A plan to encourage more dense housing projects in certain zones across Portland is raising the ire of Historic Landmarks Commission members, who fear it will encourage demolitions and sideline their ability to regulate building height and size in historic districts.

Commission Chairwoman Kristen Minor is at work on a letter to the City Council ahead of the council’s Wednesday meeting, when the group is scheduled to take up the zoning policies – known as Better Housing by Design – for two hours of discussion. A vote could be held in November.

During a Historic Landmarks Commission meeting on Monday, Minor said the Planning and Sustainability Commission‘s agenda is creating a conflict.

“Some parties would not like this commission to have a say over a project’s bulk or height,” she said. “That’s one of the key measures of compatibility.”

Minor told her fellow commissioners that she was inclined to make their objections known.

“I for one believe we should go in guns blazing to City Council, but I appreciate your discussion on this,” she said.

The Historic Landmarks Commission members’ concerns underscore the tension between their role – “maintaining and enhancing Portland’s historic and architectural heritage,” according to the city’s website – and Portland’s greater policy push to build more housing units throughout the city. That is something Mayor Ted Wheeler and others have sought as a key solution to Portland’s housing crisis.

Better Housing by Design would give larger height bonuses for affordable housing in multi-dwelling zones. It would also provide greater heights for buildings with 50 percent or more units made affordable at 60 percent of area median income – a provision intended as an incentive for nonprofit affordable housing developers.

“This is of course related to the housing crisis, and wanting to make better use of housing opportunities when they arise,” said Bill Cunningham, a Bureau of Planning and Sustainability project manager.

The proposal would also allow the transfer of floor area ratio to historic districts, enabling greater building heights in exchange for seismic upgrades. Earlier attempts by city officials to encourage seismic retrofits have run into roadblocks.

The proposal also would establish “base” floor area ratios. In a draft letter to the City Council, the Historic Landmarks Commission protested that provision.

“Giving developers of projects extra bulk or height in historic districts creates less predictability and more opportunity for contentious hearings for projects in these districts,” the letter dated Sept. 9 states. “Increasing a new development’s height or bulk (beyond code ‘maximums,’ which are themselves not always approvable in every situation) will not always meet Historic Review approval criteria. The (commission) strongly opposes opportunities to ‘earn’ more bulk in these areas, even for deeply needed affordable housing.”

The letter also states that a provision to allow measurement from a low point below the sidewalk would encourage tuck-under garages.

Better Housing by Design would apply to multi-dwelling residential zones (R1, R2, R3 and RH in zoning jargon) outside the Central City. In practice, much of this property lies in East Portland. The proposal would also affect the Alphabet and King’s Hill historic districts in Northwest Portland.

Cunningham said there’s nothing in Better Housing by Design that would remove the Historic Landmarks Commission’s authority to govern building height and bulk in historic districts. Among the commission’s primary tasks is reviewing development proposals on properties within historic districts.

“That’s not changing at all through this proposal,” Cunningham said. “They would continue to have the discretion to change (designs) based on context.”

Nevertheless, Historic Landmarks Commission members fear the proposal would sideline their review authority. Minor pointed to another city planning project, Design Overlay Zone Amendments (DOZA), that would limit the Design Commission’s discretion in certain neighborhoods.

“It’s kind of been this implicit threat that the Landmarks Commission would also lose purview,” Minor said. “It would be a vastly different thing for us to lose that. They are in the position of wanting more height and density just about anywhere,” she said, referring to the Design Commission. “Whereas for us, there are definitely situations in historic districts where the maximums allowed under the code would result in noncompatible projects.”

Minor said the Historic Landmarks Commission is on board with the city’s overall goals to increase housing density. But, she added, the Better Housing by Design proposal should do more to discourage demolitions.

“The code has definitely swung in the direction to build our way out of the housing crisis,” she said. “That’s certainly part of the picture – but we also have to sustain what we have.”

The post Where historic preservation and housing density collide appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Portland’s effort to bring more dense housing types to urban neighborhoods made it past the Planning and Sustainability Commission this week by a razor-thin 5-4 vote.

The commission’s recommendation, reached Tuesday, sets up a final debate at the City Council this summer.

The Residential Infill Project has been years in the making. It centers on rezoning much of Portland’s single-family neighborhoods to allow duplexes, triplexes and alternative dwelling units (ADUs). At the same time, it limits home sizes to 2,500 square feet on a 5,000-square-foot lot, for example.

