City Delays North Waterfront URA

The Truitt Brothers Cannery, active railroad, and nonconforming public street represent existing redevelopment challenges and opportunities within the proposed North Waterfront URA.

Saying “I want us to take the time to get this right,” Salem’s City Manager, Krishna Namburi, asked the City Council to delay consideration on the North Waterfront Urban Renewal Area (URA) at last night’s Council meeting. The Council had been expected to adopt the plan and have a first reading of the ordinance creating the URA. The proposed 421-acre tax increment financing district met with concern from both members of the public and City Councilors over the absence of any plan for the URA’s more than one mile of Willamette River shoreline.

Councilor Paul Tigan, who represents the area covered by the proposed URA, said: “I do think that especially in the goals it [the plan] really understates the importance of the river” and that instead “we should be planting a flag for this area.”

West Salem Councilor Mikki Varney pointed out that “the Willamette is the blue in our city flag," and said that “I don’t feel it’s focused on enough here [on the Willamette]."

Linda Nishioka, whose ward includes the south riverfront, asked if the plan could be more specific about how the City could enhance the riverfront area.

Kristin Retheford, the City’s Community Planning and Development director responded by drawing a distinction between a land use plan and an urban renewal plan, saying that an urban renewal plan is “is a funding tool to implement the other master plans and planning documents.”

She said that urban renewal plans “pull from all of this other planning work that has had years and years of public engagement and vetting and then implement that through the funding strategy of the urban renewal agency.”

I think Retheford makes an important point while also significantly understating her agency’s role in writing the plan’s goals and identifying projects. The City, as Retherford notes, has a wide body of planning documents. The North Waterfront URA plan does not include them all. It includes a subset of plans and objectives selected by Retherford and her staff.

The City has a Willamette Greenway Plan, a Greenway ordinance, and a Greenway chapter in the City’s comprehensive plan. None of those materials made it into the North Waterfront plan.

The City also has a chapter on natural resources in the comprehensive plan. The North Waterfront URA plan includes only one of the chapter’s 29 goals despite the fact that at least 13 goals are relevant to the North Waterfront area.

There is a second problem with Retherford’s reliance on existing plans. Despite the large body of existing plans, the City still has planning gaps. There is no plan for the Willamette river shoreline from Mill Creek north to the City limits. The City has never been in a position to need one nor have they had funds to develop one. Similarly, there is no master plan for the existing River Road Park (as opposed to Riverfront Park). This is one of several neighborhood parks, like my own neighborhood park, that does not have a master plan.

The North Waterfront URA is an excellent vehicle to fund both a north Willamette River plan and a River Road parks master plan, and also fund any improvements those plans identify. Both plans align with existing City goals, both would involve public engagement, and both would require Council approval before adoption. Somehow, the City either did not recognize the opportunities or considered them and chose not to include them.

My guess is that the urban renewal team did not do sufficient outreach, both across City departments and with community stakeholders. I asked the City if they had presented the plan to the two neighborhood groups that are within the proposed district. I have not heard back. In the absence of a response, I filed a records request to get a better sense of who had the opportunity to provide input on the North Waterfront plan.

I suggested in my comments to the City Council that the Urban Renewal Agency is a bit of a bureaucratic and professional silo and, as a result, misses important elements that other professions and other stakeholders might have noticed immediately. My question is whether the agency knows it and likes it that way or they simply do not see it.

Interestingly, the City did present the plan to the Planning Commission. But staff said our role was simply to certify that the proposed plan aligned with City goals. We did not have an opportunity to ask questions or offer input as to why some goals were selected and others were not. Since the statute to create URAs requires alignment, the City was essentially asking us rubber stamp the plan. My colleagues, who are more obliging than I am, voted yes. I voted no. To my frustration, the plan narrative states that the Planning Commission provided input. I felt a bit used.

Read Joel Siess's report on the meeting in the Salem Reporter.