Land Bank Commission approves play space concept, bridge surveys, and budget increase

[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): Point. I was trying to look where we are. There's one spot that looks like maybe there's some Okay, [0:12] Speaker B (unidentified): we [0:23] Speaker C (unidentified): are live. Okay, so I am told we [0:30] Speaker D (unidentified): have a forum. I will start the meeting for August 12 Land Bank Commission meeting. I wanted to start out with a public comment period. This is for anything that's not on the agenda if there's any public comment I know Bruce is here for a reason probably not public comment okay thank you so we will close the public comment session no public comments here our agenda items are acceptance of our minutes from May 13 Like I said, standing. Secretary's report. Our secretary is not present, so we'll skip that. Next up is our treasurer's report. And we'll do that. [2:02] Speaker A (unidentified): I'll give a quick update on our balance, and that is $724,717. And that accounts for just the allocation that has been made but not spent. So those being soft costs per day, this times $10,000. $30,000 for the 12-hour full launch and $12,500 for more than $30 parking. [Speaker E (unidentified): Any questions?] I think since I was here in May, but I was looking through the notes, there is a rerunning [2:51] Speaker F (unidentified): of how much we should receive in terms of how we can help with this, right? [2:57] Speaker A (unidentified): We are obviously receiving more per year for our allocation. This year, we received $230,000, which is a lot more than we could receive in the past [3:10] Speaker F (unidentified): This is the government house. He's still there. We have some interpretation. [3:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Something that's fine. Is [3:21] Speaker F (unidentified): there going to be a little bit of that? I think I don't think so. [3:30] Speaker D (unidentified): But I've my guess is there's nothing to be retroactive. [3:36] Speaker G (unidentified): The years are over. [3:40] Speaker D (unidentified): There's no set aside for it. We haven't, we haven't requested that, we haven't had a discussion about it, and I didn't [3:49] Speaker A (unidentified): actually think that was a, probably an option. It probably wouldn't make this very popular. [3:53] Speaker F (unidentified): And everybody [3:59] Speaker C (unidentified): just hold for a second. Madeline says she can see it, but she cannot hear it, so just hold. I have a transcript, but I [4:19] Speaker D (unidentified): think let's keep going okay any other questions on the treasurer's report is there a motion to approve it made by Mike and second by Rob all those in favor it's unanimous next new item new business item is University Park play space and I know we've received some materials and Ethan do [4:55] Speaker H (unidentified): you want to walk us through this one sure University Park you have some materials here you know it's located it does give the location it's off of Allen Avenue You can hear it on L.A. Avenue. [Speaker D (unidentified): Land bank property] That's nearby development on Harvard Street, which was a paper street that's being developed with City Street. So private property that's flooding the land bank property that's being developed for housing. And the neighborhood has expressed a desire for an enhancement of the existing land and property. It's kind of raised discussions in the neighborhood. There's feelings that people are losing Park space. There's no Park space being lost technically, but it sure feels like it in the neighborhood. It's like what it used to be, trees and trails, you know. There's there's housing, which is also a priority of the city that we need, but one of those trade-offs. So there's, you know, the neighborhood is reached out to staff but Alice Marshall our parks community director about the desire for a natural space in university park. If you're familiar with it, there's a meadow that was southeast end of the of the wood mostly wooded property with trail on it, but there is a meadow that we do keep in meadow condition well and annually, but it's not approved that kind of intentionally. And the reason we're bringing this to you is because land bank for traditional land bank properties, you know, we typically don't have playgrounds or other structures on them. If we were to put a playground play space or some kind of other structure here, we'd like the land back to weigh in on that and, you know, feel it feel a green light before we do it, because they're generally tend to stay in their natural position except for trails. The proposed improvements would be pretty modest, you know, we're talking like a natural play space and Alex tried to include a couple of examples like that you can find here in Portland. Hillside slides, you know, basically used to be like landforms, not structures. So, you know, but regrading, to, you know, create like small little hills for some slides and tunnels,, rocks, boulders, logs, and potentially a small dirt-biked pump track. So this would be more of a kids' version, not a big skills course like we have at Riverton Trawling Park, but you can see someone on a push bike on a used dirt pump track, so very kid-oriented, and then they graduate from this, the Riverton Trawling Park. Park so modest natural materials and you know there's been no design done yet, but before we proceeded with that, this would be kind of the overarching thinking on that would be all natural materials to keep this a natural play space but provide an amenity to the community that feels as if they're losing something so they can improve the park for people have asked for, but it's land bank property so land bank fishers should weigh in on that and because it would be a variance to how we typically treat land bank properties, we don't have any of these in Baxter Woods or Canada Woods or Suburb River Preserve and we don't have any plans to add them. This would be a kind of a unique case, typically keep playgrounds for developed 12 arms. Would this be precedent setting? The land bank can do what it wants to, it requires a vote on the land bank, the recommendation to recommend and we're confirming the court Council whether a Council vote is required for this, we're not quite sure on that, but at the very least the commission should weigh in. It wouldn't be a carte blanche for playgrounds to go in all land back properties, each one of those require a lot [9:41] Speaker E (unidentified): so I remember not too many years ago there were there was a desire to afford the playgrounds in Holtland's Park, Will Stone Science Street and that will turn down because natural you know trail space and built and unimproved not park space in space and then just personally having been involved with the rules for 20 odd years now, we know that there has always been a reluctance to convert open space into parks and parks. [10:27] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, that's why there's an ordinance, land back ordinance and why this is coming in 48 because in general, we don't. So this would be a variance to the standard procedure, here which is okay property position, this is kind of in response to you know a request from the neighborhood and staff felt it so you know our parks division staff felt it was modest enough and natural enough that it didn't kind of fit the overall you know feel of the land bank property so then feels like an open space but has some minor recreational improvements this but that's really up to you all and yeah thanks yeah you said the place it would [11:20] Speaker I (unidentified): go is known right now, yeah, sort of like how often is it like a once a year so it gets really [11:27] Speaker H (unidentified): tall, yeah, it's like once a year, yeah, it's like a meadow, yeah, it just gets seasonal mowing, yeah, [11:34] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah,. And then what ish is the footprint of the [11:39] Speaker H (unidentified): Playground? That's a good question. I don't know if you put this in here. It's not a very big meadow. It's a pretty small meadow. It's under half an acre and they would have been using. Yeah, probably about the size of this room. Yeah, just to give some context. Yeah. [11:57] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm curious about [11:58] Speaker F (unidentified): the most steering part. Is part of that like where the field is that not in the landmark and that is actually okay [12:07] Speaker H (unidentified): It's a good question. So the way that project was funded, you know, we had funding from all these different sources and there's strings attached to the different sources. The state money that went into that project from the main freelance future that can't be used, that can be only be used for funding acquisition of property that's going to stay in its unimproved state, you know, open space basically. And so we couldn't use those funds towards the acquisition of the baseball parcel, so it just went towards the other part. We had two different parcels, so the state funds went towards that other parcel and we used other funds. North area park is in the land bank, it has going to land by property land bank funds that are used to purchase it has pre-existing recreational amenities on it. We have no plans to add a play around there. If we did, that would likely have to be in the original parcel that was not purchased without element funds and would likely require my bank approval as well. We don't have any plans for that though and [13:24] Speaker F (unidentified): I was just asking because I was wondering if having a field, a soccer field or something on a land bank property is somewhat precedent set. Or that like sledding hill that's sort of clear. [13:38] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah. You're raising a very interesting question and one of the reasons our ordinances are so confusing because the