The proposal from the city’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has touched off a roiling debate about the nature of Portland’s neighborhoods, with elements of race, class and the divide between the needs of newcomers and renters versus incumbent homeowners.

Commission Chairwoman Katherine Schultz said the proposal has split public testimony “between people who have a home today in our single-family neighborhoods, and those who would love to be able to live in those single-family neighborhoods. And I found that striking.”

She voted in favor of recommending the zoning changes.

Allowing denser housing options would provide homes for thousands of new city residents that are expected to move to Portland by 2035, city planners said. Depending on the statistical model, the Residential Infill Project changes are expected to result in anywhere from 3,883 to 24,333 more housing units than under current zoning.

“We want more options – more options for housing on those units and more housing in more places,” BPS Interim Director Joe Zehnder said at Tuesday’s hearing. “What we found was it’ll work. The pace of change for these next 20 years is relatively modest.”

Commissioner Katie Larsell questioned bureau staffers about economic projections after a report in The Oregonian revealed more modest projections for unit growth than the commission had seen previously. Zehnder replied that the first projection the bureau received was the more optimistic of the two economic models and was based on unlimited demand for housing units. The second set of estimates, with a much lower forecast for unit production, was based on a more realistic model, he said.

Commissioners who opposed the Residential Infill Project said it may worsen displacement of current low-income residents and residents of color as property owners look to cash in on greater development capacity. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability’s own projections show increased displacement risk in Brentwood-Darlington, Foster-Powell, Lents, Mt. Scott-Arleta and Montavilla. Overall, the Residential Infill Project is estimated to reduce displacement citywide.

Commissioner Andre Baugh proposed a five-year delay on changing zoning in certain neighborhoods at risk of displacement. The amendment proposal failed by a 5-4 margin.

“Displacement is not a surprise, and should not be a surprise to anybody here,” Baugh said. “The surprise to me is that we’re unwilling to do anything about it.”

After the proposal failed, Baugh made a plea for the City Council to reconsider its push for the Residential Infill Project.

“I think RIP really becomes, as I said before, institutional racism to create the whitest city …,” Baugh said. “The five years that I proposed was just an opportunity to give us a break to say, ‘How do we really respond as a city and recognize the value of people in this economic class?’”

Baugh was not optimistic the City Council would change the program to stem displacement.

“I … obviously am very disappointed in what we’re sending to council,” Baugh said. “Council has no urgency to make any changes to RIP in any way, shape or form. I think we’re just making a bad decision, and I’ll leave it at that.”

The City Council has not set a date to take up the Residential Infill Project.

The Residential Infill Project debate has been watched closely by tenant advocates and urbanists who support bringing more density to Portland’s neighborhoods. Many residents have fiercely opposed the proposal, saying it will change the character of single-family neighborhoods.

Some proponents have said that may not be such a bad thing.

“Traditional single-family zoning is not a good thing for low-income folks, and it never has been because it’s unfortunately sort of an exclusive situation,” said Commissioner Eli Spevak, who voted in support. “It works very well if you already own a home in those areas.”

The post One step closer to significant zoning changes appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

After a first draft of rezoning rules meant to expand Portland’s housing stock was criticized by the Planning and Sustainability Commission for not going far enough, an updated proposal goes further.

The revised draft of the Residential Infill Project has emerged. It doubles down on city officials’ drive to allow more so-called “middle housing” – duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) – throughout the city.

If approved by the commission and City Council, it would put Portland at the forefront of efforts by urban planners to make room for growing populations in U.S. cities. Minneapolis led the way in December when it decided to allow duplexes and triplexes throughout the city, effectively ending single-family zoning.

Portland’s proposed rules would allow fourplexes, and not just on corner lots but on any properties within areas zoned for them. The changes came at the urging of the Planning and Sustainability Commission.

The Residential Infill Project zoning would allow a 2,500-square-foot house, a 3,000-square-foot duplex, or a 3,500-square-foot-triplex or fourplex on a 5,000-square-foot lot. In many neighborhoods, a lot could have a house and two ADUs.

Portland is working to accommodate an expected 123,000 new households in the city by 2035. At the same time, the Oregon Legislature is considering House Bill 2001, which would fundamentally change single-family zoning in cities throughout the state, requiring municipalities to allow middle housing.

