Marine Terminal 4: A Case Study of Neighborhood Land Use ...web.vims.edu/adv/wateraccess/docs/2010/wed-amcon1-bouillion.pdfPresentation Outline •The Port of Portland in the context

Marine Terminal 4: A Case Study of Neighborhood Land Use Conflicts

Working Waterways & Waterfronts Symposium

09/29/10

Tom [email protected]

Presentation Outline

• The Port of Portland in the context of the Portland Harbor

• Marine Terminal 4 as a case study for addressing neighborhood land use conflicts

– Baltimore Woods

– Cathedral Park Rail Conflicts

– Linnton Plan

• Lessons Learned

Port of Portland Overview

• A “Consolidated Port:” Marine and Aviation

• Portland International Airport plus three general aviation airports

• Four marine terminals

• Navigation

• Industrial land development

Port of Portland Facilities

Marine Terminal 4 – Business Lines

Terminal 4

• 280 acres on the Willamette River

• Toyota auto import facility

• Mineral and liquid bulks

Terminal 4 – Toyota Lease Area

Baltimore Woods

LinntonPlan Study

Area

Cathedral Park

Baltimore Woods

• The Conflict: Encroachment from new residential uses above Terminal 4

Encroachment from New Row Houses

Baltimore Woods Synergy

• Recognizing a synergy of Port-neighborhood interests

– Plan to Preserve of open space

• Visual and noise buffer

• Preserve threatened trees

– Provision of an off-street trail

• Provides a north-south trail connector

• Provides safe view points of marine terminal

– Opportunity to work together collaboratively

Baltimore Woods Concept

Port Support of Baltimore Woods

• Funded two student interns plus production costs to produce concept plan

• Provided historic photos

• Supported grant funding requests

• Volunteered staff in support of the effort

Baltimore Woods-Results to Date

• Property acquisition

• Change to allowed zoning density

• Baltimore Woods trail designation

• A “feel good” project that supported by many governmental & nonprofit organizations

• Improved working relationship on other issues, including Cathedral Park rail conflicts…

Cathedral Park Rail Conflicts

• The Conflict: Primarily rail noise in the Cathedral Park part of St. Johns neighborhood

• Rail is a part of St. Johns neighborhood history

• What has changed to create rail conflict more recently?

Historic Rail Presence in St. Johns

Cathedral Park Rail Conflict

• Causes for recent rail conflict in Cathedral Park

– Redevelopment of the Toyota facility in 2003

– Changes to FRA (Federal Rail Administration) requirements in 2005

– Changes to City zoning/comprehensive plan (St. Johns/Lombard Plan-2004)

Cathedral Park Rail Conflict • Housing• Crossings • Recreation

Cathedral Park Rail Conflict

• Port Proposed Solution: Creation of Whistle Free Zone

• What is a Whistle Free Zone ? – A segment of a rail line where the locomotive horn is

not routinely sounded at public road/rail grade crossings

– Minimum ½ mile corridor where all crossings are protected using Supplementary Safety Measures• Gates• Flashing lights • Medians • Other protective devices

Cathedral Park Whistle Free Zone

Port Interest in Whistle Free Zone

• Good neighbor policy

• Business retention

• Recognition of Rail as a key Port asset

•Perception of a Freight rather than a Neighborhood livability issue•Lack of Neighborhood ownership•Lack of railroad focus•Cathedral Park as the “redheaded step child” vs. other WFZ proposals •Funding

•Regional•Federal (FRA)

•Ultimately a problem of developing a solution in advance of building support

Next Steps & Challenges in the WFZ

Linnton Plan

• The Problem: 400-unit housing proposal in the heart of the working harbor

Linnton Plan-Difference in Perspectives

LinntonNeighborhood

Terminal 4

Tank Farm

Tank Farm

LinntonPlan

StudyArea

Linnton Neighborhood View

•Neighborhood-oriented town center•Buffer from industrial uses•Access to waterfront•Natural resource enhancement

Linnton Plan-Industry View•Conversion of industrial land supply•Protection of industrial operations

•Safety & security•Threat to existing infrastructure•Precedent for similar proposals

Unique Convergence of Infrastructure in Linnton

Portland Harbor Energy Cluster (in blue)

Response by Port & Industry

• Initial Response – Issue initially for two adjacent companies– Port & other harbor businesses soon became alarmed by

proposal

• Need for broader response recognized– Broader implication – multiple industry impacts– Dispersed attention – point is to spread exposure and not have

everyone focus on the “poor energy companies”– Wider base of harbor businesses and government

• Impetus to create the Working Waterfront Coalition (WWC)

City Review Process

• Staff recommends mixed use• Planning Commission recommends

mixed use:– Additional housing– Infrastructure upgrades– Transportation improvements

• City Council overturns PlanningCommission

– Unsafe for housing– Security issues– Mediation

City Council

Planning Staff/Planning Commission Recommendation

• Mixed use (residential w/ light industrial on either end)

Process Outcome

Neighbors• Remain dissatisfied with outcome• Adverse relationship• Lost opportunity for mutual gains

Working Waterfront Coalition• Satisfied with outcome• Continue to invest in working with

neighbors and city• Lost opportunity for mutual gains

Lessons Learned-Linnton

– Coalition based efforts were critical to political outcome– Local response versus “corporate”– Costs are high, but worthwhile– Confrontation can create future problems– Policy important, but situational analysis even more so in this case

Lesson Learned-3 Conflicts

• Identify your core issues

• Find partners invested in shared issues

• Understand how much you are willing to invest

• Develop a shared response to conflict

• Neighborhood collaboration is clearly preferred but,

• Fight if all else fails and issue is important enough