Planning and Sustainability Commission 10-09-2018


HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171 HD491(CC1) #3171
TEST TEST. THIS IS A TEST.
TEST TEST. THIS IS A TEST.
TEST TEST ON L AGENDA TODAY WE HAVE ITEMS
OF INTERESTS FOLLOWED BY THE DIRECTOR’S REPORT.
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WE HAVE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION REQUEST
NUMBER 8111, AND VACATION OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON STREET
SOUTH OF. [AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]
FOLLOWED BY THE FOX RUN MANUFACTURED HOUSING CHANGES.
THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING EXTENSION
HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION. THEN FOLLOWED BY THE BETTER
HOUSING BY DESIGN WORK SESSION. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS OF INTEREST
FROM COMMISSIONERS? GO AHEAD, ANDRE.
>>I WAS AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK PRESENTING A LETTER FOR THE
SOUTH CORRIDOR HOUSING PLAN AND IT WAS WELL RESEPTEMBERRED.
THE QUESTION WAS FROM COUNCIL, COMMISSIONER FRITZ WAS HOW DO WE
DO EVERYTHING. NOT ONLY THAT BUT ALSO EAST
PORTLAND AND THE REST OF HOUSING FOR THE REST OF THE
CITY. I ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS A BIG LIFT
BUT THEY NEEDED TO DO EVERYTHING.
IT WAS WELL RECEIVED. UNDERSTOOD THAT I THINK COUNCIL UNDERSTOOD THE SKEPTICISM OF THE
HISTORICAL ISSUES, LOOKING FORWARD.
I THINK THEY ARE READY FOR THE CHALLENGE.
>>GREAT. ANY OTHER ITEMS?
DID ANYONE MAKE IT TO SUSAN’S SENDOFF?
GOOD. GOOD.
I POLL JAYS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT.
I HAD A FAMILY EVENT COME UP. ANY OTHER ITEMS?
[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE] THANK YOU.
I WAS THERE IN SPIRIT. SEEING NO OTHER ITEMS,
DIRECTOR’S REPORT.>>NOTHING ON THE DIRECTOR’S
REPORT TODAY.>>WELL, I WOULD LIKE
TO WELCOME
WE KNOW YOU’LL BRING WONDERFUL THOUGHTS TO THIS GROUP AND
APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION TO SERVING ON THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.>>THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
I’M VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE.
SO NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THIS IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS
A PROPOSED VACATION OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH AND
WEST OF BURNSIDE.
>>MOVE ADOPTION.>>GO AHEAD.
>>I HAVE A QUESTION. I’M NOT —
>>SECOND.>>THANK YOU.
NOW GO AHEAD. [LAUGHTER]
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
CONSENT AGENDA.>>OKAY.
>>CAN I ASK STAFF THE QUESTION OR — SINCE
YOU ALREADY MOVED YOUR WORK DONE.
>>IF ANDRE WANTS TO PULL THE ITEM —
>>IT’S JUST ONE QUESTION. WE CAN MOVE ON.
>>WE WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTIONS THAT ANDRE CAN ASK HIS QUESTION.>>THANK YOU.
>>INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE.
[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE] THE PROPOSER OF THE VACATION HAS
SAID THAT HE’S PROPOSING TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS WITH THE
PROPERTY.>>CORRECT.
>>SWELLS AND THAT. I DIDN’T SEE WHERE ALL OF THOSE
THINGS WERE SPECIFIED THAT HE HAD TO DO THEM.
ARE THOSE KIND OF HIS IDEAS OR IS THERE — ARE THOSE WRITTEN
SOMEWHERE?>>THE CONTEXT OF THIS VACATION
PROPOSAL IS THAT THE CURRENT BUILDING IS GOING TO
REMAIN, SO UNDER THAT CONTEXT, THE CITY
WANTED TO FOCUS ON KEEPING THAT VACATION AREA AS A PLAZA.
THERE WILL BE AN EASEMENT FOR THAT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL GAIN THE FAR FROM THE VACATED AREA BUT IT
WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR PUBLIC USE.
>>THANKS.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
NO?>>NOW I’LL MOVE
ADOPTION.>>ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
DELIBERATION? NO?
LOVE? SINCE WE PULLED THE CONSENT WE
NEED FULL ROLL. LET’S CALL THE ROLL.
[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>GREAT.
>>COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND SAY SOMETHING ONE MORE TIME.
I CAN’T REMEMBER IF YOU HAVE YOUR MIKE ON OR NOT.
>>THIS IS TERESA.>>GOT T. THANK YOU.
>>YOU YOUR MIKE IS ON, FYI.
>>I’LL STAY ON MUTE.>>WELL PLANNED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE FOX RUN MANUFACTURED DWELLING
PARK MAP CHANGES. I SHOULD PROBABLY LET THOSE IN
THE AUDIENCE KNOW WE HAVE COMMISSIONER TERESA ST. MARTIN
ON THE PHONE.
A THERE WERE NO MINUTES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THANK YOU FOR
ASKING .
>>GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
TOM ARMSTRONG WITH THE BPS.
THIS PROJECT IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK
ZONING CHANGES. IF YOU WILL RECALL AS PART OF
THAT PREVIOUS PROJECT WE REZONED 56 OF THE
57 PARKS INSIDE THE CITY OF PORTLAND WHEN WE TOOK
THIS TO CITY COUNCIL IN AUGUST, THERE WAS A REQUEST BY
COMMISSIONER SALTZMAN TO BRING BACK A MAP CHANGE FOR THE ONE
PARK, FOX RUN, THAT WE HAD LEFT OUT.
TO GO BACK AND BRING FORWARD A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE MAP TO
INCLUDE THEM IN THE ZONING AND SO THAT’S THIS PROJECT.
I’LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE INFORMATION.
IF YOU RECALL, THIS IS A PROJECT WAY UP IN NORTH PORTLAND IN THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA. THE REASON THAT WE LEFT IT OUT
THE FIRST TIME AROUND IS BECAUSE IT IS IN OUR PRIME INDUSTRIAL
OVERLAY AND IT WAS INCLUDED ON THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDABLE LANDS
INVENTORY. SO IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE MAP WE
HAVE OR TO APPLY THE
MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK ZONING WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT
MAP CHANGES. ONE IS TO AMEND THE MAP TO
CHANGE IT FROM MIXED EMPLOYMENT TO MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK.
THE OTHER IS TO AMEND A FIGURE IN THE COMP PLAN TO REMOVE THE
PRIME INDUSTRIAL AREA DESIGNATION FROM THE SITE.
THEN THE FINAL CHANGE IS THE ACTUAL ZONING MAP CHANGE TO
CHANGE IT FROM GENERAL EMPLOYMENT TO RESIDENTIAL
MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK AND TO ALSO AGAIN REMOVE THE PRIME
INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY ZONE FROM THE SITE.
THIS IS AN AIR PHOTO OF THE SITE.
THE STREET RUNNING ALONG THE LEFT SIDE, THE WEST SIDE, IS
MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. IT’S THAT VIADUCT AS YOU’RE
GOING NORTH JUST OFF THE MAP TO THE NORTH IS DELTA PARK.
JUST TO THE WEST OR TO THE LEFT OF THIS SITE IS PORTLAND MEADOWS
RACEWAY. JUST NORTH OF THAT IS A LITTLE
POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE IT’S CALLED RIVER WOOD
AS WELL. SO I RECALL FROM OUR BACK IN
2012 WHEN WE WERE DOING THE COMP PLAN UPDATE AND THE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT THIS SITE, IT WAS A PRETTY
DIFFICULT CALL AS TO WHETHER WE KEEP IT HOUSING OR KEEP IT
EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIAL, AND IN THE END THROUGH THAT PROCESS
STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED THAT WE KEEP IT THE
EMPLOYMENT ZONING DESIGNATION PRIMARILY DUE TO ITS
LOCATION. IT’S NOT THE BEST LOCATION FOR
HOUSING. IT’S ISOLATED.
IT DOESN’T HAVE A LOT OF SERVICES NEARBY.
IT’S SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I WOULD SAY A LOT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST SIX YEARS IN TERMS OF
THE POLICY PRIORITIES AND FOCUS ON
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND ESPECIALLY HOUSING THAT IS MORE
AFFORDABLE THAT WE’RE FINDING IN THE CITY TODAY.
SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE BRINGING FORWARD IN TERMS OF THIS
PACKAGE. AS I SAID, THIS IS THE ZONING
MAP AS IT APPLIES TO THE SITE. IT’S CURRENTLY ZONED EG2,
GENERAL EMENT EMPLOYMENT IT’S NOT STRICTLY LIMITED TO
INDUSTRIAL USE. THIS IS A MAP, FIGURE 6.1 IN THE
COMP PLAN, THE CROSS HATCHING IS THE PRIME INDUSTRIAL
DESIGNATION, SO WE WOULD CARVE A LITTLE NOTCH OUT OF THAT TO
REMOVE THE SITE FROM THIS PIECE. I THINK THE REASONS WHY THIS
FITS WITH SORT OF REMOVING IT FROM OUR INDUSTRIAL LAND BASE IS
THAT IT IS ALREADY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE REDEVELOPED FOR EMPLOYMENT USE
ALREADY FACES A HIGHER BARRIER BECAUSE THERE’S
143 MANUFACTURED DWELLINGS ON THIS SITE.
SO THAT’S A LOT OF RELOCATION COSTS.
A LOT OF EFFORT TO FREE UP 18 ACRES OF LAND.
ALSO, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR INDUSTRIAL PRIME INDUSTRIAL LAND
AND WHAT QUALIFIES AS PRIME INDUSTRIAL LAND, A COUPLE OF
FACTORS IS RIVER ACCESS. THIS DOESN’T HAVE THAT.
ACCESS TO FREIGHT RAILROAD SYSTEM.
THIS DOESN’T HAVE THAT. ALSO THE BASE ZONING IN TERMS OF
MIXED EMPLOYMENT ZONING, IT ACTUALLY ALLOWS A WIDE RANGE OF
USES INCLUDING RETAIL AND OFFICE. SO THE IDEA THAT THIS WOULD BE
REDEVELOPED INTO SORT OF INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING
WAREHOUSING IS LIKELY GIVEN THE SURROUNDING USES, BUT THERE’S
ALSO A WIDE RANGE OF USES THAT ARE ALLOWED.
ANOTHER SORT OF OPTION THERE IS THAT IT’S NOT LISTED HERE IS THAT IN LOOKING AT THE METRO
EMPLOYMENT MAPS, METRO HAS DESIGNATED THIS AS AN EMPLOYMENT
AREA, SO IT’S NOT EVEN ON THE METRO TITLE 4 MAP IT’S NOT
INDUSTRIAL. IT’S NOT REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL. IT’S EMPLOYMENT AREA.
IT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE LATITUDE TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. THEN THE FINAL POINT THERE IS,
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE LEFT IT OUT IN THE FIRST GO-ROUND WAS
THE CONCERN OVER THE EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY, ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA BECAUSE OUR EMENT
EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY WAS SO TIGHT.
THERE’S A TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT THIS SUMMARIZES THIS
IF YOU RECALL WE HAD IDENTIFIED DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES DEPENDING
ON THE DIFFERENT TYPES FOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY AS A WHOLE. WE HAD SPLIT THIS AREA INTO THE
HARBOR ACCESS LANDS IMMEDIATELY ALONG THE RIVER THEN EVERYTHING
ELSE FROM THE UPLAND PORTION OF THE HARBOR AREA
AROUND RIVER GATE OUT TO THE AIRPORT WERE ALL
IN THIS HARBOR AND AIRPORT DISTRICT. WHEN WE FINALIZED THE COMP PLAN
IN 2016, THIS HARBOR AND AIRPORT DISTRICT WHERE THIS SITE IS
LOCATED HAD A 54 ACRE SURPLUS. WE WERE COUNTING SOME OF THAT 54
ACRES TO MAKE UP FOR THE DEFICIT THAT WE HAD IN THE HARBOR ACCESS
LAND SAYING SOME OF THE SITES ADJACENT IMMEDIATELY TO THE
HARBOR ACCESS LAND COULD TAKE SOME OF THAT DEMAND, SOAK UP
SOME OF THAT DEMAND, SO WITH THIS, WE TOOK THOSE 25 ACRES OUT
OF THIS CALCULATION.
THEN IF YOU RECALL, AS PART OF THE MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK
CHANGES PRIOR TO THIS, THERE WERE THREE SITES IN THE CULLY
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ACTUALLY HAD EMPLOYMENT ZONING ON IT THAT ARE
INCLUDED IN THIS DISTRICT. SO THE ACRES OF CAPACITY THAT WE
WERE COUNTING TOWARDS THAT IS TAKEN OFF. THAT LEAVES US WITH REALLY AN
EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OF 24 ACRES. THE FOX RUN SITE ITSELF IS
COUNTED AS 13.5 ACRES ON OUR
BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY.
DEDUCTING THAT THAT WILL STILL LEAVE US WITH A 10-ACRE SURPLUS
IN THIS HARBOR AND AIRPORT DISTRICT.
IT’S GETTING PRETTY THIN, PRETTY SMALL.
IT’S ABOUT 1%, BUT I WILL SAY METRO IS JUST FINISHING UP THEIR
URBAN GROWTH REPORT THIS YEAR, IN DECEMBER, THEY WILL
HAVE A NEW POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
FORECAST ADOPTED AS PART OF THAT.
THAT WILL BE ALLOCATED TO US NEXT YEAR. THEN WE WILL DO AN UPDATE IN ’19
INTO 2020 OF OUR EOA, WHERE WE
LOOK AT HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST SIX YEARS
AND WHAT THE NEW JOB FORECAST HAS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO
REBALANCE AND LOOK AT WHAT — WHERE WE SIT IN TERMS OF
ACCOMMODATING FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. BUT FOR NOW, IN TERMS OF GOAL 9,
WE MEET THAT STANDARD OF STILL BEING ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH SUPPLY TO MEET
THE FORECASTED DEMAND. WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE YOUR
QUESTIONS.>>GO AHEAD, MIKE.
>>I’M ASSUMING THAT THEY CONTINUE AS A TRAILER PARK UNDER
CURRENT ZONING.>>YES.
>>I HAVE A BIG ISSUE WITH TAKING ANYTHING OUT OF THE
INDUSTRIAL LANDS GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH.
UNTIL THE CITY CAN ADDRESS THE GOAL 9 ISSUE, GIVE AN EXCEPTION
— SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO DLAK NUT AT SOME POINT SO I’M NOT TOO
EXCITED AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
>>MIKE, COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE?
>>AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE THAT’S THE DECIDING
FACTOR FOR ME. VERY RELUCTANT TO TAKE THE LAND
OUT OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING.>>GO AHEAD, MICHELLE.
>>COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE PARK IS 18 ACRES?
>>YES.>>13.5 WAS COUNTED IN THE
BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY?>>WELL, THE GROSS ACRES IS 18,
BUT AS PART OF THE BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY WE APPLIED A
NUMBER OF DEDUCTIONS OR DISCOUNTS DUE TO SURROUNDING
CONSTRAINTS. SO MY GUESS IS THAT GIVEN ITS
LOCATION TO I-5 AND THE I-5 MARINE BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AND
CONSTRAINED CAPACITY RELATED TO THAT, THERE WAS PROBABLY A
TRANSPORTATION CONSTRAINT DEDUCTION APPLIED TO THAT TO
REDUCE CAPACITY, BUT I DID NOT REALLY DIG BACK IN TO SEE WHAT
CONSTRAINTS REALLY APPLIED TO THE SITE.
>>SO IN TERMS OF THE TRANSPORTATION, THERE’S A — IF
WE DO THE CHANGE THE MAXIMUM IS OVER 500 RESIDENCES.
HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE RANGE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE
UNDER CURRENT ZONING? YOU MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
MOBILITY. I’M CURIOUS ABOUT FREIGHT
MOBILITY ISSUES AND THE POTENTIAL HAVING THAT MANY
PEOPLE CLOSE TO THAT MANY INDUSTRIAL USES.
>>WE HAD PBOT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF FINISHING UP THEIR
TRANSPORTATION ANALOGY OF THIS CHANGE BUT THEIR PRELIMINARY
RESULTS CONVEYED TO ME IS THAT THIS VIRTUALLY IS THE SAME IN
TERMS OF SWITCHING IT FROM EMPLOYMENT TO RESIDENTIAL WITH
THE ADDED CAPACITY, THEY DON’T EXPECT THINGS TO GET WORSE THAN
WHAT WE’RE ASSUMING IN TERMS OF FUTURE GROWTH WITH THE
EMPLOYMENT USE ON IT.>>LAST ONE FOR NOW IS, SO WE’RE
SAYING THAT WE’RE TAKING BASICALLY 13.5 ACRES
OUT WITH THIS CHANGE.
>>YES.>>THAT’S IN ONE LOCATION.
THAT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE SIZE PIECE OF LAND WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL SITES IN THIS GEOGRAPHY, HOW ARE WE IN
TERMS OF GOOD CHUNKS OF LAND? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOTS OF
ONE-ACRE SITES SNL IT SEEMS TO ME NOT ALL PARCELS ARE CREATED
EQUAL. UNDERSTANDING THAT.
>>RIGHT. I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT.
I DID NOT LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS. MY GUESS KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW OF
THE PARCELIZATION AND THE WAY
THE LAND INVENTORY WAS BREAKING OUT MY GUESS IS THAT THAT
REMAINING TEN ACRES IS PROBABLY LOTS OF SMALLER SIZE PARCELS.
>>THANK YOU.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
ELI?>>SORRY, I’M A LITTLE BIT LATE.
I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE GENESIS OF THIS PROJECT.
IT SEEMS TO ME I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THE.
[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE] THROUGH A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.
I’M NOT SURE WHY STAFF IS LEADING IT.
>>SO WHEN WE BROUGHT THE MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK
ZONING PROJECT TO COUNCIL, COMMISSIONER SALTZMAN WAS
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT LEAVING THIS PARK OUT AND
LEAVING THE 143 RESIDENTS,
HOUSES, IN THIS PARK AT RISK OF
CLOSURE, CONVERSION TO
EMPLOYMENT LAND. BASICALLY HE WANTED TO SEE US
BRING BACK THIS MAP CHANGE.>>THIS WAS DIRECTED BY CITY
COUNCIL?>>OKAY.
>>YEAH. BASICALLY IN ORDER TO PASS THE
ZONING CHANGE THEN WE MADE A COMMITMENT TO BRING THIS PACKAGE
FORWARD BACK TO COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER.>>OKAY.
MY OTHER QUESTION IS THE H-OVERLAY WHICH COVERS A HUGE
SWATH OF CULLY ALSO, AT LEAST IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE IT’S
BASICALLY IRRELEVANT. IS IT RELEVANT ANYWHERE AT ALL
NOW? IT’S LEFT ON THE TABLE WITH THIS
PROPOSED UPDATE. I’M WONDERING FOR BROADER
UNDERSTANDING IS THE H-OVERLAY
STILL ENFORCED?>>IT’S ENFORCED AND WE NEED TO
KEEP IT ON THE BOOKS DUE TO FAA REGULATIONS.
I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH AN EFFECTIVE CONSTRAINT IT IS.
IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS IT ACTUALLY COULD BE A
CONSTRAINT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GET LIKE
FURTHER NORTH UP ON TO HAYDEN ISLAND WHERE YOU’RE ACTUALLY IN
THE DIRECT PATH OF THE RUNWAY. I THINK IT BECOMES MORE
CONSTRAINING BUT I’M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFICS OF
IT.>>GO AHEAD.
>>THE GENESIS ALSO. WHY WAS IT LEFT OUT IN THE FIRST
PASS OF –>>BECAUSE OF THE CALCULATION
HERE. THE 13 ACRES AND CUTTING THAT TO
10 AND THAT GETTING PRETTY THIN IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE LEFT
AVAILABLE. AND SO I THINK PART OF
IT WAS A, WELL, WE CAN DO AN UPDATE OF THE
EOA, THEN LOOK AT WHERE WE STAND AND MAYBE BRING IT BACK AND DO
THAT LATER. COMMISSIONER SALTZMAN ASKED US
TO DO IT SOONER.>>WERE THERE OTHER PARKS LEFT
OUT?>>NO, THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE.
>>OKAY.
HAS ANYONE FROM THE PARK GOTTEN BACK TO YOU?
HAS IT CAUSED ANY –>>YOU KNOW, WE DID THE SAME
OUTREACH AS WE DID FOR THE ORIGINAL.
WE SENT OUT LETTERS TO THE OWNER OF THE PARK, THE OWNERS OF
MOBILE HOMES INSIDE THE PARK. WE SENT POSTCARDS TO EVERY
MOBILE HOME IN THE PARK AND WE ALSO SENT OUT BPS STAFF TO
CANVAS AND EXPLAIN THE PROPOSAL TO RESIDENTS OF THE
PARK. AS FAR AS I KNOW WE HAVEN’T
RECEIVED ANY TESTIMONY OR ANY PHONE CALLS ASKING QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS CHANGE.>>THAT’S KIND OF INTERESTING.
THEN THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF PARKS.
IS THIS ONE THAT HAS HIGH PROPERTY, LOW PROPERTY VALUES IN
TERMS OF –>>I THINK IT’S PRETTY LOWER ON
THE END OF SCALE, AND IT’S A MIX OF SORT OF RENTALS, PEOPLE WHO
RENT THE HOMES AND PEOPLE WHO OWN THE HOMES AND RENT THE
SPACE. IT’S A
MIX OF THOSE TYPES OF UNITS.
>>THANK YOU.>>DAISY.
>>I’M SORRY IF I MISSED IT. HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN A MOBILE
HOME PARK?>>I WANT TO SAY THAT IT GOES
BACK TO THE ’50s. IN FACT, THE STAFF THAT WENT OUT
THERE MET SOME AT LEAST TWO RESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE
SINCE IT WAS CREATED.>>OH, MY.
>>I SHOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT HERE.
I DON’T. MAYBE IT’S IN THERE BUT IT’S
FAIRLY OLD IS MY RECOLLECTION.>>THANK YOU.
>>ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
GO AHEAD, JEFF.>>I’M SORRY, IT IS HERE.
IT WAS CREATED IN 1986 WAS WHEN
IT WAS BUILT.>>I MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS. I THINK I’LL WAIT.
I ASSUME WE’RE GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
I’M CURIOUS WHO WE MIGHT HEAR FROM AND WHAT THEY MIGHT TELL
US.>>WITH NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THIS
IS A HEARING, SO IF YOU’RE HERE TO TESTIFY THERE SHOULD BE FORMS
BACK THERE TO FILL OUT. IF YOU COULD BRING THEM TO LOVE,
DO WE HAVE ANY FORMS AT THIS TIME?
>>HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FORMS.>>I’M NOT SEEING ANYONE MOVE.
LAST CHANCE. OKAY.
I AM NOT SEEING ANYONE HERE TO TESTIFY, SO WE WILL CLOSE
TESTIMONY.>>OKAY.
>>THAT PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, JEFF.
>>THAT’S SURPRISING. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO HEAR FROM A PARK OWNER TO GET
THEIR PERSPECTIVE, INTERESTING TO HAVE SOME INPUT FROM
COMMISSIONER SALTZMAN AS TO THE THINKING THAT MIGHT PERSUADE US
THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT HELPFUL
INFORMATION I TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS MY COLLEAGUE MR. HOUCK.
I AM UNCOMFORTABLE TAKING THIS
OUT OF WHAT IS A SHRINKING
TERRITORY OF INDUSTRIAL LAND.>>ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
GO AHEAD, ANDRE.
>>LET’S ASSUME FOR A SECOND WE TAKE THIS OUT.
METRO COMES BACK AND SAYS BASED ON THE GROWTH ANALYSIS WE NEED
MORE. WELL — HOW DO WE RECONCILE THAT IN THE FUTURE FROM A LAND
INVENTORY STANDPOINT?>>WELL, GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT WENT INTO THE EOA WAS ABOUT JOB
TRENDS AND HOW THE CITY IS DEVELOPING AND WHAT THE ECONOMY
LOOKS LIKE. WHAT WE’RE SEEING FROM OUR
NUMBERS IS THAT INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYMENT IS DOWN OR HAS BARELY RECOVERED TO PRE-RECESSION
LEVELS YET WE HAVE SEEN A HUGE INCREASE IN INDUSTRIAL SPACE
ACROSS THE REGION. BUT THAT EMPLOYMENT LEVEL IS NOT
QUITE REACHING UP TO THAT, SO I’M NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE WOULD
RECONCILE THAT FUTURE GROWTH. I WILL NOTE THAT METRO IS
PROJECTING A SLOWER GROWTH RATE FOR BOTH POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT. YOU KNOW, THE LAST GROWTH
FORECAST WAS ABOUT A 1.8% PER YEAR, AND THEY ARE NOW 1 TO
1.3%, SO THEY ARE SEEING NATIONAL FORECASTS ARE ALL
LEVELING OFF. THAT’S GOING TO PLAY INTO IT.
OUR JOB MIX IS CHANGING. WE’RE SEEING MORE OFFICE, SEEING
MORE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION JOB GROWTH.
BUT YET WE STILL HAVE THIS SORT OF DEMAND FOR
SPACE THROUGH AUTOMATION AND THROUGHPUT AND
EVERYTHING ELSE WE’RE STILL ADDING A LOT OF PORTLAND MEADOWS
RACEWAY, RACETRACK IS COMING IN TO BE REDEVELOPED AS A HUGE
INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE COMPLEX. SO IT’S HARD TO PREDICT HOW THAT
ALL PLAYS OUT.
IT’S ALSO, YOU KNORR, LOOMING OUT THERE IS WEST HAYDEN ISLAND,
BUT THE PORT DOESN’T SEEM READY, INTERESTED OR WANTING TO MOVE ON
THAT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NOT COUNTED IT
IN OUR SUPPLY. METRO COUNTED IT IN THE REGIONAL
SUPPLY, SO THERE’S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY AROUND THAT BOTH IN
TERMS OF WHERE WE WOULD GROW FOR THESE TYPES OF JOBS OR HOW MUCH
DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF SPACE WILL
BE THERE.>>A FOLLOW-UP.
WOULD WE BE REQUIRED TO RECONCILE THAT THROUGH A COMP
PLAN CHANGE, A BILLABLE INVENTORIES CHANGE OR UPDATE?
>>LIKE LAST TIME WE WOULD BRING BACK A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
POLICY OPTIONS. AND YOU CAN RECONCILE IT WITH
LAND, YOU CAN RECONCILE IT WITH
THE JOB TRENDS, SAY WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GROW OVER HERE, IF
THE REGION FORECASTS A NEED FOR MORE INDUSTRIAL LAND THEN THEY
HAVE TO FIND IT AT THE EDGE OF THE REGION.
SORT OF THAT’S WHERE THAT DEMAND GOES OR THAT DEMAND GOES OUTSIDE
THE REGION. IT GOES TO RIDGEFIELD,
WASHINGTON, OR IT GOES TO WOODBURN OR OTHER — ESPECIALLY
FOR THIS WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IT WANTS TO BE CLOSE TO I-5 AND
I-84. THE NUMBER OF SITES IN THE
REGION THAT FIT THAT MOLD IS PRETTY
LIMITED. SO IT’S NOT NECESSARILY A CITY
OF PORTLAND DEMAND AS MUCH AS A REGIONAL ECONOMY FOR
ALL OF NORTHWEST OREGON, SOUTHWEST
WASHINGTON.>>CHRIS IS NEXT.
I HAVE A QUICK INTERRUPTION QUESTION.
WHAT’S THE TIMING OF GETTING METRO’S UPDATE?>>SO THEY ARE ON TRACK TO ADOPT
THIS, ADOPT THE URBAN GROWTH REPORT IN DECEMBER.
THEN EARLY NEXT YEAR THEY WILL GO THROUGH A PROCESS
COORDINATING WITH ALL OF THE JURISDICTIONS IN THE REGION TO
DO THE ALLOCATION AND THEN MY GUESS IS SORT OF MAY OR JUNE
METRO COUNCIL WOULD ADOPT THAT ALLOCATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL
CITIES. SO WE WOULD THEN KNOW WHAT OUR
UPDATED FORECAST WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THEN FROM THERE WE ARE BUILDING INTO OUR WORK PROGRAM TO SPEND
THE REST OF 2019 AND INTO 2020 LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT
TRENDS AND FIGURING OUT WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE EOA.
>>CHRIS?>>I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE
PORTLAND MEADOWS. THAT HAS CEASED OPERATIONS,
RACETRACK IS BEING REDEVELOPED. WAS THAT CHANGE IN USE OR ALSO
CHANGE IN ZONING WHEN THAT HAPPENED?
>>IT’S A CHANGE IN USE. WE WERE ALREADY, I BELIEVE, UH
DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH BUT WE WERE ALREADY ANTICIPATING THAT
REDEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUR IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
IT’S HAPPENING SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
>>THAT WAS IN OUR INVENTORY ALREADY.
>>YES.>>THERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF
RETAIL ADJACENT TO PORTLAND MEADOWS.
HOW IS THAT ZONED AND WHAT DO WE SEE AS THE TREND LINE TO THAT?
>>MY RECOLLECTION IT’S STILL ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL.
THE C.E., THE LOWEST, BIGGEST BOX COMMERCIAL.
IT STAYED THAT WAY. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE PLANNING
THERE.>>I’M PERSUADED THE HOUSING
EMERGENCY IS STILL THE MOST PRESSING EMERGENCY WE’RE DEALING
WITH SO I’LL MOVE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSAL.
>>DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? YEP?
>>WHY WOULD — THIS IS A QUESTION A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT.
I SUPPORT THE ZONING HERE. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO
RECOMMEND THE MTP ZONING WITHOUT DROPPING THE K-OVERLAY?
IN OTHER WORDS THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT — I’M A LITTLE BEYOND
MY KNOWLEDGE IN INDUSTRIAL LANDS SITE.
BUT IF SEEMS LIKE YOU’RE DOING TWO THINGS AT ONCE.
