will be brought to the Board of

Education in March or April. The outcome will be a comprehensive list of needs. At this

time, DDPS is considering taking out a $15 million interest-free loan to focus on

immediate needs such as boilers and repairs internal to the schools. Other DDPS needs

include:

Solar hot water heating

Replacement of roofs

HVAC combined heating and cooling (especially for cooling)

Window replacements (for heat loss and solar gain problems)

Plumbing system upgrades (water is brown in some schools although it

does not appear to be dangerous)


Need to attract middle class housing and opportunities for purchase not just for

rent. There are many poor quality housing projects in the community

constructed. There have been instances in which permits were granted but

sidewalks were not completed (e.g. housing at 122nd and Ramona). Other

needed investments include:

Expand activities and links to Zenger Farms as a place for learning

Sidewalks and streetscapes for kids

Parks

Walkable bus service connections

Zoning changes to encourage more commercial and employment

activity

Housing quality and mixed use areas

More neighborhood business and complete walkable neighborhoods –

not just housing projects

Other Comments DDPS needs help with innovative finance ideas, perhaps in the form of public/private

tax increment or incentives financing for school improvements.

Neighborhood and Business Organizations

Expand the supply of strategically located commercially zoned lots. There is a lot

of multi-family zoning throughout the study area and very little commercial

properties for convenient grocery stores or other services.

“Property along Powell is mostly multi-family zoning adding to further

congestion.”

Improve mobility. The poor condition of streets and sidewalks makes it difficult for

pedestrians, people in wheelchairs and bicyclists to get around; particularly in

wet weather. Wide arterials have few cross walks making them difficult to cross.

Transit service is limited to a few arterials with infrequent runs and muddy bus

stops. Some bike lanes seem to be discontinuous and not well thought out (e.g.




bike lanes on Holgate). Suggested improvements include street cars in select

locations, improved ability to cross barriers like I-205, paving key local roads and

establishing a continuous sidewalk network.

“The most dangerous intersections for pedestrians are on Powell at 82nd,

92nd, 122nd and 136th and on Division at 82nd and 122nd.”

“Foster at 82nd and east of 82nd is particularly bad for wheelchairs and

pedestrians. The sidewalks are narrow and utility poles disrupt the

pathway.”

“Powell has no curbs or sidewalks and few cross walks.”

“Sidewalks are needed on 122nd from Foster to Holgate.”

Address flooding. Flooded streets or high water are frequent occurrences during

the rainy season, especially on the south side of the study area. Flood insurance

premiums are apparently quite high. Develop an overall plan for dealing with

frequent flooding from Johnson Creek and find a way to reduce flood insurance

premiums.

“Swales to deal with standing water are needed on 122nd from Foster to

Holgate.”

Improve local aesthetics. Minimize eyesores such as the unoccupied building at

93rd Avenue on the south side of Woodstock Blvd. which is two or three stories,

occupies one-half block and wrapped in plastic. Another is the “ugly” PGE

substation at 104th and Foster for which neighbors have requested visual

improvement. More careful treatment of streetscapes and landscaping is

needed.

Invest in telecommunications infrastructure. Cell phone reception and computer

usage is limited and grows worse toward the eastern part of the study area.

Take steps to improve cell phone reception and computer usage. There are

many ugly overhead wires, transformers and power substations that could be

placed underground.

Provide more public gathering spaces. There are less than 40 acres of parkland

in the study area, but many unimproved sites that could be reserved for parks.

Small scale farming should be encouraged in some parts of the study area

similar to Zenger Farms. More branch libraries are needed as the nearest one is

east of 122nd. In addition, a community center would be helpful as the closest

one is at Mt. Scott.

“More parks are needed east of 112th Avenue.”

“Gates Park at 136th could be converted into an equestrian center, next

to Powell Butte and operated on a year-round basis.”

Support local businesses. Many business owners in the study area are very small

and unsophisticated. They need financial and business advice and assistance

including better access to financing. The storefront improvement program along




82nd has been successful and extending it to businesses along Powell, Division

and Foster would improve the neighborhood environment and climate for other

businesses to grow.

Because of the difficult ground conditions and infrastructure issues, many land

owners and small businesses are reluctant to invest in their properties. Political

leaders and planners should talk to local business owners and landlords to find

out why vacant and underutilized properties are not used well. City needs to see

area as an opportunity like they have with east side west of 82nd.