In gauging the likely effects of the Residential Infill Project on rents, demolitions and displacement of existing low-income residents, officials are also weighing the cost of doing nothing – what planners call a baseline scenario.

Tyler Bump, senior economic planner with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, laid out the risks of doing nothing and potential displacement of low-income renters during a Planning and Sustainability Commission meeting earlier this week.

“There seems to be a relatively high cost of doing nothing in terms of impact to displacement across the city right now,” Bump said.

Bump showed the Planning and Sustainability Commission maps of mathematical displacement models across the city. The models show about a 20 percent reduction in displacement.

“The proposal broadly decreases displacement risk across most areas of Portland,” Bump told the commission.

That’s not good enough for the populations in East Portland, where the Residential Infill Project is projected to accelerate displacement, Commissioner Andre Baugh said.

“I really worry that we’re being asked to displace certain populations faster than others for the benefit of this greater good, and the greater good of more units is not benefitting everybody equally,” he said.

Baugh said he would not support further displacement of Portland’s African-American neighborhoods.

“You’re asking me, as an African-American, to approve displacing African-Americans that can’t come back,” he said. “I just can’t approve that.”

City officials estimate the Residential Infill Project would lead to the creation of 1,700 additional housing units in 20 years’ time. That works out to about 85 units per year. The city’s analysis suggests this would result in a slight reduction in rental rates citywide and slightly fewer demolitions of existing properties.

“There’s a limit to how much just changes in zoning can stimulate development,” said Morgan Tracy, project manager for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

Tracy mentioned Gateway as an area with generous zoning but little construction.

“You have to be cognizant of what the market will be, and the gap between demand and units,” he said. “Zoning by itself won’t dictate development.”

Middle housing in Portland has been the domain of small-scale developers, while major developers focus on large single-family homes in the suburbs or multistory multifamily projects.

A study of up-zoning in Chicago drew some attention when it found that denser zoning led to no additional construction, but boosted land prices.

BPS Interim Director Joe Zehnder cautioned against reading too much into the Chicago study, saying political resistance has played a role in blocking construction there.

“In Chicago, each of the 50 different wards have separate aldermen and they call all of the zoning,” Zehnder said. “So the way the zoning happens is very political and related to power.”

Yonah Freemark, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher who conducted the study published in Urban Affairs Review, cautioned against drawing direct conclusions.

“It’s quite possible that other cities that make similar changes see dramatically different effects,” he wrote in an email message. “It is also worth pointing out that every zoning change is different.”

Yet he suggested cities watch for increased land prices and displacement after up-zoning.

“If up-zoning increases value when it occurs, but construction takes a while to get going, what happens in the meantime?” Freemark stated. “My study suggests that one effect might be increased costs and reduced affordability. Cities should be thinking through how they approach this issue, because it might mean displacement for some.”

The Residential Infill Project has drawn some criticism from residents who want to preserve the character of their single-family neighborhoods. But Kimberlee Stafford, a Tonkon Torp partner, said fears of dramatic changes are overblown.

“I don’t think … rampant demolitions or drastic changes in neighborhoods are at all what we’re going to see,” she said.

The post Revised Residential Infill Project elicits hopes and fears appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Residential development has exploded across Portland. While robust, the development has not been comprehensive. The result: housing gaps that city officials are determined to fill.

“We have been building apartments and big houses, but not a lot of middle housing,” said Sandra Wood, supervising planner at the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS).

Filling those gaps is not only a big key to housing an estimated 123,000 households expected to move to the city by 2035 but also the primary goal of the . The city is looking to reduce the scale of new infill development, increase the volume and number of types of housing choices, and provide clear and fair rules for “narrow” lot development. The ultimate goal is to promote higher density in structures within the residential overlay zone that covers nearly 90 percent of Portland.

Zoning changes are expected to accomplish the city’s goals. The end result will impact neighborhoods and the building industries for decades to come.

Not everyone is a fan of the project’s direction. The BPS received more than 800 responses during the public comment period that closed Nov. 30. Some neighborhood groups and area designers believe that it has become a way for the city to push density on already crowded neighborhoods.

“I really don’t think it is on the right track,” said Tamara DeRidder, chairwoman of the Rose City Park Neighborhood Association. “It subverts the comprehensive plan. It’s much too expansive. I don’t feel like many people understand what is going on.”

What is going on is an effort to rework the city’s zoning codes to allow more households per square foot of land while reducing the scales of new structures.

