Planning Links

Comments Off on Planning Links

Chapter 33 City Code

P & R Minutes – 5/14/09

NWDA Parks and Rec. Meeting May 14th 10am World Cup

Attended: Tanya March (chair, Bryan Aptekar, Scott Lee Sharp, Nancy Davis, Mark Warrington, Frank Silva, Carol Sterkel, Frank Scotto, Britta (), Juliet Hyams, Catherine ()

Couch Park

A spike in crime at Couch Park and how to work together as a community with Parks and Rec., the police and ONI was the main topic. There was a lengthy discussion of park laws under “Portland City Code” Chapter 20.12

Because enforcement resources are limited, Portland Parks and Recreation also relies on park users to report problems.  There are issues of etiquette and issues of civil rights that concerned members and were touch upon.

Wallace Park

A noise complaint, at the dog park at Wallace, was brought up.  Additional, planting are going in at Wallace to reduce noise and beautify the fence.  The art will be moved out of the dog park-this has been discussed for a year now.  It is now fenced to protect it from balls, which were hurting the sculpture.

The Swift Watch is an issue the impacts the community.  Could parks keep the public restrooms open during these activities?  PPS staff from Chapman needs to be linked into solutions regarding crowds.  As this is not on the park perhaps working with the NWDA public safety committee was suggested.

Safety at both Parks

Talk regarding when to call 911 and when to call non-emergency 823-3333.  Frank from ONI and Mark from PP&R expressed the concept of zero tolerance particularly towards alcohol and drug consumption.  Efforts to locate source of beer etc. discourage sales was discussed.

Portland Park Rangers can be contacted at 503-823-1637.

Issues can be reported through ParkScan online.

If you have a problem with dogs in any park, please call Multnomah County Animal Services at 503-988-7387.  Fear of crime is a factor that crime stats are not able to report.  Additionally, crime rates ebb and flow in the parks but traditionally increase with warmer temperatures.  The mission at 4th and Washington has pushed crime to Couch.  Should we close our parks at 10pm?   Summer Concerts and National Night Out cold use our support and be positive environments to promote park safety.

Board Minutes – May 18, 2009

Comments Off on Board Minutes – May 18, 2009

Members Present:
Juliet Hyams, Greg Aldrich, Kim Carlson, Bud Clark, Tavo Cruz, Perry Heitman, Sharon Kelly, Jeff Love, Stephen Metzler, Steve Pinger, Scott Seibert, Ron Walters

Members Not Present:
Dan Anderson (excused)
Brian Bramlett (excused)
Rachel Cody (excused)
Noel Johnson (excused)

Call to Order
• at 8:00p by President Juliet Hyams

Call of the Roster
• as noted above
• also in attendance: Mark Sieber, NWNW; Allan Classen, NW Examiner; Pete Colt; Lee Stapleton; Sandra Stapleton; John Bradley; Sharon Genasci;

Prior Board Minutes
Motion 01.02, S. Seibert: approve April minutes with corrections as discussed, P. Heitman second;
• Motion 01.02 approved;

Old Business

President’s Report
• welcome new and returning board members;
• returning Board members installed;
• 2009/2010 meeting schedule;
• meetings to remain at Chapman ES except during the Summer break;
• meetings to be 3rd Monday of each month

Treasurer’s Report

Health and Environment Committee Report

Public Safety Committee Report

Parks and Recreation Committee Report

Transportation Committee Report

Planning Committee Report

New Business
• Executive Committee nominations;
Motion 01.11A, G. Aldrich: re-appoint current executive committee, K. Carlson second;
Motion 01.11A approved;
• NW 26th Ave. garage
Motion 01.11B, K. Carlson: to support appeal of LU 09-113773 AD decision allowing an adjustment of the setback standards to the face of a proposed single car residential garage from 18 feet to 5 feet, S. Metzler second.
• K. Carlson: proposed garage is a safety hazard to pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren, walking to Wallace Park and Chapman School one block away, NWDA should oppose in principal garages on property lines;
• S. Pinger: opposes appeal in that applicant is making a good-faith effort to construct a well-designed building sympathetic to the historic house, two other zero-setback garages have been approved by NWDA within 1½ blocks of this site, and is being no standard as to what is safe if this isn’t.
• Motion 01.11B approved;

• Urban Reserve letter
• letter written and sent by individuals from Transportation Committee in support of FPNA’s position regarding Urban Reserves north of Hwy 26, asking for Board support;
• defer action until June meeting when Board may have time to review the issue

Staff Report


Adjourn 850p

Motions Summary:

MOTION 01.02 approve April minutes with corrections as discussed.