ONE TO MAKE IT MORE LIKELY TO CONTINUE ON AS A MOBILE HOME
PARK, TO PRESERVE STANLT FOR RESIDENTS — STABILITY FOR
RESIDENTS, AND THE OTHER IS THE INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY. CAN THOSE BE COUPLED OR DO YOU
RECOMMEND NOT CHANGING THE OVERLAY?
>>I THINK IT’S CLEANER TO REMOVE THE OVERLAY AS WELL JUST
BECAUSE IF IT WERE — THE PRIME INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY REALLY ONLY
APPLIES TO THE EMPLOYMENT AREAS. TO THE AREAS DEFINED IN THE COMP
PLAN AS PRIME INDUSTRIAL. SO JUST TO KEEP THINGS CLEAN,
IT’S EITHER IN OR IT’S OUT.
>>ALONG THOSE LINES THE QUESTION, COULD WE CHANGE THE
ZONING BUT LEAVE THE COMP PLAN
ZONING INDUSTRIAL? IN OTHER WORDS —
RIGHT?>>NO.
YOU CAN’T.
BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARK ZONING ONLY GOES
WITH THE MANUFACTURED QUELLING COMP PLAN MAP.
>>OKAY.>>THAT’S PART OF WHAT MAKES IT
SO STRONG AS A PROCESS TO COME BACK THROUGH IN TERMS OF YOU’RE
NOT — YOU’RE DOING A FULL COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, YOU’RE NOT DOING
A ZONE CHANGE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN.
>>OKAY. GO AHEAD, MICHELLE.
>>THIS IS JUST A POLICY COMMENT.
I DON’T THINK THAT WE SHOULD SEPARATE THE HOUSING STRATEGY
AND THE JOB STRATEGY. I THINK THE JOB STRATEGY IS KEY
TO LONG TERM GETTING A HANDLE ON HELPING PEOPLE IMPROVE THEIR
RUNG ON THE ECONOMIC LADDER. WE HAVE HEARD REPEATEDLY THESE
INDUSTRIAL JOBS ARE POTENTIALLY JOBS FOR PEOPLE THAT DON’T HAVE
A COLLEGE EDUCATION. GIVES YOU STABILITY, HEALTH CARE
FOR YOUR FAMILY. PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES.
I JOIN WITH THE CONCERN ABOUT TAKING ANY PROPERTY OUT OF THIS.
I’M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE GO IN THE DIRECTION OF WE’RE
GOING TO ADDRESS OUR NEED OUTSIDE THE REGION OR ON THE AN
THAT’S INCONSISTENT WITH CLIMATE ACTION AND PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO
WORK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THOSE ARE THE POLICY ISSUES I
WOULD RAISE.>>ANDRE?
>>SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE IN 2019, 2020, WE’LL
BE BACK AT THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS INVENTORY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>>PROBABLY 2020. YEAH.
>>WE’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE QUESTION AGAIN.
>>YES.>>AT THAT
TIME, COULD YOU TAKE IT BACK OUT AND PUT IT BACK IN
THE INVENTORY? I’M JUST —
>>YEAH. I MEAN BUT YOU KNOW, DEPENDING
ON WHERE WE STAND WITH HOUSING AND DO WE HAVE A PLACE TO
RELOCATE 143 FAMILIES TO SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND REFLECTING
ON THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD THE FIRST TIME AROUND ABOUT HOW THIS
IS A PARTICULAR TYPE OF HOUSING THAT PEOPLE CHOOSE, AND IT’S HARD TO REPLICATE ELSEWHERE IN
THE CITY. SO THE RELOCATION FACTOR IS
GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE.>>YEAH.
JUST A COMMENT, THE THING FOR ME IS THAT I BELIEVE AS A POLICY
WE’RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THIS, IF WE LEAVE IT AS
INDUSTRIAL, WE DEAL WL IT AS A HOUSING PROBLEM.
HOW DO THEY GET THEIR DISPLACED.
IF WE CHANGE IT TO MOBILE HOME WE DEAL WITH IT AS A JOBS POLICY, AND I AGREE IN PART THAT
YOU CAN’T BIFURCATE THOSE TWO.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE PRIORITY RIGHT NOW IS
HOUSING, AND I THINK WE SHOULD, THOUGH, NOTE TO
COUNCIL IN OUR LETTER EITHER WAY THAT WE NEED
TO RESOLVE THE DISPLACEMENT PROBLEM EITHER WAY.
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE
CREATED IF WE TAKE IT OUT.
THE HOUSING PROBLEM IF WE DON’T.
>>I’M FOLLOWING YOU. IT’S EITHER DEALING WITH JOBS
DISPLACEMENT OR HOUSING DISPLACEMENT AND WE’RE TELLING
COUNCIL, CONSIDER THAT THAT IS THE CHOICE.
>>NO. I’M SAYING TO COUNCIL YOU NEED
TO DO BOTH. WE CAN’T BIFURCATE AND SAY WE’RE
ONLY GOING TO DEAL WITH HOUSING THEN FORGET JOBS AND TO
MICHELLE’S POINT.>>DAISY?
>>MY QUESTION IS IF SOMEBODY WERE TO COME AND BUY OUT THIS PROPERTY AND USE IT AS A PRIME
INDUSTRIAL ZONE, MIXED EMPLOYMENT, WHATEVER, WOULD ALL
RESIDENTS BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE?
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORDINANCE IT’S VAGUE AROUND
MOBILE HOME PARKS AND ALSO GIVEN THE FACT SOME RESIDENTS THERE OWN THE MOBILE HOME AND SOME OWN
THE MOBILE HOME AND THE PROPERTY.
>>SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF YOU OWN YOUR
MOBILE HOME AND RENT THE PAD, THAT YOU WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR BOTH WHAT THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE THAT’S
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AS WELL AS UNDER THE CITY ORDINANCE.
IF YOU RENT THE MOBILE HOME, THEN YOU ARE ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR
THE CITY RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
>>SO TO THAT, IS THERE OTHER
AREAS IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW THAT YOU COULD RELOCATE THIS MOBILE
HOME TO? I DON’T REMEMBER WHEN THE OTHER PARKS CAME IN FRONT OF US.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CAPACITY TO — THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE
DISPLACED TO RELOCATE THEM TO OTHER PARKS WITHIN THE CITY.
>>RIGHT. I DON’T HAVE A GOOD HANDLE ON
LIKE WHAT THE VACANCY RATE IS IN THOSE OTHER PARKS.
YOU KNOW, NEW PARKS ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE
CREATED IN THE R2 AND R3 ZONES UNDER CURRENT ZONING.
THE RM1 ZONE ONCE WE GET THROUGH WITH BETTER HOUSING BY DESIGN,
SO IT IS POSSIBLE TO CREATE NEW PARKS STILL IN THE CITY.
BUT IN TERMS — TO THE QUESTION
ABOUT FINDING 18 ACRES IS A PRETTY BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF PORTLAND. FOR ANY USE.
>>RIGHT.>>BASEBALL STADIUM OR WHATEVER
YOU WANT. [LAUGHTER]
IT’S A BIG PIECE OF GROUND.
>>JEFF, THEN ELI.
>>I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT BY REZONING THERE THERE’S NO
REASON TO BELIEVE ANYTHING WILL CHANGE.
BY NOT REZONING. IF IT STAYS AS INDUSTRIAL ZONE
WE HAVE NO INDICATION OF INTENT TO CHANGE IT.
I DON’T MEAN TO READ TOO MUCH INTO ABSENCE OF TESTIMONY FROM
THE OWNER BUT IF THIS WAS AN OWNER CONTEMPLATING A SALE I
ASSUME WE WOULD HAVE VIGOROUS INPUT OPPOSING THIS.
MAYBE AN UNFAIR IMPLICATION BUT THE FACT WE HEAR NOTHING FROM
THE OWNER SUGGESTS THIS ISN’T AN OWNER PAYING ATTENTION TO THE
PROCESS WHICH MEANS IT MAY CONTINUE TO BE A MOBILE HOME
PARK FOR AS LONG AS WE CAN IMAGINE.
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BUT THERE’S NO REASON
TO ASSUME WE REZONE IT SOMETHING IS GOING TO CHANGE QUICKLY.
THE OTHER MIDDLE GROUND WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT A TENABLE MIDDLE
GROUND, IT’S AWKWARD TO KNOW IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT OUR INDUSTRIAL
LAND INVENTORY AND WE MAY HAVE TO MAKE PAINFUL ADJUSTMENTS TO
IT TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY TO TAKE A KEY PIECE OF THAT DEBATE
OFF THE TABLE. I’M WONDERING IF THERE’S A WAY
WE COULD HOLD OUR RECOMMENDATION IN ABEYANCE UNTIL WE HAVE
INFORMATION FROM METRO AND KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS BECOMES A
CRITICAL PART OF OUR RESPONSE TO METRO.
I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S POSSIBLE BUT IT TELLS CITY COUNCIL THANK
YOU VERY MUCH WE’LL BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AFTER WE GET
METRO’S GOAL 9 REPORT AT THE END OF THE YEAR OR NEXT YEAR.
IS THAT EVEN CONCEIVABLE ASSUMING ANYONE ELSE SEES IT AS
A PATHWAY TO SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE ON OUR DECISION?
>>WELL, I GUESS TWO THOUGHTS ON THAT.
ONE IS THIS WAS A I WOULD SAY
TECHNICALLY THIS WAS A COUNCIL REQUEST.
IT WAS NOT ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION, SO IF YOU DO NOT
PASS A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT OR TODAY, IT STOPS HERE
FOR THE TIME BEING.
IT DISWNT AUTOMATICALLY GO TO COUNCIL.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD NOTE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PRETTY SLIM
SUPPLY TO BEGIN WITH. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT 13 ACRES OUT
OF A THOUSAND ACRE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE’RE GOING FROM 2% TO
1% IN TERMS OF OUR — WE’RE INTO MARGIN OF ERROR AND WHICH WAY DO
YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE SCALE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL JOBS ISSUE IS BIGGER THAN THIS
13 ACRES THIS. IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE OUR
PROBLEM LONG TERM.
>>AS A MATTER OF RESPECT FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A GOAL 9
INDUSTRIAL LANDS PROCESS IT’S GETTING SHRUNK DOWN
CONTINUALLY, AS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION I HATE
TO SHRINK IT FURTHER JUST BEFORE WE GET INFORMATION THAT TELLS US
HERE’S HOW WE’RE DOING. IF WE CAN’T PUNT BY SAYING WE’RE
GOING TO DEFER RECOMMENDATION UNTIL NEXT YEAR —
>>I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH REASON, IT’S UNFORTUNATE, YOU’VE DONE A
GREAT JOB PRESENTING WHAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE US TO DO BUT
WE DON’T HAVE IN MY MIND ENOUGH EVIDENCE OR PERSUASIVE REASON TO
MAKE CHANGE AT THIS POINT. I’LL
BE A NO VOTE AS IT STANDS NOW.
>>ELI, THEN CHRIS. THEN FINAL COMMENTS.
HOPEFULLY. JUST LOOKING AT TIME.
UNLESS SOMEBODY IS DYING TO ADD TO
IT.>>JUST RESPONDING TO SOME OF
THE POLICY POINTS.
IF WE THINK THE OWNER IS NOT GOING TO REDEVELOP ANY TIME SOON
IT’S NOT CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS I
REFERENCED THE NEARBY RETAIL IF YOU ASK ME TODAY I WOULD MUCH
RATHER REZONE IT RETAIL TO INDUSTRIAL THAN KEEP THIS PARK
INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE I WANT TO PRESERVE THE HOUSING.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS I SAID DURING THE COMP PLAN I THINK OUR
PRIME INDUSTRIAL HAS TO GET DENSER IN SOME WAY.
WE HAVE TO USE THE ACRES MORE EFFICIENTLY AND FACE UP TO THAT
DISCUSSION. MY 2 CENTS.
>>I GUESS I WOULD ADD, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE COMP PLAN
THE PRIME INDUSTRIAL LAND THERE WAS NOT A LOOK AT THIS QUESTION
OF THE MANUFACTURED DWELLING PARKS.
I THINK HAD THAT BEEN A DISCUSSION THAT WAS AT THE
FOREFRONT AND CONSIDERED IN WHAT WE WERE DOING, WE WOULD HAVE —
I PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH IT THEN AND PROBABLY
RECOMMENDED THAT IT NOT BE INCLUDED.
SO FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH I’M OBVIOUSLY LEANING TO SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT. I THINK IT IS A TOUGH CHOICE.
I THINK THAT WE ARE JUST NOT GOING TO SEE THIS SIZE MOBILE
HOME PARK DELIVERED WITH WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OF OUR LAND SUPPLY IN
OUR R2, R3 AND RMZONES. IF WE DON’T PRESERVE THIS WE
WILL LOSE IT. THIS IS A REALLY UNIQUE TYPE OF
HOUSING. I THINK THIS KIND OF — THE WORK
WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO TRY TO PRESERVE THESE IS OUR LAST
CHANCE AT DOING SO. SO THAT’S WHY I’M IN SUPPORT OF
PRESERVING IT. I AGREE THE JOBS ARE IMPORTANT.
AGREE WE HAVE WORK CUT OUT FOR US IN THE FUTURE. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS
MOBILE HOME PARK.
MICHELLE? LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO —
>>UNFORTUNATELY I DO. AGAIN, EXPRESSING COMPLETE
RESPECT FOR THIS FORM OF HOISTING AND THE IMPORTANT ROLE
THAT IT PLAYS IN THE SYSTEM, BUT FOR ME BALANCING EVERYTHING I’M
NOT CONVINCED THAT IF WE GOT TO THE SITUATION — PART OF THE
FINDINGS ARE WE DON’T THINK THIS IS GOING TO ?RIP.
IF THERE WAS A UNIQUE JOB OPPORTUNITY HERE I THINK THE
CITY HAS GREAT RESOURCES AND COULD GET CREATIVE AND MAYBE ALL
100 PLUS UNITS DON’T MOVE TO THE SAME PLACE, BUT IF WE HAVE A
COMMITMENT AND WE HAVE CONTINUED TO EXPRESS THIS COMMITMENT THAT
THE CITY HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IMPACTS,
THAT WE COULD HELP PLACE THESE PEOPLE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THAT 13 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL LAND IS MORE UNIQUE THAN 13 ACRES
RESIDENTIAL LAND AS A TOOL IN THE BOX.
>>MY REBUTTAL TO THAT IS IF THIS COMES BACK TO US AND THE
CITY CAN FIND US THE LAND TO RELOCATE THESE INDIVIDUALS TO I
WOULD CONSIDER PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE INDUSTRIAL LAND SUPPLY.
JUST LOOKING AT TIME, UNLESS SOMEBODY REALLY FEELS THEY NEED
TO AT ONE ADD ONE MORE POINT —
>>MY VOTE IS NOT A NO AGAINST THE TRAILER PARK, IT’S TO FACE
UP TO THE FACT THAT NOW OR IN 2020 WE’RE GOING TO BE RIGHT
BACK WHERE WE WERE IN A VERY CONTENDSOUS AND ARDUOUS PROCESS
REGARDING INDUSTRIAL LAND AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THAT. WE ARE LANDLOCKED.
THERE’S ONLY SO MUCH LAND OUT
THERE. WE FACE THE ISSUE WITH
INDUSTRIAL LANDS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE WAS A CUMULATIVE
IMPACT OF MANY, MANY DECISIONS LIKE THIS THAT ADDED UP TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH INDUSTRIAL LAND.
>>OKAY. WITH THAT, LOVE, CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. [ROLL CALL
VOTE]>>FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT I
VOTED FOR THE ORIGINAL SAVING
ALL THE PARKS, I WANT TO SAFE THIS SAVETHIS ONE.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT WE HAVE PEOPLE SPEAKING FOR THE
INDUSTRIAL LANDS, AND YES, WE NEED TO LOOK AT
THAT.>>THAT IS 8-3.
THAT CAN’T BE. DID I COUNT WRONG?
MUST BE 7-3. [LAUGHTER]
SORRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TOM,
APPRECIATE IT.>>THANK YOU.
>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING EXTENSION. THIS TOO IS A HEARING AND
RECOMMENDATION. IF YOU ARE HERE TO TESTIFY,
PLEASE FILL OUT A FORM FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND BRING THEM
TO LOVE U P FRO NT.
>>CAN I STATE MY CONFLICT?>>YES, THANK YOU.
>>I HADN’T REALIZED UNTIL I WAS BIKING IN TODAY THAT I WILL BE
BOWING OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. I HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS
HEADING IN FOR PERMITS AND I REALIZE THE REASON THEY ARE
GOING FOR END OF DECEMBER DEADLINE IS PROBABLY RELATED TO
THIS POTENTIAL TO YOUR EXTENSION.
IT RELATES TO HOUSING BUREAU DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF 33 FOR
THAT PROJECT SO I’M GOING TO STEP OUT.
THANKS.>>THANK YOU , E LI.
THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, AND LADIES.
>>THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. I’M TYLER BUMP, SENIOR PLANNER
AT THE BUREAU OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY.
I’LL GOING TO GIVE QUICK OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND TO
REMIND FOLKS WHERE WE ARE. IT’S BEEN TWO YEARS SINCE THE
FIRST INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROPOSED DRAFT WAS IN FRONT OF
PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION.
ARE THAT WAS OCTOBER OF 2016. PSC DID APPROVE AND SEND A
RECOMMENDED DRAFT TO CITY COUNCIL.
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REGULATIONS, ZONING CODE AND PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE
HOUSING BUREAU IN DECEMBER. IT WENT INTO EFFECT FEBRUARY 1,
2017. WE ADDED A NEW SECTION IN THE
ZONING CODE, CHAPTER, 33245, TO IMPLEMENT THE INCLUSIONARY
REQUIREMENTS THAT SAYS ANY BUILDINGS, NEW DEVELOPMENT OF 20
UNITS OR MORE ARE SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE ARE 10% OF UNITS AT 60% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME —
[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE] THROUGH THE PROCESS WE ADDED
ANOTHER SECTION THAT HAS A PHASE-IN RATE.
IT’S A TWO-YEAR PHASE-IN PERIOD SET TO EXPIRE JANUARY 1, 2019,
WHICH IS WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY AND HAVING THAT DISCUSSION.
THE PROPOSED DRAFT IS A VERY SMALL CODE CHANGE, STRIKEOUT OF THE JANUARY 1, 2019 DATE,
REPLACE IT IT WITH JANUARY 1, 2021, SO AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS
OF PHASE-IN INCLUSION RATE. MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE HOUSING
BUREAU WILL GIVE SOME BACKGROUND AND GIVE AN UPDATE TO THE 18
MONTH REVIEW OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM.
I PRESENTED YOU A SIX-MONTH AND YEAR REVIEW OVER THE LAST YEAR
AND A HALF OR SO WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT A FEW TIMES SOME OF THE
THEY ARE GOING THE 18 MONTH REVIEW AND TRACKING MOVING
FORWARD. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY ARE
TALKING TO PSC, GIVING THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING WITH THE
PIPELINE PRIOR AS WELL AS AFTERWARDS.
MATTHEW TSCHABOLD WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE.
WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION THEN WE HAVE A
HEARING AND WILL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AFTER THAT.
>>THANK YOU.>>OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
MATTHEW TSCHABOLD WITH THE PORTLAND FAMILY HOUSING BUREAU.
I WON’T SPEND TOO MUCH ON THIS SLIDE.
THIS IS A REMINDER OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE.
TYLER COVERED IT A BIT, ALSO WHY WE’RE IN FRONT OF THE PSC TODAY.
I’M GOING TO MOVE RIGHT INTO A GENERAL UPDATE OF WHERE
THE PROGRAM IS.
I KNOW THAT SHANNON CALLAHAN, BUREAU DIRECTOR, SENT YOU ALL
THE MEMO WITH THE 18 MONTH UPDATE BUT I’M GOING TO HIT A
FEW HIGH POINTS THEN HAVE GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
EXTENSION OR THE 18-MONTH UPDATE.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE MEMO, ABOUT 8,000
UNITS FROM THE — ON THE VESTED PIPELINE OF THE
19,000 UNITS THAT HAD GONE DOWN TO 10,000 UNITS AND
12-MONTH UPDATE, THERE ARE ABOUT 8,000
UNITS LEFT IN BUILDINGS WITH 20 OR MORE UNITS REMAINING IN THE
PIPELINE. ABOUT SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 2017,
ABOUT 8600 UNITS HAVE ENTERED INTO PERMITTING, LAND USE REVIEW OR SOME FORM OF PRE-APPLICATION
OR EARLY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE REQUIREMENT WENT INTO EFFECT.
AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE 362
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS IN PROJECTS WITH A TOTAL OF OVER
2200 UNITS THAT ARE EITHER PERMITTED OR CLOSE TO
PERMITTING. JUST A NOTE ON 2017 PERMIT 2 SET
AN HISTORIC HIGH AT OVER 6,000 PERMITS AND THERE ARE OTHER
MARKET INDICATORS SIGNALING A
SHIFT IN THE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE GENERALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT. COUPLE OF PULL OUT GRAPHS FROM
THE MEMO I’LL GO THROUGH QUICKLY THEN OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
THIS IS A GRAPH OF THE MULTIFAMILY PERMITTING IN
PORTLAND FROM 2000 TO 2017. YOU SEE THAT ALL TIME HIGH IN
2017 OF OVER 6,000 UNITS PERMITTED.
THIS IS THE VESTED PIPELINE AND THE
UPDATES BASED ON THE MEMOS PRODUCED BY BPS AND BDS.
YOU SAW ORIGINALLY 19,000, DROPPED TO 14,000 AT THE
SIX-MONTH REVIEW TO 10,000 AT THE 12 MONTH REVIEW, NOW JUST
OVER 8,000 AT THE 18 MONTH REVIEW.
THEN THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF ACTIVITY
SINCE THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT WENT INTO EFFECT
WITH ABOUT 1,000 UNITS PERMITTED, SLIGHTLY OVER 1,000
IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS MOVING TOWARD
PERMITTING. ABOUT 1500 IN LAND USE REVIEW
THEN JUST BELOW 5,000 IN SOME SORT OF PRE-APPLICATION EARLY
ASSISTANCE FOR BETWEEN EIGHT AND 9,000 UNITS THAT HAVE COME IN IN
OVER ABOUT 100 PROJECTS BOTH IN THE CENTRAL CITY AND IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU SHOULD HAVE A PRINTOUT OF
THIS MAP AS WELL. RIGHT?
DID THEY RECEIVE THAT? OKAY.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A PRESENT OUT OF THIS MAP.
THIS IS THE BUILDINGS INDICATE A PROJECT THAT HAS PERMITTED OR IS
IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE HOUSING
BUREAU DESK AT THE PERMIT CENTER.
ARROWS REPRESENT THE LAND USE REVIEWS EARLY ASSISTANCE
PRE-APPLICATION PROJECTS. YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTS ON THE
SIDEBAR THERE. WE KNOW THERE’S BEEN A QUESTION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE’RE SEEING IN BUILDINGS, PROJECTS
LESS THAN 20 UNITS WE’RE SEEING A SIMILAR PROPORTION TO RECENT
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN PREVIOUS YEARS ALTHOUGH WE’LL NEED TO
TRACK THAT CLOSELY MOVING FORWARD.
THEN A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN SO FAR WORKING
WITH THE MAYOR’S OFFICE, HOUSING BUREAU HAS PUT FORWARD A
PROPOSAL OR A PROPOSAL HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR A $15 MILLION
ROLL-IN TAX EXEMPTION CAP.
WE HAVE PUBLISHED DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND ADOPTED THOSE RULES.
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE INCENTIVIZING THE PIPELINE MULTI
PROGRAM DESIGNED TO TRY TO ENCOURAG —
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS.
WE THINK THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL THEIR UP IN
NOVEMBER. WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE FEE
IN LIEU TO SIMPLIFY AND ADJUST IT BOTH IN THE CENTRAL CITY AND
OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY OVER THE SUMMER.
THEN MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ACTIONS THAT ARE
UPCOMING. FIRST WE’RE LOOKING TO CLARIFY A
TECHNICAL FIX IN THE CENTRAL CITY.
CURRENTLY IF YOU HAVE ZONED AT BASE FAR 5-1 OR GREATER YOU’RE
ELIGIBLE FOR FULL TAX EXEMPTION AND TO STAY TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL
NEXUS WE’RE CHANGING THAT TO ZONED OR BUILT AT A-1 OR GREATER
— 5-1 OR GREATER. WE’RE PUBLICKING AN UPDATE TO
ADDRESS TECHNICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE LAST 18
3407B9S FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY AS WELL
AS BY STAFF. OBVIOUSLY WE’RE HERE TODAY TO
TALK ABOUT KEEPING THE LOWER INCLUSION RATE AND THE
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS.
WE’LL BE WORKING ON A PROPOSAL TO TAKE TO CITY COUNCIL TO
ESTABLISH A FULL TEN-YEAR PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR
PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY IF THEY ARE BUILDING 5-1
FAR OR GREATER. LOOKING TOWARD JANUARY, WE’RE
GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE CENTRAL CITY BONUS FAR WITH BPS AS WELL AS RECALIBRATING SOME OF
THE OFF-SITE AND BUILDOFF SITE AND DESIGNATE OFF SITE BUILDING
OPTIONS. QUICK SUMMARY.
TURN IT BACK TO TYLER AND THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>>I THINK IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS NOW IS A GREAT TIME
FOR THOSE.>>ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
STAFF? CHRIS?
>>WHAT’S THE MOTIVATION FOR EXTENDING THE DEADLINE?
WHAT IS NOT WORKING THAT WE’RE TRYING TO FIX
HERE?>>SO I DON’T KNOW THAT WE THINK
ANYTHING IS NOT WORKING. WE’RE SHOWING SIGNS THAT THE
PROGRAM IS ACTUALLY WORKING WELL IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE WANT
TO CONTINUE TO SEE THAT SUCCESS. SO IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
MAYOR’S OFFICE WE MADE A DECISION AROUND WHOLE PACKAGE OF
ADJUSTMENTS, SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE HAVE DONE ALREADY, SOME
WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING AND PART OF THAT WAS TO KEEP THE CURRENT
INCLUSION RATE BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT’S WORKING IN MANY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY.
GIVES THE MARKET MORE TIME TO ADJUST AND ALLOWS US TO MAKE
SMALL REFINEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY SO WE
CAN HOPEFULLY CONTINUE TO SEE THE PRODUCTION IN INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING.>>IF WE DIDN’T DO THIS, AND WE
ALLOWED HIGHER INCLUSION RATE TO TAKE EFFECT, WHAT NEGATIVE
IMPACTS WOULD WE SEE?>>I THINK WE COULD POTENTIALLY
SEE A LOWER RATE OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS BEING DEVELOPED AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SEE THE RATE WHERE WE’RE SEEING IN
THE NEIGHBORHOODS.>>WHAT WOULD THE CAUSAL FOR
THAT PREDICTION BE?>>GENERAL TURNDOWN IN MARKET.
WE KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THERE’S A COUPLE OF
NEIGHBORHOODS WE NEED TO ADJUST THE
INCENTIVES. WHICH WE CAN DO OVER THE NEXT 12
TO 18 MONTHS, WE WANT TO KEEP THE INCLUSION RATES THE SAME.
>>THANK YOU.>>ANDRE.
>>ALONG THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING, SO UPCOMING ACTIONS
YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE TEN-YEAR OUTSIDE.
>>YES.>>SO ARE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS
THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT YOU ARE TARGETING WITH THE IH, ALSO, IN THIS EXTENSION TO CONTINUE TO
GROW?>>NOT SURE I’M FOLLOWING THE
QUESTION.>>THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL
CITY. THIS PHASE-IN WOULD APPLY
OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY.
ADDITIONAL FULL TAX EXEMPTION WOULD EXPAND OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL
CITY IN CERTAIN AREAS DEPENDING WHERE THAT APPLIES.>>YOU SAID EARLIER CERTAIN
AREAS YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO GROW.
IS THERE A MATCH BETWEEN THE
CERTAIN AREAS YOU’RE LOOKING TO GROW WITH THE EXTENSION AND THE
TEN-YEAR TAX THAT YOU HAVE IN HERE YOU SAY IN CERTAIN AREAS.
ARE THOSE TWO AREAS MATCHING OR ARE THEY DIFFERENT AREAS?
>>OKAY. SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR
ACTION, INCLUSION RATE I EVERYWHERE
EXCEPT THE GATEWAY PLAN DISTRICT.
THERE WOULD BE OVERLAP. WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED THE
SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY WHERE WE WOULD
BE LOOKING TO DO THE TEN-YEAR TAX EXEMPTION.
THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD OVERLAP, BUT IT DOESN’T
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WHEN WE BRING THE PROPOSAL FORWARD THAT
A CONDITION OF GETTING THE FULL TAX EXEMPTION WOULD BE TO GO
WITH THE HIGHER INCLUSION RATES. THAT IT COULD BE AN OPTION.
EITHER TO DO THE BASIN COLLUSION
RATES WITH CURRENT INCENTIVES OR TO MOVE VOLUNTARILY TO THE
HIGHER INCLUSION RATES IN EXCHANGE FOR GETTING A FULL TAX
EXEMPTION. THAT’S A DETERMINATION WE
HAVEN’T MADE YET THAT WE’LL HAVE TO LOOK AT AS WE CALIBRATE THAT
PARTICULAR ACTION. SORRY, I DON’T THINK IT’S
OUTSIDE THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY THAT WE SAY WE’RE GOING TO
EXPAND THE FULL TAX EXEMPTION INCENTIVE TO NORTHWEST PORTLAND
OR ANOTHER PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEN WITH THE
CALIBRATION ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT’S LINKED TO THE POWER OF
THE FULL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.>>OKAY.
WHAT STOPS FURTHER EXTENSION I GUESS IS AN EXTENSION OF CHRIS’S
QUESTION. SO IN 2021 YOU COME BACK FOR TWO
MORE YEARS. WHAT WOULD STOP THAT I GUESS?
BECAUSE THE MARKET IS GOING TO TURN DOWN, IT’S GOING TO GO UP.
MARKET IS GOING TO CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT.