“The new infill housing was out of scale with existing neighborhoods,” said Morgan Tracy, a project manager for BPS. “Some of it is based on market preference. But it is also the escalating value of land. When builders get land, they need to add square footage to justify investment.”

That has led to small houses being torn down and turned into much larger homes in many neighborhoods. The city’s hope is that new regulations will result in fewer 5,000-square-foot McMansions and more 2,500-square-foot homes.

George Hale, owner of H. Hudson Homes, said that such changes could force him and others to build elsewhere. Hale, who has built houses in Portland for 20 years, said his customers aren’t interested in small two-bedroom homes.

“Like it or not, people want a big house,” he said. “They want all the amenities that go along with it. People with families are going to move elsewhere. The city will become dual-income, no-kid people, and that is how the city is going to turn out.”

While reducing the scale of structures is relatively straightforward, finding ways to increase density and housing choice has proven to be a tougher challenge for the city. To achieve higher density, planners decided to allow homes built within the overlay zone to add a second accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to the one currently allowed. One could be attached – such as a basement or garage. Another could be a separate structure.

“Our goal was to address the outcome of infill development,” Tracy said. “We want to increase the diversity of housing options.”

Changing demographics requires smaller units to be built, Tracy said. The average household in Portland has shrunk from 2.5 persons per unit to just 2.1 persons in the last decade, making smaller ADU-type units a viable way to address the housing challenges.

Currently, the most common residential zone, R5, allows one unit for every 5,000 square feet on a lot. More than 75 percent of residential areas fall into either the R5 or R7 (meaning one unit for every 7,000 square feet) zones. Under the new proposed rules, many of those would be changed to a R2.5, meaning that a unit can be built for every 2,500 square feet.

While duplexes have been allowed on corner lots since 1991, only 3.5 percent of owners of those lots have taken advantage of that provision. Many residents fear that will change with the new overlay zone, encouraging builders to put more duplexes, triplexes and ADUs on lots that formerly had single-family homes.

“You have a property that can house a triplex with an ADU on a 5,000-square-foot lot,” DeRidder said. “That changes the entire character of the neighborhood. It will be rebuilt into a new fabric.”

Neighborhood groups are also concerned the city’s quest to fit more households onto ever-tighter spaces could spur more demolitions of existing homes to accommodate multifamily complexes.

“Remodeling a house for that kind of density is cost-prohibitive,” DeRidder said. “We could have a lot of demolitions.”

The Residential Infill Project’s heavy focus on the city’s eastern portion led some stakeholders to question why only certain areas are being asked to absorb greater density. Lot size and shape are the determining factors explaining differences between how the east and west are treated, according to the city.

Those explanations have done little to allay fears that east Portland could see a new wave of demolitions and construction.

“The fear of demolition is from the fear that (the Residential Infill Project) lets people build duplexes and triplexes on every corner no matter where it is,” said Peter Meijer, founder of Peter Meijer Architect PC. “The majority of blocks are two lots on corners. That could turn into multifamily development. That is a scary vision for folks.”

Meijer, who specializes in historic preservation and revitalization, said the Residential Infill Project relies too much on a one-size-fits-all approach. Accounting for differences between city regions is crucial to successfully incorporating higher density, he said.

“One size doesn’t fit all,” he said. “I think you can say Sandy Boulevard is the type of street (that) is perfect for multifamily, three- or four-story housing. A single-family house getting built there is bad. It’s about balance. Why are you forcing (more density) all into R5 neighborhoods? Why is it still OK to build a single-story building on the transit corridors?”

The city believes that the current draft does take differences into account, especially between lot differences on the east and west sides.

“The zoning is already for higher density on transit corridors,” Tracy said. “We are still seeing some single-story construction, but that is a function of the real estate market.”

With the public comment period now closed, the BPS will spend the next several months updating and refining the draft proposal. The proposal will go before the Planning and Sustainability Commission for hearings in early 2018. The hope is to have the final completed proposal before the City Council in May or June.

“I am not against more flexibility or the need for more apartments,” DeRidder said. “But the question is: Is that what we need instead of homeownership? This would be more a rental market and not a homeownership market.”

The amount of change revisions bring will likely depend on where a structure is built, according to Wood.

“It really depends where you are,” she said. “If you are where we are proposing an R2.5, you may see more change, but I think you will see a pretty positive change.”

