Planning Minutes – 07/30/09

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 07/30/09

NWDA Planning Cte 07 30 2009

Committee: Chair John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Bill Welch, Don Genasci, Noel Johnson, Ron Walters, Greg Theisen.

Guests: Allan Classen, Lee Stapleton, Kim Knox, Meredith Hendricks, Kay Dannon, Diana Stevens, Scott Peterson, Mike Goldstein & Fran Goldstein, Mary Czarneki

MOTIONS:
1. Greg Theisen moved to approve the Historic Design Review of Ringside Restaurant on NW Burnside Ave. Seconded by Don Genasci.

VOTING:

1. Ringside motion unanimously approved.

* End of minutes *

Meeting Summary: We continued our discussion from last week of the proposed Streetcar maintenance facility located on 16th and Overton under I-405. Some of the concerns are, the use of slated cyclone fencing, the lack of an entrance facing 16th and the window pattern. We will have one last meeting next week to try to come to some accord with the developers. An addition to the Ringside restaurant, on Burnside, was approved through historic design review. – John Bradley, Committee Chairperson

Additional Meeting Notes:

Bradley–Streetcar storage; last week our comments were about the fence, cyclone with slats, look of the building, entrance on 16th.

Knox–Heard these concerns last week, also crime prevention (which we heard also from the Pearl side) and John’s wondering how to have storage in a zone where it is not allowed.

Existing conditions: maintenance, parking lots, streetcar storage Lovejoy-Marshall. New facility on adjacent block.
Constrained by streetcar tracks, form follows tracks.
Hendricks–Three properties, blocks under I-405.
Current entrance is reason for entrance on new building–shortest distance across the street. There’s a ramp, plaza area at the entrance. Trellis over the entry to mark it. Larger scale entrance to address 16th and the transit street. It’s a private access entrance, not a public entry–offices.

Ramp is 1’3”, which wouldn’t be needed on the street if mid block (which slopes.) Check-in is at existing building, then move to new building to change clothes and on to maintenance facility.

Knox–we are close to grade at that end, but it didn’t fit with the function.

Bradley–door entrance is important: how are you softening/mitigating the proposed entrance.

Hendricks (shows rendering) The corner on 16th is part of the entrance sequence, well landscaped; then you would encounter the trellis, announcing the entrance.

Genasci–Are you doing anything with the windows on the 16th street side, not conducive to street activity. We’re concerned about the quality of 16th, there are some nice buildings there and street could go either way depending on what’s built. Could go further down or improve. Still has potential, and use under the freeway could improve this. Concerned about windows, that it’s a single story building.

Hendricks–Windows are between 4’ and 6’, there two 2’x7’ windows, look skinny but are tall, we were trying to increase the mass on the street, and the building was increased to 15’ height, more that a usual one-story. We paired the 2’ windows with larger windows. The precast concrete has some limits for creating openings.
Genasci–This doesn’t echo local character; wall could be higher with a parapet. The old one-story buildings in the area are at 24’-25’ level and give greater presence. The Cap company building, for example, has larger, even windows, nice 8’ x 4’ windows, generosity in that building I don’t see here. It is an analogous use.

Knox–the architects are doing what Portland Streetcar asked which was to echo the existing facility and in the current industrial use style.

Genasci–you’re aware this is our ‘eastern edge’ transition area, will be more upscale, no longer actually an industrial area. This building is in a position to contribute to 16th or make it less than it is now.

Johnson–you’re direction was to echo the existing maintenance facility: why is that more legitimate than the older existing buildings for context?

Knox–it may not be more legitimate, but it’s an existing facility with a single owner. Johnson–the original building wasn’t good, so we can improve that.

Stapleton–understands ODOT only allows ‘temporary’ buildings and limits on use under the freeway. Can have people working under there. Lease with ODOT–I believe it applies to this and the existing building–you can’t have permanent structures. Knox–that has not come up in our discussions, ODOT has reviewed this up and down.
Stapleton–this did come up on a different structure. This is on a pad with panels.

Theisen–At first I was thinking there would be more of this under the freeway, thought about ‘is this what we want’ and I think this is a good use for this area, but I still wish we were getting some of the lease money.
I look at 16th, see the entrance could be more defined, but I don’t have a problem with the materials, though maybe with the window panels. Stapleton–some artwork facing 16th, perhaps.