WHAT OTHER FACTORS MIGHT STOP THE EXTENSION OR CONTINUE
IT?>>I THINK THAT OVER — WITH
ANOTHER TWO YEARS I DO THINK THERE WILL BE MORE TIME FORT
MARKET TO ADJUST. AS I MENTIONED MORE TIME FOR US
TO DO SOME SPOT CAL BRAILINGS FOR INCENTIVES IN CERTAIN
NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT’S ONE OF THE RATIONALES
THAT WE’RE DOING THIS. I WOULD SAY THAT ASSUMING WE CAN
GET SOME OF THE SPOT CALIBRATION OF INCENTIVES AND INCREASE
INCENTIVES IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS THE RATIONALE FOR
ANOTHER EXTENSION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WOULD NOT BE AS
STRONG IN TWO YEARS BECAUSE WE HAD TAKEN OTHER ACTIONS TO TRY
TO ADDRESS SOME SPECIFIC
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE’RE HEARING FROM SOME OF THE
INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS THAT SOME ADJUSTMENTS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS WITHIN INCLUSIONARY
UNITS.>>THANK YOU.
>>WHAT I’M HEARING BASICALLY IS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WHICH MAKES
A LOT OF SENSE.>>SURE.
YEAH.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE
OPEN UP TESTIMONY? JEFF?
>>THANK YOU. CLARIFY FOR ME, I THOUGHT I KNEW
THE ANSWER, THE PIPELINE NUMBER OF 88300 UNITS, WHATEVER THAT
NUMBER IS, IS THAT PRE-ADOPTION OF IH, AND POST ADOPTION OF IH?
>>SO THERE’S TWO — LET’S GO BACK TO THE SLIDE REAL
QUICK. THIS IS THE NUMBER FOR THE
VESTED. THE PROJECTS THAT VESTED
PRE-FEBRUARY 1st, 2017. IT’S ABOUT — IT’S 65 PERMIT
APPLICATIONS AND 8294 TOTAL UNITS.
THAT IS THE PRE-. IF YOU’RE LOOKING AT
POST FEBRUARY 1, 2017, PROJECT SUBJECT TO INCLUSION OUR
HOUSING. 100 PROPOSED PROJECTS, 8578
UNITS. THAT’S ALL IN PROJECTS THAT
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING BROKEN OUT AT THE STAGE
THEY ARE IN IN THE PROCESS.>>FOR EACH OF THE TWO
CATEGORIES, ARE YOU APPLYING ANY KIND OF AN ATTRITION RATE,
HISTORICALLY OR BASED ON A DEEPER DIVE SNL IN OTHER WORDS
WE KNOW A LOT OF THOSE UNITS WILL NEVER COME TO FRUITION FOR
ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. IS THERE ANY WAY AS YOU’RE
TAKING TODAY’S NAP SHOT AND ESTIMATING WHERE IT’S GOING TO GO?
>>I’M JUST LOOKING FOR THE NUMBER REALLY QUICKLY.
IF YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE VESTED PROJECTS IN THE MEMO.
DO YOU HAVE THE MEMO IN FRONT OF YOU ON PAGE 4?
I THINK IT’S ON PAGE 4.
SO BETWEEN THE 12 MONTH MEMO, WHICH WAS THE 10,000
NUMBER, AND THIS 18 MONTH MEMO, EIGHT
PERMITS WERE COMPLETED OR MOVED OUT OF THE PIPELINE AND FIVE
WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT OR BECAUSE THE REVIEW WINDOW
EXPIRED. SO WE ARE TRACKING ATTRITION AS
IT HAPPENS. WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS
WITH BPS AND BDS STAFF ABOUT IF THERE IS A SENSE IN GENERAL
ABOUT ATTRITION RATES THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE COULD APPLY,
AND I THINK THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THERE’S NOT GOOD
ESTIMATES ON ATTRITION RATES GENERALLY.
TO SAY NOTHING OF A MARKET ANOMALY LIKE 19,000 UNITS TO BE
ABLE TO ACCURATELY ANTICIPATE HOW MANY OF THE 8,000 UNITS HERE
OR 8,000 UNITS HERE WOULD MOVE THROUGH THE PROCEEDS OR NOT MOVE
THROUGH THE PROCESS.
WE JUST DON’T HAVE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE FOR EITHER PRE-OR POST.
>>IS THERE ANY — I DON’T WANT TO DIVE TOO DEEP INTO THE
NUMBERS, BUT DO YOU CALCULATE IT BETWEEN CENTRAL CITY
AND NONCENTRAL CITY IN TERMS —
WHERE ARE MORE UNITS DROPPING OUT?
>>WE COULD BREAK THAT OUT EASILY.
WE HAVE A DATA SET. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF REQUESTS
SINCE WE PUBLISHED THE MEMO AND A DATA SET WE MADE AVAILABLE.
I DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME BUT IT DOES BREAK
OUT FOR BOTH VESTED UNITS AND POST FEBRUARY 1 IH PROJECTS.
>>GENERALLY IS THERE A NOTICEABLE DIRVES BETWEEN
ATTRITION INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY?
>>FOR THE VEST ARE OR THE POST FEBRUARY 1 —
>>EITHER CATEGORY. YOU HAVE ALL THESE PERMITS
COMING IN FOR THE PROCESS THAT AREN’T REALLY PERMITS YET, JUST
POTENTIAL PERMITS. SOME NEVER REACH FRUITION, THEY
GO AWAY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
ANY SENSE OF THE DO YOU TEND TO LOSE MOSH UNITS OUT OF THE
PIPELINE CENTRAL CITY VERSUS NONCENTRAL CITY?
JUST GENERALLY?>>WHEN WE’RE TALKING THE
PRE-INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PIPELINE IT’S IMPORTANT TO LOOK
AT WHICH OF THE PROJECTS WERE VEST THROUGH LAND USE REVIEW
APPLICATION AND WHICH OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE MOVED FORWARD TO A
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. A NUMBER OF THOSE VESTED UNITS
ARE IN LAND USE BUT HAVE NOT MOVED FORWARD TO BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT IF THEY
DON’T MOVE FORWARD THEY STAY THERE AND THERE’S A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF TIME THEY ARE NO LONGER VALID AFTER THEY PASSED
TWO OR THREE YEARS. IT’S THAT LAND USE REVIEW VESTED
APPLICATION THAT HAVEN’T MOVED TOWARD A BUILDING PERMIT THAT
WILL BE IMPORTANT TO TRACK OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
>>I DIDN’T MEAN TO GET BOGGED DOWN OTHER THAN TO RECOGNIZE IS THERE A LOT OF OPINIONS ON HOW
YOU ANALYZE THE PIPELINE DATA. I’LL MOVE OFF THAT AND MAYBE
WE’LL COME BACK TO THAT AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
YOU MENTIONED TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY.
THAT’S THE FOCUS OF YOUR PROPOSED RECOMMEND DHAITION RECOMMENDATION, YOU SAY
THERE ARE SIGNS IH IS WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT THAT TELLS YOU THAT?
NOT IF YOU TAKE OUT THE PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED IH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE
NUMBERS YOU’RE GETTING ARE BELOW THE ESTIMATES WHEN THE PROGRAM
WAS ORIGINALLY ADOFTED. WHAT YOU LOOK AT AS POSITIVE
SIGNS THAT IH IS WORKING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS?>>ABOUT 320 OF THE
360 INCLUSIONARY UNITS ARE IN
PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIVATELY FINANCED.
THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE IN PRIVATELY FINANCED —
>>OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY.>>YES.>>OKAY.
>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY.
>>BRIEFLY FOLLOW UP. EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE COMFORTABLE
WITH THE PROGRESS YOU’RE MAKING OUTSIDE YOU WANT
TO CONTINUE THE LOWER INCLUSION RATE BECAUSE I
THINK YOU SAID YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO HIT AT THE NUMBERS
YOU’RE NOW HITTING?>>WE HAVE PROGRAM REFINEMENTS
WE WANT TO MAKE WHILE THE INCLUSION RATES ARE WHERE THEY
ARE BEFORE THEY GO UP TO THE FULL INCLUSION LEVEL SO WE CAN
MAKE SURE EACH OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE CALIBRATED
CORRECTLY.>>SO ANECDOTALLY I’M HEARING
THERE ARE SOME NEIGHBORHOODS NOT WORKING SO WELL IN AND YOU’RE
RECOGNIZING THAT BECAUSE YOU’RE TELLING ME YOU’RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT RECALIBRATIONS.
YOU WERE ASKED A LITTLE BIT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU BUMPED UP TO
THE HIGHER RATE TODAY. MY QUESTION IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
IF YOU LOWERED IT TODAY? YOU GAVE TWO YEARS OF SORT OF A
LOWER RATE AND SEE IF THAT STIMULATES MORE ACTIVITY?
I FORGET THE NUMBERS.>>8 AND 15.
>>IF YOU DROPPED IT TO 5 AND 10 WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS?>>WELL, WE CERTAINLY WOULD GET
FEWER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS.
IF THE QUESTION IS ABOUT GENERAL MULTIFAMILY MARKET PRODUCTION I
THINK THAT’S A BROADER QUESTION THAN JUST
THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
CERTAINLY THERE MAY BE A PROJECT HERE OR THERE THAT WOULD MOVE
FORWARD WHERE IT MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE
BROADER MARKET FACTORS THAT I COULDN’T GIVE YOU A CERTAIN
ANSWER ON THE SPOT.>>I GET T. IT’S SORT OF AN
UNFAIR QUESTION BUT I THINK IT GOES TO WHAT I HOPE WE’RE ALL
KEEPING IN MIND, THE GOAL IS TO MAXIMIZE AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHOUT MINIMIZING — WHERE THAT
SWEET SPOT IS WHERE WE’RE ALL COLLECTIVELY WORKING ON TO FIND
OUT WHAT’S THE CAL TBLAITION DOESN’T STOP THE ONE OR TWO OR
THREE PROJECTS BUT AT THE SAME TIME GETS US AFFORDABLE UNITS.
WHEN WE ORIGINALLY LOOKED AT THIS PROGRAM WE SPENT A LONG
TIME TALK WILL IT HAVE THE
NEGATIVE RESULT OF LOWERING THE NUMBER OF UNITS SO WE GET A
RELATIVELY FEW NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT THE
COST OF LESS UNITS OVER ALL AND WHERE IS THAT BALANCE.
I APPRECIATE IT SOUND LIE YOU ARE SOUNDS LIKEYOU’RE
CONTINUIN G TO WORK ON
THAT CALIBRATION.>>IT’S STILL A LITTLE TOO SOON
TO TELL BECAUSE OF THE AFLOMLY OF SUCH A LARGE PROPORTION OF
UNITS VESTING PRIOR TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING BUT WE’RE
PLEASED AT THE NUMBER WE’RE STARTING TO SEE ENTER INTO THE
PROCESS POST FEBRUARY 1 ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SOME WILL
LIKELY NOT MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND BE BUILT, BUT WE’RE
PLEASED ABOUT PARTICULARLY GIVEN OTHER MARKET FACTORS THAT ARE
HAPPENING.>>OKAY.
>>REAL QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU FOLLOWING UP ON JEFF’S.
IS THERE A GOAL THAT THE HOUSING BUREAU HAS THAT
DEFINES SUCCESS? CERTAINLY EVEN ONE UNIT IS A
SUCCESS. NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE THAT AT
ALL, BUT JUST IF YOU WEREN’T
SEEING A CERTAIN NUMBER, THIS IS MAKING US NERVOUS, OR, THIS IS
GREAT, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE HOPING FOR.
>>AS FAR AS THE NUMBER FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS?
>>NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED AS AFFORDABLE THROUGH IH.
>>WE’RE CLOSELY LOOKING AT THE
INCLUSIONARY UNITS BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF OVER ALL MULTIFAMILY
PRODUCTION, OR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING WAS ADOPTED IN THE COMP
PLAN. AS PART OF THAT THERE WERE
PROJECTIONS BETWEEN 2010 AND 2035 ON THE NUMBER OF
MULTIFAMILY UNITS NEEDED IN THE CITY BY GEOGRAPHY OF THE CITY.
WE’LL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH BPS TO TRACK
THAT. TO TRACK NEW PROJECTIONS AS THEY
CHANGE OVER THAT 25-YEAR WINDOW.
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT AMONG MANY FACTORS IS AFFECTING THE OVER
ALL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND
WHETHER OR NOT ON AN ONGOING SPOT MANAGEMENT — DON’T KNOW IF
THAT’S THE TERM YOU USED, INCLUSIONARY IS RIGHT TO MAKE
SURE THE CITY MEETS IS HOUSING GOALS OVER THE 25-YEAR PERIOD OF
TIME.>>GREAT.
I GUESS I WOULD PUT THAT BACK ON YOU.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THAT’S ACTUALLY A NUMBER WE CAN
CALCULATE. IF I SPEND SOME TIME I COULD
PROBABLY CALCULATE IT TOO. JUST UNDERSTAND WHAT’S THE GOAL
FOR THE CITY FOR TOTAL HOUSING, WE KNOW THAT COMES DOWN TO 200 A
YEAR. I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
I’M THROWING OUT A NUMBER. THEREFORE IF WE’RE HITTING THAT,
WE’RE FEELING PRETTY GOOD ABOUT HOW THE PROGRAM IS WORKING. JUST ONE MEASUREMENT FOR DO WE
THINK WE MAYBE HAVE THE CALIBRATION ON TARGET.
WE KNOW THAT’S GOING TO DO THIS. THAT’S JUST NATURE.
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.>>DEFINITELY.
>>JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FOR MY FELLOW
COMMISSIONERS AND AGAIN MOST OF THE WORK THAT WE DO IS WITHIN
THE CENTRAL CITY, WE HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN CONSTRUCTION COSTS ESCALATING AND NOT JUST
CENTRAL CITY, THAT’S THROUGHOUT I WOULD SAY ANY OF THE PROJECTS
WE’RE WORKING ON ON THE WEST COAST WE’RE SEEING IN PORTLAND
AS SHOWN IN YOUR MEMO THAT RENTS
HAVE GONE — NOT ONLY JUST STEADIED OUT LAST YEAR BUT THEY
ARE STARTING TO DECREASE AND CONCESSIONS ARE GOING UP.
WE’RE SEEING A CHANGE IN THE MARKET THROUGH OUR PRACTICE AND
FEWER PROJECTS GETTING STARTED IN OUR PRACTICE.
WE DO A LOT OF HOUSING. AGAIN OUR HOUSING IS MOSTLY
CENTRAL CITY. HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
INCLUSIONARY. THAT’S JUST GENERAL MARKET
CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE. JUST FYI.
KATIE.>>HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
I WAS WONDERING WHY YOU PICKED A TWO-YEAR PERIOD TO EXTEND IT.
COULD IT HAVE BEEN ONE YEAR, I SUPPOSE?
>>YES, I THINK TWO-YEAR IS NOT TOO LONG TO ALLOW US TO DO THE
CALIBRATIONS WE NEED TO DO. IT ALSO PROVIDED SOME CERTAINTY
FOR DEVELOP THERE’S WANT TO MOVE PROJECTS THROUGH AND IN THE
INTERIM.>>I WAS WONDERING HOW MUCH IS
IT COSTING TAXPAYERS TO DO THIS? IS THERE A COST TO TAXPAYERS
WITH THE LOWER INCLUSION RATE? ARE DEVELOPERS STILL GETTING
THIS SAME AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE FOR THE LOWER AMOUNT OR –>>THE LIGHT IS SUBTLY ON OR
OFF. THERE.
>>USER ERROR.
THE INCENTIVE LEVEL WILL VARY DEPENDING ON WHERE A PROJECT IS
OR ALSO THE INCENTIVE OR THE INCLUSION RATE THAT THEY CHOOSE.
SO FOR INSTANCE ON THESE PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE CENTRAL
CITY PRIMARILY THEY WILL ONLY BE RECEIVING THE TAX EXEMPTION ON
THE AFFORDABLE UNITS. SO IF THE AVERAGE TAX EXEMPTION
VALUE ACROSS THE CITY FOR MULTIFAMILY UNIT FOR US HAS
TRADITIONALLY BEEN ABOUT $2,000 A YEAR, SO OVER THE TEN YEARS OF
THE TAX EXEMPTION TIME FRAME, AND THERE’S ALSO IF UNITS ARE
RESTRICTED AT 60% THERE ARE SDC EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE AS WELL AS WE EXEMPT THE CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX FROM
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND.>>SO YOU’RE SAYING IT’S
PROPORTIONAL.>>IT IS PROPORTIONAL.
IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY OFFSET DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR THE COST TO
THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT THERE’S
DEFINITELY INCENTIVE. THERE’S ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF
SOME EXEMPTION OF PARKING AS WELL AS THEN DENSITY BONUS
POTENTIALLY FOR EACH PROJECT THAT OPTS INTO THE PROGRAM
RATHER THAN CHOOSING TO PAY THE FEE IN LIEU.
>>OKAY. ALL OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS — IT
MIGHT BE IN HERE, BUT HAVE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FEE IN LIEU?
WHETHER THAT’S WORKING OR ARE PEOPLE USING THAT?
>>WE HAVE COUPLE OF PROJECTS IN THE PERMITTING QUEUE BUT NONE
THAT HAS ACTUALLY PAID IT OR HAD THEIR PERMIT ISSUED AND MOVED
FORWARD. THERE ARE — THAT INCLUDES A
NUMBER OR A HANDFUL OF PROJECTS WHO ACTUALLY WEREN’T SUBJECT TO
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING BUT OPTED IN TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM
TO GAIN THE DENSITY BONUS.>>OKAY.
>>I’M SORRY FOR THE RECORD I’M DORY VAN BOCK
WILL. PROGRAM COORDINATOR WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE TEAM AT THE HOUSING BUREAU.
>>APPRECIATE THAT. MOVE TO TESTIMONY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY TESTIMONY CARDS? IF THERE’S ANYONE ELSE HERE TO
TESTIFY, PLEASE FILL OUT A CARD.
SINCE WE DO HAVE ONE, THIS IS SOMETHING NEW FOR THOSE OF US
WHO JOIN THE PSC. THIS IS GOING TO BECOME COMMON
PRACTICE T. WELCOME TO THE PORTLAND PLANNING AND
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION REPRESENTS ALL
PORTLANDERS AND MEETS TO DO THE CITY’S BUSINESS.
THE CHAIR PRESERVES ORDER AND DECORUM DURING COMMISSION
MEETINGS SO EVERYONE CAN FEEL WELCOME, COMFORTABLE, RESPECTED
AND SAFE.
SINCE WE JUST HAVE ONE I’M GOING TO SKIP THAT.
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT SUCH AS SHOUTING OR INTERRUPTING
TESTIMONY OR COMMISSION DISCUSSION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN MAKING YOUR FELLOW PORTLANDERS
FEEL WELCOME, COMFORTABLE, RESPECTED AND SAFE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL HERE TO
TESTIFY, GLEN BALDWIN. IF THERE’S ANYBODY ELSE HERE
PLEASE FILL OUT A FORM AND BRING IT UP HERE TO LOVE.>>THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS GWEN
BALDWIN HERE REPRESENTING OREGON SMART GROVE.
YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ME IN THE PAST REPRESENTING OREGON LOG
CUSTOMER. WE SUPPORT DENSE, WALKABLE,
LIVABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF OREGON.
WE ARE A COALITION OF DEVELOPERS, INVESTORS AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES I’M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MINOR REVISION AND THE
EXTENSION OF THE SUNSET DATE.
AS MATT TSCHABOLD AND OTHERS HAVE
STATED, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF A LARGE MIX OF POLICIES AND DYNAMICS
THAT COME IN FRONT OF YOU AND ARE PART OF THE CITY’S HEALTH.
THEY DON’T SIT IN ISOLATION FROM ONE ANOTHER.
SO AS — IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE FROZEN IN ICE.
IT’S A LIVING DYNAMIC. AS WE HAVE MORE TIME UNDER OUR
BELTS, WE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND YOU AS POLICY MAKERS NEED TO
IDENTIFY PLACES WHERE ADJUSTMENTS AND TWEAKS IN ALL
POLICIES, PARTICULARLY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING BUT ALSO
YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS IN FRONT OF YOU WHICH WILL
DRAMATICALLY AFFECT THE ABILITY TO REACH OUR NEEDED HOUSING
GOALS. YOU HAVE A HEAVY PLATE IN FRONT
OF YOU AND THIS IS ONE SMALL WAY IN WHICH THE CALIBRATION
CONTINUES IN A HEALTHIER MANNER. TO COMMISSIONER SMITH’S
POINT, IT’S FUNCTIONING TO MAKE A
CHANGE THAT INCREASES THE BURDEN OF PERFORMANCE MEANS THAT YOU
RISK THAT THERE WILL BE LESS PERFORMANCE.
ULTIMATELY THE JOYCE IS YOURS AS TO WHETHER YOU THINK THAT’S
SOMETHING VALID OR NOT. I WILL TELL YOU IT’S SOMETHING
THAT WE SUPPORT BECAUSE WHEN THIS POLICY WAS FIRST PUT IN
PLACE AND AS YOU DISCUSSED IN THIS BODY, YOU’RE DEALING WITH
MARKET CONDITIONS THAT YOU SORT OF SEE AT THE TIME THAT ARE
ALREADY IN MOTION FOR THE NEXT YEARS COMING ON.
THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE CHANGES.
WE CAN’T CONTROL THAT YOU CAN’T CONTROL IT.
THAT’S LABOR COSTS OR COST OF STEEL OR
WHATEVER. BUT THERE ARE POLICIES IN FRONT
OF THE CITY THAT YOU CAN CONTROL.
THIS IS ONE OF THEM. SO IT’S A MODEST EXTENSION OF A
POLICY TO KEEP A PIPELINE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE ULTIMATELY,
THAT’S THE GOAL. NEEDED HOUSING.
WHAT IS THAT NEEDED HOUSING AT ALL RANGES OF AFFORDABILITY AND
HOW CAN WE MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AND CHANGES THAT ENSURE THAT. SO I PRINTER YOUR
APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HOPE YOU
ENDORSE THIS.>>THANK YOU.
>>I’LL ASK A QUESTION.
I’M JUST CURIOUS. ARE THERE DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE
THE BURDEN AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO DELIVER THESE AFFORDABLE
UNITS, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT THE PIPELINE?
THAT’S BEEN AN ISSUE THAT I HAVE HEARD DISCUSSED AND ONE WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE
PIPELINE AS FULL AS IT APPEARS, WE’LL SEE A LOT OF THESE UNITS
DELIVERED, WHICH MEANS A LOT OF THEM WILL BE WE HAVE TWO PIPELINES, THE PRE-IH, AND THE
POST IH PIPELINE. FOCUSING ON THE PRE-IH, 8,000
SOMETHING UNITS THAT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY AND PROBABLY WILL NOT PRODUCE AFFORDABLE UNITS BUT
WILL PRODUCE SUPPLY. PART OF NEEDED HOUSING PORTFOLIO
WE NEED. WHAT’S THE SENSE IN TERMS OF
THAT PORTFOLIO, HOW REAL IS IT, IF WE FLASH FORWARD A YEAR OR
TWO HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE GOING TO GET DELIVERED VERSUS HOW MANY
DROP OUT? I KNOW NO ONE KNOWS BUT IT
HIGHLIGHTS HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE KEEP AN EYE ON THAT BECAUSE OF IF IT’S TOO LOW
THAT’S A GREAT PROBLEM. DO YOU HAVE A SENSE FROM YOUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR MEMBERS?>>THE MARKET IS SLOWING FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS. AGAIN, I THINK THAT BALL WAS SET
IN MOTION MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO. THAT’S INEVITABLE.
THE CYCLE WILL COOL, THE CYCLE WARM UP.
THE QUESTION UNDERLYING YOUR QUESTION IS REALLY CRITICAL FOR
THIS BODY TO ALWAYS HAVE IN MIND, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE
SUPPLY OF NEEDED HOUSING. IT TAKES YEARS TO GO FROM
CONCEPT TO ACTUALLY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. IF THAT PIPELINE ISN’T FULL OR
BEING REPLENISHED THERE WILL BE A HUGE HOUSING SHORTFALL.
SO IT’S INCUMBENT ON ALL OF US TO DO OUR PARTS TO TRY TO MOVE
THAT FORWARD. THAT SAID I WOULD SAY THAT
WHAT’S REMAINING IN THE VESTED QUEUE ARE PROBABLY THE MORE
CHALLENGING PROJECTS. AS TYLER NOTED YOU HAVE TO LOOK
AT THE LAND USE ONES. ARE ANY OF THEM AND HOW MANY ARE
MOVING INTO PERMIT.
AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD URGE AND HOPE IS A CONSTANT QUESTION, A CONSTANT
CHECK-IN. AGAIN, YOU CAN’T TURN THAT SHIP
AROUND QUICKLY. I THINK IN TERMS OF THE POST
FEBRUARY 2017, IT’S IMPORTANT TO
ALSO CHECK IN WHAT IS THAT PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PIECE
VERSUS PUBLIC SECTOR. PORTLAND HAS REALLY EMBRACED ITS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND, HOPEFULLY AFTER NOVEMBER THERE
WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL METRO HOUSING BOND THAT WILL BE
APPROVED. THOSE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO
SOME 69 MORE OF THE
MORE CHALLENGING DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE BUT THAT’S
NOT THE SAME AS THE PRIVATE MARKET MOVING FORWARD.
I THINK BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO CALL OUT AND
SEPARATE AS WE GO FORWARD.
>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO?
THANK YOU, GWEN. IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TO TESTIFY?
I’M NOT SEEING ANYONE. WITH THAT WE’LL CLOSE THE
HEARING. TYLER, MATT, WOULD USE LIKE TO
COME BACK UP?
I SHARED THIS WITH THE HOUSING BUREAU AND YOU GUYS MAY FIND IT
INTERESTING OR NOT, LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE I CAN
SPEAK TO ABOUT 2,000 OF THE UNITS IN THE CATEGORY THAT SAY
PRE-APPLICATION EARLY ASSISTANCE ARE UNITS
THAT OUR OFFICE ARE WORKING ON, AT LEAST I BELIEVE
SO. I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN IN FOR AN
EARLY ASSISTANCE MEETING ON THOSE.
I CAN TELL YOU THOSE WON’T DELIVER IF THEY DELIVER FOR
EASILY — THIS WILL BEGIN TO DELIVER IN ABOUT THREE YEARS.
THAT’S HOW LONG ACTUALLY THOSE WILL BE CLOSER, ABOUT FOUR
YEARS. JUST TO PUT THAT INTO CONTEXT OF
OUR PROJECTS ON THE SLIDES THAT
WERE PRE-IH, ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ABOUT 2,000 UNITS THAT I CAN
SPEAK TO AND I KNOW THEY ARE IN THIS PIPELINE. IF WE DO NOT BEGIN WORK ON THEM
AGAIN HERE IN ANOTHER EIGHT
MONTHS, THEY WILL LOSE THEIR VESTING.
THEN THOSE WILL NOT DELIVER IF THEY DO GET STARTED
FOR ANOTHER PROBABLY THREE YEARS AT THE
SOONEST. I GUESS WHAT I’M GETTING AT,
THIS TYPE LINE IS STILL WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH.
EVEN THE ONES AS YOU’RE KEEPING IN MIND THAT ARE POST IH, THEY
ARE EVEN A LONGER KIND OF PIPELINE SHOULD THEY COME TO
REALITY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? I’M NOT SEEING ANY.
DOES ANYONE — WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION?>>ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.
>>SURE.>>I ASKED THIS, MATT, WHEN WE
HAD A PRIVATE MEETING A WHILE BACK.
YOU’LL ALL BE BACK IN SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS UPDATING US.
THIS GOES TO SOMETHING — ARE THERE BENCHMARKS OR SOMETHING WE
CAN BE LOOKING FOR, SOME KEY
DATA POINTS IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS THAT WILL SORT OF FROM A HARD UNIT STANDPOINT
TELL US IH IS WORKING, WE’RE GETTING A REASONABLE NUMBER OF
UNITS, OR THE MARKETPLACE SIMPLY ISN’T DELIVERING THEM?
I RECOGNIZE THE MARKET MAY NOT DELIVER THEM FOR A LOT OF
REASONS, NOT JUST IH, BUT IH IS THE ONE PIECE OF THE HOUSING
POLICY WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. WHAT DO WE LOOK FOR THE NEXT
SIX, 12 MONTHS AS YOU COME BACK THAT WE CAN HOLD YOUR FEET TO
THE FIRE AND OURSELVES AND SAY, OKAY, HERE’S SOME DATA POINTS WE SHOULD ALL LOOK AT IN SIX, 12, 18 MONTHS TO TELL US DO WE NEED
MORE THAN INCREMENTAL ADJUSTMENTS, MAYBE WE NEED MAJOR
ADJUSTMENTS. HELP US DO OUR JOB.
WHAT SHOULD WE ASK YOU ABOUT NEXT TIME YOU’RE HERE?
>>I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING
TO DO — AND I DON’T KNOW IF IT WILL BE IF THE NEXT MEMO, BUT
WE’LL BE LOOKING AT THE BEST WAY TO ANALYZE IT IN THE NEXT 6 TO
12 MONTHS IS HOW IS THE PERMITTING ACTIVITY — TO
SCHULTZ’S POINT, HOW WITH ARE W
E LOOKING IN OUR GROWTH
PROJECTIONS AND NEED PROJECTIONS.
I THINK THE CHALLENGE THERE IS GIVEN THE CYCLICAL NATURE OF
DEVELOPMENT. HOW WILL WE KNOW THAT
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS HAVING THE EFFECT THAT OTHER MARKET FACTORS MIGHT BE A MORE
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR TO SOME SORT OF UPWARD/DOWNWARD TREND IN
THE MARKET? WE’LL BE LOOKING AT COMPARISON
CITIES AND REGIONALLY WHAT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS LOOK LIKE.
TO THE EXTENT WE CAN COMPARE SIMILAR CITIES OR THE REGION AND
TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE’RE SEEING IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS
VERSUS OURS, TO TRY IN SOME WAY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HELD IN
THE IH ELEMENT ASIDE, WHAT OTHER
LARGER TRENDS ARE WE SEEING AND IS THAT INDICATIVE OF TRENDS
WE’RE ALSO SEEING IN THE PORTLAND MARKET.
