Planning and Sustainability Commission 03-12-2019

I not just a setback and we had started to identify there are some of these locations and why I think it's important to have this both of these in place we did an analysis of all of the properties of budding 82nd Avenue for the from Killingsworth to the city limits class up to understand what the current estimated and I have to emphasize estimates because it's based on though we have in GIS and it's not always survey exact so but it we estimated what would be the current dedication under current

requirements and what would it be under the proposed requirements and what is the difference between that to what additional dedication will we be requesting is through the development process and these maps and will then display that for all of the properties zero in just to highlight one example here this is a 82nd between an holiday and hassle oh the photo shows the looks like on the sidewalk on the street there at the talk of time and the measurements that we did showed that under current s

tandards we would ask for an 8-foot dedication because it is in a pedestrian district and we want to already go to the 15 feet to meet our standards with the right-of-way dedication proposed change to go to the 45 feet from centerline it does it would be 8.9 so that's the third number an additional roughly one foot point nine feet estimate of additional right-of-way and then that varies along the corridor you can see it even across the street I want to make sure that understand this dedication c

an help us get from what you see here in the photo more to something like this that you see here a existing a bid the McDonald's up the street Apryl question if you don't mind just to just try to wrap my head around this and are there comparable examples you could point me to of city of Portland streets that have a 90-foot right away that is a good question certainly some of the East Portland arterioles that have five lanes are approaching 19 or 100 feet of right of way because they have bike la

nes and on street parking and sidewalks and so this that might be somewhat of a problem pal could be an example 120 seconds is yeah and that in that realm I needs a section yeah which is a street we're trying to put on a road diet all right so it is 90 actually desirable or is that a legacy of dealing with the fact that this was a former state highway I think that 90 is desirable and I think there's a lot that we can do in 90 feet starting today with wider sidewalk corridors which is I think a d

emonstrated need now and we want to seek that opportunity as we can as development occurs and in the future creates the opportunity for us to come back and think about what might we do with that cross-section in the future which would need additional planning and is a recommendation in our next steps chapter 2 in time seek to do a more comprehensive concept design and and looking at the street thank you you're welcome so April does that conclude what you had it does yes great as I'm concerned ab

out time here a little bit so if there's other questions if we could kind of try to get through those quickly then we'll take custom Oni and have deliberations I see ends hand up and mics hand up Daisy's hand well you had me at Street trees I'm wondering though with with increased imperviousness which is what I'm hearing I guess somewhat complementary to Chris's comment have what are you doing with regard to working with BES to deal with additional stormwater issues so given the curb is in place

ment as a drainage system in place I don't believe that development is triggering the stormwater management manual and providing stormwater facilities today through the development process because that curb is remaining and it's already existing so I in terms I don't know the full answer if there's other things that is happening with BES as development occurs that would need to want to consult with them because this is largely through the development process that we're talking about but typicall

y that's the case if the the curb is in place and it's not moving but that said this could be a that Street trees as well as more of a planter strip could be a possibility to help reduce that runoff if we go jump here to a concept drawing the particularly the one on the bottom shows more of a planter strip the top one is more of an urban setting where we'd have more tree wells but there could be exploration of that to be more planter strip for reduce the impairment yeah this seems like a great o

pportunity for a retrofit to deal with more of the stormwater with green infrastructure that could be an opportunity and Daisy a couple questions clarifications the first one is connected to Chris's comment I'm assuming as part of this you also looked at the width of the current lanes to determine whether we needed to actually go for the 90 foot right away I mean I certainly get the lead to 12 12th and the 15th with sidewalks but have you looked at perhaps gaining that room in Ward and perhaps s

ince it's also a high scratch corridor perhaps maybe slow down the speed of the other cars and cells that potentially that's an issue second question connected to Mike's question as far as three goes my understanding is that we're setting the right away up for potential street furnishings own improvement including trees but that would be up to street improvements frontage improvements when development occurs or is there also a portion of the plan that looks into potential furnishings own improve

ments key to getting those furnishings own improvements as having the right of way to do so and so I would say that has not been a focus of the capital improvement side but more of as the dedication to get the right-of-way to create a true furnishings own there could be then additional looking at what could be done with that so if you have particular suggestions trying to ride that balance between increasing the dedication to get that which is ample but not overwhelming the what is required of d

evelopment so maintain that that portion allottee if you will but once that space is there if and if you meant through the development process or a more specifically a capital project but yeah we're mostly focused on a development side with this one that said we have received feedback that there are some spots for some sidewalk where there's still not even a sidewalk built or there's such a narrow sidewalk it's not functioning of looking at adding those to our capital improvements side so I am t

aking that into consideration as we revise the plan to add some segments to build sidewalk where there's not likely to be developments and I Marty would you like to speak to that very briefly I'm a little bit concerned about time I think you covered that pretty well did that answer your question Ben it did I think the first question though I realized they did not get to so we I did look at ways that you may change the width of lanes or move the curb inward however I think it's important to highl

ight that this is a state owned facility and that is our jurisdiction today we have jurisdiction B from the curb out and turn to the sidewalk corridor so it's a day it's our sidewalk standards that are being applied and we have the jurisdiction to change that to move the curb that's a-rod's jurisdiction and we moving the curb bid would not meet their current standards and would required many design exceptions and so it's something that isn't not in this plan at this time we're working on what wi

th it and those incremental improvements that we can't do and start to take action on that could be a future exploration thank you Daisy I just have a quick question back to the equity analysis um the 36% its 36% people of color who reside there currently um do we have any demographic information on the people who work on 82nd or demographic info and business owners around along 82nd not at this time there is definitely a desire to get more of that information but we don't quite have data source

s to access it right now when we were doing more of the equity analysis on the split zone sites and looking at that there was actually quite a bit of information that we became very hungry for but it would really require kind of a direct door-to-door survey bur as far as getting about information are there additional questions not I'd like to open it up to testimony thank you both thank you I will give you a heads up after testimony I am going to in particular ask about this letter from John Mol

ine and your opinions of the suggestions that were included in that so for testimony today again if you're here to testify and have not yet filled out a testimony card please do so and bring them up to love here at the moment we have three individuals who would like to testify I'll go ahead and call all three of you up right now it's Terry that's Terry Parker Doug clots and Peter fry seemed to have a feedback loop somewhere welcome thank you go ahead Terry thank you for the opportunity to testif

y my name's Terry Parker I live in Northeast Portland build is a state highway 80 second Avenue was the only north-south service surface street in the mid part of East Portland that extends from an area near the Columbia River all the way through to Clackamas County today at 82nd Avenue is a high-volume motor vehicle street a free foot transit service street and often utilized by emergency vehicles on page 29 of the draft 82nd Avenue plan the proposed right-of-way dedication requirements within

non pen pedestrian districts is to provide 45 feet of public right away from each side of the center line or a minimum 12 feet behind the existing curb line whichever is greater the same overall 90 foot right away dedication requirements apply within the pedestrian districts but with 15-foot sidewalks behind the curb line having the same overall rightaway requirements 90 feet for both types of districts allows the sidewalk space in the pedestrian Dix's districts to encroach six feet into the roa

dway right away thereby narrowing the motor vehicle travel lanes to unsafe substandard widths with that encroachment constricting travel lanes visibility for drivers is in is decreased and there is an increased probability of motor vehicle crash jumping the curb thereby degrading safety for both pedestrians and drivers alike planning for narrow lanes and pedestrian with districts will also create more congestion add to fuel consumption and thereby increased carbon emissions the right-of-way dedi

cation requirements within past pedestrian districts needs to be modified to provide for a minimum of 60 six-foot feet on the right away on the roadway between the curbs or 48 feet of public right away from each side of the center lines for a total of 96 feet to accommodate the 15-foot sidewalks behind the curb line this adjustment is absolutely necessary to that all motor vehicle lanes and left and left turn pockets often located on 82nd Avenue in pedestrian districts are wide enough 13 feet to

safely accommodate large emergency vehicles freight and semi trucks and transit buses that are ten feet six inches wide mierda mirror ensuring travel lane winch that allow large vehicles to safely pass a bus stopped for passengers also dovetails with a recent Metro Commission poll where the public which you should be representing has said they want wider roads and increased motor vehicle capacity to reduce congestion additionally any new residential development in the corridor needs to have ade

quate off street parking so neighborhood streets do not become car storage Lots City surveys have clearly demonstrated that seventy percent two percent of households in new multi-family developments have one or more cars therefore the sweetspot requirement should be three parking places for every four residential units thank you Thank You Terry hi I'm Doug clots I urge you to adopt the 82nd Avenue study the employment zoning seems-seems a useful and the split sewing that makes sense to the chang

e in how the right-of-way is dedicated will reduce anomalies that occur now under the current regimen and will give us adequate space for sidewalks and street trees the barriers to development section does call out a lot of problems and it is going to be difficult to get from where we are now or the property owners feel it needs large parking lots to a more pedestrian friendly buildings up near the sidewalk designed so I hope we can get there I welcome the going to the PBOT section here you know

with the right-of-way width again I think that it the curb is still gonna remain the same we're not going to be and narrowing the narrowing the lanes just leaving where they are at this point and I welcome to 15 new protected corners and improvements to the existing ones I hope they'll reduce the number of crashes on 82nd now as far as the future when there's jurisdictional transfer then we can move the curves in and I have seen some drawings and staff has done that also looked at how we could

fit bike facilities within this right-of-way which would include you know bikes sort of in the Netherlands model with the bike lanes in this on the sidewalk well with next to the sidewalk but out on the other side of the street trees so the street trees would have a zone of their own and then a bike facility and then a sidewalk and I think this is this would be better because you would you would be moving the kerb out so you'd get a wider planning area and then you'd have enough room for both of

those within that 15 feet and I think this would also get room for more busy street life like you see in Asian cities in Latin American cities even in Los Angeles for bicycle vendors with ice-cream tubs it's something I see all the time there so that makes sense to have the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a wider area you know near the buildings and I hope that we can get to that point and this is just the first step thank you go ahead excuse me Peter your might does not appear to be on I'

m not very technical okay you got it now you're more technical than you guess don't worry I'm Peter Finley Freud playing consultant I'm here on behalf of my client the Fubon super market the market owns what used to be poorly Community College property and I've given you map to that we are the largest Asian shopping center in the state of Oregon we employ over 120 of people most importantly the marketplace provides locations for affordable retail spaces so we have over 29 small businesses in add

ition to the supermarket and and a Starbucks and other things that are out on the frontage there we serve approximately a million people a year we right now all our access goes straight out and onto 82nd and so we've been working with p-pod and odd odd hate to use acronyms but I know you know them to try to figure out how we can get a better access to the marketplace and maybe move some of the cars to the back and enhance the pedestrian front edge we do have a traffic signal and it's complicated

because it provides walking and an vehicle access into the site we are very strongly in support of the plan obviously we when I say we I'm really meaning my client it's a matter of speaking but they have built apartment buildings in the area they are heavily invested in this area and they need the city's help to make this thing work I know I'm ran out of time I just want to make one quick comment and reading the report the biggest largest load is of trimet is 82nd Avenue bus yet at the same tim

e two of the segments are in the top 10 11 for pedestrian delays so if you think about that here you are you got the your large bus demand and you've got two in the largest segment delays so something's got to be fixed there thank you very much for your time thank you appreciate it if there's anybody else here to testify please come on up I am not seeing any therefore will close oral testimony and if Cass staff could come back up please so we could take some questions before deliberation are the

re any from anybody else additional questions for staff before you get too far down the road will you do a displacement analysis of the businesses and of the potential if you do this work would it displace businesses I mean and there's an analysis that can be done there I'm just asking if it's going to be done or not so we did do I would say very high-level economic and equity impact analysis that was in the February 7 staff report I think you know we used data that we had access to at the time