Vrilakas–I understand this is a very functional building, but in the spirit of compromise, if the building were extended with a colonnade (for lack of better term) to extend this to the sidewalk, make it hardscape. Awning?
Genasci–your building is set up to have an entrance on the street; there’s a walkway along the front, the offices are on the back, center or elsewhere. What’s the problem? An extra 30’ walk from the other building is a non sequitur, and helps the building address the neighborhood. Won’t affect whether the building is temporary. Replacing a panel with glass is even better. These are simple, we’re not changing the function or internal design.

Knox–would recess, have some steps and some internal changes.
Hendricks–the tracks are not movable, and would need to push in to make room for entry.
Genasci–no, you wouldn’t, you open further down, slide the door over.

Hendricks–have 6” to 9” drop. Need ADA.
Bradley–we have another review, so there are two last things, fencing…

Knox–you mentioned you don’t like the slats. The existing fencing goes away, the new fence follows the edge with a swale outside on the side without the tracks. Hidden better.

Bradley–EX zone storage prohibition?

Knox–We have new storage tracks which obliterate exterior storage we already have.

Welch–shifting from existing to new area.
Theisen–doesn’t like cyclone fencing, we’ve suggested iron fencing; REI is using geometric style which many are using.

Hendricks–green space mitigates part of fence. Theisen–we have suffered from cyclone fencing all along under the freeway.
Johnson–is there room to incorporate these suggestions? Would you modify and and come back to show the changes?

Knox–Re the entry sequence, the ability to plunk a doorway for architectural show doesn’t make sense, should be functional. We can look at something intentional on the front. The windows provide more views into the building than Broadway Cab, they are a different purpose. We can look at regularizing the windows, but you won’t get what you have on the other side in terms of window/wall ration. Argues that this is actually better, more elegant solution. We have looked at cut into 16th street facade for entrance, happy to have the architect look a what that looks like inside.

Knox–Walking an extra 30’ isn’t a big deal for you, but it’s a problem with the gate being opened each time. The new door would be 90’ away.
Fran Goldstein–doesn’t the door bring attention to something you don’t want? People would think they could enter if it were a main door, and it’s not an entrance. The function is supported by the architecture.

Hendricks–we can look at a parapet with these materials. Look at different window patterns.

Vrilakas–if you think even one of these four concerns are addressed, it would make it a better building.

Bradley–they will come back next week.

Ringside remodel: have seen several times before. 2165 W. Burnside, Goose Hollow subdistrict Central City Plan (probably not true, but can discuss that later…)

Historic Design review, dedication 2’ ROW on Burnside, stormwater

Diana Stevens, Scott Peterson

New addition at north end of building, service area, additional dining room. All on one floor now, new basement area for wine storage below existing room. Minimal site work, new trash enclosure, stormwater filtration planter. Intending to make it look as is currently does. Trying to be efficient with the footprint, no larger than needed and behind the building. Genasci–same materials as existing?
Stevens–Using ___ block instead of clinker, but covering with stucco.

There is only a service, not a public entrance.

Genasci–the ownership of adjacent building is different, and you’re covering windows.
Stevens–we’ve been working with the city to help them make windows fire safe; the owner adjacent has been aware for some time. We’re blocking less than we did on prior proposals.
We are not improving the sidewalk.

Bradley–you are continuing the same canopy style as is on the front, all around the building as a unifying theme? Stevens–there’s only one, on the north end, but it is identical.

Bradley–zoning CXd may be incorrect since ordinance is remanded, but we’re using the Goose Hollow guidelines. Was Commercial and RH prior.

Czarneki–if you took out one bay of the two, shifted it wouldn’t lose much square footage and would add to graciousness of building. Stevens–we kept extension because every square foot is valuable.

Theisen–moves to approve.
Genasci–seconds

All committee members in favor.

Bradley–who will be here next week? Walters will be out. We will finish streetcar one way or the other. Would also like to discuss a formal recommendation to the board about the urban renewal area. Isn’t seeing any new information coming from the city meetings.

Johnson–has a proposal at informal stage. Bradley–we may look at it next week.

Slabtown Workplan

Comments Off on Slabtown Workplan

The Slabtown Plan Committee draft workplan can be downloaded as a jpg file by clicking on the blue “Slabtown Draft Plan” link at the end of this post. We welcome input regarding the Committee and workplan. Please post public comments by clicking on “Leave a Comment” (at upper right of this post) or by emailing Ron Walters at ronaldjwalters@hotmail.com.

