Turns out, We agree

After relentless neighbor testimony against megadevelopments dropped in their midst, City Council in its afternoon session today saw the point. The impact of this kind of project—I think particularly of the four-story, 50-unit building proposed for Northeast Fremont—unacceptably puts people (tenants included); public safety; the responsible planning done so far to create pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods; and more at risk.

It was good to see the newly reconfigured council taking a stand and moving forward on the issue. I have high hopes that the creative people at Planning and Sustainability can come up with proposals to mitigate this impact. After a study showing that 72 percent of people living in this kind of building own cars regardless of whether parking is offered, it would be Nixonian to deny that there would be any impact at all. As one of today's commenters said, "These developers are laughing at you. They're laughing at us."

Five or 10 years down the road, after Wally Remmers sells the Northeast Fremont building per his stated plan, he'll likely still be laughing all the way to the bank, while we're stuck with a behemoth so low on amenities for both tenants and Beaumont Wilshire residents it may well be a blight.

While Planning and Sustainability chief Joe Zehnder gave his summary of the studies, I couldn't help but notice the fact that 80% of residents in the subject areas looked for parking for no more than 5 minutes. That leaves 20% (or 1 in 5 drivers) of us circling for more than 5 minutes (the upper extent of time was not quantified), adding more congestion to already burdened streets. Driving around like that, you can quickly erase all the environmental gains claimed by parking-less buildings.

New City Council can help avoid a development mess

I just had it confirmed that City Council will take a look at apartments without parking from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 10, at City Hall, 1221 S.W. Fourth. Hopefully the lack of timely notice (or, in some cases, notice at all) and midday scheduling won't keep the concerned citizens away. Let's surprise them with the solid turnout we've seen so far.

A quarter of the allotted hour is reserved for the studies done in November by the Planning and Sustainability Commission. I hope some of the key findings are presented, namely that 72 percent of the people will bring their cars, impacting traffic and pedestrian safety on already burdened street systems. In the case of Northeast Fremont, a two-lane thoroughfare already designated a major emergency response route, how much more traffic can be handled without an uptick in collisions?

In addition the site is more than 500 feet away from the proscribed distance to frequent transit for this type of building, so people living in the proposed project might be more inclined beyond that 72 percent to own cars. The very nature of the site (landlocked on three sides) and its lack of amenities do not support the proposed size of the building.

Hopefully the new atmosphere at City Council and a new year make a difference on this issue.

Santa knows who's naughty or nice

Developer Wally Remmers probably wants a permit for Christmas. Click here to watch the city's progress on his building plans for Beaumont Village; once the permit is issued we can file the LUBA appeal. That is, unless Remmers decides to give us a Christmas present and withdraws or sufficiently modifies the project.

Richmond neighbors get a nod from LUBA

Overcoming a motion to dismiss from the developers and the city of Portland, which issued the permit, to deny their appeal of a parking-less building in their midst, Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth will get to make their case in front of the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

As the story says, the fight is far from over, but this is an encouraging sign. Read more here.

Alameda steps up

We appreciate help from all over; this letter from our neighbors to the south encourages us in our fight against the city's approval of badly planned developments such as the one proposed for Northeast Fremont.

Thank you!

Alameda Neighborhood Association

3118 NE 32nd Avenue

Portland, OR  97212

November 2, 2012

Jean Hester 

Bureau of Development Services

1900 SW 4th Ave, Ste 5000

Portland, OR 97201

Dear Ms. Hester,

 The Alameda Neighborhood Association Board of Directors supports the efforts of the Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association opposing the construction of a fifty-unit residential structure at 4423 NE Fremont Street without on-site space for parking of tenant vehicles.

 Without on-site parking, thirty or forty vehicles will be added to the already overburdened on-street parking spaces nearby.  Beyond inconvenience, noise, and pollution, the added congestion will result in increased traffic hazards for pedestrians and drivers.  Negative impacts can be expected on businesses and current residents in the area.

 Although City regulations do not currently mandate off-street parking spaces for residential structures, the City has a broad responsibility to ensure the public safety and economic security of its citizens and business-owners.  Allowing new development at the expense of those already committed to the surrounding neighborhood is highly inappropriate.  A conscientious developer would work with the neighborhood to eliminate anticipated difficulties.

 BWNA's concerns are well-founded and appropriate.  The members of BWNA are rightly working to maintain the livability of our neighborhoods, and ANA supports their effort.

 We ask that you do not allow this construction to proceed without adequate on-site parking, and please keep us informed regarding progress toward resolving this issue.

 Sincerely,

 Scott Rider,  Chair - Alameda Neighborhood Association

Jim Brown,  Chair - Land Use and Transportation - Alameda Neighborhood Association

cc:  Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association

City wraps its research

In advance of the big parking hearing on Tuesday, Nov. 13, the city has announced the results of its studies into parking and other issues related to proposed developments such as the one undergoing permiting for Northeast Fremont.

One of the studies puts car ownership at 72 percent, and shows that the area of impact (as far as parking is concerned) is two blocks. Estimating a couple of people per each of the 50 units proposed for the Northeast Fremont location, that's about 72 additional vehicles roaming an already tight area with a history of collisions and near misses. With this statistic, we should be able to make an even stronger argument for traffic-safety measures.

Read more here.

Say that again?

This from a description of the latest round of studies done by the city re the latest wave of development and, I think, addressing (sort of) the fact that the Northeast Fremont site doesn't sit within the required proximity to frequent transit:

"A change that could be made to the zoning code would be to make the areas eligible to the frequent transit service exemption for minimum parking requirements correspond to the current TriMet service levels or to redefine frequent service to correspond to TriMet’s current definition."