I think the the question is is to what scale are we gonna do this work and I think that you know as I mentioned regarding and Daisy's question I think in order to do a very deep dive in to looking at anti displacement of businesses you you need to have staff on the ground actually going and talking to the businesses and right now this project does not have the staffing capacity to do so and so that's something that I think we would really like to be incorporate into thinking and methodology and

scoping of when we are doing planning work and this is something that I would very much like to inform the anti displacement plan that is a budget item that we're proposing so I don't know if I can if that answered your question Andre of it so we're gonna make a recommendation today is that something I guess at the end of the day that we as a commission could recommend as part of this should be done that detailed so I think regarding the actual map changes I think the feeling from the staff that

conducted with the economic and equity impact analysis that those changes do not warrant that level of analysis because the changes are not a significant up zone if that makes sense these are technical fixes with that said I think that there is a spectrum of thought on what should warrant that deep dive analysis okay are there any other questions so I do have a question with regards to this letter there were some recommendations that were made in like that gets kind of staffs opinion on those r

ecommendations to be added to the proposal okay doing a start and then all supplement so and really it's the last page of mr. Moody's testimony and I am again very appreciative I've had a lot of informal question question or conversations with John and I'm very appreciative of him submitting testimony regarding the near term action as far as the integrating integrating a residential displacement wreckin out risk analysis into all significant transportation zoning economic development plans and i

nfrastructure per comp plan policies I feel like I think there's a number of ways of responding to that I think that there's significant residential displacement risk analysis that's been done with the residential infill project that is very much tied to 82nd Avenue um the fact that there are Kali Montavilla palace Gilbert Atwood Darlington and Lance that all are up and down the corridor and that now analysis has been done I feel like there could be a bit better of a crosswalk with that analysis

and how it is discussed in the 82nd Avenue plan so that's I guess my thought there regarding the develop a corridor wide residential growth strategy I think it's an excellent idea you know I I guess I'll stop there and then regarding the comments regarding the mitigating homelessness impacts and just the choice of language I think what's tricky about that is that that was language that was pulled from the Leyland consulting report that was came through specifically from property owners and busi

ness owners so it is qualitative data which is one perspective of minis on a very complicated issue and how we respond to community is experiencing house lessness so I feel like it would be good for us to look at that section again but I think maybe create a little bit more of a caveat on who that perspective is from it seems fair if I could follow up on those points a little bit so in terms of residential displacement risk it seems to me they're basically two actions here and we're making some

technical improvements to employment centering that may increase employment density right if things go well and we're making a lot of safety improvements to the street taking the second one I could imagine that if we make the streets safer it becomes more desirable and that could be a driver of displacement on the other hand I can't imagine withholding safety improvements in order to stop displacement that being completely unfair to the existing population so I'm not gonna go there let me ask th

e question do you see any cross risk we're increasing employment density could be a driver or residential displacement or they sufficiently decoupled I feel at this time again with employment and zoning again it's it's not an EPS owned it's just a straight across it doesn't create increased development capacity I also feel like zoning is just one part of what allows development to occur and in this study there are significant barriers to just lack of sophistication of property owners not across

the board but that just is one item lack of access to financing also with I think there's there's a whole part of what I would have loved if I had been involved in this study a little bit earlier I would have loved to really explore where the barriers are with financing and why we can't get two or three story or four-story buildings financed on 82nd and then additionally there's this whole barrier that is a little bit of the elephant in the room and that is a bear City barriers as far as SDC's a

nd what are our city requirements you know when a property is going through we have a habit for example we have a lot of properties that totally avoid triggering that non-conforming upgrade threshold because they just can't afford it and so that's why we don't see like the hung fat site or you know other sites when there was a change and a new tenant improvement we're not seeing landscaping going in on in parking lots because people are avoiding that threshold so I feel like the zoning piece is

such a small component of many many many many other barriers that are here on along the corridor are there any other questions first Oh if not does anybody want to make a motion and may perhaps Marnie I believe you have a slide for potential motion okay how would you like me to want me to read through these or what's your protocol oh I think we could all read it okay does anybody comfortable making a motion to Simmons to recommend amending their zoning mat that yes there's two options I believe

here one is to revise them I think well might you go ahead and tell us what you're putting in front of us we actually have I guess technically four actions you know first it's more directing staff to revise the 82nd Avenue study to include the economic and equity impact analysis that was done in the February 7 staff report so we would incorporate that into the study number two with its truck stops to be revised both 82nd Avenue study and the 82nd Avenue plan to clarify information proposals as n

ecessary so that gives us a little bit of more room to make those not content edits but more technical edits for clarity and then moving down below recommend that city council number one amend the zoning map and the comprehensive plan map as shown in the staff report stated both February 7th in March 7th and then number two adopt by resolution the 82nd Avenue study and then the 82nd have a new plan great okay so Mike you were moving all four points is that correct okay thank you and we have a se

cond is there any further discussion questions deliberation Andre yeah I'm supportive of this this plan because of the safety what it's going to do for 82nd I think the residents need 82nd to function better from a pedestrian standpoint from a safety standpoint but what they don't need is a plan that gets better safety and then the businesses disappear because it sings Oh means not a driver we change zoning all the time streetcar being an example to change the neighborhood to get more businesses

so zoning is a driver and we are it we are changing it or making it easier for zooming for people to develop and the restriction from getting smaller frontage is gonna make it easier to develop it doesn't increase the zoning but it makes it easier and that's you have residents that are not sophisticated you're correct but we don't have policies to go out and help those residents redevelop and so those are ethnic businesses that are at some point they get bought up in someone else's redevelop so

me it is an additive effect of the businesses and the residents at risk and we need to take a look at it I get Portland doesn't want to take a look at it but ODOT controls the street and I hope ODOT holds Portland to the equity components of the comp plan and says how are you going to mitigate the people that get displaced because of this action and so if we don't do it let somebody else can hold our feet to the fire here because the the businesses are connected to the residents and we heard the

business come up and say they do a million residents or customers a year that's a little big population I suspect us mostly local and we need to be able to support them not but in place something that's going to push them out and push it on residents out so while I'm supportive I wish we could recommend more any other comments questions okay not seeing any let's go ahead and call the roll up bah yes Portales oh yes how yes Marcel quinones yes Smith Spivak yes Saint Martin yes Schulz yes that un

animously passes thank you very much for your time today we appreciate it thank you moving forward next item on the agenda is the residential infill project revised proposed draft it's a work session hopefully recommendation I would like to read a disclosure statement for this well it's not clear whether the proposed changes create a potential conflict of interest for PSC members because the changes affects such a broad class of property owners and single-family zones in the interest of transpar

ency we have the following declarations Commissioner Smith bah backtrack and Kiana's do not own properties in the single-family zones in Portland all other PSC commissioners own between 1 and 3 properties that are in single-family zones are there any other disclosures that need to be made at this time not seeing any okay welcome thank you my name is Sandra wood I'm with of Europe planning and sustainability and I'm here today with Morgan Tracy he is the project manager for the residential infill

project and with Tyler bump our senior economic planner for this project and we are here to have hopefully our last work session and and vote it's a big day for us and for the commission also for this project if you're following along at home which I saw that many people were the materials that we are going over today are available on our website and we are live streaming on YouTube also as with most of our work sessions with the Commission and what you discussed earlier very early in your deli

berations back in May of last year the Commission came around and discuss what was going to be kind of the the focal point of this project and what you were what were the main goals that you were trying to achieve with this project and this slide we've shown it every time to talk about the main goals which have been equitable benefits and costs as a result of these proposals more housing options for Portlanders and less expensive housing options rose to the top I just wanted to remind you of tha

t again today as I mentioned it's a big day but we do have a bit more rolling up our sleeves and work to do and what we have on the agenda today is to talk about the infrastructure analysis that we received from the various service bureaus the potential amendments that the commissioners have letters the City Council I am then we can finally take a vote at the end we know some commissioners have questions about our growth in our models so we want to take a moment to talk about those because it's

important for you to understand generally what was before you in previous meetings but also in relation to the infrastructure analysis it's important to understand what our growth models show because those play into how infrastructure is analyzed by the different bureaus so we'll start with that and then we can go into the into the service bureaus and then the amendments for the votes if that sounds ok with everyone so let me start just by saying for infrastructure planning in general what we do

is we need to run a model on where we expect growth to occur in Portland this is called and we've developed an in-house and it's called the buildable lands inventory and it it's basically our standard practice for allocating growth our buildable lands inventory is calibrated we calibrated our modeling assumptions to the recent regional growth allocations and and what the regional growth forecast is so for this reasons when we went through the comp plan we established that as a model that was pa

rt of the growth scenarios discussion and it was used as part of the comp plan and as a basis for the comp plan and acknowledged by the state of Oregon and by Metro and is calibrated and coordinated with all of our regional partners it's what we use for the comp plan scenarios it's what we used for the mixed use zones it's what we use for Central City and it's also what we used for our displacement risk analysis for for the residential infill project what happens is that we do the model allocati

on and then we give those allocations that help the outputs to the infrastructure bureaus and then they use that for their analysis to to analyze if their infrastructure can support or not support the growth and where it's expected so that's kind of the larger lay of the land Tyler is going to talk to you more specifically about the bli and the assumptions that went into it and how that compares to the economic feasibility study that we presented to you in December and then after that working ca

n talk to you about what the what the infrastructure bureaus have what they found through their analysis Thank You Tyler bump senior economic planner Bureau planning and sustainability before we get into the details I want to read or state something that's handed just mentioned and that's that the the bli the billable lands inventory is designed to estimate how development regulations can impact the geographic distribution of growth and so when we do these things for different projects we look a

t them on a project basis and then that's sort of cumulative rolling over time so what we're looking at now includes the comp plan includes Central City includes mixed use zones in the future when we do this work it'll include residential infill it will include other projects so if this sort of cumulative thing that builds on our existing regulations and new regulations to paint the best picture for us or likelihood of where development is likely to occur and what the infrastructure issues or ne

eds might be around those areas the the two major points that are outputs of the buildable land is that inventory are what we call capacity and allocation the zone capacity that we look at is essentially the total potential for development the city this is a totally unconstrained number it's every lot that could redevelop to its highest use is the zone capacity across the city the allocation that we work with is the hundred and twenty three thousand household units on the residential side of 25-

year growth through 2035 so when we talk about allocation we are talking about that one hundred and twenty three thousand unit forecast that we get from metro and that we use for all of our planning projects the two things that the Bo light does it well there's a lot that goes into it in the inputs but the the big inputs here are development trends and market factors so we're his development happened before as a big indicator of where development is likely to occur in the future development cons

traints things like brownfields things like ease owns things like transportation constraints we look at all those things in terms of capacity and constraints and then come up with the allocation model so the household allocation this is for the residential infill project specifically our proposed changes create a shift in both the number and type of units in the our 2.5 our five and our seven zones so before residential infill we were looking at a total of 16,000 or so units through 2035 in the

single dwelling zones and after modeling residential infill through the bli and 123,000 unit forecast we're looking at 20,000 units in the our 2.5 our five and our seven zones across the city one thing that I do want to highlight here is that the housing units between these are not the same is that in the 16,000 we're looking at 16,000 sort of large single-family detached structures as we know them now and then in the 20,000 and the proposal we're looking at 20,000 units within a single house a

duplex a triplex or a four-plex so the the numbers a little bit bigger but overall the units are different between those two numbers the other thing that could happen is proposed changes also shift where units will occur so that's both shifting within the our 2.5 or five or seven zones and also shifting from other zones in some situations too so ultimately what we see as result on the map that we've looked at before is two things happening one is shifting where development was likely to happen i

n the single dwelling zones before and also shifting additional units from other base tones into these new one two three and four unit development types so that's the sort of baseline of what we're looking at here sorry there any questions about what this is a good point to clear up now if we could so he'd go back to that prior slide so in the the baseline 16,000 large single-family units many of those were probably already single-family dwelling units right so the the incremental number of dwel

ling units is far less than that 16,000 am I correct about that we look at vacant and underutilized parcels so some of it a large portion of that is vacant sites honestly there's there's a lot of larger 10,000 square-foot sites that have a house on five thousand square feet of it so we do count that vacant portion so it's a mix of vacant and redevelopment but then what the second line proposal 20,000 that is presumably fewer Lots being used so the the incremental number of housing units is great

er so if if we sort of look at those two lines and said you know new house it you know added housing units right now it only looks like there's a differential or four thousand there but in fact if you factored in what's being replaced probably the the Delta is much greater than the four thousand my correct and believing that it could be we'd have to look at it to see but yeah the the thing I think that you're alluding to is that you're getting more out of more units in situations of redevelopmen

t under the proposal than we are under the baseline scenario right thank you Katie go ahead yeah I woke up this morning and read an article in The Oregonian and it was claiming actually that there was more than one set of data that was used for the studies that you know I based a lot of my opinion on whether the RIP was a good idea or not so I just want to hear your take on that I want to be able to come away from this discussion with a really clear understanding of what went into that article a

nd what happened on your side sure so we're gonna go a little bit into the comparison of the buildable lands inventory and the Johnson economics feasibility and the comparison between those right now I really want to be able to follow this - I really want to be able to go okay now I understand what happened with the Ori going in so I'm hoping that you don't go so far afield that I get lost and everyone else gets lost okay okay that'd be just real quick before you move forward were there any othe

r questions on the the information before we move on go ahead Andre so are you gonna go into the geographic change that the the baseline versus the the the baseline voi versus in terms of the geographic change of the growth we're going - yes yeah so this site here which is I think the slide that helps probably understand the difference between the two models that's what this slide is designed to do the next slide is a map - about the geographic changes that we've already we talked about during t

he displacement risk analysis but was part of the thing that fed into that so is that yeah and then we get into infrastructure so these are the two slides that we have prepped to have this conversation and then there's also this map that the Oregonian had and it is a pretty powerful map right really like I'd really like an explanation of this man yeah so let's talk about that when we get to this map but this slide shows the comparison of the two models and that's what we were hoping to do with t

his slide if that makes sense I think it'll be helpful for us to start here and sort of work up to that comparison point and then if there's any questions at that point we can sort of go through them individually with this slide here there's there's a comparison between our residential infill bli forecast and the Johnson economics model the lighter the lighter blue color is the residential infill I'll start with that one the the way that we work up to the new units sorry just clarification the l

ighter blue is the be alive forecast right and and all three comparisons right that's right yeah so the light lighter blue we start off with the baseline how many are we anticipating under the current situation the middle but the middle two bars right there are how many are we anticipating in the edition of the proposals what's the impact of the proposals and on the far right column is the total new units over by 2035 so in the blue area we're looking at 16,000 baseline units in the complan base

line with an addition of almost 4,000 through residential infill proposals for a total of 20,000 overall units in our 2.5 our five and our seven zones by 2035 the dart does does that make sense so everything we're adding together the light blue its home later target is it's cumulative from the left to the right right yes and the light blue all the information we've been giving about what we do with infrastructure bureaus is based on that buildable lands inventory which is the state sanctioned mo

del which is the light blue numbers here so that we'll get to that in a second yeah so the the blue is the Johnson economics analysis and there was a lighter darker light the lighter dark blue if Johnson economics model and this is the second version of what he did what Jerry had done he had done a couple rounds of analysis as as Planning Commission had had sort of tweak some of those things and we had internal conversations so the dark blue ones there's three points that I want to make before w

e get into here of why they're different one is that the biggest reason or one of the main reasons that we had gone under contract with Johnson economics to look at the stuff is to make sure that the development types that we're talking about and proposing are feasible within the market so sort of baseline why we had worked with Jerry to do that work was to make sure that they were feasible to what he's really looking at is how many people might choose to take advantage of the proposals from a r

eal estate perspective and that's outside of our total hundred and twenty three thousand unit forecast his total is is total unconstrained demand anybody it's possible to build these there's an unlimited amount of folks out there they would want to live in these type of units so they're not within the the constrain hundred and twenty three thousand forecast that we're working with and I guess the reason that we're working with a hundred and twenty three thousand that's our regional forecast that