ALONG WITH SOME OF THE MARKETS, REGIONAL TRENDS, COMPARATIVE
CITY TRENDS, AND WHAT PORTLAND LOOKS LIKE SIDE BY SIDE.
>>YOU MENTIONED KAT’S COMMENTS ABOUT A BENCHMARK.
I DIDN’T HEAR A NUMBER IN RESPONSE TO THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT MAY BE HARD, BUT IT IS ALWAYS HELPFUL.
YOU GIVE US A LOT OF DATA AND NUMBERS.
WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD NUMBER IN FROM NOW?
>>SO, I’M NOT PREPARED TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER TODAY, BUT I CAN
CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.>>TYLER, ARE YOU DOING MATH?
SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, MATT, BUT I SAW TYLER CALCULATING.
>>JUST THROW OUT A NUMBER. WE CAN THROW IT BACK AT YOU IN
12 MONTHS.>>WE CAN PROBABLY HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR FORECAST AND THE DEVELOPMENT TYPES AND
WHICH ONES ARE 20 UNITS OR MORE AND BACK UP FROM THAT BECAUSE
WE’RE ALREADY EIGHT YEARS INTO OUR 2010
BENCH LINE. I THINK IT IS WORTH US LOOKING INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE
I THROW A NUMBER OUT THERE.>>WISE ANSWER.
SORRY TO INTERRUPT, MATT. I SAW HIM FRANTICALLY — HE WAS
EITHER TEXTING OR DOING CALCULATIONS.
>>I WAS DOING MATH.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>>YEAH. I JUST HAVE ONE.
BECAUSE I’M STILL A LITTLE HAZY ON WHY EXACTLY YOU’RE ASKING FOR
THIS TWO-YEAR EXTENSION. YOU HAVE SAID, WELL, MARKET
CONDITIONS AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IT WASN’T VERY
SPECIFIC.>>SO, THE PRIMARY REASON IS
THERE’S A NUMBER OF OTHER PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS WE WANT TO
MAKE OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY, AND WE WANT TO MAKE THOSE BEFORE THE HIGHER INCLUSION RATES GO
INTO EFFECT. WE THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO ACCOMPLISH THAT BETWEEN DECEMBER OF
2018 AND DECEMBER OF
2020.>>CAN YOU SHARE THOSE?
>>IF YOU’RE LOOKING IN YOUR MEMO, THERE ARE SOME OF THE ONES
THAT I READ.>>WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON?
>>PAGE 7. SOME OF THE UPCOMING ACTIONS I
SPOKE ABOUT IN TERMS OF PROGRAM REFINEMENTS.
>>MATT, I’M GOING TO ADD SOMETHING.
THIS MAY BE COMPLETELY OFFBASE, SO CORRECT ME
IF I’M WRONG.>>SURE.
>>MY PERCEPTION IS THAT YOU’VE BEEN HAVING MORE SUCCESS IN
AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CENTRAL CITY.
IS THAT CORRECT WITH PRODUCTION ACTUALLY PRODUCED, BUILT?
>>I THINK I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT THAT MORE PRODUCTS HAVE MOVED
THROUGH, YES.>>OKAY.
FAIR. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME.
THERE’S MORE PROJECTS MOVING THROUGH OUTSIDE
OF CENTRAL CITY, SO THEY’RE SEEING MORE — I
THINK IT IS MORE TRACTION THERE. YOU’VE GOT SOME MARKET
CONDITIONS THAT ARE A LITTLE IFFY RIGHT NOW.
I GUESS WHAT MY TWO CENTS WOULD BE IS IF YOU’VE GOT MARKET
CONDITIONS THAT ARE DOING THIS,
IT IS GOING TO MAKE WHERE THEY’RE GETTING MORE TRACTION AT
THE MOMENT HAPPENING. WHY IMPEDE THAT CONTINUED
TRACTION BECAUSE THIS MARKET CONDITION IS COUNTERACTING IT?
SO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE PRODUCTION HAPPENING.
AS MARKETING CONDITIONS MAKE IT HARDER, BY INCREASING THE
INCLUSIONARY RATE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, YOU MAY EXACERBATE
MARKET CONDITIONS VERSUS MAYBE JUST LETTING IT RIDE, KIND OF
STABILIZE, AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL RIDE OUT THE MARKET CONDITIONS.
YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I’M OFF THERE, BUT THAT IS JUST
PERCEPTION.>>NO, NO CORRECTION.
>>OKAY. ANDRE?
>>THIS IS MAYBE FOR OUR NEXT ITEM, BUT BASED ON THESE CHANGES, ESPECIALLY FOUR AND THE
EXTENSION, HOW DO THEY ALIGN WITH BETTER HOUSING FOR DESIGN
IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE’RE LOOKING AT, ESPECIALLY IN THE
LATTER TWO AREA DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE THE HIGHER VOLUME DENSITIES?
IS THERE AN ALIGNMENT THERE OR DO WE — IS THAT QUESTION JUST
WAIT 20 MINUTES AND YOU’LL ANSWER IT?
>>I’LL TRY TO ANSWER IT NOW SO BETTER HOUSING CAN SORT OF MOVE
THROUGH THAT PROCESS. WHEN WE SPOKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO AROUND THE FEASIBILITY OF BETTER HOUSING BY DESIGN AND THE
MULTI-DWELLING PROTOTYPES, WE’RE EVALUATING THE 10% TO 20%
INCLUSION RATES. WE’RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE
REQUIREMENT IS. WHEN WE HAVE ZONING CODE
PROJECT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS MOVING FORWARD AND NOT
JUST THE NEXT TWO YEARS WHILE THIS PHASING RATE IS IN PLACE,
SO WE’RE LOOKING A BIT FURTHER
OUT. WE’RE TAKING
A CONSERVATIVE LOOK ON THE FEASIBILITY SIDE.
IN TERMS OF THAT BONUS AND FAR, EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT.
THE ONE PIECE THAT YOU ALLUDED TO IS THE UPCOMING ACTIONS
AROUND THE FULL TAX EXEMPTION FOR FIVE TO ONE FAR.
WE HAVE TWO BASE ZONES WHERE THE FIVE TO ONE FARES ARE AVAILABLE.
IN TERMS OF WHERE PROJECTS CAN IS WHERE WE HAVE CM-3 AND
RM-4. THAT IS PROBABLY A SEPARATE
CONVERSATION, BUT ABSOLUTELY THERE’S SOME CONNECTION THERE.
>>I GUESS IT SAYS THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIES, AND SO, ARE THOSE GEOGRAPHIES
ALIGNED WITH THE — BECAUSE THOSE ARE VERY SMALL AREAS IN
THE CITY IN THOSE TWO ZONES, SO ARE THEY IN THOSE SPECIFIC
GEOGRAPHIES, I GUESS?>>I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE
GEOGRAPHIES ARE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, ANYTIME WE’RE LOOKING
AT SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A MIX OF
THOSE PLACES, PLACES LIKE INTERSTATE CORRIDOR.
THOSE ARE THE PLACES THAT YOU HAVE THOSE KIND OF ZONES.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE GEOGRAPHIES ARE THAT THE HOUSING
BUREAU IS LOOKING FOR THE TAX EXEMPTION, BUT I’M SURE WE’LL
LOOK AT IT WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS
THAT PROCESS.>>OKAY.
WE DON’T HAVE A DEFINED SET OF GEOGRAPHIES.
WE’RE JUST GETTING STARTED WITH THE ANALYSIS.
WE THINK NORTHWEST PORTLAND AND
CLOSE PROXIMATE ITY TO THE DISTRICT,
BUT AS FAR AS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS OR ZONES OR LINES
ON A MAP, WE’RE NOT THERE YET, BUT WE’LL WORK CLOSELY WITH BPS
ON THAT GIVEN THE UPCOMING POTENTIAL ZONE CHANGES, THE
MIXED-USE ZONES. YEAH.
>>OKAY. THANKS.
>>WE’RE CLOSE TO THIS AGENDA ITEM SUPPOSEDLY BEING WRAPPED UP
HERE. DOES ANYBODY FEEL COMFORTABLE
MAKING A MOTION AT THIS TIME?>>YEAH, I MOVE WE ADOPT THE
ZONE CHANGES FOR — >>YOU ADOPT THE PROPOSAL?
>>ADOPT THE IH PROPOSAL.
>>HOW ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK WE HAVE ZONE
CHANGES, PER SE.>>SECOND.
>>ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTARY, DELIBERATIONS?
I’M NOT SEEING ANY. WITH THAT, LET’S TAKE THE ROLL.
I’LL TRY TO COUNT THIS TIME.>>I THINK YOU GOT IT RIGHT LAST
TIME.>>I’M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR.
I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO LOWER THE INCLUSION
RATES EVEN FURTHER TO TEST AND SEE WHAT THAT WOULD DO, BUT I
DON’T THINK I’D GET SUPPORT, SO I’LL JUST SUPPORT THE MOTION
THAT’S IN FRONT OF US. YES.
>>BAUGH?>>YES.
>>HOUCK?>>
YES.>>QUINONEZ?
>>YES.
>>YES.>>RELUCTANT
YES.>>SAINT T. MARTIN?
>>TRACY, YOU STILL ON THE PHONE?
>>YES.>>IS THAT TWO YESES?
>>CORRECT.>>SCHULTZ?
>>YES.>>IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO WALK US THROUGH THAT
TODAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS
BETTER HOUSING BY DESIGN. THIS IS A WORK SESSION. I HAVE A NUMBER OF DISCLOSURES
TO READ HERE. SORRY I’M READING THROUGH MY
NOTES TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND IT.
>>[ OFF MIC ].>>SURE.
LET’S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. THEN I’LL READ DISCLOSURES
BECAUSE THEN I CAN TAKE A BREAK MYSELF.>>>WE HAVE SOME DISCLOSURES I
WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE. I’M GOING TO START WITH
COMMISSIONER SPEVAK. SPEVAK OWNS ZONE R-8, WHICH IS
UNDER CONTRACT. NONE OF HIS PROPERTIES ARE
AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT. COMMISSIONER SMITH.
RI IS MY PERSONAL RESIDENCE, BUT I DON’T HAVE ANY SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER BACHRACH, MY HOUSE
AND TWO OTHER PROPERTIES I OWN ARE ZONED R-1 BUT ARE BUILT OUT,
SO THERE IS NO CONFLICT. WHILE NOT JOINING US TODAY,
COMMISSIONER BORTOLAZZO NOTED THAT THEY’VE WORKED ON
PROTOTYPES FOR THE BETTER HOUSE
HOUSING BY DESIGN PROJECT. I BELIEVE THAT COVERS THE
DISCLOSURES, AND WE’RE READY TO GET STARTED.
THANK YOU FOR SCRAMBLING.>>SURE.
GOOD JOB WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEMS.
>>YOUR MIC IS NOT ON, SO A
REMINDER ON THAT.>>I’M BILL CUNNINGHAM WITH THE
BUREAU OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT MANAGER
FOR THE UPDATE TO THE MULTI-DWELLING ZONING CODE.
TOM ARMSTRONG, WHO IS MANAGEMENT LEAD FOR THE PROJECT, IS HERE AS
WELL. WITH THAT, I’M GOING TO JUST
HEAD INTO THIS. THIS IS OUR SECOND WORK SESSION,
AND THE ITEMS WE’RE FOCUSING ON TODAY ARE ABOUT SOME OF OUR EAST
PORTLAND STANDARDS AS WELL AS PARKING STANDARDS.
THERE ARE FIVE SPECIFIC TOPICS WE’LL BE GOING OVER TODAY.
ONE IS ABOUT THE PROPOSED EASTERN PORTLAND SETBACKS, ALSO
EASTERN PORTLAND MINIMUM SITE
FRAN FRONTAGES, EAST PORTLAND VERSUS
PARKING. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE SOME
BACKGROUND INFORMATION BATCHED TOGETHER BEFORE EACH OF THESE
SEVERAL TOPICS. THEN COMING IN WITH MORE DETAIL
AS WE TACKLE EACH SPECIFIC PROJECT.
THE PARKING TOPICS, ONE GOING
OVER THE PROPOSAL FOR REDUCED MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO LOOKING AT SOME OF THE
ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE OFF-STREET PARKING
ISSUES RELATED TO THAT. A SUBTOPIC IS SINCE PART OF
THE PROPOSAL IS SOME EXEMPTION FOR
PARKING FOR SMALL SITES, ONE TOPIC IS WHAT’S THE APPROPRIATE
SITE SIZE FOR THE SMALL SITE
FLESH THRESHOLD.
ONCE WE HAVE DIRECTION FROM YOU AS TO WHAT WE’RE DOING WITH THE
MULTI-DWELLING CODE, WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE MULTI-DWELLING PARKING
APPROACHES SHOULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE COMMERCIAL
MIXED-USE ZONES, WHICH ALLOW SIMILAR SCALE OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. SO THOSE ARE THE FIVE TOPICS.
WE HAVE ANOTHER WORK SESSION ON NOVEMBER 13th, AND WE’LL BE
DISCUSSING RELATED TOPICS, INCLUDING THE DESIGN OF PARKING
AND VISIBILITY AS WELL AS A RANGE OF BUILDING DESIGN TOPICS.
SO, EASTERN PORTLAND STANDARDS, THE MAIN TWO TOPICS WE WANTED TO
TALK ABOUT AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.
THE PROPOSAL FOR DEEP REAR SETBACKS AND FRONTAGE. I’LL BE INVITING SOMEONE TO
SHARE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT PBOT HAS PROPOSED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ZONING CODE PROPOSALS.
JUST TO REMIND PEOPLE, THE EASTERN PORTLAND PATTERN AREA
WAS IDENTIFIED DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS SHOWN
IN ORANGE HERE. THEY ARE AREAS WITH A VERY
DIFFERENT LARGER BLOCK STRUCTURE THAN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
MUCH DEEPER BLOCKS THAN THE 200 FEET BLOCKS YOU HAVE CLOSE IN.
TYPICALLY DON’T HAVE A COMPLETE SIDEWALK SYSTEM.
THIS INCLUDES NOT JUST AREAS EAST OF 82nd BUT PARTS OF CULLEY
BUT BRENTWOOD DARLINGTON. THIS IS AN
AERIAL. THIS WILL SQUARE APARTMENT AREA
IN THE MID-LEFT OF THE IMAGE IS SHOWING A PROJECT THAT’S ABOUT
THE SIZE OF A DOWNTOWN PORTLAND BLOCK, SO MUCH LARGER BLOCKS.
THIS EXAMPLE IS THERE ARE SIX BLOCKS BY 1,000 IN LENGTH.
AND THERE’S A LOT OF GREEN ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BLOCKS BUT
ALSO A LACK OF STREET CONNECTIVITY.
WE WANTED TO EXPLORE HOW WE COULD PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT THAT
ACTUALLY FORWARDS SOME OF THE STRINGS OF EAST PORTLAND.
THAT’S WHAT WE’LL BE SHARING WITH YOU TODAY.
IT’S WORTH MENTIONING TOO THAT OVER HALF OF OUR STAKEHOLDER
WORKING GROUP MEETINGS WERE HELD IN EAST PORTLAND OR THE J
DISTRICT. WE A REALLY WANTED REALLY
W ANTED TO HAVE A FOCUS
ON THAT AREA. WHEN WE DISCUSSED WITH PEOPLE ON
WHAT ASPECTS OF DESIGN THEY WANTED TO SEE, THEY HIGHLIGHTED
THINGS LIKE THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMON OPEN AREAS.
A LOT OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN THERE.
PEOPLE DON’T HAVE BACKYARDS IN THE APARTMENT SITUATIONS, SO
OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWING FOOD IS IMPORTANT.
SPACE FOR TREES IS IMPORTANT. LANDSCAPE FRONT SETBACKS.
I SAW A GREENER STREET EDGE AS PART OF EAST PORTLAND’S
CHARACTER. THESE ARE BEING ADDRESSED IN
SOME OF THE OTHER CODE PROPOSALS WE HAVE AS PART OF THE BETTER
HOUSING BY DESIGN PACKAGE, BUT THERE’S ONE TOPIC THAT’S
SOMEWHAT UNIQUE TO EAST PORTLAND, WHICH IS THE IDEA OF
KEEPING THE CENTERS OF THEIR LARGE BLOCKS GREENER.
THIS CAME ABOUT IN SOME DISCUSSION IN BOTH ABOUT WHAT
ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EAST PORTLAND AND LOOKING AT SOME
EXAMPLES FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD.
ON THE LEFT IS AN EAST PORTLAND BLOCK.
YOU CAN SEE IN THIS EXAMPLE THAT THERE’S A GROVE OF DOUGLAS FIRS.
DOUGLAS FIRS ARE OFTEN SPANNING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN THESE
MIDDLE BLOCK AREAS. THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS FROM
ABROAD. IT IS SHOWING ACTUALLY A MUCH
HIGHER DENSITY SITUATION, BUT WITH THAT DENSITY, THERE’S ALSO
A FAIR AMOUNT OF GREEN, SO PEOPLE ARE INTRIGUED BY THIS
IDEA OF CAN YOU GET BOTH DENSITY AND KEEP THE GREEN ELEMENTS AND
ARE THERE LESSONS FOR EAST PORTLAND THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THE FACT THAT THEIR BLOCKS ARE LARGER AND LESS CONSTRAINED THAN
THE INNER NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS SHOWING SOME INFILL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE J DISTRICT AREA, AND IT IS SHOWING THE
TYPICAL PATTERNS THAT HAPPENED UP UNTIL NOW WHERE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT IS BUILT TO THE VERY REAR OF THE LOT.
YOU CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BOTH PROPERTIES START DOING
THAT. A LOT OF BACK-TO-BACK
DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS FAIRLY TYPICAL TOO.
A LITTLE MORE DETAIL HERE. SO, YOU’RE GETTING A FAIRLY MODERATE LEVEL OF DENSITY BUT
LOSING ANY SIGNIFICANT LARGER PORTION OF GREEN AREA TO THE
BLOCKS. THAT WAS A BIT OF A CHALLENGE.
CAN WE DEVELOP AS THESE SITS IN THE VICINITY DEVELOP IN A WAY OTHER THAN WHAT’S HAPPENED UP TO
NOW? SO, WE LOOKED AT VARIOUS
INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES. I THINK THIS IS ONE — I THINK
IT IS NEAR MUNICH. IT IS GOING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
AND DUPLEXES TO ATTACHED HOUSES AND APARTMENTS.
BUT EVEN WITH THAT GRADIENT OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY, KEEPING THE
PATTERN OF THE CENTERS OF BLOCKS FAIRLY OPEN.
THIS IS NOT PUBLICLY-OWNED LAND. IT IS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES THAT
ALL CAN BE FENCED OFF. IF THEY’RE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS,
IT WILL BE A LARGER CHUNK OF GREEN.
AN EXAMPLE FROM NEW YORK CITY. FAIRLY FAMOUS DEVELOPMENT WHERE
OVER TIME THEY HAVE ACTUALLY COMBINED YARDS TO CREATE A
LARGER OUTDOOR SPACE. EAST PORTLAND HAS A FEW EXAMPLES
OF THAT. THIS IS ONE NEAR THE 148th
AVENUE LIGHT RAIL STATION WHERE THEY WRAP THE
PERIMETER OF THE BLOCK WITH BUILDINGS AND A
LARGER CHUNK OF GREEN IN THE CENTER.
AT ANY RATE, THIS LED TO OUR PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS TO REQUIRE
REAR SETBACK EQUIVALENT TO 25% OF THE DEPTH OF THE SITE.
AND THIS WOULD CREATE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE WAY
DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IN EAST PORTLAND.
THE LEFT IMAGE IS SHOWING WHAT’S TYPICALLY BUILT.
VERY COMMONLY, THERE ARE CLOSELY SPACED DETACHED HOUSES GOING TO
THE VERY REAR OF THE LOT. YOU CAN DO THE SAME DENSITY WITH
THE SAME SIZE UNITS BUT WITH A REQUIREMENT FOR KEEPING THE REAR
LESS BUILT UP. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MORE
ATTACHED UNITS. WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR IT WOULD
CHANGE THE WAY DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IN EAST PORTLAND, BUT
THE IDEA OF RATHER SMALL PIECES
OF GREEN SPACE, YOU WOULD GET LARGER CHUNKS OF GREEN SPACE.
THESE ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT WOULD TRIGGER THE CITYWIDE
PROPOSAL FOR LARGE COMMON AREAS. THEY’RE 17,000-SQUARE FOOT
SITES. NOTHING BESIDES THIS PROPOSAL
WOULD PUSH US TO THAT OUTCOME. SPG
SOMETHING TO CLARIFY IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE REGULATION IS
PROPOSED IS WHILE HALF OF THAT REAR SETBACK AREA —
IT IS NOT
QUITE TO SQUAL HERE CALE HERE,
BUT HALF COULD BE LANDSCAPE.
THE REST OF THE AREA COULD BE PARKING AREA OR BUILDINGS WITH
COMMON AREA. IT IS NOT AN ENTIRE
NO-GO AREA. THERE’S A SUBSTANTIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SITES WHERE THEY’RE PROVIDING MORE CENTRALIZED SPACE IF 10% OF THE SITE ELSEWHERE ON
THE SITE IS DEVOTED TO OUTDOOR COMMON AREA AS IS REQUIRED FOR
LARGER SITES. EXCEPTIONS FOR IF STREET
CONNECTIONS ARE BEING PROVIDED FOR CORNER SITES SO THE FOCUS IS
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERIMETERS OF THE BLOCKS.
THIS SEQUENCE OF IMAGES IS SHOWING FIRST ON THE LEFT WHAT
THE CURRENT SITUATION IS AND THEN CONTINUATION OF EXISTING
TRENDS. DEVELOPMENT BEING BUILT TO THE
REAR OF THE SITES AND WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS
KEEPING THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK LESS BUILT UP.
WE DID GET QUITE A BIT OF CONCERN FROM SOME COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO LIKE THE CENTRAL COURTYARD ARRANGEMENTS, SO WE
PROVIDED EXEMPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT IF YOU ARE PROVIDING
THAT LARGE OUTDOOR SPACE ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE.
IN ACTUALITY, YOU MIGHT GET SOMETHING MORE LIKE THIS
RIGHTMOST IMAGE WHERE YOU HAVE A MIX OF REAR SETBACK AREAS AS
WELL AS CENTRAL COURTYARDS AND THE NEW STREET CONNECTIONS SUCH
AS THEY’RE ILLUSTRATED HERE. WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH FIRE
CHIEF MYERS ABOUT THE CURRENT DIRECTION, AND HE FELT THAT FROM
A FIRE SUPPRESSION OR CONTROL PERSPECTIVE THERE’S SOME
BENEFITS MOVING TO OUR PROPOSAL. IT IS TYPICALLY EASIER TO MANAGE
THE FIRE IF YOU HAVE MORE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE STREET.
OFTEN HARD TO GET TO THE REAR OF THESE DEEP REAR SITES AND TO
LIMIT FIRE SPREADING FROM PROPERTIES FAR AWAY FROM THE
STREET TO EACH OTHER. THERE’S A RELATED TOPIC HERE
ABOUT OUR EASTERN PORTLAND NARROW SITE SITUATION.
IT’S PRETTY COMMON TO HAVE VERY NARROW DEEP SITES.
THESE EXAMPLES ARE 60-FOOT WIDE BY 300 FEET DEEP.
SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY IS REQUIRED IN MOST
DEEP SITE SITUATIONS FOR FIRE ACCESS, WHETHER IT IS A NARROW
SITE OR A WIDE SITE. A NARROW SITE THAT 20-FOOT
DRIVEWAY IS OCCUPYING A LARGE PORTION OF THE SITE AREA.
NOT A LOT OF SPACE FOR GREEN ELEMENTS OR OUTDOOR SPACE.
NO SPACE FOR STREET CONNECTIONS. LITTLE ORIENTATION TO THE PUBLIC
STREET. OUR PROPOSAL WAS FOR SITES THAT ARE MORE THAN 160 FEET DEEP TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM STREET
FRONTAGE OR SITE FRONTAGE OF 90 FEET.
THAT WOULD TAKE YOU FROM THE EXISTING SITUATION ON THE LEFT
TO HAVING SITES MEET A MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT BEFORE
DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THOUGH.
IF A SITE IS FLANKED BY ALREADY FAIRLY FULLY-DEVELOPED SITES,
YOU WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENT.
YOU COULD GO THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IF A
DEVELOPER SO CHOSE. THIS DOES HIGHLIGHT SOME ISSUES.
BDS HAD PROVIDED TESTIMONY RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM SITE EDGE, ADDED CONCERNS ABOUT BARRIERS THAT THEY PRESENT TO
DEVELOPMENT. A LOT OF THIS BOILS DOWN TO THE
FACT THAT IT IS EASIER TO ACQUIRE SINGLE PROPERTY AND
DEVELOP IT ONCE YOU GET IT VERSUS, SAY, TO ACQUIRE RUN
PROPERTY AND WAIT UNTIL YOU ACQUIRE A JOINING PROPERTY TO
MEET THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE. THERE’S A BIT OF A TRADEOFF
THERE BETWEEN CAN WE GET SITES LARGE ENOUGH TO GET STREET
CONNECTION BUT TO WHAT EXTENT IS IT DAMPENING THE EASE OF DOING
DEVELOPMENT ON SMALL SITES.
THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE IN THE PROPOSED DRAFT MAPS OUT THE
AREAS WITH THAT MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN
HERE. THEY CORRESPOND TO AREAS AROUND
SOME OF OUR EAST PORTLAND CENTERS.
AND THEY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO MULTI-DWELLING ZONE PROPERTIES
WITHIN THESE AREAS, SO NOT NECESSARILY THE WHOLE CHUNK.
ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE MULTI-ZONE DWELLING.
ONE THING WE’RE GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU WHEN WE PUT THE OPTIONS
OUT THERE IS THAT IDEA OF A SCALED BACK OPTION THAT SCALES
BACK THE PROPOSAL JUST TO THE J DISTRICT AND ROSEWOOD AREAS TO A
MORE LIMITED AREA THAT CORRESPONDS TO AREAS THAT PBOT
HAD IDENTIFIED AS NEEDING NEW STREET CONNECTIONS.
SO, THIS OPTION WOULD REALLY BE PRIMARILY JUST ABOUT GETTING
THOSE STREET CONNECTIONS. THE BROADER PROPOSAL WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW IS NOT JUST ABOUT STREET CONNECTIONS BUT ALSO
TRYING TO GET LARGER SITES THAT ALLOW FOR BETTER SITE DESIGN, SO
A LITTLE BIT OF A CHOICE THERE. ONE OTHER ASPECT INTENDED TO BE
A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN ALLOWANCE VERSUS A RESTRICTIVE
REGULATION IS ONE THAT WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENTAL ALLOWANCES
TO BE DEDICATED PRIOR TO STREET DEDICATION.
IF YOU ARE PROVIDING THAT STREET CONNECTION AND PROVIDING THAT
PUBLIC GOOD AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONNECTIVITY, YOU WOULD NOT
LOSE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. CURRENTLY THOSE STANDARD
DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE DEAD ENDS DO NOT LOSE ANY DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL. BUT IF YOU’RE PROVIDING A STREET
CONNECTION, IT’S TAKEN AWAY FROM YOUR ALLOWANCES.
WITH THAT, I WAS GOING TO INVITE
OUR OTHER GUEST UP FOR A MOMENT THIS WORKS WITH PBOT’S
PROPOSALS.>>GOOD AFTERNOON.
I’M THE SUPERVISING PLANNER WITH THE PORTLAND BUREAU OF
TRANSPORTATION. LAST TIME I WAS HERE I WAS HERE
WITH BILL. WE WERE SHARING ABOUT EAST
PORTLAND CONNECTIVITY AND SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED FOR BETTER HOUSING BY DESIGN AS WELL AS THE CONNECTED
CENTER STREET PLAN. WE SHOWED SEVERAL
IMAGES SIMILAR TO WHAT BILL SHOWED TODAY OF
DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE BUILT THAT PROVIDE PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE
SITE BUT NOT ANY KIND OF PUBLIC CONNECTIVITY AND HOW IMPORTANT
IT IS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS TO HAVE CONNECTIONS SO THAT IS A
LIVABLE PLACE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WILL LIVE THERE IN THE
FUTURE. THEY CAN WALK TO TRANSIT, TO THE
DESTINATIONS THAT ARE WITHIN SHORT DISTANCE
FROM HOME. I’M GOING TO KIND OF CONTINUE ON
THIS THEME OF EAST PORTLAND AND THE CONNECTIONS TO HIGHLIGHT THE
ANALYSIS THAT WE DID VIEW WHERE WE THOUGHT CONNECTIONS ARE
NEEDED MOST. JUST A QUICK REMINDER, WE DO
HAVE ALREADY IN PLACE CONNECTIVITY STANDARDS.
530 FEET IS THE SPACING STANDARD BETWEEN FULL STREET CONNECTIONS
AND 330 FEET IS SPACING THE STANDARD FOR PED AND BIKE
CONNECTIONS. NONE OF THESE CONNECTION SPACING
STANDARDS ARE GENERALLY MET IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE WERE
FOCUSING ON IN THE J DISTRICT AND IN ROSEWOOD.
AND SO, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A COUPLE OF QUICK BRIEF SLIDES TO
ILLUSTRATE THE ANALYSIS THAT WE DID AND HOW WE’VE STARTED TO
THINK ABOUT WHERE CONNECTIONS ARE MOST IMPORTANT AS WELL AS
WHERE IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO BRING SOME INCENTIVES TO MAKE
THESE CONNECTIONS POSSIBLE. THIS SLIDE IS JUST SHOWING
THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE BLOCKS IN
THE J DISTRICT ARE NOT MEETING THE
CONNECTIVITY STANDARD, AND MOST OF THE ONES IN ORANGE ARE
NOT MEETING IT NORTH OR SOUTH OR EAST OR WEST.