The post Residential density: a burgeoning conflict appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Members of the Planning and Sustainability Commission were reappointed at Wednesday’s Portland City Council meeting.

Jeff Bachrach, Michelle Rudd, Katherine Schultz, Chris Smith and Mike Houck were reappointed for terms to expire on May 31, 2021. Each is a current member whose first term is expiring.

The council also extended the terms of Gary Oxman and Margaret Tallmadge two additional months, until May 31.

The commission has 11 members. Seven members’ terms are expiring.

In a memo to commissioners, Mayor Ted Wheeler stated that extended service of Oxman and Tallmadge is necessary to finish work on the Central City 2035 project. The group has been working on it for the past five years.

The Central City 2035 plan is a major rewrite of Portland’s zoning code for the heart of the city. The document lays out height limits and use restrictions in certain areas.

The post Planning commission members set to stay appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The push by the city of Portland to enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance appears to be barreling ahead even as the panel of experts convened by Commissioner Dan Saltzman questions some of the underpinnings of the plan.

At a meeting on Tuesday, the panel of developers, affordable housing advocates and others debated the details of land cost assumptions, the realities of building affordable housing in the Central City versus outlying areas of Portland and whether developers will simply pay fees rather than actually build affordable rental units.

Consultants hired by the Portland Housing Bureau said inclusionary zoning would be most feasible in two scenarios: 20 percent of a building’s units restricted to people earning 80 percent of median family income, or 10 percent or a building’s units restricted to people earning 60 percent of median family income.

“It certainly does seem feasible to us to put together a program that does include units and incentives and still have development in the city of Portland,” said Matthew Tschabold, a consultant with David Paul Rosen and Associates.

Eric Cress, principal at Urban Development + Partners, said it may be easier to support projects that include affordable units at 80 percent of median family income.

“Forget what developers think – it’s investors running the show,” he said. “Most investors think mixing 60 percent in is more risky than mixing 80 percent.”

Under the state law passed in March, cities cannot require deeper affordability than 20 percent of units at 80 percent of median family income. But Tschabold said the consultants are working on crafting incentives for deeper affordability that developers could opt for voluntarily.

Developers could also pay a yet-to-be-determined fee in lieu of including affordable units in their developments.

City officials are moving rapidly toward enacting the inclusionary zoning policy. Developers have warned that if the city doesn’t provide adequate incentives, projects will grind to a halt.

Saltzman is expected to release his recommendations for the policy in early September, and then the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is set to issue a proposed draft of the zoning code on Sept. 19.

After hearings before the Planning and Sustainability Commission, the City Council is expected to consider the recommendations in December.

At Tuesday’s meeting, some panelists wondered aloud how much influence the so-called “panel of experts” can have on the policy.

Panelist Greg Goodman, whose Downtown Development Group is among Portland’s most prominent property owners and developers, asked directly if the recommendations would be put up for a vote by the panel.

Shannon Callahan, policy director for Saltzman, said the group was not formed to vote on the zoning code.

“I don’t know that we’re expecting this group to endorse it,” she said. “We want your advice and expertise.”

Lisa Bates, a Portland State University associate professor of urban studies and planning, said she understands that the panel’s role is advisory.

“I’m comfortable not voting,” she said.

Vivian Satterfield, deputy director at OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, a Portland-based civil rights advocacy group, asked when the panel would consider racial and social integration, along with the city’s track record in delivering affordable housing. Tschabold replied that the September and October meetings would be appropriate forums.

The panel’s next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 13.

Portland’s inclusionary zoning efforts drawing attention

While Portland charges ahead toward enacting an inclusionary zoning policy, other Oregon cities are watching – and waiting.

The state law passed by the Legislature in March that allowed Portland to create a zoning code requiring multifamily developers to build affordable units also permits other municipalities to do the same.

Yet Portland is far ahead of other cities in considering an inclusionary zoning regime. A spokesman for the League of Oregon Cities said no other city has moved toward enacting inclusionary zoning requirements.

Planners for other cities are watching to learn from Portland’s experience.

“At the staff level, there’s quite a few conversations about what the legislation means and what Portland’s doing,” said Robin Hostick, planning director for the city of Eugene.

Planning staffers have not received direction from the Eugene City Council to begin an inclusionary zoning process, he said.

Eugene has its own affordable housing challenges, paired with lower wages than Portland workers earn on average, Hostick said.

“The housing affordability issue is huge in Eugene, just like it is in Portland,” he said.

