We stand with our Southeast neighbors

Wow. I grimaced when it became clear the sidewalk-closure permit for the proposed project for our neighborhood had been fast-tracked without satisfying a critical required step—and still feel aggrieved it hasn't been corrected. Then I winced when I saw in the news that the folks at the Bureau of the Development Services had to be convinced of the state Land Use Board of Appeals' authority in revoking the permit for Southeast 37th and Division. Now, however, something's really starting to smell with the backroom deal to expedite a permit to renew construction at that controversial Richmond site, intended home of yet another mondo-project without space for all its tenants' possessions.

Yesterday's sneaky deal made Richmond's scheduled meeting for community input for next month moot, so where once neighbors (the original stakeholders, with the most to lose) thought they had a chair at the table the door was slammed in their face.

Who, in city hall or government, wants as their legacy these exploitive buildings? Without LEED features, a size scaled to fit the neighborhood, or interesting architecture, they contribute nothing to their environs and in return deliver a wallop of impact in terms of increased traffic, pedestrian risk, slowed emergency response times, and near-permanent use of on-street parking, already well-used by thriving local businesses.

When the Bureau of Development Services sees fit to follow its own processes and correct its mistakes is when I'll believe city government's working. Such special favors to certain developers erode taxpayers' faith in the system. It also makes it hard for the upstanding ones to fairly participate.

"Selective" enforcement—as well as expedited permits for certain people—breeds a disregard for the law by both would-be developers and officials. It begins with rationalization and/or laxity and can become corruption.

We look forward to details on the Richmond deal, and a course correction at the Bureau of Development Services.

UPDATE: Per this O post, Mayor Hales has stepped in to stop BDS from reviewing revisions for the Richmond project. Hopefully the reporters will dig for the rest of the story.

It's up to City Council to make a real difference

Northeast Fremont between 44th and 45th avenues: Future sight of neighborhood boon or neighborhood behemoth? Tell City Hall what you'd like to see.

After about four hours, the Planning and Sustainability Commission hastily voted—despite some hankering for an additional work session—to rubber-stamp the weak amendments put forth by the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Requiring .25 parking space per unit for buildings of more than 40 units is like dripping water on a bonfire: so little done to mitigate a known impact, and a gift to no-parking developers. As long as they build at 40 units and under, it's business as usual.

This almost pointless charade feels like we're not getting the responsible planning that we're paying for, especially when considering the project that may be permitted in this neighborhood. One side of the block has no sidewalk while the other side gets a 4-story, 50-unit apartment building without parking. The only way these two elements jive is that they both hit bottom on the amenity scale.

Under the proposed code amendments, for the building proposed for Northeast Fremont, the developer would have to build 12 or 13 spaces, with options to decrease that number significantly. After all the developer "buy-downs"—again, neighbors get nothing in these deals except additional negative impact—the end result is about 8 spaces to satisfy a projected influx of at least four times the vehicles. The city's own recently collected data shows that more than 70 percent of households own a car. This is data taxpayers paid to discover; why is it being ignored?

Leaving aside the question as to whether that possession is a luxury item or a necessity (think lower income worker with night shift or need to travel around the city, or a parent with several kids), the city also reported, "Many people stated that there were no amenities that would reduce their need for a vehicle." While I admire the bike-only activists and hope there are hundreds more who will live in these buildings, it's not an option for everyone.

One testifier summed up the debacle as boiling down to car storage. That's certainly a big part of the problem, but in our case eclipsed by traffic/pedestrian safety and emergency response times on Fremont.

One brainstorm: Make the cost of parking permits high enough that we recoup enough money to pay for sidewalks all around the affected block and on adjoining blocks so that pedestrians don't have to walk in the street. Many drivers will be circling for spaces at all hours, and the lack of good street connectivity and traffic controls already make conditions hazardous. It rankles that we have to pay for safety measures that mitigate problems brought on by the developer who's receiving all the rent checks, but at least the finite resource (on-street parking) can be exploited for the neighborhood's overall good as well.

Stay tuned for the City Council session, and let the mayor and commissioners know how you feel about the amendments coming their way. For more on those, read on:

Let's make parking requirements worth the work

Many Beaumont-Wilshire residents took time out of a sunny Saturday to help the city achieve clarity on changes to code regarding no-parking buildings, such as the one proposed for Northeast Fremont. If you can submit your opinions on the amendments soon to City Council (contact info at lower right), great. If you can also make it to Tuesday's hearing, even better. 

Amendment No. 1: Giving an inch where it will take a mile

Taking the proposed project on Northeast Fremont as the example for how the city's draft interim measures would affect the landscape, it appears that only about 8 spaces would be required in the building of 50 units. City data shows that more than 70 percent of households surveyed own a car.

Requiring such scant space for tenants' possessions hardly makes a dent in the impact, so how about better connecting reality to the requirements? Instead of the proposed 1 spot per 4 units, BWNRG recommends that the requirement should be 1 spot per 2 units. That compromise still provides an incentive for people to go without cars. 

Instead of the 1-space-per-2-units rule applying only to buildings of 41 units or more (as proposed), the parking requirement should be applied to buildings of 20 or more units. The distrust toward developers and the city is so great that many neighbors see the 41-unit threshold, again, as laughable. It's easy to imagine a wave of 40-unit buildings without parking, each sending 60-plus cars onto neighborhood streets for storage. That's not solving the problem, that's increasing it.

BWNRG recommends: 1 space per 2 units in buildings of 20 units or more.

Amendment No. 2: Don't count on Tri-Met

This amendment proposes that minimum parking requirements not apply to projects within 500 feet of frequent transit service. Since Tri-Met service changes regularly (example: the Fremont bus—no longer running 7 days a week or to downtown) and the service it provides is not within the city's control, we suggest that there be no exception to parking requirements based on any level of expected Tri-Met service. 

BWNRG recommends: Required parking applies regardless of Tri-Met service levels.

Amendment No. 3: Deals for developers stick it to neighbors

This amendment allows substituting car-sharing spots for some of the required car spaces. We're against any bargaining of this kind, and also recommend disallowing further reductions for motorcycle and bicycle parking, striking out code sections 33.266.110.B.5 and 33.266.110.B.7.

The requirement should be straightforward, simple: 1 space per 2 units, a formula that still does not cover the anticipated influx of vehicles. Developers can choose to make their properties more attractive by adding or increasing bicycle/motorcycle parking and car-sharing spots, but we'd hate to see the city apply unwieldy formulas and take on more monitoring responsibilities, especially when neighbors have to shoulder additional traffic impact. Under the recommended 1 space per 2 units, they’re already absorbing a majority of the anticipated vehicles.

According to the city’s recent parking-related survey, “Many people stated that there were no amenities that would reduce their need for a vehicle.”

BWNRG recommends: No reductions allowed in required parking.

Amendment No. 4: Spaces elsewhere are no sure thing

We suggest returning to the current language of the code that requires the parking to be on the same site as the development. As our case shows, properties change hands and uses—tying them up in use as parking lots for nearby residential projects makes the no-parking buildings dependent on an unchanging future. Buildings should be self-sustaining, self-contained in the amenities provided to tenants. Developers may say it's too difficult to design parking into the building or not economically feasible, but smart architects the world over—from the Pearl District, to Vancouver, B.C., to Hong Kong—can do it. Tenants not provided parking on-site are encouraged to rent or arrange spaces elsewhere individually if they choose, which meets the spirit of this amendment without any city monitoring. 

BWNRG recommends: Required parking must be on-site.

Amendment No. 5: Load up on safety

A loading space should be required for any building with 20 units or more, instead of the 41-unit threshold proposed. If the Northeast Fremont building is approved, serious questions remain as to whether the city's designation of major emergency response route can still apply. Imagine a garbage pick-up, a tenant move-in, and a delivery occurring at the same time—not impossible considering the proposed 50 units—how fast could a firetruck, ambulance, or police car navigate the congestion? Neighbors across the east side, not just in Beaumont-Wilshire, depend on a functioning Fremont for emergency response. A loading space somewhat ameliorates this safety concern at a site where on-street parking will be at a premium.

BWNRG recommends: Loading space required for buildings of 20 units or more.

Make it a moratorium

It's irresponsible for the city to be drafting measures to avoid known problems while simultaneously approving one of those problems, as it seems ready to do in permitting the Northeast Fremont building. A moratorium will save us all time, effort, and money in the long run, and should be embraced as a tool for allowing city staff, developers, and Portlanders to thoughtfully craft the future of the neighborhoods.

Last but hardly least

For safety issues dealing with transportation, whether it's calling for removal of the silt fencing that hinders visibility along Frermont, reporting car crashes (one occurred just outside that fence on March 6), or any other suggestions for improvements, call 503-823-5185, ask for Matthew Machado. He's familiar with the site and in contact with the contractors.

Developers build on a reputation

As we prepare for a media flurry next week regarding the city's amendments for no-parking apartments, let's look at recent stories featuring the people behind a wave of low-amenity projects across the east side and particularly the contested project on Northeast Fremont.

In last week's Daily Journal of Commerce article on the LUBA win by Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth, which resulted in a stop-work order on a building there, developer Dennis Sackhoff complained, "It’s extremely frustrating that we’ve been painted as the face of ‘no parking.’ ” The urge to distance themselves from these projects is so strong that Vic Remmers, another member of the Remmers-Sackhoff family/juggernaut, in a recent Oregonian article rebuffed criticism of the Beaumont-Wilshire project, pointing out to the reporter that "that project has been undertaken by a separate development company." 

Alas, as a couple of Oregonian reporters have confirmed, it's still a Remmers project through and through. That "separate development company" uses the same address as the Rammerses' myriad other companies. 