MOTION 01.11A re-appoint current executive committee.

MOTION 01.11B to support appeal of LU 09-113773 AD decision allowing an adjustment of the setback standards to the face of a proposed single car residential garage from 18 feet to 5 feet.

Voting Summary:

MOTIONs 01.02 and 01.11A passed unanimously.

MOTION 01.11B passed by a vote of 6 to 5. The initial vote was 5 to 5 so the deciding vote was cast by the NWDA President, Juliet Hyams. Greg Aldrich, Kim Carlson, Steven Metzler, Scott Siebert, Ron Walters, and Juliet Hyams voted YES. Bud Clark, Tavo Cruz, Perry Heitman, Jeff Love, and Steve Pinger voted NO. Sharon Kelly abstained.

Planning Minutes – 06/11/09

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 06/11/09

NWDA Planning Cte 6 11 09

John Bradley, Bill Welch, Don Genasci, Roger Vrilakas, Ron Walters, Kevin Kenaga, Steve Pinger, Juliet Hyams Lee Stapleton, Allan Classen

Bradley–Full schedule next few weeks: an LUR on landscaping in ESCO area; out early because they want to get out of planting a lot of required plantings in redoing their parking lot.

Please look this over so we can develop some asks when they come in.

MS **Send Link to ESCO plantings & call them for next week.
Also next week, guy from old Dove Lewis property, low income housing.
Put this off another week? Next week ESCO and then Abe Farkas at 8:30

Following week Dove Lewis June 25th.
Also call from OPUS on 19th & Lovejoy–they’ve taken over this project.

Portland Plan Rollout Strategy–from Deborah Stein, would like input from NWDA.
A long rollout strategy & desired outcomes: theirs (city staff) are startup process again, public feedback, stakeholders, engage in public trust… (see document.)

What are our desired outcomes?

Welch–a process where are concerns are heard AND adopted as opposed to being overruled by City Council.

Bradley–they rolled this out once, it flopped, trying to re-energize this, and City is interested in re-energizing public process.
Pinger–there was a meeting earlier in the year with lots of neighborhood reps which was a fiasco–the equivocated… They got everyone together but offered no direction. Diffused a lot of the participants you’d want to have.

Walters–so many overlapping and contradictory plans–if we can’t figure out what the moving parts are (and we’re as knowledgeable as any community group) how do we make sense of this.

Genasci–What do they want to change? Sieber– original process emphasized adding Economic and Environmental planning aspects to the core land use focus.

Vrilakas–this isn’t convincing to me, greenwash. If they want active community involvement it needs total support from council, neighborhoods showed up with agenda items.

Welch–we get involved because of a crisis, need to manufacture crisis to bring people to the group.

Pinger–as Don was saying, read existing plans.

Walters–empower and legitimize neighborhoods. More neighborhood power and control at least in having plans enforced.

• a process where are concerns are heard AND adopted as opposed to being overruled by City Council.
• Read and recognize the NW District Plan
• Advisory groups
• CIty Council involvement and commitment
• Greatly enhanced citizen participation
• More neighborhood power and control at least in having plans enforced.

Bradley–will draft something for next week.

PGE Park

Copy of Goose Hollow letter circulating. Redo of GNA for soccer, Jerry Powell sent out a letter, mentioned comprehensive transportation planning. General changes, solicits comments.

We had approximately 72 baseball games and 16 soccer games (?) and will be trading small attendance games for larger attendance soccer games (17). Does this shift how we look at the GNA. There’s a section in it that requires how far away from the stadium they are to clean up, but with low attendance they usually only clean up one block.
Revisit traffic and parking controls.

Welch–doesn’t think this is the best use of a community stadium, it’s absurd for the city to cave to the soccer league and for the neighborhood to agree to it–and I like soccer.

Bradley–other uses will include high school football, other soccer, bands; other supplementary uses will continue.

Vrilakas–getting on or off MAX–need new CTMP.