WE DID A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF
CONNECTIVITY DOWN TO THE PARCEL LEVEL, AND SO, FOR EACH PARCEL,
WE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED WHAT WE CALLED THE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE
DIRECTNESS SCORE, MEANING HOW CLOSE THE PARCEL IS TO ALL OF
ITS NEIGHBORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER PARCELS. AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS SLIDE IS THAT THE POORER SCORING
PARCELS ARE IN THE ONES IN THE DARKER MAROON OR ORANGE.
YELLOW IS SHOWING SOMEWHAT FAIR BUT NOT GOOD.
BLUE BEING THOSE PARCELS THAT HAVE RELATIVELY GOOD PEDESTRIAN
DIRECTNESS. WHEN WE TOOK THOSE SCORES AND WE
LOOKED AT WHAT BLOCKS WOULD BENEFIT MOST FROM A NEW STREET
CONNECTION, WE IDENTIFIED 11 BLOCKS AS CONNECTION OPPORTUNITY
AREAS WHERE WE FELT WE WOULD HAVE THE GREATEST EFFECT ON
IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE WERE TO
CREATE A CONNECTION THERE AND CONVERT SOME OF THESE YELLOW,
ORANGE, AND MAROON PARCELS INTO BLUE.
SO, THIS SHOWS YOU KIND OF WHERE THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE, AND ONE
OF THE QUESTIONS WE WERE ASKING OURSELVES IS — SINCE WE’VE
IDENTIFIED THESE CONNECTIONS AND
ARE STARTING TO PRIORITIZE THEM, CAN WE BRING SOME INCENTIVE TO
THE TABLE? WHAT’S IN THE DRAFT PROPOSAL IS
TO CONSIDER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CREDIT
DISCOUNT, ESSENTIALLY TO THOSE SITES THAT ARE DEVELOPED AND
RIGHT-OF-WAYS PROVIDED TO — INSTEAD OF PROVIDING A PRIVATE
DRIVE CONNECTION, YOU CAN PROVIDE A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
THAT WILL END UP BECOMING A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION.
SO, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE’VE ALSO PUT IN THE PROPOSAL THE
IDEA OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CAPITAL
PROJECT, WHICH WOULD BE A WAY FOR US TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THOSE
CONNECTIONS AND PROVIDE SOME FUNDING OF OUR OWN.
JUST TO KIND OF AGAIN TIE IN WHAT THE CONNECTION IS TO BETTER
HOUSING BY DESIGN, CALCULATING
THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOWANCE PRIOR TO DEDICATION, THEY’LL SHARE
THAT IN THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE LENGTH.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE PART OF BETTER HOUSING BY
DESIGN, THE DECISION WILL BE
MADE AT THE SAME TIME THE CONNECTED STREETS PLAN PROCESS,
WHICH INCLUDES NEW CONNECTION OPTIONS, THE IDEA OF AN
INCENTIVE THROUGH A TDSC PROJECT AND AMENDMENTS TO WALKING AND
BIKING ROUTES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE, PER THAT PROPOSAL, WILL BE REVISED AGAIN AT THE SAME
TIMELINE AS THE BETTER HOUSING BY DESIGN WILL SHARE THOSE
CHANGES WITH YOU AND TAKE YOUR INPUT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND
THEN THAT WILL GO TO COUNCIL ALONG WITH THE BETTER HOUSING BY
DESIGN PROPOSAL.>>I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR
DENVER. ON THE CALCULATION OF
DEVELOPMENTAL ALLOWANCE PRIOR TO DEDICATION, IS THAT JUST FOR
SPECIFIC ZONES OR ARE YOU CONSIDERING THAT EVERYWHERE?
>>RIGHT NOW, THAT’S BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THE
MULTI-FAMILY ZONE. ACTUALLY, IT WOULD BE — IT
WOULD APPLY TO ALL ZONES. THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF
CALCULATING YOUR DEVELOPMENTAL ALLOWANCES PRIOR TO STREET
DEDICATION.>>CONSISTENTLY APPLIED
THROUGHOUT THE CITY?>>CORRECT EXCEPT FOR LAND
DIVISIONS. LAND DIVISIONS HAVE THEIR OWN
CALCULUS FOR HOW THEY CALCULATE THE STREET DEDICATION.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU. OKAY.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, DENVER, AT THE MOMENT.
>>THANKS.>>OH, WE LIE.
IT WAS A TRICK.
>>EXCUSE ME. THE STREET CONNECTIONS, YOU
TALKED ABOUT WALKING AND BIKING, BUT THOSE ARE ALSO TRANSIT
CONNECTIONS, CORRECT?>>THESE ARE NEW LOCAL STREET
CONNECTIONS THAT WOULD BE BUILT WHERE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO
RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND SO, FOR THE MOST PART, THOSE
WOULD BECOME — IF WE GET THE DEDICATION, IF WE GET THE STREET
BUILT BY OUR POLICIES, THEY’RE GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT OF LOCAL
STREET FOR ALL OUR CLASSIFICATIONS
CLASSIFICATIONS. NOT LIKELY TO BE THE TRANSIT
STREETS, BUT THEY WOULD PROVIDE IMPORTANT ACCESS TO THE TRANSIT
STREETS. IN THE J DISTRICT, OBVIOUSLY
DIVISION AND 82nd AND POWELL, THOSE ALL HAVE TRANSIT ON THEM,
SO THOSE WOULD BE IMPORTANT WAYS FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE
THERE TO HAVE A SHORTER TRIP TO REACH THEIR TRANSIT STOP.
>>YEAH. I’M JUST THINKING THE PRIORITY
WOULD BE TO CONNECT SOME OF THOSE LOCAL STREETS TO GET TO
THE TRANSIT BECAUSE THE IMPROVING TRANSIT SYSTEM.
>>YEAH. THAT’S RIGHT.
YEAH, THAT’S CERTAINLY THE PRIORITY.
AGAIN, THE ANALYSIS WE SHOWED, WE NOT ONLY DID THIS PEDESTRIAN
ROUTE DIRECTNESS. WE ALSO LOOKED AT OUR NETWORK,
SO OUR TRANSIT NETWORK AND DESTINATIONS.
THAT ANALYSIS WAS COUPLED WITH THE SYSTEM ANALYSIS
AND SO YEAH.
INES IN ESSENCE, THOSE SITES ARE GIVEN BETTER ACCESS TO NOT ONLY
TRANSIT BUT THE BUSINESSES ON
BUSIER ARTERIAL STREETS.>>IF THEY GET THE SDC WAIVER,
HOW WELL WOULD THAT WORK IN IMPROVING WHETHER OR NOT THE
UPTAKE — >>I’LL TO GET BACK TO YOU ON
THAT. THAT’S A TYLER BUMP QUESTION IN
TERMS OF THE MODELLING AS PART OF THAT, AND I DON’T RECALL
WHETHER THE SDC WAIVER IS IN THAT CALCULATION.
>>IT WOULD BE ONLY IN THE AREAS THAT TRANSPORTATION’S IDENTIFIED
THOUGH, CORRECT?>>NO.
WELL — SO, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SDC
WHEREAS THE WAIVER IS FOR ALL OF THE SDC
s, SO WATER AND SEWER AND PARKS
AS WELL. WHAT I HAVE TO LOOK AT — AND
THOSE ARE ONLY AVAILABLE AT THE 10% INCLUSION RATE AT 60% AMI.
I’M PRETTY SURE THAT’S WHAT WE’RE MODELLING SO THEY WILL BE
IN THERE, BUT I WILL CONFIRM THAT.
>>BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT, CORRECT?
THIS IS JUST FOR STREET DEDICATION.
YOU GET AN SDC — I GUESS THE QUESTION IS CAN THEY GET AN SDC
AS I UNDERSTAND IT FOR STREET DEDICATION WITHOUT THE
INCLUSIONARY OR ANY KIND OF AFFORDABLE HOUSE ING?
>>RIGHT. THIS PROPOSAL IS — AND DENVER
CAN CONFIRM THIS. IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT, SAY IT IS
19 UNITS LESS THAN BUT YOU’RE DEDICATING A STREET, YOU’LL GET
SOME SDC CREDIT FOR THAT STREET DEDICATION ITSELF.
IF YOU’RE LARGER — IF YOU’RE AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING SIZED
PROJECT, YOUR SDCs WILL BE LOWER YOU DON’T GET A DOUBLE DIP
THERE. THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE SORT OF
SITUATION.>>IS THAT RIGHT?
>>YOU WOULD GET A CREDIT, BUT IT IS DEPENDENT ON WHAT YOU’RE
PAYING INTO OR WHAT YOUR CHARGE WOULD BE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.>>GO AHEAD.
>>YEAH. I’M ALSO THINKING ABOUT — I
KEEP THINKING ABOUT THOSE LOTS THAT YOU JUST SHOWED US, THE
GIGANTIC LOTS THAT WOULD HAVE HOUSING ALL AROUND IT AND THEN
GREEN SPACE IN BETWEEN. I HAVEN’T REALLY SEEN
THIS. IS THERE GOING TO BE A WAY OR AN
INCENTIVE TO HAVE A PATH — PROBABLY NOT A ROAD BUT SOME
KIND OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN CROSS THOSE AREAS,
BECAUSE WHAT YOU’LL HAVE A PRIVATE OWNERS OWNING ALL THESE
DIFFERENT PARTS OF IT?
A LOT OF TIMES, THOSE BIG BLOCKS, THEY’RE NOT VERY
CONNECTED.>>NO.
I THINK THOSE LITTLE CONNECTIONS ARE
SUPER IMPORTANT LIKE YOU’RE DESCRIBING TO CUT YOUR TRIP IN
HALF TO GET TO THE BUS OR TO THE STORE MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
AGAIN, WE HAVE CONNECTIVITY STANDARDS THAT ALSO APPLY TO
PEDESTRIAN BIKE PATHWAYS, SO THAT’S 330 FEET, WHICH IS QUITE
A CLOSE CONNECTION SPACING. AND SO, THAT’S STILL IN PLACE.
WE WOULD TRY TO GET AS MANY OF THOSE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
>>HOW DOES THAT WORK? I’M NOT A BUILDER, SO I DON’T
KNOW EXACTLY — WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR PLANS, PEOPLE WOULD SAY WE
NEED A BIKE PATH THROUGH THERE?>>YEAH.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY WOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE
DISTANCE FROM THE NEAREST PARALLEL CONNECTION
CEEDING THE SPACING STANDARD, THEY WOULD LOOK TO SEE IF THERE
WAS A WAY TO GET A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION THAT COULD BECOME A
PATHWAY CONNECTION.>>OKAY.
WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A WAY THROUGH THOSE GREEN SPACES
OR WOULD IT JUST BASICALLY BE AGAINST THE LAW?
I’M SORRY. I PROBABLY SHOULD KNOW THIS
ALREADY, BUT I’M TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND ABOUT HOW IT WORKS.
>>IF I’M FOLLOWING THIS, BILL, BACK TO THE IMAGE WHERE YOU HAD
THE REAR SETBACKS THAT CREATE POTENTIALLY A COMMON OPEN SPACE
AREA, IF YOU CAN’T GET YOUR NEIGHBORS TO PLAY BALL, I THINK
YOU’RE OUT OF LUCK.>>THAT’S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.
>>BECAUSE IT IS STILL PRIVATE PROPERTY.
YOU HAVE TO GO GET YOUR NEIGHBORS TO PARTICIPATE IN A
CONNECTIVITY EXERCISE.>>IT WOULDN’T MATTER IF THE
STANDARD WAS 300 FEET OR WHATEVER.
IT WOULD STILL BE A MATTER OF NEGOTIATING THOSE THINGS, AND
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT, RIGHT, RATHER THAN THE CITY
DOING THAT? I MEAN, HOW DOES THAT — DO YOU
KNOW WHAT I’M SAYING? WOULD THERE BE A PRESUMPTION OF
WOULD WE DO THIS OR HOW WOULD IT WORK?
WOULD IT BE THEIR ALTRUISM THAT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN?
>>TYPICALLY, A RIGHT-OF-WAY IS CREATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT.
A DEVELOPMENT NEEDS A PEDESTRIAN BIKE CONNECTION, THEY WOULD BE
ABLE TO REQUEST THAT AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT.
BUT IF THERE’S A PROPERTY THAT’S BEEN LAYING THERE FOR DECADES AND NO CHANGE’S PROPOSED, THERE
WOULD NOT BE TYPICALLY A NEED FOR PBOT TO ACQUIRE A CONNECTION
UNLESS IT WAS PURCHASING A CONNECTION.
>>THAT’S TRUE. PART OF THE QUESTION YOU’RE
ASKING IS ABOUT THESE OPEN GREEN SPACES THAT ARE PRIVATE, AND
MAYBE THEY WANT TO ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS.
OFTENTIMES, THAT IS DONE AS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS
PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE
WHEN A DEVELOPMENT OCCURS GENERALLY.
>>OKAY. YOU CAN HELP.
>>IT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I’M A DEVELOPER AND I DON’T KNOW
THE ANSWER EITHER. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE IMAGE
WITH THE DIFFERENT COURTYARD LAYOUTS? THAT ONE.
I GUESS PART OF THE QUESTION HERE IS IF THE MID-BLOCK OPEN
AREA, THE THIRD ONE FROM THE LEFT, THAT REPRESENTS ONE
REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO — THE BIG QUESTION IS, WHEN SOME OF
THESE PROJECTS GET REDEVELOPED,
HOW DOES PBOT DECIDE WHICH ONE TO FORCE THROUGH, TO MAKE AS A
CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT? SAY SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE
GETTING REDEVELOPED OVER TIME. ALL OF THEM, AS CURRENTLY
CONSTITUTED THAT BLOCK, VIOLATES THE 330 DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.
DOES THE FIRST ONE IN SUDDENLY HAVE TO PUT THE ROAD THROUGH OR
THE SECOND ONE IN OR ONLY IF IT
IS THE APPROPRIATE WIDTH? IF THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL
VISION THAT’S SHOWN IN THE FOURTH ONE OF A ROAD ACTUALLY
GOING THROUGH, IS THAT A PUBLIC ROAD, I ASSUME, EAST TO TO WEST
THERE?>>YEAH.
>>HOW DOES PBOT FIGURE OUT WHICH PROPERTY HAS GOT TO DO THE DEDICATION TO GO THROUGH OR IS
THAT PART OF A MASTER PLAN? I DON’T KNOW. IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT HAPHAZARD
BECAUSE IT IS TRIGGED ED GERED
BY DEVELOPMENT.
EVERY ONE OF THESE PROJECTS THAT COMES IN FOR DEVELOPMENT SOMEONE
HAS TO MAKE A DECISION. DO YOU DEDICATE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY — A HUGE LENGTH OF YOUR
PROPERTY OR DON’T YOU? PBOT HAS TO MAKE THAT CALL AS
DEVELOPMENT GOES IN THE DOOR, NOT KNOWING WHETHER IT IS EVER
GOING TO GET OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT BLOCK.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF PBOT COULD SAY, YES, YOU WILL DEDICATE THIS
AREA, PROVIDE SOME PREDICTABILITY TO PROPERTY
OWNERS WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN AND HAVE SOME INCENTIVE, BUT
THEN THERE’S THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER
HALF OF IT TO GET IT THROUGH TO THE
OTHER STREET. IF YOU HAVE RESOURCES TO
PURCHASE PROPERTY OR EASEMENT, MAYBE YOU CAN COMPLETE THE
ROUTE, BUT I COULD SEE IT BEING A CHALLENGE TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE
WHAT’S SHOWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS DRAWING BECAUSE YOUR
ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE THE STREET CONNECTION IS IF YOU HAVE
TWO OR SOMETIMES MORE PROPERTIES
ALL DOING DEVELOPMENT AT THE SAME TIME.
>>YEAH. THE QUICK ANSWER TO YOUR, IF THE
SITE DOESN’T MEET THE STREET SPACING STANDARDS, IT IS THE
FIRST PROPERTY THAT COMES IN THAT IS REQUIRED TO DEDICATE
SPACE AND PROVIDE THE
CONNECTION. THE IDEA IS THAT OVER TIME
EVENTUALLY THAT CONNECTION WILL BE A THROUGH CONNECTION AND WILL
PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. A BIG PART OF WHAT WE’RE
PROPOSING IN THIS PLAN — A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT IS HAPHAZARD IS OFTEN IN THE PAST
IT’S ONLY BEEN REQUIRED THROUGH LAND DIVISIONS BECAUSE THAT’S
BEEN THE PROCESS THAT’S TRIGGERED THE DEDICATION AND
CONNECTIVITY. AND SO, AGAIN, WE’RE TRYING TO APPLY THIS TO SPECIFICALLY
CENTERS, AREAS THAT ARE — THE DENSE AREAS THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF GROWTH AS WELL AS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
BASE ZONES, SO THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONE.
THE PROPOSAL THAT WE PUT TOGETHER WAS A WAY OF TRYING TO
SHARE THE BURDEN OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE STREET
IMPROVEMENT OR PATH IMPROVEMENT ACROSS PROPERTIES SO THAT, ONE,
IT FITS AND, TWORKS , THAT IT IS
FEASIBLE. IF THERE’S A DEVELOPMENT THAT’S
GOING TO BE PROVIDING 20 FEET OF SPACE FOR A DRIVEWAY ANY WAYS,
WHY NOT DEDICATE THAT SPACE? YOU’RE NOT GOING TO LOSE
DENSITY. YOU’RE NOT GOING TO LOSE YOUR
DENSITY, BUT YOU ALSO WILL HAVE EVENTUALLY A PUBLIC STREET
CONNECTION ONCE THE OTHER SIDE’S DEVELOPED, SO THAT’S THE IDEA.
>>THIS TENDENCY TO THINK ABOUT
SOMEBODY LIVING ACROSS ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THEY WANT TO GET TO THE BUS STOP, THEY DON’T
ACTUALLY — THEY PROBABLY WOULD USE A STREET, BUT MAYBE THERE
CAN’T BE A STREET. HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING THOUGHT
ABOUT IN TERMS OF BICYCLE OR PATHWAYS?
IS THERE A WAY FOR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS TO BE ESTABLISHED
BECAUSE YOU WOULDN’T REALLY — IF YOU’RE GOING TO THE BUS STOP,
YOU WOULD BE WALKING.>>YEAH.
IT’S THE SAME PROCESS.>>OKAY.
IT IS THE SAME PROCESS.>>IN A LOT OF CASES, AS BILL
WAS DESCRIBING, THIS CHALLENGE IS THESE SMALLER LOT SIZES,
THESE NARROW SITES. SOMETIMES IT IS A MATTER OF WHAT
KIND OF CONNECTION CAN WE GET.>>AT LEAST WORKING IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH DENVER IN THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE A KEY PART PBOT
HAS BEEN LOOKING AT IS HOW DO WE GET NARROWER CONNECTIONS THAT
MAKE IT EASIER TO GET THROUGH THESE CONNECTION SITUATIONS.
WHEN EACH OF THESE NARROWISH SITES DEVELOPS WITH ITS 20-FOOT
WIDE ASPHALT DRIVEWAY, YOU’LL END UP WITH BOTH PROPERTIES HAVE
A COMBINED 40 FEET OF BLACKTOP.
THAT’S WIDER THAN OUR STREETS PROVIDE.
PART OF IT IS MAKING IT LESS PAINFUL FOR ONE TO PROVIDE A
STREET CONNECTION BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT LOSING POTENTIAL BY
PROVIDING A STREET CONNECTION AND, TWO, COMING UP WITH
STANDARDS THAT WORK IN CONSTRAINED SITE
SITUATIONS, INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN
SITUATIONS THAT CAN HAPPEN.
>>YOU’LL BE DONE WITH THIS PROJECT, AND IT WILL GO THROUGH
THIS THING, SO WHO IS WATCHING FOR THAT SORT OF STUFF AS TIME
GOES ON?>>I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF US WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE
REZONING PROJECT IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE THIS PART OF THE PROCESS AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY SO WE’RE
CAPTURING MORE OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES.
YEAH, SO IT WOULD OCCUR THROUGH THE GENERAL PERMITTING PROCESS.
>>OKAY.>>THE NEXT ITEM IS A
DECISION — SORRY, GO AHEAD.>>JUST TO MAKE SURE I’M
TRACKING THIS, WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
PRIVATE STREET AND A PUBLIC STREET AND TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE
HAVING THAT BE A PUBLIC STREET TO THE ROAD THAT YOU’RE
ACCESSING BY DOING THE SDC WAIVER.
>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>NOW WE’RE ALSO LOOKING AT A
PICTURE THAT SHOWS AK CCESS THROUGH THAT COMMON AREA IN THE
REAR, OKAY?>>THERE’S A WHITE LINE.
IT ALMOST IMPLIES ACCESS, BUT ARE YOU IMPLYING —
>>THE PARCEL.>>THE PROPERTY LINE?
>>THAT’S THE PROPERTY LINE? OKAY.
I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WHAT WE WERE HEARING IS YOU WERE
GOING TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO POTENTIALLY DEDICATE SOME SORT
OF ACCESS THROUGH THE REAR. I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS
SOME SORT INDIVIDUAL THING.>>HE CREATED A LITTLE
CONNECTIONY THING HERE WHICH SUGGESTED THE IDEA OF MAYBE IN
SOME CASES THERE’S A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION THROUGH THAT AREA,
BUT IT’S NOT INTENDED TO BE A FORMAL THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT
HAPPENED KIND OF THING. BUT THE IDEA THAT THE
CONNECTIONS THROUGH THESE AREAS COULD BE POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC ACCESS.>>MY QUICK QUESTION — IT’S NOT
GOING TO BE QUICK.
[ LAUGHTER ]>>IF YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE
CONTINUATION OF CURRENT TRENDS DIAGRAM — AND I DON’T KNOW IF
YOU TOOK AN ACTUAL BLOCK AS AN EXAMPLE TO DRAW THAT DIAGRAM,
BUT IF YOU DID, THERE’S NOT ONE OF THOSE ACCESS STREETS THAT
LINE UP REALLY WELL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE
OF THE BLOCK, WHICH HAS ME CONCERNED THAT YOU’RE GOING TO
VERY RARELY GET TO THE CONDITION ON THE FAR RIGHT, WHICH IS THE
DIAGRAM WITH THE YELLOW BOX ON IT, WHERE THE STREET ACTUALLY
CONNECTS AND GO THROUGH UNLESS WE AREN’T SOMEHOW DELIBERATE
ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS ONLY GOING TO BE CONTROLLED
THROUGH HALF OF THAT BLOCK ON ONE SIDE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
>>YOU’RE SAYING IF THE PROPERTY THAT’S TO THE BACK OF THE LOT —
>>HERE.>>YEAH, SHOW ME.
>>DOESN’T LINE UP NECESSARILY. WE DON’T HAVE THESE GREAT
CONNECTIONS, RIGHT? IF I ONLY CONTROL THIS PIECE OF
PROPERTY , I CAN GET YOU THIS
HALF, BUT I CAN’T GET YOU THAT HALF BECAUSE I DON’T CONTROL IT,
SO HOW OFTEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE WHERE YOU CONTROL BOTH SIDES OF
THE BLOCK AND GET THE STREET TO GO THROUGH?
DOES IT MAKE SENSE?>>NO,
I GET IT. YEAH.
IT IS A LONG-TERM PROSPECT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE’RE LEFT WITH
THE SITUATION OF HAVING TO ACCOMPLISH CONNECTIVITY THROUGH
THE INFILL SCENARIO THAT WE HAVE. WE CAN’T JUST START WITH A GREEN
FIELD AND CREATE THE CONNECTIONS.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK WHAT WE’RE ABLE TO DO — THERE ARE
PLACES — IF WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE
EVEN AN OFFSET, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY IN THAT CASE WE
COULD GET SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE REAR OF THE LOT.
THESE ARE AGAIN VERY NARROW, VERY DEEP LOTS.
THIS IS PART OF WHY WE’RE PROPOSING THE SETBACK.
BUT IN THAT CASE, WE COULD PROVIDE EVEN JUST A TEN-FOOT
DEDICATION ON THE BACK OR MAYBE 20 FEET AND HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO
DO A SHORT JOG. IF YOU LOOK, THERE ARE SOME
BLOCKS ACTUALLY IN ROSEWOOD
WHERE THAT WAS THE PRACTICE IN THE PAST, WHERE YOU COULD GET A
SHORT BIT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT YOU COULD CREATE THAT JOG.
THOSE CONNECTIONS HAVE OCCURRED, AND SO, I THINK WITH THE LINES
NOT LINING UP EXACTLY THERE’S STILL A WAY FOR US TO GET A
CONNECTION THROUGH THAT WOULD
EVENTUALLY PROVIDE THROUGH-VEHICLE ACCESS.
AGAIN, IT IS A LONG-TERM PROSPECT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES
EACH OF THOSE LOTS TO DEVELOP, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU HAVE
ONE CONNECTION ON THE FRONT AND
BACK, EVEN IF IT IS NOT PROVIDING A MOTOR VEHICLE
CONNECTION, THERE’S THE PROSPECT WE CAN PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION THROUGH, WHICH CAN TERM.
THAT IS PART OF OUR DESIRE.>>IT SEEMS HAPHAZARD,
UNFORTUNATE, AND WAY TOO LONG IN MY OPINION AND NOT DELIBERATE IN
ONE IOTA SENSE OF THE WORD. I GUESS WHAT I’M KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT — AND I SEE YOU, BILL
— WHY WOULDN’T THERE BE A
LONG-TERM PLAN TO SAY THE DESIRE IS TO HAVE A STREET HERE AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN REDEVELOPMENT
OCCURS AND THIS IS WHERE IT IS GOING TO GO TO SEE IF WE CAN
FIGURE OUT HOW STREETS JIG JAG
AT POINTS IN THE FUTURE.>>WE HAVE DONE THIS.
THE PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE GATEWAY MASTER STREET PLAN WHERE WE
ACTUALLY PUT THE LINES ON THE MAP.
THIS IS PART OF THE PRACTICE THAT WE’VE HAD IN THE PAST.
WITHIN GATEWAY, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE’S A NUMBER OF NEW
STREET AND PATHWAY CONNECTIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED DIRECTLY ON
PROPERTY LOTS OR SPECIFIC PARCELS BECAUSE DEVELOPERS HAVE
AVOIDED THOSE LOTS. WE HAVE SEEN IN THE COURSE OF 20
YEARS ONLY ONE CONNECTION MADE OVER THAT TIME PERIOD, AND
SO, IT ALSO HAS ITS SHORTCOMINGS.
OUR HOPE IS THAT WE’RE ABLE TO REALIZE SOME
DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SEE SOME
CONNECTION. HOPEFULLY THAT OCCURS TO PROVIDE
ACCESS FOR PEDESTRIANS EARLIER RATHER THAN LATER.
>>FAIR ENOUGH. I CAN’T TELL YOU I’M SOLD.
ELI. MIKE, YOU HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE
TO SPEAK YET. THEN ELI.
THEN WE PROBABLY SHOULD GET ROLLING TO YOUR NEXT POINT,
BILL.>>WELL, PARTICULARLY IF WE’RE
LOOKING AT PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE ACCESS, CONNECTIVITY, I MEAN
EVERY TRAIL IN THE REGION THAT I’M FAMILIAR WITH HAS BEEN
OPPORTUNISTIC TO A VERY LARGE EXTENT, SO THAT’S KIND OF WHAT
WE’RE LEFT WITH, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF GREAT CONNECTIONS
MADE ACROSS THE REGION BY FOLKS GOING OUT AND JUST TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.
>>THERE’S ALSO A MASTER PLAN FOR TRAIL CONNECTIONS THAT ARE
ALSO ENCOURAGING HOW THOSE CONNECTIONS COULD OCCUR.
>>YEAH.>>YEAH.
>>BUT WHERE THEY ACTUALLY OCCUR IS VERY MUCH OPPORTUNITY DRIVEN.
>>FAIR. ELI?
>>I’M LOOKING AT — IF THE LINE WERE SHOWN THROUGH HERE AND ALL
THE PROPERTY OWNERS KNEW THEY
HAD TO DEDICATE A RIGHT-OF-WAY,
THEN THAT MIGHT SUPPRESS DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE SITES
BECAUSE THEY WOULD AVOID THE SITE.
BUT AS IT IS TODAY, ALL OF THE SITES THAT ARE WITHIN — MORE
THAN 300 FEET FROM EITHER END OF THIS, THE FIRST ONE IN WOULD
TRIGGER DEVELOPMENT, SO IT WOULD SUPPRESS DEVELOPMENT ON ALL THE
SITES. IS THAT YOUR EXPERIENCE?
IT SEEMS LIKE IF ANY PROPERTY HERE IS MORE THAN 330 FEET FROM THE END, THEN PBOT WOULD DO A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THAT
WOULD MAKE SOMEONE AVOID THAT SITE.
I GUESS I’M CURIOUS WHETHER — I KNOW PEOPLE AVOID BUILDING SITES
WHEN RIGHT-OF-WAYS ARE GOING TO BE DEDICATED, BUT IN SOME WAYS
MAYBE IT IS BETTER TO SAY IT IS GOING TO BE THIS ONE AND THE
CITY STARTS BUILDING UP MONEY IN SOME FUND UNTIL THEY CAN
ACTUALLY BUY IT. BUT IF IT IS GOING TO APPLY TO THE FIRST ONE IN, THEN NO ONE
WANTS TO BE THE FIRST ONE IN IN THAT SITUATION.
>>AND THAT’S THE CURRENT SITUATION, SO WHAT WE’RE TRYING
TO DO IS MAKE IT MORE FEASIBLE MORE OFTEN
BY PROVIDING FOR KIND OF NARROWER OPTIONS BY PROVIDING
FOR SCENARIOS WITH WHICH THESE LOT DIMENSIONS WE CAN ACTUALLY
SEE CONNECTIONS REALIZED. YEAH, IT’S THE REALITY OF THE
WAY ALREADY IS. THAT’S OUR STANDARD CURRENTLY.
>>OKAY.>>I WOULD JUST ADD THERE’S
THREE ELEMENTS HERE COMING TOGETHER.