parks ordinance and the land bank ordinance contradict each other and so every single part are all parks but I think one or two so eastern prong gearing oaks all of our destination parks and neighborhood parks are all listed as land bank properties as well as being designated parks. So technically if you're to read it left by the letter there's no should be a playground a lot of deer and Oaks either obviously those are developed parks, we're not going to remove those playgrounds, and it's more we need to adjust the ordinance to account for developed parts versus undeveloped building spaces. But because of it's a long story, I tell you the whole history, I'm not going to right now, but of why it is that way. But was through the citizen referendum that didn't kind of take it to those things into account, so now we have like contradicting concordances, but University Park has always been treated as like a traditional land back property open states no improvements, that's how we in practice, that's how we treated the University Park. So this would be a slight change, you know, the rest of the park with key vases out of the cleared area just like this fire new property that already has a field [15:05] Speaker F (unidentified): right just laying back property, it would be adding, yeah. [15:13] Speaker I (unidentified): That's really good, you said the field is wrong right now, that'd be from, yeah, do you know, does anyone know why that feels, there's some incentive that captures other people's attention, yeah, just [15:28] Speaker H (unidentified): to keep it as a meadow habitat, like if we don't mow it becomes forested, right, and we have an interest in maintaining various types of habitats. Take that down, it would it would be in that, you know, there'd still be the edges and you know we're not going to use the entire meadow area, it would infringe on it. Yeah. Yeah. [15:55] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah. OK. And then the alternative, too, would be to make it as a metal, a different metal element. It is associated. I believe Ball broke its knee by a tie line. [16:11] Speaker I (unidentified): Maybe that's a question of is it wet, or is there some other reason that 's a question of it? [16:17] Speaker E (unidentified): We'll have to look and see what the ordinance is doing. And others, there were wetlands in that area. But we're going to have to see wetlands. There were wetlands in a portion of the area that's being developed at one point in the years. But they were associated with. [16:43] Speaker D (unidentified): One thing I will mention, the ordinance does talk about this situation and has some thresholds related to Arden's question about the size of the parcel. I seem to remember it's limited to 5,000 square feet or 10% of the parcel. I'm going to say whichever is less. I don't know if that makes sense. But those are the two thresholds which I'm sure the corporation council is going to see that when they look at the ordinance it's probably something we should be aware of. It is specifically in the ordinance that way for this purpose so that this sort of higher level of development maybe this doesn't beat the higher level that may talk about buildings and other infrastructure as opposed to using some and not all the space. I don't know, I don't know what the footprint is, so I just point that out. There is something in the ordinance to pay attention to around developing land bank properties or, you know, doing something other than trails or just wild nature of the property you. [18:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Mentioned there was community support. You sort of quantify how many members? [18:13] Speaker H (unidentified): There's been no petition or anything like that or a community meeting, but we've been approached by numerous, say, three to five members of the community that our parks division staff have been meeting with, people who live nearby, people like to see that, so maybe someone came and spoke. [18:31] Speaker A (unidentified): At the main meeting as well? Oh, you mean a proponent? Yes, there was a proponent. Yeah. [18:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, any other questions, concerns? [18:47] Speaker F (unidentified): I. [18:55] Speaker H (unidentified): Can just quickly just put a purpose, people understanding where this is. Work by this view to get into a full page view, it's just so small, so just in your, I just opened my, your participant view a little. [19:26] Speaker I (unidentified): Square, the two to the right of that, I mean to the left of that, right, if you put the little squares to the right of them, that one, yeah, which one is it, full screen? [19:41] Speaker H (unidentified): There we go, all right, so you can see where we are here, and then university, it's very close to here, it's basically back behind this building, this is University Park, if you can see my cursor moving on there, this portion, the northern portion, is the land bank property, this south of the Harvard Street paths can develop sport has been developed into the road, and much of this parcels south of that for a new road is being developed into the house, so it's getting narrower, the meadow is this section down. Here, so you can see a trail going through there already that would stay, might need a slight reroute depending on where the playground goes, but there would still be a trail there, and then leading through the rest of the property, so it's an interesting shortcut you can get from morals corner area paths high school and paths, open space up here. Through University Park, Portland Trails has a great connector trail that goes from the end of Majors Court here through the woods behind this building up in Canco Road. It's a nice walk. [21:02] Speaker E (unidentified): Can you build a base map here? [21:05] Speaker H (unidentified): I'll just Google Maps here. Yeah, you should be able to with a great [21:08] Speaker E (unidentified): right-hand side view in this base map. [21:21] Speaker H (unidentified): yeah i'm not a nerd i'm just a mouse yeah oh even the maps [21:28] Speaker E (unidentified): basement but basically i wanted to see what was in relation oh yeah very close there [21:39] Speaker D (unidentified): okay so if there's no other comments i'm not sensing anyone is opposed to this i think we're just asking questions about skies a bit the scale of that relation to the parcel following our ordinance which we should be doing and brushing up on what that what that's actually saying that's a vague recollection that i know there are professionals in it is there anything else we're concerned about that we want parks [22:17] Speaker F (unidentified): to consider. I'll see what you're talking about. [22:24] Speaker E (unidentified): So it might [22:26] Speaker A (unidentified): be worthwhile just refreshing what [22:31] Speaker F (unidentified): is within our purview to approve or not approve. [22:36] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. Yeah, it there's various thresholds for things when it comes to disposition as well as development that is worth taking a look at. And this is this is one of them that I remember this 5000 acre or 10 of the partial threshold partial threshold to minimize development so if we're not doing that we should consider why and deal with it i just don't you know depends on the design and the final plan for what goes in Yeah, I think it's no more than 5,000 square feet or 10% of the problem. I just can't remember the wording. That's the important piece is what does it actually say about that? Yeah. Yeah, I only bring it up to answer the question. I don't have the answer, unfortunately. me i just have a recollection of those numbers with this yeah personally even though i recognize [23:57] Speaker F (unidentified): it might be precedent-setting you have a favor what's been shown is a thought [24:07] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah so i [24:13] Speaker D (unidentified): think we'd wait to codify this with when we see the plan that seems like the right annoying thing to do, or are you suggesting otherwise, Ethan? [24:23] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, to get a plan, we're going to need to spend money. We don't want to spend money if the land bank is not supportive of even pursuing it. [Speaker D (unidentified): There could be] I guess one option, and you don't need to make a decision tonight. If you want to think, then we've got further, you know, from court counsel on, you know, what action you need to take and whether this needs to go to the council. But, you know, there could be a conditional sort of like, you know, proceed with planning for this. Generally supportive, would like to see the whole plan, but I'm just cautious about wanting to raise in community expectations and spend a lot of and potentially fundraising effort is offered. The city would also see funding for this too, you see. That other sources get approved, but we don't want to, yeah, waste money basically. [25:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Is there due diligence monies from the land bank? Would you, would you request money from the land bank? We weren't planning on that. [25:50] Speaker H (unidentified): Wants to, I mean, for the due diligence of just getting the opinion. [25:54] Speaker D (unidentified): For council, yeah, I guess I was thinking like the actual design and yeah, that sort of worked. [26:02] Speaker H (unidentified): No, we would like to see other funding unless the land bank was excited about this and wanted to fund this. That raises another question of like, if the, can the land bank use their funds for this? That is one thing to grant variance for a different type of land use, but whether the funds, because there's different language in the ordinance about the use of the fund, so we haven't considered that yet. So I haven't thought that through, yeah. [26:36] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't know, is