Bradley–I don’t understand what’s driving this. It won’t be done my next week. So far as I’m concerned it won’t be done next week. Don’t know if/when it’s going to City Council.

I think they are imagining 15,000 attendees per game. Beavers are currently 5000, soccer a tad better, maybe 6,000. Full stadium 18,000-20,000.

Walters–concerned about the additional people who will spill into our neighborhood. Crime, litter, etc.
Bradley–that’s already in the GNA–liquor limits as well. Each potential problem has a radius of patrol as dictated by how many people attend.
Walters–should we think about extending to areas of likely traffic flows–as far as Lovejoy streetcar? Parking permits?

Vrilakas–let’s say you put Merritt Paulson’s name on each piece of litter generated from the stadium and track it so they have to pick it up. If you could ID their litter you could cast net as wide as you need.

Welch–lease them parking lots for local revenue.

Juliet Hyams–we should be doing some real outreach to the folks in Pete’s world to see what impacts they are concerned about. Is this some implicit support of soccer?

Bradley–Kim’s group should be involved in this, but they just met last week.

with the permission of the committee, I will write and tell GHFL and the Council that we need more time to look this over. Will CC Merritt Paulson, Dave Logsdon, Steve Janik.

Welch–due to change in circumstances we are looking at significant changes
Bradley–CTMP, how stadium fits in, how it fits with idea of Main Street, underutilized lots on game nights, parking, public transportation…

Pinger–we need time to understand impacts on our part of the GNA.
Bradley–we can’t sign off on this or we’ll lose capacity for input. We’ll get the Transportation involved. I’ll contact Ramone Corona about the Zone L and Zone K rules.

Planning Minutes – 06/04/09

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 06/04/09

NWDA Planning Cte 06 04 2009

John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Bill Welch, Steve Pinger, Ron Walters, Noel Johnson, Steve Metzler, Juliet Hyams, Greg Theisen, Lee Stapleton, Dustin Posner , Allan Classen

Guest: Jeff Tashman, principle Tashman Johnson LLC, TIF/URA consulting

Pinger–sat on Friends of Urban Renewal group, which ultimately brought suit re satellite districts and other issues.

Tashman–group of people called Friends of Urban Renewal, re River District, & future.
Started in 1979 with City of Eugene, then Tualatin, became consultant 1991, worked across the state. Has done a lot of work for PDC, even before he became a consultant.
Was a project, “Future of Urban Renewal” which pulled together officials from city, county, schools, Erik Sten moved this forward. In January of 2008 unveiled proposal for 20-ish acre satellite district in Pleasant Valley for school & community service. He told them he could not help them because this wasn’t legal. Contacted by Neilson Abeel, discussed what city had done, perhaps to change their mind. City group wrote up amendments to River District, pushing out at edges, adding acreage to edges formerly downtown & South Park Blocks URA plus David Douglas satellite. Idea was to move some areas into River District which had fewer legal hurdles than the older URA’s.

Bob Ames, former Chair PDC, Port of Portland Board said to Council that David Douglas site strictly illegal, and other items were problematic. The Council went ahead and adopted amendments, Friend of UR challenged this at LUBA. Points we made were:
For property to be in a URA it needs to be Blighted, meet particular conditions, things you couldn’t expect private sector to do on their own. No statement was made by the City showing that the original River District was still blighted.
Projects have to relate to the problems they identify.

Some of the projects, with huge price tags, were identified hardly at all. e. g. $54 million without showing what it’s for; $35 million labeled “Multnomah County” without specificity, not tied to any project.
We won on some points: LUBA said if you can expand River District, need to show blight; other points were minor. LUBA can be very narrow, and lawyers felt that LUBA had made just enough to
On David Douglas, they said you’re proposing a Public School, center, need to show direct relationship to River District. Best the city came up with was

Working with Tim Ramis, looking at Settlement Agreement: Projects and expansions within the scope of the law. Hoping city will come back with a counter proposal we can agree to. David Douglas seems to be dropped off. Others may challenge even this possible agreement, such as LOWV, who had an editorial in the Oregonian saying the

Public investment is to help restore an area, then it goes away, and once finished property taxes come in. Council adopted resolutions saying River District was incredibly successful, then turned around to say it was blighted.
A group of us who have long worked with UR, think it’s a good concept, see this stretching as likely to break UR, backlash in legislature. Tashman’s group includes Wayne Kingsley, Portland Spirit & involved in UR in East Portland, Pat LaCrosse, former head PDC, Ollie Norville, PDC’s first lawyer and wrote the laws in 1959-1960. We weren’t thought of as folks who would sue city over UR, they were our clients.