If you wish to receive email updates regarding the Slabtown Committee and community workshop process, please enter your email address in the sign-up area on the NWDA homepage and be sure to select the “Slabtown Plan Committee Updates” option.

Slabtown Draft Plan


Planning Minutes – 07/23/09

Comments Off on Planning Minutes – 07/23/09

NWDA Planning Cte 07 23 2009

Attending:
John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Don Genasci, Stephen Metzler, Ron Walters, Bill Welch, Brian Bramlett, Juliet Hyams, Steve Pinger.
Lee Stapleton, Pete Colt, Mary Ann Pastene, Allan Classen

MOTIONS: None.

VOTING: None.

* End of minutes *

Meeting Summary: The Committee reviewed and commented on the Slabtown Work plan. The Committee reviewed and commented on the proposed streetcar maintenance facility at Overton and 16th. The project manager will return on July 30th after considering our requests. – John Bradley, Committee Chairperson

Additional Meeting Notes:

Slabtown Plan Committee Workplan–Genasci, Walters
Walters–Idea behind the committee is to create a vision for a master plan for what was called the Transition Area, in response to planning needs/voids. Recently Conway’s private process, a focus group asking neighbors what they would like there (with all the caveats that we were not speaking for NWDA. Lasted six months, 6:1 FAR drawings came from Conway’s consultant, we kept reminding them the NW DIstrict Plan had 3:1. An hiatus in the process has come, probably due to the economy–cost of consultants. They handed out a brochure about a sustainability approach the last day, the last we’ve heard.
Concepts for a master plan, form based code made sense, but it fizzled. Our vision was the NWDP, but then the Remand through that into question, we’re not sure which plan regulates the area.

What prompted the most recent formation of the Slabtown committee was in response to the need expressed at the Planning Committee for some knowledge and vision for this part of the neighborhood. “In favor or not” was not the right question because of the complexity. We want to describe what we do want: form based code, public placemaking. We need a public process where we come up with our own plan and drive it off the NWDP. There’s an opportunity for Genasci’s students to help us, to work with the Planning, Transportation and other committees, to fill out what we do want and build some consensus for something the neighborhood can put forward. At the June meeting the Board approved this, go work with Planning and Transportation committees. The committee needs to come up with a work plan, and due to the overlap with other committees we’ve been more specific that the usual workplan, including the public process and role of Genasci’s students.

Genasci–Outlined starting on p. 6 is a process, open to discussion and changes. Plan to enlarge the committee which worked on the work plan, which would be responsible for running the plan from here on in. Between now and September 15 will finalize the detail.
At the first of the year will do a five workshop series. The first will cover the NWDP as it exists. Open workshop, advertised. Will bring neighborhood up to date, provide orientation for the students. 3 to 5 students, advanced (ready to graduate) who will take material and pull it all together. We’ll take comments, catalogue issues.

Has to fit with academic year, one term for four workshops and next term to get to final workshop, testing the work. They will receive criticism from the community in the second and third workshop, and summarize at the fourth workshop.

At that point, spring break, then they will work on testing the master plan and the design standards which they have developed during the workshop phase. They will choose a site to plan a building, and this will illustrate for the neighborhood what buildings might look like. Housing, Community Center etc–they are free to choose the project. In the fifth workshop, these projects will be presented to the community.

Welch–in addition to giving us concrete examples, will you have some involvement by the City staff so we don’t have to do this over again. Genasci–all we can do is issue invitations: we will involve as many players as we can, it’s their choice.

Walters–ideally, the City will be aware and involved all along. At some point this will come up again, there may be a URA or another Conway proposal. We want to have some good drawings to show our version, showing that it can ‘pencil out’ when a 6:1 plan is proposed by developers.

Bradley–I think this is excellent. I’d like to see a master list, who’s here, where people come from, their email addresses so at the end we can show the record.

We would use that list to develop master outreach list, starting with an 1. announcement of intent. Right away. 2. Meet with people in Commissioner’s offices, this is what we’re doing, be aware, look for further announcements. 3. educate people about what Form Based Code is.
I’ll help develop that, have books on order concerning this.

Why did you choose to go all the way to Lovejoy. Genasci–I’m probably responsible for that. There is this large tract of land with a lot of open space in it, from Lovejoy to the Willamette. We didn’t want to focus on Conway, but on the neighborhood, what is likely developable land. Seemed like a neat package. The freeway or at least the arm into the neighborhood will be in play. I felt it would be artificial to limit it to Conway.
Bramlett–it provides context, not limited.
**Bradley–Neighborhood walk paper and charrette was done in preparation for the NWDP. MS will distribute.