there anyone who is opposed to this and doesn't want to pursue it further and have something there resembling this nature-like park, obviously based on meeting the ordinance, etc.? [26:54] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, it sounds pretty good. I just want to see this plan to make sure it looks like, oh yeah, we're going to take out this huge wet area. Or, oh, we're going to gather it here and here and here and here. So this huge thing is likely to. Yeah. Yeah. It's a little bit like that, but I don't know what they are. [27:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah. But we're having a. [27:15] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm sure they're holding this in. I'm not sure. [27:18] Speaker A (unidentified): I'm on the same page. I'm generally supportive of the idea. I think it would benefit from seeing a drawing wrong or an unrelated space to pick up. But even as of today, I probably will have to move forward. It sounds like I'm supported, too, and would like to have the answers from Corporation Council on a handful of questions so that we know that if we can't approve this, maybe we could put, if we could put funds into this improvement of program bank space. I don't think, I guess we could hear new information, but if you need something from us, then I can forward it, I guess we could consider that, [Speaker B (unidentified): but it's] Around the table, it sounds like we're all, we're all proof of something. You can do the work in the interim, I'm kidding. [28:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. So let's make a motion to that effect that we can sexually approve it in this location pending details. That would work. Yeah. Is there any anything else a motion? Sure and review by corporation yes. [28:56] Speaker C (unidentified): We just summed that up one more time please. [28:58] Speaker F (unidentified): Please. Yeah, what they say. [29:02] Speaker D (unidentified): We would we conceptually approve moving forward with designing and eventually building the nature like play space at University Park pending review from corporation council you know i'm seeing details yeah sometimes sure and a design plan okay anybody want to second it like second that it's all those in favor of the motion and it's unanimous with everybody here so who was the first Mike, I suck at music. I'm sorry. I made the motion. Okay, thank you. [29:56] Speaker G (unidentified): I know you helped. Thank you. Great. I guess that's what we need to move forward. [30:04] Speaker F (unidentified): Just one question. Yeah. Is it possible to have a representative of the Corporation Council at the next Land Bank meeting? [30:11] Speaker H (unidentified): Sure. Yes, we have done that in the past. We have. Honestly, that doesn't happen as much anymore. But in my early days land bank like corporation council would attend on a regular basis every meeting that was a luxury yeah so they don't attend as much anymore but they're available and they can come especially for a topic like this so i'm happy to set that up especially next [30:34] Speaker D (unidentified): Meeting we might have more commissions yeah no question okay good let's move to the next new business item this is the main turnpike authority found the spur redesign i thought it was important that we talk about this because it has some initial needs which are minor and then it has a phase of actually a land acquisition slash disposition or the relocation redesign design of the Falmouth Spur, which partially is on the Lambeck property adjacent to Riverside Golf Course. So we have materials. The request tonight is for the archaeological, hand-dig archaeological, and geotechnical boring, which would be machine-derived, minor disturbance, potentially some disturbance like any other moorings that we do on properties hopefully not like the developer of avenue i doubt that would be the case but so those two items for the for the archaeological dig and the moorings are the most pressing need the other thing I think is the overview of the project which will come before us at another time And I think we've already had some discussion with Ethan and maybe corporation council about this requiring council activity as a, as a disposition, because it would, it would dispose of property while gaining property in another location. It is a swap, but it's also a disposition. Is that how it's being viewed? [32:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, there's a land squat, but there's an eventual land swap. Yeah, that would save commission and [32:39] Speaker D (unidentified): I know Bruce is here to answer questions, talk about it. I wanted to just see, Ethan, if you wanted to look at things beforehand, do you want to ask Bruce to do that? What's your preferred way to look at the materials? Let's discuss them. [33:01] Speaker G (unidentified): Bruce, do you have materials? I mean, I know you've sent, we have some images and I can share those on the screen and you [33:07] Speaker F (unidentified): can talk through them. [33:08] Speaker G (unidentified): Does that work for you? Sounds great. But I'm going to just report once. Yeah. Because I'm a person of a certain age and don't always trust technology, I did actually print out 11 by 17 poppings of the actual map. [33:23] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, thank you so much. Yeah. Well, that's great. [33:25] Speaker F (unidentified): Because I find when you take the images and put them on half by 11, it's quite a fast fiction. [33:46] Speaker G (unidentified): Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for being here. I was on the planning board for almost a decade in my local community and know how tough forums and the July-August timeframe can be, so I really appreciate all of you being here today. This is a project about the Falmouth Spur Overpass Bridge. It's the one where the Falmouth Spur comes across and crosses the turnpike and loops back in and connects at exit 52. That bridge is nearing the end of its useful life, and so this is really just a bridge replacement project. We're trying to figure out the best way to do it. I would let you know that we had extensive meetings about whether we even wanted to make it a request. Was there a way that we could build it right on alignment? The reason we are here and asking for some preliminary steps so that we can investigate more whether it's prudent, which is the archaeological and warrants, is that there are tremendous safety benefits for both during construction, for the traveling public. If you can build off alignment just to the construction workers are more like 40 feet away instead of five. The number of times you have to do full night closures is much less with better for the traveling public. So that is the primary reason we're here asking for the opportunity to investigate further. We did obviously find out not only was it city property, it was in the land bank. I think someone gave us the heads up that this is a bank that only makes deposits, withdrawals generally not. We were cognizant of that throughout. We're not trying to, you have three maps here that are kind of an order of investigation. The first one is where we're looking for archaeological that's literally state work literally shovels hand shovels people making sure that we're not getting into archaeological resources that would could prevent going over there you can see that map green the second one is where we take this small thrill rig the green is ones on turnpike property already and we're going to be doing this in fact they're in the process of doing them relatively soon. We are not going on to the city property, which is shown in yellow, those warnings, unless we get some kind of okay, obviously, you don't generally show up on people across you. So especially, in this case. So that's what we're actually asking for tonight. It was just you're okay on those two points. What that could lead to is the third map which will be a future date and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it but I always found when I was sitting in your shoes you'd like to know why you're doing the thing now for what purpose if we get the information from the archaeological and the borings and it looks like a go we already know from a safety perspective that simply tipping off to the right a little bit and then coming across from Thelma and making that loop is better for safety during construction and for the traveling public. I can also report that it is a little cheaper to do that because you don't have to build retaining walls and we are affecting an existing trail resource, Portland Trails. And so we've already been talking to John about how we just like you mitigate wetland or anything like that. I'm gonna get a trail. We're looking to find a way to certainly make the connection again and perhaps do other things, because if we're getting a savings because city allows us to swap land, cities who share with that, we're intending to do that ongoing bond extension that we'll get to. So that if we get to a land swap stop, you'll know what that is. So [38:13] Speaker D (unidentified): It's okay to call you Ethan? Yeah, of course. Yeah, we're not that fun. Thank you, I appreciate it. [38:20] Speaker G (unidentified): Always ask first. Yes, so I don't take any other time, but that's why we're here. I'm happy to answering our questions. We're hoping to get approval to go forward with an archaeological handspade work and the drawings that we see in yellow on the [38:36] Speaker D (unidentified): site. Thank you. Any questions from missionaries? Brief like summary of why [38:47] Speaker I (unidentified): that's better than over here, but it's a hard thing there. But you said it was [38:52] Speaker G (unidentified): just a lot easier, mostly a geometric thing. It's a building on alignment or very close to alignment would say you have to build a vertical copper dam wall. You've got to drill and just build vertical and try to build