NAME – LOCATION – DATE CREATED
Balvo – 523 NW 23rd Ave – 10/26/05
Besaw’s – 2302 NW Savier – 8/8/05
Java Vivace – 2287 NW Pettygrove – 7/28/05
Lucky Labrador – 1925 NW Quimby – 7/19/05
Pastini Pasteria – 1506 NW 23rd Ave – 1/11/05
Square Deal Wine – 2321 NW Thurman – 1/11/05
Sansai Japanese Restaurant – 539 NW 21st Ave – 1/10/05
Basilico – 500 NW 21st – 7/13/04
The Green Room – 2280 NW Thurman – 7/4/04
Butter End Pub – 1981 W Burnside – 6/10/04
Epicure – 407 NW 17th Ave – 4/23/04
Yuki Japanese Restaurant – 930 NW 23rd Ave3/21/04
Saint Honore Bakery – 2335 NW Thurman – 3/21/04
Le Happy – 1011 NW 16th Ave – 3/18/04
Bartini – 2114 NW Glisan – 2/19/04
Silver Dollar Pizza – 501 NW 21st Ave – 5/2/03
F-com – 1632 NW Thruman – 4/19/03
Emanon Café – 1000 NW 17th Ave – 1/15/03
Kornblatt’s Delicatessen – 628 NW 23rd – 9/29/02
Pastini – 1506 NW 23rd Ave – 9/10/02
Koji Osakaya Japanese Restaurant – 539 NW 21st Ave – 6/18/01
Citron Bistro and Bar – 210 NW Hoyt – 1/9/00
Thanks to Salt and Straw for joining our Good Neighbor Agreement Program.
Thank you for your email about the post on your site. Please know, we take all feedback seriously and in fact, within the last month installed a noise abatement system to redirect the noise away from neighboring apartments. We did this on our own accord in an effort to be a good community member.
A little history for you, immediately after our building’s construction in October 2006, the City of Portland measured our decibel levels and agreed they were within the legal limit. In May of 2007, we went through that process again, based on a neighbor’s complaint from a building that added a floor, placing their balcony a mere 30 feet from our HVAC machines.
Developers have built and sold residential apartment and condominium units all around our existing building. The latest residential building is just 10 feet away. With each new building comes a new complaint and with each of those, we have taken prompt, positive action. We believe our behavior has been neighborly and honorable and that we have followed the law and existing building codes. As mentioned above, the City of Portland has already agreed with us on these points.
Overall, we will continue to work to be a collegial neighbor within the ever-changing tapestry of our neighborhood, and provide life-saving services and programs to many members of our Northwest Portland neighborhood.
Jenna Cooper-Gross, APR
Director of Communications, DoveLewis
1945 NW Pettygrove
Portland, Oregon 97209
In the Spring of 2012, the NWDA Safety and Livability Committee and the Historic Preservation League of Oregon partnered to create a Historic Bicycle Tour of Northwest Portland. With the help of Office of Neighborhood Involvement and the the Neighbors West-Northwest Neighborhood Small Grants Program, this tour was printed into a full color booklet full of historic photos, maps and trivia. The tour also inspired a 2012 Pedalpalooza bike ride called “THE DREAM OF THE 1890S IS ALIVE IN NORTHWEST PORTLAND.”
The tour booklet can be downloaded here: NW Bike Tour Booklet2012.pdf.
Volunteer contributions from Norm Gholston, Tanya March, Rebecca Hamilton, and Mary Ann Pastene made the tour and Pedalpalooza ride possible.
Northwest Public House’s does have a license to operate a sidewalk cafe. PBOT inspected the location the week of 06/11/12 and found it to be in compliance and provide the necessary clearance.
The property is in a commercial zone (see portlandmaps.com), which means that noise cannot exceed 60db at their lot line during the day, 55db at night (10pm-7am). Normal conversation ranges from 50-60db. If you think there is a noise violation, I would recommend you file a noise complaint at http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=42438.
Meet up at the North West Cultural Center on Saturday June 23rd for a fun filled family event. The ride starts at 3:15pm at 1819 NW Everett. Explore some loved historical sites of NW Portland and Old Town. Participants will receive a free hardcopy fanzine/bike tour guide/ booklet designed by HPLO and NWDA. The image above is from the Sunday Oregonian from April 14, 1895 (page 12). I think caption is super funny and fits in with the 1890s theme. The Portland Murcury listed this ride focused on historic structures in NWDA as one on the top 12 rides of 253 rides that are a part of Petalpalooza.
The owner has installed signage and implemented a process to notifiy customers of neighbor concerns.
Complainant was also advised to address further noise complaints to the City Noise Officer at 503-823-7350 or file online at http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=42438
This is a problem the City has to address. Please make a report, online, here: http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=53112
They are generally pretty responsive. Once an investigation starts, you can then follow the progress of the complaint by submitting the address at portlandmaps.com and looking under the permits/cases tab. Looks like there have been previous nuisance cases filed at this address as well back in 2010.