The permit process to allow upgrading building and redevelopment, particularly

along 82nd Avenue, and Powell and Division east of 82nd, is causing problems

and confusion for property owners and developers. Either the process needs to

be re-examined or better explained to allow efficient processing of permit

requests.

“Holgate at 122nd is a pedestrian zone which requires parking behind the

businesses instead of in front. Many stores are unable to do that as it

creates financial and circulation problems.”

Other opportunities:

The industrial area south of Foster has potential, but needs updated

design to allow effective utilization.

The closure of Marshall High School presents an opportunity for

redevelopment of the site, but also creates new challenges for filling the

education cutback.

Interviewees

TriMet – Jilian Detweiler, Manager of Property Development

Portland Public Schools – Tony Magliano, Director of Facilities

David Douglas Public Schools – Annette Mattson, School Board Member

Powellhurst/Gilbert Neighborhood Association – Mark White, President

Lents Neighborhood Association – Nick Christensen, President

Foster-Powell Neighborhood Association – Erica Bjerning, President

Foster Area Business Association – Nancy Chapin, Past President and

former staff

Lents Urban Renewal Area Advisory Board – Cora Potter, Chair

82nd Ave. Business Association – Gary Sargent, Sr., Board Member and

Founding Member


APPENDIX B. PORTLAND INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENT PILOT STUDY

BUS TOUR

Memorandum

To: Michelle Kunec, Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Date: November 9, 2010

From: Todd Chase, AICP, FCS GROUP

CC: Project Team Members

RE Portland Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study Bus Tour

Introduction

FCS GROUP and the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability staff conducted an

Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study site tour on November 2, 2010. The objective of the half-day tour

was to ascertain subjective opinions from real estate brokers, planners, engineers, and development

experts regarding the relative redevelopment potential for four targeted areas in Southeast Portland.

The list of site tour attendees, evaluation sheet, and area map is provided in Appendix to this document.

Additional handouts included site/area zoning maps and area vacant land and underutilized land maps.

The site tour focused on areas within Southeast Portland that generally depict prototypical areas and

neighborhoods that offer significant redevelopment opportunities. The four selected areas include:

1. Division – Holgate/82nd

– 92nd

(inner neighborhood with excellent transit service)

2. Foster Corridor/Lents Town Center (town center & employment center with excellent transit

service)

3. Powell – Harold/122nd

-136th

(outer neighborhood with planned mixed-use corridor)

4. Division/I-205 – 122nd

Corridor (outer neighborhood with planned mixed-use corridor)

Each area was evaluated by the site tour participants with regard to their perceived relative advantages

and disadvantages in regard to:

General Land Use Perceptions (i.e., neighborhood character, compatibility of surrounding land uses,

existing zoning, and the appearance of any development standards);

Local Market Perceptions (i.e., recent private or public investments, planned public or private

developments, site visibility, perceived safety or crime issues, and vacancy rates).

Development and Infrastructure Readiness (i.e., infrastructure capacity and condition, development

issues, site ownership/assembly issues, and site condition/preparation).

Transportation Perceptions (i.e., road access, road capacity, transit, multimodal (pedestrian and bicycle

connections/safety, and parking availability and proximity).

Environmental Perceptions (i.e., proximity to sensitive areas, site orientation and topography, noise or

heat islands, Greenfield or infill development potential, potential brownfield/site cleanup issues).

A summary of input received for each of the areas is provided below. The individual site tour participate

ratings (negative, average or positive) have been recorded as ―X‖ for each of the perception categories.

General comments are also reflected in the narrative below.

FCS GROUPSolutions-Oriented Consulting

November 9, 2010 Memorandum

Portland Infrastructure Investment Pilot Study

Site Tour Notes


Area 1 – Division-Holgate/SE82nd

to SE9nd

There seemed to be a consensus that Area 1 has a limited potential for major development opportunities.