this right here while this is active traffic. By moving up to the right, it allows you to get off alignment. People can work and you can build the new and transitions is much less disruptive both for the traveling public and for the work. It's the difference between live traffic being 40 feet away and five feet away, and work cell safety has been a big priority for us lately, and we tried to do things to slow speeds using technology, but then we realized you can do things by your design too and how you sequence [39:45] Speaker A (unidentified): months, at least last month. [39:47] Speaker G (unidentified): So that's part of the reason, big, part of the reason. [39:53] Speaker A (unidentified): I have, I guess I'm just curious what the archeological taking is for. Do you expect to find something or is that just standard procedure? [40:05] Speaker G (unidentified): We don't, it's standard procedure. You check with the historic and you say, hey, we're doing it. By the way, this is the first time they ever said, yeah, dig, first time for us. And every time they do, you go, okay we will and so yeah they just said it. I have walked this site a couple times. I was on fun park ready to get to go out and see stuff and there is kind of like this little plateau and it's kind of natural and you can imagine it was some kind of village you know above where the river is down below where it's dry and down below is wet. If there was someone who wanted to native peoples that were looking for a spot, I could, yeah, I could see it. And I don't speak for the experts, but it didn't, after they said, yeah, take a look back then. Okay. And we did, so we're looking to make sure that we're not disrupting any kind of native peoples [41:09] Speaker A (unidentified): that settlements well and I said second question which is in terms of the borings [41:18] Speaker G (unidentified): the property how disruptive is that it's not totally I heard that there was an experience here thanks to a loving developer and it's a you've probably seen well drilling rates this is much smaller and it's a little it's a it's a track thing that has about a 20 foot and so it can navigate through woods you can occasionally have to drop a tree because you just can't get there but it's that level I mean it's just like do we have to drop one or two trees you know that kind of stuff and in this particular area where it's black I kind of think we can snake through it, but you might have hand stuff taking care of it when it comes to it. [42:00] Speaker A (unidentified): And that's to sort of determine whether it's a decent spot. [42:05] Speaker G (unidentified): Geotechnical, you never build until you know what's underneath. So for both reasons, make sure we're not messing up archaeological finds, and make sure geology works. [42:15] Speaker A (unidentified): Cool, thank you very much. [42:18] Speaker F (unidentified): One question for me, sort of end result, if this were to happen, and end up on the last part in green that would, I guess, be part of the land spot. Is there plans to remediate that and bring it back to a natural state? So you wouldn't just leave us with the old,. Oh, no,. [42:36] Speaker G (unidentified): You wouldn't have pavement with weeds growing up for it. No, nothing like that. In fact, this is actually, because it quite steeply goes down to the river there between the golf course in this actually has more value in terms of preserving that lumber bag and how we do bring it back that's a conversation at that point but how do you want to brought back under what conditions it's relatively steep there it's not like we can do too much we don't want to start too much but certainly it would be green when it's done and how it's terrorist and work and stuff like that Something you can have that conversation from a stormwater standpoint. [43:23] Speaker E (unidentified): Just to let in just how it's stabilized, exactly the same thing with the new area that's being disrupted. Also, if there's opportunities to provide some sort of, you know, low cost stormwater management there. So does, as you know, it's the soils, they're highly. [43:41] Speaker D (unidentified): As you go down towards the, it's a lot of play, you know, the stuff right there just on the trail like. [43:47] Speaker G (unidentified): Old John and Steve for some time, but that was, that was a little bit of a experience. And so But yeah, and all that kind of, we'd be talking with appropriate staff because we actually try to exceed, you know, standards in that regard. And given the sensitivity of this parcel, it's an old parcel in the very northwestern tip of Portland, fairly, very close to Belmont line. And it's kind of not a busy area, you know, it's kind of off the beaten path. But it's important there, and so we would be looking for ways to make sure we improve stormwater, not make it worse. [44:49] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, our eyes, ears are wide open for the technology we want to do there. [44:59] Speaker G (unidentified): Because like I say, if this goes forward, and it's an app, we'll be coming back again after we get this information that hopefully is approved tonight and a whole bunch of design work, a whole bunch of other stuff, and it's going to be like, okay, here's the plan, we had a long conversation, you know, once I honestly was not aware of the land bank, I knew it was city property, but I didn't know the land bank process, and that's a process, you know, and super majorities, all those kind of votes, so it was. Kind of like our first step was, let's avoid, let's not go here, and but the safety benefits and the potential savings that we can partially share with the city at the end of the day by swapping land, there's no loss of land, and you probably end up with better trails and better erosion control before you're all done. So I honestly believe it is better for all when it's all done, but we need to do more work to be able to, we don't like to and make promises we can keep, so let's do the work and come. Back and follow. Some of the debate we just had would be a lot easier if you saw a plan. That's what we're trying to do, get enough information. [46:12] Speaker A (unidentified): So we can come up with a plan for you. [46:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Bruce, could you just broadly speak to the timing if you were to move forward? What would happen? [46:23] Speaker G (unidentified): Oh, the two things would happen really soon. Like I say, we have a drill rig in the area and other places don't work for us already, but they will proceed. It would be within, you know, months, weeks, months of the hand digging is just waiting to make sure it's okay. The boring, the small rig that does the boring's, [46:53] Speaker H (unidentified): I mean, it could literally be within days, weeks, [46:57] Speaker G (unidentified): certainly not more than a month before they get out, but that's a long way from the actual proposal okay but I just didn't staff I'm actually here for Lauren Plumbing who's the project manager just like everyone's on vacation this way you draw stars and see your head although I anytime there's a new process I don't learn it is always a fun thing to do yeah I said we even show the swap is that like being too presumptuous and I said look as long as they know it's if things work out and they're okay later and they know that we know it's just more counsel the whole process that we do I think it's it's always best to kind of say we're doing this for a reason and here's the reason here's the final condition if everything works out so didn't want to hide in balls for that [47:52] Speaker F (unidentified): Do you know where you plan to access the big sites with the water you put in? [47:59] Speaker G (unidentified): It would be from our own right of way somehow. Because if not, I know every one of those up and down where they come from a different place. This project is distinguished there's another project we have going on which is the Portland area main line from like mile 49 to 53 that's a that's a separate project so that's not this one but it's in the vicinity and that's why I bring it up and that's why it is that's why there's a drill rig like in the area ready to do stuff and they were going to be here actually earlier and you know you know not until we get to have a conversation to do so great [48:45] Speaker D (unidentified): Thank you appreciate the overview I wanted to move it into commissioner discussion any other questions thoughts concerns about the request again it is the hand-digging archaeological and the and the boardings is really the only thing that we would act on and then wait and see what we what comes of it yeah I'll put my Portland Trails hat on and take my chair hat off we've had considerable discussion about this particularly with our trail crew who knows a lot more than I do about this and also With Main Turnpike Authority, who has offered to remediate any impact they would have if they would partially be impacting the trail, not entirely, but it essentially makes the trail not very functional. And Portland Trails doesn't think it's a great trail. It has close proximity to the highway. It's challenging for the reasons Bruce mentioned in terms of its materials and design. So we've been, we've been working to redesign an alternative that we know will be superior to what we have because we now have the option to be able to do that with you know some of the mitigation around it so portal trails is totally fine with this in fact i think it's going to be a much better situation for all around for trails as well i will mention just quickly at some of the not to get too far ahead of it but i 've looked at this because i'm interested in this area and i've talked to the trail court from trails about it and again back with my commissioner hat this green area that's proposed is actually much more of a buffer to the, to the wetland system and the watershed than the other side. So there