ONE IS THE COUNTING THE FAR BEFORE THE DEDICATION, SO NOT AS
PAINFUL. TWO, YOUR SECOND ITEM THAT WE
WANT TO TALK ABOUT HERE IS WHAT IS THAT MINIMUM FRONTAGE SO THAT
THERE IS WIDER SITES THAT SHARE THAT 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY OR HAVE
ROOM TO PROVIDE THAT CONNECTION. THEN THE THIRD ONE IS SORT OF ON
THE TRANSPORTATION SIDE THEM BEING MORE DELIBERATE AND
OFFERING THESE NARROWER OPTIONS AS A WAY OF BUILDING THAT WIDER
RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER TIME BUT AT LEAST STARTING OFF WITH THIS 10
OR 12-FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION.
YEAH, IT IS INCREMENTAL AND YOU BANK THOSE OVER TIME, BUT
INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WE’RE GETTING TODAY.
>>OKAY. FIRST ITEM YOU WANTED TO HAVE US
WORK THROUGH, BILL.>>I’M GOING TO RETURN TO A
DECISION POINT THING. THE FIRST UP IS GOING TO BE THE
IDEA OF WHETHER WE SHOULD BE REQUIRING THOSE DEEPER SETBACKS,
TRYING TO KEEP THE CENTERS OF THE BLOCKS LESS BUILT UP BUT
WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE CENTRALIZED OPEN SPACE.
THEN THERE’LL BE A SECOND DECISION ABOUT THE MINIMUM
STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. JUST SO YOU KNOW WE’RE DOING
THIS. THIS IS THE ONE ABOUT THE DEEP
REAR SETBACKS IN EAST PORTLAND. ONE IS TO SUPPORT THE STAFF
PROPOSAL, SO REQUIRING THAT DEEP REAR SETBACK WITH THE EXCEPTIONS
OR PERHAPS TO DROP THE PROPOSAL,
THAT THERE MAY BE BETTER WAYS OF ACHIEVING THIS ON THE LARGE SITE
COMMON AREA REQUIREMENT.>>SO, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS PREVIOUSLY. DOZA HAD A PROJECT THAT HAD SOME
DIAGRAMS. YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE OTHER
WAYS TO SOLVE THAN THE PROBLEM THAN THEY DID, BUT IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU HAD
INDEPENDENT ARCHITECTS, THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS LOOKING AT IT,
SO THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS CONFUSING TO
PEOPLE WHEN THEY’RE INTERPRETING IT OR NOT, SO THAT’S ONE POINT
WE HAVE TO TRY TO GET AT AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
FOR THOSE WHO AREN’T FAMILIAR, THE RESOLUTION, IN MY OPINION,
FAILED OR THE STUDY OF IT FAILED BECAUSE WHAT IT
ENDED UP DOING — YOU HAD AN IMAGE, BILL.
WELL, I GUESS IT IS BACK TO THIS IMAGE.
IF YOU COULD PUT IT UP, THANK YOU.
YOU ENDED UP WITH A UNIT FACING
A PARKING LOT. AND IT WAS REALLY UNFORTUNATE
INSTEAD OF A BUNCH OF UNITS FACING THAT OPEN SPACE.
YOU HAD MORE UNITS FACING PARKING LOT THAN YOU HAD UNITS
FACING GREEN, WHICH YOU HAD A LOT OF GREEN IN THE BACK BUT A
FEWER NUMBER OF UNITS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE GREEN.
I REALIZE YOUR INTENT PERHAPS IS TO ALLOW THE PROVISION FOR A CENTRAL COURTYARD, BUT FOR SOME
REASON, PEOPLE DIDN’T INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON THERE.
I’LL BE HONEST. I DIDN’T DIVE INTO IT.
THAT’S MY CONCERN WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT NECESSARILY IT
IS IN THE SETBACK OR THE REAR SETBACK
SETBACK, BUT IT IS TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE IT MAKE THE
MOST SENSE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT AND TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE GET TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OR LIVE UP AGAINST GREEN SPACE.>>YEAH, I DID SPEAK TO LAURA
LILLARD, PROJECT MANAGER FOR DOZA.
NOTHING EXCEPT OPEN SPACE GOES INTO THAT BACK 25% WHEN IN
REALITY HALF OF THAT SETBACK COULD BE PARKING OR COMMUNITY
BUILDING. YOU COULD DO A CENTRAL COURTYARD
AND BE EXEMPT FROM THAT DEEPER SETBACK.
IF YOU DO A CENTRAL COURTYARD THAT’S 10% OF THE SITE AREA, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT REAR
SETBACK. AND IT’S WORKED THERE BECAUSE
THERE WAS INTEREST IN KEEPING THE MIDDLE BLOCKS LESS BUILT UP
A LOT OF INTEREST IN CULTIVATE IN
G CENTRAL COURTYARDS.
THE PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THESE SMALLER SITES IS IF WE DID GET
RID OF THIS PROPOSAL AS IT IS NOW, THE SITES ARE SMALL ENOUGH
THAT THEY WOULDN’T TRIGGER THE COMMON AREA REQUIREMENT THAT WE
PROPOSED. THESE SMALLER SITES WOULD NOT
PUSH THINGS TO BE CENTRAL OPEN SPACE THAT YOU WOULD, UNLESS
THERE’S SOME CHANGE REQUIRING COMMON AREA, BE ABLE TO CONTINUE
DOING WHAT’S BEING DONE UP TO NOW.
>>BILL, I’M GOING TO POKE AT IT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE THE WAY I
UNDERSTAND IT THE NEW CODE WAS HANDED TO THREE DIFFERENT SETS
OF ARCHITECTS WHO ALL INTERPRETED IT —
-Y YES, IT WAS VERY SIMPLE DESIGN, BUT THAT’S
HOW THEY INTERPRETED IT. IS THERE A LIMITATION ON THE
AMOUNT OF PARKING YOU WOULD HAVE IN THE REAR?
THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WAS TO PUT
THE PARKING IN THE MIDDLE. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY?
>>TALKING TO LAURA LILLARD, HER TAKE WAS NOTHING IS SUPPOSED TO
GO INTO THE BACK AREA AND THERE WASN’T AN ASSOCIATION OF THE
IDEA THAT YOU COULD PUT A CENTRAL COURTYARD IN, SO IT WAS
A SOMEWHAT SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF MODELLING.
IT IS DESIGNED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE THAN WHAT WAS MODELLED
FOR THAT EXERCISE. A LOT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS DO HAVE CENTRAL COURTYARDS.
THEY COULD DO THAT AND NOT HAVE TO DO THE REAR SETBACK
REQUIREMENT. THERE’S A PRETTY MAJOR
EXCEPTION BUILT IN.
IF SOMEBODY IS DOING A CENTRAL COURTYARD, BUT YOU COULD NOT
BUILD ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR OF THE SITE.
IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE REAR SETBACK, YOU
COULD, BUT YOU COULDN’T DO WHAT YOU DO NOW.
>>I THINK IT SPEAKS TO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL
MATERIALS. BDS HAS A NUMBER OF HANDOUTS
EXPLAINING DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE COULD WORK
WITH THEM TO PUT TOGETHER A HANDOUT TO SHOW THE DIFFERENT
OPTIONS AND WHAT THE LEVELS OF CREATIVITY THAT ARE AVAILABLE
THAT GO WITH THESE EAST PORTLAND STANDARDS.
>>OKAY. SKEPTICAL BUT SURE.
I GUESS MY THING IS IF THE CODE IS THAT — IT SHOULDN’T BE THAT
COMPLICATED. OKAY.
WE DON’T HAVE TO AGREE.>>IT IS.
TO RELY JUST ON THE DOZA MODELLING, WHICH WAS A VERY
SIMPLE MODELLING EXERCISE AND NOT AN ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, I THINK IS TOO SIMPLE OF A JUDGMENT IN WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENS OUT THERE.>>I’LL TELL YOU THAT’S EXACTLY
HOW WE START EVERY PROJECT WE WORK ON.
A SIMPLE MODELLING PROJECT LIKE THEY DID IN DOZA AND THAT’S
WHERE YOU LAUNCH. IT HAS ME CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE
ARCHITECTS INTERPRETING IT IN THE WAY IT WAS INTERPRETED.
I DON’T MEAN TO KEEP BELABORING THIS.
ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT FIRST ISSUE?
GO AHEAD, ELI.>>ON THE SIMILARLY TERRIBLE
EXAMPLES OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, WOULD SOME OF THAT BE BLOCKED BY
THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE CODE REQUIRING MORE LANDSCAPE AREA?
THE ONE YOU HAD ON THE SCREEN THERE WITH THE ROW HOMES,
TOWNHOMES, GOING ALL THE WAY BACK.
I SEEM TO REMEMBER THERE ARE ONES THAT DECREASE THE LOT
COVERAGE AREA AND PROVIDE LANDSCAPE AREA THAT MIGHT BE
ANOTHER THING ALREADY IN THE CODE ELSEWHERE TO PREVENT THAT
KIND OF CODE DEVELOPMENT.>>WE’RE ACTUALLY NOT PROPOSING
ANYTHING THAT BUMPS UP LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OR THAT
DECREASES LOT COVERAGE. THE ONLY THING THAT’S RELATED TO
THAT IS FOR LARGE SITES MORE THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR 10% OF THE SITE AREA TO BE A
COMMON AREA. THE TRIGGERS FOR
LARGER SITES, IN THAT CASE, YOU HAVE TO DO
SOME COURTYARD OR COMMON AREA, BUT THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING
STANDARDS AND BUILDING COVERAGE WOULD APPLY THE SAME
WAY IN THAT CLOSELY SET
DETACHED HOUSES WOULD TYPICALLY MEET THOSE KIND
OF STANDARDS. IT IS NOT TERRIBLY HIGH BUILDING
COVERAGE. IT IS NOT JUST EFFICIENTLY
RANGED. THERE’S NOT ENOUGH SPACE BUILT
FOR GRASS.>>IN THE SETBACK IN THE BACK,
50% OF THAT COULD BE PARKING, RIGHT?
>>YES AND/OR COMMUNITY BUILDING.
ANOTHER EAST PORTLAND THING WAS INTEREST IN BOTH OUTDOOR SPACE
AND INDOOR COMMUNITY SPACE.>>WHICH I LOVE.
IF SOMEONE IS STRUGGLING TO PUT ALL THE PARKING ON THE SITE, YOU
SEE MORE PARKING IN THE BACKYARDS THAN SHOWN IN THE
DRAWINGS BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY MAKES
MAXED OUT THE 50% APPROXIMATE IF
YOU’R E
TRYING TO PUT IN THE PARKING.>>THAT VERY WELL COULD BE.
>>ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
ARE WE READY TO TAKE A STRAW POLL ON
THIS? OKAY.
LET’S START WITH OPTION ONE. HOW MANY PEOPLE SUPPORT STAFF’S
PROPOSAL? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE,
SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT. TERESA?
YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN?>>I DON’T SUPPORT IT.
>>OKAY. WE HAVE EIGHT IN FAVOR.
DOES THAT REFRESH MY MEMORY? YEAH? THAT DOES GO THROUGH.
MY TWO CENTS WOULD BE I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH YOU TO REVIEW
THE LANGUAGE SO WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO AVOID WHAT — I THINK IN GENERAL IT IS A GREAT
IDEA. I’M CONCERNED WITH WHAT IT WAS
RESULTING IN, SO I’M HAPPY TO DO THAT OFFLINE.
>>THANK YOU. WE’D APPRECIATE THAT.
>>YEP.>>WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.
THE NEXT ITEM — >>CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? YOU’VE GOT TENANT SUPPORT FOR
pTHE DEEPER SETBACKS, BUT ISN’T %
THAT PART OF A PACKAGE THAT SAYS
IT’S DEEP REAR SETBACKS OR YOU HAVE OPTIONS?
INSTEAD OF 25%, YOU CAN DO AN INTERNAL COURTYARD, SO THE
PACKAGE IS MORE THAN JUST DEEP SETBACKS.
>>YES. THE EXCEPTION IS A KEY PART OF
THE PACKAGE.>>JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.
>>THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO OUR
CONVERSATIONS AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS.
THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN WAS IT WORKS REALLY WELL TO HAVE
CENTRALIZED COURTYARDS FOR THEIR PROJECTS, SO WE REWORKED IT SO
IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.>>[ OFF MIC ].
>>CORRECT.>>[ OFF MIC ].>>THE NEXT TOPIC IS ABOUT THE
MINIMUM SITE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN AREAS IN
EAST PORTLAND. I’M GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE
DETAIL ABOUT THIS, BUT THE BASIC OPTIONS TO SUPPORT THIS STACK
PROPOSAL FOR THESE FOUR LARGER AREAS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE
MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OR TO SCALE BACK THE PROPOSAL TO A
MORE NARROWLY MAPPED AREAS.
THIS IS SHOWING THE AREAS, THE STAFF PROPOSAL AND THE SCALED
BACK PROPOSAL MORE TIGHTLY MAPPED WHERE PBOT HAS IDENTIFIED
THE NEED FOR CONNECTIONS. JUST SOME STATS HERE.
OPTION ONE, THE STAFF PROPOSAL. WHAT YOU’RE SEEING ON THIS MAP
ARE MAPPING SHOWING IN THE RED OR THE DARK COLOR NARROW SITES
THAT ARE LESS THAN 90 FEET WIDE AND MORE THAN 160 FEET DEEP.
AND THE AREAS WHERE THE REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY.
YOU CAN SEE IN DIVISION MIDWAY,
IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES.
SOMEWHAT HIGHER PROPORTIONS IN THE J AND ROSEWOOD AREAS.
IN OPTION 1, THE STAFF PROPOSAL, THERE WOULD BE 443 LOTS THAT DO
NOT CURRENTLY MEET THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT.
IT IS A LESSER NUMBER WITH A SCALED BACK OPTION.
THE SCALED BACK OPTION, YOU CAN’T SEE IT VERY WELL HERE, BUT
IT IS THE LITTLE BLUE SQUARED AREAS.
IT IS 147 LOTS, SO THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERING MAGNITUDE OF
NUMBERS OF PROPERTIES THAT WOULD
BE AFFECTED BY THIS REQUIREMENT. BUT THE INTENT IN THE STAFF
PROPOSAL IS BOTH TO SUPPORT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BETTER SITE DESIGN BY HAVING LESS NARROW
SITES, WIDER SITES AS WELL AS GETTING STREET CONNECTIONS.
THE SCALED BACK PROPOSAL WOULD BE A MUCH MORE CLOSELY TIED TO
JUST GETTING ADDITIONAL STREET CONNECTIONS.
THIS DOES RELATE TO SOME COMP PLAN POLICIES THAT CALL FOR
COMBINING LARGER OR SMALL SITES IN EAST PORTLAND TO CREATE
OPTION USE FOR BETTER SITE DESIGN AND STREET USE
CONNECTIONS. THEY ARE JUST A POLICY APPROACH,
BUT THERE ARE TRADEOFFS. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IT
TYPICALLY IS HARDER TO ACQUIRE A PAIR OF SITES VERSUS JUST
DEVELOPING ONE EXISTING NARROW SITE.
SOME TRADEOFFS THERE. BDS RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE
EQUITY OF MAKING IT TOUGHER IN EAST PORTLAND, BUT WE HAVE
EQUITY ISSUES ABOUT GETTING THESE CENTERS OR MORE DENSITY IN
PLACES THAT ARE MORE EASY TO ACCESS PLACES AND MORE STREET
CONNECTIVITY. WITH THAT, I’LL LEAVE IT TO YOUR
QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
>>CHRIS?>>WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE
OWNERSHIP PATTERNS FOR THESE KIND OF LOTS?
DO WE KNOW IF THEY’RE PRIMARILY
SMALL-FAMILY HOLDINGS OR CORPORATE HOLDINGS?
WHO OWNS THESE THINGS AND WHAT ARE THEIR CAPABILITIES?
>>WHEN I’VE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP THINGS,
IT VARIES ACCORDING TO WHAT’S ON THE PROPERTY.
IN MANY CASES, SITES HAVE A SINGLE HOUSE WITH A VERY DEEP
BACKYARD. THAT IS JUST A TYPICAL
HOMEOWNERSHIP TYPE SITUATION. ONCE THE THING IS DEVELOPED,
THEN YOU HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH PROPERTY MANAGERS.
I COULD NOT SAY FOR SURE WHAT’S THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT OR HOW
MANY PROJECTS THAT DEVELOPERS
WHO DO DEVELOPMENT HERE ARE, BUT
TYPICALLY, THE DEVELOPERS ARE MORE FAMILIAR WITH SINGLE-FAMILY
DUPLEX-TYPE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT LARGE CORPORATIONS
COMING IN AND DEVELOPING THESE INDIVIDUAL SMALL LOTS.
>>THANK YOU.>>JEFF?>>WHAT’S THE CURRENT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT AND WHAT IS THIS PROPOSED TO TAKE IT TO?
>>THERE’S NO MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR AN
EXISTING LOT EXCEPT IT COULD BE 60
BY 300 FEET DEEP SITE AND YOU COULD
DEVELOP THAT. THIS WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY NEW
PROPOSAL. YOU NEED 90 FEET OF FRONTAGE
BEFORE YOU CAN DEVELOP. THAT WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY NEW
PROVISION BECAUSE ALL THOSE NARROW DEEP EXISTING SITES COULD
CURRENTLY BE DEVELOPED, AND THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT.
ONLY EXCEPTIONS BEING YOU COULD DO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS MORE
OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL.
IF YOU’RE FLANKED BY ALREADY DEVELOPED SITES, YOU’RE EXEMPT
AS WELL.>>THIS APPLIES TO 447
LOTS UNDER YOUR PROPOSAL?
>>YES.>>AND THAT’S 447 THAT ARE NOT
FLANKED BY DEVELOPED SITES?>>THERE WASN’T A CLEAR
ANALYSIS. ALL THAT DID WAS IDENTIFY HOW
MANY SITES ARE NARROWER THAN 90 FEET, DEEPER THAN 160 FEET.
I DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS HERE NOW.
WE DID SOME BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY THING. IT IS A SUBSET OF THAT THAT IS
UNDERUTILIZED. SOME OF THESE ARE ALREADY
DEVELOPED, PROBABLY NOT IN PLAY.>>DOES YOUR EXCEPTION APPLY TO
THE NEIGHBORING SITE THAT’S ONE HOUSE ON A LARGE LOT?
IS THAT A DEVELOPED SITE?>>NO.
IF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE BUILT TO MINIMUM DENSITIES, THEN
YOU’RE EXEMPT FROM HAVING TO BE COMBINED.
>>THESE WOULD BE IN ZONES BEYOND — OH, YEAH, BECAUSE
WE’RE IN MIXED USE — WE’RE IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONES HERE, RIGHT?
>>I THINK YOU’RE EXEMPT IF YOU’RE FLANKED BY OTHER ZONES,
SO IT IS BASICALLY YOU’RE EXEMPT IF YOU’RE ADJACENT TO OTHER
ZONES OR SOME COMBINATION BETWEEN THAT AND ALREADY
DEVELOPED MULTI-DWELLING SITES.>>SO, THESE ARE
447 MULTI-FAMILY SITE SNS S?
>>YES. THIS IS ONE TOOL TO
ENCOURAGE SOME LOT CONSOLIDATION SO WE CAN
BEGIN TO GET OUT OF THE NARROW — THE CONTINUATION OF
THE CURRENT PATTERNS. THIS IS A TOOL YOU GUYS HAVE
COME UP WITH TO SAY, WELL, LET’S TAKE 447 REALLY DEEP NARROW LOTS
AND TRY TO ENCOURAGE SOME CONSOLIDATION. IS THAT SORT OF A FAIR POLICY
READ ON WHAT YOU’RE DOING?>>VERY MUCH SO.
IT IS INTENDED TO COMBINE SMALL NARROW SITES INTO LARGER BETTER
CONFIGURED SITES.>>IN LOOKING AT THE PRIOR
DISCUSSION WHERE WE SEE THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN,
EVERYONE IS KIND OF WINCING. HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET TO THE
NICE WHOLE AREA? HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OTHER TOOLS
BESIDES THIS SORT OF ENCOURAGE FORCED CONSOLIDATION OF 447
NARROW LOTS? ARE THERE ANY OTHER TOOLS THAT
WOULD GET US CLOSER TO I THINK WHAT EVERYONE SAW AS THE MORE
DESIRABLE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE YOU SHOWED US BIG BLOCKS
THAT HAD 30 INDIVIDUAL LOTS?
SO, I ASSUME EVERY ONE OF THOSE 30 IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO
COOPERATE IN — OH, YEAH, I’LL BE THE GUY THAT PUTS IN THAT
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION SO THE OTHER 28 LOTS CAN DEVELOP AND
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ME. ARE THERE OTHER TOOLS YOU HAVE
THOUGHT ABOUT BESIDES THIS ONE?>>WE CERTAINLY HAVE.
WE PARTNERED WITH PBOT. THEY COMMISSIONED A STUDY TO
LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, HOW ARE THEY GETTING FROM
SEMIRURAL PLOTTING PATTERNS TO AN URBAN TRANSIT-ORIENTED
FUTURE. THEY COULDN’T FIND MANY EXAMPLES
OR ANY THAT REALLY WORKED WELL. WHAT WAS MORE COMMON IN THESE
SITUATIONS IS THEY WOULD KEEP, SAY, LOW-DENSITY ZONING IN THESE
LARGE BLOCKS AND COMP PLAN THEM TO HIGHER DENSITY.
IF A PROPOSAL COULD COME IN WITH THE STREET CONNECTIONS THAT ARE
INTENDED FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THEN THEY COULD BE REZONED TO
HIGHER DENSITY.
PORTLAND DID THE HIGHER DENSITY THING FIRST, SO THEY ALREADY
HAVE THE HIGHER DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING, SO THERE WASN’T
THAT LEVERAGE POINT OF PUT THE STREET CONNECTIONS IN OR COME UP
WITH A PLAN.>>WE ALREADY LET THE HORSE OUT
OF THE BARN ON THIS ONE.>>YEAH.
IT’S A TOUGH ONE. IT’S A TOUGH CHALLENGE.
WITH THESE PLATTING PATTERNS, IT IS NOT HOW YOU WOULD DESIGN A
TRANSIT TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITY FROM
THE GET-GO.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
ONDREJ? — ANDRE?
>>A LOT OF THIS WAS COUNTY BEFORE IT BECAME CITY WAY BACK
IN THE DAY. THE PATTERN BASED ON THE COUNTY
TRANSITIONING OUT OF FARMLAND TO
CITY PARCELS. SO, I GET CONCERNED FOR TWO
REASONS. ONE, THE FORCE OF THE LARGER
LOTS IN TRYING TO FORCE THEM TOGETHER — BECAUSE THE SENSE I
HAVE THESE ARE NOT BIG DEVELOPERS THAT ARE GOING TO
RUSH OUT AND TRY TO ASSEMBLE A BUNCH OF LOTS TOGETHER TO MAKE
THIS HAPPEN. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SMALLER
DEVELOPERS THAT ARE COMING OUT
TO GET ONE, TWO LOTS. THAT’S THE SENSE
THAT I GET. THERE’S ALSO JUST A NUMBER OF
CHALLENGES OUT HERE RELATIVE TO WHEN YOU GET SPACE FOR STREET
CONNECTIONS, ESPECIALLY ON THE UNIMPROVED STREETS OF STORM
WATER AND A NUMBER OF THINGS HAVING WORKED OUT THERE, SO I
LIKE THE SCALED BACK PROPOSAL. THE REASON I LIKE IT IS BECAUSE
IT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT PROBABLY THE BETTER
AREAS OF WHERE THERE MIGHT BE AN
OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY.
THE OTHERS, IT SEEMS TO ME, ARE JUST KIND OF PUSHING A LOT ON
RESIDENTS IN THESE SMALL LOTS. AND I THINK WE’RE PUSHING A LOT
ON EAST PORTLAND, AND I GET
CONCERNED THAT I DON’T KNOW IF WE’RE GOING TO GET THAT BIG A
BENEFIT FROM THE CONNECTIONS IN THE NUMBER OF
LOTS THAT WE’RE — FOR MANY OF THE REASONS THAT
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, THAT YOU CAN’T GET — IF YOU CAN GET THE
TWO PERFECT LOTS THAT ARE TOGETHER, PROBABLY.
BUT IF YOU BUY ONE, YOU’VE GOT TO CONVINCE SOMEONE ON EITHER
SIDE OF YOU TO SELL.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST INDEPENDENT PART OF PORTLAND IN
TERMS OF HOMEOWNERS , SO I’M KIND
OF FOR NUMBER 2.>>I’M INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT
BECAUSE I DO THINK GETTING BETTER SITE DESIGN IN THIS AREA
IS REALLY IMPORTANT, TRYING TO ENCOURAGE A DIFFERENT
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAN IS HAPPENING TODAY.
I AGREE WITH ANDRE THOUGH. I’M PERSONALLY STRUGGLING A
LITTLE BIT WITH UNDERSTANDING HOW
EFFECTIVE THIS IS, AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE WE’RE SO ZOOMED
OUT, RIGHT? IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE,
WHICH WAS KIND OF SHOWING THE ORANGE DOTS, I’M STRUGGLING A
LITTLE BIT VISUALIZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IT, SO IF YOU
REMIND ME, THE ORANGE DOTS ARE THE LOCATIONS —
>>THE NARROW DEEP SITES.>>– THAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO MEET THE STANDARD THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>RIGHT.>>I GUESS WHAT I’M — I HATE TO
ALMOST SAY IT. MAYBE IT IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
THE TWO PROPOSALS. IF WE REALLY LOOKED AT — IF
THIS BECOMES EFFECTIVE, IF WE UNDERSTAND — DO WE GET ENOUGH
OF THEM PUT TOGETHER AND THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE
CONSOLIDATED TO REALLY MAKE A
GOOD — TO REALLY MAKE A GOOD CHANGE, AN EFFECTIVE CHANGE,
THEN IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR ME TO KIND OF SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I
THINK THE END GOAL IS WORTH IT. BUT IF IT IS A RANDOM LITTLE ONE
HERE AND A RANDOM LITTLE ONE THERE AND IT DOESN’T PROVIDE
MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE, I HATE
TO PUT THE ONUS ON THAT LOT. THAT’S WHERE I’M STRUGGLING A
LITTLE BIT. I LIKE THE CONCEPT, BUT I DON’T
KNOW IF I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
GO AHEAD, KATIE.>>I WANT TO PUT IN A WORD FOR
THE WIDER LOTS BECAUSE IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH THOSE AREAS,
THEY’LL BE JUST THESE VERY NARROW — THEY JUST BASICALLY
PACK IT ON THERE. THERE’S NO ROOM FOR ANY GREEN OR
ANYTHING. THEN YOU JUST GET A WHOLE BUNCH
OF THEM IN A ROW. IT DOESN’T REALLY MAKE FOR A
NEIGHBORHOOD.>>RIGHT.
>>YOU KNOW?
I UNDERSTAND — YOUR OBJECTIONS
ARE WELL STATED , BUT THAT’S, I
THINK, WHY I WOULD GO FOR IT.>>I THINK I’M AGREEING WITH
KATIE AND KAT ON THIS. I SUPPORT AN EXPERIMENT AREA,
BUT THE THING I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR — I GET YOU GUYS ARE IN A
PICKLE. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THIS
SITUATION? YOU’RE TRYING TO HARD TO COME UP
WITH SOME CREATIVE APPROACHES WITH DISCRETE LAND OWNERSHIP.
IT SEEMS THE ONLY SOLUTION I CAN SEE THAT REALLY WOULD WORK IS
SOMETHING THAT DEVELOPERS OR PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD WANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN. ENOUGH OF AN INCENTIVE —
I GET WE HAVE ALREADY ZOEB NED THE
AREA MULTI-DWELLING, BUT AN FAR BONUS OR CASH BY OTHERS — WHAT
INDUCE INDUCEMENT WOULD IT TAKE SO
EVERYBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT BLOCK WANTS TO BE PART OF THE
CONNECTION THROUGH AND THE FIRST ONE IN THERE GETS IT?
PART OF THAT IS REDUCING THAT
COST OF CONNECTION BY MAKING IT A NARROW RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LESS
EXPENSIVE IMPROVEMENT, SO A SIMPLE PROFILE BIKE/PED.
THE OTHER YOU CAN DANGLE IN FRONT OF PROPERTY OWNERS.
IF YOU DANGLE ENOUGH SO MOST PEOPLE WANT TO DO
IT, THEN — OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON’T HAVE
SOMETHING IN YOUR BACK POCKET YOU CAN DO THAT WITH RIGHT NOW.
THE TRANSPORTATION SDC IS SORT OF A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.
BECAUSE IF THEY CAME UP WITH SOMETHING YOU COULD GIVE THEM,
SDC BONUS, CASH, WHATEVER IT IS, THEN
YOU WOULD HAVE N’T HAVE TO STRUGGLE WITH THIS STUFF BECAUSE
THE MARKET WOULD CREATE THE CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THERE.
ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT YOU’RE JUST TRYING TO HOPE — IT’S
A HOPE STRATEGY, AND THESE ZONING
TOOLS MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT AROUND THE EDGES, BUT I DON’T
THINK THEY’LL GET MUCH DONE.>>I HAVE A SUGGESTION.
MAYBE IT TAKES A CLEVER DEVELOPER, ELI, TO GO OUT WITH A
MASTER PLAN AND SIT IN 30 KITCHENS AND EXPLAIN TO THE
HOMEOWNERS THE BENEFIT OF DESIGNING ON.
>>A CLEVER DEVELOPER WILL FIGURE OUT TO AVOID THOSE AREAS
BECAUSE IT IS TOO HARD TO DO TOUGH
STUFF, RIGHT?>>RIGHT.
IT IS TOO HARD FOR STAFF TO COME UP WITH A BRAINSTORM ON THIS
ONE.>>WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS ON THE
TABLE AT THE MOMENT. PERHAPS I THREW OUT A THIRD.
ONE IS SUPPORTING STAFF PROPOSAL
AS-IS. OPTION 2 IS SCALING BACK THE
PROPOSAL AS SHOWN IN THE DIAGRAM
HERE. I GUESS I WAS —
AND YOU CAN PUSH BACK, BILL, AND SAY IT
DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE IT, BUT A MIDDLE GROUND GIVES US A
LITTLE MORE AREA THAT STARTS TO MAKE MORE CHANGE WE’RE SEEING IN
A SCALED PROPOSAL THAT WE FEEL CONFIDENT HAS THE LEGS TO
ACTUALLY MAKE GOOD CHANGE. MAYBE YOU FEEL THAT’S NUMBER 1.