The largest primary large scale private development opportunity area is on land already occupied by the

Bowling alley at Powell and 92nd

, and an adjacent ODOT maintenance yard (both sites are adjacent to the

MAX Greenline station. According to the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability staff,

the owners of the bowling alley site are not inclined to redevelop this site in the near term. There is also a

small parcel of vacant land across the street from the bowling alley site that could provide additional

near-term development. There are several parcels along the Division corridor – a corridor designated as a

suburban ―mainstreet‖ – that could, conceivably, be developed with housing and mixed use. The area

could benefit from some infrastructure improvements to sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks, and loca l

street paving projects. Another major unknown variable in Area 1 is the future plan for the former

Marshall High School site, which could serve as a future public or private secondary school and

community center.

Perceptions Negative Average Positive General Land Use X X Local Market X X Development/Infrastructure Readiness X X Transportation X X Environmental X X

Area 2 – SE Foster Corridor/Lents Town Center

This area was among the top two areas identified as having the most positive (least negative) issues

among the four areas. The greatest potential in Area 2 is within the Lents Town Center and adjacent

industrial/employment area east of I-205; where PDC has dedicated considerable effort to development

and redevelopment projects over the past several years. There are large underdeveloped industrial sites

along Johnson Creek that could potentially serve as a new employment or mixed-use redevelopment

opportunity sites. There are ongoing stormwater and open space improvements along Johnson Creek (by

Portland BES and PDC) and some underutilized existing industrial/flex buildings east of I-205. PDC is

actively pursuing a public/private housing and mixed-use project on the former little league field, and is

attempting to work with existing property owners in the Lents Town Center to rehabilitate older

buildings. Site tour participants cited local crime rates as a perception that hurts this area’s market image.

The local Boys and Girls Club and MAX Greenline LRT access, and tight-knit urban buildings, were also

identified as important community assets that help overcome weak market conditions.




Site Tour Notes


Area 3 – SE Powell-Harold/SE 122nd

to SE 136th

Area 3 was viewed as a potentially good residential in-fill area. This area has already attracted significant

in-fill residential development over the past decade, adding to the population density of this area. There

is an effort by the City of Portland to plan SE 122nd

as a mixed use corridor and help facilitate the

―transition‖ of development by allowing a mix of multifamily housing and commercial uses along the

corridor, and in-fill multifamily housing developments where feasible – such as intersection ―nodes‖ that

are within walking distance of transit. There are considerable ―internal‖ redevelopment areas, but large -

scale development may present conflicts with lower-density neighborhoods. There appears to be a need

for significant infrastructure here in terms of roads, stormwater facilities, bicycle lanes and sidewalks.


Area 4 – SE Division Corridor – I 205 to SE 122nd

Avenue

This area was among the top two areas identified as having the most positive (least negative) issues

among the four areas. This corridor is designated as an outer ―mainstreet‖ by the City of Portland. There

is some development/redevelopment potential here with a couple of major ―green -field‖ vacant

development parcels along Division. There was some discussion about the possibility of widening

sidewalks and thus reducing travel lane widths and on-street parking. There is a need for pedestrian

crossings and refuge areas along Division. Division and SE 122nd

is the major activity node with some

redevelopment possibilities on the SE and NE corners of 122nd

and Division.


Summary and Next Steps

The results from the infrastructure investment pilot study site tour provide important information about

the perceived ―first impressions‖ for each area. While there are many redevelopment opportunities within

each area, the areas with the greatest number of positive attributes include Area 2: Lents Town Center

and SE Foster Corridor; and Area 4: SE Division Corridor (I-205 to SE 122nd

Ave.). It appears that these

two areas offer the most near- and mid-term (1-10 years) for redevelopment potential and have the least

negative perceptions. Recent and ongoing public facility and transit investments within these areas have

already begun to leverage private investment, and it appears that these areas present significant new

private employment, residential and mixed-use development opportunities in the near future. The other

two areas appear to offer longer-term redevelopment potential (years 10+) and would likely require

significant investments in roads, transit, pedestrian, bicycle and storm water facilities before major

private investment occurs.



Site Tour Notes


These finding will be supplemented with actual planned public infrastructure capacity and cost data, and

information regarding redevelopment and market potential for each area. A more complete comparison of

infrastructure return on investment will be made for each area after this additional information is

collected and analyzed.