is some, just natural, off the cuff, that seems like a better bang for the buck in terms of what we do, the sort of work the Land Bank does, by being a better buffer in a better place than land on the other side, just on its face. Obviously more to learn about that, but that seems to be the case as far as we can tell from what, you know, certainly what Port of the Trail knows about the property, what I personally know about it. It seems like a better place to have undeveloped land for better natural services, talking about this green space. Yeah, it's just, it's buffering the water resources more directly. [51:50] Speaker E (unidentified): Thing is that a fair statement, Doug? Probably I'd have to look at our map and see what we got. [51:57] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, because there's a, there's a stream right along that green section to [52:04] Speaker F (unidentified): me. It seems like you've been taking a chunk of the land banking property that has lower conservation values. It's right next to the highway, potentially adding a bit more of an offer to the top course [52:16] Speaker H (unidentified): to. Yeah, that does from the Gulf perspective, and it does give a little more buffer to the, to the golf course, that first look, the proposed swap. But we're not proposing this, we're not discussing or voting on the swap tonight. That would be negotiated and reviewed by court counsel or all those people, whatever it comes to you, and then the council for approval. But yeah, just first glance, we see benefits and at least discussing it from [52:50] Speaker D (unidentified): what I know of this [52:52] Speaker F (unidentified): area being so close to the presunscat river being slightly has somewhat of a landslide potential because of the presunscat play and i believe there were two historical landslides just opposite the river i think of course so i from that perspective i think it is especially important to get through soil boring surveys and obviously the found the spur was [53:20] Speaker D (unidentified): constructed near the Subscape River so you probably detected there was some engineering [53:24] Speaker F (unidentified): for you but from my perspective it seems especially important to get the forms because it's it's likely that there's some results got quite into it oh god and I'd be willing to bet [53:37] Speaker E (unidentified): that area that's cleared is probably cleared as part of the, you know, the, you know, the staging area and your storage area. [53:48] Speaker G (unidentified): I've made the exact same conclusion but historic is not so sure. Really? Yeah and so that's why you'll find out as soon as you dig down you'll see, you know, this variation. But I thought the exact same thing. It was just too flat and too to August, but they're not outdoor. And so that's what we're looking for. I'm sorry, I should have said that. [54:14] Speaker D (unidentified): No problem. Thank you, Bruce. Any other final discussion? I think we should take action on the two items [54:21] Speaker F (unidentified): that we've been asked. [54:23] Speaker D (unidentified): But anything else before we do that? Is there a motion? [54:29] Speaker A (unidentified): I have one question for Bruce. Is your decision to move forward contingent on whether there are other moving parts other than the boardings in the archaeological aspect that could hold us up well we're going to do a [54:47] Speaker G (unidentified): project there that bridge needs so it's just a case of whether we're going to do the less safe and less right with you know retaining walls and all that kind of stuff so no when you're asking I'm I wear a lot of different hats in my life but I was an engineer by a Richard friend you never ask an engineer whether you can do that the answer is always yes that's how much it costs and so the answer is just that we'll probably spend more money and stay on property but we don't think that's a good idea both for safety costs and honestly not our judgment to make there's benefits to the city through ecology too when we're all done because we are very ears open saying could you do something like this and whatever the cost of that is will be work while both financial and relationship-wise [55:42] Speaker A (unidentified): so assuming the moorings are boring and the archaeological aspect is not in play this is the path of the thing that 's basically your yes I think it's subject to [55:55] Speaker F (unidentified): Attempts are yes, yeah, absolutely, so yes, thank you. And so thank you for just asking, just asking for [56:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Approval to go on and do those two surveys. Yeah, we're giving property to go on, we're giving permission to go on the property to do those activities that they're requesting. [Speaker B (unidentified): Anyone want] To make that motion? I'll move to, I guess, okay, do you want to just stay in so that Jess can [56:26] Speaker A (unidentified): Know what we said? Sure, I will move to approve of the proposed borings and archaeological thinking on this particular landing property. Can I say motion to approve the [56:45] Speaker C (unidentified): Turnpike authorities request for archaeological and geotechnical borings on landing? Yes. [56:58] Speaker D (unidentified): So we have motions and Joshua seconded. Who did Josh? If I send you and all those in favor of the motion? And it's everybody here. [57:11] Speaker G (unidentified): Good luck. Thank you all again for [57:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Thank you for coming in. Oh, no,, it's I always [57:22] Speaker G (unidentified): You know on a planning board, I just I always like to see [57:29] Speaker H (unidentified): Bruce, we can follow up. We'll probably put this, we'll wrap the land bank's approval of this into a license agreement, so you have that. So we'll follow up with that. Yeah, take care. [57:41] Speaker B (unidentified): Good evening. Okay, [57:46] Speaker G (unidentified): Old business. Strutter on a boat launch funds. [57:52] Speaker D (unidentified): This is a request to amend the monies that we previously allocated for Strutter on a boat launch, primarily due to inflation and increasing costs that are difficult to keep up with. Rob reminded me I believe we originally allocated thirty thousand dollars. We now know additional monies are needed. I believe fifteen percent, which was about five thousand dollars. I got the numbers right, did I get that right? I can check. Yeah, no, I might be wrong about that, fifteen percent of than 30. [58:40] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah. Yeah, probably. Yeah, I think I think that was [58:45] Speaker D (unidentified): Right. We should confirm that. I know I sent Robin email, we had a little bit just to look from what we are looking at what we allocated and what Alex was requesting. And I believe it was 15% of the original $30,000. But let's confirm that. [59:10] Speaker A (unidentified): And then So Alex now needs $34,990 plus 15% contingency, $6,748. [59:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Sorry, so I forgot an important piece. There's new cost estimate of the $44,990, and then he's suggesting a 15% contingency, which is pretty standard. But then that's roughly the five thousand dollars, so it's what was the total value of that? Oh, I mean, oh, I'm trying to do a calculator for the first 50 grand. Yeah, we should get specific, so when we approve the number we have an exact number, but while we're doing that maybe we can open it up to questions from commissioners. [1:00:09] Speaker F (unidentified): About it is the stakes. Does this exceed the amount that we're allowed to spend out city council? But [1:00:20] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't think so. Don't think so. You're allowed to spend [1:00:28] Speaker H (unidentified): leave up to 10% of your budget. Yeah. [1:00:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, and I and I guess we're, you know, we're talking about what our budget is at the moment because that's what we're reallocating, and actually the 30 000 would, I think some of it's that, right? It's also the services to do the design, but also the stuff that needs to go in place is what my understanding is. Yeah, I think it's just general [1:01:13] Speaker H (unidentified): to when staff have gotten a chance to dig into it, costs have gone up just across the board, providing for accessibility, et cetera. The Gagway is pretty cheap, relatively. It's like 60 grand, but it's delivery, installation, moorings, like the other permitting for, I mean, a small facility there it's still going to be modest but it's going to be more than what the typical homeowner would put in on their property just these republicans. I do think our original [1:01:49] Speaker D (unidentified): thirty thousand dollar estimate was probably low as well. I mean, that was an estimate. We didn't, we didn't have hard numbers, we had estimates, so [1:02:01] Speaker A (unidentified): combination moments, so the final dollar amount as 51 738 cents. Thank you. Any [1:02:12] Speaker D (unidentified): other questions concerns of allocated monies needed to make this happen? I thought, I think, you know, short of that it's not going to go out, right? You're not going to put out a project it doesn't have the resources, right? Well [1:02:29] Speaker A (unidentified): to 10% system over. Yeah, we have a quote the word getting it installed and all the corresponding services and materials, and is that the 51 change number? [1:02:45] Speaker B (unidentified): I guess my question is, it [1:02:49] Speaker A (unidentified): actually ends up costing $60,000 to have to come back and reallocate, or do we know we can complete the project with that extra budget? [1:03:01] Speaker H (unidentified): Things can always change, but this is a preliminary estimate together by our project managers within our department. I don't believe it's been paid out yet, or we would do that to try to get the best possible price. This is our estimate, please trust us. Okay. Yeah. Okay. [1:03:27] Speaker F (unidentified): You wouldn't fit out unless we had a permit tonight. [1:03:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Correct. I have a question. Yeah. [1:03:35] Speaker A (unidentified): In terms of the 10% of what we're allowed to spend, since we've already allocated the $30,000 in a different year, I think we're [1:03:47] Speaker H (unidentified): around in the world anyways, but it's [1:03:51] Speaker A (unidentified): split into two different amounts. [Speaker D (unidentified): Good question.] It might be just purely academic. Yeah. [1:04:24] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. Yeah, because we have different budget amounts [1:04:26] Speaker A (unidentified): going through the two of them. [1:04:28] Speaker B (unidentified): So yeah, I'm not sure. No, [1:04:35] Speaker D (unidentified): When I worked for the Nature Conservancy, they couldn't write a check over $25,000. So the lawyer wrote like 10 checks for $25,000. That's a lawyer. And that was okay. I'm not suggesting we do that. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. It may be a time where we need to get an answer to that, we can maybe investigate if we have to. [1:05:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I think we already allocated $3,000, but I'm just asking to follow it up a little bit. [1:05:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, so it's not freedom, it's just allocating more. [1:05:13] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, that would be the total project costs as a percentage of people doing our project, so. [1:05:21] Speaker D (unidentified): So yeah, that's what the 10% people get. [1:05:26] Speaker H (unidentified): You can do more than 10%, but you have to approve it at the city council and ask for it. [1:05:31] Speaker D (unidentified): So with a less of a, it does need a super authority, right, at six councilors. [1:05:37] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah,, it just says approval by the city council. Yeah. [1:05:47] Speaker I (unidentified): I just have a bookkeeping question. They're rounded up $30 or $5 or $10. [1:06:17] Speaker D (unidentified): So we do need a motion right I don't think we did that so that would be a motion to [1:06:27] Speaker E (unidentified): increase the original 30 000 applications [1:06:38] Speaker D (unidentified): yeah 30 000 to 52 yeah another commissioner want to make that their motion yeah I'll make that motion so increase the lunch allocation [1:06:50] Speaker F (unidentified): from 30 to 52, so pretty soon it's back to 32. Got it. [1:06:58] Speaker G (unidentified): Second. So I can do it from up. [1:07:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Second says all those in favor. Yes, she does. [1:07:06] Speaker G (unidentified): Great. Cracking on it before prices go up again. [1:07:13] Speaker H (unidentified): So we do have capacity to deal with this. At the time these funds were approved, we did not have the capacity with our project managers, but we're in a better place now. So [1:07:26] Speaker D (unidentified): next agenda item is the outreach flyer that Mike Carey has been working on. We have a copy of it here. He unfortunately had an injury to one of his children. He had to go pick up in New Hampshire, which is okay, but it didn't help. So we do have copies of this. Just a quick refresher. sure the idea was to try to have something that tells what the land bank does without having someone go read the ordinance and try to figure it out and have a have a one pager is the other person here who is working with my assignment it was simon yeah he's not here so that doesn't help I don't know if anyone has any initial thoughts on this one pager [1:08:24] Speaker F (unidentified): I think unless it's changed extension the last time I saw it would really not that much good Alex's point that he gave at that other video it would just be the format would be done to have the city oh yeah like [1:08:48] Speaker E (unidentified): The city branding. Okay. I'd recommend that the font size, as an aging person, I would recommend to make it more effective and more accessible for us. [1:09:05] Speaker C (unidentified): And that is in the city brand guidelines, is that we have accessibility guidelines for the size of fonts and colors and fonts. [1:09:16] Speaker E (unidentified): It becomes more and more weird. [1:09:21] Speaker I (unidentified): That was my first glance at this. It needs pictures. Yeah, the colors and the pop. Make it more accessible than just another sort of page as to city policy. [1:09:36] Speaker C (unidentified): Maybe like a tri-fold? [1:09:39] Speaker I (unidentified): Is this for another website? I don't know. [1:09:42] Speaker C (unidentified): So I guess that clarification, it could be a rap card. It could like identifying what could actually be you know a trifold or a wrap card would be [1:09:51] Speaker I (unidentified): something that could be designed because the bottom makes me think it's the best site that's the right other city [1:10:02] Speaker F (unidentified): of Portland have access to graphic design yeah [1:10:06] Speaker D (unidentified): I mean I yeah I think we 've just provided some larger font city branding some photos what were the other things I don't know if that's is that is that something the city can do is there a limit on it [1:10:25] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't know no problem yeah sounds relatively simple to take the content here your copy is yeah to take the content that you want and put it into a more accessible format [1:10:45] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah. I'm sort of envisioning that this would probably be used as like a packet given to the developers to pull a development permit, just to say, hey, here's all the resources that you need to get the process going. [1:11:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, and we should, there's probably other ways to do that. We should probably think a little bit more about the end use of it. I mean certainly if you go down the website if someone searched some land bank and found them one day you know it's easier to be able to pay basic understanding of what we do but other more targeted audiences like that there's probably others as well [1:11:30] Speaker F (unidentified): We'll be able to get in touch with the fighting department to see about what that is [1:11:37] Speaker A (unidentified): About the [1:11:39] Speaker B (unidentified): planning piece. [1:11:41] Speaker H (unidentified): The content could certainly be formatted to put on the you have a land bank page and the content could be formatted. We generally try to place PDFs. We're trying to get away from that. It's not as accessible for people with disabilities. But that doesn't mean it could go there. The information and then this could be a PDF that's available if you think some people want to film it, or whatever else you want to look for. [1:12:14] Speaker F (unidentified): You mean revamping the Old Man Bank website sounds good too. [1:12:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Put that on the list. [1:12:21] Speaker H (unidentified): We've got a lot of pages on that website for revamping. It's basic, but Jess has actually done a lot of work on it, making Old Man Bank reports, making sure we're up-to-date with annual reports and current membership. shift. So it's basic, but functional. So people can find what they need on there. [1:12:42] Speaker D (unidentified): Anything else on that? [1:12:44] Speaker B (unidentified): I think it's good. [1:12:49] Speaker A (unidentified): I wonder, obviously, but if we share it on like our, site, will it be, I guess, adequately specific to developers or will it be presented in something more I wonder if it might kind of mislead the general public a little bit, because he's very developer-oriented, if that makes sense. [1:13:17] Speaker F (unidentified): But I suppose you'd also be targeting the individuals that have access to it and don't want to get taxes on it. Probably a few different audiences to try and get to. [1:13:33] Speaker A (unidentified): I would think. Yeah, I actually think it's presented in a very useful way because it's on the site, if that makes sense. Or broad. [1:14:48] Speaker E (unidentified): comes off-site and it focuses on a lot of shells and a lot of resource as homeowners do, you know, a lot of that is done and there may be other things in that conservation is a need. What do you mean by off-site? In other words, we have a [1:15:37] Speaker D (unidentified): as I'm looking at this I am now wondering about those sort of things being identified as benefits or a little more of that in the handout yeah just the thought that if you know that the just the natural resource benefits of undeveloped land is not really highlighted in here unless i'm missing it let's say for ecology of my life recreation [1:16:17] Speaker F (unidentified): the neighborhood by salaries. Yeah. [1:16:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Water quality. Yeah, maybe just some understanding that the relationship with water quality and development and the [1:16:33] Speaker F (unidentified): purchase that free space [1:16:34] Speaker B (unidentified): is good to have, you know, [1:16:41] Speaker I (unidentified): says Portland because even [1:16:45] Speaker B (unidentified): reference [1:16:51] Speaker F (unidentified): TPL. So okay, [1:17:01] Speaker D (unidentified): provides feedback to those folks. Communications and parcel updates. I will give you an update on davis this has been a long journey it continues we did get the parcel separated survey pinned and we got an appraisal that came out of 230 000 for the eighth or so acres most of it was deemed undevelopable which is why it came out of that. The property in the meantime sold to a new owner. We had an agreement with the old