Interestingly, Remmers made the comment in a story on their planned development for Woodstock, which they promise will be sensitive to scale and neighborhood site significance, principles that should be applied to their other projects. "We're trying to build houses that fit into the neighborhood," he says in the story.

If they wanted to, the Sackhoff-Remmers family can change the fact that they've been painted as the "face of 'no parking'": by not building it.

Meanwhile, here are a few pictures of the project at Southeast Division and 37th Avenue, for which the building permit was revoked. It's pretty quiet down there as the architects go back to the drawing board to move the main entrance, but issues of scale and site suitability remain loud and clear.

Here's an idea for the Northeast Fremont site, which would provide more safety and visibility than the 130-plus-foot fence that exists now, jutting into one of Northeast Portland's thoroughfares. A car crash occurred there last night.

We can see (more) clearly now

Safety made the priority list as the plywood advertisements and silt fencing came off the corners of the fenced job site, allowing drivers and pedestrians to make turns and navigate traffic along Fremont. Thank you to the tenacious folks at the bureau of transportation. Already neighborhood business owners and residents have remarked how much better it feels.

It's possible we don't need the fencing in the parking lane after all. The best idea for a sidewalk closure this far-reaching (only 80 of the 130-plus feet out there is permitted) may be a sheltered walkway running parallel to the curb that would make it easier for both drivers and pedestrians.

Speaking of Fremont, here's an average situation during a recent rush-hour morning, when everyone's going to work and kids are heading toward Beaumont and Alameda schools. Even the crosswalk is congested. Where will 70 additional cars go?

During morning rush hour, Fremont backs up for two blocks at the 42nd Avenue light.

Portlanders are gearing up to chime in on the code amendments putting a stop to this kind of development. The city's recent study that found that more than 70 percent of tenants bring their cars should serve as guidance. In all the hours of testimony I've witnessed on this topic so far, only a few people have said they represent the car-free tenants that Rammers et al. desire. The other proponents of low-amenity buildings may ride bikes and take transit, for sure, but they also own and use cars when they need to. Everyone wants choices and mobility.

Considering the expense and time of LUBA appeals and city dithering, a moratorium might be the cheapest way yet to sort out all the issues.

With all the difficulties in the demolition and project setup of the proposed Beaumont Wilshire project, one wonders how construction will proceed. If the envelope of a building needs so much tweaking (main entrance of Richmond building needs to be moved, per LUBA; Beaumont Wilshire building needs a generous setback), how will the interior go?

Without offering parking, the developer makes public shared space part of his pro forma. Anyone building a house in Portland also has to build in parking; giving developers of these no-parking buildings a free pass doesn't help anybody but their wallets.

At the state level, common sense prevails

We just heard about the win for Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth, handed down by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The permit for the project at Southeast 37th and Division is officially revoked, further sign that the tide should and is starting to turn against this kind of low-amenity high-impact development. Read The O article here.

Congrats to all fighting the good fight. Let's get some better buildings that benefit everyone, not just the guys with their hands stuck in Portland's pot of real estate gold.

(Speaking of The O, we're also grateful for the recent story on how minimal the measures are that are meant to put a stop to such exploitive development. Lest we get carried away with celebrating, a lot of hard work remains.)

The silver lining measures 12 feet wide

With the plywood removed, visibility will improve for all.

If the sidewalk-closure signs are moved to nearby crosswalks, pedestrians can make safer choices.

Overall the project's off to a rough start. Its incomplete and inaccurate sidewalk-closure permit is part of the problem. We're urging the city to revisit and reissue the permit, hoping that the required input of a transportation engineer will help fix the avoidable hazards surrounding the site. Five days in, and a car has already been hit by a subconractor's truck, so be careful out there.

When prompted several months ago, one of the architects who works for the developer's firm couldn't come up with any positive aspects to the building, but there is one. It's that under City Walkway standards, the building must be set back to allow for a 12-foot pedestrian corridor.

a 12-foot setback at Northeast 44th and Fremont

Here's the 12-foot setback in front of the one-story commercial building at Northeast 44th and Fremont where tree planters and steps give walkers a break and create space for impromptu gatherings. Nice. (As an aside, the developer of the contested Fremont megadevelopment, Wally Remmers, has maintained it's not economically feasible to build fewer than four stories, but that 44th-and-Fremont building was put up only a few years ago; it's one-story; and it was built by real estate professionals—almost no one knows the market, i.e., what's "feasible," better than those folks. That building and its tenants contribute to the community, just as we hope Rammers' will.)

So here's what a 12-foot silver lining can look like: People sitting and chatting in front of the 44th and Fremont building, especially on a warm evening; the tenants seem to be thriving, even in a difficult economy. If Remmers' project strikes at the heart of Beaumont, which some allege, then hopefully it can evolve into that healthy role and become an asset to the neighborhood. The 12-foot pedestrian corridor is a start. The challenge is meshing that public space with all the garbage and recycling pickups and deliveries that also have to occur off the front of the building, given the lack of other access.

Let's hope the smart folks at the city and the architects can figure this one out—or get back to the drawing board.