Site Tour Attendees

Michelle Kunec Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (Project Manager)

Barry Manning Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

Matt Wickstrom Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

Bob Glasscock Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

Kevin Cronin Portland Development Commission

Charlotte Larson UrbanWorks (commercial and residential broker)

Eric Turner CapacityCommercial Group (commercial and industrial broker)

Ken Valentine, PE Harper Houf Peterson Righellis (consultant team member)

Robert Yakas, AIA FCS GROUP (consultant team member)

Steve Faust, AICP Cogan Owens Cogan (consultant team member)

Todd Chase, AICP FCS GROUP (consultant team project manager)


March 2011


APPENDIX C. WALKSCORE AND

TRANSIT SCORE METHODOLOGY


March 2011 Appendix C - page 1


WalkScore and Transit Score Methodology

The following methodology is derived from www.walkscore.com and is intended to provide a

relative comparison of the ―walkability‖ and level of transit service at any given location.

WalkScore is not a measure of how pleasant a walk is in a given area, rather, it measures the ease

with which a resident of a particular address can access area facilities without a car (e.g. walk to the

store, school or community center). The WalkScore algorithm awards points based on the distance to

amenities in each category. If an amenity is within .25 miles (or .4 km), the maximum number of

points is assigned. The number of points declines as the distance approaches 1 mile (or 1.6 km)—no

points are awarded for amenities further than 1 mile. The points are summed and normalized to yield

a score from 0—100. The number of nearby amenities is the leading predictor of whether people

walk.

Transit Score is a measure of how well a location is served by public transit. Transit Scores are based

on schedule data released in a standard format by public transit agencies. To calculate a Transit

Score, a "usefulness" value is assigned to nearby transit routes based on the frequency, type of route

(rail, bus, etc.), and distance to the nearest stop on the route.

The "usefulness" of all nearby routes is summed and we normalize this to a score between 0 - 100.

Transit Score works in any city where the transit agencies publish data in the GTFS format. To

calculate a raw Transit Score, we sum the value of all of the nearby routes. The value of a route is

defined as the service level (frequency per week) multiplied by the mode weight (heavy/light rail is

weighted 2X, ferry/cable car/other are 1.5X, and bus is 1X) multiplied by a distance penalty. The

distance penalty calculates the distance to the nearest stop on a route and then uses the same distance

decay function as the WalkScore algorithm.

The amount of transit infrastructure can vary by several orders of magnitude. Scales for measuring

things that have an extremely large range of normal values (sound volume, earthquake intensity, etc)

are typically logarithmic - a bus stop in a small town might see three trips a day, whereas downtown

Manhattan might see tens of thousands. If Manhattan had a Transit Score of 100, then on a linear

scale a small town's downtown might have a Transit Score of 0.01, whereas a logarithmic score

might rate Manhattan as 100 and a small town as 10. The logarithmic score matches a rider's

experience better: the added utility of one additional bus in a small town may exceed the addition of

10 new routes in downtown Manhattan.

In order to normalize from 0 to 100, there must be a "perfect score" location. To accomplish this, the

average Transit Score of the center of a five U.S. cities where full transit data existed (San Francisco,

Chicago, Boston, Portland, and Washington, D.C.) translated to a canonical 100 Transit Score.

For additional information involving WalkScore and Transit Score visit www.walkscore.com.


March 2011


APPENDIX D. COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND

INDUSTRIAL BROKERAGE PROPERTIES


March 2011 Appendix D - page 1



March 2011


APPENDIX E. REPORT CARD

METHODOLOGY


March 2011


Infrastructure Report Card Methodology

The following methodology is derived from the ASCE ―Report Card for America’s Infrastructure‖. It

is intended to provide a general overview of infrastructure needs versus current capacity.

The Report Card section estimates each area’s infrastructure in ten vital areas— Public Transit, Road

Capacity, On Street Bicycle Capacity, Pedestrian Capacity, Access to Drinking Water, Sanitary

Sewer Facilities, Ability to Cope with Stormwater, Access to Nearby Parks, Community Centers and

Public Schools. Overall grades were given to each category, and supporting information on existing

conditions, trends and concerns, and policy options were provided, as well as recommendations for

future action. The Report Card was modeled after the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

released by ASCE National in 2005 (www.infrastructurereportcard.org).

FCS GROUP collected data from several sources on each area and element of infrastructure,

reviewed and evaluated the information to develop the grades. FCS GROUP also consulted with a

professional engineer on these evaluations in order to assure that the data and conclusions were

sound.