Committee should make some sort of comment on how we will handle the URA. Listening to the Board, interested parties in the neighborhood are saying they are not interested in an URA, or if there is one, in two nodes. The dumbell shape doesn’t seem to be flying well.

Vrilakas–I’m impressed. In order to make this something other than an academic exercise, we need a commissioner to champion it. Likely Amanda. This is very well done, with measurable start and measurable stop which makes it acceptable to a politician.

Stapleton–similar to formed-based, is flexible zoning concept the city is pursuing. Should be more open about where FAR is placed, some 1:1 and some up to even 8:1 by the bridge.

Walters–1. I think what we’re proposing is we’re starting with the NWDP, visions consistent with this. Several years from now may be a negotiated process. 2. I think that input will ultimately come out of the public process.

Pete Colt–good work, good to have proposal to start with. Get info on the internet, access students.

Bradley–Type II Proposal Streetcar Maintenance Facility. At full block site Northrup, Overton, Lovejoy, 15th and 16th. Building with offices, facilities. Chain link with slats etc. See LUR.

Kim Knox from Shiels Oblitz Johnson, on behalf of Portland Streetcar, Inc.
Fundamental design overview. Design team is directed to match existing, modifications are due to trying to make use of existing space, get warm bodies under the freeway, and to expand the streetcar maintenance in anticipation of east side loop.
Important functionally to system, 6 to 8 new cars to start for storage, eventually up to 22.
Stapleton–is this still considered a temporary building under ODOT rules?

Knox–not familiar with this, hasn’t come up during my meetings with ODOT
Pete–proposed pedestrian promenade NW 16th to Kearny. Any sidewalk removed? Knox–no. We’re not changing any of the sidewalks. The 16th avenue frontage: because the pillars don’t let us make street presence on the named streets, we put the public frontage on NW 16th. That way the fencing on the east side where the storage is now will remain the boundary. On Northrup the fence will be set up to the sidewalk, Overton fence will be set back 15’ for swale.

Pete–slats attract graffiti.
Kim–do you want to see the storage which is not allowed in EXd? We also have graffiti– a new car was tagged.

Bradley–how does one propose getting around the storage prohibition? The fences really don’t work… The other building is ok. Can we spend some more money on getting better fences? Streetcar Inc. is asking us to turn a blind eye to what is not adjustable code.

Pete–can we get plumbing for pooch promenade?

Genasci–16th side has no real entrance, reads drawing as entry gate in chain link. We ask people to make buildings that have a real entrance, interest on the street. This has windows but it denies the street. Not a very urban idea.

Knox–there’s a low fence, gate is on east side of canopied area. Not at the entrance. Genasci–could be handled in a more interesting way. Larger windows? Some slots you can shoot through. Single story building on the street, why not two stories? Put a presence on the street? Could contribute to the neighborhood as opposed to being simply functional.
Knox–it is a form follows function building, industrial. On a site hard pressed to find any other use. Hitting the program as precisely as we can.
Welch–program meaning money.

Walters–the drawings make it look worse than it might be. Some small investment might make it look honestly attractive, it’s between the Pearl and NWDA.

Knox–we don’t need the space, will cost more.

Pete–look at CPTED in the design, needs to be open to the street with eyes on the street.
Walters–I walk by this every day and safety is an issue as it is.

Welch–buildings will work their way down filling up low rent space?

Knox–I think they’d need to do another study, at some point there’s a limited return when too many facilities are put together.

Bradley–re main entrance, do you know anything about the programmatic that require not main entrance?

Knox–if door swings out onto 16th would need to set back. The sense of place is not on the sidewalk but off to the side in the courtyard without having to set the whole building back.

Genasci–if one looks at the other side of the street there are some very nice buildings: we tend to look at 16th as a throw-away street, but it could be improved.

Knox–we can look at the inset door idea, but we thought the courtyard was a better approach.

Metzler–did you bring a copy of the landscape plan?
Knox–I can get that to you. It does meet the landscape code, but are taking out the ivy and making up for that. All exterior storage, not parking.
Re how do you make rationale for exterior storage–taking out the eastern part is eliminating existing storage, a trade off. Not expanding total square footage by much (a little more on north side.)

Vrilakas–when a building is by necessity brutal, couldn’t you plant ivy on it. I know ivy has a bad name… Is that realistic?

Knox–more like a trellis.

Bradley–how do we want to proceed here? Vote today? We have until the tenth to comment.

We’ve heard about fencing, modify for main entrance and along 16th. Knox–can come back next week. 8:30 Pinger asks for context along street.

Bradley–Announcements. Still have not heard back from Douglas Hardy regarding what will happen at Dove Lewis now that there are no specific design guidelines: I believe this requires at Type III.
The code said that because we had our new style of design guidelines in the NWDP, what area looks like and aspirations for that. These were supposed to count as specific design guidelines and this area was written out of Type III and became Type II. This condition is no longer in effect, as the plan is no longer extant.

It is in EXd and they are storing stuff there. Should we drop a dime on them? Walters will call.
Welch, Genasci–we wanted design standards in combination with design review but it got watered down upon adoption. This was set up by Jeff Joslin.
The Remand has been postponed until at least mid September (Ordinance 1) in response to what the city heard.

Will meet July 30 and look then to see who will be here in August, to plan meetings.

Walters–storage facility has already broken ground.

Pinger–would like to look at design code again. Needs to be stronger.

Walters–what came out of the Board meeting was trying to dust of the White Paper to get something in place in response to the Remand ordinance 1. We have a little bit of time before September. Should have some feedback from the Planning committee.
Metzler–will only be limited to certain zoning types.

Hyams–design review is in there.

Bradley–concerned that the city will simply respond by saying that this will be rolled into the Portland Plan. Some of the biggest problems with the plan are no setbacks on garages, how many garages, no safety standards for garages.
City Council has the ability to look at anything they want to once the ordinance is open, or to narrowly look at only the transportation. We have to look at good compromise proposal so we don’t have to spend another ten grand.

Bramlett–in 2006 white paper is a section on URA with respect to the Conway area. Can we get these done as a unit so we have something in 60 days.

Adjourn 9:20 am

H&E Minutes – July 20, 2009

Comments Off on H&E Minutes – July 20, 2009

NWDA Health & Environment Committee Minutes

Present: Caroline Skinner, Ann Dart, Mary Peveto, Jane Netboy, Monica Russell (DEQ) Bob L., Paul Koberstein (Cascadia Times), Bob Holmstrom Biljana Milkovska, Sharon Genasci

The meeting opened with Monica Russell reporting the status of the Esco permit and hearing. She said no date was set for the hearing, and the DEQ inspector has not begun work writing the draft permit. Esco’s permit expires in August. However, since they have submitted an application to renew their permit, the process can be delayed while DEQ prepares the new draft. This may take up to six months.

Sharon reported 30 odor complaints from neighbors (most about Esco) from July 1 to 17. We also have now received 73 on-line petitions to DEQ to write an Esco permit requiring best available technology and no operation on air advisory days. (We already submitted over a thousand petitions to DEQ, but the on-line petitions continue to come in).

Paul Koberstein spoke to the group about his research on Portland air
pollution, including Esco and emissions from the tank farms. He pointed out that Esco’s emissions are reaching neighborhoods beyond NWDA and that the tank farm emissions are higher than we expected, since the oil companies began using capture equipment in 2001 (our neighborhood air quality activism was a big factor in forcing the DEQ to belatedly write a rule requiring capture equipment when the eight oil companies in Portland loaded and unloaded the barges on the river).

There was discussion about Mitch Greenlick’s new PDX Air Quality Workgroup, (August 7th 9:00-3:00, Port of Portland Commission Chambers, 121 NW Everett St), which he set up in response to the Air Quality Town Hall meeting at Chapman School where parents expressed concern about their children’s health in schools near industrial emissions, such as those from Esco.

Several people from our group will attend. Carter Webb from Esco and a representative from Associated Oregon Industries will also be present.

Mitch will chair the meeting, and Representatives, Tina Kotek (D-NNE Portland,Michael Dembrow (D-NE Portland) and Ben Cannon (D-NE/SE Portland) are to form an interim workgroup in response to citizen concerns about air pollution. We are hoping a large number of people from NW PDX will attend (contact Tom Powers (503) 297 2416 about agenda, time for public testimony etc.).

– Sharon Genasci

August 2009 Board Meeting

Comments Off on August 2009 Board Meeting

The August Board meeting will take place Monday, August 17, 2009, at Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, WILCOX ACR 102, in the Wilcox Building at 2211 NW Marshall.