THAT’S FINE. YOU CAN TELL TOM ASKED THE QUESTION.
I HAVE OPOINT TO THE SCREEN.
>>THAT LOOKS TO ME LIKE A SINGLE LOT IN AN ISLAND.
MAYBE IT’S AGAIN I’M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THE SCALE .
WE HAVEN’T FILTERED THROUGH AND LOOKED, OH, THESE ARE ALL
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE GOING TO BE EXEMPT.
SO WE HAVEN’T SCREENED THIS FOR WHICH ONES QUALIFY FOR THE
EXEMPTIONS.>>IS THAT POSSIBLE?
>>YEAH.>>ANDRE.
>>THAT HAS TRIGGERED A THOUGHT. INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE OUTLINES CAN YOU SAY THIS ONLY WORKS FOR DESIGN IF YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST A
LOT ADJACENT TO YOU OR TO THE BACK OF YOU THAT GIVE YOU THE
DESIGN OPTION? BECAUSE IF THERE’S NO LOT THERE,
OR IT’S ALREADY PRE-DEVELOPED, THIS OPTION DOESN’T WORK ANYWAY.
SO CAN WE JUST SAY IN LANGUAGE AND TAKE OUT JUST DRAW A BIG
CIRCLE AND SAY IF THERE’S NOT A LOT
ADJACENT TO YOU, AND IT DOESN’T MATTER, YOU DEVELOP YOUR
LOT IF YOU CAN GET OTHER GUY TO
DEVELOP, GREAT. IF NOT YOU’RE IN THE SAME BOAT
THAT YOU WERE ALREADY.>>THAT’S WHAT YOU WERE TELLING
ME. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>I THINK IT’S MORE OF AN ANALYSIS OF THOSE 443 LOTS, HOW
MANY OF THEM QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE WAY WE SET
THESE RULES UP TODAY.
IT’S SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY WRITTEN INTO THE CODE.
WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE. IS IT 50%, THREE-QUARTERS OF THE
LOTS? HOW MANY ARE GOING TO RESULT IN
A BETTER DESIGN WITH A STRONGER CONNECTION?
WE CAN DO THAT ANALYSIS AND BRING IT BACK AS PART OF THE
FINAL DECISION.>>IT SEEMS TO ME IF YOU IDENTIFY WHO HAS OUT OF 443 WHO
REALLY HAS POTENTIAL, I’M SUPPORTIVE OF THE POTENTIAL
BECAUSE I DO LIKE THE GOAL, IT’S JUST — YOU NOW, WE’RE GOING TO
PUT PEOPLE IN THE POSITION OF THERE’S NO LOT NEXT TO ME OR
WHATEVER.>>RIGHT.
>>WE HAVE THAT, BUT I GUESS THAT’S WHAT WE’RE SAYING IS THAT
THE CODE EXEMPTION IS THAT SAFETY VALVE THAT WHEN YOU GO IN
AND YOU SHOW BDS, HEY, I HAVE AN APARTMENT BUILDING ON ONE SIDE
AND ONE THE OTHER, I HAVE NO OPTION TO ACQUIRE TO GET TO THAT
MINIMUM FRONTAGE THEY SAY, OH, YEAH, YOU QUALIFY.
GO AHEAD.>>PLACE FOR THAT STREET TO
HAPPEN.>>I’M THINKING TURNING IT
AROUND TO SAY I WALK IN AND I HAVE MY LOT AND BDS SAYS IF YOU
CAN GET THE OTHER LOT YOU GET A DESIGN OPTION HERE.
SO GO GIVE THEM AN INCENTIVE TO GET THE OTHER LOT, TALK WITH THE
OTHER PROPERTY OWNER.>>THAT’S WHAT THIS WOULD DO,
WOULD IT NOT?>>IT IS THE FLIP. I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE INCENTIVE
WOULD BE.>>YOU’RE GOING TO EITHER PUT
THEM IN THE STRAIGHT LINE OR YOU CAN BUILD A BETTER DESIGN.
RIGHT? IF YOU CAN BUY THE — GET 120
FEET VERSUS 60 OR 90 FEES VERSUS 60.
>>WE’LL THINK ABOUT WHAT INCENTIVES WE COULD PROVIDE TO
ENCOURAGE THE CONSOLIDATION AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING IT.
MOST OF THESE AREAS ARE NOT IN DESIGN OVERLAYS SO THERE ARE NOT
A OF VERY STRONG WHICH WOULD
MAKE IT EASIER TO GET THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
WE CAN THINK ABOUT INCENTIVES.>>I THINK JUST TO KEEP US
MOVING, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS START WITH A STRAW POLL AND
JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT ON NUMBER ONE SUPPORT STAFF’S PROPOSAL BUT
LOOKING FOR FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION THAT GETS A LITTLE
MORE DETAILED FOR OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF STAFF’S PROPOSAL WITH ADDITIONAL
FOLLOW-UP PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DAISY WHO HAS STEPPED OUT
THAT’S UNANIMOUS. AND TERESA.
DO YOU HAVE A VOTE? STRAW POLL THERE, TERESA
? TERESA?
SHE’S STREAMING US SHE’S DELAYED WHICH IS WHY I WAS HESITATING.
WE HAVE A MAJORITY SO LET’S MOVE ON.
>>MOVING ON TO THE PARKING RATIOS TOPICS, THERE ARE THREE
OF THEM INTERRELATED.
THE FIRST ONE IS RELATED TO OUR PROPOSAL TO REDUCE MINIMUM
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SOME OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING ISSUES
RELATED TO THAT. THEN ONCE THERE’S A DECISION AS
TO WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, DISCUSSION POINT AS TO
WHETHER THE SMALL SITE THRESHOLD WE HAVE SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AND
THEN THIRD ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IN THE
MULTIDWELLING ZONES SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE MULTIDWELLING ZONE PROPOSALS
FOR PARKING AND COMMERCIAL ZONES.
BACKGROUND PIECE, REMINDING YOU WHAT WAS PROPOSED, ONE OF THE
CURRENTLY IF YOU’RE NOT CLOSE TO FREQUENT TRANSIT THERE’S PARKING REQUIRED ONE SPACE FOR EACH UNIT
RATIO. THE PROPOSALS INCLUDE TWO MAJOR
ONES. ONE FOR SMALL SITES UP TO 7500
SQUARE FEET NOT REQUIRING ANY PARKING UP TO 30 UNITS.
THAT’S AN EXISTING REGULATION THAT APPLIES IN MIXED USE ZONES.
FOR LARGER SITES, LARGER THAN THAT IN SIZE, REDUCING THE
REQUIRED PARKING RATIO FROM ONE SPACE FOR
EACH UNIT TO ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO UNITS.
REASONS, ONE FOR MAUL SITES IT TENDS TO BE DIFFICULT AND COSTLY
TO FIT MULTIPLE PARKING SPACES ON A SMALL SITE FOR MULTIPLE
UNITS. STRUCTURE PARKING OR SQUEEZING
YOUR BUILDING INTO A SMALL PORTION OF THE SITE FOR SURFACE
PARKING. THEN THE ISSUE WITH THE LARGE
SITES EVEN THERE GIVEN THAT STRUCTURED PARKING CAN COST FROM 25 TO $45,000 A SPACE AND IN
MANY PARTS OF THE CITY SURFACE PARKING IS THE WAY IT’S DONE
MEETING A MINIMUM PARKING RATIO LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR ANYTHING
ELSE ON THE SITE. THAT’S THE TWO REDUCING THAT
MINIMUM PARKING RATIO. JUST TO CLARIFY, WHERE WE ARE
CURRENTLY, WE’RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGE TO THE ALLOWANCES FOR
NO OR LOW PARKING CLOSE TO
FREQUENT TRANSIT. SO THE CHANGES ARE TO A SMALL
SITE ALLOWANCE FOR NO OR LOW AMOUNTS OF PARKING BUT THAT’S
TAKING EXISTING REGULATION THAT APPLIES IN THE MIXED USE ZONES
AND LARGER SITES SWITCHING TO A ONE-SPACE FOR EVERY TWO UNITS
RATIO. ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY,
THIS PROJECT WASN’T REALLY INTENDED TO BREAK ENTIRELY NEW
GROUND WITH PARKING REGULATIONS, THE GENERAL IDEA IS TAKING
EXISTING REGULATIONS AND DECIDING WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO
PROVIDE THAT SAME PROVISION IN THE MULTIDWELLING
ZONES. TO CLARIFY, THE FOCUS OF
THESE CODE AMENDMENTS AS I MENTIONED
WE’RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO AREAS ALREADY CLOSE TO
FREQUENT TRANSIT WHERE NO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS
UP TO 30 UNITS. THOSE ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW.
THOSE ARE EITHER FREQUENT TRANSIT AREAS OR PLAN DISTRICTS
THAT DON’T REQUIRE PARKING. 75% OF THE MULTIDWELLING ZONED
LAND IS WITHIN THAT FREQUENT TRANSIT AREA AND IT’S AN
ADDITIONAL 25% OF THE LAND
THAT’S OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA BUT QUITE A FEW PROPERTIES OVER
6,000 PROPERTIES ARE OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT AREA.
THAT INCLUDES PLACES LIKE AREAS EVEN IN THE NORTHWEST DISTRICT
THAT ARE WEST OF 23rd, JADE DISTRICT AREAS, AREAS AROUND
LENTZ AND PARK ROSE. THIS ZOOMS IN SHOWING AREAS
OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT LOCATIONS.
TYPICALLY IF THEY ARE NOT RIGHT ON THE CORRIDORS THEY ARE FAIRLY
CLOSE TO OUR CENTERS. THIS IS SHOWING IN THE DARKEST
BLUE SMALL SITES THAT ARE UP TO
7500 SQUARE FEET. IT’S 76% OF THE PROPERTIES IN
THAT AREA. WE’LL GET INTO MORE DISCUSSION
ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT COLORS OF BLUE BUT THE DARKEST BLUE SHOWS
THE SMALL 7500 SQUARE FOOT
SITES. THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE
SMALL SITE NO PARKING ALLOWANCE. ONE THING TO TO CLARIFY, IT’S
BEEN A CONSTANT POINT OF DISCUSSION WE HAVE CERTAINLY
HEARD IN EAST PORTLAND THE NEED FOR OFF STREET PARKING.
WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. PEOPLE ARE NOT CLOSE TO A BUNCH
OF SERVICES. ONE THING WE WANT TO CLARIFY IS
THE PROPOSALS TO REDUCE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS STILL
ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO CHOOSE TO PROVIDE PARKING.
THESE ARE SHOWING AREAS NEAR 148th AVENUE LIGHT-RAIL
STATION WHERE CURRENTLY NO OFF STREET PARKING IS REQUIRED BUT
ALMOST ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THERE HAS PROVIDED
OFF STREET PARKING.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE MANDATED AND IT’S NOT MANDATED CURRENTLY IN
THESE LOCATIONS. BUT PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR A
RANGE OF OPTIONS.
RELATED TOPIC IS WHILE WE DON’T REQUIRE A LOT OF PARKING CLOSE
TO TRANSIT, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT IN THOSE SAME FREQUENT
TRANSIT AREAS THAT THERE BE A TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
DEMAND MANAGEMENT APPROACH REQUIRED FOR BUILDINGS WITH TEN
OR MORE UNITS. THAT WILL INCLUDE MULTI MODAL
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES DEVELOPERS PROVIDE THAT WOULD GO TO
RESIDENTS. IT’S $1100 FOR MARKET RATE
UNITS. CURRENTLY THERE’S AN EXCEPTION
FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT LAST
THROUGH JUNE 2020 THEN IT GOES TO A LOWER RATE.
PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN OTHER APPROACHES
TO ENCOURAGE NONSINGLE OCCUPANCY
VEHICLE WAYS OF GETTING AROUND. THAT’S INTENDED.
WE’RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE PARKING BUT WANT TO ENCOURAGE
GETTING AROUND BY OTHER MEANS THAN CARS.
SO AS I WANTED TO BRING UP OPTIONS RELATED TO THE
STAFF PROPOSAL.
IT’S REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SITES, REDUCE RATIOS
GOING ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO UNITS FOR LARGER SITES BUT
ANOTHER OPTION WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WE KNOW
COMMISSIONERS WOULD IS SHOULD WE ALLOW PROJECTS TO HAPPEN WITHOUT
OFF STREET PARKING. WHAT ABOUT THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
ANOTHER OPTION AND THIS REFLECTS SOME TESTIMONY CONCERNED ABOUT
PARKING IMPACTS OF NOT REQUIRING PARKING AT LEAST IMPACTS ON
ON-STREET PARKING COULD BE TO DO NO CHANGE FROM CURRENT AND
REQUIRE CONTINUE REQUIRING ONE SPACE FOR EACH UNIT THE.
TO CLARIFY, THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT’S
ADMINISTERED IN CONGRESS JUNCTION WITH THE BUILDING CODE,
COMMERCIAL CODE BUILDINGS WITH FOUR OR MORE UNITS MUST HAVE AT
LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.
THIS IS ONLY REQUIRED WHEN OFF STREET PARKING IS PROVIDED.
IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE TRIGGER AN
ACCESSIBLE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT IT IS NOT
REQUIRED IF A PROPOSAL IS NOT INCLUDING ANY PARKING. SOME THINGS TO
BEAR IN MIND, A MUM WIDTH NINE FEET WITH AN
EIGHT FOOT AISLE. 17 FEET TOTAL.
IT WOULD HELP RESPOND TO TESTIMONY YOUR TESTIMONY, PEOPLE
SAYING, MANY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES HAVE SPECIALIZED
VANS THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR WHEELCHAIRS. SO WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO
GUARANTEE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE FOR PEOPLE WITH
ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES. IT DOES TAKE UP SITE AREA.
17 FEET OF WIDTH WOULD IN SOME OF THE PCRI MODELS THEY SHARED
WITH US IS THE WIDTH OF A UNIT, A TOWNHOUSE TYPE
UNIT. POTENTIALLY GETTING AN OFF
STREET PARKING SPACE COULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SMALL SITE
UNITS. ONE THING TO BEAR IN MIND
TOO IS PROPERTY OWNERS CAN REQUEST THAT
AN ON-STREET PARKING SPACE BE RESERVED FOR PEOPLE WITH
DISABLED PARKING PLACARDS. THAT WOULD BE CURBSIDE PARKING.
IT WOULD NOT BE RESERVED FOR A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BUT
RESERVED FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITIES PLACARD.
WITH THE CONCERN BEING ABOUT PROVIDING OFF-STREET ACCESSIBLE
PARKING SPACES ONE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING THIS WOULD BE TO
REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF ONE OFF
STREET PARKING SPACE FOR MULTIDWELLING STRUCTURES.
THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT THAT THAT ONE
SPACE BE AN ACCESSIBLE SPACE. IF YOU’RE TO PURSUE THIS
APPROACH AND WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE CLEAR AS TO
WHERE THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY, IT
WOULD APPLY ANYWHERE WHERE CURRENTLY WE DON’T REQUIRE
PARKING CLOSE TO TRANSIT SO IT WOULD NOT BE A ZERO PARKING
OPTION IN AT LEAST ONE OR WOULD THERE BE AN EXCEPTION FOR
SMALL SITES OR WOULD ONLY APPLY
OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT BUFFERS IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD
PROBABLY ONLY APPLY TO LARGE SMALL
SITES BECAUSE LARGERS SITES HAVE TO HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE.
THERE’S A MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE DRIVEWAY OF TEN FEET PLUS TWO
3-FOOT WINGS FOR THE DRIVEWAY SO A 16 FOOT CURB CUT.
YOU’RE BASICALLY LOSING AN ON-STREET PARKING SPACE TO GET A
DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE THE
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE ON SITE.
WITH THAT TI JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AGAIN YELLOW SHOWING
WHAT IS WITHIN THE FREQUENT TRANSIT BUFFER.
IF YOU DO WANT TO REQUIRE OFF
STREET PARKS SPACE WILL IT BE ALL THOSE AREAS PLUS ADDITIONAL
SMALL SITE AREAS WE’RE PROPOSING OUTSIDE KNOWS AREAS OR NOT.
THREE BASIC OPTIONS ARE STAFF PROPOSAL, NO PARKING FOR
SMALL SITES, AND REDUCING THE PARKING RATIO TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT ON
LARGER SITES OR IN ALL CASES REQUIRING AT LEAST ONE PARKING
SPACE ON MULTIDWELLING SITES AND IF SO, WHERE.
AND THIRD IS NOT REDUCING THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT SO
OUTSIDE OF THE FREQUENT TRANSIT BUFFERS CONTINUING TO CAR ONE
SPACE PER UNIT.>>THAT’S A LOT TO TAKE IN,
BILL. [LAUGHTER]
LOOKS LIKE CHRIS HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>>IT WILL SURPRISE NO ONE WHEN I REITERATE MY POSITION THAT I
THINK WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THE PARKING THE MARKET IS WILLING TO
PAY FOR AND NO MORE. SO IF IT WERE UP TO ME I
WOULD REDUCE ALL THESE TO ZERO BUT
GIVEN THAT’S NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN TODAY I SUPPORT BOTH
SMALL SITE EXEMPTION AND
MODIFYING THE ONE FOR ONE RATIO TO ONE FOR ONE HALF.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE BECAUSE COMMISSIONER OSWELL RAISED THAT.
TODAY IN MIXED USE ZONES ALONG TRANSIT WE DON’T TRIGGER ANY
PARKING UNTIL 30 UNITS, RIGHT? NONE OF THOSE HAVE A REQUIREMENT
TO HAVE ONE SPACE FOR ACCESSIBLE PURPOSES.
WE BASICALLY USE THE PBOT PROGRAM TO HAVE AN ACCESSIBLE
SPACE ON THE STREET IF YOU NEED IT, A PLACARDED SPACE.
I DON’T SEE WHY THAT SOLUTION WILL NOT WORK FOR THESE ZONES
EQUALLY WELL. THE TRADEOFF IS BASICALLY LOSING
AN ON-STREET SPACE TO CREATE AN OFF-STREET SPACE ADDS EXPENSE
WITHOUT PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT ACCESSIBILITY.
THE QUESTION WAS WELL INTENTIONED.
THE CURRENT PROGRAMS IN PLACE ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
NEED. THANKS.
>>I WOULD SUPPORT THE INCREASED — WE’RE NOT THERE YET, THE
INCREASE TO THE SMALL SITE
EXEMPTION TO 10,000 FEET AS PCRI ASKED FOR.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TOLD US IT WOULD HELP THEM.
>>I’M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME QUESTIONS THEN GO BACK THROUGH
THEM ONE AT A TIME. THE FIRST QUESTION IS CAN YOU
GIVE A IDEA OF THE RANGE OF UNITS ON A 7500 SQUARE FOOT LOT?
HOW MANY APARTMENTS OR CONDOS MIGHT WE SEE THERE?
SECOND, SO THE PLACE I’M
FAMILIAR WITH IS THIS ANNAPOLIS IN TERMS OF VERY LITTLE ONSTREET
PARKING BUT A LOT OF OFF STREET PARKING AND A LOT OF DENSITY.
MAYBE BECAUSE THERE’S A LOT OF RETIRED MILITARY THERE BUT THE
PLACARDS THERE HAS YOUR DISABLED PERMIT NUMBER ON IT.
IS IT A CITY CHOICE THAT IT’S NOT TIED TO
A SPECIFIC PERSON’S NEED THAT IS IN THE AREA?
THOUGHTS ON HOW THIS RELATES TO THE DISCUSSION OF REQUIRING
VISITABILITY. IF WE’RE MAKING IT VISITABLE I’M
CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. THEN WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT
THE TDM ISSUES, WHERE WILL ENCOURAGING THE CITY TO REQUIRE
PARKING PERMITS FOR ON STREET
COME INTO IT IF AT ALL?>>LET’S SEE.
MAKE SURE I GET THE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
THE LAST ONE I REMEMBER ABOUT THE PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM.
UNRELATED TO THIS, PBOT HAS BEEN WORKING ON RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAMS WHICH IF I’M
NOT MISTAKEN AREAS COULD REQUEST A PROGRAM TO INSTITUTE A PERMIT
PARKING PROGRAM. GEP, NO DIRECT LINKAGE TO THESE
PROPOSALS BUT IT’S SEEN AS AN OPTION.
AS PART OF THE MIXED USE ZONES PROJECT WE HAD PARTNERED WITH
PBOT ON STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT.
PART OF THE GENERAL CITY APPROACH HAS BEEN NOT REQUIRING
IN ALL CASES OFF-STREET PARKING BUT FOCUSING MORE ON MANAGING
ON-STREET PARKING DEMAND. LEAVE IT TO THE MARKET FOR WHAT
HAPPENS ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
AND REFINE OUR TOOLS FOR
ON-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT. I’M NOT SURE IF MAURICIO, THE
CLERK FROM PBOT, COULD ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR
FIRST TWO?>>ONE WAS WE HAVE A 7500 SQUARE
FOOT LOT. HOW MANY
UNITS BETWEEN IS IT LIKELY BETWEEN 10 AND 12, 10 AND
FIVE? JUST SO I HAVE AN IDEA OF THE
SITE. ON THE OTHER SITES WE SAID 30.
>>SURE. IT REALLY DEPENDS.
A LOT OF PROJECTS AVOID HAVING IT GO THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL
CODE BY DOING TOWNHOUSE ORDUPLEX TYPE DEVELOPMENT SO IT’S COMMON
TO GET FROM TWO TO FIVE UNITS BY DOING DUPLEX OR TOWNHOUSE TYPE
DEVELOPMENT, LESS EXPENSIVE CONSTRUCTION.
BUT ESPECIALLY THE ONLY ZONE RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU CAN GET MORE
THAN FIVE ON A LOT IS THE RH ZONE.
THAT ONLY APPLIES TO 10% OF OUR MULTIDWELLING ZONING.
WE DON’T HAVE MUCH OF A TRACK RECORD AND HOW OFTEN YOU’LL SEE
MANY MORE THAN FIVE ON A SITE,
UNTIL RECENTLY A COMMON CONFIGURATION WAS SIX UNITS ON
AN RH ZONED SMALL LOT. WE’RE BEGINNING TO SEE MORE
UNITS, BUT UP TO NOW TWO TO FIVE HAS BEEN FAIRLY COMMON IN THE
MULTIDWELLING ZONES. PCRI HAS A GOAL TO CREATE FAMILY
HOUSING. THEY A MODEL THAT IS FOR OR FIVE
UNITS ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
>>THE OTHER QUESTIONS WERE VISITABILITY ISSUE APPEARED HOW
THAT PLAYS WITH THIS, AND THAT’S
IN TERMS OF THE DECISION, IS THE CITY MAKING A DECISION OR IS IT
OREGON SPECIFIC THAT IT’S JUST A GENERAL HEAVY HALF SPACE ON THE
STREET AS OPPOSED TO A SIGN?>>WE HAVEN’T HAD ANY DISCUSSION AS TO WHEN IS IT BUILDING CODE
REQUIRE SOMETHING OR THE ZONING CODE OR PBOT’S DISCUSSIONS.
WE HAVE JUST BEEN GOING ON THE WAY THE BUILDING CODE CURRENTLY
WORKS. ONLY REQUIRING ACCESSIBLE OFF
STREET PARKS SPACE WHEN OFF STREET PARKING IS BEING PROVIDED
AND PBOT PROVIDING AN OPTION UPON REQUEST FOR
A DISABLED PARKING SPACE TO BE RESERVED ON
CURB. I
DON’T THINK ANY SENSE AS TO THE — PORTLAND POLICIES ABOUT
WHETHER ON-STREET PARKING COULD BE
RESERVED FOR PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS.
I JUST KNOW THAT WE CURRENTLY DON’T RESERVE ON-STREET PARKING
FOR INDIVIDUALS. JUST FOR DISABILITY PARKING
SPACES.>>WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH PBOT
AND GET THAT INFORMATION. MY GUESS IS GIVEN JUST THE
RELATIVELY LOW NUMBER OF PLACARDS OR RESERVED SPOTS YOU
SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE
DEMAND ISN’T THERE YET FOR THESE SPACES.
SO YOU DON’T HAVE A LOT OF COMPETITION FOR THEM.
SO THE ONE SPACE PROBABLY THE ONE UNDESIGNATED SPACE PROBABLY
WORKS. IT’S HARD TO SAY GOING FORWARD
WITH AN AGING POPULATION, MORE PEOPLE QUALIFYING,
MORE COMPETITION FOR THOSE SPACES
WHETHER YOU WOULD GO TO IT. I THINK IT CUTS
A LITTLE BIT AGAINST OUR — IT’S PUBLIC RIGHT
OF WAY, IT’S AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY.
IT’S NOT YOUR PRIVATE PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF YOUR HOME.
>>I CAN THINK OF A — IN THE
PEARL BUILT ONE TO ONE OFF STREET PARKING IN THE GARAGE
STILL HAS TWO DISABLED PLACARD SPACES OUT FRONT.
>>YEAH.>>OKAY.
>>ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
ANDRE?>>TO FOLLOW UP ON THE
DISABILITY QUESTION, IF WE’RE ENCOURAGING THAT, HOW DOES THAT
WORK WITH THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING?
I MEAN I’M JUST — THERE SEEMS TO BE A
DISCONNECT IN MY MIND.>>THERE COULD BE.
BUT AS BILL’S DIAGRAM AND THE
SORT OF THE BASIC QUESTION IS IF YOU REQUIRE ONE ACCESSIBLE
SPACE, IT TAKES UP A LOT OF SITE AREA.
THIS DIAGRAM IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE DRIVEWAY THAT’S
REQUIRED TO ACCESS THIS SPACE, AND THE CURB CUT.
IF YOU’RE GOING TO ALL THIS TROUBLE AND TAKING UP ALL THE
SITE AREA TO PROVIDE ONE ACCESSIBLE SPACE, WHY NOT JUST
HAVE THE CURBSIDE PLACARD AS
BEING AVAILABLE BECAUSE THAT IS BASICALLY YOUR DRIVEWAY ANYWAY.
SO THAT’S THE TRADEOFF.
AND THAT THIS REALLY ONLY APPLIES ONCE YOU GET THE BIGGER
BUILDINGS AND YOU HAVE THE COMMERCIAL CODE DEVELOPMENT,
THEY HAVE TO MEET THESE STANDARDS ANYWAY.
IF WE’RE REQUIRING VISITABILITY FOR PROJECTS, BIGGER PROJECTS,
THEY ARE GOING TO TRIGGER THESE REQUIREMENTS IF THEY PROVIDE OFF
STREET PARKING THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE IT.
>>BUT UNDER 30 UNITS FOR THE SMALL LOTS, YOU’RE — IT SEEMS
TO ME YOU’RE IN THIS LITTLE ZONE WHERE I’M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE
OVER 30, THE LARGER LOTS, JUST
THE SMALLER LOT THAT IS THE QUESTION.
WHETHER YOU’RE TALKING — IF YOU’RE ONLY TALKING FIVE OR SIX UNITS, TWO TO FIVE UNITS, IT
SEEMS TO ME WHERE IS THE ISSUE HERE?
IN TERMS OF SPACE.>>LET ME ASK THE QUESTION FROM
THE OTHER SIDE. WHAT IS THE BARRIER TO CURBSIDE
PARKING BEING USED AS VISIBLE PARKING?
>>IT REQUIRES A REQUEST AND NEEDS TO HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER
REQUESTING IT. A LITTLE BIT OF A BARRIER THERE.
THERE ARE TRADEOFFS FOR SMALL SITES.
WE HAD CODE MODELING DONE OF
WHAT IT TAKES ESPECIALLY IF THE SITE IS RAISED A LITTLE BIT FROM
THE SIDEWALK LEVEL. RAMP TO ACCESS THAT TAKES UP A
FAIR AMOUNT OF SPACE. IF YOU WERE TO SAY YOU NEED
OFF-STREET PARKING WITH A DRIVEWAY THAT’S TEN FEET PLUS A
SEPARATE RAMP OR ACCESSIBLE PATHWAY AND THEY CAN NEVER BE
THE SAME THING, YOU ALWAYS NEED THE DRIVEWAY AND AN ACCESSIBLE
SEPARATE PATH, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE THAT
HOUSING ON THE SMALL SITE. IT’S A LITTLE BIT OF A TRADEOFF.
IT’S EASIER TO MAKE ACCESSIBLE UNITS WORK ON A SMALL SITE IF
YOU’RE NOT ALSO WORRYING ABOUT OFF STREET PARKING BUT THEN YOU
DON’T GET THAT OFF-STREET SPACE FOR YOUR VAN.
THERE ARE TRADEOFFS.>>CAN A TENANT REQUEST AN
OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE FOR PBOT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE THE
BUILDING OWN CENTER.>>I’M NOT SURE — I LOOKED AT
PBOT’S WEBSITE FOR THE REQUESTS FOR DISABLED PARKING SPACES, AND
IT SPECIFIES THAT REQUEST NEEDS TO COME FROM A PROPERTY OWNER.
>>SO PERHAPS WE COULD ENCOURAGE PBOT TO RECONSIDER THAT.
WE DON’T NEED TO DO IT NOW. ME MICHELLE.
>>I HAVEN’T COME TO A CONCLUSION ON THE HANDICAPPED
SPACES, WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO THE ART MUSEUM AND THE PATHWAY
TO THE STREETCAR, IT’S NOT A BIG DEAL, JUST WALK AROUND THE
CORNER BUT PEOPLE RAISE IF YOU’RE DISABLED THAT’S A LONG
DISTANCE. I’M ALL FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I’M COMPLETELY THERE. BUT IF YOU LIVE IN A UNIT AND
THAT SPACE IS TAKEN AND YOU CAN’T PARK THERE AND YOU CAN’T
WALK LONG DISTANCES I JUST WONDER ABOUT THE PRACTICAL
IMPLICATION. THINKING ABOUT THE 60-YEAR-OLD
PERSON WHOSE KNEES ARE SHOT AND THEY CAN’T GO THAT FAR WITH
THEIR EXPERIENCE.>>I THINK THAT’S WHY THE — GOT
THE SECOND SPACE. FIRST THERE WAS ONE, THEN TWO.