Grades were allocated taking into account condition and capacity as well as funding verses need—

generally following a traditional grading scale (e.g., if only 77 percent of roads were found to be in

good condition or better, a grade of C assigned). The following grading scale was used for the overall

category assessments: A = Exceptional; B = Good; C = Fair; D = Poor; and F = Inadequate.

In some cases, category grades were adjusted if measures of sensibility identified glaring weaknesses

(e.g. if an area has sidewalks on local streets but neglects major arterials) Due to the many factors

that can impact infrastructure’s overall performance, some categories were given individual grades in

multiple areas of assessment, which were then averaged to create the overall category grade. In

addition to numeric data, qualitative information was also used to make modifications to the grades.

Also, for several infrastructure categories, hard data was not readily available in all areas, which

required more subjective assessments to be made.

Table E-1 depicts specific metrics, sources and grading parameters used in for evaluating

infrastructure conditions and capacity.

Development Readiness Report Card Methodology

The following methodology was formulated by FCS GROUP. It is intended to provide an overview of an

area’s relative potential for attracting new development and private investment.

The development readiness report card measures 11 different metrics of an area’s potential for retaining

or attracting future growth. The metrics include: Housing Mix and Diversity; Residential Absorption

Trends (sales); Residential Attainable Sales and Lease Rates; Vacancy Rates; Long-term Household

Growth Forecast (provided by Metro); Business Mix; Non-Residential Absorption Trends; (change in

leased floor area); Non-Residential Attainable Lease and Vacancy Rates; Long-term Employment Growth

Forecast (provided by Metro); Public Investment Activity; Private Investment Activity; and Vacant

Land/Redevelopment Potential.

FCS Group developed grades by compiling relevant information and created grading parameters which

corresponded to a letter grade. Grades were organized based upon a traditional grading scale (A =

Exceptional; B = Good; C = Fair; D = Poor; and F = Inadequate). In some instances a category had

multiple possible metrics so the overall grade reflects an average for that category. In other cases, actual

data were not readily available, so objective assessments were made using results from the stakeholder

interviews and site visits (with brokers, planners, and others). Table E-2 depicts specific metrics, sources

and grading parameters used in for evaluating development readiness conditions.


March 2011


Table E-1A. Infrastructure Conditions Report Card Grading Methodology

A B C D F

Transit Scorewww.walkscore.co

m

Average score

between 100 and 80

Average score

between 79 and 60

Average score

between 59 and 40

Average score

between 39 and

20

Average score

between 19 and 0

LRT Proximity Trimet LRT stop in areaLRT stop within 1/4

mileLRT stop within 1/2 mile

LRT stop

between 1/2

and 1 mile away

No LRT stops a mile +

Bus Service Trimet5+ frequent bus

routes in area

2 to 4 frequent bus

routes in area

One frequent bus route

in area

Infrequent bus

serviceNo bus service

Intersection

Volume/Capacity

Ratio

PBOT

No major streets are

within 10% of

capacity at peak

travel times

One major street is

within 10% of

capacity at peak

travel times

All major streets are

within 10% of capacity

at peak travel times

One major street

is at or beyond

capacity at

peak travel

times

All major streets are

at or beyond

capacity at peak

travel times

Local Street

ConnectionsPBOT

Excellent block grid

network

Fair block grid

network

Average block grid

network

Poor block grid

network

Non-existent block

grid network

Linear Feet of Streets

that are Below City

Standards or

unimproved

PBOT 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40%+

Level of Constraint BPS

Study area

experiences no

constraint

Study area

experiences limited

constraint around

major streets during

peak travel times

Study area experiences

constraint around all

major streets but not

further into residential

streets during peak

travel times

Study area is

constrained on

80% of all streets

during peak

travel times

Study area is 100%

constrained during

peak travel times

Crash Frequency PBOTNo high frequency

crash locations

One high frequency

crash location

Two high frequency

crash locations

Three high

frequency crash

locations

Four or more high

frequency crash

locations

% of Linear Feet of

Streets Without Bike

Lanes

PBOT 0% 1-5% 5-20% 20-35% 35%+

Crash Frequency PBOTNo high frequency

crash locations

One high frequency

crash location

Two high frequency

crash locations

Three high

frequency crash

locations

Four or more high

frequency crash

locations

Walk Scorewww.walkscore.co

m

Average score

between 100 and 90

Average score

between 89 and 80

Average score

between 79 and 70

Average score

between 69 and

60

Average score

between 59 and 0

% of Linear Feet of

Streets With SidewalksPBOT 100-80% 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% 20-0%

