HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
HD491(CC1) #3171
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.