owner that we would use the appraisal as the basis for the price. We didn't have that with the new owner because it happened in transition. The new owner did indicate they were interested in pursuing it, but it was not codified in an agreement. So they saw the $230,000 and said, how about a million, which is a bummer. I do hope to still negotiate with them. That I have not been in touch with them since, I'm giving it a little bit of time. We, I suggested we bifurcated from their transaction. They want to do it one fell through. That is the closing of the of the whole property also parcel off the piece that we're interested in kind of one transaction and that would be all well and good other than we're not ready and we have to go to the city council and get approval to do it in that. And also they want a million dollars, so that's a major challenge. One thing they did tell me is the new owner, and I don't think the old owner, it might be all perspective, right, depending on what your perspective. The old owner was trying to dispose of the property. They didn't see a lot of value in setbacks and future development, you know, thinking about setbacks and what they might need for future development and using that property for the purposes. The new owner specifically said they wouldn't sell for 230 000 because it's not worth giving up their rights for setbacks and other set asides that might be required by certain developments that have been proposed on the site. You know, I don't know if that's true. Who knows what that's worth, right, but for them it may be a major break for doing some sort of development. So maybe they actually have some plans to do development there, or they're just trying to generally preserve development opportunities. The one thing we did discover about the property, which the city discovered, is that stream that runs through the property is not identified with protections. With the thinking that when the when the area of photography was done it was leaf on and it wasn't, it wasn't seen, and that should actually happen so that it's like other land in Portland where those stream buffers are identified. So when zoning, you know, considers the land, it essentially got missed. I suspect there are other places where this happened. It's not unique to that, but that should probably be pursued regardless. That would reduce the value for the developer for buffers and such because they're already going to be there. So if not all of it, maybe, but we changed the zoning [1:20:59] Speaker E (unidentified): Related to screen protection and not everything is backed out, so like that, but that doesn't for a road and protections that are still required, and since we're in a system of state [1:21:13] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, even if it's not [1:21:17] Speaker E (unidentified): The zoning really is just there to work. They will have to do a natural resource assessment at the site. They will need to identify [1:21:44] Speaker D (unidentified): So you're saying it doesn't need to be retroactively done? [1:21:49] Speaker E (unidentified): In other words, still codified by the regulations. [1:21:57] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay. Yeah, I'm only going by what John Giles suggested,, which I think when Ethan and I spoke with him about it, he was suggesting pursuing that, but maybe not, maybe not really thinking about what you're suggesting. [1:22:17] Speaker E (unidentified): It would be, it would require a change in zoning. Yeah. Much more challenging. Nice. Or any possibilities. Yeah. In whereas the fact that it's still by the state and local regulations it still gets protected this was all recon right yeah i mean yeah it was rego was part of it but it's never been identified of for screen protection just didn't rise up to the level of a even if it doesn't have 100% protection that's one of the better known rules yeah but that doesn't eliminate the protections that are inherent to the regulations in the new code well not just in the new code but the other regulations that The city has. We have a technical design scheme. Oh, sure. We have, you know, we're going to be fine. Yeah. [1:23:26] Speaker I (unidentified): We don't need to get a survey, like, I'm better now to develop anything. Anything? Yeah. It's more of a verbal, hey, this is like, hey, you think because that's what's central. In reality, it's a bit of a detail, okay? Is there a way to do it? Yeah. [1:23:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, it'd be interesting to just look at, visually look at that. I don't know how hard that would be to look at the parcel and look at what permits, requirements are for buffers and such. Would that be a huge exercise for that parcel? [1:24:13] Speaker E (unidentified): I would look at the regulations. Yeah. But the actual, it would have to be mapped before we could determine what those properties would be. Right. [1:24:29] Speaker F (unidentified): Just remembering from when we visited, it was the two brooks that kind of came set together. Yeah. And it looked like the parking lots on either side were pretty close up to this. So I imagine parking lots are at, or even within that 75 foot block or off of all of the roads. [1:24:49] Speaker E (unidentified): It's not, it's 75 feet off. It's kind of 75 feet off. Oh. And there would be high water. That would have to be there. So, you know, there would need to be interstate 25 [1:25:13] Speaker H (unidentified): Or something there. Even [1:25:19] Speaker F (unidentified): Snow, though, it seemed like they were pretty close to the parking lots. I don't know that they were fairly close. I don't know that they were built much more beyond the center of the parking lots. [1:25:30] Speaker B (unidentified): It was that direction. [1:25:31] Speaker E (unidentified): And the steep slopes were making the change. [1:25:35] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I think that was John Giles' point. There's other constraints besides the natural resources that are already existing, which are the road and the parking lot. Anyway, I think, you know, we did put monies into the survey and the appraisal. We know of the value. Hopefully the landowner will change their opinion. I'm trying to remember if the city actually has a dollar amount over appraised value. Anything come to mind for what is there an allowance for over a base value for acquisition? It's not my lunch. Yeah. [1:26:24] Speaker A (unidentified): Right, I remember in [1:26:28] Speaker D (unidentified): a nonprofit world there's there's a little bit of tolerance over a certain percentage. It's not it's not high, like five percent or something, which might actually be an IRS thing. It's not a not a policy of the organization but an IRS requirement. But that's a nonprofit. So I'll continue to reach out to them. I have it and I'll respond and ask them to talk about it and see if they can reduce something down to what it's worth, and it may require some educating in terms of zoning and, you know, they need not be as valuable as they think. I don't know what the answer to that is, but it may be that we [1:27:19] Speaker A (unidentified): could do better understand how they're viewing it. You want to be about the new buyer? [1:27:26] Speaker D (unidentified): No, I will talk to the broker now. The broker that I know who's on the old owner's broker probably does know more and probably doesn't care anymore, so he may be willing to tell me what the situation is. But I don't know anything about them and now, you know, once the sale happens it'll become public and they'll know who it is. But I don't I don't know anything about them other than their names and the fact that they indicated that they were thinking about future [Speaker B (unidentified): so and] that whole road is problematic being in front of the road and that whole situation in it. So I don't know what they have in mind, a big project, if we're going to try to [1:28:18] Speaker B (unidentified): make it a public road, but maybe okay. [1:28:25] Speaker D (unidentified): Let's move on. I did want to mention the Portland House. This is the big building on the Eastern Prom. The leadership of the association, people who own those and live there, is looking to get some dollars so they don't have to assess the association for some major upgrades they need, including new roof and lots of stuff on that big old building that they're in. And they would like to preserve this undeveloped portion of the parcel with pieces just pulled up. Basically those trees you're looking at there which have bought the Eastern Prom Trail. The Fort Allen stairs are in the lower right corner that go up to the park there. The you know there is no other access unless the Portland House granted access on their property for another entity to develop that and get in there. The other thing I did learn recently is the Four Points Marina is actively trying to buy the parcel that's part of the parcel from them to develop which I'm assuming they would put residential housing there. But I'm totally assuming that but they're very interested in the parcel. And that's their, other option for revenue perspective. And I don't know what that would appraise that it's a strange parcel is Waterview. It's adjacent to a great trail. It is potentially developable. So I just, you know, because they asked us about it I wanted to bring it to the commission decide if it's worthy of doing a scoring sheet if there's you know reason to consider this. I did tell them they'll probably be disappointed in the appraisal if they're looking to you know get all the money that they need to really have their building. I'm just being honest with them because someone's going to buy that for development purposes. It's going to have a whole nother scale of value than what it's going to have for the trees and the undeveloped parts. There are some big trees there and it is a considerable, it looks like the rest of the treat area around Fort Allen