Pedestrian Related

Crash FrequencyPBOT

No high frequency

crash locations

One high frequency

crash location

Two high frequency

crash locations

Three high

frequency crash

locations

Four or more high

frequency crash

locations

Pedestrian

MetricsInfrastructure

Element

Grading Data Source

Transit

Roads

Bike


March 2011


Table E-1B. Infrastructure Conditions Report Card Grading Methodology (continued)

A B C D F

Water GIS data

Portland Plan,

Infrastructure

Condition & Capacity

Report, BPS (Fall 2009)

Area is entirely

connected to a

distribution main,

infrastructure

recently updated

Area is entirely

connected to a

distribution main

90 % of area is

connected to a

distribution main

80 % of area is

connected to a

distribution main

70% or less of area is

connected to a

distribution main

Sewer GIS data

Portland Plan,

Infrastructure



100% of the study

area has access to

sanitary sewer

serv ices, the current

level of serv ice is

adequate to

support new

development

100% of the study

area has access

to sanitary sewer

serv ices, the

current level of

serv ice needs

some

improvement to

support new

100% of the study

area has access to

sanitary sewer

serv ices, the current

level of serv ice

needs a great deal

of improvement to

support new

development

Some of the study

area does not

have access to

sanitary sewer

serv ices any

additional

development will

require

improvements

Over half of the

study area does not

have access to

sanitary sewer

serv ices

improvements are

needed to bring the

area up to standards

Stormwater GIS data

Portland Plan,

Infrastructure



Study area is not

subject to flooding

Parts of the area is

within 10 feet of

the water table,

no stormwater

constraint has

been identified

A large percentage

of the area (50%+) is

within 10 feet of the

water table, no

stormwater

constraint has been

identified

Parts of the area

have been

identified as a

potential

stormwater

constraint or

possesses soils

unsuitable for

infiltration

A large percentage

(50%+) of the area

has been identified

as a potential

stormwater

constraint or

possesses soils

unsuitable for

infiltration

Parks

Parks Per 1,000

Population

Within 1/2 mile

of area

Portland Parks &

Recreation

Total park area is

200%+ the city

standard

Total park area is

100%-200% of the

city standard

Total park area is

within 10% of the city

standard

Total park area is

below 50% of the

city standard

Total park area is

below 100% of the

city standard

Community

Centers

Community

Centers Per

1,000

population

within 1/2 mile

of area

Portland Parks &

Recreation

Community center

presence in the

study area is 30%

greater than the

city standard for

community centers

Community center

presence in the

study area is 20%

greater than the

city standard for

community

centers

Community center

presence in the study

area is within 10% of

the city standard for

community centers

Community

center presence

in the study area

is 20% less than

the city standard

for community

centers

Community center

presence in the

study area is 30% or

more less than the

city standard for

community centers

SchoolsStudent to

Teacher Ratio

Oregon Department

of Education

Student-teacher

ratio 20%+ less than

district average

Student-teacher

ratio 5%-20% less

than district

average

Student-teacher

ratio between +5%

and -5% of district

average

Student-teacher

ratio 5%-20%

higher than

district average

Student-teacher

ratio 20%+ more

than district

average

Note: The infrastructure report card methodology is intended to prov ide the general framework for determining grades for an area. In many cases infrastructure

conditions/needs were identified through interv iews and field v isits which also assisted with the grading scheme.

Infrastructure

ElementSource Data Source

Grading


March 2011


Table E-2. Development Readiness Report Card Grading Methodology

A B C D F

Mix of existing multi and single

family dwellings

BPS or census

estimatesOver 80%+ MF 60-80% MF 40-60% MF 20-40% MF 0-20% MF

Proximity of housing to transit

stops (within 1,200 feet)Field observations

Residents have transit stops

located close to the home

Residents are within a

moderate distance from

transit service

Residents are within

walking distance of

transit service

Residents are within walking

distance of transit service but

service is inconsistent

Residents must drive to have

access to transit services


Trends

Months until existing inventory is

absorbed

Zillow.com or

RMLSUnder 10 months 10-12 months 12-14 months 14-18 months 18+ months

Average home prices VS

Portland average (dollars per SF

of floor area)