's what we're required to plan for that's how we need to look at our infrastructure needs so they're they're a little bit apples and oranges in terms of direct comparison but I do think that they provide a good range of what potential outcomes could be and I'll talk about that in a little bit here so Johnson economics model started with a baseline of about twelve thousand units this sort of unlimited demand real estate feasibility model looked at a potential of about twenty four thousand new uni

ts for a total of thirty six thousand potential over the twenty year period of time and that difference in the last two columns there is really ultimately the difference between the buildable lands inventory model and the Johnson economics model and that's where if there were a significant increase in demand or unlimited demand we could get up to that point the the long-term forecast that we're working with keeps us at this lower twenty thousand number and so that's a overview of the differences

before we move on so light and then Chris sorry Chris dumb down interpretation of the Johnson because I remember when we saw that report I got it looked to me like the model is you're good just seemed to see one foreign replacements in some area it flips a switch and suddenly you just see three or four units in the situation and that would tend to give us a large number of new units whereas in practice we know from historic experience and the market that only a certain percentage of the homes a

ctually utilized the additional development capacity a lot of people want to be landlords and that would be explain why in practice you would see not as high utilization rate as the in theory the economists would show is that consistent with what you're showing us absolutely yes so which of those models is the displacement risk analysis based on the displacement risk analysis is based on the 20,000 unit number consistent with the way we look at our infrastructure life yes and that's what the sta

te would have required us to do they don't acknowledge that it won't right but so Jerry's looking at an unconstrained model right so if Portland becomes more competitive in the housing market because of rep because there will be units that have good access to transit lines versus stuff at the edge that wouldn't have very good access to transit in fact the displacement risk could be greater it's hard to say specifically what the outcomes would be because again we're working within our 123,000 uni

t for caste so if we were to see more you know 36,000 total units by 2035 the way the bli works is we would have to take those from other base owns and other locations which has its own set of impact so it's not happening in isolation so it could be possible it's hard to say for sure without doing the analysis to see ok so just in terms of how we've been telling the story to ourselves into the community we all got very excited about that 24,000 number in the middle column right so I think we we

lost the the understanding of the two models and why the numbers would be very different so I don't know he can help us sort of recover our understanding well can I can I try we did we got very excited about the 24,000 a unit number because it was evidence that this idea of being able to do infill housing of this type was actually had a mark had a economic viability like if we created this zoning tool somebody could actually use it it would not just be one that was hypothetical and never went an

ywhere that was a threshold sort of question that we felt the need to answer and that's what jury John that's what that economic work did now how much of that gets built over a period of time depends on the growth and of the city the demand for housing and the households that are moving here does that make sense if you a part of our affordable housing or housing cost issue is that we have not been a place where the markets been tricked so excessively that it's over wildly over built housing and

so we always have a tight sort of supply to our demand so only the amount or roughly the amount of housing that will you can actually rent or sell is going to get built and that applies to this rip housing as well the number that we use for our estimate for our planning estimate of how much growth and how many households that is is this is the buildable land's inventory approach forecast that's what you were used when we allocated 30,000 units to the central city remember in the Central City we

have millions of square feet that could be built but the markets only going to put 30,000 in there in the next 20 years based on their forecast and the bli application to rip is kind of similar when Johnson Acton it when we looked at the economics of how many properties might actually be viable if somebody wanted to try to do this you get a big number when you look at if you were doing that and considering your ability to rent or lease that like what the markets going to demand that's a much sma

ller number but part of what we're doing with residential infill remember is building in an option to use more of our land more efficiently in the long run we have increased housing and met our 20 you know our need for housing growth if we just did centers and quarters but that's not good enough given how much of our land it leaves Elly underdeveloped it's just a single family we want more options more housing option for more options for housing on those units and more housing in more place it's

what we found is it'll work the pace of change for this next 20 years is relatively modest the overall net benefit or the overall impact is fewer there's fewer demos and we're still getting more units out of it and then the last question is the one we're going to get to next is when you do that still is most of this new development impact hitting heartworm it's landing more in some parts of town than others and what do we make of that from an equity point of view so that's how those pieces come

together and so that that last piece is the next one we're going to discuss what's the screen comes back Andre so just this issue of the Johnson economics versus this 123 thousands is a fixed number so if you push 36,000 or you push from that 20 to 36 you're saying that comes out of another zone that's right and so the net impact is if you if you do push into the 36 number the Bloor number other zones don't have capacity so less apartments less condos less something in in the other mixed zones

either downtown or in in our corridors correct well it would be this way Andre the both the place that doesn't have capacity is our single dwelling zones what it will do is leave unused capacity still out there for the future in centers and corridors and shift more into you know units that you couldn't built before which are duplexes and triplexes and single dwelling zones so what it does is it takes some of those units that might be in a new apartment building might be a studio the reviled stud

io that we heard about when we you know we're over building studios is what I meant by that and shifts it into a unit that's a duplex triplex 4-flat smaller but still larger than the apartment building and a single-family kind of single dwelling setting see what I'm saying it's sort of it's creating an option that doesn't exist today no it's nice you know way another option because you're not your your if you if I understand that you you're not gonna build both you're gonna either build in the c

orridors or downtown or if you shift here and you push this this becomes a really good option towards the jump I don't you're not gonna build both now maybe yeah we're this is a you know in the future more housing could be provided on all of our land when the markets here to support the development of it I'm just if the pie shifts the pie doesn't get bigger they just shifts around the slices in the light blue in the weight is in the light blue if the pie if you push above 20,000 and you say ther

e's a certain there's a certain number of total units the pipe doesn't get bigger the darker blue if it picks if the you go above 20,000 the slices of pie in a apartment or condo either Downtowner and in the corridors basically doesn't grow correct they become less competitive yes and I so now you have I think this is back Christmas question is that I mean I don't know we're speculating here but we're also looking at 20 years oh okay no I think you're what you're seeing is accurate it comes from

one it moves to the other but it's capped by how much we expect to grow over the next 20 years but that potential just like in the Central City when we never thought we would see as much housing as we have now is still sitting out there untapped in centers and quarters on 82nd as we just looked at and now we've added some more potential and our single dwell zones as well for not just more housing but the different tires so there's a whole bunch of hands that we're up on this side I believe I sa

id Mike's hand up first are you you're good okay then Daisy's hand I saw Emma Katie okay the numbers we've seen on the potential possible projected cost of new construction under a residential infill project like that what what it would cost to buy one of those duplexes or whatever that was based on the Johnson economic study right yes okay I'm just trying to think if if what we see on the light blue is more realistic right if we're more likely to get 20,000 units over 36 units I'm just trying t

o think and maybe you can help me think through this without having a substantial impact on the cost of that new housing as long as the type is similar to what we looked at before the cost is going to be similar to what we what Jerry had looked at in his analysis it's just a total amount of that type and so they're those types are still different and that the prices and the costs of those are still consistent across and we're just seeing less in the light blue columns because we're constrained b

y this 20-year forecast this overall demand over 20 years so the light bulb hasn't gone on over my head yet so I'm still struggling with understanding the difference between these two data sets so let me just tell you what I'm thinking and then you can add on to it so the light blue is just it's a number that has been forecasted for a long time and and it's it's in our plan so we have to use it and it's in the law so we have to use it as cetera and then what then is the Johnson number how is tha

t why is it larger and quite different and and then you know a little bit about why you use Johnson sometimes and the other one other times well I think just to pick up on that last part of the question we there's a little bit of a timing issue here too we got the results from the Johnson report back in December when we briefed the Commission so that was sort of the first set of numbers we share no it would really help me if you would tell me why they're so different because I'm my brain is stru

ggling with that and then I can take in there the Y's we know and I meet and I am NOT gonna hold us up forever on this but if I get this then I can move forward oh yeah I think it's important to think of the bli the billable and inventory in context of our coordinated planning efforts for the Met for the region right so we have a forecasted population growth that's that's provided by metro to of all the various cities in Metro and that helps us to coordinate all of our planning efforts so we're

not trying to out-compete other cities for all the growth it's it's part of their coordination construct and it's also consistent with the growth that we've seen over the last 10 15 20 years so it's not sort of a number picked out of the air heavily informed by a lot of population studies so that's that's a good framework for us to be thinking about what's feasible or reasonable expectation for what we're gonna see in in realization of new units over our 20-year planning period so that's that's

one sort of test the Johnson report is really about it's an economic feasibility kind of model and if you contrast the first Johnson report with the second report the first report said and we're gonna see a marginal number of new units over the 20-year period is something like 1700 okay and one way to read that for the planning staff was that's pretty on the edge of whether this is a feasible product or not we did we did see evidence that it suppressed demolitions and some evidence that it creat

ed more units but not a lot which is a little bit of a warning sign that we might not hit the feasibility mark so really kind of when we're talking about the excitement level of 24,000 it says okay we know that this this product will work we have we've got the appropriate FA ARS that'll that'll utilize these units or these units going to be realized but they're sort of telling us they're telling us different indications about the way growth is going to occur and I guess I would sort of use an an

alogy of you know when you're when you're when you're going for a cat scan or an x-ray they're both different tests they both tell you different things about the same sort of issue that you want to study the in this case the Johnson report is telling us about the market potential and you know that's 36,000 Lots out there meet the criteria of being at a certain price point that when you put a four-plex on it it is feasible to build and sell those units the bli model is saying yeah that may be so

but really what the type of demand and the housing diversity that we expect over the 20-year period it's really going to be something closer to 20,000 and the other units are going to be realized in these other zones so I don't know if this will help or not Katie but I see it as like an economic trend or forecast that's grounded in and I'm gonna go quote unquote reality bli pick ground it by the bli it's it's granted by constraints that we've identified that have kind of put together our whole b

uildable lands inventory mmm-hmm and then the other one is unconstrained correct mean wouldn't it have to have some constraints it's a it's a market constraint so they're looking at the general valley plant values across the city and where are those land values hitting a certain strike price so economics like it doesn't make sense economically to build a certain product because there's no profit potential right so you have the economic constraint which is one that then is kind of put overlaid wi

th the actual kind of constraints are on the ground in our city which is the buildable land inventory okay it's starting to go on I think Elias was hoping to jump in I've seen Mike and I hear you Teresa I'll show the metaphor I'm a contractor so I mean yep I think of it as like you got a bucket of capacity and in the single dwelling zones the Johnson economic report says there's economic capacity for this many homes in these zones there's another bucket of capacity in multi goin zones in the mix

ed use zones in the central cities on each one has a bucket of like how much how many homes could be built there economically feasible but then you're like filling up the buckets with the chips or with the sprinkler system whatever it is there's not that many people come into town so they will sprinkle themselves among those different areas of town different zones and with the Bo I the building manza matera is saying that given 123 thousand people coming some of them will be in the single dwelli

ng zones and based on the Johnson economic report those zones could actually hold more people than that but some of those people going to makes you sound someone going to Central City all those other zones also have some capacity for housing home units so you end up getting like an economic capacity to house people in all those different zones and the BL I should shows how they distribute among them so none of them get filled up and this is giving an idea of what the economic capacity is in this

particular zone and how much of it gets sold up and you can do the exact same graph for the central city how many capacity you could put there and how much less you gets filled up same for the multi drawing zones it makes you so ins each one of them has been guessing surplus capacity and the thing that's hard to predict is when people actually show up how do they distribute right and that has to do a little bit to do with the cost and what the choices are for housing tight so I think Theresa wa

nted to add or actually Mike and then I think Anne Theresa hope is as helpful is I assume part of the Delta on the right between light and dark blue with the buildable lands inventory is there Johnson didn't really care whether a site might be in the floodplain or on and steep slopes and hazard areas corrects that did he incorporate that there's my definition the bill the lens the venturi did there was a small element to that Mike it was so when we were had a Z overlay the proposed de l'Est that

was an input in in the Johnson model as well so some some sites were just discounted entirely because we're not allowing for flexes there right but yeah it's just go ahead Teresa does it make sense yet under why they're quite so different where they were the numbers put into a different model a completely different model yes they are all right mm-hmm I think another is the same model it seems like they would be right to different models and what goes into the model our assumptions and what come

s out are these numbers so the difference between what we put into it and what comes out of it and the assumptions for each of the model are different and the main one you were hitting on is that in the light blue model to be a lie there's an assumption of there's only one hundred and twenty three thousand households moving to Portland in the next 20 years Katie it's but those are that wouldn't be the different model that would just be different inputs is it a different model you use a different

model yes yes okay different model and different inputs yeah a different purpose too crowded and but you know they work together as tools but they're not the same thing so I think Teresa had well I just want to clarify so the the Johnson model the 36000 is a financial feasibility of doing it it doesn't mean everybody's going to do it or that they they even want to but that's kind of the top number of people who if they could figure out the capital and wanted to have rental units in their backya

rd could possibly do it and then the other one is how many people are going to show up to take those units and certainly if only 20,000 people are showing up I hope 36,000 people don't go and build something because there's gonna be a bunch of people who are gonna have financial difficulty because there will be no one to rent those units but so there they're solving four different things then one the other I don't know if this is helpful that you or not but the way I guess I've been thinking abo

ut it is what you're seeing is is a trend so if you're looking at the baseline versus the middle graphed right you're seeing a trend in unit did the potential for units to get built from rip so you it's not I I guess I don't I'm not getting hung up on personally the 24,000 units to me what you're seeing is a big difference which is telling you those momentum to make that it's gonna happen and then if you're looking at the if you come to the far right and we're again we're looking at now the ligh

t blue at the twenty thousand versus the unrealized market potential to me that actually kind of starts to strike the balance between a modest change and we've been hearing a lot of concern about neighborhoods and and and what's this gonna look like and so what we're gonna this is telling me is we are gonna see some some of this happening we're gonna see it modestly happen which is gonna allow us to kind of study this as it goes on throughout time so it's not going to be like point four thousand

units right away right it's gonna it's gonna be a slow thing and while it's not even twenty four thousand units in by 2035 right so it's it's gonna be a slow slower change which i think is a good thing for our neighborhoods I mean as much as I'd love to see more units now I think as far as being able to have the neighbors in our community kind of feel comfortable with this change that's a positive if that makes some sense Chris sound like you wanted to maybe jump in yeah so we have a saying in

my business would you software development all estimates are wrong right doesn't mean they're not useful planning tools so the difference between thirty eight eighty three and twenty four three three three either one tells us we're moving in the right direction right so that's that's not upsetting me but I also recognize the limits of the be Li you know that that hundred twenty-three thousand is not a real number right that's a number that a bunch of planners got together in a room at metro and

decided on with hopefully even formed by some good data but that's the number that's decided on and then you know you use a constraint you know I served an impact I know how that works I also know that Portland has historically over performed its part of the allocation right so yeah that's not necessarily constraint so we're not competing you know it's not like you know a duplex in Brentwood Darlington is competing with a apartment complex on division it's also competing with a Renko station and

