91视频

A controversial proposal to modify zoning codes to address Portland’s housing crisis has triggered a surge of public opinion. More than 200 testimonies were received at the city’s Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, with more than 20 individuals providing in-person and virtual testimonies.

The proposed housing production strategy, a key component of the Housing Regulatory Relief Project, includes a temporary five-year suspension of various zoning codes and development standards identified in a Bureau of Development Services (BDS) survey as the top obstacles to housing production. These changes encompass suspending requirements for ground-floor active use, eliminating eco-roof and bird-safe glazing standards, and reducing bike parking requirements.

The housing production strategy aims to address the urgent need for housing in a city requiring approximately 120,560 new housing units over the next two decades. This need is driven by Portland’s growth, vacancy rates, historical underproduction of housing units, and the demand for homes for the homeless.

Sandra Wood, the principal planner at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, said that for housing to be constructed in the present environment, development costs must decrease or rents must increase, likely requiring a combination of both. While the city cannot control the high interest rates causing financing challenges nationwide, the housing relief strategy aims to reduce costs by streamlining permitting approval timelines and simplifying code requirements.

“We understand that this is a piece of the puzzle,” Wood said. “Not the full puzzle, but it is a piece nonetheless.”

Public comments were predominantly in favor of easing housing production, with support from community members and building industry professionals. However, a substantial portion of the public opposed the proposed changes related to bike parking, eco-roofs, bird-safe glazing, ground-floor active use, height requirements and the suspension of elements in the design review and neighborhood contact process.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Portland Design Commissioner Chandra Robinson, speaking on behalf of the commission, expressed concern about the short timeframe for reviewing and studying the proposed changes, describing it as “short-sighted” and “irresponsible.” These changes are set to be presented to the Portland City Council during the Dec. 20 meeting. Robinson said that although the changes are temporary, their effects will be long-lasting, as buildings are designed to last for 50 years or more. She argued that removing ground-floor active use requirements would reduce the presence of eyes on the street, potentially leading to increased crime and vandalism. Robinson urged the Planning Commission to delay approval of the proposed changes to allow more time for public comments, saying that 鈥淚t’s only going to benefit the city, and not have it continue down a downward spiral.鈥�

In a letter to the Planning Commission, signed by all commissioners except Commissioner Sam Rodriguez, alternative proposals were put forward.

Chair of the Portland Landmark Commission, Andrew Smith, said that any near-term changes to regulations should focus on removing barriers and streamlining processes rather than introducing physical changes that “we will live with and likely regret for the next 50 or more years.”

Several members of the building industry expressed support for the housing relief proposal. Sarah Zahn, director of development for Security Properties, said that the challenges posed by high interest rates is making financing for projects scarce and challenging. While each proposed code change may constitute a small portion of project costs individually, their cumulative impact is significant.

Doug Burges, director of development at Greystar, said that these challenges are felt with a recently approved 381-unit tower project in the Pearl District. That, he said, 鈥渃an’t be financed in today’s environment,” adding that a slight budget relief could go a long way in assisting the project, which also includes 31 units of inclusionary housing.

The proposed amendments to reduce bike parking from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1 for developments in and near downtown, and from 1.1 spaces per unit to 0.7 for those farther out, faced significant opposition from the public. However, members of the building industry noted that they consistently observe that more than half of bike parking rooms remain unused. Ernesto Fonseca, CEO of Hacienda CDC, shared that in a recent project, approximately eight additional studio units could have been constructed if bike parking requirements were reduced. Gus Baum, director of development at Security Properties, said that roughly 770 bike stalls were required for a development along Sandy Boulevard, equivalent to approximately 15,000 square feet of space.

鈥淔ar in excess of what will be used for any current or future resident,鈥� Baum added.

In a cost study of the proposed changes, it was estimated that a bike room for a typical 64-unit multifamily development (approximately 1,950 square feet) would cost $509,000, equivalent to about 2.6 percent of the construction costs, or $7,953 per unit.

Following the extensive public comments, commissioners requested the addition of an extra day of hearings to allow for further deliberation on proposed amendments to the current proposal. Chair Commissioner Mary O’Meara indicated her lack of support for eliminating the eco-roof and bird-safe glazing requirements, which received the most public opposition. She said she does not see how removing these requirements would contribute to easing housing production. Additionally, an amendment could be considered to restrict the temporary removal of ground-floor active use requirements to affordable housing developments, where it has been a development obstacle.

The next Planning Commission hearing has been scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on Nov. 7.