Oral arguments at LUBA, Norville spoke first, only about who we were in this group: nothing to gain or lose (Tashman will never work for PDC again, and they were a good client.)

Message is if you want to expand an area, need to show it has problems. The other principle, still lacking court reply, is about projects relating to the issues.

Problem Portland is facing is governance. There were a few years where Sam, Randy and Erik voted for what they wanted, and UR decisions were often purely political. PDC was set up separately to get URA work out of day-to-day city council workings. PDC was criticized for being a tool of the city, but they did at least believe things should be done legally.
Erik was supporter of affordable housing, City Council passed ordinance that 30% of URA’s had to be spent on Affordable Housing, but this (however good) didn’t relate to the actual conditions or blight.

Proposal was made to make PDC more transparent, open to auditing and evaluation: council changed these to a ballot measure making City Council the Budget Committee of PDC, which passed. PDC has authority weakened; when we talk about URA’s we don’t talk to PDC, but to City Council.

You guys and the citizens of Portland could focus on to greatest effect would be to get the governance of PDC back to people who want to follow the spirit and letter of the law, who understand the issues involved in getting an area to develop.

Pearl District second only to Hillsboro Intel investment/Orenco projects in state history of successful URA’s. UR needs to be well managed to counter the possibility that the legislature will do away with UR. Current bill to be signed by Governor weakens UR is a small way.

Clearly there have been abuses, but until Portland and until the River District, there was enough respect for the legal structure that the program survived. Now a chance that the program will be taken away.
Johnson–Real estate, development and UR’s. As former Trammell Crow contractor, saw little done compared to damage done to company. Impressions?

Tashman–hard to get people involved in anything these days, last year and a half in particular real estate folks only thinking of survival. In the past, business was active enough that people on the Council responded. Now there’s a council that was elected which doesn’t support business concerns, downtown renewal needs.

I’m one of a list of maybe 25 consultants who did studies showing it’s more expensive to do redevelopment in Portland than in surrounding cities.

Solution (now everything is in flux) it looks like Nick Fish, Dan Saltzman are reasonable people who can take into account other interests. Dan did hold off on $15 million for soccer in not yet created URA. Don’t know much about Amanda. Sam may or may not be around and Randy does what he wants to.

Stapleton–isn’t there a perception from the public that they are paying and the developers are sitting pretty, and projects would have been developed already? Real or imagined, the public tired of paying other people’s way.

Tashman–Measure 50 changed UR with greater impact on local funds; should have shown council that UR has its costs, and should only be used with greatest need. County is now more articulate about protecting interests, as is PPS.

More than perception, this is reality. Region benefits from downtown Portland development, it is broadly beneficial, but UR money should not be regarded as ‘free’ money.

Metzler–opinion of gerrymandered, select properties which appear to favor particular owners/entities?

Tashman–the law is unclear, but the fingers on the River District make it clearer that they’re looking for revenue development rather than mitigating blight. Benefit from development in these ‘fingers’ is less in the district and more to adjacent areas.

I’ve been on both sides: stations communities on rail line might be a single area, but our lawyer didn’t think they were, arguable they could be legal–I’ve argued that–but the law is unclear. It comes down to governance, wise use.

Theisen–several of us own property adjacent to proposed area, so I’m struggling with defining blight for the NW area. I’ve been in my single family home and walking, riding through the Transition area, and have seen a number of projects which go forward. Given that slow, percolating activity and an historic awareness of property values in the area. The ConWay props were IG, now EX and worth a lot more.
We’ve articulated with property owners what assumptions were in place, and those assumptions are changing.
Posner–is definition of Blight clear enough?

Tashman–definition is very broad; feeling of UR people around the state is that it not be too narrowly defined. There is a case to be made that if decisions continue to not be made in a responsible way that this definition should be tightened up.