Bethany and other places in the region right so it's not unreasonable to me that ripp could make Portland more competitive in the overall regional market and therefore the numbers could go up above 123 thousand and from a point of view of providing more units that's great but it also seems to me that that comes with a potential of increasing the displacement at risk so if the displacement risk is based on a cap of 123 thousand that worries me because I know that cap is just a number we all agre

ed on it doesn't reflect the dynamics of the market and the forces that cause displacement so I guess I'm looking for some way to comprehend you know I think Tyler I asked you the question after one of the meetings what are the error bars on the displacement risk and it's pretty fuzzy right so I'm hoping to get a little reassurance around that range of possibilities on this placement I just wanted to to add to that so the hundred twenty three thousand you're right is some planners in a room and

Amtrak deciding on this and talking about it but we are on target for it so our allocation models are from 2010 were eight years into that and I believe Tyler and Tom have come to this very body showing what growth has looked like every year and we're right on target for that growth this does it provide such a big difference that we're gonna all of a sudden you know the model out yeah blow the model out we don't know we also don't know how I H is really gonna be playing out either because that o

ccurred and you know you hear anecdotal things but it's it's too soon to tell in terms of a displacement risk I think what we talked about also is that then the discrete numbers are really hard to say that's going to be twenty thousand and thirty one housing units in 20 years you know back to the trends is this moving us in the direction that you want to see in the displacement risk analysis we know that those areas that we have concerns about we're gonna have concerns about regardless and so wh

at do we do about it and and so in terms of the trend I think it's helpful in decision making it's also something that we're gonna need to track over time and like we do with other projects you know we track inclusionary units we track different development types across all different parts of Portland we track central city development like we're going to continue to track this and to the point where that that we see an issue we're gonna raise it and say where there's an issue work over exceeding

or where we're under building what we thought we would build so that's sort of ongoing tracking is something that we as part of our work plan this week what we do any other questions Katie Kissel is a light bulb on let's move on to the map then yeah and the geographic distribution of these units so I want to find out how realistic this is this is this using the johnson numbers then no that's the same numbers so the data at the track level is the same the only thing that's different are the cate

gories that you see in the legend so we have the categories on the left-hand side over here negative 106 to negative 40 on the on the screen negative 39 to negative 50 51 to 90 the only difference between those two maps is the scale the data behind them is the exact same the reason that we use this scale here is because it's a best practice and how to classify and categorize data when you've got a wide range of data points so we're going from negative 106 to positive 420 and so in order to best

show trends across these this is the sort of GIS approach to do that the map that you're referencing just has a different scale and the break points for those categories were made for a different reason and so that's really the main difference but the data is the same any other questions so essentially when I look at the four thousand that are net increase between the baseline and then when you look at rib it'd be really the the increases in those are coming in the areas that are what yellow ora

nge and red all right that that's where the increases are coming is that correct that's correct and we heard from the previous presentation at that area has about 39% minorities somewhere in there I I'm just trying to to point out that the increase is coming in areas where there's high populations of minorities which we've seen on the other maps is that correct yeah this map also shows the displacement risk areas so that's kind of helpful in terms of context but it's coming in East portal where

there's high populations of minorities yeah I think another sort of fact the highlight is when we're looking at this this Delta change it is specific to the three rip zones are r-25 are 5r7 and there are as we just discussed the changes in the PI our reducing units in other areas that are could be multi-dwelling can be our 10 or 20 RF so when you look at East Portland sort of overall in the unit allocation it it's not quite that 2000 net increase it's that that's just showing the units that are

going to r-25 r5 and our seven right what another way to say I think is that what this is looking at and the numbers that were showing is a subset of all growth that's happening in the city right lots of growth in Central City lots and centers and corridors some and other residential zones so these numbers are only for our 2.5 our five in our seven zones not any of the other zones and so we're only talking about rip I understand that kind of the impact of rip and where that occurs so that's not

occurring inside of Portland I'd say in the inner neighborhoods it's occurring the growth is really impact is growing outside not not relative to race just more units are occurring on the outer part of poor one versus the inner side if you say out of four thousand three whatever the number is there's more units being produced on the out out of part of Portland in an inner Portland is that correct that is correct correct and that makes sense right because those lot houses are probably smaller les

s expensive the land values aren't to a point where it doesn't make sense to tear down and redevelop into a four-plex but you can still get the rents that would support doing that so you it's it's that's why it's this sort of inner ring it's where those rents are accomplishable as well and even on all the analysis that we've done it sort of pointed to that market there's that sort of economic sweet spot but you know when you look at this map that staff has up right now right the areas that are h

atched our displacement risk areas and I remember our displacement risk criteria include kameez color renters educational attainment and income income so it's almost so yes where you're seeing and this we talked about this last time that's why we called out the three impacted areas especially Lentz and Brentwood Darlington in terms of the need to focus on specific strategies for those it's a it's affecting areas with large populations or more populations of community color but it's affecting it

in both ways too if you see the peri areas of town where but for rep you might see more redevelopment and displacement those areas are relatively neutral or improved that's that's the hard part of this is overall remember we saw that it didn't have a differential impact on community of color but the places where the markets in the right spot to really pick up on this type of development are showing up in those yellow and red areas and roughly that corresponds to the map that was in they were goi

ng into I mean that's not hiding any ball any additional questions I'm not seeing anything so let's now that we're all firmly grounded in the bli bulbs have all come on so this is I just wanted to spend a couple minutes talking about our infrastructure analysis and sort of the top level findings but if there's questions for sure ask for the transportation there were small and localized impacts that affects some roads of concerns when we're talking about roadways of concern it's so dot and PBOT f

acilities that are already at or projected to be at or above capacity by the end of the planning period so roads like Powell and Lombard but the impacts were small and rather insignificant there was about somewhere between ten and twenty seven additional trips and the PM peak hour for these roads in some of the other areas that were not enough probe always of concerned I think the maximum number topped out at some like 50 additional trips in the PM peak hour so we have an obligation to to addres

s those impacts under the transportation planning rule and so looking at some of our existing opportunities there are capital projects that are already programmed in the transportation system plan as these projects are actually designed and built one way to address the impact is to accommodate the additional trip generated and generations into those designs so just sort of accounting for that additional growth as we build this projects out small scale multimodal investments these are things like

pedestrian and bike improvements small scale means things that are under about $500,000 along with the number of transportation demand management TDM strategies including eliminating minimum parking requirements which is part of our proposal in the NIP thanks to the commission expanding area parking permit programs is on another topic for further discussion as along with existing programs like the smart trip education and outreach and this is really a program for new residents that move here to

get them up to speed about our alternative modes expectation and great ways to get around the city without using your car safe routes to schools includes a little bit of that outreach education as well as some infrastructure investments in terms of improving safety crossings and then looking outside of just the rip zones looking at updating the bicycle parking code which this commission just looked at recently is useful that will apply mostly to multi-dwelling and mixed use zones and expanding

existing transportation demand management incentives such as bus pass payments for for residents and larger larger residential buildings any questions about that are these funded the the smart trip education outreach is safe routes to schools is funded updates to expanding essencial the things that are the capital projects are part of a constrained constrained budget so they're already planned for planets the future you know future growth of 123,000 how are you gonna accommodate this growth and

these are the probably drill but they're not trained next and they would be hopefully funded as a mitigation strategy do you have an idea whether they would be moved up because a rip if it passes or do they stay in the out-years and we're definitely not proposing any comp plan amendments to the project list adding new projects or reprioritizing projects so bob Kellett from py is here and he's been helping us and he's been doing the analysis for PBOT right yeah so that's an excellent question you

know they they are they probably would not be shifted these are already areas that we have identified through the comp plan as we know we need to address these we have as part of that adoption of the comp plan and the TSP we agreed with ODOT that we would be looking at these specific projects and so a lot of morrow Oh dot facilities which you know complicates matters in terms of how you get them in the pipeline but they are priority areas for us in other words they were already priority areas a

nd so you can't make them more of a priority timeline right you know I I get there in the constrained out years but rip is happening today and so I'm trying to see if the transportation improvements are gonna happen today or right and when we look at the respond with the rip yeah when we look at the transportation impacts we're looking over that 20-year horizon so you know there are needs today on some of these roads and nobody needs 20 years from now and so when we're programming our our projec

ts you know we're looking at that horizon of the 20 years and the transit components are those programmed also because those are tryna ya know that's right and that's built into the transportation model I'm sure all of you want to hear more about modeling after your previous discussion and transportation modeling is another animal into itself but yeah that's built into our transportation model so all of the future trimet service that you know we'll be seeing over the next 20 years is in there th

ank you little easier for sewer and stormwater so sewer system unlikely significant effect based on the additional fixtures that are being added to the to the system for stormwater it really hinges around the building coverage regulations that we have in the proposal we're not planning to change those from current current limits BES did want to highlight that there are some areas that are currently challenging some areas at Southwest or more hilly areas where they have trouble with stormwater di

sposal but they are in the process of developing a stormwater management systems plan which will help inform future stormwater management manual requirements so there are existing issues with our existing limitations on building coverage because this project isn't increasing that there's no impact no additional impact for stormwater although we could add that we are decreasing the amount of square footage that can get built on a site so that could have sort of a roundabout way of decreasing the

the net building coverage that is built can I just add I think not requiring parking is also a plus for the the stormwater management to because if you're not putting in impervious surface and asphalt or concrete on your lot then that's less impervious surface to manage for the water system it's even brighter there's a size there system for fire suppression so actually a lot of lot of water capacity for serving that need so when we're talking about incremental units being added throughout the ci

ty and different places it really does nothing to their overall system they did highlight the fact that there may be some areas and we I think we talked about this previously is there may be existing water mains that are insufficiently sized to serve a particular development and when that happens the developer is going to have to be required to upgrade those those water lines to meet that service need do you know do they have an idea of where this is mostly for sewer and water but where those im

provements would need to be would need to occur I understand the Southwest but any of their areas of Portland for water or for for water for water it's that we have a map of their it's their bigger concern is around this substandard water main sizes of the two-inch lines and we do know where those are but it's not every situations gonna require upgrading to occur it depends on how much of how many fixtures you're adding how big your water meter needs to be to serve that development so so it's a

very case-by-case sort of determination I just want to tie it to or it appears the growth is going to occur any support one so is he sport one more impacted than the rest of Portland I guess from that water issue I won't be impacted from the standpoint of you would need to make the improve to make the development happen right it's a condition of your development ition but yeah but the development would have to incur that cost yes yeah okay any other questions yeah just a quick one yeah about I d

on't know four or five years ago Parkes was declared an infrastructure Bureau which is appropriate did you have any conversations with parks in terms of capacity and and meeting future park needs yeah we we had parks represented on our technical group and we were looking at capacity issues there's two parks I think that are identified as concerns with capacity over the longer planning period and there in South Waterfront this one area and I think the other area was downtown so they were not in o

ur single dwelling zoned areas there's obviously a need for additional parkland for East Portland for instance and we have a service standard of accommodating a certain percentage of our households within a quarter mile of of a park which this actually gets us closer to so parks Bureau didn't didn't respond with any issues okay under the amendments so we have two sets of amendments one there's a list of substantive more substantive amendments the actual changes in the proposal and then a list of

about nine technical amendments and leave it to chair Schultz to see how we want to handle these but we can go through them one at a time or we can group them whatever Commissioner Smith has something the officers have discussed a little bit how to how to speed this along and make sure we can focus on the things that we really want to talk about so we haven't pulled the Commission in advance which we often do so if anyone objects I'll certainly withdraw this but I would move that we adopt the c

onsent or I'm sorry about the technical amendments and substantive amendments four through eight in one consent motion if no one objects we clarify before through eight of the ones the staff supports yeah they have staff support any discussion nope okay I assume so all in favor aye we should yeah we should call the roll okay I've been called out let's let's do it ba no board allows oh yes hell yes ourself quinones yes Smith yes Spivak st. Martin Schultz yes so that passes one opposed all right s

o we have three substantive amendments to discuss this first is introduced by a commissioner Bob to restrict housing options in some areas of the city essentially proposing 380 use in lieu of along for duplexes triplexes and for flexes in areas that are noted here as displacement risk areas and within the Southwest corridor and I'll leave it to chair Bob to explain further so I want to start by just a little bit of the questions that I asked this is really about when you look at rip it's about r

esidents between 30 to 80 percent in terms of if you make $60,000 rip does not help you in terms of the baseline the issue we talked about the bli in the 4,000 but if you look at the Washington Post National Home Builders Association believes that this middle income is really and they're economists not not me but there are kind of saying this is really the sweet spot now for home builders in the future this middle-income housing it is the right price there's a market demand for it and when you l