Portland officials were better prepared to go forward, Hostick said.

“That legislation is really hot off the press,” he said. “They were ready to go from basically day one.”

Eugene has a program similar to Portland’s MULTE (Multiple-Unit Limited Tax Exemption) program that awards developers property tax breaks in exchange for affordable units. In Eugene the program is called MUPTE (Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption).

In Beaverton, city officials published a draft Housing Action Program in June. The city has not yet moved forward on inclusionary zoning.

Beaverton officials project that by 2035 the city will need 7,045 additional rental units priced at $620 or less per month – affordable to renters spending 30 percent or less of their income on housing.

The post Inclusionary zoning panel challenges role appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Height, and where tall buildings would detract from neighborhoods, dominated the initial public hearing for the proposed draft of Portland’s Central City 2035 Plan.

Goose Hollow and West End residents came out in force on Tuesday to a meeting of the Planning and Sustainability Commission to oppose proposed maximum building heights of up to 460 feet on some parcels. The Goose Hollow Foothills League has been a vocal advocate for preserving views of Mount Hood from the historic neighborhood.

“Excessive heights cause an excessive incentive to tear down rather than preserve,” said Richard Rahm, a West End resident.

Developers and some affordable-housing advocates have been pushing for taller buildings to provide more housing and greater return on investments. That has caused consternation throughout Portland, and the West End and Goose Hollow have emerged as particular hot spots for the debate.

Sherry Salomon, a Goose Hollow resident, said allowing buildings up to 325 feet “threatens the character of our neighborhood.” It puts at risk historic Goose Hollow buildings such as the Concordia Club, a historic Jewish social club, she said.

Fred Leeson, president of the Architectural Heritage Center‘s board, lamented that the neighborhood’s views of Mount Hood haven’t been the same since construction of the KOIN Tower in 1983.

“We seem to be in such a rush to be a huge city just like any other American city,” he said.

Walt Weyler, a West End resident and an Oregon Symphony Association board member, said the city should not allow construction of large multifamily buildings without additional parking.

“Parking is needed for arts performances,” he said.

The city has moved away from minimum parking requirements, instead investing in public transit.

Some speakers advocated for greater heights. Allison Reynolds, a lawyer representing Unico Properties, owner of the U.S. Bancorp Tower, said the code should allow for unlimited height at the site of the skyscraper better known as Big Pink.

The building, along with the KOIN Tower and the Wells Fargo Center, predates and exceeds downtown’s 460-foot height limit. As a result, the towers are considered nonconforming uses, which could complicate refinancing, transactions or rebuilding after a disaster, Reynolds said.

Reynolds added that the buildings’ owners would be amenable to limiting the allowable height on those properties to the towers’ current heights, but she said there are some discrepancies in how skyscrapers’ heights are measured.

Portland State University officials also argued in favor of increasing allowable building sizes along the transit mall and MAX orange line tracks.

Several speakers decried a zoning code requirement that buildings and additions should meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design gold standards from the U.S. Green Building Council.

“There is an issue with mandating one single green building program,” said Caitlin Horsley, sustainability and education manager for the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland.

Some speakers said they want the option to use a competing certification: Green Globes from the Green Building Initiative.

Audrey Craig Gnich, with Portland Forward, cautioned against doing away with a floor-to-area ratio for providing day care facilities in the Central City.

“We’ll be left with a zoning code that does almost nothing to support families and family-sized developments in the Central City,” she said.

The Planning and Sustainability Commission will hold a second public hearing on the Central City 2035 Plan on Aug. 9 at 5:30 p.m. in the Portland Building. Attendees can sign up to testify beginning at 3:30 p.m. in Room C of the Portland Building and then return near the start of the meeting.

The post Building height towers over zoning debate appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

With Portland’s one-year-old tree code not working as intended, city officials will meet this month to look at tweaks.

The Portland City Council voted Wednesday to establish a committee of representatives of the bureaus impacted by tree-related issues, following months of delays. Commissioner Amanda Fritz noted that what was originally supposed to be a one-year update of Title 11 has turned into a chance to fix it.

Fritz said she had hoped to put together a package to amend Title 11 this past March, when the council heard an annual review of the young code. But a problem related to Portland’s system of government emerged, she said.

“It turns out, the challenge is, each one of us has a bureau or several bureaus that have a stake in this tree issue,” she said.

Commissioner Nick Fish oversees public utilities. Commissioner Dan Saltzman oversees development services and housing. Mayor Charlie Hales oversees planning and sustainability. Commissioner Steve Novick oversees transportation. And Fritz oversees parks and recreation.

On top of that, two citizen commissions – the Urban Forestry Commission and the Planning and Sustainability Commission – help oversee Title 11.

Fish called for bureau representatives to meet within two weeks to identify areas of concern regarding Title 11 and then bring goals before the council no later than the end of August.

“There’s nothing like putting everyone in one room, locking the door and banging heads,” he said.

Portland’s Citywide Tree Project began in 2008 to develop consistent guidelines relating to the “urban canopy” across different land use categories. Title 11 was finished in 2011, but didn’t get off the ground until the recession ended.

“The reality is, we haven’t been able to find consensus,” senior policy adviser Pooja Bhatt said. The exception, she said, was a provision allowing branches up to a 1/4-inch in thickness to be pruned without a permit.

Critics on both sides say the policy has been a misfire. Some developers and project designers say fines under Title 11 are so steep, and restrictions so onerous, that many owners are electing to remove trees and pay thousands of dollars in lieu.

Advocates for trees say Title 11 falls short, though it’s better than nothing.

“One of the myths about Title 11 is that trees are being preserved,” said the Audubon Society’s Jim Labbe, an advisory committee member invited by Fritz to testify at Wednesday’s meeting.

Labbe said various citizen groups have proposed a site review process for developers, so they can make cases for which trees need to come down. He said exemptions for commercial and industrial land should be abandoned.

Over several months, critics from the development community have begun to sit out the public process to revise the law. Four members of the Tree Code Oversight Advisory Committee quit after the city added four people favorable to tree preservation to the eight-person committee, effectively minimizing their voices.

“We kind of felt like, what’s the point of going?” Jeff Fish of Fish Construction told the 91��Ƶ.

The post More work ahead for Portland tree code appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Multifamily developers in coming years may be required to more carefully consider how people travel to and from their buildings, and whether future tenants will drive.

Portland Bureau of Transportation officials are discussing proposed new requirements for developers for transportation demand management – planning jargon for how to encourage people to forsake single-occupancy vehicles for bicycles, mass transit vehicles or their own two feet.

More than ever before, multifamily developers would be responsible for influencing how residents get to and from their buildings.

The proposed requirements are part of Central City zoning code changes under discussion. They would apply to new developments or renovations that create more than 10 dwelling units or more than 25,000 square feet of net building area.

In order to comply with the regulations, a developer would have to either: 1, agree to a preapproved standardized plan set forth by the Portland Bureau of Transportation, or 2, undergo a transportation impact review process.

The provisions stem from the City Council’s goals of reducing average driving to 11 miles per day, and boosting the proportion of Portlanders who walk, bike, take transit, carpool or work from home to 70 percent by 2035.

“What we’re trying to do with the Central City plan and parts of the Comprehensive Plan as well is take a collaborative, incentive-based approach to increasing use of public transit and biking and walking,” said Dylan Rivera, spokesman for the Portland Bureau of Transportation.

Rivera said something must be done to steer Portlanders away from driving as the population booms. The city projects 120,000 new jobs and 260,000 new residents by 2035.

“If everyone’s driving, you can’t accommodate all that growth,” he said. “You’ll just choke on traffic.”

PBOT is working on a preapproved plan or template for multifamily developments. If developers agree to a preapproved plan, it could accelerate the review process, Rivera said.

The preapproved plans would require developers to agree to such things as secure bicycle parking, mass transit subsidies or rebates, and monitor screens displaying transit maps and schedules.

Also under discussion are performance standards for reducing vehicle trips and corrective action if standards are not met. Developers would have to demonstrate how their building will achieve the 2035 goals on a straight-line incremental basis.

Developers are monitoring PBOT’s rulemaking. Sam Rodriguez, senior managing director of Mill Creek Residential Trust‘s Portland office, said a process to understand the transportation infrastructure around a proposed development could be beneficial, depending on how it’s implemented.

“If you’re going to do large projects, it’s probably a good idea to understand how transportation is going to play into that,” he said. “I think it could be a positive thing. I just don’t know enough about it.”

The proposed changes are buried on page 193 of a “discussion draft” of the Central City 2035 Plan. The draft also significantly loosens parking requirements for new developments in another bid by city officials to discourage driving.