Zillow.com or

RMLS

Within 10 % of non-central

city average

Within 20 % of non-central city

average

Within 30 % of the non-

central city average

within 40% of the non-central

city average

A 41 % + deviation from the

non-central city average

Housing Vacancy rates Census 0-2% 3-4% 5-6% 7-8% 9%+

Jobs in areaCensus - On The

Map5,000+ jobs 3,500-5,000 jobs 2,000-3,500 jobs 1,000-2,000 jobs 0-1,000 jobs

Number and type of businesses Field observationsWide mix of neighborhood

and regional establishments

Good mix of neighborhood


Some mix of

neighborhood and

regional

establishments

Inconsistent mix of

neighborhood and regional

establishments

Poor mix of neighborhood


Non-Residential

Absorption Trends

Commercial, office and

industrial absorption

Broker data

(Costar)

positive absorption in

industrial, retail and office

(I/R/O)

Positive absorption in two of

three categories (I/R/O)

Positive absorption in

one of three

categories (I/R/O)

Negative absorption in all

three categories (I/R/O)

Very negative absorption and

chronic vacancy rates (I/R/O)

Public Investment Activity List of projects over the past 5+

years

Private Investment ActivityList of projects and loans/grants

over past 5+ years

Development Readiness

Very few projects have

occurred over the past 10

years

Non-residential lease rates

compared to submarket

average & commercial, office

and industrial absorption

PDC and BPS

Several projects have started

or have obtained funding

over the last 5 years

Few projects have started

and are funded over the last

5 years

Few projects have

started in the last 10

years

No projects have started over

the past 10 years

Either favorable ratio

of local lease rates or

low vacancy rates

compared to

submarket

Unfavorable ratio of local

lease rates or high vacancy

rates

Very unfavorable (low) ratio

of local lease rates and

relatively high vacancy rates

compared to submarket

Business Mix

Development

Indicator Metrics

Relatively favorable ratio of

local lease rates and

somewhat low vacancy rates

compared to the submarket

Data SourceGrading Parameters

Housing Mix/Diversity



Rates

Non-Residential

Attainable Lease &

Vacancy Rates

Broker data

(Costar)

Favorable (high) ratio of

local lease rates and

somewhat low vacancy

rates compared to

submarket


March 2011


Table E-2. Development Readiness Report Card Grading Methodology (continued)

A B C D F

Residential Growth

Forecast

Projected dwelling growth over

20 yearsMetro data 100+ D.U.s per year 70-100 D.U.s per year 40-70 D.U.s per year 10-40 D.U.s per year Less than 10 D.U.s per year

Employment Growth

Forecast

Projected job growth over 20

yearsMetro data

Metro projects a growth of

60 + jobs per year


between 40-60 jobs per year

Metro projects a

growth of between 20-

40 jobs per year


between 0-20 jobs per year

Metro projects negative job

growth

Remaining development

capacityPDC and BPS 90%+ 60%-90% 30%-60% 1%-30% 0%

Redevelopment FAR (potential

square feet)BPS 20,000,000+ 15-20,000,000 10-15,000,000 5-10,000,000 Less than 5,000,000

Basic Infa. Capital Cost

Requirements

Cost estimates

(see Table 28)

Capital cost: less than $10

millionCapital cost: $11-20 million

Capital cost: $21-30

millionCapital cost: $31-40 million Capital cost: $41+ million

Potential Payback Period (years

until city revenue exceeds

capitla cost)

Payback

estimates (see

Table 32)

Payback: Less than 30 years Payback: 31-40 years Payback: 41-50 years Payback: 51-60 years Payback: 61 + years

Buildout Potential

Infrastructure Return on Investment

Growth Forecast

Source: compiled by FCS GROUP.

Buildout Potential

Infrastructure Return on

Investment

Development

Indicator Metrics Data Source

Grading Parameters


March 2011


APPENDIX F. COST DATA


March 2011 Appendix F – page 1



APPENDIX G. POTENTIAL REVENUES


March 2011 Appendix G – page 1


Potential Fiscal Revenue Forecasts, Case Study Subareas, 2011 to 2035

Total

2011 2035 2011-35

Net New Dwellings*

1. Outer Tabor Subarea 39 39 987

2. Lents Town Center 39 39 967

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea 93 93 2,336

4. Outer Division Corridor 9 9 227

Net New Employment* 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea 51 51 1,280

2. Lents Town Center 51 51 1,270

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea 19 19 470

4. Outer Division Corridor (8) (8) (212)

Net New Non-Res. Building SF** 2011 2035 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea 20,484 20,484 512,100

2. Lents Town Center 20,325 20,325 508,133

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea 7,520 7,520 187,994

4. Outer Division Corridor - - -

Notes:

* based on Metro growth forecasts from Draft Urban Growth Report, December 2009.

** assumes average of 400 square feet of building floor area per new employee.

Years 2012 to 2034 not shown

Potential Annual Net New Assessed Value Created Total

Residential 2011 2035 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea $6,709,039 $6,709,039 $167,725,967

2. Lents Town Center $6,573,158 $6,573,158 $164,328,938

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea $15,886,931 $15,886,931 $397,173,268

4. Outer Division Corridor $1,546,020 $1,546,020 $38,650,493

Non-Residential 2011 2035 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea $2,176,427 $2,176,427 $54,410,663

2. Lents Town Center $2,159,565 $2,159,565 $53,989,130

3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea $798,976 $798,976 $19,974,398

4. Outer Division Corridor $0 $0 $0

Notes: assumes net new market value of $200,000 per

dwelling unit and $125 per square foot of non-residential

floor area, and 85% assessed to market value ratio.





Potential Annual Net New Tax Revenues Generated Total Total

2011 2035 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea $192,452 $192,452 $4,811,291

2. Lents Town Center $189,143 $189,143 $4,728,584


4. Outer Division Corridor $33,485 $33,485 $837,137

Potential Annual Net New Tax Revenues Generated for City of Portland

1. Outer Tabor Subarea $64,001 $64,001 $1,600,028

2. Lents Town Center $62,901 $62,901 $1,572,523



Note: based on current average property tax rates of

$7.2029 per $1,000 of AV for city of Portland, and $14.45625

for other taxing districts.


Potential Net new SDC Revenues Total

1. Outer Tabor Subarea 2011 2035 2011-35

Other Fees $38,099 $38,099 $952,469

Roads $22,582 $22,582 $564,553

Water $17,553 $17,553 $438,832

Sewer $37,740 $37,740 $943,507

Stormwater $2,641 $2,641 $66,023

Parks $51,127 $51,127 $1,278,165

Total $169,742 $169,742 $4,243,550


2. Lents Town Center 2011 2035 2011-35

Other Fees $37,803 $37,803 $945,078

Roads $22,407 $22,407 $560,167

Water $17,417 $17,417 $435,420

Sewer $37,447 $37,447 $936,185

Stormwater $2,620 $2,620 $65,500

Parks $50,730 $50,730 $1,268,250

Total $168,424 $168,424 $4,210,600







3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea 2011 2035 2011-35

Other Fees $146,652 $146,652 $3,666,292

Roads $86,862 $86,862 $2,171,558

Water $67,485 $67,485 $1,687,126

Sewer $145,270 $145,270 $3,631,760

Stormwater $10,024 $10,024 $250,602

Parks $196,851 $196,851 $4,921,277

Total $653,145 $653,145 $16,328,616


4. Outer Division Corridor 2011 2035 2011-35

Other Fees $33,794 $33,794 $844,854

Roads $20,016 $20,016 $500,410

Water $15,551 $15,551 $388,778

Sewer $33,476 $33,476 $836,897

Stormwater $2,310 $2,310 $57,748

Parks $45,362 $45,362 $1,134,051

Total $150,510 $150,510 $3,762,739

Potential Franchise Fee Revenues Total

2011 2035 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea $9,636 $9,636 $240,907


3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea $19,478 $19,478 $486,956


Notes:

Utility Franchise Fee Per Capita

Utility Franchise Fee Per EDR

Persons Per Household

Potential State Shared Tax Revenues Total

2011 2035 2011-35

1. Outer Tabor Subarea $1,984 $1,984 $49,608


3. Powellhurst-Gilbert Subarea $4,699 $4,699 $117,471

4. Outer Division Corridor $457 $457 $11,432

Notes:

Persons Per Household

State Shared Tax Revenues Per Capita





city of portland bureau of planning and sustainability...

Documents