ook at so you get to the amendment and really what I'm looking at is a holistically for the city to say in the areas where we are going to have the largest impact where and that's basically in the areas up there except for downtown Portland does not have residential zoning but the other areas let's slow it down at least let's the the duplex triplex and four-plex is the engine that drives for up let's pull that out give us some time to get you call it mitigation but at least get a strategy togeth

er to give people between 30 and 80 percent an opportunity and the single-family blowings in the city in that area what's the strategy to keep the people there because the development is coming whether it's coming fast or slow we won't know and by the time if you look at this map is four years old there are neighborhoods that are already grayed out today if you updated that map it is turning over let's pull back a little bit let's have an opportunity to put a strategy together rip is going in to

day there's no mitigation out there when you listen to the housing Bureau about their mitigation and what programs they have they have really nothing for home ownership very little for home renters and the programs they do have are oversubscribed and if you've been around Portland as long as I have in the housing even with the housing bureau starting back with pcr i twenty years ago you know the efforts are checkered based on our leadership and so in the leaders of that housing bureau so they've

done great jobs at times and at times they've done poor jobs and council has acknowledged that we need to have a strategy for the area that's going to be impacted around with the most diverse population we need a strategy we're going into this without a strategy of how to help the people that own the homes that rent those homes this is single-family dwellings and it is the dream of most people in America to own a home and have that home and we're gonna take you know almost 25% population and sa

y we can't help you we're just gonna move ahead and let's keep I mean I'm not supportive rip in a holistic way but I get you we want to move forward we want to do this and so let's slow down in some areas it really is five years and after five years if we can't figure it out everything disappears as these gray out and they transcend the area's transition out they get the full male deal of rep and if council down the road says we're good um with the strategy we put in it gives them an opportunity

to pull rip and and then put it in place in a full time measure the it will alter the displacement risk and that's the point that has absolutely the point um because it takes in my view it takes risk off the place that has the most development and it takes the the development or a scatter there restricting in a stay to use yeah it slows it down that's the point that's what I'm trying to do is slow down rep in areas that have high risk of displacement and lastly it's another overlay that's the b

usiness we're in we're in planning I don't I've been doing this for ten and a half years and overlays have been argued yes we ought to do overlays and no we don't so I that's a great argument and I love staff for saying they don't want to do overlays but I remember when we were over like kings and queens and we put a lot of overlays on so I don't know if that's right or wrong today it may be that's bad policy from the comp plan or other policies we placed through but it is an opportunity I think

for us as a city in the city that leaves in inclusiveness and diversity and equity and in the eleven policies of housing that we have in the comp plan to say we do care about these residents really in this slot and how do we help them try to do something we don't have the tools I don't know what the tools are but how do we help pause for a little bit and help them and from that standpoint just give them a little bit of time and give us time as a city to put things in place if we want to if we d

on't want to we can move ahead the city today has said they're focused on zero to 30 residents in terms of their household and so when you say eighty percent that's people that you just finished your taxes you're at you know $60,000 or somewhere in that neighborhood and we're saying you can't you're not we're not gonna help you stay in your neighborhoods buy a home in your neighborhoods and we're not building homes through rep to be affordable for single families and and that's problematic so th

at's what I'm trying to get you to join me in but I I get it so do you want to put out you want to have discussion and put a motion on the table I would like to put a motion on the table to move the restrict housing options in some areas second okay discussion so just because I started looking this way Eli and then I think I saw Ben's hand um well the part of this I agree with is that we should re-evaluate because there's a lot of changes in this code update and we'll have to tweak it um but we'

ve been slow walking brick for five years now I've got the notes from our first meeting it was September 15 2015 Morgan was here Jo is here and in those five years there's been huge amounts of displacement in the city with a lot of new homes we've seen what happens when we don't actually change the rules of the game and rip a lot of these areas on the map our share are areas that under rip you get less displacement than we get today I mean rip is a tool to help this reduce displacement because i

t provides more housing options in the neighborhoods and to throw it out because it doesn't serve households that are like 30 50 percent is is not a reason to chuck it out it helps provide less expensive housing options in every neighborhood PCORI supports this project I mean they gave us testimony because they're largely priced out of the areas that they've worked in in the past and I agree home ownership is a dream for many people I may work to Habitat for Humanity when I came to Portland and

if you look in the the yellow parts about a city the single dwelling zones people are already priced out and it's getting worst under our current zoning so I don't think I mean I think that the this amendment is it's subtle I mean it's retaining and some of the elements of rip which I appreciate like the ability to have more units and get a little more square footage or floor area but I think that delaying it and adding complication to it perpetuates the current status quo which is that in order

to buy a house you have to be able to afford to buy big piece of piece of land with it and your own single-family detached home and that's the only choice out there that leaves a lot of people out of the market so if you already own a how are lucky enough to own a house or to come to Portland from a more expensive other city and you can buy one then you're in pretty good shape under current zoning but that leaves out a lot of people and including people living in these neighborhoods so I guess

I'm concerned that on this Oh overlay area many of these neighborhoods we could go back to the other graphic earlier are areas that are helped by rip rip is it's definitely not a silver bullet but it decreases the displacement pressure in most of these neighborhoods and including those that are the cities identified as high displacement risk not every one of them that's correct so I I think it's it adds complexity um it's gonna push things out longer and I think it I think rip can be actually ef

fective tool to help make homeownership more available to folks who are otherwise price now although it will not get down to people at 30 50 percent without public subsidy you're not a public about subsidy needed per unit though it does decrease when home prices go down Thanks and a question to staff in regards to the applicability of this proposal specific to the southwest quarter understanding that it will be or hopefully will be a high-capacity quarter zoning doesn't quite reflect that but it

will supposedly in the future how effective how much realistically are we really looking at as far as single-family zoning along a high capacity quarter well I'm actually gonna defer to mr. Baugh on this we had if we had a little bit of discussions about this geography so-so and I apologize I did not address the high capacity corridor it the Southwest is a recognition that we as a commission have said the southwest quarter will have displacement even though it doesn't show up on a map and that

we want the city and we told the city to and make it angel investment hundreds of millions of dollars in to try to mitigate that the the definition of Southwest corridor and I struggled with Tracy to try to figure out what is the definition because you you don't want to just say it's the project area and and your question is a good one I'm not really sure but what I do know is we have said that there is a displacement risk there and how that's defined I'm not sure I'm not wedded to Southwest I m

ean if if it passes without Southwest I'm ok with that because I think we do have at least a good plan for the corridor but the light rail corridor but I'm trying to think we've recognized a problem and we're not even though it doesn't show up on our analysis we are we should at least recognize that and in some manner if we're thinking about rep was just a thought that answer your question been more or less yeah so I just want to speak a little bit to the value of time under Commissioner Vaz ame

ndment proposal when we think about these areas and there are there's home ownership and the low income home owners are going to need some time to figure out one how to find the capital and two how to gain those development skills and the expertise to actually implement RHIB so in my mind giving a little bit of time to see how it plays out on the ground in some other places and to put in some programs to do some education would actually be really helpful in preventing homeownership loss and perh

aps you know increasing the number of units that are there for example you have a house you can barely maintain it thinking about being a landlord is huge right there's things coming from state legislation city legislation it's kind of frightening I've never done it before I'm going to take all my nest egg and I'm gonna build this other thing I'm gonna rent it and how is that gonna work so you know I think that the time to educate the community and let them have the ability to take advantage of

the opportunities rather than being taken advantage of because there is opportunity by somebody who's willing and ready to go leaning in okay I think one of the concerns for me is of course the areas in rib that are likely to see the most displacement are around 80 second and we haven't talked about the compounding effects of the 82nd Avenue project displace the compounding displacement effects of the 82nd Avenue project along with RIT right if 82nd Avenue is likely to displace a lot of minority

POC immigrant business owners and then we are like we're likely to also see displacement of low-income renters in that area that's really concerning for me and I wish we had more information and it would be interesting to see maybe like a displacement risk analysis analyses of both of those two things combined I know we're crunched on time but I just want to put that out there and I also want to remind us that Portland housing Bureau and joint office of homelessness have been doing a really awe

some job they have a lot of great services but I want to remind us that even with all that they're doing they're still a huge amount of need among the poorest people in our community in terms of housing Kati yes I also wanted to I think I support this because I feel as if that first especially a five year moratorium would send a really strong message to City Council that we kind of mean business about this that we're not anti growth that we that we're we're not putting a moratorium on these area

s forever but we're saying these these kinds of programs need to be in place and and and as you've seen there's like this a lot of the forecast we've seen are of a 20 year period so you know that that first five years you know is it's not we're not going to be killing we're not gonna be killing her at Elie it would be actually just saying where we really want City Council to do something about it this I was on the I was a budget adviser for the city of Portland for a number of years and I was on

there when six million dollars was allocated for inner northeast to mitigate against the displacement that unfortunately it already happened and I was like looking at the six million dollars and going this isn't gonna go very far but now is the time in East Portland when maybe six million dollars would go very far and I don't know where they got that six million dollars but they've just popped up and they gave it to to inner North East which is not that I think they've got money hidden away som

ewhere that they can just pull out and and devote for things like this but it does mean that if the if there is enough of saying you really need to do this then there's more likelihood that it will happen Chris go ahead I'd like to poke at the form of development suggested here a little bit so I assume that the emphasis on ad use is because that means the main structure is less likely to get torn down and therefore there'll be less displacement is that a good assumption yeah if you go back to th

e genesis of really where this started way back when it was about demolitions and size' home so it was trying to in talks with Tracy trying to preserve the idea of the size of the home some of the structural characteristics of rip in terms of size of home and what you had to build as part of that okay so I think staff has already pointed out the 380 use or unlikely if possible anywhere it's that it's just more challenging right yes challenging on a number on so we're we're likely going to reduce

the number of units from that point of view I think probably more important to me and ATU is limited to 800 square feet so we're not going to see family size units we're basically going to contribute more to the studio sized set of units out there so I think we're not addressing some of the housing need that we wanted to get at and as this is worded I don't think it it's not talking specifically about D chat Shea to use right we could have internally to use under this amendment is that correct

so based on other conversations we've had around what happens when you get three units into a single structure the building code kicks us into a triplex so one I think the most likely scenario or from a form standpoint is a house with an internal a to you and who detached a to use and somehow on the back but the development that internal ad you could have a similar displacing effect right if you've if you turn up the house to carve out an internal ad you you're probably going to boot out the ten

ants while you do that right yeah if it's if it's really necessarily in the basement you could still continue to live okay thank you go ahead Mike yeah well I'm sympathetic to the intent of this but I'm inclined to agree with Eli and I was particularly struck by folks who who were concerned about displacement who actually asked us to increase the area that's being covered because there are opportunities that are afforded people as well so that's my thank you so I have kind of three different tho

ughts going through my mind one is especially in the areas where the map with the current proposal is showing lower displacement and knowing that being able to put rip throughout more places kind of lowers rents kind of broader areas of the city I am troubled a little bit by the thought that it seems what we're doing is it's it's an inequitable proposal to take an area and just say you're at a risk of displacement yeah here we are with the proposal that's lowering the displacement yet we're gonn

a take that away so that doesn't seem like an equitable option does that make sense if it's if rip today as proposed as luring displacement and then because we're putting this overlay that now perhaps increases it back to the way it is baseline today that does not seem equitable to kind of single that little neighborhood out with the question of time I guess I just I certainly have respect for the concern there about getting options for education and opportunities perhaps for equity in place for

a broader variety of people but I'm also concerned that if you take these areas out of it what is gonna happen is there there are gonna be some redevelopment it's gonna be redevelopment into big larger single-family homes which now creates even broader disparity in these neighborhoods and certainly more displacement because you're not creating more units or options for choice there and I can't even read my writing anymore in it I guess it also is striking to me that we're expanding it into area

s I guess it's kind of piggyback on that last point into areas that are of lower income yet we're leaving the option of redevelopment to two units that are more expensive for one family unit so that just seems to create more disparity and more inequity and therefore I'm I'm having a hard time supporting this amendment can I respond to that a little bit sure I'm just I'm likely to vote against this but I think I don't agree with some of your criticisms of the amendment I want to make sure we have

n't open an honest debate here so the the building size limits are still in effect in all parts of the city under this is that correct so you can't get the McMansions we're not allowing that we're just okay taking the form of development so you can't do a duplex triplex but you can do several ad use so I I think that the displacement lowering aspects of repper still retained here and it's if I think I understand I there's a tenant it's accelerating that because it doesn't allow the duplexes and

triplexes and quad flexes so you're again trying not to tear down that make that existing main dwelling to minimize the displacement but you're not but I think the the size limits which are one of the main displacement breaks are still there so I've got point taken I think thank you for clarifying that and actually I remember now my third point really was which was having multiple ad use or multiple with detached units is a more expensive build expensive building option so you actually are incre

asing construction cost which means you're increasing the rents for those potential units then if you had done try plexus or four plexus so that was I get that was really what I met as my third point which just means to me you're creating more disparity and dress captain in Eli but I think there is when you talk about the units that will be displaced I think staff is making the point for me there's gonna be very few ad use produced just because they're difficult to do and they are more expensive

you're not gonna get the tear downs because the size of the unit is restricted just like everything else in the city under this so the the real opportunity to me is we're not gonna have a significant amount of change in these areas that are at risk for a short period very short period of time five years or less to put something in place and then when you release it you still have capacity because you've not put you've not filled up that capacity that is in rip with a be use it to my view and wh

at staff is kind of proving there is that capacity is still there you can then develop to that fuller capacity and so I just see it as all we're doing is delaying that redevelopment to a later stage and that when that occurs we've got tools in place that do address that - teal I I just I struggle with this idea of greater good for the for the people above 80 percent in the 30 to 50 they're gonna lose anyway and and they just don't count I I think we are a city of 1 we are a city that is of diver

sity of people and we we have to take into account everybody we can't just say they don't count they you know they're the starfish is gonna not survive so we're walking on know pick the starfish up try to save it because if you don't save that one if we if we say certain people don't count we can't help them who's next I mean you know who's the growth for and we really have to think about a hundred percent of our residents and a hundred seven percent of the people and yes there's more people mov

ing in but if they're moving in from a higher income into this neighborhood as the Washington Post points out that's the market that home builders want to come and build for because that's institutional they can build for them and they can use rip in and in Denver where the Washington Post at this that's what they were doing so I it's just delaying this process for a little bit of time I get it everybody wants to move ahead fast but you hear from the infrastructure bureaus you hear from a lot of

euros let's you know we got to get things in place and nothing's in place and we're rip is gonna go into whenever counsel says yes Daisy cut my intention first then Eli up and I look like Christmas one of the things so I support this amendment one of the things I'd like to add and this is anecdotal but for my experience growing up in East Portland and working there up until recently um the ad you option could also be really attractive because there are a lot of multi-generational families there

's a lot of multi-generational living so I think just because we don't have the data on that doesn't mean we should discard this as a as an option that wouldn't work well enough to Andres point I think when we talk about middle housing it's kind of like a trickle-down housing effect and I just want to know acknowledge that just like trickle-down economics doesn't work and doesn't benefit the people at the bottom trickle-down housing doesn't either or if it does it takes decades and I would reall

y and I support this because I think it provides more of an opportunity for for folks who have been under-resourced for a whatever you want well I guess I'll respond to that point first because I've heard many times the trickle-down economics check out on housing comparison the reason some neighborhoods in close in southeast are still have affordable homes is because they were both 100 years ago it held it not so nice anymore some of the homes during World War Two worked internally converted to

multiple units much like lib would allow and that's some of the legacy of affordable housing to have in those neighborhoods so housing does become less fancy over time and becomes more affordable and thank goodness we have those examples from the past when you were allowed to do a range of housing types because that's where our legacy of market-rate affordable housing is in the city right now is in Northwest Portland is enclosing East neighborhood neighborhood neighborhoods where housing was bui

lt along time ago and he's relatively affordable now even in fantastic locations the the concern I have is as I pull out the comp plan map sometimes I mean single-family zoning is not some panacea it was deliberately invented to exclude certain people from neighborhoods particularly people who are low income and not white and it has expanded over almost our entire city our comp plan right now yellow here about pops like props sorry is single-family zone it's almost everywhere and what's getting

built in those areas are large single-family homes right that's your housing choice so the thing that's challenging for me and I appreciate this Amendment allows multiple plexuses actually there's a fairly subtle twist on what's Ripa proposed but we've really diminished our housing choices so that in most of the city the vast majority of our yellow area of the city is we're building houses for people coming from outside the city you know who can afford to buy in its high into the market we're no

t building housing for people who've been here a long time and can we'll maybe never be able to afford to buy their own fifty five hundred foot lot the only single-family detached home on it I want to provide options for folks like that who already lived here and that's the only way they're gonna live in one of these yellow areas of the city which is most of the city so on single single traditional single-family zoning is is not a good thing for low-income folks and it never has been because it

it's unfortunately it's sort of an exclusive situation it works very well if you already own a home in those areas and I think that the rip one of the things rip does really nicely is it manages for scale so we have a scale right in those neighborhoods and it increases housing choice in those neighborhoods and we're really missing the housing choice piece here and I think that the this amendment would scatter some versions of housing choice I mean you get different level of choices you can do on

e two or three a views that would be the housing choice you have in those areas other parts of the cities you could do duplex triplex are still capped out with the same size and I get that it's not that different in the choice thing implementation wise I think it would be kind of a mess because you'd have to like figure out which where you are whether you buy the building's 280 use or you know a duplex with an 80 you like the rules be suddenly different the different parts of the city would be d

ifficult to implement but I think it's mostly about Housing Choice and RJD was built out before zoning with a range of housing choice and we got a range of housing types we got single-family homes mostly single-family homes even super someone could've booked up ten points we got a single-family house we're not opening the doors nearly that far but at least this would you would get rid of the ban on apartments small flexes in what's become almost the entire city the single-family areas and I thin

k that this amendment would not devastate the proposal but or add or implementation wrinkle that would be very confusing and it might extend extend a project that's been going on for a long time during which we've seen massive amounts of displacement in really big houses coming up every month they're still coming up man so just an implementation question this goes into effect let's say it passes by some miracle and I just want explore Eli Savoie so the implementation is by what is the mess I gue

ss I'm trying to figure out that is here that I'm look that we're developers but I have to go through so there are there are a couple I mean is it extraordinary out of anything else they would probably have to do I guess after the issue well I think one of the more significant challenges is the notion of having three a to use allowed for this period of time and then not allowing it so there's this sort of create you can create non-conforming situation so how did the 30 you get on this lot and it

's not not allowed there anymore so how do you refinance that property if it's a non-conforming development and then sort of the shift like we've talked about the need for educating property owners about their ability to utilize these provisions are now talking about two different for now for five years you can do this but after five years you'll be able to do that so there's that aspect of it I just say to you you can grandfather that in today in the code if you if you modified this a little bi

t you could say if you built the 380 use your grandfathered in that's if you could write if you built the 80 use prior to 20 yeah they're still allowed I think what well I was mentioning was that as a builder you would have to be very cognizant of which census tract you were in to know what product type you would be able to build so if you were successful in building a triplex over here you will go two blocks over and you wouldn't be able to build a tribe books over there so then you're like wel

l I have this three in three unit thing can I just do a duplex with a you and we would say no we don't have that product type that's called a triplex and they were like well it's the same thing as 800 square feet why don't you call it an ad you yada-yada my neighbor across the street did it why can't I yes I'm just thinking about general homeowner right I have one quick when was this remind us when the displacement what year the displacement or Eric areas at risk of displacement were identified

the map was updated more recently in 2016 2016 do you think there's certain properties today that are highlighted that are out of the displacement risk as they've so they're census tracts like some census tracts I just are there some areas that are now brown that should be great because there's there's potential for ups and downs here because it's not just its reflecting for different types of vulnerable communities and aggregated and right so that's our displacement score so over the course of

five years we could see more displacement risk areas pop up and some existing displacement risk areas drop away as those communities are either the right portion drop change so I guess the point 10 or maybe back to Andres is how help me think about that and that you know this may be in this is likely inaccurate as it is and how do we kind of plan for that or deal with that my view is it's fixed going for it is fixed in the the areas today and if they disappear and I don't know when they're gonna

show up or when you're gonna update this map or when it would be updated but if in the five years it's updated and areas disappeared they're just off we're not gonna I'm not looking to add I'm just so how is it fair for an area that maybe wasn't identified today that becomes an at-risk area two years from now and they are they're going through the exact same challenges that any of these other areas are today because they were in an area that rip was allowed but now that risk of displacement two

years from now because they haven't been identified but yet they're that community is just as different skip displacement as the ones you've identified brats on this map today you have the same route the same risk as you would have in the normal run because your even though you update if this doesn't pass you're gonna have that same change in the neighborhood's under ruff and there there is no provision under the normal rip today to even try to help them at least there would be tools hopefully

in place that those residents could use even though they're not on the map in an updated map relative to without this there's there's no indication or or no push the council to say let's grate some tools so yeah I was trying to jump in so could I invite Tyler up while I pontificate a little bit so I want to think about the the 30 to 80 and the 80 and above so clearly the benefit to the 80 and above is creating more housing choice here and we knew that going in that in fact I'm glad we got the 80

I was worried it was going to be a hundred and above the benefit of rip to the 30 to 80 is that the size limits are limiting displacement risk to some degree so there is a benefit in base rip for the 30 to 80 population we're taking some of the pressure off Andres amendment would take probably a lot more of the pressure off for that first 5 years so I can see the benefit there I just want understand the consequence on the other side so Tyler you know applying the Jerry Johnson kind of view to t

his if we take you know all these mapped areas off the table for duplexes triplexes quad flexes I assume that will push more of the market to the gray areas rather than the brown areas and since land values are higher there the duplexes try flexes quad flexes we do get will have higher rents than we would have seen on average citywide with the whole map is that a fair way to think about it yeah I think that's one potential outcome it's hard to think about these I'm hesitant to say yes with certa

inty we all learned today there is no certain yeah well well part of it is we just don't know until we look at it in detail and see what the changes and what the total and unit likelihood in these different areas are and what that means - it's it's running a huge new scenario - to answer that question with certainty but I think in general your statement is true that if there were demand that still existed those units could be built but they can only be built where they're feasible and where they

're feasible couldn't be more expensive right so yeah I think I agree with Eli that this is this is not crippling to rip it complicates things that it does shift that equity equation a little bit and I think I'm still with the the advocates that we heard including the anti displacement folks who were really arguing for the housing opportunity as one of the key values and not trying to do Geographic answers to displacement but instead look for the programmatic solutions and we still got to push C

ity Council to do that so just what I understand all the pros and cons here Thanks I think this amendment is great intense tend to agree with what Chris just said I think at the end of the day it will take out some some opportunity what I'm struggling the most with though is the apparent inconsistent approach of singling out a specific area as the southwest quarter and introducing that special treatment for this area and not other areas and and are we are we getting mean are we getting ourselves

into I'd like to get your perspective on this why specifically on those things the Southwest corridor not other areas there are perhaps of even more risk again I I'm not wedded the Southwest corridor I looked at Southwest Quarter because it had been identified by us as a high-risk area for displacement because of a transportation project and we had encouraged council through that Southwest corridor plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to mitigate that and it seemed as a compounding iss

ue ripp brought single-family dwellings to that area and even though it's not in this corridor may I in this map of an area of displacement it has been identified as displacement so I was just kind of logically saying if you've already identified it why would you not not do something in that area but I I mean if if it's an issue of we need to take it out to get your vote I'm good with that to the other to the other question that is you know I would say to push council I've been here a long time

what pushes councils five six counts at least five mayors and and a bunch of council members is things that make them change their mind I've probably signed a lot of letters that say we need you to do this that and the other thing I haven't gone through and said how many of those things have they really done and so asking for mitigation it's just another piece of paper on the pile when we have taken action as a commission to say you we want to do this and councils had to make a decision to chang

e then the thoughtful process comes the maybe they do the additional analysis and I understand that there's not the analysis here to say what is the true impact well as Tyler talked about but maybe they do demand that and they see the impact and people see that and maybe it's not not there but all indications it is and councils probably not gonna take that action unless they're put in the position to do that and and this is an opportunity to make council think about this more deliberately and ri

p so I'm just again at a time and I want to make sure that we gave Andres amendment here because it's pretty complex a lot of time but I'm gonna let Joe jump in here a little bit and then I guess I would ask if you've got questions of Andre and I'd like to let those go ahead if you've got more comments that would be more appropriate to come along with your vote then I'd ask you to hold for the moment you you vote on this amendment go ahead yeah and I I'm sorry to interrupt the vote because I thi

nk we should probably go there I felt though obliged to just say that I understand the intent of what Andres described especially in the argument he just made about even influencing city council and so for voting for that intent I would understand that but this amendment is not going to accomplish that intent is my fear because it's it's it's in that the amendment that would accomplish that intent is just not to do rip in these areas see I think that we're kidding ourselves a little bit by comin

g up with the size changes adding a to use a to use it's really just a unit so I don't want us to think that this particular mechanism is getting that intent because I my best professional judgment is it's not and the other thing to remember is remember on the map that we looked at some of the areas that are shown here in blue or in brown the other blue actually benefited from rip so it goes back to the cat was giving it one aspect of this where this map and these areas change so it's always goi

ng to be a little out-of-date but that's okay if we're just being conservative to protect something which is what I heard Andre arguing but we're talking about a move that I don't think it's necessarily going to accomplish the end as valuable as that end might be and our analysis already told you that it's taking out areas that would have benefited with less displacement due to single family house piece of this only so I think that I just wanted to be clear that voting for the principle is one t

hing voting for this as an approach to get it I would not I can't really say that how that works okay so there additional kind of questions for Andre or staff on the amendment itself not see anything for just a little piece of information too I think when we think of East we've been talking about 50 by 100 lots for so long and east these generally aren't 50 by 100 lots they might be 70 by a hundred and twenty foot Lots so the comment that that cat had made about the only opportunities to build o

ne house even with the FA are limits if you are a tower five you're at 4200 square foot house on a lot that that's it is that big so they could be larger houses smaller than today but larger houses and the ones that we have been talking about aren't we but aren't we keeping the same total size we are but those lots are larger and so they're based on Florida area reach ratio which means that the size of the structure can be larger and I'm just pointing that out because I think when we're thinking

about affordability and really what you would this amendment would do is to say you're restricted and build one house it could be you know 4,200 if if you buy the 70 by 120 foot law which means there are many of instead of building four units a thousand square feet each or even actually larger because I get more if they are an offering opportunity to more households but they could do the reverse and build 380 use because you have more spirit of square footage correct well they cap out at 800 sq

uare foot captain right yeah but they it's easier to do the three because you have more square footage of land yes goes you have more space mm-hmm okay so we've been kind of doing straw polls but I have a feeling some people might want to add something in does anybody need to add anything with their straw poll vote except Teresa oh it's an amendment you're right thank you thank you thank you thank you yeah so no will call the roll and you can add your comment at that time well I wouldn't mind am

ending to take out Southwest corridor because I just feel like it's not really yeah it just doesn't seem like it fits in with the other areas and it would anyone except second that friendly amendment one more heads up for the Commission on this amendment since we have not prepared the specific language or done the mapping or additional analysis then basically this would be giving staff direction to keep working correct thank you for the clarification for everybody okay so love please call the ro

ll yes portavoz no no how no floor cell yeah quinones yes Smith so I hope that every City Council member is made to listen to the debate we just had but no Spivak saint-martin so I just want to say a couple things um it's an inconvenient problem that we have with displacement and so there's maybe gonna be some inconvenient solutions but I really feel like we need to give it our best and actually try try to see what we can do there I know we'll improve but in the spirit of that I'm gonna vote yes

Schulz no so it was very close but does not pass amendment number 2 a little more mundane conversation perhaps so we started with the media everything the Second Amendment here is currently we've got existing language in their books that says if you're doing a duplex or attach houses on four Lots that the units have to match each other in terms of trim and siding and roof pitch and roof Heights and one of the elements that that has to match is windows on all facades and so the amendment introdu

ced here is to apply the window matching requirement adjust the street facing facade of the structure just step away from 30,000 feet looking at a project my intent for this was just make review easier I think if you're building a attached homes facing to different streets what matters is what you see from the street versus the window and trace it orientation on the other side of the structures so I think anyone building to new homes are going to make the windows match it's it's easier to do tha

t than to make a mismatch and I thought this is just a way of saying that you just have to match what you see from the street you don't have to match the other facades of the building that are facing a back or side yard don't it was um I it's not a huge thing and I thought it would just simplify review times and wouldn't in builders would do this anyway whether it's our part or not so do you want to make a motion I would move this amendment number two second second discussion questions Theresa s

o the only thing I would respond to on that is if builders are gonna do it anyway then leaving it in there shouldn't hurt them and then just for the concern that people have is I'm gonna have this big thing in my back yard and whatever it is so it's really for more of the surrounding neighbors and the the issues that we've heard with people being concerned about what they don't know and and just having to look at something that's different than the grass and the trees that were there go ahead my

concern is that in standardizing all the windows you get into a factory house so all of a sudden you can tell that house is and you know that ATU or it's the duplex or something and they all start to look the same and we end up with a whole bunch of homes that look the same and it we if they're gonna do it then do it all the same let them do it but if they don't do it then we have some variety and and that variety and in the neighborhood is what I thought we valued that not every home looks jus

t like the other one so I push back on that and I think this is just it's the key at least as a designer's mind reading this as proportion and orientation and unfortunate I think your pictures not a very good one to explain this because they're actually similar proportions the only difference is that you've got shutters on one versus the other so think about it is the existing dome has all bunch of really long horizontal windows and the the attached house now has a bunch of vertical windows and

so that would be for example an orientation example that are is mismatched and I guess where I'm going with this is to me this this makes sense as far as if you're looking at character character of our traditional neighborhoods we have pretty consistent kind of vocabulary going on with windows and and so I I guess I support this especially with knowing how neighbors are concerned about how their house like today and with our neighborhoods are like today any other comments questions I don't suppo

rt this amendment I support it as it's written I would say Andre you want to suggest that we just drop all their cameras on windows that would be a friendly amendment I like things all different out there this is not a big issue for me I just I don't know if you have a second do you have a second a second and so the code currently doesn't require that all windows in the neighborhood match so it you know it's one of the design design Commission talks about a lot about cohesion within building des

ign and to me this is just a Alliant item that's getting at trying to make the design of the attached house cohesive with the existing house it's a piece to that any other comments or questions I'm not seeing me let's go ahead and take the roll ba no border lies oh yes help ourselves King Jonas no Smith no speed back yes Saint Martin no Schultz no so 7 to 2 does not pass all righty last up on our amendments so this is related to our historically narrow Lots conversation so lots of generally 25 b

y 100 and in the r5 zone so we have sort of two sets of these Lots there's our 2.5 zones and our 5 zones with these historically narrow Lots and the r-25 and they were they were allowed to have point 7f they are or about 750 square feet per unit and the r5 zone their cap at point 5 f AR or 1,250 square feet per unit so the amendment here is to allow attached houses on narrow Lots in the r5 zone to have a little additional FA are up to 0.6 total for the two units and I think this is SP back as we

ll but this is something that Jeff and I wanted to bring up and he's not able to be here the dynamic going on here is in the remember that you have narrow lots and what is the city would do with those and the ones that are closer in to centers and corridors are being proposed to be rezone dark to point five which means more scale and massing and those further afield stick with the r5 massing this smaller massing and we realized that there's a wrinkle in there which is that if you have a 5500 for

a lot with and you just put a duplex there you can get three thousand square feet on it which you could do on any 50 button or a lot r5 lot but if you have miss or property line down the middle and you bring back that line and you try and build a 3,000 square foot attached townhome you can't do it because each half of that Lots how you base your Farr on so you actually end up with 1,250 square feet per side so the fact that you're bringing back that historic property on actually decreases how m

uch house you can build lower than you couldn't any other home in that neighborhood moves on to our five well I don't think I did you put that great job describing that but there's this anomaly that I'm on the same lot if you use the old property line you can build less for duplex then you could on the lot next door that doesn't have historic property line and so this is trying to address just to make parity between those two situations but couldn't you just use the current property line and bui

ld the thing like the thing next door you could build yeah you could put a duplex on the site and not bring back the property line and then you could vote 3,000 square-foot duplex that's right the question is can you sell them to different people some of these people want to own you know own the land to not just one half of the condo unit or to unit condo and this I think I guess if this passes then you can build the same structure as you can build many our five lot and you could sell one half o

ne first one half to the other person they'd have to be attached but if you wanted to do it duplex if this thing doesn't pass then you try and do that and you're suddenly stuck with smaller home sizes then you cook with just a duplex on the site to me what I find interesting about this is it's creating parity for home ownership to have the same size home as you would have if you rented it because we're a Plex right Ben has a question just a comment from a former standpoint there really is no dif

ference between a duplex and to attach them so having regulations that reflect that makes sense to me I'm not sure we got a second on the motion okay I'll propose this motion okay great just so this is trying to get around if you build condos you could get a larger unit correct you yes you could you could you can build a condo and get the three thousand square feet but if you built the duplex you're at 12,000 homes yes attached homes which is a condo unit so attached homes is it the cities like

definitional land attached homes means they're each on their own lot so if these don't know a lot your youth you can build smaller you can you can only build half the belts you have to build smaller yet you can Condors them if you build a duplex and condo wise it then you can go to the full size so it's a different how big you can how large you can build it and that difference makes it it makes a difference because first-time homebuyers tend to not deal with condos that well and the 15 owners Gr

iffey gives you more like a three-bedroom you know so date I mean I think it's very important for this for these narrow Lots to be able to say consistently you can't build any bigger than you go for a single-family house and this is consistent with that and this is more to say that whether you're building it is attached homes or if the duplex how much you can build is the same thing I think in the discussion just to tie it to the discussion you had with the skinny and historically narrow Lots be

fore you know there was I don't know if you remember the map the yellow and purple map there's about fourteen thousand of these lots and the ones closest to center in corridors you proposed or you are proposing to rezone those two are two point five the other ones what I found compelling I guess in your last argument when you talked about is he would decided scale matters by rezoning its are two point five you did the point seven if they are you get higher height and those are the basic differen

ces and these are five lots that are further from quarters they can still do the confirms a lot line but the scale matters and the scale needs to stay smaller and so this move basically moves it a step closer to our two point five but not quite our two point five the difference is two hundred fifty square foot per lot in general the way the zoning code is structured is that all development standards are reviewed on a lot basis that's why a lot lines matter we measure setbacks from laugh lines bu

ilding coverages by lot lines so calculating if they are is by what's on that lock also so that's what's what's in your proposal currently no okay any other questions or comments anybody need the light bulb turned on because that was really fuzzy doesn't look like it so let's go ahead and call the roll ba no I just think we added if you want to condo eyes a condo board allows oh yes help yes Darcelle quinones no Smith so we really have to deal with this fee simple issue somewhere sometime I don'

t think today is the day no speed back yes st. Martin yes Schultz yes that passes so I've now gone through all the amendments yeah all the other amendments wrong consent forward and I believe we have time to take the vote on the entire package a couple quick things first you want to talk about letters to council before we take a vote do you yeah because we wanted to end on the votes my concern is this may take a while but that's okay can people stay a little bit later to I don't we weren't envis

ioning and taking well we just wanted to catch the rest of the Commission up to what the officers talked about I think you already saw the letter earlier today about the anti displacement letter of support have you you already saw that and the items of interest from the director great which means that normally when the Commission makes a vote there's a transmittal letter to City Council and we are planning on writing that transmittal letter but as your deliberations have occurred over the past s

everal months there have been many topics that you have decided or have said let's include that in the letter let's include that in a letter so now we're envisioning two letters and we just wanted to let you know about that the first letter is your formal transmittal letter to the City Council describing what the vote is what the dissenting votes are and really your high-level communication to City Council the second letter would be additional topics for councils consideration in the becoming in

their work in the future the list of topics that we have collected as we've gone along include this list of topics here and we just wanted to assure the commissioners that we haven't lost those topics and we know that they were important and you got into the debate around those topics and we'll capture that but that's the plan is to have two letters and that's all we needed one say about that before the vote are there any questions or concerns about so we're gonna talk about it during the vote

but I guess putting on the second letter additional displacement mitigation just seems it just seems like a disservice in the second letter I think we assume does probably gonna go in the first letter since that was a big the biggest topic of discussion thank you any other comments or questions on that well as long as staff makes it clear that because there are a lot of the things we're concerned about her in this other letter or less important letter that that it is not wind up being ignored yo

u will all have a chance to ignore the letters and as typically we would see the letters getting circulated for what it's worth you know there's a lot of topics here I'm concerned that we're gonna have a letter if we pay to put it all in one that's you know really long and you know it doesn't all get read bigger than the staff report I am that I and others who share my concerns will make it abundantly clear to her counsel or concerns okay so um just to that point how how and when will council se

e this and what will be I guess the presentation strategy have you guys thought about that yet we've we've begun conversations with the mayor's office because we're under the portfolio of the mayor and have talked about having a couple work sessions ahead of the hearings for the public we're planning on having the hearings for the public going well going with our work sessions in late summer so that they have a chance to understand the debate that you all had and understand what the proposal is

before they start listening to the public opinion about it okay so this may look somewhat familiar from your last hearing item we have a two-part motion so first set of the motions have to do with directions for staff and the second part of the motions are recommendations for City Council oh and just read them read through them yeah so the first is directing staff to revise appendage the displacement risk analysis to incorporate staff analysis from our memo that we shared with the Commission so

right now there's sort of two pieces of information floating around we'd like to consolidate those and then also revise the staff report and code commentary to clarify proposals and findings as necessary so again where there are areas where we can help provide greater explanation or more context for some of the proposals so we can have the the room to do that the set of recommendation or the second set of the motions for the recommendations to City Council is adopting the residential infill proj

ect as it revised as amended rather amending the zoning map and comprehensive plan map is shown in volume one so that's our r2 5 zone changes and the Z overlay and amending the zoning code and comprehensive plan is shown in volume 2 so that's our basically our code coding commentary Chris are you gonna make a motion for us what I was going to suggest that since commissioners feedback has been at this from the very first day I'm the stakeholder advisory committee that the honor of making the moti

on should go to him sorry I thank you I what do I say here yeah I mean I won't use this soon stay my two cents but I I appreciate that all the work staffs put into this over half a decade and the thousands of comments we got in and I will move that we adopt RIT and recommended to City Council as proposed here with the amp displacement language in the first letter I think mr. st. Martin it's been with us from the beginning - so maybe she wants to second it thank you any additional discussion on t

his motion I know you asked for two minutes but it's going to take a little longer in two minutes this is probably my last full Commission meeting and disappointing me I want to start with we at the city through the comp plan took a look and we knew that East Portland was at risk there's no surprises there we had back in oh wait oh nine the Biot I showed that there was going to be a displacement risk we created and I say we the Commission created along with the housing groups eleven strategies a

nd you know some of those strategies we thought would never happen rent control but we threw it in there Jesus that it happened so displacement is not a surprise and should not be as a surprise to anybody here the the surprise to me is that we're unwilling to do anything about it or rip does not address 30 to 80 percent we knew that was the risk going in well the 60 to 80 percent so we knew the risk going in and we're unwilling to take the courage to do something about it we are a city that has

embraced equity in the Portland plan have gone through and and part of the issue that I had with the letter around this issue of anti displacement improvement plan is we're gonna displace people and as Eli said yeah there's people being displayed we will there is a connection between diversity in a neighborhood and the businesses in those neighborhoods and as we displaced they could go to East for one but there's nowhere to go you cannot Woo's gonna went to a person that's at 50% of their income

as a business person you're gonna take the best credit risk and that's 30% you're not taking someone that 50% so the people at the 80% that are trying to get into these home 60% 40% as a minority as matt said they're at 50% yeah the housing unit built they can afford if they want to spend 50% but is that unit owner gonna take them as a credit risk at 50% I highly like I highly doubt it because you're in business to make money and you're not taking high risk you're taking well risk I mean I much

as and so this anti displacement plan seems like a feel-good measure to me because rip is displacement and now the the mayor says or well not the mayor but we want the mayor and council to look at implementing an anti displacement plan what are you gonna do about rip if people are leasing we're just why don't we spend money there and let's not spend money on this and so it's kind of an oxymoron to me that you want to spend money on this and not put money into fixing rip we are considered one of

the widest cities in Portland and I think what really becomes as I said before institutional racism to create the widest city in Portland and and you know the five years that I proposed was just an opportunity to give us a break to say how do we how do we really respond as a city and and recognize the value of people in this economic class it's not only minorities but it's low-income it's working people you know that are gonna serve your coffee tomorrow and your dinner tonight that you can now

say these are Portland's not for you and unfortunately Portland via city so where they go there's less services there's less things and in those cities are faced with greater challenges that they have to go to and and that's the disappointment that we are not willing to step up to that challenge I think there is also a fair housing issue here I think if you dig deep enough into the displacement I do disparity studies there is disparity here in the Fair Housing Act and I think Portland's gonna wa

nt into that hopefully anything just to slow that III and I'm not against the volume but volumes sake at the end of the day that creates housing 20 30 years 40 years down the road that has fallen apart and that people can fit into in an income level and eighty percent it seems like Portland's suggesting we want to get into the slum business that's House office for Bill we're not in that business and we we need to take pride in holding everybody as citizens and producing products for everybody so

I am I'm gonna vote no and obviously very disappointed in how what we're sending to council because council has no urgency nothing to make any changes to rip in any shape way or form and and and and and I you know I I will close with I really do appreciate staff staff has done to me an amazing job bringing us information Tyler you've done Tracy Sarah it's a an amazing job and so this is not an indictment or anything I think you've done input information in front of us to make a rational decisio

n so it's not there's nothing you've done wrong I think we we just have making a bad and I leave it at that are there any other questions or deliberations it's not well we haven't no we haven't voted did you actually we haven't called the roll right no so kind of intent had been and not that we can't change it up but that we can take the roll and with your vote you're welcome to kind of preamble if you'd like but yes I mean I just was trying to lay the law of the land but we're in the middle of

deliberations and discussions and questions right now on the motion on the table so are there any other comments or questions about the motion on the table go ahead Lee I'll use the time I have now rather than what I'm actually voting is my thoughts I I think that the concern about this placement do you've expressed the target for those Barb's should be traditional single-family zoning and rip takes measures to to open that up for more inclusive neighborhoods and the good things I say about rip

are that it decreases displacement pressure in most of the city and I acknowledge the city has limited resources to have this anti displacement programs it will allow the city to focus those on the areas where it's happening the worst which we also saw on our maps and the real the real culprit in our city's woes in other cities woes in terms of displacement how fast it happens is because we placed our single-family neighborhoods off-limits to in film we need to have those housing choices we've n

eeded to have them for 75 years and we ban plexes way back then which meant that there's nowhere to go if someone don't get this place North Portland not just going do a little bit away there they're losing the house because they can't show the land with another house and all the other neighborhoods they're already filled up we don't have any you don't have any room for homes we say we have no one room from but we do have room for homes and we should have inclusive neighborhoods where the proble

m of single-family zoning is that it works for a few people works for those already on homes and who are wealthy enough to move here and it doesn't work for people who teach our kids no care for loved ones staff social service agencies nonprofits people who are of color who have a sort they did not have the means to buy their own home they don't work for people plant our trees you know who to you know nurse our loved ones I mean those people should be able to live in a neighborhood in Portland o

n my street in any neighborhood and if in order to live on that Street you have to go to buy or rent your own home on your own piece of land you ain't welcome and I think that's the unfortunate fact of single-family zoning and the residential infill project addresses that head-on and provides more choices in those neighborhoods in what's allowed today we're increasingly whole neighborhoods are off-limits to all those people I just mentioned and in getting to the nitty-gritty for a second I mean

ripp does a lot of things separate from that that right now our code doesn't even touch it provides requirements for visitability it increases housing options in a society where almost two-thirds of houses are one or two people right now and look over building under today's rules for the past five years it increased it provides an affordability housing incentive that doesn't exist today it protects in supports you know urban green spitting on trees because it decreases it gets sticks to the buil

ding footprint and actually if you're doing two storeys you have to shrink within that shrink even less than that and and on the carbon side of things I mean carbon should be part of our mission and we know that the best thing you do for the environment of smaller homes and attached homes and this encourages smaller homes and attached homes which under current rules are really they're hard to build financially feasibly you almost have to build our homes to to afford a lot so I think that rip is

more of a shift than a big change I think it's going to be bold out as a big change but it basically says you can't build homes as big as you're used to building it which I think people will support and a saying have more housing choices which I think people will also support and it won't go as far as a lot of people want any of those directions but that's my that's my reason for thinking that's probably a good thing for an inclusive neighborhoods important one forward any additional questions o

r comments so love if you could call the roll ba no Porter Lazo - do I get my two minutes now yep I'll try to keep it maybe shorter than that since we're past time overall I'd say well not perfect or hitting all the points I think I'm I think this piece of legislation does what it was designed to do in my mind one of the bigger goals of this commission is to use land more efficiently and I think this does that and I think to do that we really need it to tackle the the land use that has the lid t

he biggest landmass in the whole city is basically almost 50% of the landmass of the city so I think this does that creates moral housing choices and another thing that I think was really important to do was to create something that responds to different households that we have now and an address a need that is somewhere between what's provided with you by the nodes and corridors in those notes and corridors oh and the single families or the so-called miss the middle and I think it kind of opens

up more opportunities for dot type of use one thing I'd like to say I would like to thank staff and fellow commissioners for great discussions but specifically staff for answering and following us and really go through major change and and in the code but I think it was for the better so thank you and I vote yes well I yeah I think we're operating with the best information available to us I feel comfortable voting YES on this having grown up and out of Southeast Portland and and and traveling o

ut there now looking at I think we're providing opportunity for people I speaking for myself Eli mentioned folks who work for nonprofits I'm one of those people and without divulging how poorly some people are paid in the nonprofit sector the Frank frankly I would not be where I am right now had I not had the opportunity to buy into a four-plex with an appropriate amount of space that I can afford both in terms of getting into it and and paying my property taxes so I think I think we are providi

ng opportunity for people by by adopting this yes or so well your Mike thank you [Music] I am going to vote no and the reason I'm voting no is not because I don't think it's a good measure but because of the mitigation and I really don't think that just by having it go to City Council there will be any pressure on them to do anything about mitigation there you know will have a will have a letter but I would really like to see each Portland be able to come and meet this piece of I guess you'd cal

l it legislation come and meet this change and and have some resources at its you know disposal to be able to take advantage of this so that it helped the people that are homeowners there now and for the renters and the different groups of people that are that may struggle under this and I believe it will pass but I would like it to pass not unanimously I'd like to them I would at least like city council to be able to say well why did they vote against it you know so I think I think the more mes

sage we can give them that we have concerns about this big concerns I do so I'm voting no can Yanis hi this is my first vote big vote so I'm a little nervous first off I want to say thank you to staff as well and my fellow commissioners I've only been part of this in September I share a lot of the same concerns as commissioner ba and Commissioner Lars so so I'm coming from a place I think when you are somebody who's experienced displacement yourself being somebody who has worked with a lot of pe

ople who have experienced displacement there's a sort of intuitive knowledge that is sometimes really hard to articulate about what will cause your displacement what will cause your community to really transform into something that is no longer for you and is now for people who earn much more money than you for example I say this with having this experience of displacement but also as a planning student I given the history of planning thank you to staff for providing us all the information you d

id but I also again want to reiterate that even though the displacement risk analysis showed that there would be less displacement under rip than the baseline situation that is only accounting for Ric and there are so many compound things that can lead to displacement so due to that and also as commissioner Larsa was saying I don't think a strong worded letter to City Council will be enough to get them to really act boldly on anti displacement under RIT I'm voting them Smith so I want to add my

thanks to staff done a great job I'll go back to the remarks I made when we started this that you know in my mind this is all about equity and the very challenging task of balancing Housing Opportunity with displacement risk I am very proud of this commission we've had some very difficult discussions but I think prouder about the outcome that we've achieved which is balancing the creation of Housing Opportunity which is vitally needed you know we can't solve our housing crisis without supply so

supply is an absolute necessity but at the same time you know finding that you did sue to get the building sizes down to the point where we shaped the economic forces so that we are on the whole reducing displacement risk we are have not achieved doing that everywhere there are specific neighborhoods where that risk will go up and that you know that is troublesome but I think we're not able to address that problem with maps and code I think those have to have programmatic solutions and while I r

ecognize that the challenges of that I also want to reflect that clearly we have not solved our displacement problem but we've made lots of progress in the time I've been on this commission you know there have been two major bottom measures for housing in the time that I've served here we've introduced inclusionary housing but we're clearly not done you know East Portland remains a big challenge for us I we've taken some steps we need to take more very supportive coach for ourselves idea of a di

strict plan or area plan for East Portland you know it becomes I think now much more of a budgetary question than a code and map kind of question and we have to keep going there this Commission has a limited scope so we can't chase that as a body but you know as individuals we're all capable of lobbying and advocating for those necessary changes and they hopefully all will so I think we have done a very good thing and and we we pushed too far at risk and making the perfect the enemy of the good

this is a very good thing and I am happy to vote yes to advance it speed back hi st. Martin well first I definitely want to thank staff for all the work through this whole process you've done a really great job and particularly I'm very encouraged by the start of our displacement analysis program and I look forward to that just the process and the analysis becoming more robust over time as we get more experienced and and some on the ground tracking I think that's a really important part of what

we need to do in the future rib address the size of of homes and that was a big issue we have some demolition reduction kind of incentives there so I think those are some good and successful parts the one thing I think we can't ignore is a displacement risk it's a tough problem and I know that you know there's no easy solution that's just waiting for us but I still really have a concern that we don't have targeted and funded programs to to help with that and that we're doing some exacerbation an

d although there's many other factors as well I think in particular picking some areas might have sent a signal a strong signal and then if the programs existed they could be available to anybody throughout the city so I think there was some value in that particular approach and it's unfortunate we couldn't get there with that but it is really important to recognize that the diversity of our city makes it a vibrant city if you think about what's the newest hottest restaurant to go to it's an eth

nic restaurant and we want we want to encourage that we want to have people be able to be entrepreneurs and to come here and kind of start out but in terms of displacement I believe that the most effective method is to prevent the displacement so taking care of some of those low income homeowners that we have and helping them to stay and figure out how to sort of create that generational wealth with whether it's capital or or just you know learning development skills or learning how to be a land

lord but those things take time and that we really really need to put those in place so because I would like to send that signal that displacement we just can't ignore it I will respectfully vote no Schultz it's a song it is so thank you everybody for your for sharing your thoughts staff definitely you have done a phenomenal job with an extremely complex tough controversial project you've taken it from one direction to a completely different direction and you've gone along for this ride and you'

ve got it I think extremely well so thank you I want to just kind of quickly address some information I've received from the community since we we kind of started talking about the project and that in its with regards to kind of the direction it's gone with this proposal I would say that we as a body as a commission did spend some time listening to everybody listening to the testimony that received reading the testimony that received and from whatever it's worth my point of view I found it very

fascinating lead divided and very much so divided between people who have a home today on our single-family neighborhoods and those who would love to be able to live in this thing family neighborhoods and I found that striking and that I also found very important as you heard our deliberations with how do we kind of layer in our comp plan goals and put and when we put our kind of priorities together on the on the what you reminded us of our goals at the beginning of this work session is how that

changed perhaps the direction well didn't change perhaps it did change the direction of where this proposal was going so I just want kind of to acknowledge the community that we did hear you but it's it was a combination of listening to the community's concerns as well as also what we're trying to achieve in the comp plan to each of you I can't tell you how impressed and how proud I am of the deliberations that we've had everyone's been extremely respectful I think everyone's really seriously l

istened to the other points of view and perhaps maybe more poignant to me is the concern that everybody has which is in common which is displacement I don't think there's a person on this commission who isn't deeply troubled and concerned about it and the fact that we did all the work that we have around it is important work and I'm glad we did it what I find very interesting and I hope as you're seeing from this vote is that a lot of us are arriving it at perhaps the same intent of trying to do

good to try to acknowledge that to try to help what's happening in the city but we're coming to different conclusions on how best to take to read to respond to that displacement personally the fact that I think in general and overall we're seeing displacement reduced rents lowered through this proposal I find encouraging yes having even one family displaced is troubling but I think leaving our codes the way they are today are not the right direction there are a lot of also kind of people in the

candy who had asked us after the the work that we did to kind of open testimony and I want to just quickly address that a little bit and the reason we pushed least I push back or leadership push back on doing that is because of exactly what our goals were at the outset when we kind of came together as a commission and seeing the analysis coming through that seemed to align with those goals it didn't seem respectful to the community to open up testimony yet again just to have us perhaps kind of

go back and say yeah but it meets our goals maybe it doesn't meet your personal goals so to that point I would encourage everybody in the community to please take the time to read this proposal to understand the proposal you can anybody watching this I'm sure has seen that it's extremely complex the issues and hopefully participate in the process as this moves forward to Council I think this was thoughtful work and I think it achieves the goals that we set out to achieve so I support the proposa

l and vote YES so with that the motion passes the proposal passes with a very close vote of five to four and I thank everybody for your participation and thoughtful deliberations absolutely nothing to do with wellness I would like to thank each of you have been very emotional probably the most emotional I've been in 10 and a half years on this commission and thank you for your patience I just thank you and I'm not I did not point you out been to make you uncomfortable but it's just my way there'

s nothing personal you guys are great guys so I just I want to be clear was nothing personal was just it's an emotional issue about this placement so and Katherine thank you for your patience I know it's there thank you for your all of your input yes Eli please so my thanks also I mean I appreciate a talk at the last conversation and I think they were coming from different tools for some more outcome and I appreciate that we're sending it mixed about City Council which will I was sort of thinkin

g about my booth to do the amendment may be having in unanimity I think this is another way of conveying the same information to City Council that of the importance of the bigger you know of this Tantra displacement so I'm kind of glad the outcome has come to since it's since the floors open is there anybody else who would like to say anything I'd like to present the opportunity yeah yeah Jo I'm gonna keep it short I just want to let you all know it's really an honor to work with you all and it

happens on a regular basis that I leave our meetings feeling that way you're very thoughtful and sort of earnest and righteous deliberations I really appreciate it's a lot of work for volunteers so thank you thank you with that we are adjourned [Music] [Laughter]