Park. It'd be a bummer. It's a little off-brand for us. It's not a typical sort of undeveloped parcel that we do but I mostly just want to get thoughts from commissioners is their interest in pursuing this and trying to do a score sheet and see where it ranks and or should we just say you know we're not interested in putting any energy into it just [1:31:47] Speaker I (unidentified): Thought yeah sure I do that trail all the time nice little wooden part and then right now I think I know it's pushing but it reminds me so we're just talking about the other part felt like it was banked with longer so it could easily you know kind of be developed but yeah it's small so that's why but yeah our turn it's already connected to the park used by a lot of people. [1:32:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah it has it has a park-like quality to it even though it is you know it's just their property. [1:32:31] Speaker H (unidentified): So the trail runs on city property and state property that's the right of way so the trail starts about here that's the crossing I hope you can see my mouse yeah and then and then runs up here that's city property already it's a bus and there's actually a fence line separate to this months and it's part of the woods that you're walking through when you're on the trail so it's a lot if it were to change you would notice that you know if were to be developed but I think it's currently not. Suit probably but the trail is on city property yeah it just looks like it's connected. [1:33:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Because you can't really tell the difference yeah which is you know part of the reason that I thought this was an interesting property because it does have some open space value for sure are in the location it's in. Again, I have no idea what this would praise for. How well would it rank in our system in our in our ranking? I, you know, probably not super high. [1:33:45] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, you know, work pursuing teaming. Just kind of thinking about the alternative. They're trying to maximize the value. Yes, they should sell it to develop if it's developed then I can see that happening but there's just so many hurdles to that in my mind where it feels like land bank property kind of like the one we saw up on Montjoy Hill where it's so in the old you know quarry space yeah it's at least that gray and it's being some close to the water as well it's almost skeptical that it could be developed but for that reason I think it's worth looking into I guess there's a developer has some information that. We don't and thinks they can put some housing in there that I understand that's what Portland House would choose for it. I'm a little skeptical that it could be that. Is Portland House a condo association? [1:35:08] Speaker D (unidentified): Yes. So they assess everyone who lives there for maintenance and things and they're long overdue is what I was told and they have a big assessment. they're trying to actually try and avoid each other yeah like getting someone else this month we have a hard time believing they would want to sell that portion that's why that's why they're asking about this they don't they don't want to yeah so you know that 's another factor maybe they just need to decide not to do that and they will i don't know i was told that i specifically asked because they i've mentioned the person i've been dealing with is the president of the association said what's what's the, I asked them who's trying to buy it, can you tell me, and they said yes, it's Four River, it's the principles of the Ford River, four points, sorry, Four Points Marine, whatever we call that, Holy Mountain, and they're, you know, aggressively trying to buy it. What that means I don't know, so I took that with a grain of salt. I trust that he's telling me the truth, and they are inquiring about it, how serious, I don't know. But I mean, anything is development, right? It's just a matter of how much you want to pay for it. It does have a credible view of Portland Headlight and Port Burgess in the water, if you were to build some sort of high-end residential there. It would be a pretty nice spot from that perspective. I'm not sure what else would warrant [1:36:47] Speaker F (unidentified): and that, but guessing the residents of the Portland Hospital want something too tall [1:36:52] Speaker D (unidentified): block the room, yeah, and they, there is a lot of slope, like you could build something, you know, below there, you know, whether they do that is another story, but you could build something not [1:37:06] Speaker F (unidentified): in blocking it entirely, but you sell it to a developer, you can save it, right, yeah, that's [1:37:15] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't know that, I don't know what the reality is with that and awareness of that. I mean, we can certainly do a scorecard on it, that's relatively easy lift, and take a closer look at the actual property and the trees and the resources on it. I can get back in touch with Portland House and say is it still even available. I mean, I well, I know they could have [Speaker B (unidentified): sold it, but] Portland, the Four Points Marina does have access through their property because they're an immediate butter, so they would be able to establish access to the property [1:37:59] Speaker E (unidentified): but they would still have, I believe they would have to have frontage on them, so I could see right away, but it's something that we don't really, unless they create a roadway that becomes more challenging without some sort of frontage. [1:38:20] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, and that's when I don't know the details about their development plan and the ability to do that. [1:38:25] Speaker A (unidentified): I was wondering, how do you get a frontage? [1:38:31] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, you know, development has to have frontage, so unless, you know, they would consider it a lot of backwater [1:38:39] Speaker F (unidentified): and it wasn't a backwater. [1:38:41] Speaker E (unidentified): situation they would have to come in on eastern phone to access that backside [1:38:48] Speaker H (unidentified): they have access through 10th street yeah those you know through over here right to get into a site in general i don't know if that is adequate access but they have frontage to 10th street and I think of the four-string as well. If they're just adding this, it could be a greater reversal. [1:39:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I don't know how to know. [1:39:18] Speaker H (unidentified): That's a planning question. Right. Yeah. [1:39:22] Speaker A (unidentified): It didn't feel really good for us. [1:39:27] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, maybe they have something very specific in mind. I don't know. I'm glad to get back to them before we announce, see what the status is. is, and maybe we can do a, you know, our, report card on assessment. Does anyone want to do that? Is anyone burning to do the Portland House scorecard? Oh, there you go. Lots of examples on the drive. So you could you can pilfer, one off there. And yeah, it's just a series of questions about the parcel, there might be, there might be some due diligence to do, you know, answer them. Some of them are judgments based on what you've seen with the parcel. Okay. But yeah, if you're willing to take a crack at it, that'd be awesome. And that's, that's a pretty low level investment, it'll leave Lisa know a little bit more about it. [1:40:31] Speaker A (unidentified): spread a little time on the eastern palm in august exactly twisted my own yeah [1:40:38] Speaker D (unidentified): yeah any portland trails just put a permanent counter very close to that counts bikes and people which has got to be off the charts at the moment much so it's a it's an important public place that to me seems like the biggest value of having that buffer is it 's forested it looks contiguous with the city property and the fort allen stairs and you know it would be a big change it would be a loss of green space is an important place and it could become more active green space if it actually burns maybe let's move on i know we're going to pass the time sorry getting close to the end of the agenda we have the parks division reports which was in our [Speaker B (unidentified): packets any] questions concerns things that jumped out seeing [1:41:55] Speaker E (unidentified): them we'll move on land bank [1:42:01] Speaker A (unidentified): Parks Commission. Parks, oh sorry, it gets me too. That's the template our commission is in the process of 2027 CIP. So we got a lengthy presentation from Alex Marshall about potential projects that receive funding. And the next business, innovation commissioners will each select three projects that they would recommend. Really good. We have three new commissioners. So pretty big [1:42:38] Speaker B (unidentified): turnover. Our work. Nice. [1:42:43] Speaker D (unidentified): Speaking of your conditions, we've lost, we need, how many are we doing to work [1:42:50] Speaker C (unidentified): something like that? Yeah, just, I know in the district two and then part of, I mean, sorry, Elena. Yeah, just at the last meeting or she didn't reapply for her. So is she at large? Remember, I do not know. That is, I'd have to check the portal. We have landing [1:43:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, we definitely have some recruitment. Okay, any Commissioner requests that you, I think you know at the moment that you send out a signal to a motion to adjourn. [1:43:49] Speaker A (unidentified): Move by Bob to adjourn. [1:43:52] Speaker E (unidentified): I'll second it. [1:43:53] Speaker F (unidentified): All those in favor? Adjourned. [1:43:58] Speaker D (unidentified): Sorry I got a little long there. [1:44:00] Speaker B (unidentified): You're good to take care. You're good to take care.