The meeting is open to the public.

Remand Ordinance #1 Rescheduled

Comments Off on Remand Ordinance #1 Rescheduled

Remand Ordinance #1 Rescheduled

Due to community concerns regarding the timing and content of Northwest District Plan remand Ordinance #1, we are pulling the item from the July 29, 2009 City Council agenda and will re-schedule to a date in mid- or late-September. We will advise you ASAP if any changes to this tentative timeline occur and as soon as dates/times are finalized.

In addition, we plan on attending numerous neighborhood and business association meetings throughout August and early September to prepare for this hearing. We would greatly appreciate your support scheduling the Remand item on your next or upcoming meeting agenda (i.e., preferably within that time frame).

Please feel free to contact me at your convenience should you have any questions. And thank you again for your continued interest in this project.

Brian Sheehan, LEED AP – West District Planner
City of Portland
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability
1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 7100
Portland, OR 97201
503.823.3111

Portland Air Quality Workgroup

Comments Off on Portland Air Quality Workgroup

Portland Air Quality Workgroup Announces First Hearing on Health Effects of Pollution

The first hearing of the Portland Air Quality Workgroup of the House Interim Health Care Committee will take place Friday, August 7 at the Port of Portland headquarters. The workgroup will hear testimony regarding the health effects of air quality.

The Portland-area members of the House Health Care Committee decided to form an interim workgroup in response to constituent concerns about the health effects of air conditions in northern Portland. Joining Rep. Mitch Greenlick (NW Portland), chair of the committee, on the workgroup are Representatives Tina Kotek (D-N/NE Portland), Michael Dembrow (D-NE Portland) and Ben Cannon (D-NE/SE Portland).

The August 7 meeting will include representatives from Northwest Portland neighborhoods, state public health and environmental officials, representatives of industrial facilities. Members of the public are encouraged to attend.

WHAT: Portland Air Quality Workgroup – Northwest Portland Hearing

WHO: House Health Care Committee Members, community members, local, state and industry representatives

WHEN: Friday, August 7 from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

WHERE:
Port of Portland Commission Chambers
121 NW Everett St.
Portland, Oregon 97209

For more information please contact Tom Powers at (503) 297-2416 (tom.powers@state.or.us) or Sandy Thiele-Cirka at (503) 986-1286 (sandy.thielecirka@state.or.us).

Vaux’s Swifts Watch

Comments Off on Vaux’s Swifts Watch

Swift Watch is a popular and uniquely Portland event attracting people from all over the metropolitan area on evenings throughout September. A natural phenomenon, Swift Watch features tens of thousands of birds gathering in the air and thousands of people gathering on the ground at Chapman Elementary School in NW Portland. On fall evenings before sunset, the birds congregate throughout the air space above the school grounds, finally funneling into the chimney to roost for the night.

To the Audubon Society of Portland, Swift Watch is a great educational opportunity –Portland Audubon volunteers are present each night with information about the swifts, providing binoculars and spotting scopes for viewing.

The numbers of attendees has increased dramatically, from a few hundred people in the early years, to two to three thousand on a typical night.  Though the swifts are the main attraction, the event also gives friends and family the opportunity to get together in a large community gathering, reminiscent of other Portland area festivals.

This increase in numbers of visitors to the neighborhood raises legitimate concerns about the safety and the quality of the experience for everyone. Particularly impacted are neighborhood residents who try to carry on their daily lives amidst a nightly routine of congested street traffic, illegally parked cars, litter and people loitering on their property.

Steps are being taken to help ensure the event’s safety and to maintain this unique opportunity for everyone to feel a connection to nature through the natural phenomenon of the Vaux’s Swifts.

If you attend the Swifts Watch, please observe these guidelines:

  • Use public transportation when possible; check TriMet’s trip planner for your best route.
  • Park considerately:  it is illegal to block driveways or double park.  Courtesy parking is generously provided at Montgomery Park, just five blocks north of the school at NW 27th and Vaughn.
  • Respect your surroundings:  you are near others’ homes and private space.
  • Do not litter.
  • Do not drink alcohol or smoke on the grounds of Chapman Elementary School.
  • Do not loiter on the school grounds after the swifts are visible.
  • Do not ask to use neighbors’ restrooms.  Use the Wallace Park restrooms.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact:

Frank Silva, Crime Prevention Coordinator for Northwest Portland

Phone: 503-823-4257