For central Portland, the maximum ratio for residential uses has been reduced to 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, down from 1.35. The maximum ratio for office uses has been increased to 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet, up from 0.7 and 0.8.

The provisions could change significantly before adoption. But taken together, they appear to be an effort to get developers to weigh the impact of their projects on roads and transit systems.

“It’s very unclear right now as to what the requirements will be and what the transportation demand management review process will look like,” said Stephen Janik, a founding partner of Ball Janik LLP. Janik briefed industry officials on the proposed changes at a recent forum held at Multnomah Athletic Club.

Jack Orchard, a Ball Janik attorney who has been studying the proposed language, said it appears to be part of a larger move away from developments surrounded by car transportation and parking.

“We had a number of generations of development that proceeded on that basis, and now we’re reconsidering that,” he said. “I don’t if that’s right, wrong or indifferent, but that’s where the discussion is headed.”

Orchard said it’s also not clear how the new provisions would affect affordability of Portland housing.

The draft lacks enforcement mechanisms for the provisions. Instead, the city is approaching the changes on the front end, requiring transportation demand management plans before a building permit is issued.

The Central City plan isn’t the only effort in the Comprehensive Plan to discourage driving. The Comprehensive Plan, of which the Central City 2035 plan is part, is likely to also include transportation-related requirements for developments in neighborhood commercial districts such as Alberta, Belmont, Division, Hawthorne and Williams, Rivera said.

“Those would have potentially some different thresholds,” he said.

Portland appears to be on the vanguard of transportation planning for multifamily developments.

Seattle often requires transportation management plans for large commercial or institutional projects such as hospitals or universities, much like Portland’s current practice. But transportation plans are unusual for multifamily projects, said John Shaw, senior transportation planner for the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

“There are very few instances where the city (of Seattle) has required trip reduction measures for projects that are solely or primarily residential,” Shaw said. “I think that’s an interesting effort, and we’ll all be very curious to see how it goes.”

The Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission is scheduled to discuss the Central City 2035 draft at a May 24 meeting. Hearings will follow on June 14 and 28.

Public comments will be accepted at each meeting. The commission is then scheduled to make a recommendation to the City Council on July 26, to be followed by council hearings in the fall.

“We’re looking for input on this and help from the development community on this so it can be effective and useful,” Rivera said.

The post Roads less traveled could make all the difference appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Portland’s is tied to development of the . The project, currently in the “discussion draft” stage, will help inform the proposed draft of the plan that will receive public hearings before the Planning and Sustainability Commission early next year.

Among other things, the new Comprehensive Plan is calling for a growth management approach in which much of the anticipated new housing is built in key centers and corridors. Currently, commercial zoning exists in some of those areas where substantial development has occurred over the past five years or so.

“Folks see these areas as commercial areas because that’s the label the zoning has,” city project manager Barry Manning said. “But they’ve long been mixed-use areas. Part of our project is calling it what it is: a commercial mixed-use area.”

One key part of the Mixed Use Zones Project is recasting the zones and consolidating what were essentially eight zoning designations into four to be applied outside the central city. Many existing buildings will be grandfathered in, so they won’t be affected by new standards.

“We’re going to continue many of the same allowances we have in those zones,” Manning said. “If you have a property that’s operating as a commercial retail space or an office space, or maybe it has shops and services on it, those are going to be able to continue and in most cases, there’s not going to be a big change in its conforming and nonconforming status.”

Through the Mixed Use Zones Project, a new amount of allowed floor area will be established for new development, regardless whether space is commercial, office, industrial or residential. A series of basic height and setback limits will be set as well.

However, a series of performance bonuses will let builders include more floor area than allowed currently. To gain those bonuses, builders will need to provide development that achieves a community benefit. These include affordable housing, affordable commercial space, a public plaza or some sort of publicly accessible open area on the site or features to generate substantial energy efficiency, combined with an eco-roof or some kind of on-site landscaping to provide an environmental benefit.

Public comments on the Mixed Use Zones Project received during the “discussion draft” stage are being reviewed by city staffers. The proposed draft of the Comprehensive Plan will be released between late December and early January, and then go before the Planning and Sustainability Commission in early February. Staffers anticipate that public testimony could take a month or more. Ultimately, the commission will make a recommendation to City Council, probably no earlier than next spring.

The post Portland planning to boost centers and corridors appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.