I would encourage you to get other effected parties/neighbors to file similar complaints. Like in most cases, there is power in numbers. It’s pretty easy for the city (or any organization for that matter) to dismiss a single complaint, but when many different folks mention the problem, it raises the issue’s priority. The City’s online report form makes it pretty easy to take action.
RE: CROW Administrative Rules Review – Hardship Exemptions
Dear Solid Waste Regulators:
Northwest District Association (NWDA), the city-recognized neighborhood association representing much of northwestern Portland, has previously endorsed the City Council’s continuing efforts to get dumpsters off of our sidewalks. We continue to do so today, not withstanding the frustratingly slow pace of this effort.
That noted, the NWDA is troubled by several aspects of the draft administrative rule which will substantially weaken and undermine Council mandated efforts to remove these nuisance pieces of private property from the public right-of-way. Our concerns are:
- The proposed rule fails to make clear the notion that any hardship exemption, if granted, is a one-time relief for a particular property. We recommend that the rule explicitly state that, following the granting of a hardship exemption, any subsequent change of ownership or change in property use does not create a new right to apply for a new hardship exemption.
- The proposed rule is too generous to applicants with a broad or sustained history of documented CROW related complaints or violations. The hardship exemption is intended to provide a temporary, one-time path to compliance for small scale operators, not a permanent loophole to chronic violators. We recommend language which disqualified applications from entities or property owners with a prior history of CROW complaints violations at two or more locations. The “two or more” test should include the property, which is the subject of the application.
- In the portion of the proposed rule where applicants are required to show that they have considered “…all reasonable alternatives”, the rule should specifically require the applicant to explore the use of (perhaps multiple) smaller containers and / or more frequent pickup.
- The proposed rule includes an effort to assess applicant ability to pay for improvements. However, the proposed test is easily subject to manipulation by applicants – particularly in cases where the applicant is a corporate entity. Some examples:
- A newly incorporated business will have little or no income history. Because of this, they are likely to easily meet the “costs exceed 4% of GIA” test.
- While an applicant may have little income history, the applicant may be owned by an entity with substantial income history. Such a circumstance would not be revealed by the rule as proposed.
- The cost of required improvements could be funded from cash or other liquid assets held on the applicant’s balance sheet. However, the rule as proposed asks only about income history and makes no inquiries at all about the condition of the applicant’s balance sheet. Such a narrow inquiry would not reveal the presence of substantial liquid assets (and associated ability to pay) if same existed.
We recommend a rule which requires three year’s tax returns for both the applicant and for the entity which owns or controls the applicant, together with a current balance sheet for each, which would provide a far better basis to make a judgment about the ability of the applicant (and its parent, if appropriate) to fund the cost of improvements. The percent of AGI test should be expanded to consider other balance sheet based resources.
- The proposed rule does not include a minimum level of financial effort (in the form of expenditure on improvements) before a hardship could be considered to exist. If the applicant’s GIA value is very low, four percent of that figure will also be low even in cases where the arithmetic produces a comically weak standard of financial effort. We recommend language which sets the standard of financial effort at the greater of a set percentage of GIA or a fixed dollar amount.
- Clarify the “Letter of Noncompliance” section ((Part 5.3B(B)2)) to ensure that the operator(s) of any businesses will be notified of noncompliance along with affected property owner(s). Currently, the language is vague about who will be sent the noncompliance letter, saying only that BPS will notify “any other persons who reasonably appear to have an interest.” Since Rule 5.3B is titled, “Business Compliance and Enforcement: Containers in the Right of Way, the rule should specify that the non-complying business is specifically listed as a recipient of the Letter of Noncompliance along with the property owner.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment of the proposed rule. Every effort to meet your previously expressed commitment to City Council (given on February 23, 2011) that the “…rule would be in place by early summer…” is noted and appreciated. Unsightly storage of private property has continued to proliferate and obstruct pedestrian and wheelchair access on our community’s sidewalks. The clarification of the hardship clause will benefit all stakeholders.
Philip R Selinger
Safety and Livability Committee
Hello airport neighbor,
My name is Jerry Gerspach and I am a Noise Analyst for the Noise Management Department with the Port of Portland.
I am sending this note to local neighborhood officials to make you aware of the seasonal traffic flow change that will take place this spring. This is an annual event that occurs every fall and spring due to changing weather conditions, particularly wind direction and speed. As a result of this change, residents of your neighborhood may experience variations in aircraft noise exposure or in aircraft altitudes.
More information is available in our 2011 Annual Report which has recently been added to our web page at
We would also be happy to provide an article for your web site or neighborhood newsletter, or someone from our staff could provide a 30-45 minute presentation to an upcoming neighborhood meeting.
Let me know if we can provide any additional information concerning the aircraft traffic flow change or any other aircraft noise related information.
Port of Portland
Noise Management Department
503.460.4100 (Noise Hotline)