Blight isn’t just undeveloped, but that the trend is that it is getting worse. Properties may not be as productive as they might be, but are more so than ten years ago in the River District. A discussion about the rules would be good, but again I get back to good decision making.
Stapleton–Parking lots are defined as possible blight, but are in some areas the highest and best use.
Tashman–when Goldschmidt’s downtown plan was adopted, a great deal of land was in parking lots, and wasn’t highest and best use, not a great city in the early 1970s. In and of itself, today, one couldn’t use this as a criteria for blight.

Johnson–can’t get tax increases, services are needed but not afforded (in California) so UR is seen as way to get the public to do some things the private sector can’t, is this the way it is? Tashman–yes. Urban Renewal has not gone down, only tool clients say they have–sometimes underestimate what it can do, however.

Essentially insolvent public agencies–highest and best use of a dollar is for Multnomah County to provide assistance, a good argument can be made here, or for keeping schools open vs. UR.

Sieber–how does the assertion that private developers are benefiting from UR work with your statement that the Council is not pro-business?

Tashman–Changes Council has made in which projects they want funded, which are less directly related to development, such as affordable housing, want some major transportation (eastside steetcar, couch-burnside) so projects aren’t related to project development. Some still are, but argument could be made to finish the River District so the agencies get a windfall of tax dollars and new areas can be evaluated for UA.

If terminated, debt would be paid off, then acres available for other areas. Took a bunch of properties from Park Blocks, but because of challenge at LUBA are now not in River District, so parts of Old Town are in no URA now, and could go into a new one.
Bradley–re project choice, how are choices arrived at–such as Civic Stadium with little public benefit, or Lents, which might be a little better? Tashman–need a relationship to benefit of the UR District; should be more sideboards in the law, direction on how you spend the money. Areas aren’t paying property taxes, and if LUBA can’t find that projects have to be for ultimately taxable uses, then the law needs some changes.
Bricks and Mortar, but can be private bricks and mortar. Can’t be used for operations, only capital costs.
Bradley–why has PDC’s funding of non-development businesses been such a small portion of the budget?

Theisen–let’s say my friend who has storefront improvement on MIssissippi, and loans for capital projects, but not for advertising etc. Then I wonder what % of costs were for storefront, are there limits in the district?
Tashman–that’s a grant, the storefront project, they were limited to $15,000, I think.
If you look at Airport Way, it had a huge impact on businesses, people owned building and ran business or developer put in flex space. Some UR projects are more focused on making investment so business can operate and generate jobs. On NW Front, Bachner Siltronics project was on a contaminated site, was UR project during the Goldschmidt administration.

Pinger–pretty sweeping URA proposed on west side, Fremont to Ross Island Bridge. Some questions about whether this area should be created or not. UR tools can be good and evil, both. With this proposal I am concerned at a level of resistance about speaking about what form this would be if it came into existence. It would be almost as large as the whole study area, and that seems to go against the historic use of URA’s in small areas. This larger area where you can shuffle money around seems new?

Tashman–when a URA is formed to capture revenues from projects in the development pipeline, that’s suspect, though they commonly are included by necessity. Now this should be defined in relation to the condition of public agencies.
Moyer Tower, even if it kept to the original development schedule, won’t be on the tax rolls for a while. The benefit would go to PDC, not to other public agencies, and this is a problem. Wheeler and Cogen are making

Bradley–request from GHFL to look at Stadium GNA, Sieber will send out current GNA.

Old Dove Lewis site 90 units low income housing (no paperwork yet) John will invite them.

Hyams–Exec. Committee will talk about committee structure and authority on Wednesday.

Theisen–I’m starting to feel some method to our madness, not sure what’s being worked on. We have a good sense of what’s in our plan, and what isn’t but is what we want for the future of the Transition Area and even the eastern corridor. We can prioritize, make goals, what do we want, we speak selfishly about what we need in NW vs. needs in County, LOWV factored in etc. If certain projects are high on our list, what tools are available, is UR the only tool? When the broader committee starts to make a decision, we could for example say that our three major employers could work together on parking needs without using UR dollars. Not sure about parks, but this is the idea. Genasci–the size of the URA is critical, if it’s huge, we may not see the benefits. Limit the size could be part of the discussion.

Hyams–dealing with same questions, would this be good for the neighborhood, list of suggested or proposed projects, which makes me nervous, this should be coming from us. How much of TIF would stay in our node?