Board Minutes – October 20, 2008

Comments Off on Board Minutes – October 20, 2008

Members Present:
Brian Bramlett, Rachel Cody, Tavo Cruz, Juliet Hyams, Noel Johnson, Jeff Love, Scott Siebert, Greg Aldrich, Kim Carlson, Bud Clark, Sharon Kelly, Stephen Metzler, Steve Pinger, Ron Walters

Members Not Present:
Dan Anderson (excused)
Perry Heitmann (excused)

Call to Order
• at 600p by President Juliet Hyams

Call of the Roster
• as noted above
• also in attendance: Michael Marino; Sharon Genasci; Jane Netboy; Scott Simon; Sandy Stapleton; Lee Stapleton; Pete Colt; John Bradley;

Prior Board Minutes
Motion 06.03, T. Cruz: approve September minutes as written, B. Clark second;
Motion 06.03 approved

Old Business
• Pettygrove Green Street status;
• S. Metzler: needs to be with URD to qualify for PDC funding;
• Urban Renewal amendments;
• NPD remand

President’s Report; Juliet Hyams:
• Irving St. Garage HLC decision;
• Council findings are due Nov 5;
• Follow-up on landscape mitigation provisions of findings;
• Parking, reports, ad hoc committee;
• T. Cruz to chair sub-committee;
• J. Bradley: commuter parker quantified at 300-500 in 1997;
• J. Hyams: review shared lot utilization options;
• Retreat;
• Nov. Board meeting will be used to establish NWDA policy and program goals for retreat in early December;
• Blogging, volunteers;
• Looking into establishing NWDA blog;
• S. Pinger: need to update, purge and streamline existing website first, much out-of-date information, too complex, needs to be able to be updated easily by committee chairs, not NWNW staff;
• Conway Task Force;
• J. Bradley: need to address:
• what are the goals;
• what is being negotiated;
• traffic capacity and the status of the remand;
• relationship to the Central Portland Plan;
• future urban renewal district;
• composition of the Task Force;
• good faith of membership;
• design review component;
• K. Carlson: Task Force is purely advisory to the Planning Committee and the Board;
• J. Bradley: parking and parks are significant component elements, define Con-way’s background position;
• K. Carlson: non-NWDA members should be replaced with NWDA representatives;
• P. Colt: policies within context of density/infrastructure relationship and efficiencies, and the protection of Urban Growth Boundary;

Treasurer’s Report; Bud Clark:

• no report

Health and Environment Committee Report; Sharon Genasci:
• Air Quality;
• +100 complaints YTD mostly re: ESCO odors;
• new 5 yr emission permit hearing for ESCO in Aug 2009;
• meeting with AG John Kroger regarding research and phenol levels;
• meeting with Nuisance Officer at CoP re: jurisdiction < 1991; • L. Stapleton: need to be aware of the City’s sensitivity to maintaining industrial uses; Public Safety Report; Pete Colt: • agreement to reduce engine idling at Cathedral School pick-up location; • combined effort by Cathedral School, NWDA, MLC, Portland Symphonic Girlchoir to dampen traffic impacts on Everett, Glisan, 18th, 19th and Burnside; • Community Policing Liaison for NW is Sue Abrahamson; Parks and Recreation Committee Report; Pete Colt:
• Couch Park;
• reviewing off-leash utilization;
• reviewing closing at 1000p

Transportation Committee Report; Kim Carlson:
• Proceeds from Walk-Safe program are in NWDA general fund, while originally intended for use in pedestrian safety projects.
Motion 06.10, K. Carlson: To authorize expenditures of the Transportation Committee funds generated by this committee for pedestrian safety improvement projects approved by a quorum of the Transportation Committee. The committee will report to the Board when it has approved expenditures and for what projects, S. Kelly second;
Motion 06.10 approved

Planning Committee Report; John Bradley:

• 19th and Johnson apartment project reviewed by committee, unable to support.

Staff Report

Announcements

Adjourn

Motion Summary:

MOTION 06.03 approve September minutes as written.

MOTION 06.10 Authorize expenditures of the Transportation Committee funds generated by this committee for pedestrian safety improvement projects approved by a quorum of the Transportation Committee. The committee will report to the Board when it has approved expenditures and for what projects.

Voting Summary:

Both motions passed unanimously.

Planning Minutes – 11/20/08

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 11/20/08

NWDA Planning Cte 11 20 08

John Bradley, Brian Bramlett, Bill Welch, Roger Vrilakas, Sara Morrissey, Ron Walters, Jamey Hampton, Gordon Usher, Noel Johnson, Steve Pinger, Allan Classen, Kara Fioravanti, Robin Best (Don’s student), Kevin Kenaga, Greg Theisen, Tanya March.

Bradley–Pre-App notification, Lutheran Church came in a couple of weeks ago, we didn’t have a quorum but I wrote a letter asking if this was a community service & should there be a Conditional Use permit? City actually agreed, now a CU application. Propose to move ADA access with long wheelchair ramp on 18th. Type III review, do we have any comments? Where is main loading & unloading, how many people go in and out, traffic etc. Moving main entrance to front, currently buried behind ADA ramp on Irving. No comments, he’ll ask these questions. Next item: proposal for 1707022 132X NW 16th street. Elevated self-storage unit. FAR transfer, bought from an historic area and adding density. A drive-through, usually prohibited, but since this is a specific use it doesn’t qualify as a drive-through. In this area of the district, there are some uses that are not allowed, more than 20,000 sf per development. This is 99,000 sf for a retail service use, this use gets around that. Some specific design codes for storage facilities which everyone should look up. Less than 200’ away from the streetcar. **Call these guys to come in week after Thanksgiving Welch–self-storage areas near Corno’s are frequented by transients, have become ‘apartments’ for very poor people. Don’t know if this is something that can be monitored. Want to make sure electrical outlets are minimal, maybe only in the ceiling? Bradley–in specific section of code there are prohibitions against living in these. One apartment for the manager is allowed. Area is slated for development, and though near freeway, is this highest and best use? It’s a drive-through, and it’s also on Pettygrove which we’d hoped to designate a green street. Next item–Apartment proposal for 19th and Johnson, they’ve been here twice, have had two DARs before the Landmarks Commission, both groups have concerns about how this looks. Only recent change has mansard roof. Wants to discuss again to make sure we are still opposing it, and we need to get a letter in early next week. “Burden of proof remains for the architect to show how this works” LMC. Corner is weak, quality of materials of concern, massing and articulation, on two sides 6-story hardi-plank blank face. Conclusion in general is the higher the building, the less likely quality materials will be used. Theisen–another concern from him and neighbors who live near there is that these buildings are increasingly taking advantage of their lot to the detriment of older buildings nearby. It seems disrespectful, could add this comment in plannerese, how it interacts with historic landmarks nearby. Next door LM house, and adjacent is a bricker. Up the street we approved the Couch Park building and it’s overwhelming the adjacent buildings. Irvington NA took a position on a similar building which had bulk and height out of context, we could make a similar case and get a good hearing. Fioravanti–that building was proposed under height and under FAR and was still opposed by LMC, who wanted another story removed. They took a lot away. Welch–heard testimony re Old Town and the 130’ newly proposed heights. Didn’t hear staff or council with a problem on that. Johnson–when you start telling developers you can’t let them used by right sizes, there’s a problem. Fioravanti–the purpose of the code and role of LMC is to limit inappropriate use. Johnson–this group is transferring FAR, an action, we can work with them. Bradley–would normally agree, but this developer is on the third run-through, our comments and the DAR comments are virtually the same, only change is added mansard to faux second building. We are willing to work with people on quality and design, these folks aren’t responsive. Welch–the wider the sidewalk, the better. Pinger–can we make a case re less FAR. Not necessarily awarded. A series of design questions. If granting increases of FAR, we have some capacity to guide execution of the building. It’s the mansard part that’s goofy. Bradley–they need an exception to the standards for bay windows projecting into the ROW. Not written as usual, no standards or mitigations. They are projections, but in the air. Welch–if you look at Glisan, Hoyt you get a sense of the imposition of bays at Couch Park. So much more gracious on Hoyt than Glisan since there’s a drop in elevation there, more room above. Fioravanti–this aspect is totally under purview of design review. Johnson–better to talk about design, not height. Fioravanti–bulk and compatibility are in the design purview. We can ask what the building can do to mitigate it’s impacts. Bramlett–permissible doesn’t mean outright allowed. Bradley–I think I will stay away from the height. Complaints from neighbors about so few parking places. Not much we can do to comment on this, the parking is not required. Will mention. Will write this up with notes from the past two meetings & DARs, will focus on massing and compatibility. Will get letter in before Thanksgiving, writing it this weekend. If anyone wants to see it let me know. We need to be careful that FAR transfers don’t look like entitlements, fair to everybody. Next item. 1714 NW Overton, sign and site improvements. Addition of two storefronts, replace doors with new aluminum system, new skylights, rainscreen, siding, removal of parking, stormwater and planter improvements. No variances/adjustments Historic Design. Michael Tingly, BORA Jaime Hampton is from client, BodyBox. Tingly–BodyBox established ten years ago, culmination of two year search for a new home. Primary focus of redevelopment is creation of rehearsal and work development space, dance classes and dance camp spaces. Currently in Pearl, have outgrown the space. Half-block, 17th Northrup-Overton. Will now have street public presence. Main entry South corner, will have half the building, other half will be creative space tenants, possible cafe. Random parking area will be courtyard. Budget is modest, not a lot of work to the building envelope. Biggest investment in infrastructure, seismic upgrades, structural steel and concrete. Turn of the century masonry building. Welch–it’s a great building, thank you for trying to keep it there. Jamey–formed the company fifteen years ago, working with Portland Opera, we created a dance company, employ 20 people. Three teams, one travels nationally, a second apprentice team does similar work locally, third team goes to schools. We frequently do studio shows, stripped down versions of stage shows. Landlord resistant to this because of egress/access issues with two coded doors. We looked for two years at different spaces, none of which worked out. Henry Hillman hadn’t done anything with this building, not on the market but a sale was negotiated. Attracted to the building by it’s historic character. While contemporary dance, we have a rich tradition, so it fits to have an older building updated with modern technology. Looking at passive solar, stormwater and greywater systems. Looking at LEED, not sure yet but would go for the gold if we did. Bradley–exterior features: window systems? Tingley–currently double-hung, will be replaced. Some openings are fixed. Upper windows will stay the same. Ground level roll up doors will be replaced with glazed roll up doors. Opening wall with roll up doors, dark metal and glazing. Open for load in or to spill activities outside. Re-opening historic openings near entrance with glazing, replacing main door. South side ground floor also repaired or replaced with compatible double-hung. The shed adjacent will have newer, cleaner version of current siding. Character remains intact, main changes are the roll up doors. epee siding (spelling?) is wood. Johnson, Bradley–don’t need to introduce a new material to the shed. Tingley–there will also be wood sofitts. Bradley–may be better to keep the shed metal, simple but industrial building. Jamey–we thought of introducing wood, we looked at neighborhood and saw that industrial upgrades become more human with wood added. Signals not a purely industrial building. Welch–and someone cared enough to spend a little more money. Johnson–then perhaps, on the other side, you could add more wood elements to highlight it overall. Tingley–still negotiating with the city on street trees, may be one added. They’re happy with the ones which are there. One of them is affecting the sidewalk. Usher–Hillman actually worked with city to add brick that follows the roots. Vrilakas–suggests new double hung tilt pack windows, slightly wider, for better energy and sound dampening. Tingley–will be a problem with historic landmarks, who want the most historical preservation possible. Bradley, Vrilakas doubt that. Welch–Marvin, maybe others, do them with mullions and single pane exterior, flush with face. Still acts as double-hung. Pinger–applauds what they’re doing. It’s a modest budget & project, go with that. There are a number of established building styles in the NW, all of which can be applied in a human and soft way. Tied in to the wood du jour? Courtyard is not covered. Drop off for kids, main entry on 17th street. Vrilakas–it’s a great thing. I am a preservationist, but the window thing bothers me. It doesn’t add up, we’re trying to Tingley–requests letter of support. March–when Bosco-Milligan looked at Kennedy school, then they only lose 15% of the energy, it takes more energy to replace the windows. Usher–the true survivors are only the second floor, Marvin units have been used in other parts of the building. Done in a different ownership. Theisen moves support of project, Kenaga would like to add wood on exterior, Pinger/Walters to allow the designer to decide the type. Mention there was discussion of the use of epee and hope for new double hung windows. All cte members in favor except Welch, who doesn’t like the amendment. Bradley–the Board decided to appeal the garage. Tough decision, split vote.

Planning Minutes – 11/06/08

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 11/06/08

NWDA Planning Cte 11 6 08

John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Bill Welch, Vanessa Cass, Ron Walters, Noel Johnson, Lee Stapleton, Steve Pinger, Kevin Kenaga, Joe Zehnder BoP,

Joe Zehnder–Con-Way discussions, Portland Plan-Central Portland Plan.

Greg Theisen noted there were questions–Meetings once a month hosted by ConWay engaging the community in discussing their plan, what it would look like, looking at the principles of the NWDP and how it affects the land. In NWDP we talked about zoning tools that work not only with what but what goes there looks like, fine grain quality for full block build outs. Also the same property owner but not with interest in developing their property. Max flex, stay out of our hair, we’re not talking about whether it’s practical. Wasn’t engaged in future of the property.
Now, this could be a good opportunity for the principles we were trying to use in the NWDP to be discussed with an engaged owner.
Hosted by ConWay, in part to explain their plans but they seem more open to discussion–they have no entitlements to do what they want to do. This is not about rezoning, it’s not a legislative process. Changes to entitlements–heights, FAR and zoning rules–could be discussed in the Central Portland Plan. We’re not tracking or considering this as a zoning process.
Welch–isn’t this the goal & the city’s desires?
JZ–more development is good if it can be accomplished.
Genasci–then aren’t all bets for the NWDP out if the CPP comes in?
JZ–no, the NWDA is concerned about this, but that’s not how it works. I think you guys have influence outside of NW District. The Uptown wasn’t a matter of boundary.
Walters–doesn’t seem reasonable that the plan wouldn’t be brought back up. If it were to happen, it’s maybe not completely blown up, but reinterpreted.
JZ–CCP will involve looking at entitlements, design standards, infrastructure. What I thought I heard was that this was some sort of move to undo what we tried to accomplish in the NWDP. Those goals are still our starting place. North Pearl Plan included look at existing Pearl plans.
Stapleton–little strips of CCP extending up Burnside is what allowed tower at Uptown, fear is that ConWay can’t get legislation to change NWDP but the strip of the CCP will add benefits we won’t like
Bradley–what will happen to all plan districts within the Portland Plan.
JZ that is a question, updating Comp Plan first time in 30 years, long time, did since 1980 a number of sub-district plans, each incorporated into Comp Plan. Collage of these plans from 30 years with moving levels of detail, tailored to specific places and times. Re-calibrating this to set new baseline. What we all have to figure out is what happens to the particular pieces that we still think are relevant. Was a thirty year old problem solved? e.g. parking–pushing storefronts to streetline was novel then, no longer is now.
Not looking to dump plans–not successful nor right thing to do–but need something that’s easy to administer and works. Every district has influence for more than their area, that’s what coalitions are for.
Walters–you made a comment at the task force, sees a plan, can read the document which is very clear about zoning and aspirations and goals. You’re saying it may not accurately reflect even at the time what was needed. More directional.
JZ–it’s clear, when you turn it into a set of rules some of the detail gets stripped away, so a good designer can exceed the rules to get something better.
Having a conversation with the folks that will build it can get to this, plus there are a lot of things in an area that big that need to be considered.
Walters–is it your idea that people involved should be more open minded about heights, parking and all this entails?
JZ–like finger that gets to Westerly, in discussion it should be about what you want the place to be like, not individual rules. First change was from industrial to non-industrial, and the only model at the time was the Pearl, which was concerning in NW. How do we do a mixed use area that works, how tall, how affordable, how served by transportation. Not a risk-less chance, but not a legislative process.
Genasci–then what is the decision-making chain of events? Who decides what heights FAR etc?
JZ–can be part of CCP, we’re doing the conceptual parts first, basic framework, then will get to block by block detail>
Vrilakas–which is where you encroach on our plans
JZ we could, that’s a big decision, early decision-point. How and where is this made? The oversight body for the Portland Plan and CC PP is Planning Commission. We’ll say how we want to tackle subdistrict plans in PP, committees set up as for area plans. If not acceptable to you all.
Welch–we haven’t had much experience with winning these.
Bradley–we were kind of apalled by slipshod method of adoption for the N. Pearl, we seem to be slipping from the concrete to play out the numbers and assume we’ll get to the end.
JZ PDOT’s actual analysis turned out to be even higher on mode split.
Vrilakas–so they only need to double rather than triple to make it work.
Noel Johnson–there seems to be a stepping over of this district by larger committees, right to be concerned, but we should also think about why that’s happening. Hearing ‘we don’t want height or density’, and city person would think ‘we can’t work with them’.
Welch–we don’t have infrastructure, etc.
JZ–re appropriate vs required density: there are also reasons that relate to where it works, central areas accommodate infrastructure (as Noel mentioned.)
Stapleton–when you come down to a subdistrict plan, it generally steps back and loosens up the regulations from the district plan. It shouldn’t happen unless it’s more specific, as a proper legislative process you should open the District plan as it’s the broader legislative governing code.
Freight management plan for NINA should be considered, arterials for industrial traffic, state guidelines apply (also for N. Pearl as well as ConWay.) Also look at the west end of the bridge and traffic capacity. Trucking issues.
Bradley–back to ConWay.
JZ–discussions: have several months of agendas laid out, next item is about impact of CCPP schedule, what will west side CC URA’s look like–do you want to replace them, and where. A next-year process which could involve ConWay properties.
Bradley–is this key to ConWay development?
JZ–Yes. City view? … feeling in my little corner of the city is consistent with what I’ve been saying, great to explore ConWay, esp. with you all. If we could accomplish jobs, public amenities and get a package that works and knit what’s new into existing, if it looked like this with public benefit, URA’s are for public benefit–we have traffic, too. We need to examine it, look at revenue etc. vs. public benefit and using UR in different ways and can only use up to 15% in the city, 25 year commitment. If we discovered such a package, maybe that’s interesting.
Genasci–urban design to be considered? Assumption is height=density, look first at density assumptions and then at how that might be accomplished.
JZ–Idea in N. Pearl is the Master Plan district, or Plan District (in other localities, we use that term differently here.) It gives you a finer grained cut. We don’t have this tool in our box, we’d have to invent it. Was discussed in N. Pearl for waterfront. When your site is so big, and concerns about orientation, etc. this would be a good tool.
The pros and cons–the variable is how much flexibility do you allow for the finer grained plan.
Genasci–with real urban design alternatives, so people can see what the real alternatives are. So much interest, there should be some physical alternatives people could look at.
JZ–could happen in the discussions, like what you’re saying.
Walters–makes sense, alternatives could be a four-story Pearl, or there may be better alternatives that don’t meet the existing plan. If it’s a big brick building rather than a smaller brick building, that’s not intriguing.
Welch–there are public benefits we need.
JZ–Don’s ideas are where this process could get you there.
Can look at district-wide parking, street planning etc. if you have a master plan.
JZ–at some point there is a legislative process, which becomes a public process–it has to go through the front door, risks that there is momentum that ideas get. We’re off doing the Central Portland Plan, so we can get to the subdistrict plans that you all are interested in.
Welch–don’t we want a developement that works well with the existing neighborhood where they can get done and take their money home, but we need public amenities, yet also a process that we don’t have to fight building by building and lot by lot to achieve this. When he parcels out the acreage to developers, how do we retain control? The the city council changed an agreement that was years old because they found it inconvenient.
JZ–a master plan helps, but rules interpretations are never sure, and the city council can change the laws. To build the case, if it breaks down to block by block–and it needn’t be nor is desired–we give right tools, design review. The idea of talking to a large owner that’s not going away which could play to your advantage is that it’s like having an anchor tenant. They care about what goes on around them, they could put restrictions in the sales (Genasci, Vrilakas: they won’t.)
Vrilakas–could we slow this down from ad hoc process to a master plan approach? (asking committee.) Mixed sense of committee–if it ruled.
Noel Johnson–master plan gives developer a mind set, cajoled into particular parameters, solve individual building details later. Good for a developer, speaking as one.
Developers have also been burned by political decisions, keep politics out, clear and clean.
JZ–the BoP is interested in figuring out a master planning tool.
A zoning tool, holistic for larger properties, interest from City, ConWay and neighborhood.
You don’t need to ask for it, we’re committed to trying it. Limitations are time, staff etc.
Don’t get fixated on zoning tool, the hardest thing will be to figure out a plan.
What I expect is we have what, six meetings planned for these discussion. Working to get Central City Plan set, work with ODOT on how we evaluate congestion on freeways.
Genasci–not a linear process, we ought to be getting organized on a process, as it moves forward we can’t get to end of process and then look for tools.
JZ Hears concern about subdistrict planning being a shot across the NWDP bow, it’s not what we intend. We need to develop language. Interesting that if we touch part of NWDP, we have to look at all parts, at least in context… Would be more work. If not threatening, would like to see if this is the right thing to do.
What could be accomplished in 12-month process, look at how areas affect each other, e.g. NW, Pearl, Goose, West end. Not so big we can’t not complete the plan. This could be a subdistrict–last time there were eight, this time hope for five.
Will be talking with you as this goes along.
Vrilakas–it’s not that it’s a shot across the bow, it’s the size of the shot. EG Westerly was 150’, not 100’. Small increase is shot across the bow, what the developer wants is declaration of war.
Genasci–it’s not the density, per se, it’s also about heights etc.
Noel–could develop a 5:1 plan for ConWay, more that 3:1 but less than proposal, that could work.
Stapleton–a NW District Subplan that has NINA, Goose but not running into downtown…?
JZ–we need to do a lot of geography fast, but districts are not yet firmed up, as long as we get the work and investments in place we can draw districts where they work.
Welch–we effectively saved NW from tilt-up slabs with RH, now we’re eating it…

MS–re minutes and note’s request.

Ron–what about a meeting summary. I could write a paragraph, John could ok.
Vrilakas–Do it!
Pinger–also concern about getting comments to developers who come in.
Vrilakas–if you could find someone to show up to take minutes for $25 I’d pay for it.
Noel–a podcast for a week. In addition to simple notes. Record meeting on computer.
Steve would be willing to make notes of project presentations.
Bradley–seems reasonable. Ron and Steve will do these tasks.
Don–to change subject, back to Zehnder, how we would like to see this process evolve? Concerned that discussions, maybe with developer, that we are organized so that the process is what we want, not just what the developer wants.
Johnson–need to say this to Craig, ConWay, not wait for the city.
Hyams–Tuesday is next meeting with ConWay.
Genasci–we need to come to an agreement of what we want to do.
Bradley–Zehnder was subtly saying they don’t have the capacity, we’ll have to do it.
Also CWLU cte, the building counts are down, taking long term look at BDS, and how they serve customers and stakeholders. Mike Hayakawa will start onsite design check, beyond physical permit checks. Encouraging.

Transportation Minutes – November 4, 2008

Comments Off on Transportation Minutes – November 4, 2008

NWDA Transportation Committee meeting
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Time: 6:00 pm
Place: NW Library, 23rd & Thurman


Members present:
Kim Carlson, Devin Liebmann, Scott Seiber, Greg Aldrich, Sharon Kelly

Guests: Gina Cole, Tony Melaragno, Ron Walters, Mark Sieber, Allan Classen, Juliet Hyams, Young Park, Phil Selinger

Tony Melaragno and Gina Cole introduced neighbors to aspects of the Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and the hospital business most of us might be unaware of. For example: the hospital takes new Medicare patients, while many others do not; it is a teaching clinic; it serves the indigent; and Legacy provides $2.5 million per month in charity care. Good Sam’s biggest problem is that they have no open offices at this time. They are busiest during the week and less busy on weekends, including the emergency room. Good Samaritan has 2,000 employees in 650 FTE (full time equivalents). Employees work 12 hour shifts.

Good Sam’s mode employee mode split is 70% auto and 30% other. They offer a discount to employees for Trimet passes, and their employees may use streetcar at no cost. 12% use public transit. 8% carpool. 7% bike or walk.

Good Sam employees are not allowed to park on neighborhood streets in agreement with the neighborhood. Neighbors may report license plates of Good Sam employees parking on surface streets to Gina Cole at (503)413-7955.

Young Park from TriMet informed us that spacing guidelines for stops is 3 blocks apart. Current spacing Burnside and Everett may be changed in order to help speed the bus operations. He presented preliminary findings suggesting a desire to remove the #17 stops on Everett at 20th and 18th. They are only one block from more frequently used stops on Everett at 21st and 19th.

A Burnside stop being considered for removal due to under-use is the Eastbound stop on Burnside at Vista (#18, #20). More controversial are the possible removal of the Westbound stops at 20th (Fred Meyer) and St. Claire (Goodwill). Both of those stops are heavily used but present pedestrian safety issues at the unsignalized Burnside crossings. TriMet is considering improvements to the Westbound stop at 20th, a signalized Burnside crossing, to make up for the loss of the current Fred Meyer stop. The committee expressed concern over losing the heavily used Fred Meyer stop given the number of disabled and elderly riders that would find the elevation change and added length between that stop and the Fred Meyer door. The Goodwill stop, while heavily used is not far from the stop at 23rd Ave.

Walk Safe Umbrella Project
Sharon Kelly moved, and Greg Aldrich seconded, to authorize the expenditure of $52 to renew the annual permit for the sandwich board advertising the umbrellas at the Coalition Office. It was approved unanimously.