>>TDM, RELATIVE TO THIS, YOU
SAID IT’S AN OPTION THEN A REQUIREMENT.
HOW DOES THAT WORK?>>TDM APPROACHES IF YOU’RE IN
AREAS WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT IS A REQUIREMENT.
YOU HAVE OPTIONS AS TO HOW YOU PARTICIPATE AND HOW YOU ALLOCATE
SOME OF THE TDM MONIES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
>>BUT THESE ARE SITES OUTSIDE OF THE BLUE SITES THAT WOULD BE
OUTSIDE OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT. SO IS THERE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT TDM IN FRONT OF THEM BECAUSE
NOW YOU’VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT POTENTIALLY DON’T HAVE
PARKING.>>IT’S — IT’S
POSSIBLE. THE WAY TDM WAS STRUCTURED WAS
IN PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE VERY RICH TRANSIT OPTIONS ENCOURAGE
THAT PEOPLE USE THOSE AS TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS. SO OF COURSE IT’S POSSIBLE TO
APPLY IT ELSEWHERE BUT IT’S A LESS STRONG LINK TO THE IDEA OF
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF GOOD TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS WHERE
THEY EXIST.>>IF YOU GO BACK TO THE — WHEN
YOU LOOK AROUND THE JADE DISTRICT, AROUND DIVISION AND
SOME OF THOSE ESPECIALLY ALONG 82nd, THEY ARE BASICALLY BOXED
IN BY THE TRANSIT.>>BUT THERE’S OTHER AREAS THAT
ARE NOT. I WOULD STRUGGLE WITH THAT.
>>UP BY SANDY I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THERE ARE ESPECIALLY INTO TOWN, PRETTY MUCH
EVERYWHERE IS BORDERED AT LEAST ONE OR TWO SIDES WITH A TRANSIT.
IS THERE A WAY TO IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS AND LOOK AT THE
TDM AVAILABLE?>>I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO OUR
PBOT PARTNERS TO SEE WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT ANY EXPANSION
OF THE TDM REQUIREMENTS. I’M NOT AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT
THEY CONSIDERED OTHER DISTRICT APPROACHES TO APPLYING THOSE
REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE FAIRLY NEW EVEN IN THE
MIXED USE ZONES, EFFECTIVE STARTING IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.
>>LIZ HARMON IS HERE, MAYBE SHE COULD ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS.
>>OKAY.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS GET A PULSE
OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE
INTERESTED IN EXPANDING IT BEFORE WE GET THERE.
IF WE COULD SINCE YOU’RE HERE, WHY DON’T YOU SAY.
LET’S GET TO THAT POINT. IF WE DON’T HAVE A MAJORITY
PUSHING FOR IT THEN — FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH, COMMISSIONER TERESA
ST. MARTIN TEXTED ME DISABLED PARKING FOR PBOT ONE.
PROPERTY OWNER MUST REQUEST TO ZONE RESIDENTIAL 3 NO MORE THAN
TWO SPACES PER BLOCK.
THAT’S HER INPUT. COULD WE — WELL, SINCE WE’RE ON
THE TDM–>>WE CAN — I’M GOOD WITH PBOT
COMING BACK LATER WITH THEIR THOUGHTS ON
IT. I’M GOOD WITH THAT.
>>I WAS GOING TO SEE IF THERE’S SUPPORT UNDERSTANDING MORE IN
DEPTH FROM THE ENTIRE COMMISSION ABOUT HAVING PBOT COME BACK
LATER IF THAT’S OKAY. MAYBE TAKE A STRAW POLL IF
THERE’S SUPPORT TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS
ABOUT EXPANDING TDM INTO BLUE
AREAS CLOSER TO TRANSIT, PERHAPS.
SIX. OKAY.
THERE IS ENOUGH SUPPORT THERE. IF WE HAVE TIME WE CAN MAYBE
TACKLE IT TODAY. SINCE YOU’RE
HERE.>>I THINK IT’S GOING TO NEED TO
BE A CONTINUED DISCUSSION BETWEEN BPS AND PBOT.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COME BACK WITH AN OUTLINE OF.
THAT NOT SURE WE’LL TACKLE IT
TODAY.>>GIVE US YOUR NAME SINCE YOU
STARTED TALKING.>>LIZ HARMON FROM DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.>>THANK YOU, LIZ.
APPRECIATE IT. WE’LL MAKE THAT HAPPEN THEN.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON ON THE
OPTIONS ON THE SCREEN. IF NOT I WOULD LOVE TO TAKE A
STRAW POLL. LET’S TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE
STARTING WITH SUPPORT STAFF PROPOSAL.
RAISE YOUR
HAND. FIVE.
TERESA? ARE YOU THERE?
>>YES.>>SO YES, YOU’RE HERE.
WHAT ABOUT YOUR VOTE.>>YES, I SUPPORT THAT.
>>THAT WOULD BE SIX VOTES IN
FAVOR OF SUPPORTING STAFF PROPOSAL.
SO THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE,
WHICH IS A SEPARATE ADDITION,
LET’S TAKE THAT SEPARATELY.>>SEEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE WHERE
THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SITUATION WHERE NO PARKING IS REQUIRED YET
ALWAYS NEED AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE.
IF THAT IS THE APPROACH STAFF’S PREFERENCE IS TO BE CONSISTENT
ACROSS THE ZONES. SO ONE PARKING SPACE IN A MIXED
USE ZONE AS WELL JUST HAVING NO OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT
AND REPLACING AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE.
>>WE MIGHT TAKE THAT AS TWO DEPENDING WHERE WE GO.
LET’S START WITH IF THERE’S SUPPORT FOR REQUIRING A MINIMUM
OF ONE PARKING SPACE, OFF-STREET ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE THREE. TERESA?
>>CLARIFICATION. IS THAT
REQUIRED IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES?
>>NO.>>THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE
QUESTION. WE HAVE THREE.
TERESA?>>I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR DISABLED AND
ELDERLY POPULATION SO I’M GOING TO SAY YES.
>>OKAY. FOUR.
STILL A MINORITY. WE’RE NOT GETTING FULL SUPPORT
FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. YOU’RE LOOKING AT ME LIKE I’M
MISCALCULATING SOMETHING. I’M OPEN TO HEARING THAT.
YEAH? NO?
OKAY. SO I THINK THAT COVERS THOSE TWO
OPTIONS.>>THE THIRD
OPTION WAS OVERRULED BY SUPPORT FOR STAFF.
>>CORRECT. GREAT.
WE MOVE ON TO THE SMALL SITES
THRESHOLD.>>YES.
THIS IS A SUB ASPECT OF THE STAFF PROPOSAL.
WHICH IS CURRENTLY TAKING THE SMALL SITE THRESHOLD THAT
CURRENTLY APPLIES AND EXTENDING THAT TO APPLY ALSO TO THE
MULTIDWELLING ZONES IN WHICH CASE THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FOR
PACIALGING FOR BUILDINGS UP TO 30 UNITS.
BUT ANOTHER IDEA ON THE TABLE IS TO INCREASE THIS THRESHOLD TO
10,000 SQUARE FEET. I SHOULD MENTION THE SMALL SITE
THRESHOLD IS USED FOR OTHER THINGS SUCH AS REGULATIONS FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ON-SITE LANDSCAPING.
STAFF WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO CHOOSE — TO BYPASS
OPTION 2 AND IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE THE SMALL SITE THRESHOLD
TO APPLY IT TO ALL SMALL SITE
REGULATIONS. JUST REMINDING YOU WHERE THIS
WOULD APPLY, AGAIN, ONLY APPLIES OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT
AREAS TO WURNL YOU HAVE ONE TO ONE PARKING RAINO.
THIS IS SHOWING THOSE AREAS A LITTLE HIGHER DETAIL.
SORRY, CAN’T TOTALLY MAKE IT OUT.
THE DARKEST BLUE IS SHOWING SITES UP
TO 7500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
THAT’S 76% OF THE PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT
AREAS OVER 4500 LOTS.
SITES MORE THAN UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET ARE ANOTHER 9% OF
THE PROPERTIES AMOUNTING TO ANOTHER 567 LOTS.
SO THE CHOICE WOULD BE DO WE KEEP THE 7500 SQUARE FOOT
THRESHOLD OR EXPANDING TO APPLY TO 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SITES.
WE DID A LITTLE MODELING TO LOOK AT HOW CAN PARKING FIT ON
VARIOUS SITES T. THIS IS SHOWING A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SHOWING
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES YOU COULD PROVIDE.
YOU COULD PROVIDE UP TO FIVE, BUT PUTS YOU
IN SUCH A SMALL GROUND LEVEL SPACE YOU PRETTY
MUCH HAVE TO DO THIS AS A STRUCTURED PARKING ARRANGEMENT
OF SOME SORT, STRUCTURED PARKING OR TUCK UNDER.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE BUILDING OVER THE PARKING
AREA. THAT ADDS COST.
IF YOU’RE DOING OPEN TUCK UNDER IT’S ABOUT 25,000 A SPACE,
45,000 FOR A FULLY STRUCTURED PARKING.
YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DO SURFACE PARKING BUT YOU HAVE REDUCED
BUILDING PERMIT. ONE ADVANTAGE OF NOT REQUIRING
PARKING IS YOU DON’T HAVE TO PROP THE BUILDING OVER
STRUCTURED PARKING YOU CAN DO IT IN A MORE ECONOMICAL WAY THAT
TENDS TO FIT IN BETTER WITH THE CONTEXT.
SO THAT’S MODELING A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE.
THIS IS 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE. LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF SPACES
THAT COULD FIT, THE FIRST ONE IS
SHOWING THAT NINE SPACE COOS FIT UP TO NINE SPACES.
IF YOU’RE TO HOLD DEVELOPMENT TO A MINIMUM ONE SPACE FOR TWO
UNITS THIS WOULD MEAN NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD CAP OUT ABOUT 18
SPACES. O UH CAN DO THIS IN A
SURFACE PARKING AROUND THE
OR CANTILEVER.
O UH COULD GET TO 17 SPACES AT A ONE-TO TWO RATIO THAT WOULD MAX
OUT THE NUMBERS OF UNITS AT 34 UNITS.
OF COURSE THIS IS NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE COST OF THE
STRUCTURED PARKING. BUT IT IS SOMEWHAT EASIER TO FIT
MORE PARKING ON A LARGER 10,000
SQUARE FOOT SITE THAN AN INDIVIDUAL LOT.
JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH
THAT SMALL SITE THRESHOLD. WE HAVE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT
PROVIDE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE OF A COMMON APPROACH
TO REGULATING DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL SITES AND PROVIDING THE
SAME REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO
HOUSES AND DUPLEXES THAT APPLY TO MULTIDWELLING.
THIS IS IN PART INTENDED TO MAKE THESE COMPACT SITE DEVELOPMENTS.
IMAGE ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE STREET WITH A MIX OF OLDER
HOUSES, DUPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES. MUCH SIMILAR PATTERNS BUT
EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR SMALL SITES ALLOW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND SETBACKS.
OTHERWISE AS CURRENTLY THE CASE IF YOU’RE DOING MORE THAN A
DUPLEX YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SET BACK AT
LEAST FIVE FEET TYPICALLY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SAY YOU HAVE
A LITTLE BIT OF A WASTE SPACE AND A SITUATION WHERE THERE
ISN’T A LOT OF SITE AREA, ALSO THERE’S EXCEPTIONS TO OUR
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR
MEETING THINGS LIKE TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS ELSEWHERE
ON THE SITE OTHER THAN HAVING TO MEET IT IN SIDE
SETBACKS. AT ANY RATE THE INTENT IS TO
MAKE IT EASIER TO DO SMALL SITE
DEVELOPMENT THAT CONTINUES THESE ALMOST HOUSE-LOCK PATTERN
DEVELOPMENT. 7500 SQUARE FEET FEET WAS SEEN
AS CAPTURING MOST TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL LOT
SITUATIONS. ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR
ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT NOT SO CONSTRAINED WITH FINDING OUT HOW
TO SQUEEZE THE PARKING IN. I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S USEFUL TO
GO BACK –>>YOU CAN’T REALLY PUT NINE
SPACES ON A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY, CAN YOU, IN PORTLAND?
>>LEFT SIDE.>>TITLE 17 ALLOWS THAT A
PARKING SPACE WITH SERVING UP TO TEN UNITS COULD HAVE AS NARROW
AS A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY. MORE THAN 10 PARKING SPACES
REQUIRES 20 FEET. NOT TO SAY IF THIS IS ANAR
TELLIAL PBOT MAY REQUIRE A 25 FOOT THROAT SO CARS DON’T GET
STUCK GOING IN AND OUT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER TO
SUPPORT THE STAFF PROPOSAL, WHICH JUST USES EXISTING SMALL
SITE EXEMPTIONS IN MIXED USE ZONES WHICH IS 7500 SQUARE FEET
E. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
LANDSCAPING OR TO INCREASE THAT THRESHOLD UP TO 10,000 SQUARE
FEET WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO SKIP NUMBER 2 AND HAVE
THAT SMALL SITE THRESHOLD ADJUSTED FOR ALL
REGULATIONS. SOME OF THE ISSUES RELATED TO
THE LARGER SITES IS THAT 10,000 SQUARE FEET IS A FAIRLY TYPICAL
IN A NEIGHBORHOOD DOUBLE LOT CORNER SITE SITUATION.
SO IT APPLIED TO 85% OF MULTIDWELLING SITES THAT ARE
OUTSIDE FREQUENT CORRIDORS. THERE ARE SOMETIMES GREATER
IMPACTS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE RECYCLING, GARBAGE ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURES UP AGAINST A PROPERTY LINE HAS A BIGGER IMPACT FOR
LARGER SITES. THAT’S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. DID THAT OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS
OR DISCUSSION?>>ANY QUESTIONS?
ANDRE.>>SO IF YOU GO TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET, 60 FOOT WIDE LOT, HOW DOES
THAT WORK IN THE 60 FOOT WIDE LOT WE JUST DISCUSSED?
THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 170, 60, 50, SOMEWHERE IN THERE DEEP LOTS.
THOSE WOULD THE REALLY DEEP LOTS.
LOTS. HOW
DOES THAT –>>IT WOULD BE MORE OF AN EAST
PORTLAND SITUATION.>>YES.
>>IT WOULD NOT REQUIRING PARKING IN THOSE SITUATIONS
WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO AVOID HAVING TO DO THINGS LIKE THE
DRIVEWAYS ON NARROW SITES. IT WOULD DEFINITELY EXPAND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS REGULATION
WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES, CURRENTLY IT APPLIES TO 75 OR ABOUT 76%
OF MULTIDWELLING ZONED PROPERTIES. ADD ANOTHER 9% TO THAT IF YOU
INCLUDED PROPERTIES UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR MORE SITES BUT
ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT THINGS LIKE
PARKING IMPACTS, IT WOULD MEAN A LOT MORE PROJECTS, GREATER
NUMBER WOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY OFF-STREET PARKING.
>>WELL, I’M CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET
MORE SPACE AND GET CONNECTIVITY. IT SEEMS THAT WE’RE — I DON’T
KNOW IF WE’RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT OR NOT, BUT WHEN YOU
GET TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET ON A 60 FOOT LOT —
— [SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY]
>>SO IN TERMS OF THE PBOT RIGHT
OF WAY DEDICATION, THAT IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION.
YOU WOULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE PBOT WOULD REQUIRE THE
DEDICATION OF A RIGHT OF WAY ON THAT
60 FOOT WIDE PARCEL. THAT IT WOULD STILL QUALIFY FOR
REDUCED PARKING REGULATIONS.
IT WOULD BE — YOU KNOW, THEY COULD DEDICATE THAT RIGHT OF WAY
AND THEY COULD STILL DO THE LOWER NO PARKING OR QUALIFY
THERE. THEY SORT OF WORK INDEPENDENTLY
OF EACH OTHER, BUT WE’RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, THE 120 FOOT WIDE
LOT, AND SORT OF OR THE MIDDLE GROUND IN
THOSE AREAS.
>>IT SEEMS TO ME — IT REALLY DOES NOT
ENCOURAGE THOME BUY THAT PARCEL NEXT TO THEM.
ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU CAN JUST BUILD IT OUT AND PUT A WALKWAY
BETWEEN.>>RIGHT.
THAT’S WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REQUIREMENT
AND AN INCENTIVE, IF THIS WOULD BE A
DISINCENTIVE TO BUYING THE LOT NEXT COOR YOU WOULD WANT THAT
REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT’S AN AN UNDER UTILIZED
LOT. IF YOU WANT TO DEVELOP YOU HAVE
TO COME TOGETHER WITH SOME AGREEMENT.
>>THANKS.>>ELI.
>>I WAS MOTIVATED TO SUGGEST THIS CHANGE AFTER SEEING A LOT
OF JOE WESTIN LOTS. MANY AROUND 10,000 SQUARE FOOT
LOTS. I THOUGHT I DON’T WANT TO
ENCOURAGE THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT I GENERALLY SUPPORT NUMBER 3 HERE FOR THAT REASON.
I HAD NOT THOUGHT THERE WAS MUCH OF A 50 BY 200 FOOT PROPERTY
DEPTH SCENARIO, MORE LIKE HAPPENED IN EAST COUNTY, BUT AT
THAT SIZE I THINK THAT IT’S NOT A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY
TO THE BACK OF THE SITE. A LOT OF PAVEMENT.
I THINK I SUPPORT THAT EXAMPLE TOO.
I WOULD PROBABLY SAY FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND
LANDSCAPING I’M FINE WITH NUMBER 3 BUT AT LEAST FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SAY THE SAME RULES ON ANY
SIZE SITE. MAYBE LANDSCAPING AS WELL RATHER
THAN DIVIDE THAT OFF BY SMALL AND LARGE DIFFERENT RULE
SETS.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? OKAY.
WITH THAT THEN LET’S TAKE A STRAW POLL.
RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF STAFF’S PROPOSAL,
SMALL SITE THRESHOLDS STARTING
AT 7500 SQUARE FEET APPLIES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
NO MICHELLE.
SO — YOU’RE CALLING ME?
>>OVERWHELMED WL ALL THE DETAIL THAT WENT INTO 10,000.
>>SO I GUESS — NOW YOU TOTALLY LOST ME.
THAT WAS FOUR. THAT MEANS TERESA, DID YOU HAVE
A COMMENT THERE?
MY TEXTING IS NOT A GREAT OPTION.
WELL WHILE WE WAIT FOR HER –>>YOU MAY MENTION THAT BEN DID
PROVIDE HIS CHOICES OF OPTIONS.
THIS PARTICULAR ONE HE SUPPORTED OPTION 3.
>>HE SUPPORTED 3.
OF THE REMAINING TWO OPTIONS FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT IN SUPPORT OF
1, ARE YOU — RAISE YOUR HANDS FOR SUPPORT OF NUMBER 3 SO I GET
A FEEL. THAT’S WHERE I AM TOO, JEFF.
[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]>>ONE QUESTION.
IS NUMBER 3 INCLUSIVE OF THE MIXED USE
ZONES?>>THAT’S THE NEXT QUESTION.
[LAUGHTER] SO —
>>I’M AGNOSTIC. REALLY.
I THINK THIS IS SUCH A MARGINAL ISSUE.
I HAVE NO HEARTBURN EITHER.
IF STAFF HAS STRONG OPINION, MODIFY THEIR PROPOSAL.
>>I THINK — PERHAPS JEFF AND I KIND OF LIKE THIS FOR NOW I
WOULD RUN WITH 3. LET’S
SEE WHERE AS THIS PROPOSAL
STARTS GETTING PULLED TOGETHER HOW WE END UP.
>>SO WE’LL GO WITH 3 AS THE
PREFERRED OPTION?
>>THE NEXT ONE IS SOMEONE
DECIDED — [AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]
RELATED TO THE FACT THAT WE TRIED TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY
BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF ZONES AND THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE
ABOUT WHETHER TO APPLY THE
PROPOSED MULTIDWELLING ZONE PARKING REGULATIONS TO THE
COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONES.
IN THE CASE OF WHAT YOU DISCUSSED IT WOULD BE THERE ARE
TWO THINGS THAT DIFFER. CHANGING THE MINIMUM
PARKING RATIO TO ONE SPACE PER TWO UNITS
AND THE CHANGE TO THE SMALL SITE THRESHOLD TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE NOT AMENDING THE COMMERCIAL
ZONES IN ACCORDANCE.
STAFF EDGE COURAGE ENCOURAGE CONSISTENCY.
FOR THE MOST PART, THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONE
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS CORRESPOND TO MULTIDWELLING
PROPOSALS. THE MAIN WAY THEY DIFFER IS THAT
FOR LARGER SITES OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT CURRENTLY ONE
SPACE PER UNIT IS ACQUIRED VERSUS THE MULTIDWELLING ONE
SPACE PER TWO UNIT THING. THERE’S VERY RECENT HISTORY, THE
MIXED USE ZONES PROJECT WHOSE
AMENDMENTS ONLY BECAME EFFECTIVE IN MAY, PRIOR TO THOSE
AMENDMENTS, THE REQUIREMENTS WERE DIFFERENT.
THE EX ZONE BECAME CM3, REQUIRING ONE SPACE PER
TWO UNITS.
SOME REQUIRED NO PARKING SPACES FOR UP TO 30 UNITS REGARDLESS OF
LOCATION. I’M INCLUDING OFF FREQUENT
TRANSIT. THE
CEG, MORE AUTO ORIENTED VOANS REQUIRED ONE SPACE PER
RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THEY MERGED THOSE
ZONES AND ELECTED TO JUST GO WITH FREQUENT
TRANSIT HAVING THE NO OR LOW PARKING REQUIREMENTS BUT
REQUIRING ONE SPACE PER UNIT OUTSIDE OF THE AREAS.
AT SOME PLACES UNTIL MAY 24th THAT REQUIRED NO PARKING SPACES
FOR SMALLER PROJECTS WENT TO A ONE-PER ONE PARKING RATIO.
SO A LITTLE BACKGROUND. I THINK THE HIGHLIGHT IS MIXED
USE ZONES ARE MUCH MORE CLOSELY MAPPED TO OUR TRANSIT CORRIDORS
SO HIGHER PORTION, 85% OF THE LAND, IS ALREADY WITHIN A
FREQUENT TRANSIT BUFFER OR PLACE THAT DOESN’T REQUIRE PARKING SO
IT’S A SMALLER PORTION, 15% THAT’S OUTSIDE.
INCLUDES A LARGER CHUNKS OF AREA LIKE BRIDGETON AND HAYDEN ISLAND
BUT ALSO BITS AND PIECES OF MULTIDWELLING ZONING SUCH AS
BEAUMONT VILLAGE AND THE PARK ROSE AREA AND SOME OF THE NODES
IN WEST PORTLAND.
THIS IS SHOWING A SOMEWHAT FINER LEVEL OF DETAIL AREAS THAT
CURRENTLY REQUIRE ONE TO ONE PARKING RATIO.
ONE KEY PLACE WHERE THINGS CHANGED WAS THE BEAUMONT VILLAGE
AREA ON NORTHEAST FREMONT PREVIOUSLY WAS ZONED CS, SO THE
PROPERTIES ALONG FREMONT REQUIRED NO PARKING UNTIL MAY OF
THIS YEAR. THAT SWITCHED TO FOR LARGER
SITES ONE TO ONE PARKING RATIO. THEN PARK ROSE YOU COULD SEE
IT’S A BIG CHUNK OF THAT IS OUTSIDE THAT FREQUENT TRANSIT
AREA. AGAIN, SORRY ABOUT THE GRAPHICS.
THE DARKEST COLOR HERE SHOWING AREAS THAT QUALIFY UNDER THE
SMALL SITE 7500 SQUARE FOOT SITE THRESHOLD.
THEN THESE MID COLOR THINGS ARE UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND
THEN THIS SALMON COLORED AREA IS THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF LAND
THAT IS LARGER THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO APPLIES TO FEWER PROPERTIES ARE IN PLAY IN TERMS OF BEING
OUTSIDE THE FREQUENT TRANSIT BUFFER BUT IN SOME CASES ONE TO
ONE PARKING RATIO WOULD ADD A FAIR AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY TO THE
SITE DEVELOPMENT.
SO JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU SEE AS THE CHOICE, ONE, BEGIN
APPLYING WHAT YOU JUST DECIDED FOR THE MULTIDWELLING ZONES TO
ALSO APPLY TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONES, CHANGING THE RATIO
FROM ONE TO ONE TO ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO UNITS OUTSIDE THE
FREQUENT TRANSIT BUFFER. SINCE YOU CHANGED THE SMALL SITE
THRESHOLD IN THE MULTIDWELLING ZONES TO 10,000 DOING THE SAME
THING TO THE MIXED USE ZONES ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WOULD BE
USING THE SAME CHAPTER, 266, REGULATION.
NOT STINDING THOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE MIXED USE ZONES.
>>YOU LOST ME.
YOU HAD ME UNTIL THAT LAST COMMENT.
>>OKAY. THE OPTION IS MAKE THE CHANGES
TO — [SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY]
OR DON’T MAKE ANY OF THE CHANGES.
>>OKAY. THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS?>>JUST THIS IS — THIS PROJECT
HAS BEEN ADDRESSING THE MULTIDWELLING ZONES. SO WE’RE PUTTING IN A PROVISION
ALBEIT MARGINAL AND SMALL THAT IS BRINGING IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
SO THERE’S A WHOLE SET OF CONSTITUENTS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT
CARE ABOUT WHAT WE’RE DOING IN BETTER HOUSING BY DESIGN WILL BE
BROUGHT OUT POTENTIALLY TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
NOT THAT THAT MATTERS BUT IT SORT OF TAKES US OFF THE PATH OF
WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. VERY WELL WHEN I THINK OF
BEAUMONT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS AT CITY COUNCIL.
SO IT’S –>>GOT IT.
>>EASE OF ADOPTION.>>THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
WE’RE TIRED I THINK. AT LEAST I AM.
SO. [AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]
SURE, ELI.>>I THINK WE SHOULD GO FOR
CONSISTENCY. THERE’S VERY FEW AREAS THAT ARE MIXED USE ZONED OUTSIDE TRANSIT
CORRIDOR. THAT MAP IS ALMOST WHERE TRANSIT
OUGHT TO GO IN MY MIND. I LIVE NEAR THE BEAUMONT, I’M
SURE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK ON THAT. I ALSO THINK IT’S CRAZY TO HAVE
ONE SPACE PER RESIDENTIAL UNITS REQUIRED ON THAT COMMERCIAL
STRIP. IT SHOULD BE REDUCED.
I SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AS A SLIGHT STEP TOWARDS REDUCING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE LITTLE PARTS OF THE CITY.
AND SIMPLIFYING THE CODE ULTIMATELY.
>>FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH, I
SUPPORT THE CONCEPT AS WELL AS EVEN MORE SO SIMPLIFYING THINGS,
KEEPING THINGS CONSISTENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE
TAKE A STRAW POLL HERE?
OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU’RE IN
SUPPORT OF APPLYING THE PROPOSED MULTIDWELLING ZONE PARKING TO
MIXED USE ZONES. ON THE FENCE AGAIN.
IT’S OKAY. YOU CAN BE ON THE FENCE.
>>I’M COMFORTABLE WITH T. I’M ALWAYS COMFORTABLE WITH
SIMPLIFYING OUR ZONING CODE. I DON’T WANT TO BE
THE ONE DEVELOPER FINDS OUT SIX MONTHS
LATER WE CHANGED IT AGAIN. HOPEFULLY THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN.
>>OKAY. THAT’S EIGHT.
BEN HAS PREVIOUSLY LET US KNOW THAT HE WAS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF
THAT, AND –>>I SUPPORT IT AS WELL.
>>SHE’S ON! AWESOME.
THERE YOU GO. SUPPORT THERE.
>>CAN I MAKE A REQUEST? SOUNDS LIKE WE’RE GOING TO
DISCUSS ACCESSIBLE PARKING ISSUES SOME MORE.
DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? THAT THEY ARE STILL ON THE FENCE
OR DID WE DECIDE?>>I
NEED A REFRESHER. I’M
SORRY.>>TALK FURTHER ABOUT TDM,
ESPECIALLY EXTENDING IT TO AREAS THAT ARE FAIRLY CLOSE TO
TRANSIT. I DON’T KNOW IF THERE’S A FORMAL
MOTION BUT PEOPLE BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE CAN WE HAVE SOME
CONVERSATION ABOUT PBOT’S DISABLED PARKING PLACARD
APPROACH AS WHO CAN REQUEST IT, DOES IT HAVE TO
BE THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THAT’S SOMETHING WE COULD FOLLOW UP WITH.
>>YOU DIDN’T HEAR ANY DIRECTION TO LOOK AT THE ONE SPACE PER
BUILDING ISSUES?>>I DON’T REMEMBER THAT.
PERHAPS LOVE NEEDS TO REMIND US.
>>I HEARD THAT THE DECISION WAS
MADE TO NOT PURSUE THAT IDEA WHEN OFF STREET PARKING SPACE —
ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY UNIT.
>>THERE ARE ONLY FOUR VOTES FOR
THAT OPTION. I THINK WE’RE LEAVING IT.
>>THANK YOU, LOVE. APPRECIATE THAT.
WELL DONE. IT’S A GOOD THING WE HAD SOME
EXTRA TIME APPARENTLY.>>ONLY THING I WOULD ADD,
REMINDING YOU WE’RE NOT MEETING AGAIN ON THIS TOPIC UNTIL
NOVEMBER 13. THERE’S GOING TO BE SOME
CARRYOVER IN TOPICS. WE’LL BE TALKING ABOUT PARKING
DESIGN AND BUILDING DESIGN ELEMENTS SUCH ASSETBACKS, HEIGHT
TRANSITIONS, THEN LOOKING AT VISITABILITY.
ACCESSIBILITY IS A TOPIC THAT’S GOING TO CONTINUE ON.
>>RIGHT.>>THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
WE’RE ADJOURNED.

Tags:, ,

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *