In Any Case, I Very Much Appreciate the Fact That the City Will Revisit the Residential Code

187832

In any case, I very much appreciate the factthat the City will revisit the residential code. It is hugely important and as I have said we on the Eastmoreland Land Use Committee will do all that we can to be supportive and to be of assistance.

Meg On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stockton, Mmty wrote:

Hi Meg, The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the documents and presentations link: httos://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/529238 Also, according to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that part should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Part 1 link). Finally, there were four area discussed/shared in the presentation yesterday, but all ten were analyzed using the methodology we shared with you all a couple meetings ago. Deborah will follow up with maps of all the areas reviewed by staff. We will also have a final memo to the PSC that includes these ten areas. On a personal note, I am also still processing my thoughts about yesterday's work session. I knew the PSC discussion was going to be close. It was painful for me as I have worked with you all on the Eastmoreland request for a year now. I too would have liked a more analytical, thoughtful and sensitive discussion around their recommendation. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823 2041 f: 503.823 5884 e: marty [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.goy/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041. City TIY 503-823-6868. or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Hi Deborah and Matty,

Could you please send me a copy of the slides that you presented today to the BPS Commission regarding the RS to R7 request? I am particularly interesting in seeing maps of 187832

From: Stein Deborah To: Meg Merrick; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Slideshow from today"s BPS Commission meeting Date: Friday, May 15, 2015 6:20:04 PM

Hi Meg, I apologize that I haven't yet sent the full set of maps I referenced in the PSC meeting the other day. The folks who developed the maps are not in the office, and I need their help to sort through a number of maps in the GIS folder to find the correct ones. So, when staff are back on Monday I'll ask for help! And as Marty says below, I plan to forward the full set of maps to the PSC as well, since they didn't have the benefit of viewing the details for all of the study areas I referenced. Thanks for your patience. Also, I wanted to thank you for the note below and for your efforts and advocacy. Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah.stein@portlandoregon gov www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services.and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503,823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:11 AM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Re: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Thanks, Marty!

As you may have seen, I have responded to the overall neighborhood email discussion about yesterday's meeting that we need.to move on and we need to move forward. And what that means is that we support the mayor's residential zone initiative in any way that we can.

Our request for the zone change came in large patt with the understanding that the residential zones no longer had any real meaning and that the only way to protect ourselves, given the current code, was to acquire the minimum lot size of the current R7 zone (4,200 sq ft) - in other words, given the actual density of the neighborhood, which to us is characteristic of the cmTent meaning of the R7 zone, and playing by the nonsensical rules of the Alice in Wonderland world of the current code would get us closer to the minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft - the typical meaning ofR5.

But as you know, once we understood the craziness of the current code, we have always advocated for a serious review of the code and its impacts on the city as a whole. Part of what has been so frustrating about this whole process is that BPS can't even model the code's real impacts given the data and resources that it has. I would note that comments by BPS staff relating to the actual impacts of the code on neighborhood were incorrect in that the impacts of the underlying lots in the historic Eastmoreland section of the neighborhood have not been analyzed. Rod and I went through that exercise for a p01tion of the no 1th west pa1t of the neighborhood and came up with a large number of possible new lots. 187832

City of Portland EOA / Comprehensive Plan Amendments WWC Issue Matrix -, Issue WW C's Position PSC Recommendation WWC's Response

I. Cargo Forecast. Should the City assume a Yes. No. PSC adopted a low cargo forecast due to land The City Council should adopt a medium-growth forecast for medium-growth cargo forecast for harbor-related • A low-growth cargo forecast is not supported by substantial evidence in supply challenges. harbor-related tonnage across all cargo types . tonnage across all cargo types? the record. • A low forecast overlooks historical trends, recent infrastructure improvements and it sends the wrong message to Oregon businesses and the public. • A low cargo forecast is _inconsistent with region's forecast assumptions

2. Brownfield Redevelopment. Should the City No. Yes :PSC assumed 60% brownfield re- The City Council should assume a more modest amount of assume that a large amount of brownfield • Brownfield re-development to industrial is difficult due to time and cost development in Portland harbor, which is 20% brownfield redevelopment along the harbor during the 20 year redevelopment to industrial uses will occur in the associated with addressing contamination, ownership issues and the higher than what they assumed in the 2012 adopted planning period, until brownfield redevelopment returns a harbor during the 20 year planning period? market constraints on industrial property (industrial attracts only $5-7 EOA. reasonable amount ofland to the industrial supply along the /foot, regardless of what it costs to bring it to market readiness). harbor.

3. Unfunded Transl)ortation lmQrovements. Should No. Yes. PSC adopted the TSP with 78% ofcity The City Council should not assume that improvements to the the City assume that unfunded transportation • The city should not take credit for the additional through-put that could resources targeted to active transpmiation projects transportation system will create more cargo efficiency and improvements will create more cargo efficiency and result from transpmiation investments and the elimination of bottlenecks instead of improvements to road and rail to support increase industrial land capacity until such improvements are 1crease industrial land capacity along the harbor? if there isn't certainty (funding or other commitments) around specific harbor businesses. funded. rail and road projects that support harbor businesses.

4. Office Job Relocation. Should the City assume No. Yes. PSC low forecast assumes a share of harbor The City Council should not assume that office jobs associated that office jobs associated with harbor businesses • The admin ftmctions for the harbor businesses are limited and intended to businesses' administration functions move to free with harbor businesses will relocate and increase industrial land will move elsewhere and increase industrial land serve the business operations. Moving that function would both affect up more industrial land in the harbor. capacity along the harbor, until there is substantial evidence over capacity along the harbor? the efficiency of the operation and add cost. a period of time that job movement is occurring and land capacity is increasing as a result.

5. Middle hlcome Jobs. Should the City support Yes No. PSC low forecast assumes 1% or less of annual The city council should assume a more robust harbor forecast additional middle income job growth in the Portland • The harbor employs more than 31,000 men and women and supports growth in the harbor-limiting job opportunities consistent with data and trends and provide support in the harbor1 29,000 more employees that are largely paid middle income wages. This and procurements of supplies, raw materials and Comprehensive Plan for middle income jobs growth by is a place ofjob diversity and predominantly middle wages. Job growth services from local businesses. • Targeting investment and polices to support harbor here is what our City needs to ensure future work force diversity and business expansion wages to afford a reasonable standard of living in Portland. • Expediting permitting • The businesses in the harbor are major employers in this City. More than • Addressing conflicting regulations that hinder harbor fifty percent of their procurement of supplies, raw materials, capital business investment goods and services comes from small local businesses. This relationship is meaningful to the neighborhoods and the folks employed as a result.

' 187832 187832

,r-' '

Attachment B 187832

The deepening of the Columbia River shipping channel in 2010 opened a floodgate of investments at terminals and ports along the river. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Portland Harbor. Columbia Grain and LO Commodities upgraded and expanded their grain terminals. Kinder Morgan increased the capacity of their bulk-commodities terminal. International Raw Materials and Canpotex invested in their fertilizer operations. Servicing the larger ships that carry more cargo requires larger, more powerful tugs. Shaver Transport invested in a new tug that's being fabricated in Portland Harbor at Diversified Marine. Shaver also invested in the first new grain barge on the Columbia River in ten years. Vigor Industrial is now home to the largest drydock in the U.S. The Port of Portland, along with other public and private partners, is investing in road and rail improvements in the Rivergate area, which will help meet the growing demand for transportation services from the expanded terminals. But for the deepening of the Columbia River shipping channel many of these investments either would not have happened, or would not have happened in the Portland Harbor.

Investments on the Portland Harbor Since the 2010 Deepening of the Columbia River Channel .~PCOt&itf(OW;tJfi~,~-tl-a{SJf.i~~~4~ii.#¥¥~~~~~!~_~-~~g,· ;1tSlffl-fn !ifil®b ~?t¥~~~~~-~@ffott1~~~i{tf.mt~~~~fir{{}~~¥~~~i*~ Columbia Grain (2015) $44 million Upgraded grain storage and handling Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminal (2013) $10 million New ship loading facilities International Raw Materials (2014) $2million Improvements to rail and storage tanks LD Commodities (2014) $21 million Expanded grain storage and moving facilities Vigor Industrial (2014) $50 million Largest dry dock in the US Rivergate Road and Rail Improvements {2012) $82million Improve road and rail access and capacity Canpotex - Portland Bulk Terminal (2013) $140 million Increase efficiency of shiploading Shaver Transportation (2014) $21 million New barge, new tug and new engines Capital Investments to Date $370 million

Pembina (2018) (Proposed) $500 million Propane export terminal

Recent and Proposed Investments $870 million

!IIPACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ~) PORT OF PORTLAND ECONorthwest ASSOClATION Possibility, In eve,y direction: 187832

IMPORTANCE OF THE SHIPPING CHANNEL The Columbia River Navigation Channel runs from the Astoria bar to the Portland Harbor, a distance of 105 miles. Every year millions of tons of cargo worth billions of dollars flow in and out of the Northwest, making this shipping channel a critical connection between our region and the rest of the world. In the fall of 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers completed deepening !he navigation channel from 40 to 43 feet. Private Industry responded with a wave of new investments coming into the river system. Since 2010, there has been more than $1 billion invested in facilities and tr8nsportation capabilities that are dependent on river commerce. Much of the investment made by private industry has been as a result of the channel deepening. IMPORTANCE OF CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Maintaining the shipping channel to 43 feet will help ensure the continued growth In cargo movement and related economic acliv!ty. Firms made Investments and built capacity assuming a level of commerce supported by a 43-foot shipping channel. A channel less than this depth would strand investments, reduce economic activity, and impact jobs.

Longview Expcf! Grain Term'..'1~\ (2012) S230m%o-n New grain terminal Kalama Ten1eo LLC (2015) StOOmlfon lncreose capacity (grain) Port of Kalama (2014-15) S? miHlon Rall t..pgrades al the Port Kalan.a E:tport Grain (2011) .$36 01Jfoo Increase sto;age capacity

Var.cower United Grain Corpcration {2012) $80 miillM Enlarge storage and handlirig capacity West VanCfJUver Fteighl Rail Access (2015) $228 !'T"!lion Rail expans!On, new loop track, and ,oad irrprnvcinent Tidewater Barge Lines (2015) $30 milflon Three new tugboats Portlafld Colvmtiia Grain (2015) $44 million Upgraded g1ain storage and handl,ng

Kiflder Morgan Bult Term'.11al (2013) $10 milfoo New ship loading faci!ilies

International Raw Materials (2014) $2 milrion Improvements to ra,! and storage tanks LO Commodities (2014} $21 miHlon Expanded gra'O storage al1d moving laC'litles V-igor Industrial (2014) $50 mitlOO Largest drydock in the US Rivergate Road ;,.nd Rail lmp1ovemell!s (2012) $82 mili'IOfl Improve road and rail access and capacity Canpotex - Por1!and Bulk Terrrnnal {2013) $140 million Increase efficiency of shipJoading

Shava1 Trar,sportation (2014) $21 ml/F.-on New barge. ne',V tug and new engines

Sub Total $1.08 BIIJIOn P1oposed Investments Longview M1!fennium Bulk Term1na! (2018) $600 mi!Jion New coal terml/\81 Millennium Bulk Term,nal (2018) $25mi!lion Smelter 1en10va1 and environmental cleanup for new bull: term1flal Kalama NW Works (2017-18) $1.8 bitl:00 New methanol plant St. Helens Port Wesiward Gbba!- Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery (2018) saommion Increased storage and rail imprQvemefltS N\'/Worl

~~Portland Pembln;;i (2018) $500miHion Propane e:~~

~~Total Proposed $5.15 Bilfion~~

~~0 PORT OF PORTLAND ECO Northwest Poss,bil.~~

~~Attachment C 187832~~

~~Bachelor's Gender Earnings degree or Portland Harbor Portland Harbor advanced degree workforce workforce Portland Harbor workforce No Female Middle income or above 76% 27% 60%~~

~~2014 Portland MSA wage comparison $88,309~~

~~880,000 $70,000~~

~~$60,000 $50,000~~

~~$40,000~~

~~$30,000~~

~~$20,000 $10,000~~

~~0 Barge Dredging and Marine Cargo Navigational Ship Building Transportation Channel Handling Services** and Repair Maintenance•~~

SOU!ces: U.S. Ceisvs Bureau, EGONNorlhwest, with data from U.S. BLS 2014 Note: Wages charl based on Average Annual Pay for these NAICS cods (from left to right): 483211 Qntand Wa!er Freight Transportation), 237990 {Other Heavy and Cul Eng,'.neering C-OrlstructW), 485320 lMarine Cargo Handfng), 488330 (NaV,gational Services to Sh'pp'fig}, 336611 (Shlp &ildhg and Repa;ring} '2013 data used "2012 data used (current is not o1sclosed)

~~~~ PORT OF PORTLAND 187832~~

-_-, ·, >) -,~._•r-.', Workforce_ pJac&c: ;./, .Yt ',,i:}~t , , ---~' s - 20 Jobstsq.Mlle of residence .' : :j . ;,,1 ·t-x, tJ 21 .. 66 Jobs/Sq.Mlle ·-: ;-,~- ,,, Iii! 87 • 144 Jobs/Sq.MIia 111145. 252 Jobs/Sq.Mlle Iii 253 • 392 Jobs/Sq.Mlle 1 •3Jobs o 4-SJobs 01D-20Jobs .- II) 21 • 38 Jobs @)37. 58 Jobs t' "-~ ""''-;-~

~~_,: _ ..~~

~~i ,t~~

~~PORT OF. PORTLAND 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 187832~~

~~Atta·chment D 187832~~

~~Economic Linkages from Marine Industrial Businesses~~

~~Prepared for: p TLA BUSINESS ALLIAt"4CE~~

~~August, 2013~~

~~: 1: (··: ()) -,~;l_ Jl f :( ;(_i~~

~~...... ~ One Northwest Consulting. LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle, \lancouwr. WA 98682 J (360) 975-9-166 187832~~

Executive Summary The motivation for conducting this analysis is an interest in better understanding the relationships between large local businesses and the small to medium sized businesses who serve as vendors and suppliers to the larger industries, and to quantify this to the extent possible. Five marine industrial firms (firms located in the Portland Harbor area who rely on access to waterborne transportation modes) were interviewed regarding their spending on direct and indirect materials, services, and capital goods during 2011 and 2012. In order to secure complete information, the firms requested anonymity to protect their competitive interests. The data submitted for analysis by these firms was analyzed by these spend categories as well as by where the spending occurred: in the local area, regionally, nationally, or internationally. Major areas of research interest included aggregate spend by category and geography, however interesting linkages were demonstrated between marine industrial firms and other enterprises in the Portland market through this research and analysis. For the two calendar years under examination, these five firms spent in excess of $1.29 billion in procuring materials, capital/plant equipment, and services to produce and deliver their final goods and services to markets near and far. Aggregate spending increased by 5% year-over-year and became significantly more localized, from 49% of spending in 2011 falling within the combined local and regional areas, to 56% in 2012, an increase of over $63 million with nearly all of that deriving from an increase in local spending (regional spending remained nearly constant). The sampling represents roughly 10% of the approximately 20,000 direct jobs in the Portland Harbor area (Martin Associates, 2006), thus extending these outcomes as representative of the Harbor area on this basis, one might reasonably conclude that aggregate spending by such firms is on the order of $6 billion to $7 billion annually. The reader should also bear in mind that this analysis did not examine firm outlays for direct and indirect labor, taxes, debt service, and so forth - this analysis is limited to examining firm to firm interaction in

~~procurement markets. Marine industrial firms sampled demonstrated rich, complex connections and economic linkages to a variety of local sectors. Spending occurred in a variety of local markets~~

~~One Nnithwest Consulting, LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 9S6S2 !(360) 975-9-t66 187832~~

as firms procured the services of planning and architecture firms, law firms, engineering firms, trades such as electricians, graphic arts/media production firms, suppliers of advanced manufacturing plant production equipment, transportation companies, suppliers of software and information technology, energy and utilities, and so forth. Many vendors/suppliers of these firms are common among the sample. It is evident that marine industrial firms engaged in a wide array of activities are intrinsically linked to the health of the local and regional economy.

Marine Industrial Businesses have a significant impact on local business Businesses in the Portland harbor earn revenue from the goods and services they sell. These firms then spend this revenue in a number of ways that can be grouped into )ust a few buckets (see figure below). The recent analysis for the Portland B.usiness Alliance identifies the economic r!!lationships between these businesses and other sectors of the local economy. The results show that those harbor firms surveyed are reliant upon a variety of local businesses for the goods and services they need every day to keep their businesses running. The Portland Business Alliance Study looked solely at the purchases of goods and services to see how the revenue from harbor activity flows to other local employers. While much of this spending is local (42% in 2012) creating local jobs [indirect jobs in economic terms], some does leave the region.

~~2012 2011 12%~~

~~31%~~

~~14% 15%~~

~~n LoCal a Regional " National Ii International • Local tt Regional Q National u International~~

~~------One Nm1hwest Consulting, LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Cirde, Vancouver, WA 98682 f (360) 975-9466 187832~~

~~FLOW OF PORTLAND HARBOR BUSINESSES' REVENUE THROUGH THE LOCAL ECONOMY~~

Portland Harbor Activity I 1 Business l Revenue I ·--···-~~- _j I ; I i ~--J- I I Retained earningst iPurchases of-/ Indirect J~bsj ' l Dividends, ; Goods/Svcs i I Investments ~------i I ]:_ ' 1 · Direct Jobs L Re-spending h ~----'lndnced Jobs ii --~- 1 ·1 '------+i Taxes ----'

~~• In 2012 the five firms surveyed spent $660 million on goods and services, an amount~~

~~nearly equal to the regional investment in Tri-Met's new orange line (half the total~~

~~construction cost}.~~

~~• Of this re-spending by these harbor businesses more than 40 percent of it ($280 million,~~

~~the equivalent of 3.5 Rose Festivals} is infused into the local economy.~~

~~• More than 80 percent of the re-spending by these harbor firms locally ($230 million} is~~

~~in the areas of raw materials and components, and professional services, maintenance,~~

~~catering and other services.~~

~~• Other expenditures include machinery, spare parts, and construction materials. ·~~

~~• Common among the firms surveyed were 288 local employers from whom they~~

~~purchase goods and services (see Appendix 3 for a sample listing of those firms). Of~~

~~these, 30 are suppliers of capital goods, 28 are suppliers of direct materials, 115 are~~

~~suppliers of indirect materials, and 114 are providers of services.~~

~~Examples of local employers from whom subject firms purchase goods or services:~~

~~• Catering/Food and Lodging: Elephant's Delicatessen, Oxford Inn & Suites~~

~~One Northwes! Consulting. LLC l 14209,NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682 I (360) 975-9466 187832~~

• Construction. Equipment. Maintenance. and Repair: Buckaroo Thermoseal, Christenson ' Electric, Milwaukie Crane & Equipment, Rodda Paint • Manufacturing Inputs. Components. and Services: Albina Pipe Bending, Evraz, Swan Island Sandblasting, West Coast Metals,

• Supplies and Parts: Baxter Auto Parts, General Tool & Supply, Parr Lumber, Vancouver Bolt & Supply • Technology/Communications: Centurylink, lntegra Telecom • Transportation Equipment. Services, and Repair: FedEx, Les Schwab, Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Oregon Tractor, Redmond Heavy Hauling· • Miscellaneous: Elmer's Flag and Banner, Legacy Laboratory Services, Portland Community College

Introduction In March, 2012, Martin Associates (Lancaster, PA) prepared a report for the Port of Portland entitled, "The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Portland, 2011." That report summarized three separate studies, including: • The Economic Impacts of the Portland Harbor • The Economic Impacts of the Real Estate Tenants of the Port's Business and Industrial Parks • Economic Impacts of PDX and General Aviation Airports As follow up work, Martin Associates produced a report in July, 2012 entitled, "The Local and Regional Economic Impacts cif Portland Working Harbor, 2011." This latter report measured impacts related to industrial land use in the Portland Harbor such as employment (direct, induced, and indirect), personal income, direct business revenue, and tax revenue (state, county, and local). The Portland Business Alliance retained One Northwest Consulting, LLC (ONWC) to recruit a sample cohort of firms in the Portland Harbor area engaged in marine industrial activity, generally defined as enterprises whose proximity to and connection with marine infrastructure for transportation purposes is "business critical". ONWC was tasked with conducting

~~------.. -- . -- One Northwest Consulting, LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle. Vancouver, WA 986821 (360) 975·9466 187832~~

6 an analysis of annual procurement spend and performing analysis of the economic links between the sample cohort and local enterprise, including various small and mid-sized businesses in common among the sampling distribution as vendors. Of interest was the categorization of procurement expenditures by type or purpose, and the geographic location of the associated vendors. Procurement expenditures were categorized into four major areas: • Direct materials - defined as material inputs to final goods and services; this can be unprocessed raw steel, energy such as electricity and natural gas, power plants/engines and components such as pumps and motors, finished steel and metal alloy products, and propulsion and navigation equipment and related components • Capital goods - defined as investment on plant, property, and equipment; examples include investments in IT systems (both hardware and software systems), production machinery such as plasma cutting tables and punches, buildings and structures, and mobile machinery for material handling such as forklifts and excavators • Indirect materials - defined as items indirectly associated with final goods and services, such as supplies not tied to a single specific project or output; this includes fasteners and bolts, bulk paints and coatings, welding supplies, production machinery wear parts, valves and fittings, lumber and pallets used for packing and shipping, and some tools and related parts/components • Services - which includes professional servkes, skilled trade services, repairs, and maintenance services; examples of services procured include architecture, planning, engineering, law, environmental consulting and testing, transportation, graphic arts, media production, public affairs/advertising, accounting and financial services, and skilled labor /trades Procurement expenditure was also segmented geographically into one of four categories: • Local - comprised of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties in Oregon, and Clark county in Washington • Regional - comprised of the remaining areas of Oregon and Washington, excluding the aforementioned local area

~~One Northwest Consulting, LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancou\'cr, WA 9S682 f (360} 975-9466 187832~~

~~• National - comprised of the United States and its territories, excluding Oregon and Washington~~

~~• International - comprised of all non-US spend~~

Sample Recruitment and Description Portland Business Alliance suggested a list of firms to participate in the study on the basis of location in Portland's industrial harbor area and related marine industrial land use, as well as likelihood of willingness to share proprietary business information for the purpose of the study effort. Firms expressed a willingness to participate and were generally supportive of this analysis, but willingness for direct attribution and identification as study participants varied significantly among firms, with strong tendency towards anonymity to protect individual company's competiveness. The data are therefore reported in aggregate, illustrating general procurement tendencies and associated economic impacts across firms without singling out a single participant.

General descriptions of firm business activity include: heavy civil and marine construction; marine vessel repair and construction/manufacture; steel fabrication; metals· processing; bulk material handling; general manufacturing; steel/metals products manufacturing; marine terminal operations. Cohort firms are located on large lot, industrial lands characterized as marine and rail transportation dependent, and also relying on freight truck/highway access.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis The five participant firms were asked to submit their expenditures on procurements (raw materials, utilities, work-in-process, finished goods purchases, professional services, skilled trade services, durables, non-durables, materials, supplies, capital goods, etc.) for calendar years 2011 and 2012 . This apprnach excludes firm expenditure on direct and indirect labor, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and payments to shareholders such as dividends. This is important in examining firm to firm interaction, particularly in establishing the local linkages between firms associated with procurement activities.

~~------One Nm1hwest Consul!ing, LLC J 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 986S2 j (360) 975-9466 187832~~

In geographically segmenting the data, an issue in determining whether spend qualified as local versus a different category was encountered. Many firms purchase capital goods, services, materials and supplies from national and international firms, remitting payment to a non-local location such as a central accounts receivable processing center associated with a. particular vendor. However, many of these firms provide services to customers via a local presence In the form of a distributor or local warehouse, with local employees and representatives. This is done in order to reduce fulfillment cycle times and provide competitive levels of responsiveness. Where a vendor possessed such a local presence, the associated procurement spend was categorized as local, versus another geographic designation. Another point to bear in mind is that one firm's direct material is another firm's capital good. For instance, a firm using concrete to construct a structure as a final good for a customer considers the concrete to be a direct material. Spending on concrete by the customer would be considered a capital good or capital expense were they to procure it themselves. Thus, perspective is important, particularly considering the rich complexity of the economic linkages of these firms, as well as the self-organizing, symbiotic relationships which firms have developed with each other over time. Some firms' business is centered on a continuous process such as one might envision in the production of paint in bulk liquid form, whereas other firms employ a job costing approach, such·as what one would expect from an engineering and construction firm contracted to build a structure. The nuance between these is significant, as It is much easier to consider job costing formats using discrete boundaries whereas in continuous process production this may be extremely difficult. The emerging level of detail is reflected in the procurement data: job costing format firms' data was substantially more detailed and granular, making the distinction between direct and indirect materials much simpler. Participant firms submitted data in a variety of formats, primarily submitting raw data in Microsoft Excel, having queried a purchasing system or equivalent to generate the data. At a minimum, firms submitted the vendor legal name and related expenditure amount for calendar years 2011 and 2012. Aggregate results are reported in Appendix 1. Generalizability of these results is limited due to the small sample size, however this sampling represents approximately

~~One Northwest Consulling, LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Cirole, Vancou\'er, WA 966621 (360) 975-9466 187832~~

~~- , 10% of the direct employment in the Portland Harbor area (based on the findings of Martin Associates' July, 2012 report).~~

~~Dynamic Structures~~

When a firm receives revenue, that revenue is employed by the firm in a variety of uses which establish the linkages between the subject firm, firms considered vendors to the subject firm, and other economic sectors. Consider the illustration in Appendix 2. Firm revenues flow to the following categories:

~~• Cost of goods such as direct and indirect materials, and certain services~~

• Administrative expenses known as SG&A (selling, general, and administrative) which Include payment of wages to management and executives, philanthropic activities, some capital expenditures, and some services which are difficult to tie to the production of specific goods and services (SG&A tends to be a large "bucket" for expense items which do not easily lend themselves to division among units of output) • Direct and indirect labor

~~• Interest/debt service~~

~~• Transfers to shareholders (known as dividends) • Retained earnings • Payment of taxes~~

~~• Depreciation and amortization charges~~

The connection between firm "financial health" and the well-being of the public sector can be demonstrated by examining the flows and linkages (the shaded box on Exhibit II): for this purpose we will call the system of linkages "Cycle of Firm's Revenue". Philanthropy clearly constitutes a public good. Employee wages (direct, indirect, and SG&A) drive personal income, which bears strong linkages to the public" sector. Additionally, there is likely a propagation mechanism in financial markets (hypothesized here) connecting a firm's debt service (interest payments) and distributions to shareholders (dividend payments) to societal well-being. Retirement investment accounts and portfolios such as 401k and 457 plans; and Public Employee Retirement Systems (PERS) investment generally hold

~~-- - -·------One No11hwest Co11sul1ing. LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vanc-ouver, WA 9S682 ! (360) 975-9466 187832~~

shares i.n publicly-traded firms (which distribute dividends to shareholders and whose stock value growth benefits shareholders) and financial firms (who received debt service payments from firms, both privately-held and publicly-traded). It seems reasonable to conclude that good firm financial performance is beneficial in this way to retirement systems of both public sector and private sector workers. Of interest in this research Is the connection to other firms, considered vendors or suppliers to the subject firm, from whom the subject firm procures direct and indirect materials, services, and capital goods. A portion of the subject firm's revenue flows to the · vendor/supplier firms, whose revenue also flows through the cycle illustrated. This cycle

repeats ad infinitum. The public sector derives revenues through the payment of taxes on corporate income and other things such as real property, personal income, and taxes on dividends and interest. These revenues are used to support public services, fund schools, and build infrastructure. A firm's decision to invest in their capital stock in a given area depends not only on market conditions, but local and regional "business climate" conditions, largely signaled on a community's willingness to invest in infrastructure, education, and the level and efficiency of public services provided. Weak signals in these areas do not inspire confidence In firms' willingness to invest in a particu"iar area, and the variation in the quality and strength of these market signals given by communities largely constitutes the competitive environment in which states and municipalities strive to attract capital investment.

Discussion Linkages to smaller enterprises were readily evid.ent through an analysis of the data. Large industrial firms avail themselves of professional services as well as services of skilled trades, primarily locally sourced (except in somewhat rare cases where highly specialized expertise was required). Examples of professional services procured include: technical engineering (information technology, civil, and structural), architecture, environmental consulting/engineering, law, public accounting, human resources/training, occupational health and safety consulting, financial services, and general business consulting/advisory (such as business process engineering). Skilled trade services procured include:

~~One- Northwe~~

plumbing, electrical, general construction (earth-moving and excavating), specialty machining and tooling, sheet metal, HVAC/refrigeration, and mechanical repair and maintenance services. Firms sampled also availed themselves of the services of local small businesses as varied as: sign and awning businesses; freight transportation services (by water and truck); restaurants, delicatessens, and catering; equipment rental; mail services and printing; florists; and site security.

Examples of Service sector firms commonly engaged by the subject firms include: Bernert Barge Lines, Carlson Testing Inc., Cascade Architectural & Engineering, lntegra Telecom, and Morgan Industrial Inc.

~~Local procurement of raw materials, intermediate production inputs, and capital goods were also evident in the data. Examples include:~~

~~• Steel and other metals purchased from local steel service centers, mills, and other local sources~~

• Concrete purchased from local suppliers for capital projects to construct new plant and equipment, or in the case of the marine-related construction firm surveyed - as an input to delivery of a final good/service

~~• Fabricated/machined steel parts and components sourced locally for capital projects and as intermediate Inputs to final goods and services~~

• Machinery, plant equipment, power systems, and material handling equipment (all capital goods) purchased from a local manufacturer, dealer, or distributor Firms commonly engaged as vendors among the sample include: Evraz Oregon Steel Mills Inc., Farwest Steel Corp., LaGrand Industrial Supply Co., Oregon Ironworks Inc., and Pape Material Handling Inc.

Geographic analysis of the spending data revealed that firms demonstrate a preference to working with firms in the local and regional area due to proximity, ease of obtaining ongoing service, and the value of enlarging ties and relationships to the local market and community. Where spending occurred nationally and internationally, this was typically because the goods and services sought were not locally available. A large amount of the International service spending, for example, consisted in payments to foreign flagged marine vessels and

~~One No11hwest CQnsulting. LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682 I (360) 975-9466 187832~~

12 companies for export transportation and logistics services. Additionally, certain legal and technical services were procured by the firms in 2011 - 2012 which comprises highly-skilled expertise not locally available. Some raw material components are highly specialized and not manufactured locally, such as brake systems parts for transportation equipment. Likewise, certain capital goods are produced only in select areas. in the national and international geography, such as specialized manufacturing machinery, software systems, technical and navigational components of marine vessels, environmental control systems for storn:i water treatment and management, and power plant/engine equipment and components. Roughly 80% of the indirect materials these firms purchased were from local distributors and suppliers. Some examples of these include: safety supplies, paint and coatings, bolts and fasteners, industrial cleaning supplies, fuels and gases (to operate equipment), welding supplies and gases, hardware, hand/power tools, coffee and drinking water service, employee gifts and recognition incentives, auto and equipment parts, restaurant and food services, and office supplies. Expenditures in this area by these five firms alone amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually. Though only two years of data were provided and analyzed, a notable year over year increase in spending on capital goods, indirect materials, and services stood out. The rate of change in capital goods spending was much lower than that seen in indirect materials and services, an expected result considering the longer time frames involved in planning and executing capital spend. Capital spend is considered Jess elastic in the short-run (i.e. less than one year), though Jong run capital spending trends respond, with some Jag, to market conditions. This should be an intuitive result: many capital projects in the industrial sector are multi-year projects, and once committed generally follow through to completion. This being the case, it takes a longer period of time for firms to respond to both favorable and unfavorable market conditions as reflected in capital spending. Spending on direct and indirect materials is much more responsive in the short run to business cycle changes and perturbations, regardless of the direction of the change (increase in output or decrease). An important consideration with respect to. direct materials is seen in the proportion sourced outside of the local area. Considering that direct materials (or raw materials)

~~- One No11hwest Consulting. LLC J 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 9S682 ! (360) 975-9466 187832~~

are largely imported into the local market (about two-thirds originates outside of the local area) for the purposes of value-added manufacturing in the production of final goods and services, this seems to speak to the importance of robust transportation infrastructure and the public investment required _to facilitate efficient movement of these goods. Additionally, because they constitute the raw material inputs to final goods and services, they are generally of significantly lower value relative to the final good or service, and thus are highly sensitive to changes in transportation costs, such as are induced by roadway congestion and volatility in energy markets (rapidly rising fuel costs).

~~Conclusion~~

Five marine industrial firms were surveyed, which represent approximately 10% of direct jobs in the Portland Harbor. Wages for employment in Portland's marine industrial areas associated with trade, transportation, and manufacturing tends to be about 5% higher than the average wage level in the Portland region (Port of Portland Columbia Multlmodal Corridor Study, 2012). Key findings include:

• Much of the procurement spending of these firms Is In the local area (about 42% in 2012), with an additional substantial proportion coming from Oregon and Washington outside of the local area (14% in 2012), helping to drive job creation locally and regionally.

• Businesses in the Portland Harbor area are characterized as having profound, complex long-term economic connections to a variety of local firms including: o Planning and architecture firms o Law firms o Engineering firms o Skilled trades such as electricians o Graphic arts/media production firms o Suppliers of advanced manufacturing plant production equipment o Transportation companies o Suppliers of software and information technology

~~- - - - - One No11hwest Consulting. LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle. Vancouver, WA 98682 J (360) 975-9466 187832~~

o Energy and utilities • Firms purchase capital goods, services, materials and supplies from national and international firms, many of whom maintain a local presence such as a distributor, service center, of local warehouse, with local employees and representatives (in many such cases, firms remit payment to a non-local location suc.h as a central accounts

receivable processing center). • Geographic analysis of the spending data revealed that firms demonstrate a preference to working with firms in the local and regional area due to proximity, ease of obtaining ongoing service, and the value of enlarging ties -and relationships to the local market and community. In this way, firms form vertically-related clusters of industrial sectors, achieving scale and efficiency through the colocation of services and specialization of

related activities. • The activity of marine industrial firms in Portland in producing final goods and services generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for local businesses annually through economic linkages. Firms are competing in an increasingly volatile, uncertain global marketplace. Policy stability and certainty results in a public good as beneficiaries of the firms' economic activity. The rate of local spending grew faster than the change in overall spending year-over-year, suggesting that firms find efficiency in proximity and other aspects of local market procurement. The activity of marine industrial firms in Portland in producing final goods and services generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for local businesses annually through economic linkages. The ability of these key industrial firms to locate in Portland and achieve the necessary scale to compete globally derives from an interactivity of production factors, including land (appropriate sites to conduct business activity, complete with amenities and site characteristics such as water, rail, and highway access), labor (skilled professional and trades), and capital. Portland (and regional) residents and businesses benefit from the many healthy marine industrial firms located within the harbor. Annually, these firms spend hundreds of millions of

~~One Northwest Consulting, LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver. WA 9S082 I (360) 975-9466 187832~~

~~dollars on goods and services with local businesses. The study confirmed that there is a strong economic linkage between big and small firms.~~

This analysis also illustrates the importance of considering indirect effects of public policy, in particular as they apply to the trade-offs between public investment in industrial reinvestment and expansion. The impact of land use or other policies and their specific impact on industrial development decisions have wider, aggregate economic implications which should be given consideration. When the effects of industrial development are considered in terms of procurement linkages, personal income, and employment (direct, induced, and indirect), an understanding of a significantly interlinked, interdependent economy emerges.

~~···- - - One No1thwe-St Consulting, LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver. WA 98682 J {360) 975-9466 187832~~

Appendix 1 Aggregate Procurement Data of Sample 2012 Soend 2011 Spend Direct M aterials Amount Proportion Amount Proportion Local $121,676,718.27 31% $126,247,855.38 27% Regional $55,540,720.46 14% $73,117,590.90 16% National $160,258,221.42 41% $201,088,333.52 44% International $56,275,305.72 14% $59,991,510.37 13% TOTAL $393,750,965.87 100% $460,445,290.17 100%

Capital Goods Local $8,707,653.10 45% $8,673,134.40 , 60% Regional $2,761,046.06 14% $2,531,092.16 18% National $7,205,226.91 37% $2,908,180.49 20% International $676,690.29. 3% $307,011.19 2% TOTAL $19,350,616.36 100% $14,419,418.24 100%

Indirect Materials Local $40,693,241.42 82% $21,232,594.02 79% Regional $4,273,852.99 9% $2,461,732.39 9% National $4,690,663.32 9% $3,166,615.53 12% International $184,311.79 0% $77,576.18 0% TOTAL $49,842,069.52 100% $26,938,518.12 100%

Services Procured Local $108,426,986.85 54% $60,560,288.04 48% Regional $33,362,383.58 17% $17,202,489.93 14% National $35,704,977.60 18% $25,079,799.57 20% International $21,573,835.04 11% $24,191,778.90 19% TOTAL $199,068,183.07 100% $127,034,356.44 100%

AGGREG ATE SPEND Local $279,504,599.64 42% $216,713,871.84 34% Regional $95,938,003.09 14% $95,312,905.38 15% National $207,859,089.25 31% $232,242,929.11 37% International $78,710,142.84 12% · $84,567,876.64 13% TOTAL $662,011,834.82 100% $628,837,582.97 100%

Notes on data processing: The level of data processing performed by ONWC varied based on a respective firm's reporting capability robustness. One firm supplied summary data In the final format, as this was relatively simple for them to generate. In one case, a firm supplied ONWC with annual 1099 tax reporting data in Adobe pdf format, requiring the data to be extracted and re-entered into Excel format. Using internet search engines, each vendor's legal name, line of business, and geographic location(s) were ascertained. Perfect accuracy Is not assumed as a result of this data analysis process.

~~On~ Northwest CoJJSul!ing. LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle. Vancou\'er, WA 98682 !{360) 975·9466 187832 187832~~

~~Appendix2~~

~~System Dynamics Model of Procurement~~

~~One Northwest Consulting. LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, \VA 98682 j (360) 975-9466 187832~~

Appendix3 Table Listing Examples of Local Businesses in Common among Sample Comoanv Name Street Cltv State Descriotion Cate•orv Headquartered in Portland with multiple ! ACME Construction Indirect 330 SE Salm.on St Portland, OR 97214 locations in different states; Sells power Supply Materials tools and building supplies Headquartered in Portland with additional location in Kent, WA; sales and service of [ equipment and supplies for industrial Advanced Finishing coating, sealing, and finishing processes; i 2304 N Killingsworth St Portland, OR 97217 Capital Goods ! Systems designs and builds custom finishing equipment and systems; general I contractor for on site building and installation of systems Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV with several branch locations in many states; i Ahern Rentals 3836 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 equipment rental company serving Services commercial, residential, industrial, and public market segments International supplier of industrial gases Air Liquide 6529 NW Front Ave Portland, OR 97210 headquartered in France with presence in Direct Materials 80 c<;>Untries; two local branches Supplier/distributor of industrial gases, machinery, tools, and supplies Indirect Airgas 3632 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR I headquartered in Radnor Township, PA; Materials iI several local branches i Headquartered in Kent, WA with local Alaska Copper & location and other branch locations in CA I 2440 SE Raymond St Portland, OR 97202 Direct Materials I Brass and BC, Canada; supplier of metal products I and fabrication services i Single location company headquartered in ! Albina Pipe Bending Tualatin, OR; supplier of bent steel, metal 12080 SW Myslony St Tualatin, OR 97062 Services j Co tube bending, and pipe bending products I and services ' Alliance Steel Steel distributor/service center with single I 3000 SE Hidden Way Vancouver, WA 98661 Direct Materials Distributors location/headquarters in Vancouver, WA I Distributor of electronic components and I electromechanical products with over 50 Indirect ! Allied Electronics 6700 SW 105th Ave Beaverton, OR 97008 locations in US and Canada; headquarters Materials I in Ft. Worth, TX I Global engineering, project management, I AMEC 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, OR 97224 and consultancy company headquartered Services i_n London, UK with local office

~~~t ~ One Northw.est Consulting, LLC [ 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 986S2 f (360) 975-9466 187832~~

, - Sales, rental; and service of industrial I cleaning equipment such as pressure American Indirect I 89 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 washers, parts washers, and steam . Equipment Co 'Materials cleaners; single location/headquarters In ! Portland, OR Single location company headquartered in / American Metal 9940 N Vancouver Way Portland, OR 97217 Portland, OR; provides industrial metal Services Cleaning I cleaning, stripping, and recovery services With multiple locations in OR, WA, and CA I with headquarters in Canby, OR, company / American Steel 525 S Sequoia Pkwy Canby, OR 97013 Direct Materials Is a metals processor and i distributor/service center f Global company in over so countries with I two local locations headquartered In Glenview, IL; supplier of communications Indirect / Anixter Inc 5107 NE 158th Ave Portland, OR 97230 and security products, electr/cal and Materials i electronic wire and cable, fasteners, and i components ! Chemical, mechanical, metallurgical, and i Apex Laboratories 12232 SW Garden Pl Portland, OR 97223 environmental testing services provider Services i . located In Portland, OR Global supplier/distributor of Industrial Applied Industrial Indirect 5041 NW Front Ave . Portland, OR 97210 products and supplies headquartered In Technologies Materials Cleveland, OH

Global supplier/distributor of new units and spare parts for industrial motors, Indirect Argo International 13481 SE Johnson Rd Portland, OR 97222 drives, controls, and pumps headquartered Materials In New York, NY with a local office

Sole proprietorship in Portland, OR; sheet 8545 SE Mcloughlin metal fabrication, commercial and Arjae Sheet Metal Portland, OR 97222 Direct Materials Blvd industrial installation, HVAC/R service and repair Associated Hose Single location distributor of industrial Indirect 6326 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 Products hose, fitting, and assembly products Materials Locally-based truck transportation and Atlantic & Pacific 3001 SE Columbia Way Vancouver, WA 98661 logistics company operating throughout Freightways Services the US and Canada Atlasta Lock & Safe Single location business providing 702 SE Grand Ave Portland, OR 97214 Services Coe locksmith services Supplier of batteries and light bulbs with franchise locations in 46 states arid Puerto Indirect Batteries Plus 4812 SE 82nd Ave Portland, OR 97266 Rico; multiple local locations; Materials headquartered in Hartland, WI Auto parts supplier with multiple locations Indirect Baxter Auto Parts 9444 N Whitaker Rd Portland, OR 97217 in OR, WA, and CA Materials

~~One ~orthwest Consulting, LLC I 14209 NE 95th Circle. VancoU\·er. WA 98682 / (360) 975-9466 187832~~

Offices in Seattle, WA, Vancouver, WA, and Beckwith & Kuffel Spokane, WA; sales and service for 1614 NE 99th St Vancouver, WA 98665 Capital Goods Inc. industrial pumps, compressors, and blowers Industrial contractor providing services Benchmark from equipment maintenance to complex 2245 NW Suffolk St Portland, OR 97210 Services Industrial Services capital projects with offices In Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, and Spokane, WA Provider of inland waterway transportation services (tug and barge) Bernert Barge lines 421 High Street Oregon City, OR 97045 Services I with local history dating back to the late ! 1800s ! 1772 Jantzen Beach International electronics retailer Indirect ; BestBuy Portland, OR 97217 ! Center headquartered in Richfield, MN Materials Single location contractor/manufacturer I supplying and constructing blast cleaning Blast Cleaning I 21720 SW Oregon St Sherwood, OR 97140 systems (blastrooms, shotbiast machines, Capital Goods l Services automated airblast machines1 shot peening I machines, etc.) I Transcontinental railroad transportation I BNSF Railway 3930 NW Yeon Ave Portland, OR 97210 and logistics service provider Services I . headquartered in Ft. Worth, TX I Single location manufacturer, ! remanufacturer, dlstributo·r and engineer Indirect ! Brake Systems Inc 2221 NE Hoyt St Portland, OR 97232 I of brakes, valves, compressors, and related Materials I products and equipment Seattle, WA headqurtered I . supplier/servicer of products and services Branam Instrument for industrial and municipal testing, Indirect I 8435 N Interstate Pl Portland, OR 97217 Co control, monitoring, and calibration Materials instruments and equipment; locations in multiple states Buckaroo 5410 NE 109th Ave Portland, OR 97220 Single location roofing contractor Services Thermoseal Inc Portland, OR based provider of calibration Cai-Cert Co 6709 SE Lake Rd Portland, OR 97222 Services certification equipment and services Glendora, CA headquartered supplier of cement, concrete, aggregates, asphalt, CalPortland 1050 N River St Portland, OR 97210 Direct Materials building products, and construction services with multiple local locations Tigard, OR headquartered construction inspection, materials testing, and Carlson Testing Inc 8430 SW Hunziker Rd Portland, OR 97223 geotechnlcal engineering services Services company with branch office locations in Oregon Portland, OR headquartered supplier of indirect Carson Oil Co 3125 NW 35th Ave Portland, OR 97210 petroleum products and services with I Materials I I branch offices throughout Oregon

~~One Northwi:-.-;t Consullin~. LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle.. Vancouver, WA 98682 !(360) 975~9466 187832~~

--·, i ',de Seattle, WA based company providing equipment, supplies, reprographics and Ar cnitectural & 8916 NE Alderwood Rd Portland, OR 97220 Services related support for the architectural and Engineering engineering sectors With offices in Sherwood, OR, Seattle, WA, l and Spokane, WA, company provides chemicals and related supplies and Cascade Columbia 14200 SW Tualatin Indirect Sherwood, OR 97140 equipment with expertise in aerospace, Distribution Sherwood Rd Materials compounding, electronics, food i manufacturing, metal plating, and water ! treatment industries Portland, OR based contract manufacturer of engineered production systems and I I I controls for semiconductor, agriculture, / Cascade. Controls 19785 NE San Rafael St Portland, OR 97230 food processing, marine, crane and hoist, Services municipal, petrochemical, forest products, ! power generation, solar, wind, recycling, I ·and soil/water reclamation industries Bakersfield, CA based supplier, distributor, l Cascade Pipe & 2519 N Hayden Island Portland, OR 97217 and manufacturer of industrial pipe, Direct Materials i Supply Dr I fittings, and supplies Monroe, LA headqurtered / Centuryllnk 2201 NE Lloyd Blvd Portland, OR 97232 Services telecommunications service provider i Single location company providing sales /c ·o Inc 4222 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 and rental of construction equipment and Capital Goods i supplies Steel service center based in Philadelphia, j Chapel Steel Co 4200 NW Yeon Ave Portland, OR 97210 Direct Materials PA with locations In US and Canada Single location business providing sales Indirect Chas H Day Co Inc 602 SE 11th Ave Portland, OR 97214 and service of electric and pneumatic tools Materials and supplies Christenson Electric 111 SW Columbia St Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR based electrical contractor Inc Services Single location supplier of petroleum Indirect Christenson Oil 3865 NW St Helens Rd Portland, OR 97210 products and services Materials Nonprofit education and research based City Club of Portland 901 SW Washington St Portland, OR 97205 Services civic organization Sales, rental, and service of industrial Coast Crane & cranes and equipment with locations 1601 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 Capital Goods Equipment Co throughout the Western US, Including Alaska and Hawaii Single location sales and service provider Conrey Electric 1903 SE 7th Ave Portland, OR 97214 Capital ~oods of electric motors Consolidated Single location supplier of electrical Indirect Electrical 2555 NW Nicolai St Portland, OR 97210 components and supplies Materials Distributors Continent al San Leandro, CA based distributor of of Indirect 12021 NE Erin Way Portland, OR 97220 ~estern Corp industrial supplies Materials

~~.. - One Northwest Consulting, LLC J 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver,\~A 986S2 I (360) 975-9466 187832~~

Milwaukie, OR based membership Contractor Plan 5468 SE International organization connecting contractors, Milwaukie, OR 97222 Services Center Way owners, architects, manufacturers, and suppliers to facilitate project bidding Manufacturers representative and distributor located in Gresham, OR of Indirect Control Factors Inc 3271 NE Cleveland Ave Portland, OR 97030 process flow and filtration/separation Materials components 530 NE Tomahawk Indirect Cook Engine Co Portland, OR 97217 Marine engine repair and service provider Island Dr Materials Provider of copy and printing equipment, Copiers NW Inc 11000 SW 11th St Portland, OR 97005 software solutions, and services based in Capital Goods Seattle, WA . Distributor and supplier of Cummins Cummins Northwest engine products and services; Portland, OR Indirect 4711 N Basin Ave Portland, OR 97217 Inc based with locations throughout the Materials Pacific NW and Alaska Manufacturer of custom industrial torsion Curran Coil Spring 9265 SW 5th St Wilsonville, OR 97070 springs, extension springs, and Direct Materials Inc i compression springs I Daily Journal of 921 S.W. Washington Portland, OR 97205 Supplier of media services Services ! Commerce St. 10200 SW Greenburg DEX Media West LLC Portland, OR 97223 Supplier of media services Services I Rd Worldwide transportation and logistics DHL 15509 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97230 Services I: services provider Provider of regional courier and freight Direct Transport Inc 27600 SW 95th Ave Wilsonville, OR 97070 Services .services Documart 3310 NW Yeon Ave Portland, OR 97210 Supplier of print services Services Petroleum, fuel, oil, and lubricant Don Thomas Indirect i 2727 NW St Helens Rd Portland, OR 97210 distributor in the Portland Metro area i Petroleum Inc Materials : since Supplier/service center of steel and. Earle M Jorgensen 16440 N.E. Mason I Portland, OR 97230 aluminum bar, tubing, and plate; Direct Materials Co Street headquartered in Lynwood, CA Portland, OR based sales, rentals, and EC Powersystems 1805 NW 21st Ave Portland, OR 97209 capital Goods service of generators and engines Distributor, fabricator, manufacturer and I refractory services contractor in the I EJ Bartells Co 19039 NE Portal Way Portland; OR 97230 Western U.S., and insulation services Services contractor in the Pacific NW; based in Renton, WA Elephant's 115 NW 22nd Ave Portland, OR 97210 Catering and food services Services Delicatessen

~~Manufacturer and distributor of flags, I Elmer's Flag & 1332 NE Broadway St Portland, OR . 97232 Services Banner banners, and related suppliesand materials~~

~~- - . One Northwest Consulting. LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle. Vancouver. WA 98682 J (360) 975-9466 187832~~

- ·, ·aid Services Seattle, WA based supplier of processing 1300 W 12th St ·Vancouver, WA 98660 Inc. and recycling services of wastewater and Services oil products Supplier and installer of conveyor belt and i' Empire Rubber & Indirect 80 SE Taylor St Portland, OR 97214 related industrial goods with locations In I Supply Materials i Portland, OR and Pasco, WA Provider of electrical supplies, I components, and equipment based in Indirect I EOFF Electric Co 1624 SE Grand Ave Portland, OR 97214 Portland, OR with locations throughout OR Materials I and SW WA Global provider of environmental, health, / ERM West Inc 1001 SW 5th Ave Portland, OR 972043 Services ' safety, risk1 and social consulting services Chicago, IL based international producer of IEvraz Inc 14400 N Rivergate Blvd Portland, OR 97203 steel products with pipe, tube, and plate Direct Materials i rolling mills in Portland, OR Single location provider of grinding, / F&F Grinding Inc 9442 N Ramsey Blvd Portland, OR 97203 Services sawing, burning, and cutting services Eugene, OR based steel service and Farwest Steel Corp 3703 NW Gateway Ave Vancouver, WA 98660 Direci Materials I fabrication/manufacturing center I Winona, MN based supplier of industrial Indirect I Fastenal Co 308 SE Taylor St Portland, OR 97214 products and services Materials Provider of signs, banners, and vehicle Indirect / Fastsigns 10309 SE 82nd Ave Portland, OR 97086 graphics based in Carrollton, TX Materials i Faulkner Single location car parts and accessories 1831 NW 28TH Ave Portland, OR 97210 Services ·native Electric manufacturing services provider ~ Portland, OR based vendor of material Indirect ! FE Bennett 739 NE Broadway St Portland, OR 97232 i handling equipment and supplies Materials ! 4344 N Port Center Global transportation and logistics / FedEx Portland, OR 97217 Way Services ' provider based in Memphis, TN Plumbing and building products supplier Ferguson Indirect 2121 N Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97217 based in Newport News, VA; subsidiary of · Enterprises Inc Materials UK-based Wolseley Provider of propane distribution and Indirect Ferrellgas 641 NE Lombard St Portland, OR 97211 services headquartered in Overland Park, Materials KS Finishing Portland, OR based technical finishing 5924 NE 112th Ave Portland, OR 97220 capital Goods Technologies equipment distributor anq servicer First Response Alarm, security, and surveillance services 4970 SW Griffith Dr Beaverton, OR 97005 Services Systems provider based in Beaverton, OR Marine equipment and supplies provider Fisherman's Marine Indirect 901 N Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97217 based in the Portland, OR area with three Supply Materials local facilities Fluid Connector Portland, OR based provider of hydraulic Indirect 2929 NW 31st Ave Portland, OR 97210 Products Inc systems equipment and supplies Materials Forklift Services of New and used forklift sales, rental, and 7001 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 Capital Goods Oregon service

~~One N011hwest Consulting, LLC I 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682 J (360) 975-9466 187832~~

I Retail department store chain; subsidiary Indirect Fred Meyer 3800 SE 22nd Ave Portland, OR 97202 I of Cincinnati, OH based Kroger Co. Materials Galvanizers Portland, OR based galvanizing 2406 NW 30th Ave Portland, OR 97210 Services Company manufacturer Gasket Technology Troutdale, OR based manufacturer of Indirect 23605 NE Halsey St Troutdale, OR 97060 Inc. industrial gaskets Materials Supplier of Industrial bearings, hydraulics, General Tool & Indirect 2705 NW Nicolai St Portland, OR 97210 material handling, and other related Supply Co Materials supplies and services International distributor and manufacturer i' Grabber 13011 SE Jennifer of fasteners, tools, equipment, and Indirect Construction Clackamas, OR 97015 ! Street building materials for construction Materials !' Products . industry; based in Alpine, UT ! Global supplier of maintenance, repair and indirect Grainger 6335 N Basin Ave Portland, OR 97217 I operating products based in Lake Forest, IL Materials .i ; St. Louis, MO based supply chain ! ·, management services provider and I Graybar Electric Co Indirect 901 NE 60th Ave Portland, OR 97213 distributor of high-quality components, 'i Inc Materials equipment and materials for the electrical ! and telecommunications industries I Green Transfer & Warehousing, transloading1 storage, 10099 N Portland Rd Portland, OR 97203 Services I Storage trucking and logistics provider Gresham Transfer Wood Village, Specialized/heavy haul and dry bulk truck [ 24001 NE Sandy Blvd 97060 Services Inc OR transportation and logistics provider - ! Lake Oswego, OR based international ! Gunderson LLC 4350 NW Front Ave Portland, OR 97210 manufacturer of railcars, marine barges, Direct Materials I and related components and services Single location provider of hand tools and Indirect Hall Tool Co 1724 SE Grand Ave Portland, OR 97214 industrial supplies Materials Supplier of hand tools, generators, power I tools, air tools, and related hardware and Indirect ' Harbor Freight Tools 1335 N Mason St Portland, OR 97217 I equipment with over 400 retail locations; Materials based in Southern CA i 1152 NW Commerce Single location plating and polishing Hardchrome Inc Estacada, OR 97023 Services I Ct business Portland, OR based supplier of rail and Harmer Steel i 9933 NW 107th Ave Portland, OR 97231 track accessories with locations in the US Direct Materials I Products Co i and Canada I Provider of construction and industrial Harsco I 3909 Nw Fruit Valley maintenance services with operations in I Infrastructure Vancouver, WA 98660 Services Road 32 countries; headquartered in Camp Hill, Americas I PA and Fair Lawn, NJ Rental and sales of generators, Hertz Equipment I 4939 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 construction equipment, and rnaterial Services Rental Corp I handling equipment

~~One Northwest Consulting, LLC ! 14209 ~E 95th Circlt', Vancouver, WA 9S6S2 ! (360) 975-9466 187832~~

-- ' Liechtenstein based supplier of tools and fastening systems; operates in over 120 Huu Inc 316 SE Taylor St Portland, OR. 97214 Capital Goods countries; N. American headquarters in Tulsa, OK Atlanta, GA based home improvement Indirect Home Depot 1728 N Jantzen Ave Portland, OR 97217 retailer Materials Puyallup, WA based supplier of mobile / Honey Bucket 2301 SE Hidden Way Vancouver, WA 98661 sanitation services Services [ Hydra Power . Portland, OR headquartered supplier of 5445 NE 122nd Ave Portland, OR 97230 Capital Goods i Systems Inc fluid hydraulic parts and components

Single location provider of hydraulic I Indirect / Hydraulics Inc 713 W 11th St Vancouver, WA 98660 supplies and hose manufacturing services, Materials I as well as cylinder, pump, and motor repair I Petroleum bulk stations and terminals Indirect I IGI Resources Inc 415 W 6th St Vancouver, WA 98660 provider Materials Global provider of Ricoh copy and printing / IKON Office 851 SW 6th Ave Portland, OR 97204 Solutions equipment, software solutions, and Services services Mechanical, chemical, metallurgical, and / 1MR KHA Portland 5687 SE International Portland, OR 97222 corrosion testing and analysis services Services LLC Way i provider ! Industrial tire, wheel, and auto repair 7331 NE Killingsworth Indirect J 1ndustrial Tire Portland, OR 97218 services based in Portland, OR with six St Materials Pacific Northwest facilities f- Portland, OR based telecommunications / lntegra Telecom 825 NE Multnomah St Portland, OR 97232 Services services provider l Provider of repair and maintenance Integrated Power services for electric motors, generators, IServices 2315 NW 21st Pl Portland, OR 97210 and mechanical power transmission Services components based in Greenville, SC with locations throughout the US International Provider of nonddestructive testing and 10521 N Lombard St Portland, OR 97203 Services Inspection Inc examination services IRC Aluminum & Single locationnonferrous metal service Indirect 9038 N Sever Ct Portland, OR 97203 Stainless Inc center Materials Single location utility and industrial Iron Horse Group 5501 NE)23rd Ave Fairview, OR 97024 Services services provider lns.trument calibration services provider JJ Calibrations Inc 7007 SE Lake Rd Portland, OR 97267 Services based in Portland, OR John C. Murdoch Inc 5555 N Channel Ave Portland, OR 97217 Marine surveyor located In Portland, OR Services 11632 NE Ainsworth Wholesale distributor to the HVAC/R and Indirect Johnstone Supply Portland, OR 97220 Circle . property maintenance industries Materials vansportation services company offering 33 NE Middlefield commercial fueling and travel services to Jubitz Corp Portland, OR 97211 Services Road fleets, professional drivers, and the local and traveling public based in Portland, OR

~~- - - One Northwe.i Consulting, LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682 I {360) 975-9466 187832~~

Provider of a wide range of products and I systems related to bearings, mechanical Kaman Industrial and electrical power transmission, Indirect I 1703 NE Argyle St Portland, OR 97211 I Technologies automation & control, material handling, Materials and fluid power for the MRO and OEM i markets based In Bloomfield, CT 3747 North Suttle Provides abrasives, sandblasting Indirect Kleen Blast Co Portland, OR 97217 I Road equipment and supplies Materials Koldkist Bottled Producer, marketer and distributor of high- j 909 N Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97217 Services : Water quality packaged ice ! 18209 SW Boones Single location provider of profile and pla.te i KY-RO Inc Tigard, OR 97224 Direct Materials Ferry Rd rolling services ' Single location distributor of foundry LaGrand Industrial Indirect i 2620 SW 1st Ave Portland, OR 97201 supplies, equipment and industrial J Supply Co Materials products Specialty structural steel service center Lampros Steel Inc 9040 N Burgard Way Portland, OR 97203 Direct Materials I and warehousing based in Portland, OR Single location business selling and servicing industrial pressure washers, parts 11811 NE Marx St Portland, OR 97220 Capital Goods I Landa Northwest washers, water treatment systems, and : heaters Single location business providing I Landmark ! 625 NE KIiiingsworth St Portland, OR 97218 equipment sales, rentals, parts, and repair Capital Goods , Equipment i and maintenance services Laboratory services provider serving !; Legacy Laboratory 1225 NE 2nd Ave Portland, OR 97232 physicians, hospitals, employers, IPAs, and Services I Services patients; based in Portland, OR Provider of tires and automotive repair Indirect Ii Les Schwab 2140 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 i services based In Prineville, OR Materials Providing underground wire and cable Locat~s Down 16119 S Clackamas I Oregon City, OR laying contracting services based in Oregon Services Under Inc River Dr I City, OR I Cooling system repairs, products, and I Mac's Radiator & 6147 SE Foster Rd Portland, OR 97206 services provider based in Portland, OR Services f Repair with nine Pacific NW facilities i Magnetic Specialties Provider of wholesale magnets and Indirect 9812 SE Empire Ct Clackamas, OR 97015 I Inc magnetic devices based in Clackamas, OR Materials Portland, OR based supplier of Indirect 7105 SW Varns Street Portland, OR 97223 promotional products, awards, company I Marco Materials apparel, and incentive items f Marine Lumber Co Single location wholesale lumber sales and Indirect 11800 SW Myslony St Tualatin, OR 97062 I Inc distribution Materials Mariner's Supply Co Supplier of marine parts and products Indirect i 4865 N Lagoon Ave Portland, OR 97217 : Inc based in Bainbridge Island, WA Materials Single location metal and steel processor, Marks Metal specializing in rolling plate and structural 10300 SE Jennifer St Clackamas, OR 97015 Direct Materials Technology profiles, concrete pipe forms and custom fabrication

~~- -- - One Nurthw~t Consulting, LLC I 14209 NE 95th Circle. \'.ancouvcr. WA 986821 (360) 975-9466 187832~~

V -·cott Equipment Sales, service, and installation of 435 NE Hancock St Portland, OR 97212 Services l IC petroleum equipment Construction supplies business with Indirect Mason's Supply Co 2637 SE 12th Ave Portland, OR 97202 locations In OR and WA; based in Portland, Materials OR I Global supplier of industrial and scientific Matheson Tri-Gas Indirect 13129 NE David Cir Portland, OR 97230 gases and gas handling equipment; Inc Materials subsidiary of Tokyo, Japan based TNS Corp Regional distributor of bearings and power / McGuire Bearing Co Indirect 947 SE Market St Portland, OR 97214 transmission products headquartered in !'Inc Materials i Portland, OR McKinney Trailers & Tractor trailer and shipping container 12008 NE Inverness Dr Portland, OR 97220 Containers rental, leasing, sales and service Capital Goods Wholesale plumbing supply company Indirect / Mesher Supply Co 312 SE Stark St Portland, OR 97214 based in· Portland, OR Materials ! . i Metro Overhead Repair, service and installation of garage 2525 NE tolumbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 doors and gate automation based In / Door Inc Services Portland, OR ! i Designs, manufactures, installs and services complete overhead material Milwaukie Crane & 10250 SW North I Tigard, OR 97223 handling systems and stocks hoists, , Equipment Co Dakota St Services trolleys, accessories, replacement parts I and provides service based in Portland, OR

~ Global company providing rental and sales of portable self storage containers, i Mobile Mini inc 5940 NE Cully Blvd Portland, OR 97218 Capital Goods I shipping containers, and mobile offices I i based in Tempe, A2 I Providing modular building and 13132 N. Woodrush / Modspace Corp · Portland, OR 97203 construction trailer rental, leasing, and Way Services sales based in Berwyn, PA I Two location company with offices In Portland, OR and Fairfield, NJ; Supplier of Indirect ! Monster Fuses 5440 SE 26th Ave Portland, OR 97202 new, surplus, and out of production fuses Materials and switchgear components Providing specialized heavy rigging, Morgan Industrial transportation, machinery moving, 23810 NW Huffman St North Plains, OR Inc 97124 millwright, architectural, and process Services equipment movement services based in the Hillsboro, OR area Distributor of Industrial MRO supplies Motion Industries 940 Northeast 57th Indirect Portland, OR 97213 based In Birmingham, AL; subsidiary of Inc Avenue Materials Genuine Parts Company of Atlanta, GA MSC industrial · Distributor of MRO supplies, industrial Indirect 12207 NE Marx St Portland, OR 97230 Supply Co Inc equipment and tools based in Melville, NY Materials Subsidiary of Charlott, NC based Swisher; Mt Hood Solutions 14546 N Lombard Indirect Portland, OR 97203 supplier of industrial hygiene products and Co Street Materials - services

~~- . - One Northwest Consulting, LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver. WA 98682 j (360) 975-9466 187832~~

~~Distributor and retailer of auto parts, tools, Indirect Napa Auto Parts 10515 N Lombard St Portland, OR 97203 an.d supplies; subsidiary of Atlanta, GA Materials~~

. based Genuine Parts Company Provider of quality control consulting, and nondestructive testing and training NDE Professionais 13339 NE Airport Way Portland, OR services including radiography, ultrasonic, Services Inc penetrant and magnetic particle based in

Ii Portland, OR Main division offices in Portland, OR and /' ' Ness & Campbell Seattle, WA with branch offices 5730 NE 138th Ave Portland, OR 97230 Services Crane Inc throughout Western OR and WA; provider of fixed and mobile crane and lift services Supplier of new, used, rental and material 7373 SE Milwaukie Norlift of Oregon Inc Portland, OR 97222 handling products and services based in Services I Expressway Portland, OR Provider of electrical supplies, North Coast Electric components, distribution and related Indirect 625 N Thompson St Portland, OR 97227 services with locations throughout the Materials Co I Pacific NW and Alaska Northside Ford 6221 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 New and used Ford truck dealership Capital Goods ! Distributor of petroleum equipment, ' Northwest Pump & industrial pumps, and car wash systems Indirect i 2800 NW 31st Ave Portland,, OR 97210 i Equipment Co. and related services with locations Materials I' throughout the Western US i I Provides services in the estimation, design, supply, erection & dismantling of Northwest Scaffold i 11211 SE Foster Rd Portland, OR 97266 suspended scaffold (swingstaging), frame Services Service Inc I scaffold, tem.porary weather enclosures, J / and shoring based in Portland, OR i Provision of environmental, industrial and NRC Environmental I 6211 N Ensign St Portland, OR 97217 emergency solutions; global company Services Services Inc ! based in Great River, NY Natural gas utilities service NW Natural Gas Co 220 NW 2nd Ave. Portland, OR 97209 Services !I provider/supplier based in Portland, OR Truck transportation and logistics services Oak Harbor Freight provider based in Auburn, WA with I 9026 NE 13th Ave Portland, OR 97211 Services I unes Inc terminal locations throughout the Western I I us ! National retail chain/supplier of office ' products, business machines, computers, computer software and office furniture, I 323 SE Martin Luther Indirect I Office Depot" Portland, OR 97214 and business services including copying, King Jr Blvd Materials printing, document reproduction, shipping, and computer setup and repair; based in Boca Raton, FL

~~One Northwe.sl Consulting. LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle. Vnncou,·er, WA 98682 I (360) 975-9466 187832~~

~~- i' ' Single location provider of filters and hose indirect l .lter Service Co 615 SE Market Portland, OR 97214 assemblies, and manufacturer of custom Materials fittings and adapters~~

I Division of Seattle, WA base Harley Marine Olympic Tug & Services and provider of marine tug, barge, I 7900 NW St Helens Rd Portland, OR 97210 Services Barge Inc and port assist transportation and logistics· l services Provider of industrial threaded fasteners Indirect Oregon Bolt Inc 14965 SW 72nd Ave Tigard, OR 97224 and related items based in Tigard, OR Materials 3365 SE 17th Ave Single location supplier of electrical / Oregon Breakers Inc · Portland, OR 97202 Capital Goods ! Portland components and supplies Provides precision sharpening and manufacturing service for saws, cutters, Oregon Carbide Saw 1713 SE 7th Ave Portland, OR 97214 Services I routers, and coldsaws; based in Portland, i OR

Oregon Ironworks Engineering, fabtication, and ! 9700 SE Lawnfield Rd l Inc Clackamas, OR 97015 manufacturing business based in Direct Materials I Clackamas, OR / Oregon Provider of industrial painting, coating, i Sandblasting & 10000 SW Herman Rd Tualatin, OR 97062 sandblasting, and finishing services based Services i Coating inc In Tualatin, OR I Portland, OR based supplier of new and used heavy equipment sales, rentals, and I Oregon Tractor 6455 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 Capital Goods repair and maintenance services with I branch location in Roseburg, OR ~ :' OTSWJre& Supplier of electrical supplies & equipment 9155 SW Barber St Wilsonville, OR 97070 insulation Inc for the motor repair and transformer Capital Goods industry based In Wilsonville, OR

Portland, OR based distributor and supplier Ott's Friction Supply of automotive and mechanical friction Indirect 201 N Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97217 Inc products such as brakes and clutches; Materials branch location in Eugene, OR Oxford Inn & Suites 12226 N Jantzen Dr Portland, OR 97217 Local hotel and hospitality provider Services Supplier of fencing installation and manufacturing services specializing In Pacific Fence 13770 SE Ambler Rd Clackamas, OR 97015 Services_- railings, gates, chain link, and vinyl; single location in Clackamas, OR Pacific Machinery & Portland, OR based specialty metal service Indirect 3445 NW Luzon St Portland, OR 97210 Tool Steel center Materials . Ridgefield, WA based provider of sales and service of diesel engines, transmissions Pacific Power and parts for trucks, buses, coaches, heavy 600 S 56th Pl Ridgefield, WA 98642 Services Products duty construction equipment, marine, rail and power generation; locations throughout OR, WA, AK, and HI Palm Abrasive & Wholesaler of abrasives, tools, and related Indirect 905 SE 14th Ave Portland, OR 97214 Tool inc - supplies In Portland, OR Materials 4/:ir''S

~~- . . - . . • One Northwest Consulting, LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vanc-0uver. WA 9S6S2 I (360) 975-9466 ~· 187832~~

r Provider of sales, rental, and product j Pape Material 7000 SW Sandburg St Portland, OR 97223 support of lift trucks and material handling Capital Goos ; Handling Inc ; equipment based in Eugene, OR ! ; Supplier of pipe, valves, fittings, pumps, Paramount Supply filters, gaskets, steam products, and other Indirect i 816 SE Ash St Portland, OR 97214 industrial specialties with branches Materials Co I throughout the Western US and Alaska I' Supplier/distributor of building products, 6250 NE Martin Luther Indirect Parr Lumber Co Portland, OR 97211 hardware, and tools based In Hillsboro, OR King Jr Blvd Materials with 31 iocatlons in OR, WA, an.d AZ I Regional less-than-truckload truck Peninsula Truck transportation and logistics provider based I 3182 NW 26th Ave Portland, OR 97210 Services I Lines Inc in Auburn, WA with locations throughout the Pacific NW and Vancouver, BC

Specialty contractor providing se.rvices to Industrial, commercial, and. non-residential / Performance 5555 N Channel Portland, OR 97217 markets based in Lenexa, KS; services Services Contracting Inc /\venue, include Interiors, insulation, scaffold services, and abatement Supplier of industrial hoses, fittings, cylinders, pumps, valves, meters, and othe [ Peterson Industrial Indirect 2300 NW 29th Ave Portland, OR 97210 products for use in hydraulics, pneumatics, Products Inc Materials I instrumentation, and sanitary applications i based in Portland, OR - ! Supplier of new and used heavy equipment Peterson Machinery 4421 NE Columbia sales, rentals, and repair and maintenance ! Portiand;oR 97218 Capital Goods i Co Boulevard services headquartered In the San ! Francisco, CA Bay Area Supplier of fleet fueling, mobile fueling, Petrocard Systems Indirect ! 9885 SE Mather Rd Clackamas, OR 97015 cardlock fueling, and lubricant supply Inc Materials services based In Kent, WA Project management consultancy for the 6420 SW Macadam Pinnell Busch Inc Portland, OR 97239 design and construction Industry based in Services I Ave Portland, OR Supplier of Industrial wiping cloth, ' Pioneer Wiping Indirect 10707 N Lombard St Portland, OR 97203 absorbent products, and recycling services Cloth Materials based in Portland, OR Distributor and wholesaler of electrical, Platt Electric Supply industrial, lighting, tools, fuses, control and Indirect 3053 NW 29th Ave Portland, OR 97210 Inc automation products with locations Materials throughout the Western US Pope Rigging Loft Supplier of marine rigging products and Indirect 2355 NW 21st Pl Portland, OR 97210 Inc services based In Portland, OR Materials Supplier of plastic materials, components, 7500 SW Tech Center indirect Port Plastics Portland, OR 97223 and related products based In Chino Hills, Dr Materials CA

~~One Nm1hwest Consulting. LLC I 14209 NE 95th Circle. Vancouver, WA 9S6S2 ! (360) 975·9466 187832~~

i C --- 1176 N Hayden Watsonville, CA based wholesale Indirect 'supply Portland, OR 97217 Meadows Dr distributor of marine related products Materials Portland Business 200 SW Market St Portland, OR 97201 ocal commerce association Services Alliance 1 I Portland ' 12000 SW 49th Ave Portland; OR 97219 Local higher educational institution Services i Community College . Single location distributor, dealer, and / Portland service center of compressors, sprayers, 310 SE 12th Ave Portland, OR 97214 Capital Goods ICompressor pressure washers, and related products and services ! Portland Fasteners 3103 NW St. Helens Single location supplier of industrial Indirect Portland, OR 97210 I inc Road fasteners and construction supplies Materials I Investor-owned utility engaged in the I Portland General generation, transmission and distribution 3700 SE 17th Ave Portland, OR 97202 Services Electric Corp of electricity to industrial, commercial and residential customers Supplier/distributor of hoses, flexible i ! tubing, fittings, filters, regulators, measurement devices and related Portland Valve & Indirect I 815 SE Sherman St Portland, OR 97214 products and support services; trade name ' Fitting Co Materials of Portland, OR based Swagelok Northwest US, part of global Solon, OH based Swagelok Company I i Supplier of new and remanufactured truck and trailer parts headquartered in Indirect ff rWebster Co 41 NE Walker St Portland, OR 97211 ' Portland, OR with branch locations Materials I throughout the region Kansas City, MO based distributor, l 10931 N. Vancouver Power Serv Inc Portland, OR 97217 reconditioner, and remanufacturer of Services i Way i railcar moving equipment Portland, OR based supplier of software i and hardware solutions to the PPI Group 6015 NE 80th Ave Portland, OR 97218 Services architecture, engineering, and construction industries Supplier of industrial gases and related Indirect Praxair Distribution 603 SE Victory Ave Vancouver, WA 98661 services based in Danbury, CT Materials Precise Provider of engineering services to Manufacturing & 12403 Ne 60th Way Vancouver, WA 98682 operators of blast furnaces and steel mills Services Engineering based in Vancouver, WA Precision Equipment Industrial parts repair and custom 8440 N Kerby Ave Portland, OR 97217 Services Inc manufacturing based In Portland, OR Precision Hydraulics Portland, OR based tooling hydraulic 2715 NW St Helens Rd Portland, OR 97210 Services LLC outfitter Portland, OR based manufacturer of Premier Gear & 1700 NW Thurman St Portland, OR 97209 machinery, gears, and controls and Services Machine Works machine and gear shop services Premier Rubber & Portland, OR based rubber products Indirect 9841 N Vancouver Way Portland, OR 97217 2unoly wholesaler Materials

~~One- No,thwest Consulting, LLC / 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 986S-2 I (360) 975-9466 187832~~

Sells & services engineered mechanical solutions Including boilers, pumps, Proctor Sales Inc 27180 SW 95th Ave Wilsonville, OR 97070 controls, valves, burners, stack, tanks, Services I hydronic and steam solutions; offices I located in OR, WA, and AK 18205 Sw Boones Ferry Tigard, OR based metal slitting and Production Sawing Tigard, OR 97224 Services I Rd shearing business Oakbrook Terrace, IL based company provides engineering, scientific, t~chnical PSI Inc 6032 N Cutter Cir Portland, OR 97217 Services ' and management solutions to public and ' private sector clients Provider of temporary liquid handling solutio_ns including pumps, tanks, filtration Rain for Rent 11035 NE Marx St Portland, OR 972.20 Services I and spill containment based in Bakersfield, CA Subsidiary of Radnor Township, PA based Airgas Inc.; provider of welding and , Red-D-Arc Inc 7315 NE 43rd Ave Vancouver, WA 98661 Capital Goods - I welding-related rental products and I services throughout North America Portland, OR based provider of heavy ' Redmond Heavy 613 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 hauling and specialized truck Services lI Hauling Inc transportation and logistics services Single location provider of motor repair Reed Electric Co 2539 NW Vaughn .St Portland, OR 97210 Services and field services, and new motor sales !' · Portland, OR based distributor of prime, Rem Steel Sales Inc 9109 N Wilbur Ave Portland, OR 97217 excess prime, and secondary flat rolled Direct Mater,_ - steel products Subsidiary of Rexel Group based in Paris, Indirect Rexel Inc 20171 SW 95th Ave Tualatin, OR 97062 France; Distributor of electrical supplies Materials Single location provider of rope, rigging, Rigging Products Inc 2242 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 logging, industrial chain, and related Direct Materials ! products and services Portland, OR based provider of paint color Indirect I Rodda Paint Co 6107 N Marine·Dr Portland, OR matching services, spray equipment sales I and rentals, and paint sales Materials Portland, OR based industrial equipment supplier, providing technical services, engineering, consultation, and products IRogers Machinery 14600 SW 72nd Ave Portland, OR 97224 such as compressed air systems, process Capital Goods and house vacuum systems, and blower and pump systems; branch locations I throughout the Western US Single location provider of sales, service, I and installation of boat equipment, marine t Rogers Marine 3445 NE Marine Dr Portland, OR 97211 · Capital Goods I electronics, radar, GPS, depth sounders, I and related marine products

~~One Northwrst Consulting. LLC I 1420\J NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 986821 (360) 975-9466 187832~~

33 i Portland, OR based sales and service of . City Awning Co 1638 NW Overton St Portland, OR 97209 awnings, tarps, canopies, flags, flagpoles, Services /' accessories and custom applications ! RSC Equipment Part of Stamford, CT based United Rentals 3133 NW Saint Helens Portland, OR 97210 Services ' Rental Inc.; global equipment rentals company Distributor and processor of metals based Ryerson 6330 N Basin Avenue Portland, OR 97217 Direct Materials In Chicago, IL Safety Kleen Re-refiner of used oil and provider of parts Indirect 16540 SE 130th Ave Clackamas, OR 97015 Systems Inc cleaning services based in Dallas, TX Materials Full-service scaffold company offering / Safway Services_ LLC 1960 NW Marine Dr Troutdale, OR 97060 rental, engineering, training and safety; Services based in Waukesha, WI i Sam A Mesher Tool Single location supplier of machinery and Indirect 1704 NW Johnson St Portland, OR 97209 Co cutting tools Materials Supplier of safety systems and products for a variety of industries and applications Indirect Sanderson Safety Co 1101 SE Third Ave Portland, OR 97214 based in Portland, OR with locations Materials throughout the Western US Schroeder's Single location machining, fabrication, and 8010 NE 19th Ct Vancouver, WA 98665 Services Machine Works Inc manufacturing facility 16027 NE Cameron Single location supplier of seals and Indirect Seal Source Inc Portland, OR 97230 Blvd gaskets Materials Distributor of rubber molded, rubber 23050 NW Jacobson extrusion, and gaskets; in,house steel rule indirect SP·', Unlimited Inc Hillsboro, OR 97124 Rd die shop with water jet cutting services Materials available; based in Hillsboro, OR Steel service and fabrication center based Service Steel Inc 5555 N Channel Ave Portland, OR 97217 Direct Materials In Portland, OR

~~Provider of Inland waterway Shaver 4900 NW Front Ave Portland, OR 97210 transportation and logistics services (tug Transportation Services and barge services) and port assist services~~

- Global supplier of paints and finishes based Indirect Sherwin Williams Co 30 NE Broadway St Portland, OR 97232 - in Clevelana, OH Materials Supplier of products and services for building/facility automation, energy Siemens Building 15201 NW Beaverton, OR 97006 efficiency, fire safety, power distribution, Capital Goods Technologies GREENBRIER PKWY and security; part of Munich, Germany based Siemens Speedometer Single location company selling gauges, Service and 3551 NW Front Ave Portland, OR 97210 cables, and adapters to the truck and Services Instrument Corp automotive industries Distributor of hydraulic components and indirect Spencer Fluid Power 2230 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 systems; subsidiary of Cleveland, OH based Materials Applied industrial Technologies Stack Metallurgical Single location provider of heat treating 5938 N Basin Ave Portland, OR 97217 Services Services and metallurgical manufacturing services

~~. - - One No11hwest Consulting, LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver. \VA 9S682 !(360) 975~9466 187832~~

' National retail chain/supplier of office I products, business machines, computers, computer software and office furniture, 1760 Jantzen Beach Indirect Staples Portland, OR 97217 and business services including copying, I Center Materials i printing, document reproduction, shipping, and computer setup and repair; i headquartered in Framingham, MA ! 1735 SE Martin Luther Construction equipment rental supplier i Star Rentals Inc Portland, OR 97214 Services t King Jr Blvd with locations In OR and WA ! Supplier of pipe, tubing, fittings, and related products to mechanical, plumbing I and general contractors, pipe fabricators, petroleum, fire protection and fencing Indirect State Pipe & Supply 3508 NE 68th St Vancouver, WA 98661 industries, water well and irrigation Materials companies, pipe distributors, and other pipe users; Rialto, CA based subsidiary of I Korean company SeAH Steel Corp Stellar Industrial 12831 NE Whitaker Tacoma, WA based provider of industrial Indirect I Portland, OR 97230 ! Supply Inc Way supplies and tools Materials i Single location wholesale welding Indirect I Stud Welding Supply 2119 SE Columbia Way Vancouver, WA 98661 ' equipment and supplies provider Materials Suburban Grinding Single location provider of industrial I 13025 SW Herman Rd Tualatin, OR 97062 Services Inc grinding services and engineering Construction equipment and tool rental l 7626 NE Killingsworth I Sunbelt Rentals Inc Portland, OR 97218 company; subsidiary of London, UK based St Services i Ashtead Group I I Swan Island Portland, OR based sandblasting and 5555 N Channel Ave Portland, OR 97217 Services i Sandblasting painting facility with two Portland facilities i Supplier of fasteners, tools, hardware, and Tacoma Screw Indirect I 2797 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 related construction supplies and Products Inc Materials equipment based In Tacoma, WA West coast distributor of commodity and Indirect Tarr Inc 2429 N Borthwick Ave Portland, OR 97227 specialty chemicals, lubricants and fuels Materials headquartered in Portland, OR Vancouver, WA based provider of products and services in Instrumentation, fluid- handling products, mobile and general I Indirect Technical Controls 12119 NE 99th Vancouver, WA 98682 hydraulics, pneumatics, process filtration, I Materials compressed air and gas filtration markets, and seal applications with locations in WA, I JD, and MT Stone Mountain, GA based distributor of I Test Equipment 5476 S.E. International Indirect 1 Portland, OR 97222 equipment and supplies for the Distributors Way Materials . nondestructive testing industry The Lynch Company 4706 SE 18th Ave Portland, OR 97202 Single location general steel fabricator Direct Materials Inc

~~One N01thwest Consulting. LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver. WA 98682 !(36-0) 975-9466 187832~~

f ' 6880 NE Columbia Single location distributor of steel products ;tee! Yard Inc Portland, OR 97218 Direct Materials '.i Blvd P (plate, tubing, pipe, bars, etc.) Portland, OR headquartered supplier of I . woven ·wire, rubber screens, polyurethane j The Western Group 4025 NW Express Ave Portland, OR 97210 Direct Materials screens, and perforated plate with

1 locations in the US and Canada Recycler of used oil, antifreeze, filters, oily ' Indirect / Thermo Fluids Inc 12533 SE Carpenter Dr Clackamas, OR 97015 water and oily absorbents based in Materials ' Scottsdale, AZ Torgerson Forest Single location supplier of forest products I 16055 SW Walker Rd Beaverton, OR 97006 Direct Materials l Products and building materials Subsidiary of Franklin, TN based Clarcor Total Filtration Indirect I 1015 SE Grant St Portland, OR 97214 Inc; provider of fil(ration management and Services Materials I service ! Portland, OR headquartered engineering J Transco Industries and fabrication business involved In steel 5534 NE 122nd Ave Portland, OR 97230 Services 1nc . fabrication, conveyor repair, and water 1 screening with locations throughout the US Sales, leasing, rental, and service of heavy Triad Machinery Co equipment in forestry, construction, and ! 4530 NE 148th Ave Portland, OR 97230 Services I inc material handling with locations in OR and I WA ! Single location provider of new motor and ! Tri-Motor & 24460 Pacific Hwy E Canby,'OR 97013 gear box sales, repair, parts and related Services fllt-·hinery Co Inc i services Santa Fe Springs, CA based tubular product distribution and laser tube processing Indirect Tube Service Co 6650 N Ensign St Portland, OR 97217 ! services with locations throughout the Materials i ' Western US Transcontinental railroad transportation ' Union Pacific ' 1525 N River St Portland, OR 97227 and logistics service provider Services · Railroad headquartered in Omaha, NE Supplier of industrial hose, hydraulic hose, Indirect Unisource Mfg Inc 8040 NE 33rd Dr Portland, OR 97211 connectors and accessories headquartered Materials In Portland, OR Supplier/distributor of batteries, alternators, starters, generators, and Indirect United Battery Inc 109 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97211 accessories based in Portland, OR with Materials three total area locations Global equipment rentals company based United Rentals 4621 NW St Helens Rd Portland, OR 97210 Services in Stamford, CT United Site Services Westborough, MA provider of p_ortable 12215 SE 122nd Ave Portland, OR 97015 Services Inc toilet rentals and site sanitation solutions United Welding 2313 NE Martin Luther Single location supplier of welding Indirect Portland, OR 97212 Supply Inc King Jr Blvd materials,,supplles, and equipment Materials

~~One No11hwest Consulting, LLC 114209 NE 95th Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682 !(360) 975·9466 187832~~

Distributor of foundry products, equipment, parts, supplies, abrasive United Western Indirect 15540 N Lombard St Portland, OR 97203 products, blasting media, and abrasive Supply Co Materials equipment, parts, and supplies with offices in Seattle, WA and Portland, OR Global transportation and logistics UPS 6235 N Basin Ave Portland, OR 97217 Services provider based in Atlanta, GA

Distributor of marine parts and accessories I to boat dealers, boat repair shops, marine I accessory stores, boatyards, boat builders, Indirect / us Distributing 7750 NE 17th Ave Portland, OR 97211 government agencies and other marine Materials related businesses; locations In Portland, I OR, Phoenix, AZ, and Missoula, MT / Provider of process control, measurement, i Valin Corp 18977 NE Portal Way Portland, OR 97230 heat, filtration, and automation application Capital Goods I solutions based in San Jose, CA

Vancouver Bolt & Single location provider of bolts, fasteners, Indirect 805 W 11th St Vancouver, WA 98660 Supply Inc and industrial supplies Materials New York City, NY broadband and I Verizon 616 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97205 Services I telecommunications company ! Supplier of new and used steel beams Indirect j Versa Steel Inc 1618 NE 1st Ave Portland, OR 97232 located in Portland, OR Materials r St. Paul, MN based company provides fire ! Viking Automatic sprinkler systems including automatic fire 3245 NW Front Ave Portland, OR 97210 Services i Sprinkler Co sprinklers for Industrial, commercial, residential, and government markets I! ' Portland, OR based distributor of Janitorial Indirect Walter E Nelson Co 5937 N Cutter Cir Portland, OR 97217 supplies and paper with locations Materials throughout OR and WA

Washington Crane & Seattle, WA based industrial overhead I 4707 NE Minnehaha St Vancouver, WA 98661 ! Hoist crane and material handling solutions Services l . provider National supplier of waste/refuse Waste Management 7227 NE 55th Ave Portland, OR 97218 transportation and disposal services based Services in Houston, TX Indirect WC Winks Hardware 200 SE Stark St Portland, OR 97214 Single location h•rdware ret•iler M•teri•ls West Co•st Met•ls Single loc•tion supplier of st•inless steel, 2555 NW Nicol•i St Portl•nd, OR 97210 Direct M•terials Inc aluminum, and carbon steel · Full service rigging fabrication facilities West Coast Wire serving the logging, construction, marine, 2900 NW 29th Portland, OR Rope & Rigging 97210 and equipment manufacturing industries Direct Materials with locations in Portland, Seattle, and Oakland

~~One Northwest Co11Sulting, LLC j 14209 NE 95th Circle. Vancouver. \\'A 98682 / (360) 975-9466 187832~~

I - -- Vancouver, WA headquartered railroad i ,t Rail construction and services provider 504 NE 192nd Ave Vancouver, WA 98684 Services /' Construction involved in projects throughout the US and abroad '; Bellevue, WA based manufacturer and I Western Integrated 8900 N Ramsey Blvd Portland, OR 97203 integrator of fluid power and electronic I Tech Inc Capital Goods I systems l Livermore, CA based supplier of hand / Western Tool & Indirect '12518 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97230 tools, cutting tools, power tools, abrasives, i Supply Materials and other industrial products and supplies i I Working Waterfront 200 SW Market St Portland, OR 97201 Local trade/business association Services 1 Coalition i White Plains, NY based global provider of water handling, transport, distribution, Xylem Dewaterlng I 2630 N Marine Dr Portland, OR 97217 wastewater and process treatment l Solutions Inc Capital Goods applications across commercial, industrial I and municipal market Overland Park, KS based global YRC 6845 N Cutter Cir Portland, OR 97217 Services I transportation and logistics provider

~~One Northwest Consnlling, LLC ! 14209 NE 95th Circle. Vancouver, WA 986821 (360) 975~9466 187832~~

~~Attachment E 187832 187832~~

~~PROJECT TEAM~~

~~Port of Portland Greg Theisen~~

~~Portland Development Commission Elissa Ge"rtler Rashid Ahmed~~

~~City of Portland- Bureau of Planning Steve Kountz~~

~~METRO Lydia Neill~~

~~Consu/tant Team~~

~~Group Mackenzie Mark Clemons Project Management I Geraldene Moyle Sile Development Case Studies Bob Thompson~~

~~Johnson Gardner Jerry Johnson Financial Analysis Bill Reid~~

~~ERM Bob Carson Brownfield Characterization Analysis Dave Einolf~~

~~Renova Partners Susan Hollingshead Brownfield Redevelopment Advisors Michael McMullen 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

~~1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY~~

~~PROJECT OVERVIEW~~

The availability and location of industrial land as a resource for the creation of new employment is a major economic and policy issue throughout the State of Oregon and the Portland metropolitan area. A number of efforts have occurred or are currently underway to understand and address this issue.

As part of this ongoing regional discussion on industrial land, a consoriium of public agencies (the Port of Portland, Portland Development Commission, METRO and the Portland Bureau of Planning) sponsored this Brownfield/Greenfield Development Cost Comparison Study. The goal of the project is to provide the project sponsors with a better understanding of costs and issues associated with industrial development of greenfield sites and the redevelopment of brownfield sites. In addition, a methodology was developed that calculates and compares brownfield and greenfield development costs. The challenge was to develop a model that could be replicated in future studies. Therefore, the uses could change and the sites could change, but the methodology would remain constant.

Using a case-study approach, the project compared the public and private development costs associated with specific industrial projects between brownfield sites and greenfield sites. Four types of industrial development projects were identified: general manufacturing, high tech, warehouse and distribution, and industrial park. A specific profile and site plan for each use was completed. Four greenfield sites and three brownfield sites were also identified. The site plan for one of the uses was then tested on one greenfield and one brownfield site. An analysis of costs was then prepared for each project on the two sites.

~~METHODOLOGY~~

~~Uses Four industrial uses that were appropriate for the Portland metropolitan area were identified.~~

High Tech Ma1111facturing includes high technology industries that are primarily related to manufacturing and processing. In this study, a 350,000 SF high-tech facility is tested that includes two 125,000 SF fabrication plants, one 40,000 SF central utility building, one 60,000 SF office building and 725 parking spaces.

Industrial Park is a series of larger individual buildings whose uses could include light industrial manufacturing, distribution or industrial services. For this project, 630,000 SF of industrial park space, divided into multiple buildings, was tested on both sites.

Warehouse I Distribution includes industries primarily engaged in the warehousing, storage and distribution of goods. For this project, 400,000 SF of distribution space in a single building with 200 parking spaces and 300 trailer spaces was tested on both sites.

~~G R O II P 2 H;\PROJEClS\~lOOJ\ViP\041214-fxec.dcc «-+lvfACKENZIEI 187832~~

~~Exh!bils~~

General Manufacturing includes industries utilizing manufacturing processes. For this project, three single-user general manufacturing facilities were tested on each site. These facilities totaled 450,000 SF in three buildings - a 100,000 SF user, a 150,000 SF user, and a 200,000 SF user - and I, I 00 parking stalls to serve all three facilities.

Site Selectio11 Since the goal of the study was to compare costs for industrial projects, it was necessary to identify sites appropriate for the user profiles based on size, zoning and location. Additional issues considered in choosing the sites included distribution around the region, extent of brownfield contamination, adjacency to the Urban Growth Boundary, surrounding industrial uses, level of existing infrastructure, and specific needs of the identified uses.

Brownfield For this study, appropriate sites needed to be over 25 acres and zoned industrial. While the overall inventory of brownfield sites in the region is significant, with over l, 100 acres of vacant land listed in the City of Portland's Brownfield Bite Inventory; lhe availability of large, viable brownfield sites in industrial areas in the region is limited. In addition, certain sites were identified and eventually discarded for reasons of concern about the market impacts of inclusion in the study and for potential liability issues'. While the goal was to identify four brownfield sites to include in the study, at the end only three sites were used. To compensate and still meet the original goals of the study, two different uses were put on one of the brownfield sites.

Greenfield Four sites were selected in the Portland metropolitan region. Three of the sites are in areas where land was recently brought into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). One site is located within the existing UGB. The sites range between 70 and 350 total acres. Therefore, only portions of each of the greenfield sites were used for each conceptual site plan.

~~The following table provides site overviews, and the uses proposed on each:~~

Use Site Type Site Size Building Area Parking (acres) fSFl Stalls High - Tech Brownfield 35.75 350,000 725 Manufacturing Greenfield 53.20 350,000 725 Industrial Park Brownfield 45.50 630,000 1,130 Greenfield 44.50 630,000 I, 130 \Varehouse / Brownfield 37.95 400,000 200 Distribution Greenfield 23 .85 400,000 · 200 Brownfield G

As the study progressed, issues relating to liability and publicity were raised and concerns were expressed regarding the identification of actual brownfield sites in the report. It was determined that the brownfield sites should be generic in the final report. To make all the

Some sites that were initially considered for inclusion in the study are currently being actively marketed for sale. The site owners indicated that they were not comfortable including their properties in this study due to potential stigma and negative sale price impacts to their properties, regardless of the author's intentions to conceal the identities of individual siteS.

~~GROUP --~ACKENZIE 1 3 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

sites equal, it was then decided that the greenfield sites would also be made generic. Therefore, while actual sites were utilized, for the purposes of this study, all geographic identifying features have been removed.

~~Costs The primary focus of this study was on quantifiable costs, including hard and soft costs . both on-site as well as off-site. The cost information was classified into four major categories:~~

On-Site Construction Costs' On-site construction costs include all building costs and on-site infrastructure and parking costs, plus additional on-site costs, including site grading, lift stations, tank removal and pilings associated with several of the brownfield and greenfield sites.

System Development Charges (SDC's) and Credits Large, one-time user fees paid with the development of the site were included in this category. This includes System Development Charges (SDC's) for sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage, street improvements and parks. SDC credits were based on the extent of existing development on the site.

Off-Site Construction Costs These are the costs associated with the public utilities, including sanitary sewer, water and storm drain mains, necessary to accommodate the build-out of each concept. The delivery of private utility (electric, natural gas, telecommunications) costs were not identified separately, and were assumed as part of the estimated street costs. Major utility upgrades, such as substations, transformers, water reservoirs, and treatment facility expansions were not included (the presumption is that SDC fees are intended to finance these public facility expansions).

Environmental Remediation Costs (Brownfield Sites Only) The potential environmental remediation requirements for each site were based on publicly available information and the project team's experience with similar properties. The estimated costs represent the minimum estimated effort required to obtain a No Further Action (NFA) letter from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the properties. Environmental remediation costs were divided into two categories: Hard Costs and Other Costs. Hard Costs included remediation costs associated with soil and groundwater; compliance with state and local stormwater regulations; ongoing operation and maintenance of remediation efforts and remedies; and costs associated with the coord.ination and processing of the remediation plan, application and follow-up with DEQ and management of the remediation.

Other Costs included soft costs for insurance, environmental studies, planning and legal expenses, figured at 20% of the hard costs. Of these soft costs, ·20% is insurance, The second component of Other Costs is carrying cost interest, which is the interest cost accrued during remediation, for an assumed 24-month timeline at a 30% cost of equity and 8.50% for debt. The third component of Other Costs is a risk premium, assumed to be 0.5% of total development costs based on the perceived additional risk associated with thebrownfield contamination.

~~GROUP -ilYl ACKEN Z IE 1 4 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

Financial Analysis The financial characteristics of individual development concepts were evaluated, ,vith a focus on determining the residual property value associated with these concepts. The residual value represented the maximum value that the development concept yields for the property (land and improvements), and equates to the maximum price that a

P11h/ic costs and benefits A comparison of public costs and benefits was conducted for the specific brownfield and greenfield development concepts. To the maximum extent possible within the scope, public ·costs and revenue streams resulting from development were estimated. The comparisons were informed by a literature review of national trends and experiences.

~~CASE STUDIES~~

~~The case studies provided the means to compare the four uses on both brownfield and greenfield sites. The following provides a summary of the findings of these studies.~~

~~Site Deve/opme11t Overviews~~

High Tech Manufacturing With the proposed development, the brownfield site had an estimated negatlve residual land value of ($7 .80) per square foot. This reflects a site that would be considered "upside-down" under the case study assumptions, with a value well belo·w zero. In contrast, the greenfield site had a positive residual land value of $6.42 per square foot. ·

Industrial Park With the proposed development, the brownfield site had a positive residual land value of $0.80 per square foot and the greenfield site had a positive residual land value of $1 ;33 per square foot.

Warehouse/ Distribution With the proposed development, the brownfield site had a negative residual land value of ($0.85) per square foot, while the greenfield site. has a positive residual land value of $6.88 per square foot.

General Manufacturing With tl1e proposed development, the brownfield site had a negative residual land value of ($6.4 7) per square foot. The greenfield site has a positive residual land value of $6.96 per square foot.

~~G RO 11 f' 1 1 H:\PROJECJS\20t,0\0K()\\.','P\041214-fxec.doc: -<- --:M A C K E N Z I E 5 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

Fi11a11ciul Fi11di11gs The case studies evaluated revealed the general findings that greenfield sites have an overall lower development cost than brownfield sites, and brownfield sites require lower marginal infrastructure investment than greenfield sites. The following table provides a summary of the financial ·comparison between the case studies.

~~SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS EVALUATED~~

T«dC$>t.W1 L1.1d NttSic, r,m,~u, CH.ttn.tliMCosl ,roe, _hfn!Sl).U SH,CO) S.OC-l H)')l,O.>l SS.Si,615 s;u&.615 mib-Tedi Mn1&«1ru.1 "' $1(.(((1 $1$$,m,m $#$.41""" Br,;,,;7j"i,'J!J11c-Pe,nJ~t 37.9',l ")),(>)) s1,u1,m" Sl1.IS4.>):0 U,230,iOO S71S,9l7 {SJSJSl) sn,m.Mi -ft:nhd U4,0H>,$9 $.H01 s,,,. P¢d:1-i 2HS .v.. ).(!)) ., Sl'>)«l.V)) Sl,16.1.C,» S7}0,0.S9 S73'l.(169 ,m.m a,,,;q;,u " TOTAL Df.\'ELOPME.'iT COST/LESS LAND

•=-----~~-~ UM------,,s, ,m "" i------1 UH J--~--'------'---'---1 '"' ,,,., uro+--'---'--~-'----' "" -, . JJ» '"' i------'----1 •• ·~ $JS,:) l----'-~--~-~-, ,m JJI<) ... ,.,'"' "" i--~--'---'-'~-=-'---1 " - . ; - '"' ,m Jt:4"" ,m ...•= ,m ,, "" ---- 1,)5_· 11rJ"" .,...... "' •• "' "'• • ~1b· <;,,ut.cu;,,. • " ~ TW.""

CALCULAUP RESIDUAL Ll,ND Y ALVES ••.--c-c-c---""-, ""··~------+--"--'---'--'---'-'~--'-" •• 1--~.c.cc_c= .,. ... 1---~=- ~'" •• .,u-,+---~--""-~-4 -Jl.M ·'"" +--~-~---'--j -··i---'--'-~--'---'--~'--1 .J<(,:J i-----'--_c.C°'-'-'---l -UN .•• J-c.c'-"""--'---~-'-'--'---I ~" ,______J ·•• L-""'1'-'----'----_J -»• L--'--'--'--'-~---'

~~Key financial findings include:~~

Under each of the scenarios, the greenfield site delivered the lowest developnient cost per square foot, as well as the highest residual land value. The differential was least in the Industrial Park scenarios; with the $8. 7 million cost of environmental remediation on the P.ortland brownfield site offset by a ·$3.0 million cut and fill requirement on the greenfield site and a $5.2 million differential in infrastructure costs.

~~Infrastructure costs, as defined in this analysis, were substantially higher on three of the greenfield sites, with the exception being the Warehouse/ Distribution program sites.~~

The brownfield site used in the General and High-Tech Manufacturing scenarios has extremely high clean-up costs, related to soil and groundwater contamination. These add $1 I. I million in hard costs, which also dictates

~~GR O II P ~_..f-gACKENZIE 1 6 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

higher insurance costs, which are $1.9 million. As a result, the overall environmental remediation cost under these scenarios is estimated at $22.0 for the General Manufacturing program and $28.0 million for the High-Tech program. Higher remediation costs were assumed under the High-Tech scenario, with the higher overall costs of development increasing the impact of the risk premium.

~~PUBLIC COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS~~

Public benefits and costs were evaluated and compared for the brownfield and greenfield sites, based on a review of existing published studies and estimated public costs and revenue streams for the case study jurisdictions. For each of the sites, public benefits and costs were identified as Quantifiable - Direct or Qualitative and Other Quantifiable. Quantifiable - Direct public benefits that were similar across jurisdictions included SDC income, property tax revenue, Tri-Met payroll revenue and jobs. Annual tax revenues are greater for all of the case study examples that occur on sites located in the.City of Portland and/or Multnomah County. This is due to the greater array of revenue streams wit.hin these jurisdictions compared to sites outside of Portland/Multnomah County.

Qualitative and Other Quantifiable benefits that .were shared between brownfield and greenfield jurisdictions include state business tax revenue, state and local income tax revenue, utility tax revenues and achievement of economic development goals. Ad.ditional public benefits realized by the redevelopment of the brownfield sites include efficiencies realized through the utilization of existing infrastructure and the enhancement of surrounding property values.

Jn regard to Quantifiable - Direct public costs, standard public service infrastructure needs like fire, police, schools, public transportation and roads can generally be expected to incur costs due to increased development and population from brownfield redevelopment or greenfield development. However, the brownfield·and greenfield case study development concepts in this analysis are, relatively speaking, of insufficient size to warrant significant m3:rginal cost increases.

Marginal System Development Charges (SDC's) would be one Quantifiable- Direct public cost. While SDC's are intended to recover public costs associated with a development, they are typically set at a level below full marginal cost. The proportion of costs that are not recovered represent a public cost associated with the project.

Qualitative and Other Quantifiable costs shared between brownfield and greenfield jurisdictions include state, regional and local administrative costs. Legal costs can also be assumed for both types of sites. Public legal costs for brownfield sites, related to the risk of remediation activities, can be significant among other legal costs. Alternatively, greenfield sites can be expected to also incur significant legal and administrative costs related to UGB inclusion, site planning and other related issues unique to the Oregon land use system.

~~GR O II P 1 -·-lYJACKENZIEI 7 187832~~

~~Exhibils~~

~~CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS~~

Site Development Costs Under each of the scenarios, the greenfield site delivered the lowest development cost per square foot, as well as the highest residual land value. And while inrrastructure costs, as defined in this analysis, are generally higher on the greenfield sites, they do not exceed the brownfield remediation costs, therefore resulting in an overall cost advantage for the greenfield sites. The infrastructure costs are internalized into the development proforma, reflecting an assumption that the development would be required to bear these costs as a condition of approval. While these costs could be defined as public costs, in this study they are the responsibility of the developer as opposed to being borne by the public.

Major off-site infrastructure and utility system upgrades, such as electrical substations and transformers, water reservoirs, waste water treatment facility expansions, state highway expansions, etc., are not required as a result of the development programs placed on the greenfield sites. While these types of major system upgrades may, and often would, be required as part of farge acreage expansions of the Urban Grnwth Boundary, this is not the case for these sites.

The following table summarizes the estimated remediation costs of the brownfield sites, and the cost differential to produce an equivalent product relative to the greenfield option. As shown, the cost of remediation in these instances outpaces the savings in infrastructure costs.

Brownfield Greenfield Overall Cost Remediation Costs Infrastructure Costs Differential Use Total PSF-Bldg, Total PSF- Total PSF- Bld2, Bldv. IndustriaJ Park $8,471.756 $13.45 $5,181 1671 ($8.22) $982,055 $1.56 General Manufacturin.e.: $22,980,475 $51.07 '$1,323,000) ($2.94) $21,581,081 $47,96 High-Tech $28,027,465 $80.08 ($1,428,500) ($4.08) $27,030,361 $77.23 Manufacturing: Warehouse/Di stribu ti on $7,821.799 $19.55 $444-500 $1.11 $8 553,079 $21.38

The general findings of this study do not support the hypothesis that the costs associated with the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites can be on par with the costs to develop new greenfield sites; however, it would be unreasonable to draw any final conclusions based on the limited number of comparisons completed as part of this contract. A variety of issues can affect site development costs and these vary between sites. The methodology developed as part of this study does provide a foundation from which to look at a variety of sites and development scenarios to aid in addressing this policy question.

Brownfield Remediation Costs Brownfield remediation ·costs, in all of the case studies, were greater than the infrastructure costs associated with development of the greenfield sites. It is important to understand however, what makes up the site development costs and how the assumptions can influence costs. The total brownfield development costs are composed of hard and soft construction costs, hard and soft remediation costs, carrying costs during cleanup, and the risk premium. These latter three remediation costs (soft, carrying and risk premium} have a significant impact on the overall redevelopment costs.

~~GR O !I P --i--lvlACKENZIEI 8 187832~~

~~Exhlbils~~

Methodologically, the analysis in this study approaches the development scenarios from the perspective of a private sector developer doing a speculative development. This assumption limits the direct applicability of the findings to this type of development. Alternative development approaches under a different scenario could include remediation by an end user, or remediation by a public sector entity. Under both approaches, remediation costs would be considerably less, particularly under a public sector remediation scenario.

No Two Sites ,:Ire the Same - The Diffic11/ty of Ge11era/izatio11s Generalizations are difficult to make because each site, whether brownfield or greenfield, has its own unique characteristics. No two sites are the same, whether they are brownfield or greenfield. Each has unique issues and characteristics that affect costs and development issues; e.g. the types of constituents that make up the contamination, adjacency to a body of water, the potential for migration of the contamination, the location of the site in relation to existing infrastructure, location in relation to specialized infrastructure, the size of the site, etc.

The study showed that there is a continuum of site preparation costs for both brownfield and greenfield sites. Taking remediation and infrastructure factors into account it would be possible to categorize the sites in this study by their intensity ,of color - a continuum of brownness or greenness. For the brownfield sites, a light brownfield site would be one that has minimal contamination issues and low cost clean-up requirements. A dark brownfield site would have major contamination issues, and high cleanup costs .. A moderate brownfield site would be in the middle.

The same type of continuum of color could be created for the greenfield sites in the study, only focusing on availability of infrastructure and site development costs. A light greenfield site would have readily available infrastructure and be "shovel ready" with few additional requireinents. A dark greenfield site would have major infrastructure needs and require substantial site preparation work. A moderate greenfield site would be in the middle.

~~These continuums, as applied to the case studies, are shown in the following table:~~

Use Brownfield Greenfield PSF Conclusion site site Differential High Tech Dark Light $77.23 Same site as General Manufacturing Manufacturing site - more expensive use Industrial Park Moderate Dark $1.56 Difficult greenfield site \V arehouse/Distributi on Moderate Light $21.38 Greenfield site is better served than brown General Manufacturing Dark Moderate $4 7 .96 Verv difficult brownfield site

~~Public Sector Costs~~

The case study development concepts in this analysis were not of sufficient size to pose significant, measurable public costs for affected jurisdictions. By design of the study, these costs are ·borne by the private ·sector. Internalization of brownfield remediation and infrastructure costs by the developer, rather than incurred by the affected jurisdiction(s), clear the public sector of the largest potential public cost disadvantage of brownfield redevelopment compared to greenfield development. To the extent that a jurisdiction assumes remediation costs, which may be a favorable policy option to enhance financial

~~G~ - ~ACKENZIE 1 9 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

~~feasibility of clean up and crystallize actual site remediation and redevelopment, public cost streams would increase by the magnitude of remediation costs estimated for each brownfield concept.~~

Public Sector Benefits Benefits to the public sector, particularly in terms of revenue enhancement, were substantially greater for brownfield redevelopment concepts compared to greenfield development for the.case studies considered in this analysis. By location of the case study sites, the revenue differential is largely due to the greater array of revenue streams within Multnomah County and the City of .Portland compared to suburban jurisdictions. The following table provides a comparison of annual revenue stream differences for each development concept.

Brownfield Greenfield Public Public Benefits Public Benefits Benefit Differential Use Annual Annual Annual Industrial Park $1,400,000 $977,000 $423.000 General Manufacturing $1,300,000 $465,000 $835,000 High-Tech Manufacturin• $3,430,000 $2,100.000 $1,330,000 \Varehouse/Distribut ion $482,000 $308,000 $174,000·

In addition to the quantifiable public benefits cited above, a wide variety of benefits would also accrue to affected jurisdictions that are not quantifiable due to the limitations of the case study approach and sizes of sites considered in this analysis. The scope of these benefits is broader for brownfield remediation and redevelopment, also due in part to the location of case study sites in Multnomah County. In general, however, brownfield redevelopment poses the following public benefits not accrued by greenfield development:

Local income tax revenues; Public land conservation and environmental policy goals; Social benefits of contaminated site remediation and economic revitalization; and Enhancement of surrounding property values.

It is a Cfta/lenge to Keep Brownfield Sites Industrial There is an econ·omic challenge to maintaining industrial zoned brownfields as industrial properties after they are cleaned up. The remediation costs of bringing an "upside down" brownfield site "right side up" often cannot be recovered when the site can be developed 01ily for industrial land values. Industrial land values in the Portland metropolitan area· tend to range from $3.50 to $6.50 per square foot, the lowest value of any major land use. For comparison, office and residential land ranges from $7.50 to $10.00 per square foot, while commercially zoned land is valued at significantly higher levels. As remediation costs must be deducted from land value, industrially zoned property has the most limited ability to absorb clean up costs while still maintaining a positive residua.I land value.

It's "Easier" to Develop Greenfield Sites Brownfield sites come with stigmas. For many developers, the unknowns and the difficulties of developing a bro,vnfield site are too great. It is perceived that suburban greenfield sites are easier to develop and less constrained than urban brownfields. This

~~l-t\f'RO..IECTS\XV.01040J\W?\041214"&ec.dcc 10 187832~~

~~Exhlbils~~

perception is also shared by site selectors, who are under contract for users to find them a location for a new industrial investment. Issues of liability, cost and risk are all part of this challenge. This dilemma can make it difficult for brownfield sites to get full exposure in the market and make it difficult for sites to be considered for redevelopment. The result of this is that most difficult brownfield sites require experienced developers who have extensive knowledge with redeveloping these sites. Traditional developers tend to shy away from these sites. It is therefore necessary for outside parties, such as public agencies with a desire to have brownfield sites redeveloped, to create relationships with experienced brownfield developers.

An Inve11tory of Sites is Required to Meet a Variety of btd11stry Needs Physical site issues can play a role in a specific type of user choosing between or having the ability to locate on a brownfield or a greenfield site. However, the physical site that a company chooses is only one issue in a diverse mix of criteria that they use in deciding investment locations. Some users are very specific about the location of the property they are interested in using. Factors that can influence this include: access to transportation infrastructure (i.e., rail, water); proximity to other firms, either suppliers or customers (agglomeration or cluster effects); zoning, for example heavy industrial vs. light industrial, business park or high tech. These locational factors may outweigh or at least mitigate the brownfield vs. greenfield site issues.

Matching the locational needs of different types of industries and the market opportunities of different geographic locations will enhance brownfield redevelopment. It is critical to understand which types of companies can go where. Some industries and development types will be able to take on the brownfield challenges, others will not, and will focus their development decisions on greenfield sites. Each type of land, brownfield and greenfield, has a role to play in a regional economic development strategy.

Focus 011 the Br01vnfield Sites that have a Demand in the Market The old saying of "location, location, location" in real estate is as valid in brownfields as it is in greenfields. As this study shows, different brownfield sites have different remediation cost profiles. However, brownfield sites located in areas of high market demand are better able to remain viable real estate investment opportunities if there is likely to be a high residual land value. The public sector should focus available assistance dollars to those sites that have the highest remediation costs and that are located in an industrial area that has market demand.

The Public Sector's Role i11 Brownfield Redevelopment There is a role for public incentives that support the goal of keeping industrial brownfields for industrial uses because the private marketplace will be less likely to do this, due to the lower market value of industrial land.

Risk Reduction First, the data provided in this study shows clearly that the cost of high risk capital to conduct site study and clean-up is a significant factor. The rate of return required by equity investors and the lack of debt capital are factors to which many states and municipalities have turned their attention. The creation of state revolving loan funds, tax-free bonds, private debt funds and participating grant money are all mechanisms that are being used to reduce the cost of capital.

~~G R O U P . 1 H:\PROJECJ5\20<01C,1C0\\\?\041214&.ec.doc -~i-t:i21 ACK E N Z I E 11 187832~~

~~Exhibits~~

One of the major issues associated with brownfield sites is the uncertainty created by unknown liability ("inflated risk assumptions"). Environmental insurance is a way to mitigate this risk. The cost and quality of environmental insurance is not only a direct cost factor but also an indirect cost. Comprehensive environme'lltal insurance policies for these projects eliminate or lessen reduction in residual land value associated with stigma (the risk factor). S~veral states have created pooled, state-subsidized environmental insurance. These programs have reduced the direct cost of insurance policies and provided for broader coverage and longer terms than i!)surance that is available for individual projects.

Site Characterization Assistance Another potential area for public involvement is in site characterization. The cost for preliminary, investigative studies to characterize contamination conditions at a site are not only a significant project expense, but frequently becomes a barrier to entry. Few private entities are willing to spend thousands, often hundreds of thousands of dollars to ·characterize a site that may or may not turn out to be suitable for redevelopment. Direct subsidy of characterization costs will create an expanded market of brownfield sites. The sites in this study h~vc been sufficiently characterized for remediation estimating and insurance. However if that were not the case, it is unlikely that a third party developer could have supported those costs. State and municipal brownfield initiatives can provide forgivable loans for characterization. If the investigative results support development, the loan is repayable. If not, the loan becomes a forgivable grant.

~~Study Metltodology Limitations~~

The purpose of this study was to determine the development costs for a specific development use, compared between a specific brownfield site and a specific greenfield site. The methodology used in the study is a case study approach, using a specific development project of a certain size and then preparing a pro form a analysis that is based on a private developer doing a speculative development. The study shows that the approach and the model function, and can be replicated with other uses and on different sites. It is also the case that the output of the model, in terms of costs and therefore residual land · value, would change if different assumptions were used.

The actual development characteristics of .each of the sites in this study are unique and site specific. Each has a cost structure for either remediation or new infrastructure services that are different from each other and from any other site in the Portland region. And the number of sites, only seven, provides a limited number of case studies from which to draw generalizations. So while the study found that it was more costly to remediate a brownfield site than to provide infrastructure to a greenfield site, the study's analysis should be considered as proposing a general theoretical construct for appropriately evaluating specific sites, as opposed to generating rules of thumb that can be consistently applied across all brownfields .and gr.eenfields in the region.

~~H:\PROJECTS~l(XCO\\W\.041214-Exec.doc 12 187832~~

~~Attachment F 187832~~

Breakdown of Citv of Portland Mai or Projects and Citywide Proirrams List Type of Project NumberoJ % of Total Total Cost (both %ofTotal Number of %of CostinFC Share ofFC Projects Projects Financially Cost Projects in project Dollars Constrained and CityFC category - NonFC) inFC Active Transoortation 219 75% $ 1,293,097,793 69% 163 74% $ 976,915 666 78% Motor vehicle 35 12% $ 271,082,218 14% 19 54% $ 100,461,305 8% Multi Modal 19 6% $ 251,379,529 13% 12 63% $ 125.868,476 10% ITS/Other 20 7% $ 54,710,717 3% 17 85% $ 53,077,428 4% 293 100% $ 1,870,270,257 100% 211 $ 1,256,322,875 100% 187832

~~Attachment G 187832~~

~~. lit:'::.. -- -~~

• 23 million tons moved through Pbrtland Harbor ···, ·/(°SEA ;~TAC • 22 million tons ,,.~, moved through I Columbia River. ,, · -.\ other lower .~... __ .. ~.... '•- -'"'I.-~ ..,.- ) Columbia River POP ports (international only)

~~• $13 billion value of tonnage trade in Portland Harbor~~

The Portland Harbor tonnage includes both public and 58,000,000 private terminals. The Port of Portland terminals represent about half of the total. The loss of container service that occurred in 2015 would reduce the overall tonnage by about 1.8 million tons.

~~' 2013 toal tonnage 0 PORT OF PORTLAND 187832 187832~~

9200 SE Sunnybrook Boulevard, #410 i Clackamas, OR 97015 Real Possibilities in ~rrr!;I 1-866-554-5360 ; Fax: 503-652-9933 ! TTY: 1-877-434-7598 aarp.org/or 1 [email protected] I twitter: @aarpor Oregon facebook.com/AARPOregon

~~Testimony on Portland Comprehensive Plan January 7, 2016~~

~~My name is Elaine Friesen-Strang. I want to thank the city for its extensive public outreach and for this opportunity to testify.~~

My husband and. I have lived in NE Portland for many years--in fact, our children attended the same public grade and high schools that my husband did. It is our hope that we will continue to live in our neighborhood as we grow older. As with other residents, we have a personal stake in this plan--both for our children who intend to raise their families here, as well as in how our city responds to the needs of an aging demographic.

In addition to being a long-time Portlander, I am here today as a volunteer leader for AARP Oregon. On behalf of the 60,000 AARP members who live in the City of Portland, I thank you for the City's continued commitment and work to make Portland a great place for people of all ages and abilities. We commend you for your guiding principles and emphasis on equity. Specifically, with respect to transportation, we applaud your intent to design a system that accommodates the most vulnerable users.

The fact that Oregon's residents 65 years and older have 83% higher pedestrian fatality than for those 64 years and younger indicates we obviously have work to do. We thank you for putting walking as the top priority and encourage you to continue prioritizing pedestrian safety and accessibility.

~~However, we ask that you move transit to the second place after walking in the transportation mode priority ranking as it currently appears in the plan.~~

According to an AARP study, a man who is 70 years old today is likely to outlive driving by 6 years. A woman who is 70 is likely to outlive her driving ears by 11 years. Fifty percent of people age 50 and older say they could not continue living in their current neighborhood if they could no longer drive. ·

Having mobility options other than driving is critical to enable people to continue living in their own home and neighborhood. In moving transit higher in the priority of transportation modes, you will be serving the greater good--meeting the needs of older adults, families with children who cannot afford a car, and individuals for whom transit is their only option due to physical or mental challenges. Portland needs to make transit a priority so all its residents can meet their needs and live quality lives.

~~Thank you. tltU~ ~~,,,_@,~ Elaine Friesen-Strang U AARP Oregon Volunteer Leader 187832 187832~~

~~Weston Irtvestment Co. LLc A Real Estate Holding Company~~

~~)f({ministratfve Office 21S4 '.N.'E.~~

~~City Council Hearing Proposed Comprehensive Plan Review~~

~~Janumy 7, 2016~~

~~City of Portland~~

~~Mayor Charlie Hales and City CommissioneI:S~~

~~My name is Joseph E. Weston, owner of Weston Investment Co. LLC, located at 2154 NE~~

~~Broadway Street, Portland, Oregon.~~

~~I fom1ed Weston Investment Co. LLC, a 57 year old privately owned company that has developed~~

~~and purchased prope1ty in the Portland area.~~

~~While the initial trust in the 1960 - ?O's was apartment development, the past 35 years has been in~~

~~office, commercial, retail development, and industrial acquisition and development.~~

~~Over the past 57 years I have experienced the process of the City of Portland's revision of its~~

~~zoning code, starting with just the initial zone, R-residential, A-apartment/plex, C-commercial,~~

~~and I-industrial.~~

~~Page I ors 187832~~

~~Then in the 60's we had various break downs of the four alpha zoning designations to indicate the~~

~~amount of land area that is required; R-5 = 5,000 ~quare feet, R-75 = 7,500 square feet, A-25 =~~

~~2,500 square feet, and A-1 = 1,000 square feet, etc., etc.~~

~~This new comprehensive plan that is before you is by far the most difficult to understand and will~~

~~be difficult, in my estimation, to administer.~~

~~Weston investment Co. LLC has three parcels of property within the boundaries of the city that~~

~~we are concerned with the proposed zoning, as what is being proposed is a down zoning in FAR~~

~~and height with the possibility of bonus increase in FAR and height if certain factors are~~

~~incorporated into the development to be built.~~

~~The three areas of concern that I want you to take into consideration are:~~

~~l. Sylvan Heights area (sec picture)~~

This is an area within 2 Y, miles of City Center and the highest and best use of this site G) would be a class "A" office complex in place of the "woody walk up" building constructed in the I960's that are present on the site today.

~~Request:~~

~~WE ASK THAT THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF EG2 BE ASSIGNED TO THIS~~

~~PARCEL OF LAND.~~

~~Page 2 of S 187832~~

~~2. Central City South Lloyd Center area~~

~~1 Close in east side, NE 12 h to NE 20th, NE Sandy Blvd. to I-84 (see map area).~~

~~Over the years Weston Investment Co. LLC has acquired the following large tracts of land~~

~~and improvements owned by:~~

~~A. Jantzen Knitting Mills~~

~~B. Nationwide Insurance~~

~~0 C. Portland Bottling Company~~

~~D. Salvation Army~~

~~E. Lyman Slack Motors~~

~~F. Oregon Plaza Building~~

~~Weston Investment Co. LLC owns approximately 175,000 square feet of land, which~~

~~represents in the vicinity of 40 city blocks as measured by square footage of city blocks~~

~~( see plan attached).~~

~~It was my intention to perhaps do another development similar to what I have been involved~~

~~with in the Pearl District under Hoyt Street Properties LLC, however, because of age and~~

~~the lack of patience, I have decided against this and ultimately the large privately owned~~

~~parcel will be sold for a large scale development. I will, if offered, continue to acquire~~

~~infill prope1ty in the area to add to the land cutTently owned.~~

~~Page3 of 5 187832~~

~~Request:~~

~~THAT THE AREA IN QUESTION BE INCLUDED IN THE ZONING OF~~

~~CENTRAL CITY, AS THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SUBJECT AREA IS~~

~~INDEED CENTRAL TO THE CITY.~~

~~Brent Lower, Executive Vice President of Washington Holdings, which owns property in~~

~~the subject area, has had conversations with Barry Manning, Senior Planner with the City~~

~~of Portland, and l believe through their legal council will be submitting written testimony~~

~~on their property and zoning designation request. Weston Investment Co. LLC is amiable~~

~~to work with Washing Holdings and the City to assure that the zoning designation assigned~~

~~assures that the site can be developed to its highest and best use.~~

~~3. Property East end of the Broadway Bridge~~

~~Property on N. Broadway and Interstate, that property north of the Memorial Coliseum and~~

~~south of the school district property. It is my understanding that this super block ofland is~~

~~now zoned central city and will remain with that zoning and have the same FAR and height~~

~~possibly that are now assigned to the parcel. 0) A few years ago Weston Investment Co. LLC had some preliminary design work~~

~~completed to construct a high rise condominium on the site and still preserve the former~~

~~Benkins Building on the SE corner of the property, which is now occupied for self-storage,~~

~~Page 4 ors 187832~~

~~which there is an immediate need in the core area with all of the apartment constmction~~

~~that provides limited storage on site.~~

~~Request:~~

~~I ITHATTHECURRENTZONINGREMAININPLACE. 11 ·~~

~~I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.~~

~~Thank you for your time.~~

~~Joseph E. Weston~~

~~Page 5 of5 187832 187832 187832 187832 ;; I se:4======;,~~

~~"'0~~

~~, , 0·:"======t I{,~~

~~9 :·"======t E3"~~

~~0 187832 187832~~

~~1120 NW Couch Street 0 > 1.503.727 2000 PeRKINSCOie 10th floor @ • 1.501727 2222 Portland. OR 97209-4128 PerliinsCoie.com~~

~~January 7, 2016 1\-fichnel C. Robinson [email protected] D + 1.503. 727.2264 F. + t.503.346.2264 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY~~

~~Mayor Charlie Hales City of Portland City Council 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 340 Portland, OR 97204~~

~~Re: Agenda Item 28 (Previous Agenda No. 1296); Adoption of New Portland C.omprchensive Plan~~

~~Dear Mayor Hales and Members of the Portland City Council:~~

This office represents Providence Health & Services - Oregon ("Providence"). Providence's appreciates the City Council's consideration of new Portland Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") policies addressing institutions. As explained below, Providence asks that the City Council consider changes to the proposed Campus Institution Plan policies prior to making a final decision. Providence cannot support the proposed Campus Institution Plan policies without the changes requested in this letter.

Providence submitted a letter to the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission (the "PSC") dated March 13, 2015 (Exhibit 1) addressing many of the issues raised in this letter. I have included the letter as an exhibit so that the City Council may see all of Providence's suggestions.

~~The proposed Campus Institution Plan policies are contained in proposed Plan policies 6.55 tln·ough 6.60. Providence raises the following issues for these Plan policies.~~

1. The Plan Policies Should be Adopted before the Campus Institution Land Use Regulations (the Proposed CI-1 and CI-2 Zoning Districts) ue Adopted in Order for the Plan Policies to Inform the Land Use Regulations.

~~The Plan policies establish the City's vision for development. Land use regulations implement the Plan's vision.~~

The proposed Plan policies before the City Council will be adopted concurrently with the implementing land use regulations. An institution supporting the Plan policies cannot be assured that the land use regulations will be as intended since once the Plan policies are adopted, the City has considerable discretion in their implementation.

~~38638·0044/t29299825. t~~

~~Perkins~LLP 187832~~

~~Mayor Charlie Hales January 7, 2016 Page2~~

Providence asks that the City Council consider revisiting the Plan policies following the PSC recommendation to the City Council concerning the CI-I and CI-2 land use regulations. This will allow institutions the opportunity to determine that the final, proposed land use regulations are acceptable.

~~2. Approved Conditional Use Master Plans ("CUMP") Should be Allowed to Continue and Be Extended at the Institution's Option.~~

Almost every health care institution in the City has an approved COMP. The health care institutions have worked hard with their neighbors to develop COMPs that reflect how the health care institution can grow while being a good neighbor to its neighbors. However, the proposed Plan policies say nothing about maintaining and extending the COMPs.

~~Providence asks that the City Council consider adopting the following Campus Institution Plan policy:~~

"Policy 6.61. Existing Conditional Use Master Plans. Existing conditional use master plans represent a commitment by a campus institution and an approval by the City to a certain kind of future growth that has been found to be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Implementing land use regulations should allow for approved CUMPs to be continued and extended at the ca1npus institution's option."

~~3. Existing Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plans Should Continue to be Used.~~

Many of the COMPs, including the COMP for Providence Portland Medical Center, include successful TOM plans. Providence's TOM has successfully reduced single occupancy vehicle ("SOV") trips. The proposed Plan policies should allow for the continuation of approved and successful TOM plans. Providence requests that the City Council consider the following Campus Institution Plan policy:

"Policy 6.62. Transportation Demand l\fanagement Plans. Transportation demand management plans approved as part of a conditional use master plan that have proven to be successful in reducing single occupancy trips and encouraging use of a variety of transportation modes shall be allowed to be continued and, if a new transportation demand management plan is required, an existing transportation demand management plan shall be considered as satisfying at the

~~38638-0044/129299825. I P..t:11-ins [c,?. LLP 187832~~

~~Mayor Charlie Hales January 7, 2016 Page 3~~

~~requirement for a new transportation demand management plan."~~

~~4. Conclusion.~~

Providence appreciates the work that the professional staff, the PSC and City Council have devoted to the implementation of Portland's new Plan. Providence also appreciates the opportunity to be part of the discussion, especially as it affects Po11land Providence Medical Center. Providence respectfully requests that the City Council leave the written record open in order to allow it and other parties the opportunity to respond to testimony presented to the City Council through tonight so that the City Council may have the benefit of the parties' comments on the testimony.

~~Very truly yours, ~C,~ Michael C. Robinson~~

MCR:rsr Enclosure cc: Ms. Dana White (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Karen Weyland! (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Krista Farnham (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Michelle Bernard (via email) (w/ encl.) Mr. Jeff West (via email) (w/ encl.) Mr. Trent Thelen (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Marty Stiven (via email) (w/ encl.)

~~38638-0044/129299825. l 187832~~

~~i 120 fnV Cmxh Stneel 0 +1.501727.2000 PeRKINSCOie 10th floor 0 , 1.503.727 2222 Portland, Oil 'fl!fJH 128 perkin::cole.com~~

~~March 13, 2015 Midrnel C, Robinson [email protected] D (503) 727*2264 F. (503) 346~2264~~

~~Mr. Andre Baugh, Chair City of Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission City of Po1tland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 7000 Portland, OR 97201~~

~~Re: Portland Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") Update; Proposed Policies 6.53-6.58~~

~~Dear Chair Baugh and Members of the Commission:~~

This office represents Providence Health & Services~Oregon ("Providence"). I am writing on behalf of Providence to comment on proposed Plan policies 6.53-6,58 concerning Campus institutions and to offer additional comments on the Plan update concerning Campus institutions. I have attached Providence's previous letter dated November 3, 2014.

Providence continues to support the concepts found in proposed Plan policies 6.53-6.58 for recognition of the importance of Campus institutions to the Portland economy. Providence believes, as it said in its November 3, 2014 letter, that the Plan policies should expressly provide for the following:

• The proposed Plan policies should provide for the implementing land use regulations to allow use of approved Conditional Use Master Plans ("CUMPs") by Campus institutions, such as Portland Providence Medical Center, for existing ClJMPs to be modified, and for new CUMPs to be adopted as an alternative to development under a new zoning district.

• The proposed Plan policies should expressly provide that the Campus institution Plan map designation may be achieved through either legislative, or quasi-judicial implementation. Providence believes that a legislative implementation by the City is preferable to quasi-judicial implementation for a number of reasons. However, if the City proceeds with a legislative amendment, a major institution should be able to "opt out" ol'the legislative amendment, or ifit "opts in" to the legislative amendment, that it be allowed to continue to rely upon an approved, modified or new CUMP.

• The proposed Plan policies and mapping should be adopted concurrently with the implementing Campus institution land use regulations. The City will implement the Plan policies through land use regulations. The land use regulations as adopted may not be satisfactory to major institutions. Concurrent implementation allows major institutions the opportunity to review the land use regulations before the Plan policies arc adopted.

~~JSOJX.110-WLEGAL 125320406. I~~

~~EXHIBITl 187832~~

~~Mr. Andre Baugh, Chair March 13, 2015 Page2~~

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please place this letter in the official file for the legislative amendment and provide me with written notice of the Commission's recommendation lo the Portland City Council.

~~Very truly yours,~~

~~Michael C. Robinson~~

~~MCR:rsr Enclosure cc: Ms. Dana White (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Karen Weyland! (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Michelle Bernard (via email) (w/ encl.) Ms. Marty Stiven (via email) (w/ encl.)~~

~~J803l{-004<1/Ll;OAl. i 25}204UO. I 187832~~

~~Plan: 2035 Re: Rezone SE Clinton Street From: Susan P. Schuster~~

~~To: Portland Oregon City Commissioners~~

Thank you for the opp01tunity to offer feed back on the 2035 Plan. I have lived on SE Clinton Street for the past 20 (+) years. My home was built in 1885, and surrounding homes were built from 1886 to 1906. I have witnessed an increase in residential and commercial building.

~~The Draft Comprehensive Plan rezoned parts of the area under Change 330. After neighbors response, the Planning Commission recommended to continue the current zone: R2, low density residential.~~

I am asking you to keep that zoning. As I understand, a man purchased the property on the corner of SE Clinton Street and 15th Avenue in 2013. The parcel contains 4 houses, three houses on Clinton St and one house on 15th. He has requested a rezoning of those specific houses under the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. He would like to change the zoning from the existing and recommended zoning of R2 to CM 1, commercial mixed use, allowing commercial development. I - and many other neighbors - oppose that change.

~~FOUR ISSUES TO CONSIDER;~~

1. Portland needs more affordable housing; 2. SE Clinton area does not need more commercial options; 3. The employment that could result from increased commercial storefronts will probably be at or slightly above minimum wage; 4. The area cannot support additional commercial activity.

Affordable housing: The City has been grappling with this issue for decades. You are well aware of the overall numbers and the housing crisis. The Draft 2035 Planned proposed re-zoning 13 homes to CM]: 6 on Clinton Street, 2 homes on 16th Ave, 3 on SE Ivon St, and 2 on SE 15th Ave. Six of these ·homes are owned and managed by REACH and the remaining 7 are privately owned. After receiving testimony, that was deleted from the Proposed Plan before you. We need all these homes to remain residential. The homes where a new zoning change has subsequently been requested are between 14th and 15th. These homes could house one family each. Sixteen people is obviously a drop in the bucket. At the same time - it is very significant to those 16 people.

We also request the building at SE I 6th and Clinton, currently an apartment with a street level Naturopathic Clinic (non conforming use) remain zoned R2 and functioning as non-conforming use. This location is surrounded by homes and the existing status provides a vehicle where any 187832

Schuster, 2035 SE CLINTON Page two commercial activities in the building have to consider impacts the the surrounding residences. The HAND Board has testified in opposition to changing the zoning at this site to CM I.

Commercial options: The owner of the parcel of four houses (1420 -1436 SE Clinton and 2717 SE 15th) wants these to be rezoned for commercial use. Some neighbors met with the parcel owner who stated Portland would continue to grow and need commercial services, and at issue is the need for jobs in Portland. The owner asked if we (the neighbors) wouldn't like a movie theater or a bar in the neighborhood. No and no. We have Clinton Street Theater, a video store, the Aladdin. Within blocks there is Night Life, a 'sports bar' at SE 20th and Division, a bar at about 12th and Division that apparently has available a large number of microbrews. He also stated change is coming and we should not stand in the way. I suggest to the City Council that yes, change is always coming and change does not necessarily mean progress. And more is not necessarily better.

I suggest SE Clinton area has enough commercial sites. In 11/2014 I walked throughout the neighborhood from SE 12th and Clinton to SE Division and 26th. At that time I counted more titan 21 restaurants; 3 places to buy coffee ( and beans); 2 grocery stores; yoga studios, tattoo shops; 3 spas; Clinton Street Theater; mental health (private) counseling office; marital arts school; New Day ~chool; Community Gardens; real estate office; and 3 spas. Within walking distance: the Aladdin Theater; Classic Pianos; veterinary office; the Food Pods, many more restaurants; 3 bike shops and more. I have a more complete list available, however it is from November and there have probably been changes. Commercial storefront property exists near 12th and Clinton and around the MAX station area which is not leased and appears available.

~~There is not a need for more coffee shops, restaurants, or bars on Clinton Street. There is a need for affordable housing.~~

Need for jobs: Absolutely agree Portland needs more job opp01tunities. However, the need is for jobs that pay enough to support a family. Clinton Street does not need another job opportunity for a barista.

Arca cannot support additional activity: Clinton Street is a designated Neighborhood Greenway. Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) is currently exploring options to reduce traffic. Commercial development on Clinton Street is contrary to that agenda. 187832

~~Schuster, Clinton Street Page three~~

Think Out Loud (NPR program 9/912015 @ 1220) interviewed Nancy Thornton (Portland Bureau of Developmental Services), Cathy Galbraith (Executive Director Architectural Heritage) and Randy Sebastian (Renaissance Homes). There was discussion about change and growth in Pottland neighborhoods. Among the comments made: vintage homes are the most sought after in residential areas ... people value the beauty about their neighborhood, and it is being lost. There was discussion about air quality and other environmental concerns. A comment was made: we do not have an infinite capacity for population and traffic ..... we cannot accommodate every single person who wants to live here. (please note these comments are paraphrased not direct quotes).

I cannot imagiue the time, energy, expertise, passion, Blood Sweat and Tears that staff and volunteers contribute to designing the 2035 plan. And on the other hand - how exciting to be a part of defining the vision for this City.

~~As a citizen I do want change and I do have a vision. My vision includes:~~

* increased funding for k-12; * decrease number of hungry children, adults throughout the State; * increase mental health services; * increase affordable housing; * improved relationship P01tland Police and the community; * increase jobs with family wages; * improved traffic, streets; • increase affordable, accessible child care; * increase services for people experiencing domestic violence. * decrease the number of men, women and children living in substandard/unsuitable conditions including cars and on pieces of cardboard under the bridges.

~~Thank you. 187832~~

~~222 NW Davis Street • i .r Suite 309 Portland, OR 97209-3900 ('_'.r_',, I_.,, ,·•,I·:' 503.222.1963 It's Your Oregon www.oeconline.org~~

~~January 7, 2016~~

~~Pmtland City Council 1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130 Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Portland's Comprehensive Plan Update~~

~~Dear Council Members,~~

Forty-three years ago, Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) was one of the lead advocates for the adoption of Oregon's unparalleled statewide land use planning framework-legislation that has succeeded in protecting Oregon's productive farms and forests, while fostering cohesive urban areas that use resources efficiently. OEC remains strongly committed to the state's land use planning laws and has continued to play a role in ensuring our cities grow wisely. Chief among our goals is a healthy, stable climate, and we worked with 1000 Friends of Oregon and others to pass.the legislation that spurs Oregon's major urban areas to use climate-friendly transportation and land use planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Portland's comprehensive plan is an essential component of a climate-friendly future. The decisions we make today about what infrastructure to build and where to build it will have climate implications far into the future. We are pleased that Portland's Climate Action Plan is among the foundational documents informing the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

OEC applauds the Plan's commitment to equity. Displacement oflower-income residents and people of color is an unwelcome byproduct of neighborhood improvements. The city must ensure enough affordable housing stock exists to make the city-including the city's core- affordable for young people, the elderly, and low-income residents. This issue must be dealt with head on and with all haste, including advocacy by Portland decision-makers for a removal of the state ban on Inclusionary Zoning.

We understand that one of the most controversial elements of the Comprehensive Plan is Portland's continued commitment to compact development. But, like it or not, the region is growing, and sprawl is simply not an option. Sprawl wastes natural resources, increases air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, costs residents more in taxes for city and county services, and impinges on impmtant economic sectors in Oregon: farming and forestry. Pmtland must do its part to welcome and manage the integration of new residents to the city by developing in a compact way. OEC appreciates the city's commitment to growing "up" not "out" even though density has impacts that not all residents appreciate. Ultimately, having people living closer together is key to addressing climate change and reducing pollution while providing t_he many other community benefits outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.

In addition, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the days of widening freeways and roads to facilitate ever increasing automobile travel are over. Future transportation investments must focus on providing people more transportation options and on building "complete neighborhoods" (aka 20-minute neighborhoods) that allow people to access many of their needs a short distance from their homes. This will help reduce the need to drive and increase healthy physical activity by facilitating more walking and biking.

~~OEC also appreciates the attention to "green infrastructure" in the Comprehensive Plan. As one 187832~~

~~example, stormwater swales are key to protecting water quality and reducing water infrastmcture costs.~~

~~The Comprehensive Plan's focus on compact urban development, more transpmiation choices, · and sustainable infrastructure provides a wide range of benefits.~~

Cleaner air & water and a stable climate: In Oregon, cars and trucks are responsible for more than half of our air pollution and nearly 40% of our greenhouse gases. When we drive less, we generate less pollution- keeping smog and soot at bay and lowering heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. Less driving, along with greener street and parking infrastructure, also protects our rivers and streams because less polluted water mns off our streets and parking lots.

Less e;.pensive infrastructure: Many studies comparing compact growth to sprawl have found that the total costs of buildings, land, infrastmcture and transportation are far less in compact communities. And (at the heart of Oregon's land use planning framework) cmiailing sprawl reduces pressure to expand urban development onto Oregon's valuable farm and forestlands.

Household cost saving & economic benefit: Transp01iation is the second largest expense for most households. In communities with transportation choices, families can save a bundle on cars and gas. In the Portland region,.where residents travel about 20% fewer miles by car than residents of other major U.S. metropolitan areas, transportation cost savings are calculated at $1.1 billion per year. Every dollar not spent on imported oil frees up money for local goods and services that benefit Oregon's economy.

Healthy lifeshJles & more time withfamily: In communities where there are no safe and practical bicycle or pedestrian routes and little or no transit service, people have no choice but to drive. As a result, people spend more time in traffic driving long distances, limiting family time and undermining opportunities for exercise. Complete communities reduce drive times. Safe streets, sidewalks and bikeways make it easier for people make healthy lifestyle choices.

Neighborhoods that people want to live in: \ A 2011 study by the National Association of Realtors found a majority of Americans prefer smart growth neighborhoods over neighborhoods that require more driving between home, work and recreation. This is especially tme of younger Americans. Metropolitan areas are finding that features like bikeways and trails, access to public transportation, and plentiful parks and natural areas are a prima1y factor in attracting talented workers.

~~Thank you for the opp01iunity to provide comment on the Comprehensive Plan.~~

~~Chris Hagerbaumer Deputy Director Oregon Environmental Council (and P01iland resident) 503-222-1963 X102 [email protected] 187832~~

~~Executive Summary~~

~~California is currently debating how to invest greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade auction proceeds so that they result in real, quantiDable and veriDable greenhouse gas reductions.~~

A new analysis of data from Caltrans' California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) completed in February 2013 ·shows that a well-designed program to put more aDordable homes near transit would not just meet the requirements set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), but would be a powerful and durable GHG reduction strategy -directly reducing driving while creating a host of economic and social beneDts.

Conducted by the nationally recognized Center for Neighborhood Technology {CNT), the analysis identiDed 36,000-plus surveyed households that had provided all relevant demographic and travel data and divided them into Dve income groups, living in three types of locations based on their proximity to public transportation:

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as deDned by the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) requires homes be built within a 114 mile radius of a qualifying rail or ferry station or bus stop with frequent service. D

TOD as deDned by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) requires housing to be built within a 112 mile radius of a rail or ferry station, or a bus stop but with lesser frequencies than HCD's deDnition.

~~Non-TOD areas that do not meet either of these deDnitions.~~

Two key Dndings include: Lower Income households drive 25-30% fewer miles when living within 112 mile of transit than those living in non-TOD areas. When living within HCD's 114 mile of frequent transit they drove nearly 50% less.

Higher Income households drive more than twice as many miles and own more than twice as many vehicles as Extremely Low-Income households living within 114 mile of frequent transit. This underscores why it is critical to ensure that low-income families can aDord to live in these areas. 187832

In response to soaring demand from Higher-income households for condos and luxury apartment developments near public transit, there has been a surge of new development. IThe CNT report shows the tremendous greenhouse gas reductions the state can achieve by ensuring that more low-in· come households can also live in. these areas through investment of cap-and-trade auction proceeds.

~~Designing a Cap-and-trade Investment Program that Maximizes GHG Reductions~~

The CNT analysis provides robust evidence that an investment by the state in the creation and preservation of aDordable housing located within 'V4 mile of frequent transit can dramatically reduce GHGs. D

Using conservative assumptions, Transform and the California Housing Partnership calculated that investing 10% of cap and trade proceeds in HCD's TOD Housing program for the three years of FY 2015/ 16 through FY 2017/ 18 would result in 15,000 units that would remove 105,000,000 miles of vehicle travel per year from our roads.

Over the 55-year estimated life of these buildings, this equates to eliminating 5.7 billion miles of driving oD of California roads. Thal equates to over 1.58 million metric tons of GHG reductions, even with cleaner cars and fuels anticipated.

What's more, the State can signiDcantly increase these GHG reductions. The savings in miles driven described above is based solely on location and income, but HCD has a variety of ways their program could further reduce GHGs such as giving priority to developers who provide free transit passes for residents, adjacent carsharing pods, bicycle amenities and who exceed energy and water eD ciency requirements.

~~Finally, Transform and CHPC oDer a methodology for verifying and reporting the reductions. D~~

~~To read the full report please visit: • www.chpc.net • www.transformca.org~~

California Housing Partnership Corporation Trans Form CJJ!ifomia's Experts on A/fordable ~ltt~J ailtm~tlrI!;i~J Housing Fl nonce, Advococy & Policy our communities, our transportation. Our future. 187832

~~;;;: I o7~~

~~UNIVERSITY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TESTIMONY on COMPREHENSIVE PLAN January 7, 2016~~

~~The Board of the University Park Neighborhood and its Land Use Committee requests that you consider the following comments and concerns about the proposed Comprehensive Plan.~~

1) The Water Bureau property known as the Carey Boulevard property be zoned OPEN SPACE. The creation of the Mid Peninsula Trail has created a park like setting. The UPNA's comments to the Planning and Sustalnability Commission requested that this land be OPEN SPACE. Alternatively, the UPNA requests that the current RS zoning be maintained and that the one R2 parcel be rezoned to RS.

This request is based on two heritage trees being on the property, its historical use as a park, and the Equity Goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Two hundred years of experience show that Railroads and Residential Housing are not compatable. This is one of the few parcels in the City of Portland where no residences abut railroad lines. In addition, upzonlng to allow multi-family housing would create an Inequity -- the poorest residents in the neighborhood would live adjacent to a rail line, In an area which already has some of the worst air quality In the US.

This set of parcels is used by over 1200 people every day in the summer to walk dogs, run, bike, play ball, or enjoy the birds and fauna (August 2015 activity census performed by UPNA). It is also used by over 20 and as many as 50 houseless individuals each day of the year.

2) The UPNA Board strongly urges the City Council to FIX a problem created by the current Comprehensive Plan south of Willamette Boulevard and to the east of the railroad line. Five residences are zoned Commercial. The City does not own the bridge and there is a dangerous blind curve at this location which makes vehicular and pedestrian access very difficult. We request that this be DOWNZONED to RS. The addresses of the subject properties are: 6858, 6946, 6838,6832 and 6822 N. Willamette Blvd.

~~3) The UPNA Board urges the City to rezone the property south of Oberlin and east of Minerva to RS to be consistent with the rest of the zoning west of Macrum Ave.~~

4) The UPNA Board DOES NOT support the creation of an Institutional Campus Zone, but WEAKLY SUPPORTS the reclassification of the Baxter-McCormick property as proposed by the proposed Comprehensive Plan to a lower than Industrial employment zone. The UPNA preferred option Is to Reclassify and Rezone the Baxter-McCormick property to OPEN SPACE.

~~5) The UPNA Board and Land Use and Open Space Committees supports the proposed rezoning and reclassification from Industrial to Open Space of a parcel of land south of Willamette Blvd. 187832~~

6) The UPNA Board supports the proposed replacement of the viaduct on Willamette Blvd, the replacement of a private bridge across the railroad on Willamette Blvd. and rail line improvements. It also supports the proposed watershed infrastructure improvements.

7) The Map App did not work properly initially and even in its latest version is difficult to use, loses input and is user unfriendly. It isn't alway clear what map is being examined, the directions were unclear and it wasn't available in any languages other than English. This suggests that it did not adhere to the goals for inclusivity and community input found in the Comprehensive Plan.

~~8) The UPNA Board and Land Use Committee strongly supports the inclusion of a Health Overlay for North Portland as proposed by the North Portland Land Use Group and Neighborhood Association Chairs.~~

~~Submitted, Thomas Karwaki University Park Neighborhood Association Vice Chair & Land Use Committee Chair 7139 N. Macrum Ave Portland OR 97203 253-318-2075 cell [email protected] 187832~~

~~Wendy Chung 1729 NW Irving Street• Portland, OR 97209 • (720.218.2925) • [email protected]~~

~~January 7, 2016~~

~~Mayor Charlie Hales and City Commissioners City of Portland, City Hall 1221 SW 4l" Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 RE: Comprehensive Plan Update - Historic Districts~~

~~Dear Mayor Hales and Commissioners:~~

I am a member of the NWDA Board and its Planning Committee. I am privileged to live in the Alphabet Historic District in northwest Portland. The Historic District enhances livability In Northwest and attracts tourism and development, but out-of-scale, Incompatible apartment buildings are dwarfing historic buildings and homes, jeopardizing its character. This is not an only a Northwest Portland issue. There is a city-wide concern about the destruction of neighborhood character, especially in historic districts.

The draft Comp Plan describes Northwest as an "Inner Ring District" where "historic preservation and design review tools" should be used "to accommodate growth in ways that preserve historic resources and enhance [its] distinctive characteristics." Too often, however, existing tools fail to effectively prevent incompatible development. This is because 1) underlying base-zoning conflicts directly with historic district guidelines such as those that apply to the Alpha.bet Historic District, causing confusion during the development and design review process; and 2) only a small number of Portland's historic properties are protected under our current code.

There are many examples of this in our neighborhood. For instance, my home, and the single- family Victorian houses on either side of it, are zone.d RH, or high-density residential. In fact, much of the Alphabet Historic District is zoned RH or EXd, which allows for 6-story apartment buildings that are inconsistent with the fine-grain, small-scale development contemplated by the Alphabet Historic District Guidelines, which City Council adopted as an addend.um to the Community Design Guidelines in 2000.

While some properties, like mine, enjoy protection from demolition because they are described as "contributing properties" on the US National Register of Historic Places, most of the properties in the Alphabet Historic District and in other historic districts are "non-contributing" and are therefore not protected. Many other historic properties in Portland are located outside of historic districts yet still deserve protection. Thirty years ago, 5,000 properties were listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory "HRI." The list has not been updated since. Many properties originally listed h~ve since been removed. In addition to being incomplete and outdated, the HRI has no teeth because there is virtually no protection for HRI properties under the Portland Code.

The Landmarks Commission has urged Council to update the HRI, and to allow for a mandated waiting period for removal. We support this recommendation and also recommend updating the draft Comp Plan by 1) including protection for all HRI properties and 2) reconcile base-zoning to comport with historic design guidelines.

~~Specific suggestions for editing the draft Comp Plan language are attached. Thank you,~~

~~11 187832~~

~~Wendy Chung 1729 NW Irving Street • Portland, OR 97209 • (720,218.2925) • [email protected]~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~iL! M,;C~~'~- 1~~

~~Wendy Chung~~

~~Encl.~~

~~21 187832~~

~~Wendy Chung 1729 NW Irving Street• Portland, OR 97209 • (720.218.2925) • [email protected]~~

~~Suggested Comp Plan Edits~~

Inner Ring Districts (PAGE GP3-14} The Inner Ring Districts include some of Portland's oldest neighborhoods, with several historic districts and a broad diversity of housing types. These areas include distinct llli!D__ districts, such as Albina and Northwest Portland (within which the Alphabet Historic District resides), that have multiple mixed-use corridors in proximity (see the shaded areas in the Urban Design Framework), allowing most residents to live within a quarter-mile distance of frequent-service transit and neighborhood businesses. The Inner Ring Districts are also served by a highly interconnected system of streets and sidewalks, and are within a three-mile biking distance of the Central City's array of services, jobs, and amenities.

These policies acknowledge that growth in the Inner Ring Districts plays an important role in allowing more people to have access to their many opportunities, but also acknowledge that this growth should be integrated into these areas' historic urban fabric. The Inner Ring Districts, especially along their corridors, play a similar role to Town Centers in accommodating growth.

Policy 3.40 Growth. Expand the range of housing and employment opportunities in the Inner Ring Districts. Emphasize growth that replaces gaps in the historic urban fabric, such as redevelopment of surface parking lots and 20th century auto-oriented development.

~~Policy 3.41 Corridors. Guide growth in corridors to transition to mid-rise scale close to the Central City, especially along Civic Corridors.~~

Policy 3.42 Distinct identities. Maintain and enhance the distinct identities of the Inner Ring Districts and their corridors. Use and expand existing historic preservation and design review tools to accommodate growth in ways that identify and preserve historic resources and enhance the distinctive characteristics of the Inner Ring Districts, especially in-areas experiencing significant development.

Policy 3.43 Diverse residential areas. Provide a diversity of housing opportunities in the Inner Ring Districts' residential areas. Encourage approaches that preserve or are compatible with ~3ege ef existing historic h~properties in these areas. Acknowledge that these areas are historic assets and should retain their established characteristics and development patterns, even as Inner Ring centers and corridors grow,~ by applying adopted historic design guidelines in a manner that takes precedence over conflicting base zoning.

~~Goal 4.B: Historic and cultural resources (PAGE GP4-5) , Historic and cultural resources are integral parts of an urban environment that continue to evolve and are preserved.~~

~~Policy 4.27 Historic buildings in centers and corridors. (PAGE GP4-8)~~

~~Designate, l'2rotect and encourage the restoration and improvement of historic resources in centers and corridors.~~

~~Historic and cultural resources (PAGE GP4-11) 187832~~

~~Wendy Chung 1729 NW Irving Street• Portland, OR 97209 • (720,218.2925) • [email protected]~~

Portland has several hundred designated historic landmarks and historic and conservation districts. These special places help create a sense of place, contribute to neighborhood character, and recognize Portland's history. More than half of Portland's buildings are over 50 years old, creating a vast pool of potentially significant properties to be evaluated for historic designation. These policies support the identification, protection and preservation of historic and culturally significant resources in a city that continues to grow and change.

Policy 4.45 Historic and cultural resource protection. Identify, l'Qrotect and encourage the restoration of historic buildings, places, and districts that contribute to the distinctive character and history of Portland's evolving urban environment.

Policy 4.46 Continuity with established patterns. Encourage development that fills in vacant and underutilized gaps within the established urban fabric, while preserving and complementing historic resources~ by prioritizing historic design guidelines over conflicting base zoning.

Policy 4.47 Demolition. Protect historic resources from demolition. Provide opportunities for public comment, and encourage pursuit of alternatives to demolition or other actions that mitigate for the loss.

~~Policy 4.48 City-owned historic resources. Maintain City-owned historic resources with necessary upkeep and repair.~~

~~Policy 4.49 Historic Resources Inventory. Update and Mregularly maintain aA~~

Policy 4.50 Preservation equity. Expand historic ~reser.·atieA resource inventories, regulations, and programs to encourage historic preservation in areas and in communities that have not benefited from past historic preservation efforts, especially In areas with high concentrations of under-served and/or under- represented people._

~~Policy 4.51 Cultural diversity. Work with Portland's diverse communities to identify and preserve places of historic and cultural significance.~~

Policy 4.52 Cultural and social significance. Encourage awareness and appreciation of cultural diversity and the social significance of both beautiful and ordinary historic places and their roles in enhancing community identity and sense of place.

Policy 4.53 Community structures. Encourage the adaptive reuse of historic community structures, such as former schools, meeting halls, and places of worship, for arts, cultural, and community uses that continue their role as anchors for community and culture.

Policy 4.54 Archaeological resources. Protect and preserve archaeological resources, especially those sites and objects associated with Native American cultures. Work in partnership with Sovereign tribes, Native American communities, and the state to protect against disturbance to Native American archaeological resources.

~~4 jl 187832~~

Testimony to Portland City Council Provided by Maggie Long Executive Director of SEIU Local 49 b 3536 SE 26th Ave SEIU Portland, OR 97202 Stronger Together Re: Promoting livability and affordability via the Comprehensive Plan's updates to Floor-Area-Ratio bonus and transfer options

~~January 7, 2016~~

~~Good evening Mayor Hales and Commissioners,~~

My name is Maggie Long and I am the Executive Director of the Service Employees International Union, Local 49. SEIU Local 49 is a 12,000 healthcare and property service member union. Combined with our brothers and sisters at SEIU Local 503, SEIU is the largest union in the state representing over 65,000 public and private sector workers throughout Oregon and Southwest Washington. Our mission as a union is to improve the quality of life for our members, their families, and dependents by achieving a higher standard of living, by elevating their social conditions, and by striving to create a more Just society.

On behalf of our members, I am here today to voice Local 49's support for the Comprehensive Plan update's process to revise the existing Floor-Area-Ratio bonus system to lncentivize affordable housing, and to further propose the Floor-Area-Ration portion of the Western Quadrant Plan be amended to promote livability and good jobs.

SEIU Local 49 has long been a champion of livability and affordability for working families in the Metro area. We participated in a coalition urging the legislature to end the ban on inclusionary zoning, we opposed the ban on the real estate transfer tax, and we have worked with coalition partners to advocate for more affordable housing in the South SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION Waterfront and appreciate the City's recent commitment towards that effort. LOCAL49 In accordance with those principles, SEIU applauds the on-going effort via the Comprehensive Plan update to revise existing Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) bonus and transfer provisions of the Portland Zoning Code to incentivize affordable housing. But we also feel 3536 SE 26th Avenue strongly that these efforts are not enough to combat the growing challenges facing Portland, OR 97202-290! working families and see the Comprehensive Plan update as an opportunity to make more 503.236.4949 significant improvements for working families. Fax 503.238.6692 Toll Free 800.955.3352 Portland is gaining national recognition as a world-class city with a desirable quality of life, Toll Free Fax 888.595.7979 but working families are being left behind. www.seiu49.org ~®~7

~~1 187832~~

We are seeing an ever-growing income disparity that is pushing working families farther and farther from the City core; for many of our members, affordable housing in proximity to where they work is simply unattainable. Our political program analyzes and maps voter registration data prior to every election and we have seen, year-after-year, striking tn evidence of our members being forced to move deeper into the City's outer zones and SE/ away from their jobs downtown. This reality, combined with stagnant wages and a steady erosion of important benefits such as affordable family healthcare and retirement security, Stronger Together give rise to a host of additional hardships disproportionately borne by working families.

This growing inequality is not who we want to be as a city and is inconsistent with the vision espoused by our Comprehensive Plan. The benefits of Portland's prosperity should be shared by all residents, and not just the wealthy few. Portland's development sector is booming again with dozens of new commercial and residential projects in the works, but the City could do more to ensure that working families get to share in this progress. Our built environment should reflect our City's commitment to livability, and we are presented with such an opportunity now via the update to the Comprehensive Plan and its proposed updates to the Floor Area Ratio bonus and transfer provisions.

The Western Quadrant component of the Comprehensive Plan contains import,mt recommendations for substantially intentivizing the creation of additional affordable housing. Calibrating the density bonuses in favor of affordable housing could be a powerful way to reflect and achieve the City's affordable housing goals and values. Creating a mechanism for a cash contribution towards an affordable housing fund would likewise provide an important avenue for developers to reach their desired density while helping to ensure that Portland is a city that works for all of its residents.

There is, however, a crucial component missing from these current recommendations. Access to. affordable housing is of critical importance to working families, but so is access to good jobs. Local 49 therefore proposes a Floor Area Ratio bonus and transfer option aimed at ensuring the Jobs created by new developments are good, quality jobs. Developers enjoy numerous financial benefits resulting from increased building density; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION likewise, the people that work to build, clean, and secure our City's buildings deserve a fair LOCAL49 shot at participating in Portland's growing prosperity. To that end, a Floor Area Ratio bonus and transfer provision should be created that incentivizes the creation of jobs In our community that provide a family wage, meaningful benefits, and important worker protections. 3536 SE 26th Avenue Portland, rn 97202-290! With the City's rising development momentum coinciding with the Comprehensive Plan 503.236.4949 update, the time is now to consider new ways for the City's code to incentivize community Fax 503.238.6692 benefits. I urge the Council to accept these recommendations as we move forward with Toll Free 800.955.3352 the process of updating the Floor Area Ratio bonus and transfer provisions. Toll Free Fax 888.595.7979 www.seiu49.org Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. ~®~1

~~2 187832~~

~~January 7, 2016~~

~~Name: Eileen Wallace~~

~~Mailing Address: 8716 SW 21" Avenue, Portland, OR 97219 Email Address: [email protected]~~

~~Testimony: Regarding property located at: 4001-4007 SW Collins Street, Portland, OR 97219 in regard to Portland's Comprehensive Plan~~

My name is Eileen Wallace. I want to thank you for this opportunity to be in front of you today and thank you for your ongoing efforts in Portland's Comprehensive Plan project. I am providing testimony today regarding a 4-plex I purchased in 2004 and previously resided at for several years after graduating from college. It is located in SW Portland at 4001-4007 SW Collins Street, Portland, OR 97219, off of SW 41'1 and Barbur Boulevard, on an unimproved, gravel road, directly across from the Barbur Boulevard Transit Center, and kitty corner to the City of Portland water maintenance facility and a variety of commercial businesses and multi-family units.

I am requesting that City Council re-designate my 4-plex from its current designation of Rl Multi- Dwelling to Mixed Use - Urban Center. It is contiguous to other properties with this Mixed Use - Urban Center or similar designation, and within the boundary lines of the West Portland Town Center project.

As a young adult and native Oregonian, born and raised in SW Portland, I am invested in the future of this area, currently living in a nearby single family house off of SW 21" and Barbur Boulevard. I hopefully will be around to be an active participant in changes related to and the implementation of Portland's Comprehensive Plan for years to come.

My proposed request also supports any future changes related to the West Portland Town Center project and the SW Corridor high-speed transit plan that may affect this area, as well as any development that will be needed to streets, storm water systems, sidewalks etc. that would accompany such projects. These projects may be years out but I would like the opportunity now to re-designate my 4-plex to Mixed Use-Urban Centerto be more consistent with neighboring properties in this specific area, and to have the flexibility to be more in line with providing a mix of residential and commercial space where residents can live, work and play.

My current tenants use bike or bus as their primary means of transportation to get to their jobs and/or to nearby colleges such as the PCC Sylvania campus and Portland State University downtown. Previous tenants have been single parents who relied on the bus transit center as their only means of transportation for themselves and their children. This is possible due to my 4-plex's convenient location directly across from the bus transit center.

However, improvements in the area need to be done, as the lack of sidewalks, unimproved roads, high traffic and limited street lighting do not always make it as convenient or safe for adults and children to rely solely on public transit or walk to nearby businesses. As a single, working mom of a 3 year old daughter, I understand more than ever the importance and convenience of having employment opportunities, housing options and safe areas where kids can play, nearby.

I am invested in this area and my property, doing what I can as a property ownerto invest in my 4-plex and surrounding areas, for example, shortly after purchasing my 4-plex, I entered into a contract with Portland General Electric to install a street light across from my property, providing lighting also to the

~~Page 1 of 3 187832~~

nearby veterinary clinic, City of Portland water building and neighboring duplex that was previously non- existent. I was able to personally witness my investment increasing foot traffic in the area, specifically forthose walking to use the Barbur transit center. This is one example of the many investments I am willing to make to the area that not only benefitmy 4-plex and tenants but that also that benefit the surrounding area.

I have owned the property for 12 years and I hope that I will be around for decades to come, and my daughter, for many more decades to come, to help envision and implement these plans. I see great potential for this area and I would like to be an active part of this change. This re-designation to Mixed- Use Urban Center would allow me to have the flexibility to provide an opportunity to potentially have a mix of residential and commercial space for small business owners, adults and children to live, work and play, all of which are very important for generations to co.me. Thank you for your time and consideration of my proposal.

~~Below is a map diagram depicting my proposal to re-designate the property from Rl Multi-Dwelling to Mixed Use - Urban Center.~~

~~Current~~

~~Page 2 of 3 187832~~

~~Proposed~~

~~Tha.nk you, / ~ c--. .c:-=::::,~-'-- Eileen'Wallace eileen.wallace@$mail.com~~

~~Page 3 of 3 187832~~

~~Portland City Council January 7, 2016 Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 1700 Portland, OR 97201~~

~~RE: City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Update -- 2135 NW 29th Ave~~

~~Dear Council:~~

We are currently under contract to purchase a 55,000 SF parcel of land located at 2135 NW 29th Ave (Tax IDs: R307720 & R307719). The sites are bounded by NW Niccolai St. on the North, NW 29th Ave. on the East, NW 30th Ave. on the West, and NW Wilson St. on the South.

The property is located in an underutilized 'transition area' where single family homes directly abut light industrial uses. The property Is currently zoned EGl and EGl(b) and is located just south of the Guild's Lake Industrial Sanctuary (across NW Nicolai St.), and directly adjacent to the established Willamette Heights neighborhood to the west - just one block north of Forrest Park. The southernmost parcel currently abuts residential uses along and across NW Wilson Street, creating an awkward and harsh transition between industrial and residential uses. See site plan (Exhibit A).

Currently, both EGl and EGl(b) zones allow residential as a Conditional Use, but residential uses are slated to be removed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. We are therefore requesting that the Council support the preservation of residential and mixed uses in this transition area to promote better compatibility between existing residential and light industrial uses, and to maintain the existing residential character along NW Wilson Street.

We have discussed preliminary development plans with the Northwest District Association (NWDA) and have begun outreach to immediate neighbors as well. Both groups have indicated initial verbal support for a project that preserves residential uses along NW Wilson and a mixture of uses on the balance of the property.

Given the timing of the Comprehensive Plan Update and its mission to manage land development in the face of .dwindling industrial stock and high residential demand, we believe a recommendation from Council in support of our proposal represents an appropriate "fine grain" adjustment to the Plan Update to protect existing residential neighborhoods and ensure a successful long-term buffer between potentially conflicting uses in the future. With Council's support, we would work closely with Staff, the NWDA, and immediate neighbors to determine the most appropriate zoning (per the pending Comprehensive Plan Update) to preserve both the benefits of Employment zoning and the residential benefits that the neighborhood desires.

Thank you for considering our proposal. We also want to thank Joan Fredericksen of Portland Planning staff for advising us in our efforts regarding this proposal. We appreciate the work the City Is doing to ensure that Portland uses its land supply wisely to promote a prosperous, healthy, and diverse economy for all Portlanders. -z;:,-H Travis A. H1;;:;;r Senior Vice President of Development Cairn Pacific, LLC

~~1015 NW 11 • Avenue. Suile 242 I Po,tlond O,egon 97209 I WWW.CAIR/iPACfflC.COM 187832 187832~~

~~Comprehensive Plan Testimony January 7 2016 Laurie Kovack~~

I live in SE Portland in the area between Belmont and Stark and 26th and · 30th. This area is proposed for a zoning change from single family R 5 and R2.5 to multi family R1 and R2. I am opposed to this change. I do not think it is fair to change the zoning of single family properties to allow 45 foot tall buildings to be built next door.

Our neighborhood has more density than most, with a pleasant mix of housing types. Many are historic buildings built before 1930, and used as single family homes, duplexes, and triplexes. We also have a handful of apartments built in the ?Os and 80s, and a few older apartment and condo buildings. The primary thing that makes this mix of housing types work is the fact that the vast majority of the buildings are two story.

On the July 2014 Proposed Comprehensive Map Plan Designations most of the single family zoning in our neighborhood was left in place. The areas proposed for changes were capped at R2. No R1 zoning changes allowing 45 ft tall buildings were proposed. Most of the neighborhood members I talked with were OK with these changes. The zoning change to R1 came after the the community meetings with the July 2014 map proposals. ~ d-icl Vl~t- fqa-\ --\k )\ew ~ .+e:s+'.0.i , The primary advocates for the up zoning to R1 and R2 are apartment owners and investors who do not live in the area. There are no vacant lots being considered for the proposed up zoning, which leads to the conclusion that the investors are looking to demolish the existing buildings and construct as big a building as possible in their place. Under the proposed R1 zoning that would be 45 feet.

~~I ask the City Council to leave our zoning in place with no changes. If you~~

1 decide not to do that I would like you and the planning department to create a compromise that does not include any R1 zoning. This could be accomplished by stepping back to the the zoning changes proposed on the Comprehensive Map Proposal published in July 2014. · 187832

I also ask you to delay any final decisions implementing zoning changes for our neighborhood until the planning department's current single family residential infill project, and companion multi dwelling zone projects are complete. This would allow our neighborhood to be evaluated with the information developed under those two studies, considering appropriate density, light, height, privacy, and parking standards, before deciding on any zoning changes for our neighborhood.

~~Respectfully submitted,~~

~~Laurie Kovack 736 SE 28th Ave Portland OR 97214 187832~~

From: Frnstmm m- /f'Wo'ml To: """-' ~ St® P,;:h;)rah· To::icre;ro hf,r Srr:ttnn Marlv ( ""SubJedt Re: EaS~rd i:resmre n;;ededat C.00-,prehe'lsh'e Plan rrea;,,g Date: Sab.n!a-1, 1".arth 21, 2(115 1:26:47 PM

~~Eden,~~

~~Ifthere is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, l'd focus on this:~~

~~t) The 4000 comments is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March 10. That date was simply one of 7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 pl!blic hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including tfarch 24, April 14, May 12, ?\fay 26.

3) The residential density topic is scheduled for the March 24 session, but it is scheduled between approximately 5:45 and 6:45. There are several other topics scheduled earlier on the same work session, which starts at 3.

~~4) All staff rep:nts are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tue.sdais schedule on their Facebook page or Nextdoor? fd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~- Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11 :45 AM, Gmail wrote:~~

~~Ye-s. The misinformation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial... ( Sent from my iPad On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, "Dabbs, Eden" wrote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Next door post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. StL<:an, etal- We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. Dl<• Dabb,. CqnnulotJ.,.. .W..Nk Affil<1 Citycl'l\,rtilnJ~nclP\.!n-~,nl~tilil)· pS City progum>, senk;s wd a.:11\il><,. th.l City of PC

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: suY1nbncbodeNon@gmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensh'e Plan meeting Reply·To: rep)y+GE4DMNRRHA3V64DSN5SFJKY31JNFX\V4X2QJ5JYIXZRGAYDSNRYC,Q4Q::==@)'astmoreJandornextdoorcom

_j!( RQlxct i\fcQd/msgh, fastmm:elaod I FAD lRar Neighbors: Re: Residential lots of record and zone changes We request the honor ofyour presence in silent protest at the Planning and ( Sustainability Commission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 187832

;8'. Robert McCullough, Easbnoreland LEAD De.ar Neighoors: Re: Residential lots ofmord and zone changes ( We request the honorofyOUf presence in silent protest at the Planning and Sustainability Commis.sion(PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Cornmis.sion \\ill discuss 'Residential Densities." The PSC \,ill consider requested and/or proposed zoning changes and 'historic lots ofre..'Ord" policies in se•,eral neighborhood.5 under consideration for zooing appropriate for the context Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighbomoods was disregarded in the stafl's forced march to prep;rre their report and recommendations on testimony before the testimony was due. The issues a;; framed for the PSC regarding Eastmoreland are presented and discounted in a way that could be characteriwi as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of en'llts: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staff oomments issued March IO, 2014: PSA Worlc Session March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in the que.,tioos posed and then recommended for rejection_ The swres of comments favoring change on the "Map App" have hem distilled into a cur:soiy sent enc.: followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was filed as part of the testimony. The March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns' was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is e:..--pected to focus on the local is.sues on a city wide basis. However the 51:aff report and rerommendations 5tand Planning staffmeived 4000 items of testimony in the dosing we.>k alone and are in process of dig~ting. Our position that staff have ample time to digot all testimony and to communiCil.te with reroyiized organizations.especially Neighborhood Associations- to verify that their concerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addressed_ Again, please' attend on Tuesday Man:h 24 at or before 4pm (or as early as 3pm) at 1900SW 4thA-... e, Rm 2.500, street or basement parking or bus 19, to observe the discus.sion and silently express your ooncem PS At this time materials for the Ma«:h 10 PSC work session are not available to ( the public on the website_ We will update,~henavailable. The posted agenda (btwffmvw p,:utlwdmrgoo 0 m"ll,ps'artic1 ) is as follows. Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items of lntere-st from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 p.m. Consent Agenda Consideration of.Minute;; from 3/10/15 PSC meeeting 3:05 p.m. Compcehensive Plan Update- W(Hk session PP&R Transportation Nonconforming Uses Residential Densitie;; Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn

~~rusmessageis~nkdf«Fl'"'"''"·"-\"''·,~·-~;,. .,,,,,tm,,, J[t"'WJ:ih;;: Qf?li"fil)'"'' rro,.;I 'S~~

~~( 187832~~

from: s, 191 M:'iITT9o To: frml:rnrn frj,;; (E"aY:o'm) ~St&t D&:nirlJJQtw;m llRa·SJ:rttrrl t:'#tf '"Subject: Rt:E~presence~at~,-ef'lai~ ( Date: Sa!urday, l'...-ch 21, 2{)151;-40:39 P'M Please connect with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can get the word out.

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~On Mar2l, 2015, at 1:26 PM, ~Engstrom, Eric (Planning)" wrote:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to corre<:t a few things v,ith this group, l'd focus on this:~~

~~I) The 4000 commerits is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March 10. That date was simply one of7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May26._

3) The residential density topic is scheduled for the March 24 session, but it is scheduled between approximately 5:45 and 6:45. There are several other topics scheduled ear Her on the same work session, which starts at 3.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or Nextdoor? I'd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~• Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad ( On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail wrote:~~

~~Yes. The misinformation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial..~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 Af.1, ·Dabbs, Eden~ wrote:~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin fonwrded message:~~

From: NextdoorEastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 Ai.\iPDT To: snsanhod:8nderson0lgmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensh·e Plan meeting Reply-To: reply+GF4DMNRRH A3VMPSN5SHKY3I JNFXW4X2QI5 JYIXZRQAYDSNE YGQ4~eastmoreJandor ne::ddoor com ( 187832

(

~~,. ·,~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~from: To: ~SM PsM:atrJ1:Y:,n:;)sro k&rsmdrtw H;:rt, "''S11bjed: Re: Eastmxe'ard ixesm:e nee:e:I at Cornprehe-.sr,-e ~n meet'rlg ( Date: SahBday, Ma/th 21, 201S t,26:47 PM~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, l'd focus on this:~~

~~l) The 4000 comments is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March IO. That date was simply one of 7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesda)~S schedule on their Facebook page orNcx1door1 I'd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~• Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail wrote:~~

~~Yes. The misinfonnation flying around on Nex1door posts is substantial...~~

~~( Sent from my iPad On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 A.t\il, "Dabbs, Eden" wrote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Nextdoor post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Su.'ll!l, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. l'.d.!i1.DlbbJ, C'o,..,nk~t»nl'o.Nk A!Ttlr, C'ity<:ll\.~B<.n~·,«.Pbn.';,,,,irnSmt,irnb--:i:J p:5<)3813 95(<3 lc :-OJ 260 HOl lfS<)J 823 nix, s-±oi.-rih, 1,:, tho,,..... BPS E.,,....-.Mlor at: ww maJm'rrt:tw w,·lm To help eru,,.e eq,.nl ;,.;= to Cily pro~s, ~l\kes =.i a;tnitie,, the City C'f Pool=d will pi!ities.. For a,;;,:o:nmc,btioos, trarubllons, ,omphin.ts, and .!JJitl..'llll informillc"1. w,,.ta-t me, C311303.$l3-ti947, City TIY :5-03.823~,<){use Ore~ Rdsy &nk.:: 711. From: Gmail Imailto-sn'-1nhackm1Qer:scm@gmail rnm] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:25 Af..1 To: Dabbs, Eden; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stein, Deborah Subject: Fwd: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Much of this is incorrect....like the 4000commcnts in the last week. .. Also we delayed hearing the eastmoreland part so that PSC could review their comments Deborah, what do you think about calling him? And ask him to correct the misinformation.

~~Sent from my iPad~~

Begin forwarded me-ssage: From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: s11s-1oh.1ckandm;on@gmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensh·e Plan meeting Reply-To: rep1y+Qf4PMNRRHA3V64DSNSSHKY3T JNFX\Y4X2QJSNJXZRGAYPSNRYGQ4Q======{g!easrmorelandm nextdoor com

-=-ili Roih?rt :>.[c01J!ongb, Eastmwland I FAQ Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots ofre1:ord and zone changes We request the honor of your presence in silent protest at the Planning and ( Sustainability Commi,-sion (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 187832

:U'. Robert McCullough, Ea.strnoreland LEAD Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots of record and zone changes ( We request the hooor of your presence in silent protest at the Planning and Sustainability Commission(PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave. Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Com.mission will discuss "Residential Densities." 1he PSC will consider requested and/or proposed zoning changes and 'historic lots of record' policies in several neighborhoods und« considmtioo for zoning appropriate for the context Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the stafl's forced march to prepare their report and m:ommendations on testimony b.:fore the testimony was due. 1he is.sues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastmorelandare presented and discowtted ina way that could be characterized as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of events: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staff C(ll11]Ilents is.sued March !O, 2014; PSA Work Session March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misreixesented in the ~stions posed and then recommended for rejection_ The srores of comments favoring change on the "Map App" haYe been distilled into a cursory sentence followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was filed as part of the testimony. The March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns" was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is expected to focus on the local issues on a city wide basis. HoweYer the staffreJX)rt and ieromrnendatioos stand Planning staff received 4(0) items of testimony in the closing w~k alone and are in process of digesting_ Our position that ~affhave ample time to digest all testimony and to communicate with recognized organiz.ations-especially Neighborhood Associations• to verify that their concerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addressed. Again, please" attend on Tuesday March 24 at oc before 4pm (or as early as 3pm)at 1900SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500, street or basement parking ocbus 19, to observe the discussion and silently express your concern PS At this time materials for the March JO PSC work session are not m-ailable to ( the public on the website. We wlll update v.hen available. The posted agenda (btrp-lfo:ww p,•11'aorkw:goo 0 m·'1!JJs.'artid ) is as follows_ Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items of Interest from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 pm_ Consent Agenda Consideration of Minutes from.3/10/15 PSC mees:ting 3:05 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Update -·work session PP&R Transportation Nonconfoon.ing Uses Residential Th!rnities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn 1L:lL21.in ~ to Yflllf n-i.,hh.•rhmvl

~~Jhaok PriYate mrn-a"e~~

~~rus~i..,ir&nk.lfor,i:,.·h, \,,,h-,,~;, "" ,1 1,-,-, trwk,;rij,• N"'ih:JS 'MFID'i)~~

~~( 187832~~

~~continued interest in the Residential Infill project and neighborhood development issues.~~

( As you are likely aware, we are in the early phases of developing the project work plan. It is common during this phase that there are misunderstandings about the project details - both internally and within the community. This will be resolved once we have a project website and information materials available.

As part of developing the scope, I would like to meet to discuss the project and your ideas in more detail. Please feel free to contact Morgan Tracy, project manager, at 503-823- 6879, to arrange a time.

~~Even before we meet, I wanted to clarify some of what this project will and won't do.~~

1. Scale of houses. The project will evaluate the zoning rules that specify maximum heights (and how that is measured), minimum setbacks, building coverage, outdoor area dimensions, and potentially new rules related to floor to area (FAR) requirements, impervious.coverage limits, in addition to exploring variations that respond to the three pattern areas (i.e. west, inner, and east Portland).

2. Narrow lot development. The project will examine suitable lot dimensions for new development. This ties in with the lot confirmation issue for "skinny" lots. The project will also look at what standards should apply to development on narrow lots including where they are appropriate, whether detached houses would be allowed, ( in addition to height, lot coverage, setbacks, etc. 3. Alternative housing options. The project will explore existing and other means of integrating alternative housing types into neighborhoods while respecting the character of the area. Initial concepts include internal house conversions in existing houses, secondary accessory dwelling units, cottage cluster development, and stacked flats (an alternative to side-by-side attached units).

This is quite ambitious within the 18-month schedule given the range of issues and opinions on these topics. That means certain issues will not be on the table for this project including demolition/deconstruction rules, addressing design standards, accessory structures ( such as detached garages), systems development charges, micro kitchen and other multi- dwelling development, or moveable homes (aka tiny houses on wheels).

· A number of these are being or will be addressed by other projects in the future, but as you know, we have a Comp Plan Update to complete first and foremost. I am excited by the opportunity this project presents to revamp our zoning code to respond to the current residential market pressure, and I hope you are too.

~~Thanks~~

~~Joe Zehnder Chief Planner Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 503-823-7815 ( 187832~~

~~concerns with the scoping both in the earlier draft provided by Matthew Roberts and as outlined in your summary below. Some high profile examples: (~~

1. The "three Portlands" idea did not gain traction in the year long residential PEG deliberations and it is not clear why this continues to be considered appropriate or constructive as a vehicle to visualize Portland's future neighborhoods.

2. Recognizing historic lots of record outside of the R2.5 zone is the single most egregious problem in the single family code in terms of encouraging inappropriate infill and Alice in Wonderland zoning. The PSC on May 12 was assured by senior staff that the subject project was designed to address the problem. Narrow lot development does not cover the topic. This is a major regulatory driver encouraging demolition. It does not appear in the scoping.

3. "Alternative housing options" certainly opens the door to further compromises to the RS and R7 designations. it could be an interesting subject to explore. But based on the PEG experience which did consider the issue, it is not clear that there is a significant constituency or agenda for including this in the scope.

We are indeed supportive of the need to reform the single family code (. assuming that the scoping is supportable, the purpose is to bring clarity, and assuming that the intent is to recognize and enhance the rich variety of distinctive neighborhoods in the city. Given the intensity of concern about these issues city wide I look forward to meeting with you and Morgan to discuss further.

~~Regards, Rod~~

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB llillilii~AmhlI~"'.PJiruimli Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

From: "Zehnder, Joe" To: "merrick map@yahoo com 11 Cc: 11 Dingfelder, Jackie" <,Jackie Dinafelder@portlandoregon gov>; 11Anderson, Susan" ; "Tracy, Morgan ( Planning)" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 PM Subject: FW: BPS residential infill project: ie Single Family Home Development Code Project

~~Rod, Jackie Dingfelder forwarded your email to the Mayor's office to me. Thank you for your ( 187832~~

~~From: Mannina Sany To: Zehnder Joe; Engstrom Ede (Planning) ( Subject: RE: BPS residential Infill project: I.e. Single Family Home Development Code Project Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:54:55 AM~~

~~Joe:~~

~~My recollection of the residential PEG is that there were few issues that had full agreement or were full resolved. Here's what I recall on these issues :~~

#1. Pattern area differences did get some traction, but people felt that there would be many exceptions, etc. So there was caution. I think Rod's perspective is that a generic 5-Portland's approach is not detailed enough. I'd say this was echoed by other group members too. Here's excerpts from the PEG summary document on this:

"A pattern area approach holds potential to broadly address context-sensitive design, however five pattern areas are not sufficient to address more detailed design issues in the many Pmtland residential neighborhoods that are so varied in design and style."

"Five Portlands - pattern areas. Treating development in different patts of the City differently is generally a good idea. However, five areas are not enough to adequately address the issue in detail and likely will not fit the many Portland residential neighborhoods that are so varied in design and style. Additionally, it is unclear if the pattern areas are intended to also reflect the natural environment (not just architectural or built), which could include natural hazard ( areas, creeks, and green spaces. Concerned that the five areas will lead to additional layers of standards and conflicts. Be cautious that this approach is not counter to ensuring equity throughout the city.

"Infill scale and massing. Scale and massing of new infill development must be handled differently and better than it is today. A pattern-area approach does not appear to fully resolve the issue. Massing is integral to context-sensitivity."

#3. We did discuss this but I'd say the group was split. Eli Spevak was the greatest supporter of these ideas while Rod Merrick was much more inclined to support the one house on one lot approach. There was discussion on this topic centering on the "truth in zoning" topic too - if we are allowing multiple units on a lot, what do we call that? Here's some excerpts from the PEG summary document on this:

"Portland should allow flexibility to encourage better use of existing housing stock, as well as new housing, to meet multiple goals, including providing equitable access to housing opportunities, responding to the needs of a changing demographic, increasing housing unit supply, continuing the care and use of existing structures, maintaining affordability, and encouraging compatibility. o Consider adding a policy to address reuse or 'refill', which could include reorganization of large homes/ other structures into more than one dwelling unit or other ways to get more efficient use from an existing and contextually appropriate structure."

~~"Transparency. There needs to be greater clarity/transparency about development potential on ( historic lots so neighbors understand the development potential. Raising zoning densities to 187832~~

match underlying lots can dramatically change character of an area and neighborhoods. Comprehensive plan should be intentional about development types and zoning allowances need to more directly reflect the vision of the Comprehensive Plan." (

"Comprehensive Plan Map Designation description updates. Consider using form-based standards language, rather than number of units per acre, to describe what is allowed in each designation. Use bulk, massing, height, etc. to describe the allowances. PEG recommends changing titles to be inclusive of all residential types by density/ intensity, for example: 'low- density residential' rather than 'low-density multi-dwelling'. This could begin to address some of the transparency concerns."

~~Hope that helps.~~

~~Barry~~

Barry Manning I Senior Planner Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue #7100, Portland, OR 97201 503.823.7965 (p) I 503.823.7800 (f) barry.manoiog@portlandoregon gov From: Zehnder, Joe Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:59 AM To: Manning, Barry; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: FW: BPS residential infill project: ie Single Family Home Development Code Project

~~Please look at points 1 and 3 he makes below and let me know how the Residential PEG discussions seemed from your POV. Thanks. (~~

From: Rod Merrick Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 8:38 PM To: Zehnder, Joe Cc: Dingfelder, Jackie; Anderson, Susan; Tracy, Morgan ( Planning); Stockton, Marty Subject: Re: BPS residential infill project: ie Single Family Home Development Code Project

~~Hi Joe, Thanks for the invitation to discuss the scoping for the single family project. I have been out of town and out of time until today. I will schedule with Morgan a time that we can talk.~~

As a volunteer for the Residential PEG, as land use co-chair for Eastmoreland and as an architect active in designing attached and detached single family houses on Portland's east side I have a good sense of where the issues with the current zoning code are particularly acute.

In previous emails to Jackie and to Josh Alpert (and earlier testimony provided to the PSC), I and others have identified the issues of "truth in zoning" and "zoning for context" as overriding and underlying thematic concerns that are not being addressed. These and other issues are ( \ 187832

From: Zehnder Joe To: Engstrom Eric (Planning); Armstrong, Tom; Edmunds, Sallie; Wood Sandra; Martin, Kevin; Anderson Susan ( Cc: Jacob Andria Subject: RE: AGENDA: Susan chk In Monday Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 11:07:44 AM

-----Original Message----- From: Zehnder, Joe Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 1 :29 PM To: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Armstrong, Tom; Edmunds, Sallie; \Vood, Sandra; Martin, Kevin; Anderson, Susan Subject: AGENDA: Susan chk in Monday

11 :30 Prep for 6/23 PSC and commissioner amendments - Eric. 12:00 Prep for Bonus work session - Sallie, Kathryn 12:30 Update on Comp Plan communications strategy - Andria Updates: mtg w/ eastmoreland re: SF project, PBOT concerns re: Green Loop, mtg w/ 1000 friends

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

(

~~( 187832~~

information to prepare an offer. Mindful of the fact that the house was in need of some expensive repairs, and tallying up the costs of selling commissions, staging, business time lost and the inconvenience of showing the home for an uncertain amount of time made the idea of a quick sale ( especially attractive. Joseph spent a fair amount of time explaining his intention to add a bedroom, make the master bedroom a master suite off the rear of the house, and to add a garage with a mother in-law above on the northwest corner of the lot with an entry from Rex. In essence, to increase the square footage of the house leaving the original integrity of the house intact. This made perfect sense considering what the market will currently bear for a lot this size and a home with the kind of square footage he was talking about. A few days later, we received a very respectful 'as is' offer which met our expectations, and allowed us ample time to find the ideal home we were looking for.

Once the closing of escrow had taken place, we noticed a different name on the title-Eden Enterprises LLC. Shortly after, while we were packing the last of our belongings, several people who now had keys to the house entered and introduced themselves as representatives of Renaissance Homes. We asked them what they were doing there and were told that they were just reviewing the property with a realtor. News of the demolition permit came yesterday and as of now, all of this is looking like some sort of ruse. We never had any idea that the house would end up in the hands of Renaissance Homes and, unfortunately, we only have the word of Joseph Taylor that their intention still is to leave the house intact in some fashion and renovate.

~~We sincerely apologize for what has transpired, and we will keep you informed as we find out more information, ( Dale and Linda~~

~~Here is Joseph Taylor's email if you care to voice your concerns: [email protected]~~

~~------End of Forwarded Message~~

~~( 187832~~

~~( Begin forwarded message: From: Michelle Gringeri-Brown Subject: FW: 3030 S E Rex Date: May 15, 2015 at 9:52:24 AM PDT To: James Brown~~

~~------Forwarded Message From: LINDA Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:49:39 -0700 To: diane odell Subject: 3030 S E Rex~~

~~To concerned neighbors on Rex and 31st Streets,~~

We were completely shocked to find out that our former house on the corner of Rex and 31st has been put up for the 35-day demolition review by Renaissance Homes with the City of Portland. This news comes as much of a surprise to us as it no doubt does to you. (The sale of our home · had nothing whatsoever to do with Renaissance Homes.) Upon receiving word of this, we have contacted the buyer of the house to find out what has happened. He has informed us that as of now, and due to the recent changes in building and renovation requirements by the City of Portland, they are required to inform immediate neighbors of changes to exterior structural walls in the case where major changes beyond a certain percentage are imminent. And in the process of planning changes to the home, which we were fully aware there would be from the beginning in selling the house to PDX Renovations, they have decided there now is a possibility the house might have to be demolished because they are unable to make certain changes to the house that they originally thought they could do due to setback issues, etc. We are wondering why that would be the case, yet the city of PDX would approve a demolition. What a shame that it could ever be approved. Maybe our mayor, who lives in the neighborhood, would have some insight on that. Some neighborhoods in PDX are protecting their homes, and have restrictions, (ie Ladds Addition), but unfortunately not the case in Eastmoreland.

~~We now feel obligated to explain further what has taken place from the beginning of this process:~~

After 20 years of enjoying and caring for the house and large lot we decided that we were ready for something smaller. We began the process of selling with a realtor at the beginning of the year, when we were contacted by Joseph Taylor at POX Renovations. Our very first question to him was whether or not he would tear down the house or split the lot. He immediately replied (and we have documentation of this) that he had never demolished a home, and directed us to his web site containing many vintage Portland homes which had been tastefully updated with respect to the character and originality of the home. We researched references, testimonials, and the Better Business Bureau. He expressed his concern for his reputation, and that he did not want to be grouped with the other builders. Satisfied, we invited Joseph to the house so he could gather ( 187832

~~From: Judith T Kenny To: Rod Merrick Cc: Clark Nelson; McCullough Robert; Zehnder ]oe; Engstrom Erjc (Planning) ( Subject: Re: 3030 S E Rex Date: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:08:41 PM~~

_Great letter, Rod. Among the various nonsensical comments that I recall from Tuesday's meeting is the Ping Director's statement that increasing the housing supply will lower the price of housing in Portland. No wonder Portland is the city with the highest rate of gentrification in the country (if the director makes such blanket, ridiculous comments such as that). - So - not a comment that is correct for either our neighborhood or the city as a whole!

~~Thanks, Judith~~

From: Rod Merrick Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:23 PM To: Deborah Stein; Marty Stockton Cc: Clark Nelson; RoberfMcCullough; [email protected]; Eric Engstrom Subject: Fw: 3030 SE Rex Deborah and Marty, I wanted you to be aware that houses continue to be targeted and destroyed at a steady pace. The demolition of the subject house and the story behind it (read below) is just the latest tragic example part of the mindless drive for ( density over other equally if not more important values in the Comprehensive Plan. This would not have happened if the R7 had been in place.

In the PSC work session, the staff position that the change from the corrupted R5 to R7 would have little impact was demonstrably false as was the statement that the bureau could not determine the impact. With serious staff time applied to lot by lot analysis it is possible to determine the impact. Our partial analysis provided to you over a year ago clearly demonstrated the impact-huge!!!. The presentation also chose to skip over the question of preserving affordable houses.

While there are other possible means of meeting the positive goals in the Comprehensive Plan, the R7 designation was an easy and obvious solution that BPS chose to sabotage. The entire discussion has left the neighborhood with an unpleasant taste for a process that no one can be proud of. The wasteful destruction of neighborhoods in the name of density is the opposite of planning.

~~In case you don't know what is happening on the street check out the video from PDX Renovations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK97YCv8Qv8 apparent front men for Renaissance and other builders.~~

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB JY[err~°lfmliite~Rl}tjiitm, Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762 ( 187832~~

• Access to Services Neighborhoods in question: All Existing Land Use Patterns and Density Given the analysis that the average size lot within the neighborhood boundary is 6,370 SF or greater with less than 10% smaller than 4550 SF is the appropriate designation R7? Neighborhoods in question: Eastmoreland (R5-R7 proposal), etc ...... 3. Housing Affordability and Diversity Should the zoning code provisions provide entitlements (including alternative development options, reduced lot sizes, use of random historical lots of record) that are in effect incentives for redevelopment demolitions for construction of: • larger and more expensive houses to replace affordable and viable post World War II workforce housing and compromise existing density standards? • larger and more expensive houses on smaller lots that places upward pressure on similar nearby lot values and housing prices? • new construction and major remodels that reduce the diversity of house and lot sizes and prices? • New houses that erase the historical and cultural record of the past 100 years in which the neighborhood was built? Neighborhoods in question: Eastmoreland (R5-R7 proposal), etc ...... Historic and Cultural Resources : Streetscape and Architecture ( Should neighborhood plan district standards be encouraged to support the I unique streetscape and yardscape, architectural scale and character, and treatment of driveways and garages characteristic of the Eastmoreland, College View, Campus Heights, etc., and Berkeley Addition subdivisions by limiting lot coverage and house sizes to comport with the existing scale, favor renovation, and discourage teardowns? Neighborhood in question: Eastmoreland (plan district expansion proposal) Access to transit and access to services in centers or corridors. Should portions of neighborhoods with limited bus transit services beyond a quarter mile walk of existing and proposed routes be zoned to maintain existing density by designation as medium density R?? And especially where underlying historic lots of record are driving much higher density development? Neighborhoods in question: Eastmoreland SE quadrant (R5-R7 proposal), etc ...... Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB

~~C.··Merriolf,,¥A~.cliite'.atu~lllr~'i ··d-.,•.• ~fl. ~~~ .DDl!l1 g . Portland, OR 503.771.7762~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Rod Merrick Cc: stein Deborah; Engstrom Eric (Planning) ( Subject: RE: 5 questions for supplemental testimony Date: Frtday, March 13, 2015 2:51:11 PM~~

Hi Rod, Yesterday I was in Salem until 2:00p.m. and then in meetings yesterday afternoon and this morning. I have shared this with Deborah who will be pulling the PowerPoint together. I and others will be assisting. What you outlined below is helpful, Because of the Friday, March 13th public comment deadline, my priority is to assist the public with getting in their testimony today. I will be in touch with you next week. Thanks for your understanding. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portlancf Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will ( provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:26 PM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: 5 questions for supplemental testimony Marty, these guestjons for the PSC are intended to provide direction for these mostly multi-neighborhood issues (distilled from the ENA Testimony) that will we hope clearly represent our concerns in the slides you prepare. Your comments please. Neighborhood Specific Requests In assigning appropriate zoning designations should all of the following be considered? ·•Existing land use patterns and density • Historical development patterns • Housing Affordability • Historic and Cultural Resources: streetscape and architecture •Sustainability and resilience criteria • Access to transit ( 187832

~~From: J~~

Hi Eric & Julie, Memo 9 draft linked here. Didn't edit language one bit, simply updated dates and numbers. Julie, I have attached Map App batches from Feb 10 - Feb 24 for eFiles etc. (One may be redundant, but I wasn't sure so it's here just in case). Madeline Madeline Kovacs Community Services Aide I Comprehensive Plan Update Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability [email protected]

~~I \~~

~~( 187832~~

Marty Stockton / Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability ( 1900 SW 4th Avenue / Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Stockton Marty ' To: Wood Sandra; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) \ Cc: Stein, Deborah; Dacanay Radcliffe; Frederiksen Joan; Stark, Nan Subject: PSC down-designation PPT Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:48:28 PM

~~Sandra and/or Eric,~~

~~Please look at Slide #15.~~

~~\\BPSFile1\Common$\work\comp planning\CompPlanUpdate\District Team Files\PSC Worksessions\3.24 Worksession misc\PSC downdesignations 3 24 15.pptx~~

This needs a BPS Code Team eye. I don't believe what we have is accurate and we need for this to be clear. Also, looking at Table 110-6, it's so complex I think it may be hard to describe concisely. Thoughts? I've added what I think are the needed edits underlined below.

~~• Underlying historic platted lots can be reestablished, as long as minimum lot size can be achieved: ( \ In RS: 3,000 sq ft (see asterisks)~~

~~In R7: 4,200 sq ft~~

*Unless vacant within the last 5 years and not in an environmental zone. then 2.400 sq. ft.

**Or.if approved through a property line adjustment. then 1.600 sq.

As you can see, we are trying to explain the reason Eastmoreland NA (and now South Burlingame and Concordia NAs) wants R7 zoning and what the difference is between RS and· R7 zoning in relation to the Lots, Adjusted Lots, Lots of Record, and Lot Remnants.

~~Thanks for your help.~~

~~Marty~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: JRedden@PortlancITdbune com To: Engstrom Eric Subject: Portland Tribune question - Comp Plan ( Date: Frtday, October 30, 2015 7:06:12 AM~~

~~Eric,~~

\Vhat's recommenced for the Eastmoreland neighborhood in the Comp Plan. I just heard some complaints its recommended to be up-zoned to RS. But in this August 2014 story, we reported it was likely to be down-zoned: bttp://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/230431-92274-city-ponders-about-face-on-density

~~Jim Redden, Portland Tribune, 503-709-1214~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~( 187832~~

August, with PSC hearings in the fall. • This project will impact future development of the Reed campus. ( 4. Residential Infill Proiect • At this point, staff has been working on getting staffed up, getting RFPs out, and figuring out the stakeholders and public involvement plan. • There are many stakeholders and expectations. • Staff has been hearing from the various stakeholders and refining the project scope. • The scope will be verified by the stakeholder advisory group when they are formed in August. • These are the three topics that we're exploring: 1. Scale of new houses - we'll revisit issues such as maximum height, setbacks, and building coverage. 2. Narrow lot development - this addresses both the historic lot pattern, minimum lot sizes and development in R2.5 3. Alternative housing options - this is about exploring alternatives to a single house on a lot. We're curious about alternatives such as two AD Us per site, cottage clusters, internal conversions of larger houses, and stacked flats.

~~From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:57 AM ( To: Zehnder, Joe Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP~~

~~Compile draft and send to me by 3. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robert McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

Can you please send me key planning issues that you think the Mayor should discuss with Robett Mccullough? I'm assuming he'll want to talk about EastMoreland and Com Plan. Can you send that over by 4 p.m. today? Sorry about late notice, he just told me.

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Po1tland jackie djngfelder@pottlandoregon gov (o) 503-823-4125 ( C) 503-823-8540 ( 187832~~

~~From: Zehnder Joe To: Anderson Susan \. Cc: Engstrom Ede (Plaon!no); Wood, Sandra Subject: Notes for Mayor meeting w/ Robert McCulJough Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:25:53 PM Importance: High~~

~~Full list of notes:~~

1. Eastmoreland R7 zoning request in Comp Plan. • The neighborhood requested down-zoning from RS to R7 with the Comp Plan. • Staff initially agreed and made that part of the July 2014 Proposed Draft.

• Testimony heavy at the PSC, o favorable to recommendation overall. o There was opposition from some organizations from a citywide perspective o concerns expressed downzoning near new light rail, and o debate about if the character was truly R7. o Many of the blocks in the neighborhood are developed at more of an RS lot pattern, especially eastern side of the neighborhood.

• Ultimately the PSC did not recommend the downzoning. o They looked at the lot size analysis and did not agree that the neighborhood had ( an R7 character o they agreed with the testimony about proximity to transit. o The neighborhood is upset about the PSC recommendation.

• On June 3 the City received notice from a law firm that indicates the neighborhood intends to sue the city over the PSC recommendation. o It is not clear how that would be done, o typically one cannot take legal action about land use matters until the City Council makes the final decision. o The mayor might want to ask what they hope to accomplish with a lawsuit at this stage of the process.

2. Mixed Use Zoning Update • Background research was completed in September 2014. • Concept plan was published in May 2015. • Staff are currently preparing draft code. A public discussion draft will be available by August, with PSC hearings in the fall. • There is no mixed use zoning in Eastmoreland, but he may still be tracking the project as he participates in other citywide land use discussions.

~~3. Institutional Campqs 7oning Update • A concept Plan was published in April 2015 ( • Staff are currently preparing draft code. A public discussion draft will be available by 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: new memo for PSC ( Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:13:42 PM Attachments: RSR7 maps memo 5 21 15 doc~~

Does this look ok as a cover memo for the analysis maps that we didn't show for the RS/R7 areas last week? I want those maps to be in the record. The set of maps is in my drop box and we'd forward these to the PSC. (I also was asked to send them to Meg Merrick.)

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dingfelder Jackie To: Anderson Susan; Zehnder Joe; Engstrom Eric (Plannlnq) \ Subject: Need Issues ASAfJ Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:22:41 AM~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robett McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

Can you please send me key planning issues that you think the Mayor should discuss with Robe1t Mccullough? I'm assuming he'll want to talk about EastMoreland and Com Plan. Can you send that over by 4 p.m. today? Sorry about late notice, he just told me.

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Pottland jackie.dingfelder@pmtlandoregon gov (o) 503-823-4125 (c) 503-823-8540~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stsn Andf~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: May 5, 2015 at 2:44:50 PM PDT To: susanhackandecson@gmail com Subject: Stop the Lot Splitting and Speculative Demolition Reply-To: reply+GE4PMNRRHA3Y64DSNSSHK Y3I JNFXW4X2Q JS fYIXZRGFZIFMIT JGM2~eastmorelandor nextdoor com

~~~ Robert McCullough, Eastmoreland LEAD~~

To Stop the Lot Splitting and Speculative Demolition and with your overwhelming support, your Neighborhood Association has requested a zone change for all of parts of the neighborhood to R?. R? allows lot sizes no smal!er than 4200 square feel

~~We request the honor of your presence in silent witness Tuesday May 12 at 12:30PM-2PM 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500.~~

Slaff will present and The Planning and Sustainability Commission will discuss and is expected to decide on the proposed zoning changes in Eastmoreland for zoning appropriate fo'r the context. Our carefully prepared testimony was previously discounted in a way that could be ( characterized as intentiona!ly misleading. Despite the evidence in our favor prejudices and ideology run deep. Your presence will make a difference.

~~Eastmoreland Land Use Committee May 5 in Genera! to your neighborhood~~

~~i•J!§g.jj@d Thank· Private message~~

~~You can also reply to this email or use Nextdoorfor iPhone or Android~~

~~This message Is intended for susaribacl~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Robert McCullough [email protected] Jun 7 in General to 8 neighborhoods~~

~~ijf§.j.ifQ Thank Private message~~

~~You can also reply to this email or use Nextdoor for iPhone or An~~

~~This rnessafie is intfflCed for susaribadand8"soo~gma Lccm Unsubscnoe or&f}.Jst yOU< email settings Ne:c.tdcr.f, Inc. 760 Mar'~et SL, su·te 300, San Fraricisco. CA 94102~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Susan ADrifc9:>n To: foostTom Eck (P!aM'm>· ~ SJA'n Pffil?@h· Rfml1Qd5 Sa'$e Subject: Fwd: Sa'1e OurSequo'.as (SOS) Date: Sunday, J\!l)e 7, 201S 4:20:JO PM (~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: June 7, 2015 at 10:38:38 AM PDT To: snsaohackandecson@gmail com Subject: Save Our Sequoias (SOS) Reply-To: rep!y+GF4DIY£NRRHA3\T64DSN5SHKY3I INFXW4X20 JS JVJXZRG!ZDONRSQYZQ====@eastmorelaodor oextdoor com

~ Robert McCuHough, Eastmoreland LEAD Dear neighbors: I have spent some time thinking about the challenge on SE Martins. Everett Custom Homes violated the city's delay and demolition code by claiming the K-1 Exemption (now eliminated} by applying for two house construction permits. The K-1 Exemption only allows construction of one house. Portland Maps shows that permitting commenced on both properties -· 3640 SE Martins -- and the lot to the east simultaneously on April 10, 2015. The use of the K-1 demolition was also not allowed since the records indicate that the demolition and construction permits were not sought on the same day. I will be entering a complaint on the violation of the city code and raise ( the prospect of legal action with our land use attorney to force Everett Custom Homes and BOS to abide by the city's laws. I will also ask the City Auditor to intervene. Our review of the tree code indicates that Everett Custom Homes faces only the payment of a small fee for clear cutting two city tots. This is disappointing, but not surprising. The city tends towards a double standard on environmental issues -- many of the comments on NextdOOf use the term "green washingM. I had not heard this term before, but it ls clear that the city's tree code "green washes" deforestation. There has been a strong positive response to the most civil of civil disobedience to protect the trees. Cutting down the giant sequoias {Everett Custom Homes' description) is a major undertaking. I suspect that the liability insurance of the arborists working on this will make cutting the trees down while neighbors quietly sit under the canopy •• on the sidewalk-· wi!f be a problem. I plan to leave lawn chairs on the sidewalk under the northern most sequoia today. VI/hen the neighbors notify me, I'll don my hard hat and brave the falling branches. If the homeless can sit on the sidewalks, perhaps the treeless can as well. We will have to depend on neighbors notifying us when the arborists arrive. I can be reached at 503-784- 3758. Michael Bigham, has created a Facebook page dedicating to saving the redwoods. He writes ~Make sure to drop by and 'like' the page, write your commissioners, ta!k to your neighbors and friends. Be active. The only way to stop this crime against nature is to let people know what's going on." www.facebook.com/PortlandRedwood ... ( 187832

story, out of scale home. Neighbors on the block were outraged. One walked up to the contractor and asked," How would you like it if someone came into your neighborhood and did this?" His response ( was quick," They can't. I live in Ladd's Addition and we are historic!' "It will be harder to maintain, update or change your house." Again, true and false. There have been recent changes to the regulations regarding historic homes. If you want to change the front of your house, it will lake more steps and involve fees. However, under newly revised regulations this is not true for repairs or maintenance. Many at the meeting cited the high cost in Irvington Historic District to replace basement windows. This has been change

There is much research on the impacts of historic designation but only limited space in our newsletter. Anyone trying to sort through all the pros and cons should lake a walk through lad d's Addition. You will enjoy the homes, the trees and the gardens. Vv'hat is truly wonderful is what is NOT there, the noise of hammers, saws and homes being dismantled.

~~(end of article by TJ Browning)~~

~~As I mentioned previously, I'm not advocating that we al! tum our neighborhoods into Historic Districts. It's a Jong and complicated process, and it places restrictions and costs on us as homeowners.~~

But at this point in time, a Historic Designation is the only tool that is effective against rampant overdevelopment. lfwe're concerned about teardowns and the resulting oversize houses, then we need to look closely at this option. Sep 15 in General to 8 neighborhoods

~~@1i@•if M Thank Private message ( You can also reply to this email or use Nextdoor foriPhone or Mdroid~~

~~T}l:s mes.sage is intended for suC>'ilnbackan~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: To: Eoo~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: September 15, 2015 at 1:44:57 PM PDT To: snsanhackandersonlmgnrnil com Subject: More Facts About Historic Districts for Neighborhoods Reply-To: repJy+GE4DMNRRHA3V64DSN5SHK Y31 JN_EXW4X2Q T5 JYIXZRG1 J4DCNRWHE4A====@eastmorelandor nextdoor com

]aJ. Bert Sperling, Eastmore!and Here is more from a fact-finding article about neighborhood Historic Districts, from an article by TJ Browning for the Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association. T J Bro,•ming examined the myths and truths about Historic Districts, using the nearby and similar Ladd's Addition as an example. "Myth Busting Historic Designation" T J BrO\•ming, Laure!hurst Neighborhood Assn Newsletter, March 2015 Read the complete article at http://www.laurelhurstpdx.org/resources/... "Historic Designation will stop the tear downs." This is true AND false. Being designated historic will automatically trigger a demolition review/delay for all houses. Those houses ( deemed to contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood would need to get approval from City Council for the demolition to be approved. The neighborhood does gel an opportunity to weigh in during this process. There are currently no demolitions in Ladd's Addition. • The government will be telling us what we can and cannot do with our homes." This is true nO\v and will be true for a historic designated neighborhood. The government already can deny building pennits, levy taxes, limit size and height of a building, limit how much property a building can consume on a lot, what kind of use you can make your property, what type of tree you can plant in a parkway, even if you can take a tree out of your yard!!! In some ways, historic designation can give power back to the neighborhood. A neighborhood advisory group will review exterior reno_vations, demolitions and new construction. Additionally, the neighborhood will define what is historic and what is not. Laurelhurst will get more power in our neighborhood planning process, not less. Ladd's Addition has a very active neighborhood group. Not only do they maintain the historic character of their homes, they are also very active in saving their Elm trees! "House tipping will stop with historic designation.· According to research this is true. Historic neighborhood designation stabilizes house prices and offers protection from "bubbles" and wild swings in property values. This was even true in the last economic tum down. If a contractor cannot tum your home into a McMansion or demolish it to build multi-row house structures, the incentive is gone. Also gone is the fear that an out of scale building or inappropriate structure will be built next door lowering your property values. There is anecdotal evidence that is true for Ladd's Addition. There was a contractor razing a bungalow in Laurelhurst to build a huge three ( 187832

~~(503) 771 - 5090 (~~

(

Copyright© 2015 Eastmoreland Neighborhood Assodalion, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you've expressed interest in keeping up lo date on Eastmornland Neighborhood Association activities.

~~Our malling address Is: Eastmoreland Neighborhood AssociaUon PO Box82520 Portland, OR 97282~~

~~Add 11s to your address book~~

~~uosubscribe from !his Hsi update subscription preferences~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( Council Clerk January 13, 2015 1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130 Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Comprehensive Plan comments~~

~~Dear Portland City Council & Staff:~~

Attached is the fourth of 8 batches comprised of emails received as a partial response to our November 2015 document request. From the file dates, it is clear that these were assembled in November, but were held back until yesterday at 5 pm in order to forestall use in the Comprehensive Plan hearings.

~~The emails do not include those from Susan Anderson or Joe Zehnder. Since they are the primary decision makers, their absence in these conversations is surprising.~~

The overall context of the emails shows a high level of interest in Eastmoreland's work in the Comprehensive Plan - not as impartial staff, but as advocates for a specific, hostile point of view. The neighborhood providing the most thorough and detailed evidence and analysis received in return the shortest conceivable shrift. ( Some of the emails also contradict public statements made by staff to the committee.

Obviously, in the 24 hours available for review, it is difficult to give a complete analysis. However, one cannot help but conclude that the process did not include public involvement in the manner mandated by the .Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and our existing comprehensive plan. We expect that the omitted communications would only dramatize this point further.

~~Robert McCullough, President, Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, OR 97202 {503} 771-5090 [email protected]~~

~~6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 ( 187832~~

~~President, Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~. 6123 SE Reed College Place~~

~~( Jrtland, OR 97202~~

~~. (503) 771-5090~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~Robert McCullough ]',!fanaging Partner 1WcCullough Research 6123 S.E. Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 [email protected] www.mresearch.com~~

~~503-771-5090 (direct) 503-777-4616 (office) 503-784-3758 (cell)~~

This e-mail message contains confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received it in error, please call 503-777-4616 and ask to speak with the "'1.essage sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the ( ~ssage back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you.

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

From: Robert McCullough < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:36 PM ( To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; PDX Comp Plan Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony Attachments: 20160113 - Public Request emails Pt-4.pdf

~~Council Clerk January 13, 2015~~

~~1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130~~

~~Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Comprehensive Plan comments~~

~~Dear Portland City Council & Staff:~~

Attached is the fourth of 8 batches comprised of emails received as a partial response to our November 2015 docume~• request. From the file dates, it is clear that these were assembled in November, but were held back until yesterday at~ pm in order to forestall use in the Comprehensive Plan hearings.

~~The emails do not include those from Susan Anderson or Joe Zehnder. Since they are the primary decision makers, their absence in these conversations is surprising.~~

~~Some of the emails also contradict public statements made by staff to the committee.~~

Obviously, in the 24 hours available for review, it is difficult to give a complete analysis. However, one cannot help but conclude that the process did not include public involvement in the manner mandated by the Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and our existing comprehensive plan. We expect that the omitted communications would only dramatize this point further. ( Robert McCullough,

~~1 187832~~

~~( ...~~

(

~~( 187832~~

(

~~Dear Neighbor,~~

Just a reminder that our "day in court" on preserving existing lot sizes (and preventing the effective elimination of traditional Eastmoreland from the streets east of 36th) is Tuesday, 12:30 at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500.

As the city shifts further and further away from our values, it is increasingly important that we show up at comprehensive plan meetings. If you care about trees, lawns, solar access, and other traditional amenities, we need you to participate.

The sad reality is that many city staff appear to have tired of public involvement and view the new comprehensive plan as an avenue to force their dystopian views on Portland residents. When city staff commented on our highly professional testimony -- before it had been filed -- it was dismissed as "fearing change." Environmentalism and a belief in land use planning is "not fear of change" nor is a belief in-public involvement an unnecessary encumbrance.

~~Please join us on Tuesday.~~

~~Robert McCullough President Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association [email protected] ( 187832~~

~~concerns with the scoping both in the earlier draft provided by Matthew Roberts and as outlined in your summary below. Some high profile ( examples:~~

We are indeed supportive of the need to reform the single family code ( assuming that the scoping is supportable, the purpose is to bring clarity, and assuming that the intent is to recognize and enhance the rich variety of distinctive neighborhoods in the city. Given the intensity of concern about these issues city wide I look forward to meeting with you and Morgan to discuss further.

~~Regards, Rod~~

~~Rod Merrick,· AIA NCARB ilMi'tti'¢liwArcc!Jiitctclut•~RDilloJnd Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

From: "Zehnder, Joe" To: "merrick map@yahoo com" Cc: "Dingfelder, Jackie" <,Jackie Dingfelder@porUandaregan gay>; "Anderson, Susan" ; "Tracy, Morgan ( Planning)" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 PM Subject: FW: BPS residential infill project: ie Single Family Home Development Code Project

~~Rod, ( Jackie Dingfelder forwarded your email to the Mayor's office to me. Thank you for your 187832~~

~~continued interest in the Residential Infill project and neighborhood development issues.~~

As you are likely aware, we are in the early phases of developing the project work plan. It is ( common during this phase that there are misunderstandings about the project details - both internally and within the community. This will be resolved once we have a project website and information materials available.

~~Even before we meet, I wanted to clarify some of what this project will and won't do.~~

1. Scale of houses. The project will evaluate the zoning rules that specify maximum heights (and how that is measured), minimum setbacks, building coverage, outdoor area dimensions, and potentially new rules related to floor to area (FAR) requirements, impervious coverage limits, in addition to exploring variations that respond to the three pattern areas (i.e. west, inner, and east Portland).

2. Narrow lot development. The project will examine suitable lot dimensions for new development. This ties in with the lot confirmation issue for "skinny" lots. The project will also look at what standards should apply to development on narrow lots including where they are appropriate, whether detached houses would be allowed, in addition to height, lot coverage, setbacks, etc. ( 3. Alternative housing options. The project will explore existing and other means of integrating alternative housing types into neighborhoods while respecting the character of the area. Initial concepts include internal house conversions in. existing houses, secondary accessory dwelling units, cottage cluster development, anq stacked. flats (an alternative to side-by-side attached units).

This is quite ambitious within the 18-month schedule given the range of issues and opinions on these topics. That means certain issues will not be on the table for this project including demolition/deconstruction rules, addressing design standards, accessory structures (such as detached garages), systems development charges, micro kitchen and other multi- dwelling development, or moveable homes (aka tiny houses on wheels).

A number of these are being or will be addressed by other projects in the future, but as you know, we have a Comp Plan Update to complete first and foremost. I am excited by the opportunity this project presents to revamp our zoning code to respond to the current residential market pressure, and I hope you are too.

~~Thanks~~

~~Joe Zehnder Chief Planner Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 503-823-7815 ( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~from: Sr&l1 oo:k:rwo To: fDWmm f£t /f'l.ar:nm:l\ ~Srri:J Dffl:nJ:rJba:DRVJ J!ri.J·SQd,:tm l;'.;rt, '"Subject: Ro>: fa.trr.aaa".d pr= reeded &~,~~

~~Please connect with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can gel the word out~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:26 PM, "Engstrom, Eric (Planning)" wrote:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, I'd focus on this:~~

~~1) The 4000 comments is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March IO. That date was simply one of7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since No\·ember, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do v,·e take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint abotit Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or Nextdoor? rd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

;)

~~- Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail wrote: (~~

~~Yes. The misinformation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial..~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, "Dabbs, Edenft <&Jen Oahhs/(fportlaodoregoo gov> wrote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Next door post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, ct al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! EridDeborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan meS-.....ages to get out via this channel. E&• D.oNi,. c.,..,_,.uk>.li."'.iPaNk Aff>.l,-, Ci:y<;{l\ln!,rnlhtti=i..= mi 3<."'lhiie;, the City of fuifund will f'!O' ik ~ re=lmly IIlC>dify p:,ti..-ies. 'pro.""OO'Jrc:s an! pw, »: a,.,_\ifu<)· ai,is.,'smi,;e;f,._'termm-., t,_=ts !O re= with dioolititt. fOI' ax..~'"'-mci,tion;, COO\'hli:ts,. an:1 :!offiioro.l inf-NnUtio:,, WWO."l =. cill 5(JJ. S:2~_-§9~7,_ Giy 1]Y 503-813~. ons.: ~ Rcl.ly S,:n~~; 7_1 I,_ From: Gmail [maiJto-susanharboderson'{fgmaiI com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:25 AM To: Dabbs, Eden; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stein, Deborah Subject: Fwd: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Much of this is incorrect....like the 4000commcnts in the last week.. Also we delayed hearing the eastmoreland part so that PSC could review their comments Deborah, what do you think about calling him? And ask him to correct the misinformation.

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: s1JSanhacl;;mderson'(fgrnail com Subject: Eastmorcland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Reply-To: reply+QEfQMNRRHA3Y640SN5SHKY3T 1NfX\Y4X2QI5 JYTXZRGAYDSNRYGQ4Q====@rastmorelondor nextdoor com ( 187832

~ Robert McCullough, Eastmoreland LEAD Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots of record and zone changes ( We request the hooor of your presence in silent protest at the Planning and Sustainability Co=issi-On (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm.2500. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will discuss 'Residential Densities.' The PSC will consider reque;:ted and/OT proposed zoning changes and "historic lots of record' policies in several neighbomoods under consideration for zoning appropriate for the context Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the staff's forced march to prepare their report and rocommendations on testimony before the testimony was due. The is.sues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastmoreland are presented and di;counted in a way that could he characterized as intentioo.1lly misleading. This was the timing of events: Febmaty 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastn1oreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staff comments issued March 10, 2014: PSA WOik Session March 13, 201.f: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in the questions posed and then recommended for rejection The swres of romments favoring change on the "Map App" have been distilled into a cursory senteoce followed by opposition arguments_ A partial rebuttal was filed as part oftrn testimony. The March IOAgenda "Lot Patterns' was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is e:>..JJeCted to focus on the local issues on a city wid¢ basis. However the staff report and rerommendations stand Planning staff received 4000 items of testimony in the closing week alone and are in process of digesting_ Our position that staff have ample time to dige;;t all testimony and to rommunicate with rerognized organizations-especially Neighborhood Associations- to verify that their coocerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addressed.. Again, pl.ease attend on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm (or as early as 3pm) at 1900$\V 4th Ave, Rm.2500,st:rectorbasement parking or bus 19, to obser.e the discUS5ion and silently e:..-press yow «>ncef!L PS ( At this time materials for the March 10 PSC work s=ion are not available to the public on the website. We will update v,hen available. The po;ted agenda (btm·t!}J,-,,yw r,Y11Bn4xrsM <>oyfhm,'wtid ) is as follows. Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items oflnterest from Commissiooers Directots Report 3:03 p.m. Consent Agenda Comideration of Minutes from 3/10/15 PSC meeeting 3:05 p_m. Cornprehe-nsiYe Plan Update -wOik session PP&R Transportation Nonconforming Uses Residential Thnsities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn hlM.lLinf.k.u.tiJ.l to y,>Pr reii•bh.nhrn::d

~~Thsi:rteSSJge ls ht,u&:d ~r •p- ~h,,-1.. ,:h;,o,;7.,.,. ,,J '""'' !loMJ:ih. oc.-1" s, ;:,,·r ,1:r1l w(o,,~~

~~( 187832~~

~~from: To: ~ SM Qeh>@b· Tu·,wron 1u,w sro:trro Harty ""Sub}ed: Re: Eastrrore\.nd pres.m:e ne,;ded atc«r,prehensf,-e P'..,n rneanJ Date: S3turda-t, March 21, 2'l1S 1:26:47 PM (~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, l'd focus on this:~~

~~I) The 4000 comments is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmorcland on March 10. That date was simply one of7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or Nexidoor? l'd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~- Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail wrote:~~

~~Yes. The misinformation flying around on Ncxtdoor posts is substantial..~~

~~Sent from my iPad ( On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, •oabbs, Eden~ wrote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Nextdoor post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. SlL<:an, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan mes.. ,;;ages to get out via this channel. E&• DaM>>. C~n111u.k~O,ll>lhbH<: Amin Ci;y«:f\."1:0 5'1:&"nb.o i,:, the r,e;,.· BPS E_,,....*H, th: City «P~'filiru v.-ill pro\l& tn.r,.;;l.!Dc-,,,,, reJ...soru.bly modify p,..">I.Xkt 'prooc,hru anJ pro1 »c aiuifury a;J.~'~n k.i-;.'ahmnli1-.: for=ts to p,:r~"'5 uith di..clilrua F« uro,nm.oo!tioc,s. transhtioi aMiti..Ylli infcmli!i....'11. <:cr.b;I me, call SO:l.SZ3.(i9H, City TTY S03.SZ3a68,«me Ortgon ReLty Smkc: 711. From: Gmail Imailtffs1rsaoharlmnde®o'@wuail rnmJ Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:25 AM To: Dabbs, Eden; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stein, Deborah Subject: Fwd: Eastmoreland pre.sence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting 1-fuch of this is incorrcct....like the 4000comments in the last week.. Also we delayed hearing the eastmoreland part so that PSC could review their comments Deborah, what do you think about calling him? And ask him to correct the misinfonnation.

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded me-ssage:~~

From: Ncxtdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: s11sanhackandersooralgmail rom Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensh·e Plan meeting Reply-To: repJy+QE4D1JNRRHA3V64DSN5SHKY3I JNEXW4X2QT5IYIXZRGAYDSNRYG04Q=====@eastmorelaodor oextdoor com

lit Boh.-:rt ~fcCnUCH1gh, fa,tmro:Jaod J FAD De-ar Neighbors: Re: Residential lots ofr«ord and zone changes We request the honor of your presence in 5ilent prOtest at the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at ( 187832

1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will diseilss "Residential Densities.• The PSC will consider requested and/or proposed zoning changes and ·historic lots ofr.xord" policies in several ( neighbomoods under consideration for zoning appropriate for the c:xitext. Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the stafl's forced march to prepMC their report and recommendations on testimony OOfore the testimony was due. The issues as framed for the PSC regarding Ea5tmoreland are presented and dis.';01mted in a way that could be characterized as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of events: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staff comments issued March IO, 2014: PSA Work Ses.sion March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in the questions posed and then recommended for rej,xtion. The scores ofcomments favoring change on the "lo.lap App" have been distilled into a cursoiy sentence followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was filed as part of the testimony. The March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns" was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is expected to focus on the local issues on a city wick basis. However the staff report and recon1mendations stand. Planning staff received 4000 items of testimony in the closing week alone and are in process of digesting. Our position that staff have ample time to digest all testimony and to conununkate \\ith recognii:ed organii:ations-especially Neighborhood Associations- to writ)' that their concerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addressed. Again, please attend on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm (or as early as 3pm) at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500, street or basement parking or bus 19, to observe the discussion and silently express your concern. PS At this time materials for the March 10 PSC work session are not available to the public on the website. We ,~;11 update when available. The posted agenda (bttp·/Jwnw porthndof<)'OO gm·1bps/artkl ) is as follows. Agenda ( 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items oflntere5't from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 p.m. Consent Agenda Consideration of Minutes from 3/10/15 PSC meeeting 3:05 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Update - work session PP&R Transportation Nonconforming Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn 11.iJI..lLin ~ to your ud,•bhnrh

~~This ImS:S.JJ~ is kundNfor '"'-'•hY\ ~ k1~\l ,-, ''"'ti (('CU Jfp~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: To: Eoos:rnro Frif£Planr1ng}· Sten Pf:bo@h·Jbooxmo \1'i> "''SubJed: """'""""Re:~ pre<,6"£e 00202!1 at~.ensr,,e Piao~ ( Date: -Saturd,y, Matd121, 201511:45:17 AM~~

~~Yes. The misinfonuation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial ...~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, nDabbs, Eden" wrote:~~

FYJ, this looks like a Ne:-.idoorpost, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Erk/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. Edt11 Dobb,. O,m.mw,lufu11~blk .\ffain Cityc,fP~~&ren<>f~ao,J.&t;t.,.i,:,,hlity p 503 fill s,;,:,s 1c S')J WB301 lf50J rn 7Sf)1 &ru.:n"betUC"<" eqiil >«= to City programs, srnius mi a-ti\ ilks. ck City of Poolmd will ~'li

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded mes.sage:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT ( To: snsauhackaudersoo@gmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Reply-To: o~pJy+CTE4DMNRR HA3Y64DSN5SHKY3l JNEXW4X2015 IYf XZRCTAYDSNRYGQl°====@castmorelaudoc uextdoor com

~ R®frt i\kCJtllonrh, Eastmnrs:Jand TFAD Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots of record and zone changes We request t):le honor of your presence in silent protest at the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will discuss ~Residential Densities.~ The PSC will consider requested andfor proposed zoning changes and ~historic lots ofrecoid" policies in several neighborhoods under consideration for zoning appropriate for the context. Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the staffs forced march to prepare their repo~ and recommendations on testimony before the testimony was due. The issues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastmoreland are presented and discounted in a way that could be characterized as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of events: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staff comments issued March 10, 2014: PSA Work Session March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in the questions posed and then recommended for rejection. The scores of comments favoring change on the "},,fap App" have been distilled into a cursory sentence followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was filed as part of the testimony. The March JO Agenda "Lot Patterns• was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is expected to focus on the local issues on a city wide basis. However the staff report and recommendations stand. Planning staff received 4000 items of testimony in the closing week alone and are in process of ( 187832

digesting. Our position that staffha,·e ample time to digest all testimony and to communicate with recognized organizations-especially Neighborhood Associations· to wrify that their concerns are being presented in an en:n ( handed manner is yet to be addressed. Again, please attend on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm (or as early as 3pm) at 1900 SW 4th AYe, Rm 2500, street or basement parl:.ing or bus 19, to obserye the discussion and silently express your concern. PS At this time materials for the March 10 PSC work session are not available to the public on the website. We will update when available. The posted agenda (http·//www portfondmegrn1 ggy/hp;;.1artkl ) is as follows. Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items ofinterest from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 p.m. Consent Agenda Consideration of Minutes from 3/10/15 PSC meeeting 3:05 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Update- work session PP&R Transportation Nonconfom1ing Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn ~~ to rnHrn<'i 0 hhmbml

~~You can a!.o reply to this eID3il or me Ne:1.1doorfor ifhl.!ili: or lill4rcili~~

~~l 'nm"" nb ,,,- ;:,,fin;:t }'!ffrm•H s:Uiw, (~~

~~( 187832~~

~~foQ~~

I spoke with Rod Merrick, ENA Land Use Chair, last Thursday afternoon. He is already clear that staff is not presenting on the designation/zoning staff reoommendation for Eastmorcland on Tuesday. He is also clear that staff arc open to some R7 in Eastmorcland, but is unclear about political support.

We should discuss on Monday what our next steps with Eastmoreland are. Rod is already aware of the refined methodology and analysis we're conducting. A small follow up meeting is needed, quickly, with the Merricks/Robert/etc.

~~Note there is work that can be collaborated on with the ENA Land Use Committee and then there is the ENA public campaign/advocacy that we \\ill see on Tuesday.~~

As Rod said to me two weeks ago .. the designation/zone change is the end game. There is no confidence that the underlying lots "ill be addressed which is the root cause of ENA frustration. Para1lel frustrations are demolitions and the scale/design of new housing stock. This is a theme in submitted testimony from Eastmoreland, Concordia, South Burlingame, Mt. Scott-Arleta, etc. Concordia is now asking for the R7 designation/zone. I would expect more neighborhoods to take this route.

~~This deserves more discussion.~~

~~Thanks, Marty~~

~~Sent using OWA for iPhone~~

From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:29:45 AM To: Susan Anderson Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Dabbs, Eden; Thompson, Julia; Stockton, Marty Subject: Re: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting One more bit of clarification: my plan for the 3/24 work session is to introduce the issues related to Eastmoreland (as part of a larger set of refine trial dO\m designations), but not ask PSC for a recommendation. Unfortunately we'll need to find an upcoming agenda to fit this into. I think there is simply too much to cover in one hour this Tuesday and we can't jump into the designation/zone question in eastmoreland without explaining the issue of underlying lots and minimum lot sizes, etc. (which all relates to the scope of the sf residential scope of work that I believe Eric is presenting at the April 14 work session as in infom1ational item). So, we should inform eastmoreland folks that PSC won't be deciding anything Tuesday - hut we will be outlining the issues.

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Susan Anderson \\Tote: (~~

~~Please connect with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can get the word out.~~

~~Sent from mobile de\~ce.~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:26 PM, "Engstrom, Eric(Planningr wrote:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things \\ith this group, rd focus on this:~~

~~I) The 4000 comments is the number of oomments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March IO. That date was simply one of7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

3) The residential density topic is scheduled for the March 24 session, but it is scheduled between approximately 5:45 and 6:45. There are seyeral other topics scheduled earlier on the same work session, which starts at 3.

~~4)All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their FaceOOOk page or Nextdoor? I'd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that th.is topic does not start at 3.

~~- Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail mote:~~

~~Yes. The misinfomiation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial.. ( 187832~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~( On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, nDabbs, Edenn ,note:~~

FYI, this looks like a Nextdoor post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al- We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good moti\'ation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this ·channel. [&aD,l,h,,~,..,.,. ...."5<,\f!dn Cit.rdP«tuJ&u,.c{P'-=il:ij,::,JS,~' ,;,r' ..,\;u;m "11 Is< To h:lp = tq.,.tl "'-""'=' lo City rw;;r.an. -"'f'M~• a.:,1 ;>,,-ti,ltie,., the City d r..-.-ilind wi!I pro,'iJe tnn1!.!li-:,a, ==h.'y m.>H}· r,.'>li-~µt,.·,:&n-< and µo,-;.1, a=ifur:,· rik'=>i.-.,,~''--'t<=>ti,.-., fom>!!s t.J para;.,,_, with'.!

~~Sent from my iPad~~

Begin forwarded mes.sage: From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: susanhacbnderson0lgrnail corn Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensi\·e Plan meeting Reply-To: rep] y+QE4DbfNBR HA 1Y6-!PSNSS1 JK Y1J INFX\V4X?Q IS IV! XZRGA YPSNRYG()JQ=====@e;i sfruo[l.':landor nexrdoor com

11.1 Rolx:rt M&1Hon°b, Fastmoreland I EAP D<"ar NeighWJS: Re: Resi&ntial Jots of re(ord and z.one clunge; We r<"que;t the honorofyoor presence in silent protest al the Planning and Sll>tainability Comm.ission (PSC)on Tuesday March 24 a tor b<'fore 4pm at ( 1900 SW 4th Ave,.Rm 2500. The Planning and Sus\.l.inabiHty Commission \\ill disws.s "Resilkntial Deruities.' The PSC "ill consilkr requested andloc proposed zoning change; and "historic lots ofre,:;ocd" policies in several neighborhoods wxkrconsi&ration foe zoning appropriate for the coote.xL Carefully prepared t.-stimony from Eastmordand and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the stafl's forced march to prepare their report and re,:;ommendatiom on testimony befoce the testimony wa:; due. The is.sU<"S as framed for the PSC regardingEastmoreland are pr=nt;:,;l and discoonted in a way that could be chlracterizeJ as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of ewnts: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmocdand submits its testimony febnmy 25, 2014: Staff coounents issued March IO, 2014:PSA Work.Se,;,ion March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are b<'ing misrepresented in the question., posed and tfl<'n re.."omlilended for reje.::tioJL The scores of comments favoring change on the "Map App" have been distilled into a ,;ursory sente[]('e followed by opposition arguments. A partial r<"bu!tal was filed as part of the testimony. lhe March 10 Agenda "Lot PattemsB was deferred and the staff presentation oo the 24th is ex~ted to fo,;;us on the lo,:al issu-es on a city v,ide basis. Hmvever the staff report and recommendations stand Planning staffre,:;eived 4000 items oftestimooy in the dosing we<"k alone and are in process of digesting. Our position that staffha\·e ample time to digest all te;;timony and to communicate with rec-Ogniud ocgani.zatioos-espe-cially Neighborhood Associations• to verify that their =<'ms are b<'ing pr=nted in an ewn handed m=r is yet to be addressed. Again, plNse attend on Tuesday March 24 at or b<'foce 4pm (oc as e.irly as 3pm) al 1900SW 4th Ave, Rrn2500, streetorb=ment parking ocbus 19, to obserw the discussion and silently express your c=rn. PS At this time materials for the March 10 PSC work =ion are not available to the public on the web;;ite. We \\ill update when available. The post;:,.i agenda {h1Jp,J/mrn, pm1]m.;kinyoo r•mhp:s1·nl!fl ) is as follow5 Agenda. 3:00 p.m. Call to Orokr Items oflnt<"re;;t from Commissione1:> ( Dirfftor's Report 187832

3:03 p_m_ Coosent Agenda Conshkrntion of Minutes from 3/10/15 PSC mee,;ting 3:05 p.m. Compre~nsh~ Plan Update - \\l)!'k session PP&R ( Trans(Xll1.ltion Noocoofonning Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p_m_ Adjourn

~~lli,~....,,.ir~f.,,.,,,.. ~--·\·,~-f:-'1/ ,.1...,-~ !'u~ i-.,.-111,:;,r ~"""l}NTfP'!'l xcti:•11~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: ~ To: ~ Engstrom Fdf fftioo'f.gJ· Sein Peli9@h ec, Jhxrumo J,,'fa ( Subject: RE: Eastmore!.and prese:nce n..eled at Comprehensi'>'e Plan meetif1g Date: Saturda-/, March 21, 2015 11:33:01 AJ•l~~

FYI, this looks like a Nextdoor post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. £!Rn D1bb1, Communk3tloruiPubli(: Affaln Cify or Portland Bureau of P1anrfog af'KI s...sta·oat,i'"ty p 503 823 WOO I c 503 260 3301 ) I 503 823 7800 Subsrrtbe to the new BPS E·newsletter at yq,w portlar)dQregon 9911,bC§ To ha\p ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portiand v.i!I provide translation, reasoo.ab!y modify po~ciesfprocedures and pro\;,de al!Xll~ry alds/serv',ws/a!temali\·e foonats to parsoos with d",sal:xlties. Foc accommodatioos, translations, comp!aints, and a

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: snsanhack:mdersnnrnlgmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Reply-To: repJy+QE4DMNRRHA3V64PSNSSHKY31 1NFXW4X2Q I5 JVIXZRGAYPSNRYGQ4Q===@eastmorelaodor nextdoor com

l~i' Robed McCullough, fastmorelirnd I FAQ ( l~ Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots of record and zone changes We request the honor of your presence in silent protest at the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will discuss ~Residential Densities." The PSC will consider requested and/or proposed zoning changes and ''historic lots of record" policies in several neighborhoods under consideration for zoning appropriate for the context. Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the staffs forced march to prepare their report and recommendations on testimony before the testimony was due. The issues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastmoreland are presented and discounted in a way that could be characterized as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of events: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoretand submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staff comments issued March 10, 2014: PSA Work Session March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in the questions posed and then recommended for rej~ction. The scores of comments favoring change on the "Map App" have been distilled into a cursory sentence fol!owed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was fifed as part of the testimony. The March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns" was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is exp€cted to focus on the local issues on a city wide basis. However the staff report and recommendations stand. Planning staff received 4000 items of testimony in the closing week ( alone and are in process of digesting. Our position that staff have 187832

ample time to digest all testimony and to communicate with recognized organizations-especially Neighborhood Associations- to verify that their concerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addressed. ( Again, please attend on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm (or as early as 3pm) at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500, stree~ or basement parking or bus 19, to observe the discussion and silently express your concern. PS At this time materials for the March 10 PSC work session are not available to the public on the website. We will update when available. The posted agenda {hlto-11\wA'I ooctlaodoreooo gqy/bpstacticl ) is as follows. Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items of Interest from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 p.m. Consent Agenda Consideration of Minutes from 3/10/15 PSC meeeting 3:05 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Update-work session PP&R Transportation Nonconforming Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn Mar..2.1..in u.e.Jlfilfil to yrn1r neighborhood lfl(~j Ib.an.1s Private message

~~You can a!so reply to this email or use Nextdoor for~ or 8llillQW. ( This mes.sage is intended for susanbackanderscnft{lma·I OJm t tn"-uhscnbe oc arnu~t vouc emary settiMs Ne~~

~~( 187832~~

~~from, To; ~' Em'trilll frkCP,xnh1t~Jln-rwo ,i'.w~ SUbjoct: Re: Ea5tmcre:.,,,-<1 pcesm:;e nee:fe:I a.I: o:.-r,p-el",;,-,;\,e P""1 .,-~ ( Date: Slr.d.?f, !'.arch ll, 20IS9:29c51 AX~~

One more bit of clarification: my plan for the 3n4 work session is to introduce the issues related to Eastmoreland (as part of a larger set of refine trial dmm designations), but not ask PSC for a recommendation. Unfortunately we'll need to find an upcoming agenda to fit this into. I think there is simply too much to cover in one hour this Tuesday and we can't jump into the designation/zone question in eastmoreland without explaining the issue of underlying Jots and minimum lot sizes, etc. (which all relates to the scope of the sf residential scope of work that I believe Eric is presenting at the April 14 work session as in infomiational item). So, we should infomt eastmoreland folks that PSC won't be deciding anything Tuesday - but we will be outlining the issues.

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Susan Anderson wrote:~~

~~Please connect with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can get the v:ord out.~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~On Mar 21, 20 I 5, at I :26 P~-f, "Engstrom, Eric (Planningr mote:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things "ith this group, rd focus on this:~~

~~I) The 4000 comments is the number of comments recei\'ed during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We receiyed a few hundred comments in the final wixk.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March 10. That date ·was simply one of? or 8 dift'erent work sessions that the PSC has had since No\'ember, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

~~4) All staff reports are posted on line, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or \ Nextdoor? rd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 homs before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail ,note:~~

~~Yes. The misinfonnation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial..~~

~~Sent.from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, HDabbs, Edena \\Tote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Nextdoor post, which means it's going out to e\·el)·one who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. u....o,1~c-~m<,1'kn,.l'>.Ulol>d.:k>o·BPSE-=--~<"'..,."" v,-,, vm:~hrnnv, tr Toht\pro>.:id"'"tt\iti<,. th:City ofp,;,nhn,f"i!J pr~vicletrmbti-.-,, rearoruJ:,,'ym,&fy~Sc,,,.'pr~xe, ~J µo,-i& a,.ml:i!q· ai,is.'=>-j..'{,'L'r.emetiw f;;,o:n.et, ~ f'ITT'X""' with d;s,.l;iliti;,._ for ,,_.,_,o:ro.-.,,J.cti.;<"", tr1a-"!.ili:C", c,:qb:d!., ;nJ oJ.fti.."'31 ic&

~~Sent from my iPad I Begin forwarded mes.sage: \ 187832~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: swxmharkaader:soa@gmail com Subject: Eastmorela.nd presence needed at Comprehensiw Plan meeting Reply-To: C reply±-OE4DMNRBHA W64DSN~SHKY1I JNfX\Y4X2Ql5 IYIXZRGAYDSNB YGQ-lQ {feastrnare:Iandor nextdonr rom

}i~ Rohm i\frCuflongb &stmorelanrl I FAQ ~ar Neighbors: Re: Resi<:kntia! Jots of record and zone duilge:; We request the hooor ofyour prestne\1 in silent protest at the Planning and Su;;tainability Corrunission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Su;tairubility Commission will diswss 'Re,i

~~Thi, m«s~~ i,ia::ua:>3.Jfr,r ,,_.,',d ,. I r'•'l , .•• !'ns::hs:·rib:··:r:·"'11wv .., 1 s;,JiT::,,~~

~~( 187832~~

From: Anderson, Susan To: Dingfelder Jackie ( Cc: Zehnder Joe; Engstrom Eric (Plaonina); Stockton Marty Subject: RE: Eastmore!and topics of interest for Mayor meeting on June 12 Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:24:26 PM Importance: High

~~One clarification to this ...~~

~~We will look at the underlying lot line issues to see what legal options there are surrounding these lots.~~

~~One interim option would be to establish a new minimum lot size of 3800 sq ft in RS.~~

~~This would eliminate the possibility of dividing three 2500 sq ft skinny lots into two 3750 sq ft lots for development.~~

The Mayor could propose changing the minimum lot size now as a temporary measure to reduce what some people perceive as overcrowded single family infill. It would not change the ability of someone with 4 skinny lots to put 2 houses on the properties.

~~Susan Anderson ( Director City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability~~

~~www.portJandoregon gov/bps~~

From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:56 PM To: Dingfelder, Jackie Cc: Zehnder, Joe; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stockton, Marty Subject: Eastmoreland topics of interest for Mayor meeting on June 12 ( 187832

~~Here are some background notes on potential topics of interest for the discussion with Eastmoreland representatives. ( \_ --~~

~~Let us know if you have additional questions.~~

~~« File: Eastmoreland topics of interest for Mayor meeting June 12.docx »~~

~~Susan Anderson Director City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability www.portlandoregon.gov/bps~~

~~( 187832~~

From: Engstrom Eric (Plannino) To: Anderwn Susan; Edmunds, Sallie ( Cc: Stein Deborah; Wood, Sandra; Armstrong Tom; Zehnder Joe; Armstrong Michael Subject: RE: ENA Lot Splits Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:26:00 PM

~~It depends what you mean by that...~~

There are several things happening here: 1) Comer lot divisions per the RS code. \Ve have the power to change that, but extra density on comers in the R5 zone have been allowed for many years - back at least 30-50 years. Could result in some -rvreasure 49 issues/claims if we took that away.

2) Pre-existing plats with 2,500 square foot lots. The platted lots exist and the city cannot legally get rid of them without state legislation. \Ve do have the power to restrict development on them, however. But past City councils have said no because they viewed these lots as an affordable housing asset. \Ve dove very deeply into that topic in RI CAP 4 or 5, and Phil is our resident expe1i. Several white papers exist. There were a lot of City Attorney discussions then. \Ve have not had recent City Attorney discussion about this, but I do not think the law has changed. As the former manager of the City's subdivision and plat approval process, I am painfully familiar with those laws.

3) Lot size flexibility in the 2002 land division code. \Ve allow a range of lot sizes in each zone to encourage flexability for things like preserving existing homes and trees, or provision of streets and open space. This is why we measure density based on the overall site and zone, but individual lot sizes can vary below 5,000. Some of the Eastmoreland.testimony points at frustration with that approach. \Ve have the power to change it, but we put those code provisions in place for good reasons. Mandating that each lot be exactly 5,000 feet does not lead to very good subdivision design. '\ -----Original Message----- From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:)8 PM To: Edmunds, Sallie Cc: Stein, Deborah; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); \Vood, Sandra; Armstrong, Tom; Zehnder, Joe; Armstrong, Michael Subject: Re: ENA Lot Splits

~~Do we have a legal opinion on getting rid of2500sq ft lot lines?~~

~~This will be part of the single family work we are starting as soon as we get Bmp $$ this spring - correct?~~

~~Who will lead the SF project?~~

~~This letter should help us get funding at the budget meeting next Monday ...~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM, 11 Edmunds, Sallie11 wrote: > > At the Mayor's meeting today Mathew brought this letter to my attention as something the Mayor wanted us to deal with soon. > > From: Robinson, Nfatthew > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:39 PM > To: Edmunds, Sallie; Dingfelder, Jackie ( > Subject: FW: ENA Lot Splits 187832

> > > ( > -lvfatthew > > ·Matthew Robinson > Policy AsSistant > Office of the Mayor > City of Portland > 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 340 > Portland, Oregon 97204 > Phone: 503.823.4045 > From: [email protected] [mailto·c364e@portlandoregon,gov] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:01 PM > To: Robinson, Matthew; Dingfelder, Jackie > Subject: ENA Lot Splits > > >

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Wood, Sandra To: Anderson Susan; Edmunds, Sallie ( Cc: Stein Deborah; Engstrom Eric (Plannlng); Armstrong Tom; Zehnder, Joe; Armstrong Michael Subject: RE: ENA Lot Splits Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:06:09 PM

We have old legal opinions and a couple LUBA appeals to that give us guidance. We haven't explored this with Kathryn recently, but will do so. I'm eager to see how much our hands are tied on this issue.

~~Yes, it iS part of the single-family work. l'm the management lead and Morgan is slated to be the project lead.~~

-----Original rvressage----- From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:18 PM To: Edmunds, Sallie Cc: Stein, Deborah; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); \Vood, Sandra; Armstrong, Torn; Zehnder, Joe; Armstrong, Michael Subject: Re: ENA Lot Splits

~~Do we have a legal opinion on getting rid of2500sq ft lot lines?~~

~~This will be part of the single family work we are starting as soon as we get Bmp $$ this spring - correct?~~

~~Who will lead the SF project?~~

~~This letter should help us get funding at the budget meeting next Monday ...~~

~~' \ Sent from mobile device.~~

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM, "Edmunds, Sallie" wrote: > > At the Mayor's meeting today Mathew brought this letter to my attention as something the lvlayor wanted us to deal with soon. > > From: Robinson, Matthew > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:39 PM > To: Edmunds, Sallie; Dingfelder, Jackie > Subject: FW: ENA Lot Splits > > > >-Matthew > > Matthew Robinson > Policy Assistant > Oftice of the Mayor > City of Portland > 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 340 > Portland, Oregon 97204 > Phone: 503.823.4045 > From: [email protected] [mailto·c364e@po11landoregon gov] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:01 PM > To: Robinson, Matthew; Dingfelder, Jackie > Subject: ENA Lot Splits ( > 187832

~~> > (~~

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Anderson Susan To: Edmunds Sallie ( Cc: Stein Deborah; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Wood Sandra; Armstrong Tom; Zehnder Joe; Armstrong Michael Subject: Re: ENA Lot Splits Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:18:31 PM

~~Do we have a legal opinion on getting rid of 2500sq ft lot lines?~~

~~This will be part of the single family work we are starting as soon as we get Bmp $$ this spring~ correct?~~

~~Who will lead the SF project?~~

~~This letter should help us get funding at the budget meeting next Monday ...~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM, "Edmunds, Sallie" wrote: > > At the Mayor's meeting today Mathew brought this letter to my attention as something the Mayor wanted us to deal with soon. > > From: Robinson, Matthew > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:39 PM > To: Edmunds, Sallie; Dingfelder, Jackie > Subject: FW: ENA Lot Splits , > \ > > >-Matthew > > N!atthew Robinson > Policy Assistant > Office of the Mayor > City of Portland > 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 340 > Portland, Oregon 97204 > Phone: 503.823.4045 > From: [email protected] [mai1to·c364e@portlandoregon gov] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:01 PM > To: Robinson, Matthew; Dingfelder, Jackie > Subject: ENA Lot Splits > > >

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Anderson Susan To: Stein, Deborah Cc: Zehnder, Joe;; Engstrom Ede (Planolng}; stocktoo Marty; Wright, Sara ( Subject: Re: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 9:40:27 PM~~

~~Since he copied the Mayor, please check with Jackie and see if they were going to reply ... Then we can decide what to send. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:39 PM, "Stein, Deborah" wrote:~~

1900 SW 4Ih Avenue J Suite 7100 J P01tland, OR 97201 J 503.823.6991 deborah.stein@portlandoregon gov www pmtlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Pmtland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliaiy aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional infonnation, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 71 L From: Rod Merrick [mailto;merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Mmty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- We are formally requesling that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March IO work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at onc;e. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are ( 187832

couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has infonnation that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to 11 11 slow the rate of change • There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB 1lferrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771.7762

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Anderson Susan To: Stein Deborah Cc: Zehnder Joe; Ocken Julie; Engstrom Eric (Plannlng) ( Subject: Re: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 4:52:31 PM~~

~~Yes. Let them know. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 6, 2015, at 4:43 PM, "Stein, Deborah" wrote:~~

Turns out the Eastmoreland testimony hadn't been included in the PSC's packet, since it arrived at 3 pm on February 23rd and we had packaged up everything that arrived before noon to send to the PSC in that packet. So, Eric and I agree we should postpone this discussion till March 24th after all (we'll substitute a couple of the other down- designation discussions that had been scheduled for March 24t\ Should we alett the PSC leadership in advance, since at the officers' briefing we had said we'd be covering Eastmoreland? I don't think it's a huge deal either way, but it might be a good idea. Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Pottland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Pottland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 · deborah [email protected] www portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of ( Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliaty aids/services/alternative fotmats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:39 PM To: 'Rod Merrick'; McCullough, Robert; Planning and Sustainability Commission Cc: Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor; Robinson, Matthew; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: RE: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Rod and Robert, My team and I appreciate the depth of analysis and documentation your neighborhood has prepared, and I want to sincerely thank you for your detailed testimony. _-We received Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association's testimony after the Febrnary 25, 2015 staff report had already been completed, and this is why your testimony was not directly acknowledged in that report. I want to make sure that the process is transparent to you and other members of the public. Testimony is being bundled and sent to PSC members on a regular schedule. Testimony received up until noon on February 23rd was delivered to the PSC on February 26th, in preparation for the March 10th work session. I understand that your testimony arrived after that time, and consequently wasn't included in that packet. I agree it's very important for the PSC to have ample time to review your detailed testimony in advance of their work session. Therefore, we decided to alter the agenda for March 10th and postpone discussion ofEastmoreland and other related R5/R7 areas to the following work session on lvlarch 24th. Much of your testimony addresses issues that comprise the basis for a "single~dwelling housing and compatibility" project staff proposes to commence this summer, pending approval of funding in the 2015-16 budget. Your testimony about issues related to alternative development standards and lots ( 187832

of record entitlements is quite helpful to advance this discussion; we appreciate how you've documented these issues. In a budget request for the FY 2015-16 budget, staff proposes to examine and revisit regulations related to: • demolition of existing housing stock • scale and design of new single-dwellings and the role of neighborhood character • narrow-lot development and density • transitions between single- and multi-dwelling development • design in conservation and design districts I understand that Marty Stockton will be joining you for your neighborhood association discussion Monday evening, and she'II be happy to elaborate and answer questions. Regards, Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Pottland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www.p01tlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional infotmation, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Men-ick [mailto·merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM · To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric ( (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Matty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- \Ve ar:e formally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March 10 work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastrnoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this. The summaiy of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of suppo1t or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to 0 1 ( slow the rate of change' • 187832

There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. ( Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB ).Herrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503.771.7762

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein. Deborah To: Anderson, Susan Cc: Zehnder, Joe; Engstrom Eric (PlaonJog) Subject: Re: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 12:31:27 PM~~

~~Talked to Jackie. She's fine with me sending response w/o her review, but asked me to copy Matthew~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:40 PM, Anderson, Susan wrote:~~

~~Since he copied the Mayor, please check with Jackie and see if they were going to reply ... Then we can decide what to send. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:39 PM, "Stein, Deborah" wrote: ( I'll draft a reply tomorrow (and run it by you first, if you want). I'm going to assert that the PSC has the benefit ofreviewing Eastmoreland's testimony directly; it's not necessmy to incorporate it into our rep01t ( and, of course, we received their most recent testimony rukr our report was published). Our methodology is different than theirs -- in large pmt because our desired objectives are different. I can highlight these differences for the PSC at the work session on Tuesday. Postponing the discussion isn't a good plan, because it's quite possible that the PSC might want to digest the information, ask a lot of questions, and then follow up at a subsequent session (March 24 or April 14). Ifwe postpone, we have less time available for any follow up. This is all complicated stuff and we made a conscious attempt to simplify our staff report so it's digestible. We didn't attempt to incorporate all of the background work we did in order to arrive at our recommendations, but we certainly can share this with the PSC. Any other points I should make? Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Po1tland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 9720! I 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Pmtland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxilimy aids/services/alternative fo1mats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, ( complaints, and additional info1mation, contact me at 503-823-6991, City 187832

TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [majjtO'lnerrick [email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM ( To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- \Ve are formally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March 10 work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distorts the representation of the ovenvhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. ( There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R- 7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to "slow the rate of change". There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB 1\ferrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503.771.7762

~~( 187832~~

From: Stein Deborah To: "Rod Merrick"; McCullough Robert; Planning and Sustainability commission Cc: Stockton. Marty; Hales Mayor; Robinson Matthew; Engstrom Ede (Plannlna) Subject: RE: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 4:39:03 PM

1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints; and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- We are fonnally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the f\lfarch 10 work session. ( The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of Febrnary 25 regarding zoning 187832

appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, ( distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the !vfapAp, and does not ·: include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to 11 slow the rate of change". There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB :M~irllilt"A~hlf!fcfurjjliftlhli»IiUi Portland, OR 503.771.7762

(

~~( \ 187832~~

~~From: Engstrom Eric (Planning) To: Dabbs Eden ( Cc: Stockton, Marty; Wright. Sara; Stein Deborah; Ocken Julje Subject: Re: land use mavens Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:22:28 PM~~

~~Eastmoreland I suspect.~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:27 PM, Dabbs, Eden wrote:~~

And what is his issue? Eden Dabbs, Communications/Public Affairs City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability p 503 823 9908 IC 503 260 3301 I f503 823 7800 Subscribe to the new BPS E-newsletter at: www portlandoregon.govlbps To help ens·ure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedure-Sand provide alLxiliary aids/services/alternative fommts to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-6947, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 71 l. From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:08 AM To: Stockton, Marty; Wright, Sara; Stein, Deborah; Dabbs, Eden; Ocken, Julie Subject: RE: Land use mavens Sounds like PSC to me. From: Stockton, Marty ( Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 10:36 AM To: Wright, Sara; Stein, Deborah; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Dabbs, Eden; Ocken, Julie Subject: Fw: Land use mavens Heads up .... not sure if Robert is referring to the CIC or the PSC.

~~Sent using OWA for iPhone~~

From: Robe11 McCullough Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 10:27:17 AM To: Rod Merrick; Meg Merrick; Clark Nelson; Joanne Carlson; Tom Hubka; Ed Dundon; Bill Morgan; Stockton, Marty; Bruce Sternberg; Gina Herrmann; Roberta Hyde; Judith Kenny; Carol Klingensmith Subject: Land use mavens Two things:

I believe active lobbying is needed at the comprehensive plan cmmnittee level. I understand the dictates of comtesy, but I also sense that there is no real communication taking place at the committee level.

When one of my clients faces the same staff level intransigence, I go to the decision makers (I am doing this next week for Physicians for Social Responsibility). I really want to write a cover letter and include your analysis -- sending it to each comrpehensive plan board member.

~~( I really will ask for a motion to higher Stark Ackerman (Black Helterline) at our 187832~~

next board meeting ifwe do not have a solid reason not to. I know this is arbitrary and capricious -- intentionally so -- but I am very uncomfo1iable that we are again entering a legal arena without a lawyer. So, recommend now, or face ( my usual bumbling ahead.

~~Thanks, team, for a lot of good work. I am ready to dispatch the flying monkeys .~~

~~Robe1i~~

~~Robe1i McCullough Managing Partner lvfcCullough Research 6123 S.E. Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 Robert@mresearch com www mresearch.com~~

~~503-771-5090 (direct) 503-777-4616 (office) 503-784-3758 (cell)~~

This e-mail message contains confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received it in error, please call 503-777-4616 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you. (

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Wood Sandra To: Zehnder Joe ( Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: RE: Need Issues ASAP Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:20:45 AM Attachments: Reslnfill 2-paqer 6.4.15.dog~~

~~They should probably talk about three issues:~~

1. Comp Plan - Eastmoreland Comp Plan designations - ERIC 2. Mixed Use Code related to Division - ERIC 3. Residential Infill Project • At this point, staff has been working on getting staffed up, getting RFPs out, and figuring out the stakeholders and public involvement plan. • There are many stakeholders and expectations. • Staff has been hearing from the various stakeholders and refining the project scope. • The scope will be verified by the stakeholder advisory group when they are formed in August. • These are the three topics that we're exploring: 1. Scale of new houses - we'll revisit issues such as maximum height, setbacks, and building coverage. 2. Narrow lot development -this addresses both the historic lot pattern and development in ( R2.5 3. Alternative housing options - this is about exploring alternatives to a single house on a lot. We're curious about alternatives such as two AD Us per site, cottage clusters, internal conversions of larger houses, and stacked flats.

In response to today's Oregonian Editorial: • This project is not a "study." It is about developing solutions to issues and applying them immediately. Those solutions will be applied to all new development in single- dwelling zones in the future. The new standards will be apply to all 150,000 existing house and new houses that are built every year. • The Oregonian editorial is supportive of "skinny lots." They are only talking about R2.5. When the neighbors say "skinny lots" and "truth in advertising" they are talking about skinny houses resulting from historically platted RS lots. The notion being that we didn't plan for those lots to be 25x100 therefore it's a loophole that we are overlooking.

~~Is this what you were looking for?~~

~~From: Zehnder, Joe Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:10 AM To: Wood, Sandra Subject: FW: Need Issues ASAP ( 187832~~

~~Sandra please send me your ideas. ( From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:57 AM To: Zehnder, Joe Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP~~

~~Compile draft and send to me by 3. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robert McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Portland ( [email protected] (o) 503-823-4125 ( C) 503-823-8540~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Anderson Susan To: Zehnder Joe ( Cc: Engstrom Eric (Plannlno} Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:56:43 AM~~

~~Compile draft and send to me by 3. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robert McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

Can you please send me key planning issues that you think the Mayor should discuss with Robert Mccullough? I'm assuming he'll want to talk about EastMoreland and Com Plan. Can you send that over by 4 p.m. today? Sorry about late notice, he just told me.

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Potiland jackie,[email protected] (o) 503-823-4125 ( ( C) 503-823-8540 Sent from my iPad~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Zehnder. Joe To: Anderson, Susan Cc: Engstrom Eric (Plannfng) ( Subject: RE: Need Issues ASAP Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:37:57 AM~~

~~This might not be a long list~~

~~1. Mr. McCullough will want to talk about comp plan issues. Not sure where the Mayor is on these issues, but he also may feel voting on that particular issue is too close to a conflict of interest.~~

~~Eric, please provide the sufficient level of detail for the Mayor to know at this point. Include info on how the PSC voted and why. Mr. McCullough may explain what the community law suit may be about.~~

~~2. Single Family Lot project and Skinny Lots. Sandra is drafting some bullet points on this.~~

Main message/reminder for Mayor is that the scope of the project will include skinny lots. Talking with SEUplift staff, lots-of-record/skinny lots is the main issue of concern currently w/ their land use committee.

~~Mr. McCullough may be among the community advocates that do not want flexibility for ( more/new types of units considered at all. Our notes to the Mayor should remind him of \ why that is important.~~

FYI from the Oregonian editorial today: "The 18 months ahead of studying the problem may seem like a reprise of historic struggles. But if any good can come of the effort, it will be in accepting as well as acknowledging that Portland can't have it both ways.

If the city must create housing density to serve its land-use and planning goals - hallmarks of the sustainable lifestyle, creating its own in-migration from across the nation - then Fritz and her colleagues must view skinny houses as not only allowable but attractive, sane options."

~~From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:57 AM To: Zehnder, Joe Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP~~

~~Compile draft and send to me by 3. Thanks Sent from my iPad ( 187832~~

~~On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie ( wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robe1t McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of P01tland [email protected] ( o) 503-823-4125 (c) 503-823-8540~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Stockton Marty To: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Zehnder, Joe; Anderson, Susan Cc: Wood, Sand@ ( Subject: RE: Need Issues ASAP Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:21:28 PM Attachments: 2015.06.08 lU Team MeetinoAaenda.pdf

~~Attached is the Eastmoreland Land Use Committee agenda from Monday, June gth_~~

Two items of note: They are closely tracking the Single-Dwelling Development (Infill) Project and note inconsistencies between what is being shared by the Mayor's Office and BPS. They also are concerned about how the "skinny" or new "narrow'' lots component will be handled and feel that this is a priority of the project. They are tracking an appeal by the Brentwood-Darlington NA on a Land Division Subdivision of four new narrow lots on SE 53th and Tenino. I sat in on this hearing on Monday and it has the potential to chart new territory in regards to Section 33.610.200 Lot Dimension Regulations, specifically the purpose statement, and staff's interpretation of this in an "on balance" manner. Eastmoreland feels that this HO decision could have far reaching applicability and are assisting Brentwood-Darlington. This is the same code section that Woodstock used in their appeal of the HO decision on SE Reedway and 40th, which prevailed at City Council and triggered the letter to BOS from Commissioner Fritz. Eastmoreland contacted me this morning on this point as a follow up to the land use committee meeting on Monday. ( \

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503·823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:10 PM To: Zehnder, Joe; Anderson, Susan Cc: Wood, Sandra; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Need Issues ASAP I also asked for input from Marty. She attended the Eastmoreland land use committee meeting ( 187832

yesterday. ( Comp Plan Zoning R7 zoning req11est. • The neighborhood requested down-zoning from RS to R7 with the Comp Plan. • Staff initially agreed and made that part of the July 2014 Proposed Draft. • Testimony heavy at the PSC, favorable overall. There was opposition from some organizations from a citywide perspective ... concerns expressed about proximity to new light rail, and debate about if the character was truly R7. Many of the blocks in the neighborhood are developed at more of an RS lot pattern, especially eastern side of the neighborhood. • Ultimately the PSC did not recommend the downzoning. They looked at the lot size analysis and did not agree that the neighborhood had an R7 character, and they agreed with the testimony about proximity to transit. The neighborhood is upset about the PSC recommendation. • On June 3 the City received notice from a law firm that indicates the neighborhood intends to sue the city over the PSC recommendation. It is not clear how that would be done, given that typically one cannot take legal action about land use matters until the City Council makes the final decision. The mayor might want to ask what they hope to accomplish with a lawsuit at this stage of the process.

Mixed llse ?oning ( • Background research was completed in September 2014. • Concept plan was published in May 2015. • Staff are currently preparing draft code. A public discussion draft will be available by August, with PSC hearings in the fall. • There is no mixed use zoning in Eastmoreland, but he may still be tracking the project as he participates in other citywide land use discussions.

Institutional Camp11s Zoning • A concept Plan was published in April 2015 • Staff are currently preparing draft code. A public discussion draft will be available by August, with PSC hearings in the fall. • This project will impact future development of the Reed campus.

~~From: Zehnder, Joe Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:38 AM To: Anderson, Susan Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Wood, Sandra Subject: RE: Need Issues ASAP~~

~~With Sandra's update. Eric: could you also add notes on questions that might come up re: MXU concept ( Thanks 187832~~

~~This might not be a long list (~~

2. Residential Infill Project • At this point, staff has been working on getting staffed up, getting RFPs out, and figuring out the stakeholders and public involvement plan. • There are many stakeholders and expectations. • Staff has been hearing from the various stakeholders and refining the project scope. • The scope will be verified by the stakeholder advisory group when they are formed in· August. • These are the three topics that we're exploring: 1. Scale of new houses-we'll revisit issues such as maximum height, setbacks, and building coverage. 2. Narrow lot development - this addresses both the historic lot pattern, minimum lot sizes and development in R2.5 ( 3. Alternative housing options - this is about exploring alternatives to a single house on a lot. We're curious about alternatives such as two ADUs per site, cottage clusters, internal conversions of larger houses, and stacked flats.

~~From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:57 AM To: Zehnder, Joe Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP~~

~~Compile draft and send to me by 3. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robert McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

~~Can you please send me key planning issues that you think the Mayor should discuss with Robert Mccullough? I'm assuming he'll want to talk about ( 187832~~

~~EastMoreland and Com Plan. Can you send that over by 4 p.m. today? Sorry ( about late notice, he just told me.~~

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Portland [email protected] ( o) 503-823-4125 ( C) 503-823-8540~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Zehnder Joe To: Anderson Susan Cc: Engstrom Ede (Planning); Wood, Sandra ( Subject: RE: Need Issues ASAP Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:37:44 AM~~

~~With Sandra's update. Eric: could you also add notes on questions that might come up re: MXU concept Thanks~~

~~This might not be a long list~~

2. Residential Infill Project • At this point, staff has been working on getting staffed up, getting RFPs out, and figuring out the stakeholders and public involvement plan. • There are many stakeholders and expectations. ( • Staff has been hearing from the various stakeholders and refining the project scope. • The scope will be verified by the stakeholder advisory group when they are formed in August. • These are the three topics that we're exploring: 1. Scale of new houses -we'll revisit issues such as maximum height, setbacks, and building coverage. 2. Narrow lot development -this addresses both the historic lot pattern, minimum lot sizes and development in R2.5 3. Alternative housing options -this is about exploring alternatives to a single house on a lot. We're curious about alternatives such as two ADUs per site, cottage clusters, internal conversions of larger houses, and stacked flats.

~~From: Anderson, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:57 AM To: Zehnder, Joe Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP~~

~~Compile draft and send to me by 3. Thanks ( 187832~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~( On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robert McCollough tomorrow a.m.~~

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Portland jackie,[email protected] (o) 503-823-4125 ( C) 503-823-8540~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Anderson Susan To: Dingfelder Jackie Cc: Zehnder Joe; Engstrom Eric (Planning} ( Subject: Re: Need Issues ASAP Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:57:04 AM~~

~~Got it. We'll get to you by 4~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Dingfelder, Jackie wrote:~~

~~Mayor just told me he's having breakfast with Robett McCollough tomorrow ,1.m.~~

~~Jackie Dingfelder, Policy Director Mayor Charlie Hales, City of Portland jackie,[email protected] (o) 503-823-4125 (C) 503-823-8540 ( Sent from my iPad~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Ocken, JulJe To: Stein Deborah; Engstrom Eric (Planning) ' ( Subject: RE: please remind me of work session topics for May 12 Date: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:18:05 AM Attachments: 12may15 doc~~

I was thinking we wouldn't specifically call it Eastmoreland, so this sounds good. Eric, is the other Comp Plan item for 5/12 Economic "stuff" (WHI, other)? I don't remember at this point since the Scenarios hearing moved. It makes sense to me we'd have EOA/economic/employment follow-up, but I don't want to guess. We have a total of 3.5 hours on the 5/12 agenda for Comp Plan related things ... see attached draft notice agenda. Julie Ocken City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100 Portland, OR 97201 503-823·6041 www,port[andoregon,gov/bps

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide transportation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints and additional information, contact me, City TTY 503·823·6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:13 AM To: Ocken, Julie; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: RE: please remind me of work session topics for May 12 ( How about if we call the agenda item "Residential Density," and then the detail (2nd column) would say "Continued discussion about residential down-designations." I'd prefer to leave this a little vague rather than call out Eastmoreland specifically in the agenda. Is that ok with you? How much time will be allotted for this: 45 minutes?

~~Deborah Stein I Principal Planner J Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability~~

1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 J Portland, OR 97201 J 503.823.6991 [email protected] www.portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Ocken, Julie Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:35 AM To: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stein, Deborah Subject: please remind me of work session topics for May 12 I know Eastmoreland. Others? I'm drafting the agenda/notice, and I know the draft annotated agenda is not correct at this point. Thanks. Julie Ocken City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100 Portland, OR 97201 503·823·6041 wwv, .portlandoregon oov /bps ( 187832

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide transportation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints and additional information, contact ( me, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: stein Deborah To: Ocken ]u[ie; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) ( Subject: RE: please remind me of work session topics for May 12 Date: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:13:03 AM~~

How about ifwe call the agenda item "Residential Density," and then the detail (2nd column) would say "Continued discussion about residential down-designations." I'd prefer to leave this a little vague rather than call out Eastmoreland specifically in the agenda. Is that ok with you? How much time will be allotted for this: 45 minutes? Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Ocken, Julie Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:35 AM To: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stein, Deborah Subject: please remind me of work session topics for May 12 I know Eastmoreland. Others? I'm drafting the agenda/notice, and I know the draft annotated agenda is not correct at this point. Thanks. ( Julie Ocken City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100 Portland, OR 97201 503·823·6041 www.porUandoregon, gov /bps

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activitiesJ the City of Portland will provide transportation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliaiy aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints and additional information, contact me, City TTY 503·823·6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Engstrom, Eric To: n]Redden@PortlancITribuoe comH Subject: RE: Portland Tribune question - Comp Plan ( Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:47:00 AM~~

There is no current proposal there. It is currently designated/zoned R5, and the PSC dropped an earlier proposal to down-designate it to R7. The biggest concern, I understand, is the infill skinny homes east of 36th, and some corner lot redevelopment. That topic is being discussed as part of the residential infill project. Ultimately the PSC decided that downzoning was not the right tool to resolve the concerns. The area is near a new light rail stop, so there was also some skepticism of downzoning in that context. The neighborhood association would prefer it be down-zoned to R7, and we expect to get testimony from them at City Council.

~~-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto·JRedden@PortlandTrihune com] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 7:06 AM To: Engstrom, Eric Subject: Portland Tribune question - Comp Plan~~

~~Eric,~~

\Vhat's recommenced for the Eastmoreland neighborhood in the Comp Pl~n. I just heard some complaints its recommended to be up-zoned to R5. But in this August 2014 story, we reported it was likely to be down-zoned: http· /Lpamplinmedia com/pt/9-news/23043 J -92274-city-ponders-about-face-on-density

~~Jim Redden, Portland Tribune, 503-709-1214 (~~

~~( 187832~~

From: Stein, Deborah To: Engstrom Ede (Planning); Zehnder Joe ( Subject: residential densities staff report Date: Saturday, Februaty 21, 2015 6:03:10 PM Attachments: Resklentia1DeosjtiesStaffReoortDSv2.docx

Here is a 90% draft for you to review. There are a few places we'll need to fill in data and perhaps beef up the "policy support" sections, which are a little weak. But I think it's in pretty good shape overall. (Oh, and I still haven't added the paragraphs in the introduction to set the context for this - how residential neighborhoods fit into the UDF. But I'm pretty spent right now, so I'll come back to this later.) Green highlights refer to maps and tables we'll need to remember to attach. We'll have a simple map for each section showing where the affected areas are - not much detail; mostly just for quick reference. There will also be all the testimony tables at the end of the report that include all of our recommendations and rationales. Those will be ready on Monday. We should talk about how much of the methodology (analytical tables) need to be attached in an appendix. I'm worried how overwhelmingly long this will be. Let's figure that out ... maybe we have a separate document for these. Eric: I left Chris's questions in the Powellhurst-Gilbert section regarding capacity calculations because you are more on top of all this than I am. We can also replace all the other brief discussions about "impact on housing capacity" if Kevin is able to do a simple run for each polygon, using a consistent methodology based on BU. I think that's it for now. Happy reading© (

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: Engstrom Erjc (Planning) Subject: Res1dentia1Densities5taffReport ( Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:23:59 PM Attachments: Res1dentia1DeositiesStaffReportDSy2 docx~~

Still needs some editing in the last 2 sections, and a few things to fill in. I'll be working on this at home this weekend. We'll be able to finalize the testimony tables on Monday. Feel free to call me 503-516-7405 if you want to talk this weekend! Sorry this has taken so long to finish.

(

~~( '· 187832~~

~~The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the ( documents and presentations link: https ·//www. port Ian doregon .gov /bps/a rticle/529238~~

Also, accordin·g to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that part should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Part 1 link).

Finally, there were four area discussed/shared in the presentation yesterday, but all ten were analyzed using the methodology we shared with you all a couple meetings ago. Deborah will follow up with maps of all the areas reviewed by staff. We will also have a final memo to the PSC that includes these ten areas.

On a personal note, I am also still processing my thoughts about yesterday's work session. I knew the PSC discussion was going to be close. It was painful for me as I have worked with you all on the Eastmoreland request for a year now. I too would have liked a more analytical, thoughtful and sensitive discussion around their recommendation.

~~With kind regards, Marty~~

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503 823 2041 f: 503 823 5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041. City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Meg Merrick [mailto:meg [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: S/ideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting

~~Hi Deborah and Mmiy,~~

Could you please send me a copy of the slides that you presented today to the BPS Commission regarding the RS to R7 request? I am patiicularly interesting in seeing maps of each of the areas that were considered. 187832

~~Thanks!~~

~~Meg (~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Ocken, Julie To: Engstrom Eric (Plannlng) ( Cc: stein Deborah Subject: RE: stuff to transmit to PSC Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 10:34:48 AM~~

~~We'll just go with Deborah's things for the email and snail mail today. I'll note what we'll email them tomorrow, and then we'll need to make copies of those docs for Tuesday.~~

~~Julie Ocken City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100 Portland, OR 97201 503-823-6041 www.port(andoreoon.gov/bps~~

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide transportation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints and additional informatioh, contact me, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 10:34 AM To: Ocken, Julie Subject: Re: stuff to transmit to PSC \ Unlikely I will be do.ne.~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Ocken, Julie wrote:~~

Got it - thanks for the review, Marty. I flipped the maps over and inserted the table. The table pages (because they are landscape) show up as being sideways, but I can't get into figuring that part out. Still very legible, so I think we can go with it!

All 3 compiled files are in \\BPSFHe1\CommonS\drop\ocken julje\For PSC 4 14 15\final. I do want to be sure to get any I all hard copies we can in the mail today in hopes that they arrive for PSC members on Saturday.

~~Eric, will you have docs ready today? If so, I'll wait to send the email to PSC members to include yours ... by 4 p.m. though.~~

~~Julie Ocken City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100 Portland, OR 97201 503·823·6041 v,1ww. portlandoregon. gov /bps ( 187832~~

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide transportation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints and additional information, contact me, City nY 503·823·6868, or use Oregon Relay ( Service: 711. '·

~~From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:03 PM To: Ocken, Julie; Stein, Deborah Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Wright, Sara Subject: RE: stuff to transmit to PSC~~

~~Everything looks good except in the Residential Densities pdf. Two things:~~

~~It's missing the table, which then should be followed by the maps. Then the maps are upside down.~~

~~Otherwise great. Thanks Julie for an opportunity to double-check the packet!~~

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 ( e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.goy/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~From: Ocken, Julie Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:51 PM To: Stein, Deborah Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stockton, Marty; Wright, Sara Subject: RE: stuff to transmit to PSC~~

~~OK, I have everything I need and combined for these three items -- please confirm the attached are correct.~~

~~Eric, please let me know when your documents are ready. We also have the PR&F memo to include.~~

~~Tomorrow morning (or by mid-day), I'll forward everything to the PSC. Then we should ( 187832~~

~~have printed copies made and mailed out (Deborah noted maybe Ellen or another intern can help) by EOB tomorrow so commissioners have the weekend to review hard copies.~~

~~Julie Ocken City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100 Portland, OR 97201 503-823-6041 www. portlandoregon. gay/ bps~~

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide transportation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services.I alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints and additional information, contact me, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:51 PM To: Ocken, Julie Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stockton, Marty; Wright, Sara Subject: stuff to transmit to PSC~~

I have created a folder in your drop box (entitled "For PSC 4-14-15") with a bunch of documents to send to the PSC for their next work session. There are two memos, each with several attachments as listed below. There is also a new Map Change Consent List \ (excel file). There is a tiny bit of last minute cleanup needed of the latter, and Marty can work on this with you. Hope this isn't confusing!

~~Items to send:~~

1. PSC memo on Residential Densities (file is named UpDesignations_PSC_memo) + attachments: a. Up-designations amendments table b. Maps A-E 2. Cover memo for Eastmoreland background data (file is named eastmoreland_maps_cover) + maps #1-8 3. Map Change Consent List, with staff responses to map change testimony organized by the relevant staff report. There isn't an accompanying staff report, but I could whip one out tomorrow morning if you think it's helpful.

~~Eric also has a couple (?) memos nearly ready to go but not sure of the status or whereabouts ©~~

~~Thanks! call or text me if you have any questions I 187832~~

Deborah Stein J Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 ( [email protected] www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

(

~~( 187832~~

From: stark Nan To: Stein Deborah; Frederiksen Joan; Manning Sany; Scarzel!o Chrjstlna; Stockton Marty; Cole, John Andrew; Doss Troy (PJannfng); Williams Spencer; Lum Leslie; Bump Tyler; Raggett Mark; LIiiard, Lora; Cunningham, \ JliU; Glascock Bob Cc: Brooks, Mindy (Planning) Subject: RE: Team meeting tomorrow Date: Wednesday, Aprll 2, 20141:33:16 PM

~~Briefly- where we ended yesterday re criteria for nonconforming situations.~~

From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:42 PM To: Frederiksen, Joan; Manning, Barry; Scarzello, Christina; Stockton, Marty; Cole, John Andrew; Doss, Troy (Planning); Williams, Spencer; Lum, Leslie; Bump, Tyler; Raggett, Mark; Lillard, Lora; Cunningham, Bill; Stark, Nan; Glascock, Bob Cc: Brooks, Mindy (Planning) Subject: Team meeting tomorrow

~~We'll be in 7a. Let me know if I've missed anything for this agenda!~~

~~Agenda:~~

~~1. Announcements~~

~~2. Updates \ a. Overview of Comp Plan schedule through the end of 2014 b. Skinny lots c. Reedway meeting d. Demolition forum e. Space planning f. Team retreat g. Others~~

~~3. Outstanding map issues - share data and discuss: a. situations similar to Eastmoreland where R7 is desired b. EX - areas to consider for EG c. RH - retain or convert to MU? d. Others ...~~

~~4. Talking points for map overview for Mayor (Joe and Deborah on Monday)~~

~~5. Other issues?~~

~~Deborah Stein Principal Planner Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 503.823.6991 ( 187832~~

~~deborab [email protected] (~~

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Engstrcxn Ede (Planning) To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Dabbs, Eden; Stein, Deborah; Thompson. Julia; Manning Bany \ Subject: Re: troubled by houslng trend in Portland Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:33:31 PM

If we did ever decide to decouple height maps from zoning, a possible basis would be the urban design background repott, which delineates the tall Victorian areas from the bungalows from the ranch homes. Year built is also an indicator. Areas built up before 1920 and the most recent decades are often approaching 3 stories. 1920-1950 tends to be only two floors, and 1950-1990 tends to be one floor.

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Apr 16, 2014, at 2:06 PM, "Stockton, Marty" wrote:~~

~~Hi all,~~

Mindy Fitch is reiterating a sentiment that we have heard for several years now- scale of infill and the protection of neighboring garden space. The Residential Development and Compatibility PEG was advocated for by the District Liaison team to channel these issues. While I agree with Eric that some people like three story homes and do not want to upkeep a yard, their neighbors may be avid gardeners and are upset by the \,' loss of solar access onto their property. In response to Eric's last sentence below. I have attached the Eastmoreland Special District Draft Proposal that includes a few nuggets that could be considered citywide. My favorites include:

Scale of houses in relation to lot sizes - Site coverage. - Maximum FAR of 0.6 for residential lots. - Roof heights based on lot size or lot width (usually at the frontage). - Height of main floor entry.

The community frustration is that these issues keep getting bounced down the road (now maybe being proposed in RICAP 7 to begin work in 2016). The conversations have been happeni_ng. Community members are resorting to community led proposals - the attached is an example.

~~Marty~~

~~Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability ( 187832~~

1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] ( w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:15 AM To: Dabbs, Eden; Stein, Deborah; Thompson, Julia Cc: Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: troubled by housing trend in Portland

I think it is interesting that so many Portlanders interpret any new housing (other than their own) as greedy. Builders build new homes because there is a demand for them, and they build what the code allows. For the most part these infill construction companies are small locally-owned business, and they see themselves as providing needed infill development, which in general has a very low environmental footprint compared to suburban tract development. We should avoid jumping on a vilify-the- builder bandwagon.

People would be shouting about government over-reach if we told them that they cannot add a second floor to their home to accommodate a growing family, or if we are overly fussy with design controls. The fact is that not everybody agrees on what good design looks like. Some people like three story homes, some do not. Some people like gardens, and some do not. In the absence of a public agreement, it is hard for the City to enforce one groups perspective against another's. There is also a large ( segment of the market that does not have kids, and does not want a large yard to maintain. It would be nice if we could be up-front with people about this basic dilemma.

That said, I think there is widespread agreement that the code should require a bit more outdoor area (back yard setbacks) in some zones, and that there is probably a need for some RS areas to have a lower height limit (though I'd argue probably not inner NE, where this person lives).

~~From: Dabbs, Eden Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:42 AM To: Stein, Deborah; Thompson, Julia Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: troubled by housing trend in Portland~~

Deborah - The email I just sent you from Michael Anderson is along these same lines. Perhaps whatever we say to him could be the start of our TPs for this issue. It's only going to gain more attention, I'm sure.

~~Once I hear back from you, Eric or Marty on the media request, I'll chat with Julia to consider next steps for a more generic response for staff to use in response to these ( 187832~~

~~kinds of letters and get back to you. Sound good?~~

Eden Dabbs, Communications/Public Affairs ( City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainabilily p 503 823 9908 I c 503 260 3301 If 503 823 7800 Subscribe to the new BPS E-newslelter at: www.port!andoregoo.gov/bps Please note my new email address is eden.dabbs@portlaodoreqoo gov

~~From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:50 AM To: Thompson, Julia; Dabbs, Eden Subject: Fwd: troubled by housing trend in Portland~~

We get so many letters like this, often forwarded by commissioners' offices. Can we work with you to develop some generalized responses that the DLs can then customize as appropriate? Maybe this is something John T can help with? I want to be responsive but for many of these letters, there isn't a response that will be fully satisfying ...

~~Thanks! Let's talk~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

~~From: Mindy Fitch I Date: April 13, 2014 9:45:57 PM PDT \ To: "Stein, Deborah" Subject: troubled by housing trend in Portland Reply-To: Mindy Fitch~~

~~Dear Ms. Stein,~~

Hello! Jennifer Kalez at Nick Fish's office suggested I might take some of my (and my neighbors') concerns to you regarding development trends affecting Portland neighborhoods such as mine. Instead of repeating myself, I'll forward the letter I sent to the city last Wednesday. Many thanks for your time. I'll appreciate any advice you might be able to offer.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Mindy Fitch ( 187832~~

~~From: Mindy Fitch [mailtD'[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:21 PM To: City Info ( Subject: troubled by housing trend in Portland~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

~~I'm not sure who to direct my questions and complaints to with the city, and am hoping you'll be able to help my voice find the write ear. Thanks in advance for your assistance!~~

On my street in close-in NE Portland, and all over Portland in many other neighborhoods, developers over the last several years have been knocking down homes that are both structurally sound and perfectly charming Portland-style in order to construct grotesquely oversized, insanely priced McMansion-style structures.

These new buildings are so massive, they frequently ( block out the sun entirely for the more moderately sized homes beside them. This completely alters the quality of life of the next-door neighbors: no more sunlight through the windows, no more sun in the garden.

The structures also take up so much space that there is virtually no non-paved earth left in the lot, no chance for the future owners of the McMansion to have a garden, no place for their children to play outdoors. The design itself is anti-human and anti- envircinment. Clearly $$$ is the central point, nothing more or less. Sad, obvious display of greed.

~~I have talked with many friends and neighbors about these new "homes" and am far from alone in my disgust with this trend. ( 187832~~

My husband and I have lived in our home for 12 ( years, we have become parents in it, we are very connected to our neighbors and our community. If an absurdly giant hotel of a house is built next door to us, blocking out the sun and any chance of ever growing anything edible in our garden again or seeing the afternoon sun, will we, like some of our neighbors, have no recourse?

As upset as I am personally by this trend in Portland, many others are equally so. And many of our brown- skinned neighbors have been pushed out of this neighborhood already during the process. It's sad. Very very sad. Portland neighborhoods are on a road to losing a lot of good non-millionaires, and we non-millionaires are the ones who keep this place interesting.

~~I wish I knew what to do to help put a stop to this trend. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Mindy Fitch 1401 NE Roselawn St Portland, OR 97211 503-284-3897~~

~~<2014 ENA Special District Draft Proposa!V3.7.pdf>~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: Dacanay Radcliffe Subject: Re: we"d appreciate some assistance! ( Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:08:58 AM~~

~~Thank you!~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 16, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Dacanay, Radcliffe wrote:~~

~~Yes, of course.~~

~~From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:16:00 PM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Cc: Stockton, Marty; Frederiksen, Joan Subject: we'd appreciate some assistance!~~

~~I would really appreciate it if you'd be able to work with Marty on this; she can let you know more precisely what help she needs.~~

~~Thanks in advance!~~

~~Deborah~~

Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) To: Steln, Deborah Subject: res density on April 14 Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:52:53 AM r' Attachments: psc 04.14.15 annotated agenda.dOC(~~

~~Deborah,~~

The updated April 14th agenda is attached. You now have 60 minutes for residential topics. Memos to support that work session would be due between April 1st and 6th. How do you want to use that time? a) Include both up and down designations on the agenda, and try to get through it all. b) Focus only on remaining down-designations, and push off the up-zoning c) Focus only on up-zoning, and bring the remaining down-designations back on May 12 (we have limited time then), and it would be after the map is published.

~~I prefer a), but happy to do either. We can discuss today if you want.~~

~~( Eric Engstrom, AICP Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Ste 7100 Portland, OR 97201 Ph: 503-823-3329 erjc [email protected]~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: Hurley Peter I (POOU Subject: Residential Densities staff report Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 6:18:54 PM Attachments: Resldentla1DensitiesStaffReportDSv2 ERE docx~~

~~Here you go!~~

~~- Deborah~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein, Deborah To: Engstrom Eric (Planning) Subject: ResidentialDensitiesStaffReport Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:22:00 PM C Attachments: ResjdentialDensitiesStaffReportDSv2.docx~~

~~( '~~

~~( 187832~~

From: Stein Deborah To: Stockton Marty; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) ( Subject: revised McCullough Eastmoreland letter Date: Friday, April 25, 2014 3:50:58 PM Attachments: mccullouqh letter dated 042414 DSedits.doc

~~I reorganized this and shrunk it down - please review to make sure nothing got lost in the translation I~~

~~Deborah Stein Principal Planner Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 503.823.6991 deborah.steio@portlandoregon gov~~

(

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

..... om: Robert McCullough ( 1t: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:39 PM 10: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; PDX Comp Plan Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony Attachments: 20160113 - Public Request emails Pt-7.pdf

~~Council Clerk January 13, 2015~~

~~1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130~~

~~Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Comprehensive Plan comments~~

~~Dear Portland City Council & Staff:~~

l\ttached is the seventh of 8 batches comprised of emails received as a partial response to a November 201S document iuest. From the file dates, it is clear that these were assembled in November, but were held back until yesterday at 5 pm in order to forestall use in the Comprehensive Plan hearings.

~~The emails do not include those from Susan Anderson or Joe Zehnder. Since they are the primary decision makers, their absence in these conversations is surprising.~~

~~Some of the emails also contradict public statements made by staff to the committee.~~

Obviously, in the 24 hours available for review, it is difficult to give a complete analysis. However, one cannot help but conclude that the process did not include public involvement in the manner mandated by the Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and our existing comprehensive plan. We expect that the omitted communications would only dramatize this point further.

~~( .:>bert McCullough,~~

~~1 187832~~

~~President, Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~6123 SE Reed College Place~~

~~Portland, OR 97202 (~~

~~(503) 771-5090~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~Robert McCullough Managing Partner McCullough Research 6123 S.E. Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 [email protected] www.mresearch.com~~

~~503-771-5090 (direct) 503-777-4616 (office) 503-784-3758 (cell)~~

This e-mail message contains confidentiai, privileged info1mation intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received it in error, please call 503-777-4616 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you. (

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~( Council Clerk January 13, 2015 1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130 Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Comprehensive Plan comments~~

~~Dear Portland City Council & Staff:~~

Attached is the seventh of 8 batches comprised of emails received as a partial response to a November 2015 document request. From the file dates, it is clear that these were assembled in November, but were held back until yesterday at 5 pm in order to forestall use in the Comprehensive Plan hearings.

~~The emails do not include those from Susan Anderson or Joe Zehnder. Since they are the primary decision makers, their absence in these conversations is surprising.~~

~~( Some of the emails also contradict public statements made by staff to the committee.~~

Obviously, in the 24 hours available for review, it is difficult to give a complete analysis. However, one cannot help but conclude that the process did not include public involvement in the manner mandated by the Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and our existing comprehensive plan. We expect that the omitted communications would only dramatize this point further.

~~Robert McCullough, President, Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, OR 97202 (503) 771-5090 [email protected]~~

~~( 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 187832~~

From: Robert McCullough To: Stein, Deborah; "Rod Merrick"; Planning and SustainabHity Commission Cc: Stocktoo, Marty; Hales, Mayor; Robinson, Matthew; Engstrom, Ede (Planning) Subject: [Approved Sender] Re: ENA Testimony Ignored ( Date: Frtday, March 6, 2015 5:27:34 PM Attachments: new!ogo.gff

~~Deborah:~~

~~Thank you. Have a fine weekend.~~

~~Robert~~

~~On 3/6/2015 4:38 PM, Stein, Deborah wrote:~~

~~Dear Rod and Robert,~~

My team and I appreciate the depth of analysis and documentation your neighborhood has prepared, and I want to sincerely thank you for your detailed testimony. We received Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association's testimony after the February 25, 2015 staff report had already been completed, and this is why your testimony was not directly acknowledged in that report.

I want to make sure that the process is transparent to you and other members of the public. Testimony is being bundled and sent to PSC members on a regular schedule. Testimony received up until noon on February 23rd was delivered to the PSC on February 25th, in preparation for the March 10th work session. I understand that your testimony arrived ofter that time, and consequently ( wasn't included in that packet. I agree it's very important for the PSC to have ample time to review your detailed testimony in advance of their work session. Therefore, we decided to alter the agenda for March 10th and postpone discussion of Eastmoreland and other related R5/R7 areas to the following work session on March 24th_ Much of your testimony addresses issues that comprise the basis for a'"single-dwelling housing and compatibility'' project staff proposes to commence this summer, pending approval of funding in the 2015-16 budget. Your testimony about issues related to alternative development standards and lots of record entitlements is quite helpful to advance this discussion; we appreciate how you've documented these issues. In a budget request for the FY 2015-16 budget, staff proposes to examine and revisit regulations related to: • demolition of existing housing stock • scale and design of new single-dwellings and the role of neighborhood character • narrow-lot development and density • transitions between single- and multi- dwelling development • design in conservation and design districts

~~l understand that Marty Stockton will be joining you for your neighborhood association discussion Monday evening, and she'll be happy to elaborate and answer questions.~~

~~Regards, ( 187832~~

~~Deborah~~

( Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Po1tland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I P01tland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah,stein@portlandoregon gov www.p01tlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored

~~Dear Deborah-~~

We are formally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to ( Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March IO work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo.

The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and re\,Titten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13.

~~Some of the issues:~~

~~The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed.~~

~~There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP~~

Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this.

~~The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of ( 187832~~

~~the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to 11 11 slow the rate of change •~~

~~There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. (~~

~~The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done.~~

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB 1Verrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

RLogo Robert McCullough Managing Partner McCullough Research 6123 S.E. Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 Robert@mresearch com 111lp1v n1research con1 503-771-5090 (direct) 503-777-4616 (office) 503-784-3758 (cell) ( This e-mail message contains confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received it in error, please call 503-777-4616 and ask to speak wit.h the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you.

~~( 187832~~

From: Clark Nelson To: Rod Merrick; Stein, Deborah ( Cc: Meg M€rrick; Tom.Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: [Approved Sender] RE: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:00:15 PM

~~I will be out of town for the week starting Tuesday Clark Nelson Senior Project l'vlanager [email protected] 503.417.7691~~

PBS Engineering+ Environmental Engineering] Natural Resources I Environmental I Health and Safety w1Yw.pbscm·.com 4412 SW Corbett Avenue. Portland OR, 97239 ph: 503.248.1939: fax: 866.727.0140 This electronic communication and its attachments arc intended only for the pcrson(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. Ir you arc not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any action relying upon this message is prohibited. Ifyou have reeeh'ed this Information in error, please notify the sender. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:50 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland Thanks Deborah. May 7 4-6 sounds best ... others? Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762 ( From: 11 Stein, Deborah 11 To: 'Rod Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick ; Tom Hubka ; "Stockton, fvfarty 11 ; 11 Dacanay, Radcliffe 11 Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:48 PM Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmorcland Hi Rod, Clark, Meg and Tom, I won't have anything ready to share until late in the week, but I can carve out 30 minutes Thursday or Friday to share what I'll be. presenting to the PSC. Here is my availability: • Thursday, May 7 between 4:00 and 6:00 • Friday, May 8 between 11 :00 and 1 :00. I am sony Meg won't be available, but I'm hoping that one of these slots will work for the rest of you. Best, Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability

1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Pmtland, OR 97201 J 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of P01tland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliaty aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. ( 187832

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:merrick [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:49 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson { Cc: Meg MetTick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe ' Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland Deborah, I sympathize that you are busy but I believe there was a clear commitment to meet with us once you were closer to a recommendation, If that has to be early next week I am sure we would be able to accommodate that as well. Regards, Rod Rod lYferrick, AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503.771.7762

From: 11 Stein, Deborah 11 To: 'Rod Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: i\tieg N[etTick ; Torn Hubka ; 11 Stockton, Marty 11 ; "Dacanay, Radcliffe" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:19 PM Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi everyone, Sorry for the delayed response; I'm just getting back to my desk from meetings the first time since yesterday morning. Both Thursday and Friday this week are completely booked for me, and next week is very full for me as well. Since we last met, we have continued to review the materials you provided us as well as the set of analysis maps we prepared and shared with you. As you recall, we were also asked by the PSC to look at other areas in the city where similar conditions exist, using the same analysis approach we are using for Eastmoreland, That expanded analysis is now underway, so I don't yet have anything new to repmt

Because my team and I are so swamped with work right now, I can't commit to another meeting. ( Neve1iheless, when we have a recommendation ready for the PSC I'd be happy to share it with you in advance of the May 12 meeting. Best, Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Pmiland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah.stein@po1tlandoregon gov www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Rod Menick [mailto:merrick [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Maiiy; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning ( 187832~~

~~Portland, OR 503.771.7762 (~~

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Clark Nelson To: Stockton, Marty; Meg Merrick; Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick, Subject: [Approved Sender] RE: SIJdeshow from today's BPS Commlssioo meeting ( Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:07:42 AM

~~Marty, I sincerely appreciate your efforts, thank you. Clark Nelson Senior Project Manager [email protected] 503.417.7691~~

PBS Engineering+ Environmental Engineering I Natural Resources I Environmental I Health and Safety www.pbsem·.com 4412 SW Corbett Annue. Portland OR, 97239 ph: 503.248.1939 : fax: 866.727.0140 This electronic communication and its attachments arc intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you arc hereby notified that any use, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any action relying upon this message is prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender. From: Stockton, Marty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:43 AM To: Meg Merrick; Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: RE: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Hi Meg, The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the documents and presentations link: https·Uwww pmtlandoregon gov/bps/miicle/529238 Also, according to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that part should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Part 1 link). ( Finally, there were four area discussed/shared in the presentation yesterday, but all ten were ' analyzed using the methodology we shared with you all a couple meetings ago. Deborah will follow up with maps of all the areas reviewed by staff. We will also have a final memo to the PSC that includes these ten areas. On a personal note, I am also still processing my thoughts about yesterday's work session. I knew the PSC discussion was going to be close. It was painful for me as I have worked with you all on the Eastmoreland request for a year now. I too would have liked a more analytical, thoughtful and sensitive discussion around their recommendation. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Potiland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: marty.stockton@pmtlandoregon gov w: www.portlandoregon.gov/b.ps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick[mailto:megmerrick@gmail com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson ( 187832

~~Subject: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Hi Deborah and Marty,~~

( Could you please send me a copy of the slides that you presented today to the BPS Commission regarding the RS to R 7 request? I am particularly interesting in seeing maps of each of the areas that were considered.

~~Thanks!~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: stocktoo Marty To: Stein Deborah Subject: 1/4-mile Eastmoreland Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:09:00 AM ( Attachments: 11x17 eastmoreland blocks taxfot sizes SOpct.pdf~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Stein Deborah; Dacanay Radcliffe; Tracy, Moman { Planning) Cd Wood Sandra ( Subject: 5 questions for supplemental testimony~~

~~Date: Tuesday, March 311 2015 3:14:00 PM~~

Hello, I am working on an agenda for tomorrow's Eastmoreland meeting. I just spoke with Rod Merrick. He would like for us to discuss the following five questions (see below). Draft agenda includes: - Introductions (all) - Purpose of this meeting and timeline (Deborah and Marty) - Overview of the refined methodology and analysis (Radcliff) -Response and discussion around Eastmoreland's five questions (all) - Next steps (Marty) Anything else? I'd like to send out this agenda before the end of the day. Thanks! Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] ( w: www portlandoregon.goy/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:26 PM To: Stockton. Marty Subject: 5 questions for supplemental testimony Marty, these questions for the PSC are intended to provide direction for these mostly multi-neighborhood issues (distilled from the ENA Testimony) that will we hope clearly represent our concerns in the slides you prepare. Your comments please. Neighborhood Specific Requests In assigning appropriate zoning designations should all of the following be considered? • Existing land use patterns and density • Historical development patterns • Housing Affordability • Historic and Cultural Resources: streetscape and architecture • Sustainability and resilience criteria ( 187832

• Access to transit • Access to Services Neighborhoods in question: All ( Existing Land Use Patterns and Density Given the analysis that the average size lot within the neighborhood boundary is 6,370 SF or greater with less than 10% smaller than 4550 SF is the appropriate designation R7? Neighborhoods in question: Eastmoreland (R5-R7 proposal), etc ...... 3. Housing Affordability and Diversity Should the zoning code provisions provide entitlements (including alternative development options, reduced lot sizes, use of random historical lots of record) that are in effect incentives for redevelopment demolitions for construction of: • larger and more expensive houses to replace affordable and viable post World War II workforce housing and compromise existing density standards? • larger and more expensive houses on smaller lots that places upward pressure on similar nearby lot values and housing prices? • new construction and major remodels that reduce the diversity of house and lot sizes and prices? ·•New houses that erase the historical and cultural record of the past 100 years in which the neighborhood was built? Neighborhoods in question: Eastmoreland (R5-R7 proposal), etc ...... Historic and Cultural Resources : Streetscape and Architecture Should neighborhood plan district standards be encouraged to support the ( unique streetscape and yardscape, architectural scale and character, and treatment of driveways and garages characteristic of the Eastmoreland, College View, Campus Heights, etc., and Berkeley Addition subdivisions by limiting lot coverage and house sizes to comport with the existing scale, favor renovation, and discourage teardowns? Neighborhood in question: Eastmoreland (plan district expansion proposal) Access to transit and access to services in centers or corridors. Should portions of neighborhoods with limited bus transit services beyond a quarter mile walk of existing and proposed routes be zoned to maintain existing density by designation as medium density R?? And especially where underlying historic lots of record are driving much higher density development? Neighborhoods in question: Eastmoreland SE quadrant (R5-R7 proposal), etc ...... Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Merriel

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein, Deborah To: Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty; Wright. Sa@ ( Subject: a fresh start on the RS/R7 chapter Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:07:31 PM~~

I'm just starting to tackle a rewrite. Here is a very draft beginning. I'd like your feedback and accuracy check! Proposed down,designations to acknowledge distance from centers and corridors and prevalent lot pattern Proposal summary The Draft Comprehensive Plan proposes to reduce potential residential density in several developed neighborhoods where the existing platting pattern is predominantly at a lower density than the current Comprehensive Plan designation would allow. Areas included in this proposal are relatively distant from centers and corridors. Each area or group of areas has particular characteristics: 1. Areas that are designated RS in the current Comprehensive Plan, but are zoned R7 and/or predominantly platted with 7,000 square foot lots or larger. This group includes portions of Eastmoreland, Reed, Portsmouth, Kenton, Brentwood Darlington, and numerous pockets in East Portland. 2. Areas that are designated R3 or R2.5 in the current Comprehensive Plan, but are zoned RS and/or are predominantly platted with S,000 square foot lots. This group includes portions of Brentwood-Darlington, Mt Scott-Arleta, and Wilkes. These areas also may lack improved streets and sidewalks.

While there is some opportunity for larger existing lots to be divided and redeveloped, for the most part these areas would not be expected to see much change, and any change that did occur may ( alter the character and scale of the predominant pattern. Background All locations addressed in this section have one thing in common: the prevalent lot pattern in the subdivision is larger than what the current designation allows. However, different locations have different characteristics and, therefore, the rationale for any change must consider the area's specific circumstances. Issues considered for each area include: • Is there much actual potential for lots to be divided and developed? In some cases, the difference between the density allowed by the designation/zone (say, RS) and the actual lot sizes (say, 7,000 square feet) would not yield additional density in reality, since a 7,000 square foot lot cannot be divided to meet RS density. Where the allowable density is twice that of existing lot sizes, then there is a great deal of potential for redevelopment at the higher density through partitions. Generally (but not always), there is variation of lot sizes within a subdivision. So, some lots may continue to be dividable even if the general area is down-designated. (I'm thinking we may want to add a footnote with min. allowable lot sizes for each zone??) • Is the infrastructure in place to support additional infill units? In some cases, the designation now in place (say, R2.5 in a portion of Brentwood-Darlington) applies to an area that is relatively distant from a center or corridor, and the sidewalk network here is incomplete. • How close is the subdivision to a center, corridor and/or light rail station? Proposed policy directs more residential densities close to centers, corridors and high capacity transit. Again, the R2.S area in Brentwood-Darlington proposed for down-designation is relatively distant from a center, corridor or LRT station. Or use an east Portland example here • Is there a concentration of historic landmarks or structures identified in the Historic Resource Inventory? If yes, a lower allowable density may serve to help preserve historic structures, although zoning does not provide a guarantee that a structure won't be demolished and rebuilt. • Are there underlying platted lots that would enable partitions Irrespective of the zoning? ( 187832

Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 ( deborah.stein@portlandoregon gov www.portlandoregon.goy/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Rod Merrick To: B..11.erricis; Meg Merrick; Clark Nelson; Joanne Carlson; Tom Hubka; Ed Dundon; Bill Morgan; Stockton, Marty; Bruce Stembem; Roberta Hyde; Judith Kenny ( Subject: Agenda ENA Land Use meeting Monday March 9, 7 PM garage 6123 RCP Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 5:44:55 PM Attachments: 2015 02.02 ENA Land use committee Mlnutes.docx 201s 02.23 ENA-Comp+Pfan Testimony pdf Res!dentialDensitiesStaffReportFull PDF ENA supplementary Historic Inveotory-hubka dqcx 2015 03 09 LU Jeam MeetingAgenda docx

~~Apologies for the last minute assembly~~

Agenda Minutes Staff Report -residential densities aka Lot Patterns - Highlighted sections ENA Comp plan testimony Historic donut counter(Hubka) Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB M:e«mH?Aceliite'ofureDDamnno Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Rod Merrick To: Planning and Sustainability Commission Cc: Stockton, Marty; McCullough, Robert; Clark. Nelson; Ken Ray Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony ( Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:14:57 PM Attachments: 2013 12.20ENA RS TO R7 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST 12-11-13.odf 2013 12 .lSEastmorelaod Plan District Request Support Letter 12-15-13.pdf

ENA Board adopted letters from December 2013. Please attach to ENA testimony submitted February 24, 2015. These are fundamental background documents. They may contain details superseded by the later Testimony. Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB J\llerriclf"Af(JffitpJEtureJflliniiinJi Portland, OR 503.771.7762

(

~~( \. 187832~~

From: Robert McCullough To: Stein Deborah; Plaonlng and Sustalnabllity Commission; Engstrom Eric (Planning} Cc: McCullough Robert; Stockton Marty; Hales Mayor ( Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony: Concerns raised over the timing of March 10 PSC work session agenda Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 12:40:20 PM

~~I sent this off to Marty Stockton this morning, but she is out of the office today ...~~

~~Dear Marty:~~

~~I read Rod's comments on the timing of the session next week and followed up with a call with him to make sure I understood where we stand.~~

~~It appears that our carefully prepared testimony was disregarded in the staffs effort to prepare comments on testimony l1filQre the testimony was due.~~

~~If I misunderstand the schedule, please do correct me:~~

~~February 24, 2014 4:45 P,M, Eastmoreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014 Staff comments issued March 10, 2014: PSA Work Session March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline~~

~~The Eastmoreland board takes this issue very seriously. And, of course, we will be raising it with the other neighborhoods within Southeast Uplift as well~~

~~Robert McCullough~~

~~President~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~robert@mresearch com 503-771-5090~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton, Marty To: Bob Kellett Ct: Stein Deborah Subject: ComprehensiVe Plan Update· PSC work sessions ( Date: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:54:00 PM~~

~~Dear Bob-~~

~~The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has published a set of Comprehensive Plan Update staff reports for the following Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) work sessions:~~

~~January 27 - Centers and Corridors (many SE references); nonconforming uses (multiple SE properties}~~

~~February 10- Economic Development; Environmental goals~~

~~February 24 - Transportation System Plan hearing; Community Involvement goals~~

~~March 10- Housing goals; Residential Densities (Brentwood-Darlington, Eastmoreland, Mt. Scott-Arleta, Reed, Sellwood-Moreland}~~

April 14 - Residential Densities (Buckman, Creston-Kenilworth, Mt. Tabor, Richmond, Sunnyside); Map Change Consent List (multiple SE properties}; Eastmoreland memo and ( maps; Community-Based Anti-Displacement response memo; TSP Project List memo

The staff reports include staff-recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Draft (this is the July 2014 draft} in response to public testimony. Testimony was received through March 13, 2015. All testimony will be considered before the PSC makes its final recommendation to City Council.

To track future PSC work sessions, go to the PSC News page. A reminder that the public is welcome to attend the work sessions. However, work sessions are for the commissioners, so no public testimony will be taken. To learn more about the Planning and Sustainability Commission and what is up next, read this h\Qg post.

Please forward this to your Neighborhood Associations and board members as well as any other interested community members. Let me know if there are any questions or something I can provide at this time.

~~· With kind regards,~~

~~Marty ( 187832~~

(- Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps

~~I \.~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Linda Nettekoven To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton. Marty Subject: Concerns from Eastmoreland Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:07:15 AM (~~

Hi Deborah and Marty, I know how busy you both are, but would you have time for a quick conversation in the next few days re: public involvement concerns from Eastmoreland and how to go forward? I know you have already done a good deal to respond to their concerns. Thanks, Linda

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Stein Deborah To: Zehnder Joe; Engstrom Ede; Scarze[)o Christina; Mannino Bany; Stockton Marty; Lum Leslie; Cole, John; Dacanay Radcliffe; Stark Nan; Frederiksen Joan; Wood Sandra; Edmunds Sall!e; Kunec-North Michelle; ( Glascock, Bob; Martin, Kevin; Starin Nicholas; Brooks Mindy Subject: Down Designation meeting: ROOM CHANGE+ agenda Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:19:50 AM

Down-Designation meeting : Today 3:30-4:30 in 7a (sorry- Outlook wouldn't let me update the original invitation) The aim of this meeting is to validate proposals for down-designations. We'll have data to inform the discussion, following up on questions raised at our last meeting. Up for discussion today: 1. East Portland (residential areas around 122nd_136th south of Powell) 2. R7 /R5 areas (Portsmouth, Reedway, Eastmoreland) 3. Eliot neighborhood Deborah Stein Principal Planner Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability S03.823.6991 deborah steio@portlandoregon gov

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Loehle!n Neil To: Da@nav Radcliffe Cc: Frederiksen Joan; Stockton Marty Subject: East Moreland Tax Parcel Aiea ( Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:00:33 PM~~

Hi Radcliffe, Here is a draft of the East Moreland Tax Parcel Area map with the classes broken into 0-33% and 34-100%: \\BPSFile1\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Raddiffe\11x17 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes SOpct pdf Let me know if you see anything that you'd like to have changed. Did you want a version of this map for South Burlingame, too? Thanks, Neil

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Stein Deborah; Dacanay Radcliffe; Wood Sandra; Tracy Morgan CPlanning) ( Subject: Eastm6reland - Information sharing ,'fith ENA Hi all,~~

Follov,ing up on a commitment we made with the PSC to meet with Eastmoreland. The purpose of this meeting is to share the refined methodology and analysis of the mapping. We do need one Code Development Studio person to attend this meeting as requested by Eric. I understand there is some overlap with the CDS meeting, so we can structure the conversation to accommodate this if needed I am available to coordinate internal prep/questions for this meeting.

~~Thanks, Morty~~

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Stockton Marty To: Stein Deborah; Engstrom Eric (Planning) Subject: Eastmoreland FB post Date: Saturday, March 21, 2015 11:08:24 AM ( https://www.facebook,com/permalink.php? st01:x fbid=354305484693972&id=2063995528 I 7900

~~Sent using OW A for iPhone~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: core John Andrew To: Stockton Marty Subject: Eastmoreland lot Size Comparison.pptx ( Date: Monday, Jufy 7, 2014 10:45:29 AM Attachments: Eastmoreland Lot Size Comparlson.pptx~~

~~FYI~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Rod Merrick; Meg Merrick; Clark Nelson Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: Eastmoreland memo and maps ( Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:02:00 PM~~

~~Dear Rod, Meg and Clark,~~

~~There was no discussion at this week's PSC work session on Eastmoreland. This memo and attached maps had been provided as a follow up to their request.~~

It does sound like there has been an update to the PSC work session schedule and that the next date the PSC will be discussing Eastmoreland will be Tuesday, May 12th. There will be another staff report to inform that discussion, which will be available in May.

~~With kind regards,~~

~~Marty~~

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 ( f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] , w: www portlandoregon gov/bps

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Dacanay, Radcliffe (- Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: Easbnoreland memo Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 1:27:00 PM~~

~~Hi Radcliffe,~~

I'll be helping Deborah with the PSC Eastmoreland memo transmitting your maps. This memo will go out either late Monday or early Tuesday of next week. Can you please list the attachments to include in the memo. Thanks so much!

~~Marty~~

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.gov/bps ( To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City m 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~( 187832~~

From: Frederiksen Joan To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty Subject: edits re S Burlingame sections and minor other ( Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:01:21 PM Attachments: Residentia1DensitiesStaffReportDSv2 ERE 2.23 JFedits.doo;

~~See edits on pages 2, 3, 17, 18, 22 Thank you for all your awesome work. Feel free to rejigger any of it or text me with question. I am happy to be available. Joan~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Sdf«t, .... _. ___ _ h, ==~ 0..., -.llo,'<1,D,2'!1Sl~.S())>.'t ( !'hrtvS'.oc,ton 1 So.rth;,astDlstrktL'«T,on Port!and &.lfe;~~

To hs,'.p e<1.su;ues,(altema&,,, k.rm,t.s to ~-,;rscru,,,ith d'5"h'st'e>- for accorr.nodat'ons, tron'<':itior.s, cc,rn~,-,:nts, ar,d oddt<:;NI a",format:00, contactrr<', c.'l S0l-E23·204l, GtyTTY S03-SB--6S63, <.1ru.e Orese

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Robert McCullough To: Stein Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom Ede (Planning} Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton. Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson ( Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:31:09 PM

~~Dear Deborah:~~

~~Thanks for your timely response last Friday.~~

Eastmoreland wants to reiterate the need to revise the staff report to reflect the questions and positions as presented in the ENA testimony in advance of the fl(larch 24 work session. Accurately representing the testimony would seem to be consistent with the intent and purpose of public engagement. I have asked our land use committee to prepare a detailed rebuttal. The land use committee will be working with Marty on this on Monday.

Infill, demolition, displacement, and design are issues that middle class tax paying single family neighborhood residents take very seriously. By all appearances the BPS seems to be attempting to brush off the issues and ignoring the crisis of confidence that they have been instrumental in creating holding up density as a self evident public good. Selectively increasing density is only one of many goals advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Since it is not even mentioned in the "Guiding Principals" it appears to be somewhere down the list of indicators or criteria for creating and healthy, equitable, resilient, and prosperous city envisioned in the plan.

~~Robert McCullough~~

~~President (~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~robert@mresearcb com 503-771-5090~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~"om: Robert McCullough < [email protected]> ( nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:39 PM ,o: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; PDX Comp Plan Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony Attachments: 20160113 - Public Request emails Pt-8.pdf

~~Council Clerk January 13, 2015~~

~~1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130~~

~~Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Comprehensive Plan comments~~

~~Dear Portland City Council & Staff:~~

l\ttached is the eighth of 8 batches comprised of emails received as a partial response to a November 2015 document ( 1uest. From the file dates, it is clear that these were assembled in November, but were held back until yesterday at 5 µm in order to forestall use in the Comprehensive Plan hearings.

~~The emails do not include those from Susan Anderson or Joe Zehnder. Since they are the primary decision makers, their absence in these conversations is surprising.~~

~~Some of the emails also contradict public statements made by staff to the committee.~~

Obviously, in the 24 hours available for review, it is difficult to give a complete analysis. However, one cannot help but conclude that the process did not include public involvement in the manner mandated by the Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and our existing comprehensive plan. We expect that the omitted communications would only dramatize this point further.

~~( .bert McCullough,~~

~~1 187832~~

~~President, Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~6123 SE Reed College Place~~

~~Portland, OR 97202 (~~

~~(503) 771-5090~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~Robert McCullough Managing Partner McCullough Research 6123 S.E. Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 [email protected] www.mresearch.com~~

~~503-771-5090 (direct) 503-777-4616 (office) 503-784-3758 (cell)~~

This e-mail message contains confidential, privileged inf01mation intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received it in error, please call 503-777-4616 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you. (

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( Council Clerk January 13, 2015 1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 130 Portland, OR 97204~~

~~RE: Comprehensive Plan comments~~

~~Dear Portland City Council & Staff:~~

Attached is the eighth of 8 batches comprised of emails received as a partial response to a Nov.ember 2015 document request. From the file dates, it is clear that these were assembled in November, but were held back until yesterday at 5 pm in order to forestall use in the Comprehensive Plan hearings.

~~The emails do not include those from Susan Anderson or Joe Zehnder. Since they are the primary decision makers, their absence in these conversations is surprising.~~

Obviously, in the 24 hours available for review, it is difficult to give a complete analysis. However, one cannot help but conclude that the process did not include public involvement in the manner mandated by the Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and our existing comprehensive plan. We expect that the omitted communications would only dramatize this point further.

~~Robert McCullough, President, Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, OR 97202 (503) 771-5090 [email protected]~~

~~( 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 187832~~

From: Loehlefn Neil To: Stockton Marty Cc: Frederiksen Joan; Wdoht Sara; Dacanay Radcliffe; Martin, Kevin; Stein, Deborah ( Subject: RE: City of Portland TrackIT Confirmation: Item 867079 - GIS and Database Work Request Form Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:43:30 AM

Thanks for the heads-up Marty. I'll communicate with Sara and Joan if I have any questions. Have a great time on vacation! Neil From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:42 AM To: Loehlein, Neil Cc: Frederiksen, Joan; Wright, Sara; Dacanay, Radcliffe; Martin, Kevin; Stein, Deborah Subject: FW: City of Portland TracklT Confirmation: Item 867079 - GIS and Database Work Request Form Hi Neil -- I just put in this GIS request, but wanted to let you and all know that I'll be on vacation for two weeks, so Sara and/or Joan will be point for the DL team. Radcliffe, want this on your radar as our technical expert. This request is both for continuing internal analysis as requested by Eric and in prep for the PSC presentation on May 1ih_ Thanks all! Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability ( 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me,'call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: noreply@portlandoregon gov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:35 AM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: City of Portland TracklT Confirmation: Item 867079 - GIS and Database Work Request Form Thanks for using the GIS/Database request form. You rule. We'll get back to you with questions. Have a super day!

~~TrackIT Item: 867079~~

~~Category: GIS and Database Work Request Form ( 187832~~

Date Created: 04/23/2015 10:34 AM ( Date Received: 04/23/2015 Contact: Martha B Stockton PortlandOnline User [email protected] Contact Type: Website Give your request a Proposed Pattern-related Down-designations short title:: Requested by:: Marty Stockton When do you need it?: 5/1/2015 Who do you think Neil the intern should work on this request?: Ink (if this is a map):: Color Map size (ditto):: 8.Sx11 What do you want us to 1. Request the attached file location, plus a similar map do? Be specific.: that includes the RS to R7 proposed changes in North Portland (Kenton/Portsmouth). This is for a PPT presentation to PSC.

2. For each of the RS to R7 proposed change areas, request the two tone density map that shows by block 0-33% and 34-100% lots that are 6,370 sq. ft. (like we ( did for Eastmoreland, see attached). This is for in- house review.

· 3. For Proposed Change #201 (in Kenton) and #413 (Lents), request the two tone density (see above) and the four tone density (see attached Eastmoreland maps as examples). This is for a PPT presentation to PSC. Attach files related to Proposed Pattern-related_E-SE. pdf this request:: 03_11x17_eastmoreland_blocks_taxlot_sizes_33pct.pdf 04_11x17_eastmoreland_blocks_taxlot_sizes_SOpct.pdf

~~( 187832~~

From: Stockton Marty To: Loehlein Nell Cc: Frederiksen Joan; Dacanay Radcliffe ( Subject: RE: Oty of Portland TrackIT Confirmation: Item 854115 -GJS and Database Work Request Form Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:18:00 PM

Hi Neil, Glad to be working with you on this request. Joan and I are handing the analysis over to Radcliffe, so Radcliffe will be coordinating with you. A couple of clarifications to the methodology below are highlighted in yellow: Methodology to refine this proposal

~~- Include a block-by-block analysis within the Eastmoreland and the South Burlingame Neighborhood Association boundaries. - Map each neighborhood.~~

~~1) Depict with a color the tax lots sizes in the following ranges: - < 4,200 sf - 4,201- 6,369, - 6,370 - 9,500 - 9,501 - 13,369 - > 13,370 - Call out with dots those lots that are 5,000 sf exactly~~

2) Calculate and provide the percentage of lots in each block that are greater and less than 6,370 square feet (7,000 x .91 = 6,370 sf.) FYI, 9,500 square feet is the minimum lot size required to subdivide into two lots in the RS, while 13,370 is what's ( needed for two lots in the R7.)

3) Call out blocks as follows (Radcliffe suggested replacing this request with a density heat map): a. In R7 - if 50% of tax lots greater than 6,370 square feet b. In RS - if 50% of tax lots less than 6,369 square feet

4) Include spreadsheet for each neighborhood with block identification, tax lots and their square footage and overage percentage of tax lots per block over 6,371 square feet. 5) For Eastmoreland, please add the V.-mile radius from the Bybee LRT Station Thanks so much! With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary ( 187832

aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, ( translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:08 PM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: City of Portland TracklT Confirmation: Item 854115 - GIS and Database Work Request Form Thanks for using the GIS/Database request form. You rule. We'll get back to you with questions. Have a super day!

~~TrackIT Item: 854115~~

Category: GIS and Database Work Request Form Date Created: 03/12/2015 5:07 PM Date Received: 03/12/2015 Contact: Martha B Stockton PortlandOnline User [email protected] Contact Type: Website Give your request a Eastmoreland and South Burlingame short title:: Requested by:: Marty Stockton When do you need it?: 3/19/2015 Who do you think should work on this request?: Ink (if this is a map):: Color Map size (ditto):: 11x17 What do you want us to What: Proposed analysis and potential refinement of the do? Be specific.: Eastmoreland and South Burlingame map proposals. Why: Finer-grained analysis within the RS to R7 grouping of down-designations.

~~Methodology to refine this proposal~~

~~? Include a block-by-block analysis within the Eastmoreland and the South Burlingame Neighborhood Association boundaries. ? Map each neighborhood.~~

~~1) Depict with a color the tax lots sizes in the following ranges: - < 4,200 sf - 4,201- 6,370 - 6,371 - 9,500 - 9,501 - 13,369 ( - > 13,370 187832~~

~~- Call out with dots those lots that are S,000 sf exactly~~

2) Calculate and provide the percentage of lots in each ( block that are greater and less than 6,370 square feet (7,000 x .91 = 6,370 sf.) FYI, 9,SOO square feet is the minimum lot size required to subdivide into two lots in the RS, while 13,370 is what's needed for two lots in the R7.)

~~3) Call out blocks as follows: a. In R7 - if SO% of tax lots greater than 6,371 square feet b. In RS - if SO% of tax lots less than 6,370 square feet~~

4) Include spreadsheet for each neighborhood with block identification, tax lots and their square footage and overage percentage of tax lots per block over 6,371 square feet. Attach files related to None Uploaded this request::

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Rod Merrick To: Stockton Marty: Clark Nelson ( Subject: Re: confirming Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 3:30:41 PM Attachments: 2013 12.20ENA RS TO R7 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST 12-11-13.pdf 2013,12 ,15Eastmoreland Plan District Request Support letter 12·15·13.pdf

Marty, unclear on this as an "additional request". ENA requested this in the original December 2013 letter. See attached. Rod Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Menie.K¥Ar~li.ile::c_t.uri!.ela:nttiffil Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

~~From: "Stockton. Marty" To: Clark Nelson ; Rod Merrick Sent: Tuesday. February 3. 2015 3:20 PM Subject: RE: Confirming~~

Hi Rod and Clark, Thanks. The purpose of the Map Addition Proposals spreadsheet is to document and share with SEUL and the neighborhood associations the incoming public requests via testimony that were not included on the July 2014 Proposed Map App. The spreadsheet is current as of December 15, 2014. These are not staff recommendations. The staff report on Residential Densities for the March 1oth PSC work session will include a staff recommendation. Typically these staff reports are available to the public 10 days before each work session. Right now staff are working on the Februaiy 24th PSC work session staff reports. Clark, thanks again for pointing out Rod's question. With kind regards, Maity Marty Stockton / Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue/ Suite 7100 / Pottland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.po1tlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative fonnats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Clark Nelson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, Februaty 03, 2015 12:39 PM To: Rod Merrick; Stockton, Matty Subject: [Approved Sender] RE: Confirming Marty, The zoning change Rod is referring·to is the item at the top of the attached spreadsheet. The attached Map Addition Proposals was included in an email from you to Anne Dufay and Robert McCullough on 1/14/15. Clark Nelson Senior Project .Manager ( Clark,Nelson@phsenv rom 187832

~~503.417.7691~~

PBS Engineering+ Environmental Engineering I Natural Resources I Environmental I Health imd Safety ( "''"'HY,pbsenv,com 4412 SW Corbett An-nue. Portlaml OR, 97239 ph: 503.248.1939 : fin:: 866.727.0140 This electronic communication and its attarhmcnts :tre intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information, If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any al'tion relying upon this message is prohibited. If you have rcceind this infornt:Hiou in error, pk:tsc notify the sender, From: Rod Merrick [mailto:merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:06 AM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Clark Nelson Subject: Re: Confirming Marty, please dont submit the letter! but if you see some obvious error in the general comments that would be helpful. More imp01tantly please confirm or deny the third item: That staff is now recommending to support ENA request that the area of Eastmorelmid east of 36th be included in the area to be zoned R7 as indicated in the top line of the spreadsheet distributed last month. Many thanks, Rod Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB WbJJil!H&ArqJiff!W!ff@IilzinHl/ffi Portland, OR 503.771. 7762

From: nstockton, Marty 0 To: Rod Merrick Cc: Clark Nelson Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 9:44 AM Subject: RE: Confirming ( Hi Rod, I will not submit the letter unless you give me the green light. Better yet, once ready, please email to the Planning and Sustainability Commission directly at psc@portlandoregon gov and please copy me for my tracking purposes. 1. I am not sure on the continuation date of the DRAC demolition notice hearing. Interestingly, the DRAC Demolition Subcommittee/Demolition Task Force is meeting right now. Here's their agenda: httpS'(/www portlandoregon gov/bds/mticle/517344. Mark Fetters is the BDS employee that staffs DRAC. Let me email him and copy you with your question. 2. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will be addressing residential map changes in Eastmoreland (and elsewhere) at their March lofu work session, which will focus on Residential Densities. The PSC will continue to accept written testimony on the Proposed Draft through 5 pm on March 13, 2015. Community members are encouraged to review the work session schedule and send their comments about a paiticular topic to the commission at least eight days before that issue will be discussed. This will allow commissioners time to review relevant testimony before each meeting. The work session schedule can be found at https://www.po1tlandoregon.gov/bps/article/5 I l223. Testimony received on any topic before the March 13 deadline but after the staff report on that topic has been provided to the PSC will be compiled in an addendum and provided to the PSC for their consideration before they vote on the recommended draft. All testimony will be considered before the PSC makes its final recommendation to City Council. Thanks for the update and continued line of communication. Much appreciated. With kind regards, Matty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability ( 187832

1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Pottland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 ( f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Po1tland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Rod Men-ick [mailto:merrick [email protected]] Sent: Monday, Februaty 02, 2015 11:00 PM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Clark Nelson Subject: Confirming Marty, Do wait on the letter at least on the neighborhood specific portion. A couple of questions to confirm: The date for the continuation of the DRAC demolition notice hearing- · The date of the PSC work session dealing with the residential upzoning - That staff is now recommending to support ENA request that the area ofEastmoreland east of36th be included in the area to be zoned R7 as indicated in the top line of the spreadsheet distributed last month. Best from us. Rod Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503.771. 7762

\ From: 11 Stockton, Marty 11 To: Rod Nierrick Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 6:10 PM Subject: Re: Close to final draft Comp Plan letter Thanks Rod. I'll look forward to reading the letter again once submitted to the PSC.

~~I am attending the Woodstock Community Business Association's Annual Event this evening. Please feel free to com1ect with me later this week if questions arise.~~

~~With kind regards, Matty~~

~~Sent using OWA for iPhone~~

From: Rod Merrick Sent: Monday, Februaty 2, 2015 5:45:56 PM To: R Merrick; Meg Merrick; Kimberly Koehler; Clark Nelson; Joanne Carlson; Tom Hubka; Aubrey Bauer; Ed Dundon; Bill Morgan; Stockton, Marty; Bruce Sternberg; Roberta Hyde; Judith Kenny Subject: Close to final draft Comp Plan letter Rod Merrick. AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771.7762 ( 187832

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Rod Merrick To: Mfg; Stockton Marty ( Cc: dark Nelson; Stein Deborah Subject: Re: Eastmoreland memo and maps Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 2:57:48 PM~~

Thanks Marty. These are interesting maps and do provide a picture especially or the underlying lots. I do think it is a mistake to treat the entire block around Berkeley Park as a Block as the heat map tells a better story. This is a transitional boundary- houses along the south side are small lots. Unless the plan is to create a complex zoning structure within the neighborhood, I think it would also be helpful to the PSC to see the maps and analysis that we developed that summarizes lot sizes for larger areas.

~~Also the heat map should have a key to make it easier to grasp for someone unfamiliar. Rod Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB :M:er:tic~rau1Dtcuu~e1~n:11um Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

~~From: Meg To: "Stockton, Marty" Cc: Rod Merrick ; Clark Nelson ; "Stein, Deborah" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:49 AM ( Subject: Re: Eastmoreland memo and maps~~

~~Thanks, Marty~~

~~Meg~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Apr 16, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Stockton, Marty wrote:~~

Dear Rod, Meg and Clark, There was no discussion at this week's PSC work session on Eastmoreland. This memo and attached maps had been provided as a follow up to their request. It does sound like there has been an update to the PSC work session schedule and that the next date the PSC will be discussing Eastmoreland will be Tuesday, May 12'"· There will be another staff report to inform that discussion, which will be available in May. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison ( 187832

~~Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 ( p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Mfill To: Stockton Marty ( Cc: Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson; Stein Deborah Subject: Re: Eastmoreland memo and maps Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:50:08 AM~~

~~Thanks, Marty~~

~~Meg~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Apr 16, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Stockton, Marty wrote:~~

Dear Rod, Meg and Clark, There was no discussion at this week's PSC work session on Eastmoreland. This !!lJill1Q and attached maps had been provided as a follow up to their request. It does sound like there has been an update to the PSC work session schedule and that the next date the PSC will be discussing Eastmoreland will be Tuesday, May 12". There will be another staff report to inform that discussion, which will be available in May. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison ( Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: marty [email protected] w: www.portiandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dacanay, Radcliffe To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah ( Subject: RE: Eastmoreland memo Date: Frtday, Aprtl 3, 2015 1:46:49 PM~~

~~Maps:~~

~~1. Various Boundaries - Neighborhood and Subdivision~~

~~2. Lot size - Less than/ or greater than or equal to 6,370 sq.ft~~

~~3. Lots sizes by Block Pattern - 33% and 50% threshold~~

~~4. Heat Map~~

~~5. Year Built~~

~~6. Historic lot lines~~

~~Chart: Various Constraints: Percent of neighborhood that is constrained (other words, % ( coverage of various constraints that affects the neighborhood).~~

~~I will put all these maps in your dropbox by mid-afternoon Monday.~~

~~From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:28 PM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: Eastmoreland memo~~

~~Hi Radcliffe,~~

~~Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison ( 187832~~

~~Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (. 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dacanay Radcliffe To: Stockton Marty Cc: Stein Deborah ( Subject: RE: Eastmoreland memo Date: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:11:46 PM~~

~~Hi Marty,~~

~~Updated maps and a chart of constraints is now in your drop box.~~

~~Let me know if you'd like to add anything else as a part of the PSC memo/packet.~~

~~Thanks!~~

~~Radcliffe~~

~~From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 1:05 PM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: RE: Eastmoreland memo ( Hi Marty,~~

~~In your dropbox are a series of updated maps and a few new ones.~~

~~I am working on the constraints chart now. Should have that ready in the next hour or so.~~

~~Then I think that should do it.~~

~~Let me know if you need anything else for your packet to go out to the PSC.~~

~~Thanks!~~

~~Radcliffe~~

~~From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:47 PM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: RE: Eastmoreland memo ( 187832~~

~~Maps: ( 1. Various Boundaries - Neighborhood and Subdivision~~

~~2. Lot size - Less than/ or greater than or equal to 6,370 sq.ft~~

~~3. Lots sizes by Block Pattern - 33% and 50% threshold~~

~~4. Heat Map~~

~~5. Year Built~~

~~6. Historic lot lines~~

~~Chart:~~

~~Various Constraints: Percent of neighborhood that is constrained (other words, % coverage of various constraints that affects the neighborhood).~~

~~I will put all these maps in your dropbox by mid-afternoon Monday.~~

(

~~From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:28 PM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: Eastmoreland memo~~

~~Hi Radcliffe,~~

~~Marty~~

~~w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps~~

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will ( provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dacanay Radcliffe ( To: Stockton Marty Cc: Stein Deborah Subject: RE: Eastmoreland memo Date: Monday, April 6, 2015 1:05:21 PM~~

~~Hi Marty,~~

~~In your dropbox are a series of updated maps and a few new ones.~~

~~I am working on the constraints chart now. Should have that ready in the next hour or so.~~

~~Then I think that should do it.~~

~~Let me know if you need anything else for your packet to go out to the PSC.~~

~~Thanks!~~

~~Radcliffe~~

~~From: Dacanay, Radcliffe ( Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:47 PM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: RE: Eastmoreland memo~~

~~Maps:~~

~~1. Various Boundaries - Neighborhood and Subdivision~~

~~2. Lot size - Less than/ or greater than or equal to 6,370 sq.ft~~

~~3. Lots sizes by Block Pattern - 33% and 50% threshold~~

~~4. Heat Map~~

~~5. Year Built~~

~~6. Historic lot lines~~

~~Chart: ( Various Constraints: Percent of neighborhood that is constrained (other words, % 187832~~

~~coverage of various constraints that affects the neighborhood).~~

~~I will put all these maps in your dropbox by mid-afternoon Monday. (~~

~~From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:28 PM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Cc: Stein, Deborah Subject: Eastmoreland memo~~

~~Hi Radcliffe,~~

~~Marty Marty Stockton J Southeast District Liaison ( Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability~~

~~1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps~~

~~( 187832~~

~~from: To: ,., ~S:!f:n Wwl:rJb::ro:lffl'.I Ma·Strrl:tm Krtv: ( Subjed: Ri,: ~ pre,alCe needed at Corr!pralffts.',,e Pla1 f1'><'efrg Date: ~I, l'.ardt 21, 2':1151:40:39 PH~~

~~Please connect with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can get the word out.~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:26 PM, ·Engstrom, Eric (Planning)" wrote:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, I'd focus on this:~~

~~I) The 4000 comments is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March IO, That date was simply one of? or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sess1ons scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

3) The residential density topic is scheduled for the March 24 session, hut it is ochedulcd between approximately 5:45 and 6:45. There are several other topics scheduled earlier on the same work session, which starts at 3.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or dire<:tly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or Nextdoor? I'd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~• Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~( On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gm ail mote:~~

~~Yes. The misinformation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial..~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, "Dabbs, Eden" wrote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Ne ....1door post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al-We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/1).;!borah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. [&t D~ C-.iultl&o.!ll'aNk Aff>ln City of f'<'.rnscr._-...i,,th,,.,..BPSE-«"'1-.Jec«a """r..,;1'"'1.;u:~·.,w !?rs To help t=e <:qml a..·m.s IO Ci~· prosrams, se"i..~ ard a..."tn~ tle C-lly clI\'llhrrl will f"'l"I i& tnnshtlo:,, i=rubly i:rodify Jmkles. ~ arid r-

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded mess.age:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date-: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: susaollilclrnndmoolmgmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensirn Plan meeting Re-ply-To: ( reply+QE4PMNRRHA3Y640SN5SHKY3{ JNFX\Y4X2QI5 JVIXZRQAYDSNRYG04Q =fae:-1stmorelandor ne:stdom com 187832

;S; Robert McCullough, Eastmoreland LEAD Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots ofr~ocd and zone changes ( We request the honorofyour preseoce in silent prote-:;t at the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) on T~sday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will discuss 'Residential Densities.w 1be PSC will consider requested and/or pTOpo;ced zoning changes and 'historic lots of record" policies in several neighborhoods under consideration for zoning appropriate for the context Carefully prepared tes.timony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the staffs forced march to prepare their report and re..--ommendations on tC$timony before the testimony was due. The is.sues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastrnoceland are presented and di.s«>unted in a way that could be characterized.as intentionally misleading. This v.-as the timing of e\·ents: Februmy 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoreland submits its testimony February 25, 2014: Staffromments i~---ued March JO, 2014: PSA WorkSes,ion March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in the questions posed and then recommended for rejection. The srores of comments favoring change on the ~uapApp" have been distilled into a curso.y sentence followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was filed as part of the testimony. The March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns" was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is expe,:ted to focus on the local iss~-s on a city \\iOO basis. However the staff report and re,:-ommendation.s stand Planning staffm:eived 4000 items of testimony in the cJ05ingweek alone and are in process of digesting. Our position that staffha\·e ample time to digest all testimony and to communicate with recognized organizations-e.pecially Neighborhood Associations- to verify that their concerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addressed. Again, plea.

~~Thu~isim:!rl¢ff«,,,,. ,\-,. \ ,-;\·,~--~;,,~-, i!(<'f•l J rw RWY rr :,,fog •'!'1r rnwl Xlrir',~~

~~( 187832~~

~~each of the areas that were considered.~~

~~( Thanks!~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Meg Merrick To: Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Cc: Stockton, Marty ( Subject: Re: Slldeshow from today''s BPS Commission meeting Date: saturday, May 16, 2015 5:18:09 PM~~

~~Deborah,~~

~~Thanks. I look forward to seeing the maps.~~

Also, our neighborhood association chair was given some information from the mayor's office about the single family residential code project that does not indicate that the underlying lot problem will be addressed. We are very concerned about this since BPS staff stated at the recent BPS Commission hearing (that retained the RS zone for the neighborhood) that the problems that Eastmoreland is experiencing with lot splitting due to the underlying lots would be better addressed with this project than·a rezoning to R7. As you know, the activation of these lots is a key driver behind the lot splitting that has led to the inappropriate scale of development and environmental degradation.

Our suppo1t of this project was predicated with the understanding that the underlying lot problem would be examined and addressed but the information that we have received, in writing now, suggests otherwise. Before we were able to get the written information from the mayor's office, Marty confirmed that the underlying lots would be addressed with this project but maybe BPS hasn't seen what is coming out of the mayor's office - or maybe the mayor's office doesn't understand the issues and has misstated the purpose of the project. It would be great if you could clarify as soon as possible. (

The destruction to neighborhood character continues as we speak. On May 7, Eden Enterprises with Renaissance Homes as the developer, filed for a demolition permit for the entire structure of a beautiful 1924 house at 3030 SE Rex - the heart of the neighborhood. It is clear why they were willing to pay $67S,000 just to demolish it. The lot is a 9,700 sq ft corner lot with an underlying lot line - couldn't be split if the minimum lot size in the RS zone was S,000 sq ft. Technically, they could probably build three houses there since it is a corner lot and has an underlying lot line but we don't know if Renaissance is smart enough to know that.

As of yet, the only information that we have comes from the demolition permit. In any case, the current house is high on a bluff and two houses will require substantial modifications to the topography we suspect. Renaissance always builds from its stock po1tfolio rather than site sensitive designs. We have tried to work with Randy Sabastian before in the area east of36th for modifications that would protect neighbors privacy but Randy Sabastian has no interest in that. No "for sale" sign was ever put up because the sellers were convinced to sell to a bulk, all cash purchaser, POX Remodelers - who merely acted as an agent for Eden Enterprises and Renaissance.

~~Pottland Chronicle indicates 20 demolition permits citywide for the most recent week alone. So, understandably, we are very concerned and feel very vulnerable under the current conditions.~~

~~Thanks, Meg ( 187832~~

~~On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Stein, Deborah ( wrote:~~

~~Hi Meg,~~

I apologize that I haven't yet sent the full set of maps I referenced in the PSC meeting the other day. The folks who developed the maps are not in the office, and I need their help to sort through a number of maps in the GIS folder to find the correct ones. So, when staff are back on Monday I'll ask for help! And as Marty says below, l plan to forward the full set of maps to the PSC as well, since they didn't have the benefit of viewing the details for all of the study areas I referenced. Thanks for your patience. Also, I wanted to thank you for the note below and for your efforts and advocacy.

~~Deborah~~

~~Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability~~

~~1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 j 503.823.6991~~

~~deborah stein@portlandoregon gov~~

~~www.pmilandoregon.goy/bps~~

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will \ provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Meg Merrick [mailto:meg.merrick@gmail com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:11 AM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Re: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting

~~Thanks, Marty!~~

As you may have seen, I have responded to the overall neighborhood email discussion about yesterday's meeting that we need to move on and we need to move forward. And what that means is that we support the mayor's residential zone initiative in any way that we can.

characteristic of the current meaning of the R7 zone, and playing by the nonsensical rules of the Alice in Wonderland world of the current code would get us closer to the minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft - the typical meaning ofR5. (

But as you know, once we understood the craziness of the current code, we have always advocated for a serious review of the code and its impacts on the city as a whole. Patt of what has been so frustrating about this whole process is that BPS can't even model the code's real impacts given the data and resources that it has. I would note that comments by BPS staff relating to the actual impacts of the code on neighborhood were incorrect in that the impacts of the underlying lots in the historic Eastmoreland section of the neighborhood have not been analyzed. Rod and I went through that exercise for a po1tion of the northwest part of the neighborhood and came up with a large number of possible new lots.

In any case, I very much appreciate the fact that the City will revisit the residential code. It is hugely important and as I have said we on the Eastmoreland Land Use Committee will do all that we can to be suppottive and to be of assistance.

~~Meg~~

~~On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stockton, Matty wrote:~~

~~Hi Meg,~~

~~The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the ( documents and presentations link:~~

~~https://www.portlandoregon gov/bps/article/529238~~

Also, according to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that part should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Part I link).

~~With kind regards,~~

~~Marty ( 187832~~

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503,823.2041 f: 503,823.5884 e: marty.stockton@portlandoregon gov w: www.po1tlandoregon gov/bps

From: Meg Merrick [mailto:meg [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting

~~Hi Deborah and Marty,~~

Could you please send me a copy of the slides that you presented today to the BPS Commission regarding the R5 to R 7 request? I am particularly interesting in seeing maps \ of each of the areas that were considered.

~~Thanks!~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: RE: Some maps for tomorrow"s meeUng ( Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:33:00 AM~~

Morgan will. Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:32 AM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Some maps for tomorrow's meeting Thanks Marty. ( I printed these maps out for tomorrow's meeting. Pretty obvious that there are a lot of underlying historic lot lines. Ea Mo decision related to these HLLs could become precedent for other parts of the city. Will Sandra be at tomorrow's meeting? From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:23 AM To: Meg Merrick Cc: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Tracy, Morgan ( Planning) Subject: FW: Spme maps for tomorrow's meeting Thanks Meg. Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, ( 187832

translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mai/to-meg merrick@gmail com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:41 AM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: Some maps for tomorrow's meeting Hi Marty,

I assume that we will be talking about a city-wide analysis of the lots ofrecord problem. The attached maps may are may not be helpful and their original size is much too big but I attempted to get a sense of the city-wide issue some time ago. I was able to get a hold of a shapefile called "supplemental lot lines" from someone at the City. There didn't appear to be anything else available at the time.

The supplemental lot lines helped us to understand better the random nature of their distribution throughout the Clty especially with regard to stated planning values for higher density such as proximity to transit and services.

There are really two sets of issues: one relates to the nested 25' x l 00' lots of record in the RS zone; and the other relates to the more complicated issue of those that do not nest and appear to be randomly placed. The Eastmoreland neighborhood has both of these issues.

What I'd hoped to be able to do is to identify city-wide which tax lots in the RS zone with the nested 25' x 100' lots of record would be most likely split under conditions of extreme development pressure. And I'd hoped to be able to identify which tax lots could be subdivided \ using the un-nested or randomly placed lots ofrecord. One of the key problems for propetty owners given the label of the RS zone, most don't know that especially under the condition of the unaligned lots ofrecord, is that given the same sized lot on the same block a neighbor might be able to subdivide while the property owner might not.

The supplemental lot line shapefile, however, can't be used for either purpose. I don't know how it was created (perhaps a conversion of a CAD file or hastily digitized) however, as the close examination of the Eastmoreland-Woodstock large scale map indicates, the lines are highly inaccurate and therefore can only used for the purpose of illustration.

~~You have probably also made similar maps but if not, here they are.~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dacanay Radcliffe To: Stockton Marty Subject: RE: Some maps for tomorrow"s meeting ( Date: Tuesday, March 31, 201S 11:31:58 AM~~

Thanks Marty. I printed these maps out for tomorrow's meeting. Pretty obvious that there are a Jot of underlying historic Jot lines. Ea Mo decision related to these HLLs could become precedent for other parts of the city. Will Sandra be at tomorrow's meeting? From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:23 AM To: Meg Merrick Cc: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Tracy, Morgan ( Planning) Subject: FW: Some maps for tomorrow's meeting Thanks Meg. Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.gov/bps ( To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:meg.merrick@gmaiJ com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:41 AM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: Some maps for tomorrow's meeting Hi Marty,

I assume that we will be talking about a city-wide analysis of the lots of record problem. The attached maps may are may not be helpful and their original size is much too big but I attempted to get a sense of the city-wide issue some time ago. I was able to get a hold of a shapefile called "supplemental lot lines" from someone at the City. There didn't appear to be anything else available at the time.

The supplemental lot lines helped us to understand better the random nature of their distribution throughout the City especially with regard to stated planning values for higher density such as proximity to transit and services.

There are really two sets of issues: one relates to the nested 25' x 100' lots of record in the RS zone; and the other relates to the more complicated issue of those that do not nest and appear ( 187832

~~to be randomly placed. The Eastmoreland neighborhood has both of these issues.~~

What I'd hoped to be able to do is to identify city-wide which tax lots in the RS zone with the nested 25' x I 00' lots of record would be most likely split under conditions of extreme development pressure. And I'd hoped to be able to identify which tax lots could be subdivided using the un-nested or randomly placed lots of record. One of the key problems for propetty owners given the label of the RS zone, most don't know that especially under the condition of the unaligned lots of record, is that given the same sized lot on the same block a neighbor might be able to subdivide while the property owner might not.

~~You have probably also made similar maps but if not, here they are.~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Loehlein Neil To: Da0nav, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; stockton, Martv Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps ( Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:23:58 AM~~

Great, thanks Radcliffe. Here's an updated non-heatmap version with a 4-class diverging color ramp: \\BPSFile1\Common$\drop\Loehlein NeH\for Radcliffe2\llx17 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes.pd/ Let me know what you think of this one. Thanks, Neil

From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:11 AM To: Loehlein, Neil; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Thanks, Neil. These are all great. I like what you did with the heat map. But I think the easiest one to understand is the non-heat map version. We can still use the heat map for in-house discussion purposes. For the non-heat map, one thing perhaps to try is a two-color gradient scheme into 4 breaks, with the midpoint at 50% -- it might be easier to discern which blocks are predominantly more R7 or which ones are more RS. Let see how that looks, if it clarifies the discussion. Thanks again! From: Loehlein, Neil ( Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:58 AM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton,.Marty Subject: Tax parcel size maps Hi Radcliffe, Here are three map drafts of the Eastmoreland neighborhood of parcel size/zoning: Map #1 \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\llxl 7 eastmoreland tax parcels 150316.pdf I can combine the information in the requests of #2 and #3 in one map. Below are the block depiction and the heatmap visualization of the block analysis that calls out the percentage of taxlots greater than 6370 sqft, as well as the RS zones with 50%+ parcels less than 6,369 sqft and R7 zones with 50%+ parcels greater than 6,370. \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmoreland taxlot sizes heatmap.pdf \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loeh\ein Neil\for Radcliffe\llxl 7 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes.pd( The blue labels are the percentage of taxlots greater or equal to 6,370 sqft and the black labels are the ID# of each block. These might be a bit busy, so if you'd rather have me break some of the data out to a separate map, Jet me know. Also, which map type (block depiction or heatmap) do you want to stick with? Let me know if there are any edits that you'd like to see made to the maps. Thanks, Neil

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Pavmay Raddlffe To: Loehlein Neil; Frederiksen, Joan; stocktoo M;irty Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:10:36 AM~~

Thanks, Neil. These are all great. I like what you did with the heat map. But I think the easiest one to understand is the non-heat map version. We can still use the heat map for in-house discussion purposes. For the non-heat map, one thing perhaps to try is a two-color gradient scheme into 4 breaks, with the midpoint at 50% -- it might be easier to discern which blocks are predominantly more R7 or which ones are more RS. Let see how that looks, if it clarifies the discussion. Thanks again!

From: Loehlein, Neil Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:58 AM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: Tax parcel size maps Hi Radcliffe, Here are three map drafts of the Eastmoreland neighborhood of parcel size/zoning: Map#l \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmoreland tax parcels 150316 pdf I can combine the information in the requests of #2 and #3 in one map. Below are the block depiction and the heatmap visualization of the block analysis that calls out the percentage of taxlots greater than 6370 sqft, as well as the RS zones with 50%+ parcels less than 6,369 sqft and R7 zones with 50%+ parcels greater than 6,370. \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmoreland taxlot sizes heatmap.pdf \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmorelaod blocks taxlot sizes.pdf The blue labels are the percentage of taxlots greater or equal to 6,370 sqft and the black labels are the ID# of each block. These might be a bit busy, so if you'd rather have me break some of the data out to a separate map, let me know. Also, which map type (block depiction or heatmap) do you want to stick with? Let me know if there are any edits that you'd like to see made to the maps. Thanks, Neil

~~( 187832~~

~~From: LO€hleln Neil To: Dacanay Radcliffe Cc: Stockton, Martv; Frederiksen Joan ( Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:31:58 PM~~

Hi Radcliffe, Here are the maps that you requested (as well as the South Burlingame taxlot size by block map): \ \BPSFi le 1\Common$\d rop \Loehlein_Neil\for _ Radel iffe\1 lxl 7 _south_ burlingame _blocks_taxlots _size.pd f \\BPSFile1\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\ 11x17 south burlingame tax parcels 2 classes.pdf \\BPSFiJe1\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for RadcJiffe\11x17 eastmoreland tax parcels 2 classes pdf Let me know if there are any changes that you'd like to see to these maps. Thanks, Neil

~~From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:33 PM To: Loehlein, Neil Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Sweet. Thanks!~~

From: Loehlein, Neil Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:26 PM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Sure, no problem. I should have something for you by the end of the day tomorrow. neil

From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:21 PM To: Loehlein, Neil Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Hi Neil, Thanks again for these. Just met w/ Marty and Joan. We'd like another iteration, possible. For both the South Burlingame and Eastmoreland maps, can you do a map that shows just two colors. The lots that are >=6,370 and lots less than 6,370. Basically, it'll give us an additional way of talking about which properties change from RS and to R7 and which stay the at their current designation. Thanks again! Radcliffe

From: Loehlein, Neil Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:24 AM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Great, thanks Radcliffe. Here's an updated non-heatmap version with a 4-class diverging color ramp: \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe2\11x17 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes.pdf Let me know what you think of this one. Thanks, Neil ( 187832

From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:11 AM ( To: Loehlein, Neil; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Thanks, Neil. These are all great. I like what you did with the heat map. But I think the easiest one to understand is the non-heat map version. We can still use the heat map for in-house discussion purposes. For the non-heat map, one thing perhaps to try is a two-color gradient scheme into 4 breaks, with the midpoint at 50% -- it might be easier to discern which blocks are predominantly more R7 or which ones are more RS. Let see how that looks, if it clarifies the discussion. Thanks again! From: Loehlein, Neil Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:58 AM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: Tax parcel size maps Hi Radcliffe, Here are three map drafts of the Eastmoreland neighborhood of parcel size/zoning: Map#l \\BPSFile1\Common$\drop\Loehfeio Neil\for Raddiffe\11x17 eastmoreland tax parcels 150316 pdf I can combine the information in the requests of #2 and #3 in one map. Below are the block depiction and the heatmap visualization of the block analysis that calls out the percentage of taxlots greater than 6370 sqft, as well as the RS zones with 50%+ parcels less than 6,369 sqft and R7 zones with 50%+ parcels greater \ than 6,370. \\BPSFjle1\Common$\drop\Loeh!ein Nejl\for Radcljffe\llx17 eastmore!and taxlot sjzes heatmap pdf \\BPSFilel\CommonS\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\llxl 7 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes.pdf The blue labels are the percentage of taxlots greater or equal to 6,370 sqft and the black labels are the ID# of each block. These might be a bit busy, so if you'd rather have me break some of the data out to a separate map, let me know. Also, which map type (block depiction or heatmap) do you want to stickwith? Let me know if there are any edits that you'd like to see made to the maps. Thanks, Neil

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dacanay Radcliffe To: Frederiksen Joan; Stockton Martv Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps ( Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:44:48 AM~~

What do you think? I think this latest version from Neil sets a good starting point for continuing the negotiation of what areas lean more towards R7 and which ones lean more toward RS. From: Loehlein, Neil Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:24 AM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Great, thanks Radcliffe. Here's ali updated non-heatmap version with a 4-class diverging color ramp: \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe2\11xl 7 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes.pdf Let me know what you think of this one. Thanks, Neil From: Dacanay, Radcliffe Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:11 AM To: Loehlein, Neil; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: RE: Tax parcel size maps Thanks, Neil. These are all great. I like what you did with the heat map. ( But I think the easiest one to understand is the non-heat map version. We can still use the heat map for in-house discussion purposes. For the non-heat map, one thing perhaps to try is a two-color gradient scheme into 4 breaks, with the midpoint at 50% -- it might be easier to discern which blocks are predominantly more R7 or which ones are more RS. Let see how that looks, if it clarifies the discussion. Thanks again! From: Loehlein, Neil Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:58 AM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe; Frederiksen, Joan; Stockton, Marty Subject: Tax parcel size maps Hi Radcliffe, Here are three map drafts of the Eastmoreland neighborhood of parcel size/zoning: Map#l \\BPSFilel\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmoreland tax parcels 150316.pdf I can combine the information in the requests of #2 and #3 in one map. Below are the block depiction and the heatmap visualization of the block analysis that calls out the percentage of taxlots greater than 6370 sqft, as well as the RS zones with 50%+ parcels less than 6,369 sqft and R7 zones with 50%+ parcels greater than 6,370. \\BPSFile1\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmoreland taxlot sizes heatmap.pdf \\BPSFile1\Common$\drop\Loehlein Neil\for Radcliffe\11x17 eastmoreland blocks taxlot sizes.pd! The blue labels are the percentage of taxlots greater or equal to 6,370 sqft and the black labels are the ID# of each blotk. These might be a bit busy, so if you'd rather have me break some of the data out to ( 187832

~~a separate map, let me know. Also, which map type (block depiction or heatmap) do you want to stick with? Let me know if there are any edits that you'd like to see made to the maps. Thanks, Neil~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Dacanay Radcliffe To: Stein Deborah ( Cc: Stockton Marty; Frederiksen Joan • Subject: Re: wend appreciate some assistance! Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 7:10:33 AM~~

~~Yes, of course.~~

From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:16:00 PM To: Dacanay, Radcliffe Cc: Stockton, Marty; Frederiksen, Joan Subject: we'd appreciate some assistance! Hi Radcliffe, We are updating our analysis of Eastmoreland's down-designation proposal, and could use your help early next week. Would you be able to assist? As I understand it, Marty and Joan have developed a revised methodology, but they need someone to do an objective and thoughtful review to affirm the validity of the methodology and offer technical advice. I would really appreciate it if you'd be able to work with Marty on this; she can let you know more precisely what help she needs. Thanks in advance! Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah stejn@port!andoregon gov www port!andoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. 187832

~~From: Rod Merrtck To: Stein Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrjck; Tom Hubka; Stockton Marty; Dacanay Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:03:51 PM~~

~~Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod~~

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Mmi~m&rumut;tt:fl!railmne Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Stockton Marty To: Stein Deborah; Dacanay Radcliffe; Tracy Moman ( Planning) Subject: Rod"s agenda for the Eastmoreland meeting ( Date: Wednesday, Apnl 1, 2015 10:13:00 AM Attachments: 201s 04 01 Technical meetinar1.docx

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and ,sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City ITY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:36 AM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: agenda name corrections Please use corrected version if you have not already caught the errors ( Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB MmmK¥AJ:cmifgofittefe.bffliiing Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Meg Merdck To: Stein Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson; Stockton Marty; Dacanay Radcliffe ( Subject: Some additional thoughts about our meeting Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 4:47:43 PM~~

~~Deborah,~~

I just wanted to comment on your recommendation that the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association (ENA) pursue adopting codes, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to address the lot-splitting and design issues in our neighborhood. While it may be an idea that we should investigate, there are a host of reasons why this, even if it were possible, would not be a prefe11'ed option. And, given the political climate, frankly, I was ve1y surprised that anyone at the BPS would suggest it. So, here are at least two reasons why this would not be a prefetl'ed solution.

1. There appears to have developed among some community members, some City staff, and elected officials a bias against the ENA. We have heard that we are elitists, that we are NIMBYs, that we are wealthy obstructionists, and that we are afraid of and/or resist change. All of these characterizations have been used by peopll) known and unknown to us in recent months to question the validity of our testimony (without having read it) and the request for the zone change.

As you know, our request was carefully considered and our testimony represents hundreds of ( hours of investigation and consultation with our neighborhood association, other neighborhood associations, and others. While our testimony may have benefited from some resident expertise, it is not a reflection of elitism, obstructionism, or a blind or blanket resistance to change. The CC&R solution is a bad idea if for no other reason that it plays into the stereotype of elitism and privilege which we reject.

2. Your suggestion is also troubling because it suggests that the City may not be willing to address the real problem which is a residential code that has developed over time into an Alice in Wonderland world. Our down zone request came out of the realization that RS no longer meant RS as it has been understood by most lay people, and that the ways in which the underlying lots of record, that negate literally any notion of planning and predictability play out in our neighborhood (and the city as a whole) could under extreme development pressures destroy everything that makes our neighborhood and many of the city's neighborhoods a wonderful place to live. But operating under the assumptions of the Alice in Wonderland world that the current residential code represents, we believe that the 4,200 minimum lot size of the R7 zone, would at least put an end to most of the lot splitting based on the underlying lots of record.

While we have been driven by the desire to protect and enhance the livability and affordability that the larger lots and wide variety of house sizes have created in Eastmoreland, we strongly advocate for a city-wide solution that protects and enhances what each neighborhood values. From our perspective the City should not be encouraging neighborhoods to go it alone via CC&Rs or even historic districts since only some neighborhoods can achieve these. And a city-wide solution will only be meaningful if the residential code issues are seriously and holistically addressed so that all stakeholders can easily understand the code's meaning. ( 187832

~~Thanks for your efforts, ( Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Loehle!n, Nell To: Dacanay Rackllffe; Frededksen Joan; Stockton Marty ( Subject: Tax parcel size maps Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:57:54 AM~~

Hi Radcliffe, Here are three map drafts of the Eastmoreland neighborhood of parcel size/zoning: Map#l \\BPSFileJ\Common$\drop\Loehlein Nejl\for Radcljffe\llx17 eastmoreland tax parcels 150316.pdf I can combine the information in the requests of #2 and #3 in one map. Below are the block depiction and the heatmap visualization of the block analysis that calls out the percentage of taxlots greater than 6370 sqft, as well as the RS zones with 50%+ parcels Jess than 6,369 sqft and R7 zones with 50%+ parcels greater than 6,370. \\BPS Fi le 1\Com mon$\drop\Loehlein_ Neil\for _ Radcliffe \1 lxl7 _ eastmoreland _ taxlot_sizes_ heatma p.pdf \ \BPSFi le 1\Common$\drop \Loehlein_ Neil\for _ Radel iffe\1 lxl7 _ eastmore land_blocks_ taxlot_ sizes.pdf The blue labels are the percentage of taxlots greater or equal to 6,370 sqft and the black labels are the ID# of each block. These might be a bit busy, so if you'd rather have me break some of the data out to a separate map, Jet me know. Also, which map type (block depiction or heatmap) do you want to stick with? Let me know if there are any edits that you'd like to see made to the maps. Thanks, Neil (

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein, Deborah To: Dacanay Radcliffe Cc: Stockton Marty; Frederiksen Joan ( Subject: we"d appreciate some assistance! Date: Frtday, March 13, 2015 5:16:03 PM~~

Hi Radcliffe, We are updating our analysis of Eastmoreland's down-designation proposal, and could use your help early next week. Would you be able to assist? As I understand it, Marty and Joan have developed a revised methodology, but they need someone to do an objective and thoughtful review to affirm the validity of the methodology and offer technical advice. I would really appreciate it if you'd be able to work with Marty on this; she can let you know more precisely what help she needs. Thanks in advance! Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 [email protected] www.portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~,l"Om: Ted Hart ( mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:26 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Council Clerk - Testimony Cc: Mona; Karen Bendler Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony~~

~~Re: RCPNA amendment 38. to Re-Design NE 60th Ave. Station Area~~

~~I oppose this amendment including:~~

~~1. focus the highest residential density along NE 60th 2. expand the Mixed Use Commercial uses to include NE 60th between Halsey and the Max Station~~

~~I am a home owner and resident in this area and oppose this amendment for the following reasons:~~

1. There is not a great demand for commercial businesses in our neighborhood. Most of what residents need in our neighborhood is 15min walk/5min drive away (i.e. Fred Meyers 15 blocks away), a commercial building in the current mixed zone in our neighborhood sat vacant for 5 years, and most businesses in our neighborhood are rarely busy (no high demand) with most not thriving 2. The greatest property demand currently in Portland and our neighborhood is for single ( family homes. This proposal would occupy and demolish the homes in our neighborhood further limiting the supply of quality single family homes in Portland 3. There has been a large influx of families with young children to our neighborhood. Most parents are concerned with safe streets and quality schools. This proposal would take the emphasis away from these important topics.

~~Thank you for reviewing this testimony.~~

~~Ted~~

~~Ted Hart PhD Candidate Environmental Science & Mgmt Portland State University 1719 SW 10th Ave, room 218 P01tland, OR 97201~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~·om: Matt Brischetto ( .mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:21 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: Proposal #62~~

~~Hi,~~

I'm writing in support of proposal #62, which will bring CM zoning to the Belmont!M01Tison corridor. Given the population demands facing the city over the coming decades, thoughtful and properly placed mixed use zoning in the right balance with protecting the older homes on inner/smaller streets is the solution that accommodates for growth yet protects history. The corridors are the most sensible place to put this density, and will be most cost effective way to make use of the City's infrastructure investments in transportation, utilities and greenspace.

~~Thanks,~~

~~Matt Brischetto 1503 SE Belmont St Portland, OR 97214~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

·om: P Vo ( .:!nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:14 PM To: Stark, Nan; Eliot Neigh. Land Use Comm.; [email protected]; NECN Board; Commissioner Fritz; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Alise Munson; Ray Culi; Kelly Gillard; Ted Maceiko; paul regan; Erin Howell; Kevin Retalia; Beale Ioanide-Culi; Robin Best; Al Thieme; Alan Silver; Dave Barmon Subject: Re: Comprehensive Plan Testimony

~~Resending testimony noted below with correct email for official receiving email location, Please excuse the original email address typo~~

------Forwarded message------From: P Vo Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:09 PM Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony To: [email protected], "[email protected]" , "Eliot Neigh. Land Use Comm." , [email protected], NECN Board , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: Alise Munson , Ray Culi , Kelly Gillard ·•[email protected]>, Ted Maceiko , paul regan , Erin ( ;Jwell , Kevin Retalia , Beate Ioanide-Culi , Robin Best , Al Thieme , Alan Silver , Dave Bannon

~~Emailed to: [email protected] Subject line of email: Comprehensive Plan Testimony~~

~~January 13, 2016~~

~~Paul van Orden 52 NE Fremont Street Potiland Oregon 97212~~

~~RE: Written testimony on Comp Plan for "Kaiser Towers" at NE Fremont And N Williams (~~

~~1 187832~~

My name is Paul van Orden. I am on a break work \Vith preparations for a hearing tonight and can not testify in person. Most of the 8 to!O folks we lined up to testify in opposition to up-zoning Kaiser Towers will not be able to testify tonight. I've been a resident at 52 Notiheast Fremont, just East ofN Williams for the last 19 years. I am a Quaker an( represent my personal beliefs and perspectives as a Quaker and a citizen in this testimony and I am not speaking in any manner from my professional role in law enforcement in our community. I am in suppo1t of the logical down-zoning recommendation at these lots from RX to RH formed over a long duration in the Comp Plan process now before you today. I am not in support of RX or CM3 at this location, or EX zoning , if EX lasts through the Mixed Use Zones process in this alignment along NE. Northeast Coalition of Neighbors (NECN) has taken a strong stance that CM3 Zoning should not be instituted at this location. You have a letter in the.file from them as well I am writing to testify and ask Council to offer no additional up zoning on the parcels at the SE comer of NE Fremont And N Williams commonly known in the community as the "Kaiser Towers Lots". They are legally known by the County as lots: RI03345 ( 32 NE Fremont St.); RI03346 ( 24 NE Fremont St.), R103347, R308624 (19 NE Ivy St.), and R 308626 (3410 N Williams Ave.). These lots were RI zoning just two and half years ago. In the summer of2013 my involvement in my neighborhood changed radically as I found myself impacted by a land use decision made by tlu·ee members of City Council, ( Novick, Hales and Saltzman) to up-zone a series of lots for two te1m appointed City Design Commissioner Ben Kaiser. These lots went from RI Zoning to the Downtown Central City zoning of RX. The directly impacted neighbors were left out of that process at the key point to legally have full standing at the Land Use Board of Appeals, I am here today to preserve any legal right to appeal any change by City Council( to up-zone this set of properties. Anything more than the RH zoning, as is currently recommended by your o,t Planning Commissioners and staff under the Comp Plan recommendations, at this late date in the game is not reasonable. It is not based on the facts of the case. And it is out of character with all the community involvement to date. I understand the complexity and intensions of crafting community balance in the Comp Plan from numerous hours of volunteering at the the NE Coalition ofNeighbors on their Executive Board and their Land Use Committee, and also from sitting on the Eliot Neighborhood's Land Use Committee. I would respectfully ask our elected leaders to not suppo11 fu11her up zoning momentum for a particularly connected developer, or his patiners, like who sold Council on a bill of goods that they were building a dense housing environment in a 85 to 95 foot tower, and are now filing permit requests with the State of Oregon to build only 14 residential units in a 8 to 9 story out of scale tower. As an impotiant note in the decision making processes that originally radially up zoned thees lots, Commissioner Novick was specifically concerned at the we need to save the earth and stop global waiming by giving Ben Kaiser a super high density 8 to 9 Story tower at this lot. Blocking less affluent neighbors from fiscally valuable solar access was seen as a sacrifice to density. Now, We are only getting 14 high end condos in 8 stories of building. I do not believe that Commission Novick intended to save the earth with only 14 units of housing in a 8 story out of character glass phallic Kaiser Tower. Please consider the impacts of your potential up zoning efforts on my neighborhood and the less affluent and the once diverse community you have only fractured fu11her. My son's de facto godfather, Lawrence (. Lowery, was in the neighborhood in close proximity to the Kaiser Towers lots. He chose to sell and move ..

~~2 187832~~

~~after 63 years in the our community. A primary factor was learning he had little rights in his own neighborhood and Council was dumping an 8 to 9 story out of character monster next to his house.~~

Tt appears to date that your decisions at this lot only serve to benefit wealthy and connected developers and do ( ,t meet the community goals of the Albina Plan, the Eliot Neighborhood Community plans, or the goals of the Comp Plan itself. Up-zoning further at this location is out of character and out of line with the Comp Plan Goals 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and 2F. This issue was eloquently elaborated to you at the recent hearing last week at SEI by long term neighbors who worked to open up the meeting with real world stories about the impacts of your decisions on long term community members.

~~Respectfully, Paul van Orden~~

(

~~3 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( January 13, 2015~~

~~Mayor Hales and Commissioners Fish, Fritz, Novick, and Saltzman City Hall 1221 SW 4th Ave Portland, Oregon 97204~~

~~RE: Demolitions and Affordability~~

~~Dear Mayor Hales and Commissioners Fish, Fritz, Novick, and Saltzman:~~

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The commenters are Robert McCullough. and Rod Merrick. Mr. McCullough is the principal of McCullough Research, an economic consulting firm located at 3816 SE Woodstock Blvd. He is an esteemed local economist and has worked on economic issues in Oregon, Washington, California, British Columbia, Quebec, Illinois, Texas, and New York, among other places. Mr. McCullough has testified extensively on economic issues across the U.S. and Canada for the ( past thirty-five yea·rs. In addition to his professional work, he serves as President of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association. His curriculum vitae is Attachment A to these comments. Mr. Merrick is an architect and planner with over thirty-five years of field experience in the Western U.S., including ten years in Portland designing residential infill, and four years as the co-chair on land use for the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association.

The proposed Comprehensive Plan assumes that infill housing in established neighborhoods, including infill that requires demolition of existing homes, will increase housing affordability. This assumption is based on the idea that producing new and additional housing will increase supply, satisfy demand, and stabilize cost. However, it does not reflect any systematic economic analysis and it fails to consider the loss in positive externalities, as well as social and environmental impacts.

The underlying theory seems to rest on a "trickledown" concept wherein high-income families move to more expensive housing, vacating less expensive housing for other families. Sadly, the trickledown theory fails to consider the impacts when existing housing is demolished along the way.

~~( 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 187832~~

Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( lncentivizing demolition has the opposite of the intended effect, both financially and socially. Demolition of usable older housing removes less expensive options from the market. It also places speculative investors in direct competition with resident owners, driving up the cost of land. Moreover, replacement housing is generally more expensive - often dramatically more expensive.

Our analysis of infill housing in the Eastmoreland neighborhood is a case in point. As Portland's tree code and various building rules have been relaxed in favor of developers, we examined a sample of recent Eastmoreland demolitions and found that the average house replacing a demolition sold for $174,140 more than the previous home. The new homes are larger, lack trees and greenspace, and generally detract from the neighborhood's architectural character, sense of place, and continuity of design. The new homes' outsized proportions eliminate trees · and greenspace, degrading the established character of the neighborhood. This poses a negative externality to neighbors, since the amenity effect ofgreenspace is reduced when a lot is clear-cut and neighboring lots are overshadowed.

There are three distinct cases in the housing trickledown theory. In the first case, a family sells its home, which is then demolished and replaced by a single larger house. In this case, overall ( ' housing costs in the city increase. This is the most frequent example in Eastmoreland. In the second case, a family can sell its home and have the lot subdivided into two homes. This is the second most likely outcome in Eastmoreland. In the examples we have seen, each of the succeeding houses is more expensive than the original structure. It is possible, but not certain, that affordable housing will trickle down, but only if the homes vacated by the new owners are less expensive than the home that has been demolished. We have not seen this occur in Eastmoreland. Finally, in a third case in the trickledown theory, if the homeowner dies, the city's affordable housing stock will only increase if the value of the demolished home was greater than that vacated by the new owners.

The issue of housing affordability is easily illuminated by publicly available data. Zillow, the popular housing sales site, has an algorithm designed to match housing prices to family income.' In Eastn\oreland, the homes that existed before demolition would require an average family income of $84,000 per annum. The replacement houses require an average family

~~1 https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/~~

~~6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 ( 187832~~

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( income of $114,000 per annum. In one case, demolition required the removal of 21 trees. The impact on the urban canopy is significant.2~~

The following chart shows the address, original market value, and current market value of a sample of demolitions taken from a compilation by Bureau of Development Services for the Development Review Advisory Committee.3

~~Decreased Affordability After Demolition~~

~~$800,000~~

~~$700,000~~

~~$600,000~~

~~$500,000~~

~~$400,000~~

~~$300,000 ( $200,000~~

~~$100,000~~

~~II Increased Value II Original Value~~

~~Dollar values are taken from Zillow and PortlandMaps.~~

2 Vic Remmers of Everett Custom Homes removed only 18 trees at 3640 SE Martins before neighborhood objections brought the clear-cut to a halt. While the tree code would normally require replacement, it appears that such issues were waived in his favor. 3 Nancy Thorington, Bureau of Development Services, email on December 17, 2015, see spreadsheet in Attachment B.

~~( 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 187832~~

Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( Replacement of affordable family housing with "McMansions" does not benefit the - neighborhood. The decrease in housing diversity, affordability, and environmental quality are clear negatives. As noted, virtually none of the trees removed in Eastmoreland have been replaced.

~~Average Eastmoreland Sales Prices and "McMansion" Prices~~

~~$900.00 $800.00 ------.. ------$700.00 • ------.. $600.00~~

~~$500.00~~

~~$400.00~~

~~$300.00~~

~~$200.00~~

~~$100.00~~

~~$- ( 1/1/2012 7/19/2012 2/4/2013 8/23/2013 3/11/2014 9/27/2014 4/15/2015 11/1/2015~~

~~OAverage • "McMansion"~~

Large, poorly designed tract homes are more likely to diminish the value of neighboring homes since they have fewer amenities. For Eastmorelarid, the final result is to diminish the value of many surrounding homes, whose amenities - trees and green space - have been reduced. Over time, the elimination of urban canopy will diminish the value of homes lacking greenspace, since the character of the block will reflect Portland's increasing drift toward "Stumptown."

In sum, the trickledown theory to make Portland affordable by incentivizing demolitions is fatally flawed. The data from Eastmoreland shows that the cost of housing has increased over the past five years when existing viable homes are demolished.

~~6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 ( 187832~~

Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( Accordingly, among other previously expressed reasons, the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association's request for an R-7 designation represents a better approach to preserving and promoting housing affordability in this portion of our city.

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Robert McCullough President Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, OR 97202~~

~~Rod Merrick, AIA Co-Chair, Land Use Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association ( 3627 SE Cooper Street Portland, OR 97202~~

~~Attachments:~~

Attachment A: Robert McCullough CV Attachment B: Spreadsheet from Nancy Thorington, Bureau of Development Services, on original market value and current market value of a sample of demolitions Attachment C: Spreadsheet used for graphics and charts

~~( 6123 SE Reed College Place Portland, Oregon 97202 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( Robert McCullough - Curriculum Vitae P1i11cipa! 1\!frC11!/011gh &sean11, 3816 S.E. TF'oodstock Place, Po,tla/Jd, OR 97202 USA~~

~~Professional Experience~~

~~1985-present Principal, McCullough Research: provide strategic planning assistance, litigation support, and planning for a variety of customers in energy, regulation, and primary metals~~

~~1996-present Adjunct Professor, Economics, Portland State University~~

1990-1991 Director of Special Projects and Assistant to the Chairman of the Board, Portland General Corporation: conducted special assignments for the Chairman in the areas of power supply, regulation, and stra(egic planning

1988-1990 Vice President in Portland General Corporation's bulk power marketing utility subsidiary, Portland General Exchange: primary negotiator on the purchase of 550 M\v' transmission and capacity package from Bonneville Power Administration; ( primary negotiator of PGX/M, PGC's joint venture to establish a bulk power marketing entity in the J\,lidwest; negotiated power contracts for both supply and sales; coordinated research function

1987-1988 l'vlanager of Financial Analysis, · Portland General Corporation: responsible for M&A analysis, restrncturing planning, and research support for the financial function; reported directly to the CEO on the establishment of Portland General Exchange; team member of PGC's acquisitions task force; coordinated PGC's strategic planning process; transferred to the officer's merit program as a critical corporate manager

1981-1987 llfanager of Regulatory .Finance, Portland General Electric: · responsible for a broad range of regulato1y and planning areas, including preparation and presentation of PGE's financial testimony in rate cases in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1987 before the Oregon Public Utilities Commission; responsible for preparation and presentation of PGE's wholesale rate case with Bonneville Power Administration in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1987; coordinated activities · at BPA and FERC on wholesale matters for the InterCompany Pool (the association of investor-owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest) since 1983; ( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page I of2I 187832

created BPJ\'s innovative aluminum tariffs (adopted by BPA in 1986); led PGC activities, reporting directly to the CEO ( and CFO on a number of special activities, including litigation and negotiations concerning WPPSS, the Northwest Regional Planning Council, various electoral initiatives, and the development of specific tariffs for major industrial customers; member of the \Vashington Governor's Task Force on' the Vancouver Smelter (1987) and the Washington Governor's Task Force on \'1:1PPSS Refinancing (1985); member of the Oregon Governor's \Vork Group On Extra- Regional Sales (1983); member of the Advisory Committee to the Northwest Regional Planning Council (1981)

1979-1980 Economist, Rates and Revenues Department, Portland General Electric: responsible for financial and economic testimony in the 1980 general case; coordinated testimony in support of the creation of the DRPA (Domestic and Rural Power Authority) and was a witness in opposition to the creation of the Columbia Public Utility District in state court; member of the Scientific and Advisory Committee to the Northwest Regional Power Planning Council

~~Economic Consulting ( 2015 Analysis and expert testimony for Illinois Attorney General in official FERC complaint against MISO~~

~~2015 Economic analysis of the proposed 1100 MW hydro project, Site C, for the Peace Valley Landowner Association~~

~~2015 Advisor to Oregon Department ofJustice in the investigation of taxes owed the state by Powerex Corp,~~

~~2014-2015 Market analysis of the NYISO for the New York State Assembly ,~~

~~2014 Advisor to the Grand Council of the Cree on uranium mining in Quebec~~

~~2014 Support for the investigation of Barclays Bank~~

~~2013 Advisor to Environmental Defense Fund on gasoline and oil issues in California~~

~~2013 Advisor to Energy Foundation on Ohio competitive issues~~

~~2013 Export market review in the Maritime Link proceeding ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 2 of21 187832~~

~~( 2013 Retained to do a business case analysis of the Columbia Generating Station by the Physicians for Social Responsibility~~

~~2011 Consultant to Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana on Indiana Gasification LLC project~~

~~2010-present Analysis and expert witness testimony for Block Island Intervenors concerning Deepwater offshore wind project~~

~~2010 Analysis for Eastern Environmental Law Center of 25 closed cycle plants in New York State~~

~~2010 Advisor on BPA transmission line right of way issues~~

~~2009-2010 Advisor to Gamesa USA on a marketing plan to promote a wind farm in the Pacific Northwest~~

~~2009-2010 Expert witness in City of Alexandria vs. Cleco~~

~~2009-present Expert witness in City of Beaumont v. Entergy~~

~~2008-2009 Consultant to AARP Connecticut and Texas chapters on the need for a state power authority (Connecticut) and balancing energy services (fexas)~~

~~2008-present Advisor to the American Public Power Association on administered markets~~

~~2008 Expert witness on trading and derivative issues in Barrick Gold litigation~~

~~2008-present Advisor to Jackson family in Pelton/Round Butte dispute~~

~~2006-present Advisor to the · Illinois Attorney General on electric restructuring issues~~

~~2006-present Expert witness for Lloyd's of London in SECLP insurance litigation~~

~~2006-2007 Advisor to the City of Portland in the investigation of Portland General Electric~~

~~2005-2006 Expert witness for Antara Resources in Enron litigation~~

~~2005-2006 Advisor to Utility Choice Electric~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 3 of21 187832~~

~~2005-2007 Expert witness for Federated Rural Electric Insurance ( Company and TIG Insurance in Cowlitz insurance litigation~~

~~2005-2007 Advisor to Gray's Harbor PUD on market manipulation~~

~~2005-2007 Advisor to the Montana Attorney General on market manipulation~~

~~2004-2005 Expert witness for Factory Mutual in Northwest Aluminum litigation~~

~~2004 Advisor to the Oregon Department of Justice on market manipulation~~

~~2003-2006 Expert witness for Texas Commercial Energy~~

~~2003-2004 Advisor to The Energy Authority~~

~~. 2002-2005 Advisor to the U.S. Department ofJustice on market manipulation issues~~

~~2002-2004 Expert witness for A.lean in Powerex arbitration~~

~~2002-2003 Expert witness for Overton Power in Ida Corp Energy litigation (~~

~~2002-2003 Expert witness for Stanislaus Food Products~~

~~2002 Advisor to VI-IA Pennsylvania on power purchasing~~

~~2002 Expert witness for Sierra Pacific in Enron litigation~~

~~2002-2004 Advisor to U.S. Department ofJustice~~

~~2002-2007 Expert witness for Snohomish PUD in Enron litigation~~

~~2002-1010 Expert witness for Snohomish in Morgan Stanley investigation~~

~~2001-2005 Advisor to Nordstrom~~

~~2001-2005 Advisor to Steelscape Steel on power issues in \v'ashington and California~~

~~2001-2008 Advisor to VHA Southwest on power purchasing~~

~~2001-present Expert witness for City of Seattle, Seattle City Light and City of Tacoma in FERC's EL01-10 refund proceeding ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research· ( Principal Page 4 of21 187832~~

~~( 2001 Advisor to California Steel on power purchasing~~

~~2001 Advisor to the California Attorney General on market manipulations in the \v'estern Systems Coordinating Council power markets~~

~~2000-present Expert ,vitness for Wah Chang in PacifiCorp litigation~~

~~2000-2001 Expert witness for Southern California Edison in Bonneville Power Administration litigation~~

~~2000-2001 Advisor to Blue Heron Paper on \Vest Coast price spikes~~

~~2000 Expert \vitness for Georgia Pacific and Bellingham Cold Storage in the \Vashington Utilities and Transportation Commission's proceeding on po\.ver costs~~

~~1999 Expert report for the Center Helios on Freedom of Information in Quebec~~

~~1999-2002 Advisor to Bayou Steel on alternative energy resources~~

~~1999-2000 Expert witness for the Large Customer Group in PacifiCorp's general rate case~~

~~1999-2000 Expert witness for Tacoma Utilities in \VAPA litigation~~

~~1999-2000 Advisor for Nucor Steel and Geneva Steel on PacifiCorp's power costs~~

~~1999-2000 Advisor to Abitibi-Consolidated on energy supply issues~~

~~1999 Advisor to GTE regarding Internet access in competitive telecommunication markets~~

~~1999 Advisor to Logansport Municipal Utilities ·~~

~~1998-2001 Advisor to Edmonton Power on utility plant divestiture in Alberta~~

~~1998-2001 Energy advisor for Boise Cascade~~

~~1998-2000 Advisor to California Steel on power purchasing~~

~~1998-2000 Advisor to Nucor Steel on power purchasing and transmission negotiations~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 5 of21 187832~~

~~1998-2000 Advisor to Cominco Metals on the sale of hydroelectric dams in British Columbia (~~

~~1998-2000 Advisor to the Betsiamites on the purchase of hydroelectric dams in Quebec~~

~~1998-1999 Advisor to the Illinois Chamber of Commerce concerning the affiliate electric and gas program~~

~~1998 Intervention in Quebec's first regulatory proceeding on behalf of the Grand Council of the Cree~~

~~1998 Market forecasts for Montana Power's restructuring proceeding~~

~~1997-1999 Advisor to the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission on Columbia fish and wildlife issues~~

~~1997-1998 Advisor to Port of :Morrow regarding power marketing ,vith respect to existing gas turbine plant~~

~~1997-1998 Expert witness for Tenaska in BPA litigation~~

~~1997 Advisor to Kansai Electric on restmcturing in the electric power industry (with emphasis on the California markets) (~~

~~1997-2004 Expert witness for Alcan in BC Hydro litigation~~

~~1996-1997 Bulk power purchasing for the Association of Bay Area Cities~~

~~1996-1997 Advisor to Texas Utilities on industrial issues~~

~~1996-1997 Expert ,vitness for March Point Cogeneration in Puget Sound Power and Llght litigation~~

~~1996 Advisor to Longview Fibre on contract issues~~

~~1995-present Bulk power supplier for several Pacific Northwest industrials~~

~~1995-1997 Advisor to Tacoma Utilities on contract issues~~

~~1995-1999 Advisor to Seattle City Llght on industrial contract issues~~

~~1995-1996 Expert ,vitness for Tacoma Utilities in WAPA litigation~~

~~1994-1995 Advisor to Idaho Power on Southwest Intertie Project marketing~~

~~ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 6 of21 187832~~

~~1993-2001 Northwest representative for Edmonton Power~~

~~1993-1997 Expert witness for MagCorp in PacifiCorp litigation~~

~~1992-1995 Advisor to Citizens Energy Corporation~~

~~1992-1994 Negotiator on proposed Bonneville Power Administration alwninum contracts~~

~~1992 Bulk power marketing advisor to Public Service of Indiana~~

~~1997-2003 Advisor to the Manitoba Cree on energy issues in Manitoba, Jvlinnesota and Quebec; Advisor to the Grand Council of the Cree on hydroelectric development~~

~~1991-2000 Strategic advisor to the Chairman of the Board, Portland General Corporation~~

~~1991-1993 Chairman of the Investor Owned Utilities' (ICP) committee on BPA financial reform~~

~~1991-1992 Financial advisor on the Trojan owners' negotiation team~~

~~1991 Advisor to Shasta Dam PUD on the California Oregon \ Transmission Project and related issues~~

1990-1991 Advised the Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission on issues pertaining to the 1990 General Commonwealth Rate Proceeding; prepared an extensive analysis of the bulk power marketing prospects for Commonwealth in ECAR and :11·1AIN

1988 Facilitated the settlement of Commonwealth Edison's 1987 general rate case and restructuring proposal for the Illinois Commerce Commission; reported directly to the Executive Director of the Commission; responsibilities included financial advice to the Commission and negotiations ,vith Commonwealth and intetYeners

1987-1988 Created the variable aluminum tariff for Big Rivers Electric Corporation: responsibilities included testimony before the Kentucky Public Service Commission and negotiations with BREC's customers (the innovative variable tariff was adopted by the Commission in August 1987); supported negotiations with the REA in support of BREC's bailout debt restructuring

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 7 of2I 187832~~

1981-1989 Consulting projects including: financial advice for the Oregon ( AFL-CIO; statistical analysis of equal opportunity for Oregon ' Bank; cost of capital for the James River dioxin review; and economic analysis of qualifying facilities for \Vashington Hydro Associates

~~1980-1986 Taught classes in senior and graduate forecasting, micro- economics, and energy at Portland State University~~

~~Education~~

~~Unfinished Ph.D. Economics, Cornell University; Teaching Assistant in micro- and macro-economics~~

~~M.A. Economics, Portland State University, 1975; Research Assistant~~

~~B.A. Economics, Reed College, 1972; undergraduate thesis, ''Eurodollar Credit Creation"~~

~~Areas of specialization include micro-economics, statistics, and finance~~

~~Papers and Publications (~~

~~June 2015 "Estimating the Longevity of Commercial Nuclear Reactors", P11blic Utilities FOJt11ightly~~

~~December 2014 "Nuclear Winter", Ele,1,idty Policy~~

~~July 2013 "Mid-Columbia Spot Markets and the Renewable Portfolio Standard", P11blic Utilities FOJ111ightly~~

~~April 14, 2013 "Selling Low and Buying High", The Orngo11ia11~~

~~December 2012 "Are Elecuic Vehicles Actually Cost-Effective?", EledJidty Policy~~

~~November 30, 2012 "Portland's Energy Credits: The trouble witl1 buying 'green"', The Ongo11ia11~~

~~July 2009 "Fingerprinting the Invisible Hand", P11blic Utilities r'o1111ightly~~

~~February 2008 Co-author, "The High Cost of Restmcturing", P11blic Utilities Fo1t11ightly~~

~~·March 27, 2006 Co-author, "A Decisive Tinie for LNG", The Daily Astoria11 ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 8 of21 187832~~

~~( February 9, 2006 "Opening the Books", The 01~~

~~August 2005 "Squeezing Scarcity from Abundance", P11blic Utilities F01t11ightly~~

~~April 1, 2002 "The California Crisis: One Year Later", P11blic Utilities FoJtnightly~~

~~March 13, 2002 "A Sudden Squall", The Seattle Times~~

~~J\farch 1, 2002 "\v'hat the ISO Data Says About the Energy Crisis", E1m;gy User News~~

~~February 1, 2001 "What Oregon Should Know About the ISO", P11blic Utilities F01t11ightly~~

~~January 1, 2001 "Price Spike Tsunami: How Market Power Soaked California", P11blic Utilities Fortnightly~~

~~March 1999 "Winners & Losers in California", P11blic Utilities Fo,tnightly~~

~~July 15, 1998 "Are Customers Necessary?'', P11blic Utilities Fo1i11ightly~~

~~\ March 15, 1998 "Can Electricity Markets Work Without Capacity Prices?", P11blic Utilities ho,tnightly~~

~~February 1998 "Coping With Interruptibility", Energy B11yer~~

~~January 1998 "Pondering the Power Exchange", Ene,;gy B'!)'er~~

~~December 1997 "Getting There Is Half the Cost: How Much Is Transmission Service?", Ene,gy Bl!)'er~~

~~November 1997 "Is Capacity Dead?'', Bllet)!J Bi!Jer~~

~~October 1997 "Pacific Northwest: An Overview", Ene,)!J Bi!Jer~~

~~August 1997 "A Primer on Price Volatility", Ene,;gy Bl!)'er~~

~~June 1997 "A Revisionist's History of the Future", Ene,gy Bl!)'er~~

~~Winter 1996 "What Are We Waiting for?" Megmvatti\!larkets~~

~~October 21, 1996 "Trading on the Index: Spot Markets and Price Spreads in the Western Interconnection", P11blic Utilities ho1t11ightly~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 9 of21 187832~~

~~McCullough Research Reports ( January 2, 2015 ''Data anq Methodological Errors in the Portland Commercial Street Fee"~~

~~December 15, 2014 Report to the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur !'environment (BAPE), "Uranium Niining in Quebec: Four Conclusions"~~

~~December 11, 2013 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station"~~

~~February 21, 2013 "McCullough Research Rebuttal to Western States Petroleum Association"~~

~~November 15, 2012 "May and October 2012 Gasoline Price Spikes on the West Coast"~~

~~June 5, 2012 "Analysis of West Coast Gasoline Prices"~~

~~October 3, 2011 HLowering Florida's Electricity Prices"~~

~~July 14, 2011 "2011 ERCOT Blackouts and Emergencies"~~

~~March 1, 2010 "Translation" of the September 29, 2008 NY Risk Consultant's Hydraulics Report to Manitoba Hydro CEO ( Bob Brennan~~

~~December 2, 2009 "Review of the ICF Report on Manitoba Hydro Export Sales"~~

~~June 5, 2009 "New York State Electricity Plants' Profitability Results"~~

~~May 5, 2009 "Transparency in ERCOT: A No-cost Strategy to Reduce Electricity Prices in Texas"~~

~~April 7, 2009 "A Forensic Analysis of Pickens' Peak: Speculation, Fundamentals or Market Structure"~~

~~March 30, 2009 "New Yorkers Lost $2.2 Billion Because of NYISO Practices"~~

~~March 3, 2009 "The New York Independent System Operator's Market- Clearing Price Auction is Too Expensive for New York"~~

~~February 24, 2009 "The Need for a Connecticut Power Authority"~~

~~Januaty 7, 2009 "Review of the ERCOT December 18, 2008 Nodal Cost Benefit Study" ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 10 of21 187832~~

~~'\ August 6, 2008 "Seeking the Causes of the July 3rd Spike in \Vorld Oil Prices" (updated September 16, 2008)~~

~~April 7, 2008 "Kaye Scholer's Redacted 'Analysis of Possible Complaints Relating to Maryland's SOS Auctions"'~~

~~February 1, 2008 "Some Observations on Societe Generale's Risk Controls"~~

~~June 26, 2007 "Looking for the 'Voom': A Rebuttal to Dr. Hogan's 'Acting in Time: Regulating \Vholesale Electricity Markets"'~~

~~September 26, 2006 "Did Amaranth Advisors, LLC Attempt to Corner the March 2007 NYMEX at Henry Hub?"~~

~~May 18, 2006 "Developing a Power Purchase/Fuel Supply Portfolio: Energy Strategies for Cities and Other Public Agencies"~~

~~April 12, 2005 "\v'hen Oil Prices Rise, Using More Ethanol Helps Save Money at the Gas Pump"~~

April 12, 2005 "When Farmers Outperfo1m Sheiks: Why Adding Ethanol to the U.S. Fuel ~fix Makes Sense in a $SO-Plus/Barrel Oil Market" \ April 12, 2005 "Enron's Per Se Anti-Trust Activities in New York"

~~February 15, 2005 "Employment Impacts of Shifting BPA to Market Pricing"~~

~~June 28, 2004 "Reading Enron's Scheme Accounting Materials"~~

~~June 5, 2004 "ERCOT BES Event"~~

~~August 14, 2003 "Fat Boy Report"~~

~~May 16, 2003 "CERA Decision Brief'~~

~~January 16, 2003 "California Electricity Price Spikes"~~

~~November 29, 2002 "C66 and Artificial Congestion Transmission m January 2001"~~

~~August 17, 2002 "Three Days of Crisis at the California ISO"~~

~~July 9, 2002 "Market Efficiencies"~~

~~June 26, 2002 "Senate Fact Sheet"~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 11 of21 187832~~

~~June 5, 2002 "Congestion Manipulation" ( May 5, 2002 "Enron's \Y/orkout Plan"~~

~~March 31, 2002 . "A History of IJM2"~~

~~February 2, 2002 "Understanding IJM"~~

~~January 22, 2002 "Understanding Whitewing"~~

~~Testimony and Comment~~

~~December 15, 2014 Testimony before the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur !'environment (BAPE) in Quebec, "Uranium Mining in Quebec: Four Conclusions"~~

~~November 15, 2012 Testimony before the California State Senate Select Committee ·on Bay Area Transportation on \v'est Coast gasoline price spikes in 2012~~

~~July 20, 2010 Testimony before the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission on the Deepwater offshore wind project~~

~~April 7, 2009 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and ( Natural Resources on "Pickens' Peak"~~

March 5, 2009 Testimony before the New York Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, and the Assembly Committee on Energy, "New York Independent System Operators Market Clearing Price Auction is Too Expensive for New York"

~~February 24, 2009 Testimony before the Energy and ·Technology Committee, Connecticut General Assembly, "An Act Establishing a Public Power Authority" on behalf of AARP~~

~~September 16, 2008 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Depending On 19th Century Regulatory Institutions to Handle 21st Centuty Markets"~~

January 7, 2008 Supplemental Comment ("The Missing Benclunark in Electricity Deregulation") before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of American Public Power Association, Docket Nos. Rl\I07 -19-000 and AD07-7-000

~~August 7-8, 2007 Testimony before the Oregon Public Utility Commission on behalf of Wah Chang, Salem, Oregon, Docket No. UM 1002 ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 12 of21 187832~~

~~( February 23 and 26, 2007 Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Cornrnission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, I)ocket No. EL03-180~~

~~October 2, 2006 I)irect Testimony before the Regie de l'energie, Gouvernetnent du Quebec on behalf of the Grand Council of the Cree~~

~~August 22, 2006 Rebuttal Expert Report on behalf of Public Utility I)istrict No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Docket No. H-01- 3624~~

~~June 1, 2006 Expert Report on behalf of Public Utility I)istrict No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, I)ocket No. H-01-3624~~

~~May 8, 2006 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Detnocratic Policy Cornrnittee, "Regulation and Forward Markets: Lessons frotn Enron and the Western Market Crisis of2000-2001"~~

~~I)ecetnber15,2005 I)irect Testimony before the Public Utility Cornrnission of the State of Oregon on behalf of \'\Tah Chang, Wah Chang v. PacifiCorp in I)ocket UM 1002~~

I)ecetnber 14, 2005 I)cposition bcfore"the United States I)istrict Court Western I)istrict of \v'ashington at Tacotna on behalf of Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange and TIG Insurance Cotnpany, Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange and TIG Insurance Cotnpany v. Public Utility I)istrict No. 1 of Cowlitz County, No. 04-5052RBL

~~I)ecetnber 4, 2005 Expert Report on behalf of Utility Choice Electric in Civil Action No. 4:05-CV-00573~~

July 27, 2005 Expert Report before the United States I)istrict Court \v'estern I)istrict of \v'ashington at Tacotna on behalf of Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange and TIG Insurance Cotnpany, Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange and TIG Insurance Cotnpany v. Public Utility I)istrict No. 1 of Cowlitz County, I)ocket No. CV04- 5052RBL . .

~~May 6, 2005 Rebuttal Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Cornrnission on b.ehalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of. Snohomish County, Washington, I)ocket No.EL03-180, et al.~~

~~May 1, 2005 Rebuttal Expert Report on behalf of Facto1y Mutual, Factory Mutual v. Northwest Aluminutn~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 13 of21 187832~~

( :March 24-25, 2005 Deposition by Enron Power Marketing, Inc before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Docket No.EL03-180, et al.

~~February 14, 2005 Expert Report on behalf of Fact01y Mutual, Factory Mutual v. Northwest Aluminum~~

~~January 27, 2005 Supplemental Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Docket No. EL03-180, et al.~~

April 14, 2004 Deposition by Enron Power Marketing, Inc. and Enron Energy Services before the· Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, \'

April 10, 2004 Rebuttal Testimony on behalf of the Office of City and County Attorneys, San Francisco, California, City and County Attorneys, San Francisco, California v. Turlock Irrigation District, Non-Binding Arbitration

~~February 24, 2004 Direct Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory ( Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Docket No.EL03-180, et al.~~

~~March 20, 2003 Rebuttal Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulato1y Commission on behalf of the City of Seattle, Washington, Docket No. ELOl-10, et al.~~

March 11-13, 2003 Deposition by IdaCorp Energy L.P. before the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho on behalf of Overton Power District No. 5, State of Nevada, IdaCorp Energy L.P. v. Overton Power District No. 5, Case No. OC 0107870D

March 3, 2003 Expert Report before the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho on behalf of Overton Power District No. 5, State of Nevada, Ida Corp Energy L.P. v. Overton Power District No. 5, Case No. OC 0107870D

~~February 27, 2003 Direct Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of the City of Tacoma, Washington and the Port of Seattle, Washington, Docket No. ELOl-10- 005~~

~~ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 14 of21 187832~~

~~October 7, 2002 Rebuttal Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County,.Washington, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.~~

~~October 2002 Expert Report before the Circuit Court of the Sta(e of Oregon for the County of Multnomah on behalf of Akan, Inc., Akan, Inc. v. Powerex Corp., Case No. 50 198 T161 02~~

September 27, 2002 Deposition by Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.

August 8-9, 2002 Deposition by i\forgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.

August 8, 2002 Deposition by Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.

~~June 28, 2002 Direct Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of the City of Tacoma, Washington, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.~~

~~June 25, 2002 Direct Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.~~

~~June 25, 2002 Direct Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company, Docket No. EL02-26, et al.~~

i\fay 6, 2002 Rebuttal Testimony before the Public Service Commission of Utah on behalf of Magnesium Corporation of America in the Matter of the Petition of Magnesium Corporation of America to Require PacifiCorp to Purchase Power from MagCorp and to Establish Avoided Cost Rates, Docket No. 02-035-02

~~April 11, 2002 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, \Vashington DC~~

~~February 13, 2002 Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Washington DC~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 15 of21 187832~~

January 29, 2002 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and ( Natural Resources, \v'ashington DC ' August 30, 2001 Rebuttal Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Seattle City tight, Docket No. EL01-10

~~August 16, 2001 Direct Testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Seattle City Light, Docket No. EL01-10~~

~~June 12, 2001 Rebuttal Testimony before the Public Utility Commission of the State of Oregon on behalf of Wah Chang, Wah Chang v. PacifiCorp in Docket UM 1002~~

~~April 17, 2001 Before the Public Utility Commission of the State of Oregon, Direct Testimony on behalf of Wah Chang, Wah Chang v. PacifiCorp in Docket UM 1002~~

March 1 7, 2000 Rebuttal Testimony before the Public Service Commission of Utah on behalf of the Large Customer Group in the i\fatter of the Application of PacifiCorp for Approval of Its Proposed Electric Rate Schedules and Electric Service Regulations, Docket No. 99-035-10 ( February 1, 2000 Direct Testimony before the Public Service Commission of Utah on behalf of the Large Customer Group in the Matter of the Application of PacifiCorp for Approval of Its Proposed Electric Rate Schedules and Electric Service Regulations, Docket No. 99-035-10

~~Presentations~~

~~May 6, 2014 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Energy Northwest, Boise, Idaho~~

~~April 30, 2014 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Portland State University, Portland, Oregon~~

~~April 22, 2014 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Clark County, Vancouver, \Vashington~~

~~January 9, 2014 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Northwest Power & Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon~~

~~ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 16 of21 187832~~

~~( January 1, 2014 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon~~

~~December 2, 2013 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Skamania, Carson, \Vashington~~

~~D.ecember 1, 2013 "Peak Peddling: Has Portland Bicycling Reached tl1e Top of the Logistic Curve?'' Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, Portland, Oregon~~

~~July 12, 2013 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Tacoma, \Vashington~~

~~June 21, 2013 "Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station", Seattle City Llght, Seattle, Washington~~

~~January 29, 2013 ''.J.D. Ross (Who)", Portland Rotary Club, Portland, Oregon.~~

~~January 13, 2011 "Estimating tl1e Consumer's Burden from Administered ~farkets", American Public Power Association conference, Washington, DC~~

~~October 15, 2009 "The Mysterious New York l'vfarket", EPIS, Tucson, Arizona~~

~~October 14, 2009 ''Do ISO Bidding Processes Result in Just and Reasonable Rates?", legal seminar, Atnerican Public Po\ver Association, Savannah, Georgia~~

~~June 22, 2009 "Pickens' Peak Redux: Fundamentals, Speculation, or Market Structure", International Association for Energy Economics~~

~~June 5, 2009 "Transparency in ERCOT: A No-cost Strategy to Reduce Electricity Prices in Texas", Presentation at Texas Legislature~~

~~May 8, 2009 ''Pickens' Peak", Economics Department, Portland State University~~

~~April 7, 2009 "Pickens' Peak: Speculators, Fundamentals, or Market Strncture", 2009 EIA energy conference, \Vashington, DC~~

~~February 4, 2009 "Why \Ve Need a Connecticut Power Authority", presentation to the Energy and Technology Committee, Connecticut General Assembly~~

~~October 28, 2008 "The Impact of a Volatile Economy on Energy Markets", NAESCO annual meeting, Santa Monica, California~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 17 of21 187832~~

~~April 1, 2008 "Connecticut Energy Policy: Critical Times ... Critical ( Decisions", House Energy and Technology Committee, the ' Connecticut General Assembly~~

~~May 23, 2007 "Past Efforts and Future Prospects for Electricity Industty Restructuring: \v'hy Is Competition So Expensive?", Portland State University~~

~~February 26, 2007 "Trust> But Verifi', Take Back the Power Conference, National Press Club, Washington, DC~~

~~May 18, 2006 ''Developing a Power Purchase/Fuel Supply Portfolio"~~

~~February 12, 2005 "Northwest Job Impacts of BPA Market Rates"~~

~~January 5, 2005 "Why Has the Enron Crisis Taken So Long To Solve?", Public Power Council, Portland, Oregon~~

~~September 20, 2004 "Project Stanley and the Texas Market", Gulf Coast Energy Association, Austin, Texas~~

~~September 9, 2004 "Back to the New Market Basics", EPIS, White Salmon, Washington~~

~~June 8, 2004 "Caveat Emptor", ELCON \v'est Coast Meeting, Oakland, ( California~~

~~June 9, 2004 "Enron Discovery in EL03-137 /180"~~

~~March 31, 2004 "Governance and Performance", Public Power Council, Portland, Oregon~~

~~Janua1y 23, 2004 "Resource Choice", La\v Seminars International, Seattle, \'(!ashington~~

~~January 17, 2003 "California Energy Price Spikes: 'I11e Factual Evidence", Law Seminars International Seattle, \v'ashington~~

~~January 16, 2003 "The Purloined Agenda: Pursuing Competition in an Era of Secrecy, Guile, and Incompetence"~~

~~September 17, 2002 "Three Crisis Days", California Senate Select Committee, Sacramento, California~~

~~June 10, 2002 "Enron Schemes", California Senate Select Committee Sacramento, California~~

~~May 2, 2002 "One Hundred Years of Solitude" ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 18 of21 187832~~

~~\ March 21, 2002 1'Enron's International Ventures", Oregon Bar International Law Committee, Portland, Oregon~~

~~March 19, 2002 "Coordinating \'(/est Coast Power Markets", GasMart, Reno, Nevada~~

~~March 19, 2002 "Sauron's Ring", GasNiart, Reno, Nevada~~

~~January 25, 2002 "Deconstructing Enron's Collapse: Buying and Selling Electricity on The West Coast'', Seattle, Washington~~

~~January 18, 2002 HDeconstructing Enron's Collapse", Economics Seminar, Portland State University~~

~~November 12, 2001 "Artifice or Reality", EPIS Energy Forecast Symposium, Skamania, Washington~~

~~October 24, 2001 "The Case of the ivfissing Crisis" Kennewick Rotaty Club, Kennewick, \'(!ashington~~

~~August 18, 2001 '~reparing for the Next Decade" ( June 26, 2001 "Examining the Outlook on Deregulation"~~

~~June 25, 2001 Presentation, Energy Purchasing Institute for International Research (!IR), Dallas, Texas~~

~~June 6, 2001 "New Horizons: Solutions for the 21st Centmy", Federal Energy l\fanagement-U.S. Department of Energy, Kansas City, Kansas~~

~~May 24, 2001 "Fivf: Years"~~

~~May 10, 2001 "A Year in Purgatory", Utah Industrial Customers Symposium-Utah Association of Energy Users, Salt Lake City, Utah~~

~~:tviay 1, 2001 "\'(!hat to Expect in the \Vestern Power Markets this Summee', \\Testern Power 1 1Iatket Seminar, Denver, Colorado~~

~~April 23, 2001 "Emerging Markets for Natura1 Gas", \'(/est Coast Gas Conference, Portland, ·Oregon~~

~~April 18, 2001 "Demystifying the Influence of Regulatory Mandates on the Energy Economy" Marcus Evans Seminar, Denver, Colorado~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 19 of21 187832~~

~~April 4, 2001 "Perfect Stonn", Regulatory Accounting Conference, Las ( Vegas, Nevada~~

~~March 21, 2001 "After the St01m 2001", Public Utility Seminar, Reno, Nevada~~

~~February 21, 2001 "Future Imperfect", Pacific Northwest Steel Association, Portland, Oregon~~

~~February 12, 2001 "Power Prices in 2000 through 2005", Northwest Agricultural Chillers, Bellingham, \v'ashington~~

~~February 6, 2001 Presentation, Boise Cascade Management, Boise, Idaho~~

~~Januaty 19, 2001 ''\v'holesale Pricing and Location of New Generation Buying and Selling Power in the Pacific Northwest", Seattle, Washington~~

~~October 26, 2000 "Tsunami: Market Prices since May 22nd", International Association of Refrigerated \v'arehouses, Los Vegas, California~~

October 11, 2000 "Tsunami: Market Prices since May 22nd", Price Spikes Symposium, Portland, Oregon ( August 14, 2000 "Anatomy of a Corrupted Market", Oregon Public Utility Commission and Oregon State Energy Office, Salem, Oregon

~~June 30, 2000 "Northwest Market Power", Governor Locke of\v'ashington, Seattle, Washington~~

~~June 10, 2000 "Northwest Market Power", Oregon Public Utility Commission and Oregon State Energy Office, Salem, Oregon~~

~~June 5, 2000 "Northwest Market Power", Georgia Pacific Management l\fay 10, 2000 "Magnesium Corporation Developments", Utah Public Utilities Commission~~

~~May 5, 2000 "Northwest Power Developments", Georgia Pacific Management~~

~~January 12, 2000 "Northwest Reliability Issues''., Oregon Public Utility Commission~~

~~Volunteer Positions~~

~~2013-Present Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association, President ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research ( Principal Page 20 of21 187832~~

~~( 2013-Present Southeast Uplift, Chair~~

~~( ROBERT McCULLOUGH McCullough Research Principal Page 21 of21 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Includes all CO,RS and MG permits~~

~~( Demolition Permit Activity 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 u; st N rl 0 00~~

~~== Demolition Permits Fina led~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( 618 513 ------_- 388 ---~~~- 332 335 443 I 2001 667 583 742 f----- ~~~ _;~:__ 643 2004 643 583 2003 562 516 2002 565 513 ------~~

,__f__ --_- -_--_----·------~-~--~-~------~ ~~~ ______-_--_--_--_--_-!_--~_t f------. ~:::------:-:: --~---- :!~ >------1 - 1997 475 387 I 1996 - -- 44_1 __ 311 1995 348 238 f'----'-c--~--•·--a·-·------1994 254 125 ------1993 - 237 3 ( 1992 268 1

~~( 187832~~

~~--- • • • 356 ( 576 562 460 335 289 ------"------! 253 353~~

~~567 492 436~~

~~- "-~------1407 425 405 342 289 252 278 224~~

(

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

Average Sale Price 2016 11/26/2015 $ 681.14 (' 2016 11/24/2015 $ 680.87 2016 11/21/2015 $ 680.32 2016 11/18/2015 $ 680.05 2016 11/15/2015 $ 679.50 2016 11/12/2015 $ 679.22 2016 11/8/2015 $ 678.86 2016 11/3/2015 $ 678.26 2016 10/31/2015 $ 677.85 2016 10/27/2015 $ 677.03 2016 10/24/2015 $ 676.21 2016 10/21/2015 $. 675.39 $900.00 2016 10/18/2015 $ 674.57 2016 10/12/2015 $ 673.20 2016 10/7/2015 $ 672.28 $800.00 2016 10/4/2015 $ 671.28 2016 10/1/2015 $ 670.46 $700.00 2016 9/28/2015 $ 669.64 2016 9/25/2015 $ 668.81 $600.00 2016 9/22/2015 $ 667.99 2016 9/19/2015 $ 667.17 2016 9/13/2015 $ 665.80 $500.00 2016 9/8/2015 $ 664.89 2016 9/5/2015 $ 663.88 $400.00 2016 9/2/2015 $ 663.06 2016 8/30/2015 $ 662.24 $300.00 2016 8/27/2015 $ 661.42 2016 8/24/2015 $ 660.60 2016 8/21/2015 $ 659.78 $200.00 2016 8/16/2015 $ 658.54 2016 8/12/2015 657.58 $ $100.00 2016 8/8/2015 $ 656.67 2016 8/4/2015 $ 655.67 2016 8/1/2015 $ 654.85 $- 1/1/201 2016 7/29/2015 $ 654.02 $ 725.79 2016 7/26/2015 $ 653.20 2016 7/24/2015 $ 652.38 2016 7/21/2015 $ 651.56 2016 7/19/2015 $ 650.90 2016 7/15/2015 $ 649.50 2016 7/12/2015 $ 648.50 2016 7/9/2015 $ 647.45 2016 7/6/2015 $ 646.63 2016 7/3/2015 $ 645.81 2016 6/.30/2015 $ 644.99 2016 6/28/2015 $ 644.16 187832

2016 6/26/2015 $ 643.50 2016 6/22/2015 $ 641.93 2016 6/19/2015 $ 640.88 ( 2016 6/16/2015 $ 640.06 2016 6/13/2015 $ 639.23 2016 6/12/2015 $ 638.57 2016 6/7/2015 $ 637.00 2016 6/4/2015 $ 635.95 2015 6/2/2015 $ 635.13 2015 5/30/2015 $ 634.31 2015 5/28/2015 $ 633.64 2015 5/24/2015 $ 632.25 2015 5/21/2015 $ 631.43 2015 5/18/2015 $ 630.61 2015 5/15/2015 $ 629.79 2015 5/12/2015 $ 628.78 2015 5/9/2015 $ 627.73 2015 5/7/2015 $ 626.91 2015 5/4/2015 $ 626.09 2015 5/1/2015 $ 625.27 2015 4/28/2015 $ 624.45 $ 774.43 2015 4/24/2015 $ 623.62 2015 4/19/2015 $ 622.53 2015 4/16/2015 $ 621.98 ( 2015 4/13/2015 $ 621.16 2015 4/11/2015 $ 620.34 2015 4/8/2015 $ 619.52 2015 4/5/2015 $ 618.69 2015 4/2/2015 $ 617.87 2015 3/29/2015 $ 617.05 2015 3/24/2015 $ 616.71 2015 3/20/2015 $ 616.23 2015 3/15/2015 $ 615.40 2015 3/11/2015 $ 615.40 2015 3/6/2015 $ 614.58 2015 3/3/2015 $ 614.58 2015 2/25/2015 $ 613.76 2015 2/22/2015 $ 613.76 2015 2/17/2015 $ 612.94 2015 2/13/2015 $ 612.94 2015 2/8/2015 $ 612.11 2015 2/4/2015 $ 612.11 2015 1/30/2015 $ 611.29 2015 1/25/2015 $ 610.85 2015 1/22/2015 $ 610.47 2015 1/19/2015 $ 610.13 2015 1/15/2015 $ 609.65 C 187832

2015 1/10/2015 $ 608.82 2015 1/4/2015 $ 608.00 ( 2015 12/30/2014 $ 607.18 2015 12/24/2014 $ 606.84 2015 12/20/2014 $ 606.36 .2015 12/16/2014 $ 606.01 2015 12/12/2014 $ 605.53 2015 12/7/2014 $ 605.19 2015 12/3/2014 $ 604.71 2015 11/28/2014 $ 604.27 2015 11/26/2014 $ 603.89 2015 11/23/2014 $ 603.55 2015 11/18/2014 $ 603.07 2015 11/13/2014 $ 602.24 2015 11/7/2014 $ 601.42 2015 11/2/2014 $ 601.08 2015 10/29/2014 $ 600.60 2015 10/24/2014 $ 599.78 2015 10/20/2014 $ 599.78 2015 10/15/2014 $ 598.95 2015 10/12/2014 $ 598.95 2015 10/7/2014 $ 598.13 2015 10/2/2014 $ 597.79 ( 2015 9/27/2014 $ 597.31 2015 9/23/2014 $ 596.97 2015 9/19/2014 $ 596.49 2015 9/14/2014 $ 596.14 2015 9/10/2014 $ 595.66 2015 9/5/2014 $ 595.32 2015 9/1/2014 $ 594.84 2015 8/27/2014 $ 594.39 2015 8/25/2014 $ 594.02 2015 8/21/2014 $ 593.20 2015 8/16/2014 $ 592.37 2015 8/13/2014 $ 591.93 2015 8/11/2014 $ 591.55 2015 8/7/2014 $ 591.11 2015 8/5/2014 $ 590.73 2015 · 8/1/2014 $ 589.91 2015 7/27/2014 $ 589.09 2015 7/24/2014 $ 588.26 2015 7/21/2014 $ 587.44 2015 7/18/2014 $ 587 .00 2015 7/15/2014 $ 586.62 2015 7/13/2014 $ 585.80 ( 2015 7/10/2014 $ 584.98 2015 7/6/2014 $ 584.53 $ 706.38 187832

2015 7/4/2014 $ 584.15 2015 7/1/2014 $ 583.33 2015 6/28/2014 $ 582.51 ( 2015 6/25/2014 $ 581.69 2015 6/22/2014 $ 580.87 2015 6/18/2014 $ 580.05 2015 6/14/2014 $ 578.95 2015 6/11/2014 $ 578.40 2015 6/8/2014 $ 577.58 2015 6/5/2014 $ 576.76 2015 6/2/2014 $ 575.94 2014 5/30/2014 $ 575.12 2014 5/27/2014 $ 574.67 2014 5/24/2014 $ 574.29 2014 5/21/2014 $ 573.85 2014 5/19/2014 $ 573.47 2014 5/15/2014 $ 572.65 2014 5/10/2014 $ 571.83 2014 5/6/2014 $ 571.38 2014 5/4/2014 $ 571.00 2014 5/1/2014 $ 570.56 2014 4/28/2014 $ 570.18 2014 4/25/2014 $ 569. 7 4 2014 4/23/2014 $ 569.36 ( 2014 4/20/2014 $ 569.02 2014 4/15/2014 $ 568.54 2014 4/10/2014 $ 567.72 2014 4/5/2014 $ 567.27 2014 4/2/2014 $ 566.89 2014 3/30/2014 $ 566.55 2014 3/26/2014 $ 566.07 2014 3/23/2014 $ 566.07 2014 3/19/2014 $ 565.73 2014 3/15/2014 $ 565.25 2014 3/12/2014 $ 565.25 2014 3/9/2014 $ 565.25 2014 3/4/2014 $ 564.90 2014 2/28/2014 $ 564.42 2014 2/23/2014 $ 563.60 2014 2/18/2014 $ 562.78 2014 2/14/2014 $ 562.33 2014 2/12/2014 $ 561.96 2014 2/9/2014 $ 561.51 2014 2/6/2014 $ 561.13 2014 2/3/2014 $ 560.31 2014 1/28/2014 $ 559.49 2014 1/23/2014 $ 558.67 ( 187832

2014 1/19/2014 $ 558.22 2014 1/17/2014 $ 557.85 ( 2014 1/14/2014 $ 557.02 2014 1/11/2014 $ 556.58 2014 1/8/2014 $ 556.20 2014 1/5/2014 $ 555.38 2014 12/30/2013 $ 554.56 2014 12/24/2013 $ 553.74 2014 12/18/2013 $ 552.91 2014 12/13/2013 $ 552.47 2014 12/11/2013 $ 552.09 2014 12/8/2013 $ 551.75 2014 12/3/2013 $ 551.27 2014 11/28/2013 $ 550.45 2014 11/25/2013 $ 550.45 2014 11/19/2013 $ 549.62 2014 11/16/2013 $ 549.62 2014 11/11/2013 $ 548.80 2014 11/7/2013 $ 548.80 2014 11/2/2013 $ 547.98 2014 10/30/2013 $ 547.98 2014 10/24/2013 $ 54 7 .16 2014 10/21/2013 $ 547.16 ( 2014 10/16/2013 $ 546.33 2014 10/12/2013 $ 546.33 2014 10/7/2013 $ 545.51 2014 10/1/2013 $ 545.06 2014 9/29/2013 $ 544.69 2014 9/26/2013 $ 544.24 2014 9/23/2013 $ 543.87 2014 9/20/2013 $ 543.42 2014 9/18/2013 $ 543.04 2014 9/14/2013 $ 542.22 2014 9/8/2013 $ 541.40 2014' 9/3/2013 $ 540.58 2014 8/31/2013 $ 540.13 2014 8/28/2013 $ 539.75 2014 8/25/2013 $ 539.31 2014 8/23/2013 $ 538.93 2014 8/19/2013 $ 538.11 2014 8/14/2013 $ 537.29 2014 8/10/2013 $ 536.84 2014 8/8/2013 $ 536.47 2014 8/5/2013 $ 536.02 2014 8/2/2013 $ 535.64 ( 2014 7/30/2013 $ 534.82 2014 7/27/2013 $ 534.38 187832

2014 7/25/2013 $ 534.00 2014 7/22/2013 $ 533.18 2014 7/18/2013 $ 532.73 ( 2014 7/16/2013 $ 532.36 2014 7/13/2013 $ 531.53 2014 7/10/2013 $ 531.09 2014 7/7/2013 $ 530.71 2014 7/4/2013 $ 529.89 2014 7/1/2013 $ 529.45 2014 6/29/2013 $ 529.07 2014 6/26/2013 $ 528.25 2014 6/22/2013 $ 527.80 2014 6/20/2013 $ 527.42 2014 6/17/2013 $ 526.60 2014 6/14/2013 $ 526.16 20.14 6/11/2013 $ 525.78 2014 6/8/2013 $ 524.96 2014 6/5/2013 $ 524.51 2014 6/3/2013 $ 524.14 2013 5/31/2013 $ 523.32 2013 5/27/2013 $ 522.87 2013 5/25/2013 $ 522.49 2013 5/22/2013 $ 521.67 2013 5/18/2013 $ 521.23 ( 2013 5/16/2013 $ 520.85 2013 5/13/2013 $ 520.03 2013 5/10/2013 $ 519.58 2013 5/8/2013 $ 519.21 2013 5/5/2013 $ 518.38 2013 5/1/2013 $ 517.94 2013 4/29/2013 $ 517.56 2013 4/25/2013 $ 516.74 2013 4/20/2013 $ 515.92 2013 4/17/2013 $ 515.47 2013 . 4/14/2013 $ 515.10 2013 4/11/2013 $ 514.65 2013 4/9/2013 $ 514.27 2013 4/5/2013 $ 513.83 2013 4/3/2013 $ 513.45 2013 3/30/2013 $ 512.63 2013 3/25/2013 $ 511.81 2013 3/22/2013 $ 511.36 2013 3/19/2013 $ 510.98 2013 3/16/2013 $ 510.54 2013 3/14/2013 $ 510.16 2013 3/10/2013 $ 509.34 ( 2013 3/5/2013 $ 508.52 187832

2013 3/2/2013 $ 508.18 2013 2/26/2013 $ 507.70 ( 2013 2/21/2013 $ 506.87 2013 2/15/2013 $ 506.05 2013 2/9/2013 $ 505.61 2013 2/7/2013 $ 505.23 2013 2/4/2013 $ 504.89 2013 1/31/2013 $ 504.41 2013 1/26/2013 $ 503.58 2013 1/20/2013 $ 503.24 2013 1/16/2013 $ 502.76 2013 1/12/2013 $ 502.42 2013 1/8/2013 $ 501.94 2013 1/2/2013 $ 501.12 2013 12/30/2012 $ 501.12 2013 12/27/2012 $ 501.12 2013 12/24/2012 $ 501.12 2013 12/20/2012 $ 500.77 2013 12/15/2012 $ 500.70 2013 12/12/2012 $ 500.70 2013 12/10/2012 $ 500.70 2013 12/7/2012 $ 500.29 2013 12/4/2012 $ 500.29 ( 2013 12/1/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/28/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/25/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/22/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/19/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/16/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/14/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/11/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/8/2012 $ 500.29 2013 11/5/2012 $ 500.28 2013 11/2/2012 $ 500.28 2013 10/30/2012 $ 500.28 2013 10/26/2012 $ 499.94 2013 10/21/2012 $ 499.46 2013 10/18/2012 $ 499.46 2013 10/14/2012 $ 499.12 2013 10/10/2012 $ 498.64 2013 10/7/2012 $ 498.64 2013 10/4/2012 $ 498.64 2013 9/30/2012 $ 498.29 2013 9/25/2012 $ 497.81 2013 9/22/2012 $ 497.81 ( 2013 9/18/2012 $ 497.47 ,, 2013 9/14/2012 $ 496.99 187832

2013 9/11/2012 $ 496.99 2013 9/8/2012 $ 496.99 2013 9/3/2012 $ 496.65 ( 2013 8/30/2012 $ 496.17 2013 8/26/2012 $ 495.82 2013 8/22/2012 $ 495.34 2013 8/17/2012 $ 495.00 2013 8/13/2012 $ 494.52 2013 8/8/2012 $ 494.18 2013 8/4/2012 $ 493.70 2013 7/31/2012 $ 493.36 2013 7/26/2012 $ 492.88 2013 7/24/2012 $ 492.87 2013 7/19/2012 $ 492.53 2013 7/15/2012 $ 492.46 2013 7/12/2012 $ 492.05 2013 7/9/2012 $ 492.05 2013 7/5/2012 $ 491.71 2013 6/30/2012 $ 491.23 2013 6/28/2012 $ 491.23 2013 6/22/2012 $ 490.41 2013 6/19/2012 $ 490.40 2013 6/14/2012 $ 489.58 2013 6/10/2012 $ 489.58 ( 2013 6/5/2012 $ 488.76 2012 6/1/2012 $ 488.76 2012 5/27/2012 $ 487.94 2012 5/24/2012 $ 487.94 2012 5/19/2012 $ 487.11 2012 5/14/2012 $ 486.77 2012 5/9/2012 $ 486.29 2012 5/5/2012 $ 485.95 2012 5/1/2012 $ 485.47 2012 4/28/2012 $ 485.47 2012 4/23/2012 $ 485.13 2012 4/19/2012 $ 484.65 2012 4/16/2012 $ 484.64 2012 4/13/2012 $ 484.64 2012 4/9/2012 $ 484.30 2012 4/5/2012 $ 483.82 2012 4/2/2012 $ 483.82 2012 3/28/2012 $ 483.48 2012 3/24/2012 $ 483.00 2012 3/21/2012 $ 483.00 2012 3/17/2012 $ 482.65 2012 3/12/2012 $ 482.59 ( 2012 3/10/2012 $ 482.17 187832

2012 3/7/2012 $ 482.17 2012 3/2/2012 $ 481.83 ( 2012 2/27/2012 $ 481.35 2012 2/24/2012 $ 481.35 2012 2/20/2012 $ 481.01 2012 2/15/2012 $ 480.94 2012 2/12/2012 $ 480.53 2012 2/10/2012 $ 480.53 2012 2/5/2012 $ 480.18 2012 2/1/2012 $ 479.70 2012 1/29/2012 $ 479.70 2012 1/24/2012 $ 478.88 2012 1/19/2012 $ 478.54 2012 1/15/2012 $ 478.06 2012 1/10/2012 $ 477.72 2012 1/6/2012 $ 477.24 2012 1/1/2012 $ 476.89 2012 12/28/2011 $ 476.41 2012 12/24/2011 $ 476.07 2012 12/19/2011 $ 475.59 2012 12/15/2011 $ 475.25 2012 12/11/2011 $ 474.77 (

~~( 187832~~

(

~~Average Home Sales Prices and McMansion Prices~~

(

~~!_ '~~

~~.2 7/19/2012 2/4/2013 8/23/2013 3/11/2014 9/27/2014 4/15/2015~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~11/1/2015~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~January 13, 2016 [Number 64 from January 7, continued]~~

Good Afternoon Mayor Hales and Commissioners. ( ../ly name is Kirstin Greene. By training and trade, I am a comprehensive planner and Managing Principal at Cogan Owens Greene here in Portland. Our business is advancing best practices in community planning. We also convene a cross-generational, multicultural Community of Practice dedicated to diversifying the thought and practitioners of community planning. Building on our40 years of practice at Cogan Owens, this year, we've been studying just the issue before you - how to avoid the mistakes of the past planning and investments as we plan for a better future.

A proud affiliate member of the Anti-Displacement Coalition, we urge you to adoptthe Planning and Sustainability-recommended Anti-Displacement Measures in their Entirety. And, to do so with both a historical justice and equity lens, City Wide, without Exception.

We owe it to current and future generations to create inclusive communities that create economic diversity and opportunity AND advance our shared obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing while complying with local, regional and state goals for a range of l,ousing choice in opportunity areas throughout our great city. ( oy adopting the Anti-Displacement Policies, we enter a New Era - where we are utilize best practices including the Equity Lens Tool Bureau staff has been advancing.

What we need now, with your leadership is supporting, indeed firmly requiring all communities to be inclusive - whether Multnomah, Sellwood, Buckmin or Sabin - , take up their share of needed housing and to overcome NIMBYism and fear of change. One thing good cities do well is evolve. And, we can evolve beautifully as well as equitably. You have the best.planners in the state to support you in this regard.

By adopting these recommendations and implementing them in partnership with historic and impacted communities, you will achieve what you seek - to achieve a racially equitable and just city. Please "say yes" and adopt the recommendations in their entirety for past, current and future generations. Thank you.

~~503.278.3453~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~( 547 NE Prescott Street Portland Oregon 97211 1 187832~~

(

~~( ' 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~"":rom: Benjamin Kaiser ( mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:48 PM ro: Allan Rudwick Cc: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Rick Michaelson Subject: Re: Written Comp Plan Testimony - Ivy and Williams~~

~~Allan, Thank you for this letter but I'm curious as to why you added the maximum of 65' including roof structures to your letter. That was not discussed nor agreed to at the meeting.~~

The height limits as set by City Council did not include such additional restrictions. We, of course, agree with the height restrictions as designated by the City Council but do not agree with your personal (not discussed or voted on by the neighborhood association) additions to the height restrictions.

~~Please amend this letter to reflect what was discussed and voted on by the Eliot Neighborhood Association.~~

~~Thank you. Ben~~

~~The Kaiser Group, Inc. uath Architecture, Inc. 30 N. Vancouver Avenue Suite 330 .r'ortland, Oregon 97227 503.234.4718 www.kaisergroupinc.com www.architecturepath.com~~

~~On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Allan Rudwick wrote:~~

~~Please find the attached letter~~

~~Thank you Allan Rudwick Land Use Chair, Eliot NA~~

~~Allan Rudwick (503) 703-3910~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

·om: Allan Rudwick nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:10 PM io: Benjamin Kaiser; [email protected] Cc: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Rick Michaelson Subject: Re: Written Comp Plan Testimony - Ivy and Williams

~~Hi Ben- This is the whole quote:~~

'The developer showed a tentative massing study based on the zone change agreement negotiated with City Council and agreed to by both the property owner and the City Council as binding. That study was for a building with 4 stories of residential above 1 story of ground floor retail for a total of 5 stories along Williams no taller than 65 feet including roof attachments, with an alley behind the building and then a row of 2-story live/work units on the east side of the property no taller than 40 feet including any roof attachments with a minimum 10 foot setback adjacent to the neighboring property. Both the reduced height and setback provide a buffer to the adjacent residential spaces."

~~Are you disagreeing with this? This is exactly what was in the massing studies you showed unless you were expecting additions of more than 10 feet above the buildings you showed.~~

~~Allan~~

( On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Benjamin Kaiser wrote: Allan, Thank you for this letter but I'm curious as to why you added the maximum of 65' including roof strnctures to your letter. That was not discussed nor agreed to at the meeting.

~~Please amend this letter to reflect what was discussed and voted on by the Eliot Neighborhood Association.~~

~~Thank you. Ben~~

~~The Kaiser Group, Inc. Path Architecture, Inc. 3530 N. Vancouver Avenue Suite 330 P01iland, Oregon 97227 503.234.4718 www.kaisergroupinc.com www.architecturepath.com (~~

~~1 187832~~

~~On Jan 13, 2016, at 3 :32 PM, Allan Rudwick wrote:~~

~~Please find the attached letter ( Thank you Allan Rudwick Land Use Chair, Eliot NA~~

~~Allan Rudwick (503) 703-3910~~

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

·om: Benjamin Kaiser ( .mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:24 PM To: Allan Rudwick Cc: [email protected]; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Rick Michaelson Subject: Re: Written Comp Plan Testimony - Ivy and Williams

Yes- I arh disagreeing with that Alan. The imagery you were shown had no details included, such as stair towers, etc. and was shown solely to discuss the uses, and rough massing only. Please remove that additional restriction from your letter. As discussed and voted on, we accept the restrictions as agreed to in the City Council approved zone change.

The Kaiser Group, Inc. Path Architecture, Inc. 3530 N. Vancouver Avenue Suite 330 Pmiland, Oregon 97227 503.234.4718 www.kaisergroupinc.com www.architecturepath.com i \ On Jan 13, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Allan Rudwick wrote:

~~Hi Ben- This is the whole quote:~~

"The developer showed a tentative massing study based on the zone change agreement negotiated with City Council and agreed to by both the property owner and the City Council as binding. That study was for a building with 4 stories of residential above 1 story of ground floor retail for a total of 5 stories along Williams no taller than 65 feet including roof attachments, with an alley behind the building and then a row of 2-story live/work units on the east side of the property no taller than 40 feet including any roof attachments with a minimum 10 foot setback adjacent to the neighboring property. Both the reduced height and setback provide a buffer to the adjacent residential spaces."

~~Are you disagreeing with this? This is exactly what was in the massing studies you showed unless you were expecting additions of more than 10 feet above the buildings you showed.~~

~~Allan~~

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Benjamin Kaiser wrote: Allan, ( Thank you for this letter but I'm curious as to why you added the maximum of 65' including ' roof structures to your letter. 1 187832

~~That was not discussed nor agreed to at the meeting.~~

The height limits as set by City Council did not include such additional restrictions. We, of course, agree with the height restrictions as designated by the City Council but do not ( agree with your personal (not discussed or voted on by the neighborhood association) additions , to the height restrictions.

~~Please amend this letter to reflect what was discussed and voted on by the Eliot Neighborhood Association.~~

~~Thank you. Ben~~

~~The Kaiser Group, Inc. Path Architecture, Inc. 3530 N. Vancouver Avenue Suite 330 Portland, Oregon 97227 503.234.4718 www.kaisergroupinc.com www.architecturepath.com~~

~~On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Allan Rudwick wrote:~~

~~Please find the attached letter ( Thank you Allan Rudwick Land Use Chair, Eliot NA~~

~~Allan Rudwick (503) 703-3910~~

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

·om: Travis ( mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:43 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Frederiksen, Joan Subject: From Travis Henry, Cairn Pacific -- Follow Up Testimony for 2135 NW 29th Ave.

~~Dear Council:~~

We appreciated the opportunity to testify in front of Council on January 7, 2016, and wanted to follow up with some specific recommendations/ ideas regarding how to potentially rezone our 55,000 SF parcel of land located at 2135 NW 29th Ave (Tax IDs: R307720 & R307719).

As we mentioned at the hearing, the parcels are currently zoned EGl and EGl(b) and are located in a transition area, where single family homes directly abut light industrial uses. We feel the the following options would be acceptable to the neighborhood and would promote a successful redevelopment opportunity in the area:

Option A: We request that the Council support a Comprehensive Plan map designation change to amend the zoning of the southern parcel (R307720) from its current designation of Employment EGl(b) to Multi Dwelling Residential R2, and to amend the zoning of the norther parcel (R307719) to Central Employment EX ( or its 1uivalent new designation) as part of the pending Comprehensive Plan Update; or, \

Option B: We are requesting that the Council support a Comprehensive Plan map designation change to amend the zoning of both parcels to Central Employment EX (or its equivalent new designation) as part of the pending Comprehensive Plan Update.

We would appreciate the opportunity to work closely with Staff, the NWDA, and immediate neighbors to determine the most appropriate zoning (per the pending Comprehensive Plan Update) to preserve residential and mixed uses in this overlooked 'transition' area to promote better compatibility between existing residential and light industrial uses, and to maintain the existing residential character along NW Wilson Street.

~~Thanks again,~~

TRAVIS A. HENRY Senior Vice President CAIRN PACIFIC LLC 1015 NW 11th Avenue I Suite 242 I Portland I Oregon 97209 Main I 503.345.6733 Cell I 503.926-4613 Fax I 503.444.9017 TRAVIS A. HENRY 1ior Vice President ( _f-llRN PACIFIC LLC

~~1 187832~~

~~1015 NW 11th Avenue J Suite 242 J Portland J Oregon 97209 Main I 503,345.6733 Cell J 503.926-4613 Fax I 503.444.9017~~

(

~~2 187832 1/14/2016 PorUarKI food companies look to hire hundreds at job fair - Portland Business Journal~~

~~FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF [email protected]~~

~~From the Portland Business Journal: http://www. bizjou rna Is.com/ port land/blog/sbo/2016/ 01/ port land-food- com pan i es-1 ook-to-h i re-hundreds-at. htm I~~

~~Portland food companies look to hire hundreds at job fair~~

~~Jan 13, 2016, 8:09am PST Updated: Jan 13, 2016, 8:33am PST~~

~~Food processing companies in Oregon are looking for a few good ... well, anyone.~~

The Northwest Food Processors Association '\JWFPA), along with Oregon and Washington f)artners, are hosting a food and beverage manufacturing job fair Wednesday where 16 different companies will be looking to fill jobs.

The job fair, being held during the annual Northwest Food a.nd Beverage Manufacturers Expo and Conference, highlights the recent regional focus on creating localized centers for food processing, like with the Redd on Salmon in Portland. The industry employs around 25,000 in the state, with an average annual salary of $38,000. MARTIN POOLE The companies that will be at the job fair, Food processors in the region are looking to boost their workforces. ( · icluding Pacific Foods, Trident Seafoods, ..:ver Fresh Fruit and Kerr Concentrates, are seeking to fill about 100 full time jobs. The five agencies involved, like httpJ/Mwl.bizjournals.com/portland/bloglsbQ/2016/01/portland-food-ccmpanies-look-to-!'dre-hundreds-at.html?s•pcint 1/2 187832 1/14/2016 Portland food companies lock to hire hundreds at job fair - Portland Business Journal Clackamas Workforce Partnership, Workforce Development Council, WorkSource Vancouver and WorkSource Oregon, are looking for hundreds more, some of them seasonal. ( "The $16 billion food and beverage industry is the second largest sector in the Northwest manufacturing industry, offering family wage, skilled jobs at all levels," said Dave Klick, outreach executive with the NWFPA, in a statement.

~~The job fair will take place Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland.~~

~~James Cronin Staff Reporter Portland Business Journal~~

(

~~http://www.t~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~'•om: Laura Young <[email protected]> \ nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:34 PM ro: Council Clerk- Testimony; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Stark, Nan Subject: Comprehensive Plan Testimony~~

~~January 13, 2016~~

~~City of Portland City Council 1221 SW 4,h Portland, Oregon 97204~~

~~CC: _Nan Stark, BPS NE District Liaison, [email protected]~~

Subject: Recommended Comprehensive Plan Map. Cully Association of Neighbors Supports Rezone from R2h to Mixed Use for multiple properties within the Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative Investment Area between NE 57"' Avenue at Freemon! and NE Cully Blvd at Going Street. ( Honorable Mayor Hales and City Commissioners:

Thank you for providing an additional opportunity to testify on the Recommended Comprehensive Plan Map. 1 On Tuesday November 24", 2015 the Cully Association of Neighbors Board accepted their Transpmiation and Land Use Committee's recommendation to suppo1i rezoning of specific prope1ties along Cully Blvd and NE 57"' Avenue within the Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative Investment Area from Residential (R2h) to Mixed Use - Neighborhood and/or Neighborhood Commercial. The sites identified are primarily single family owner occupied homes except for 4702 NE Cully Blvd which is low density multifamily within the recently designated Neighborhood Center and NPI Investment Area.

~~The Board Approves the zone changes based on the following:~~

The sites identified in this set of recommendations were not included in the rezoning of specific sites through the "Cully Commercial Conidor and Local Street Improvement Plan" adopted by Council in August of 2012. The Board agrees that the current zoning is inconsistent with the intent of the adopted plan and continues to inhibit the development of a neighborhood serving business district.

~~The Board supports approval of the following recommendations: (~~

~~1 187832~~

~~1. Down-zone 4702 NE Cully Blvd from CNl to Mixed Use Neighborhood, a blighted multifamily prope1ty on flag lot between two small convenience stores.~~

2. Up-zone: [4532, 4548, 4558 and 4580] NE 62•' Ave and 6210 NE Going St from R5h to R2 to allow great( flexibility in higher density redevelopment. These four properties are adjacent to CNlh and R2h to the n01th, · south and west as currently zoned. The zone change will allow higher density near the Neighborhood Center and provide a more gradual transition to single family dwellings to the east.

3. Up-zone: 5706 NE Beech, 3724-3726 NE 57th, 5705 NE Alton, 5708 NE Failing, 5709 NE Failing, 3918 NE Cully Blvd from R2h to Mixed Use Neighborhood. These prope1ties are bounded to west by Rose City Cemetery and at the north and south ends by CSh and CS2h designated prope1ties. There is a Pacific Power station at the comer of Beech and 57th. The location of these six adjacent properties is best suited for small storefront with office and/or dwelling spaces above.

4. Up-zone: 6025 NE Prescott, [4516, 4522, 4526, 4535, 4551, 4542, 4546, 4550] NE Cully Blvd, and [4562, 4576 and 4579] NE Cully from R2h to Neighborhood Commercial (CMl or CM2). These prope1ties complete the east side triangle of five corners at the hemt of Cully's designated Neighborhood Center. With the exception of Grace Presbyterian Church the properties are underntilized, vacant or dilapidated singe family dwellings and one blighted multifamily unit. The cmTent zoning is inconsistent with the Cully Commercial Co11'idor Plan and the Neighborhood Center Designation.

Thank you again for the opp01tunity to testify and offer our support of the Cully Commercial Corridor Local ( Street Improvement Plan and the City of Po1tland's Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative. In addition, we ask the Council to consider directing BPS staff to conduct a comprehensive study with residents and businesses regarding all the prope1ties located within the Neighborhood Center and Neighborhood Prosperity Investment Area to determine the most appropriate zoning for our community's needs and vision.

~~Respectfully,~~

~~LauraD. Young~~

~~Cully Association of Neighbors, Transportation Chair Transportation Land Use Committee, Co-Chair Cully Blvd Alliance Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative, District Manager~~

~~6624 NE Going Street Portland Oregon, 97218 503-819-6302 [email protected]~~

(

~~2 187832~~

~~January 13, 2016~~

~~City of Portland City Council 1221 SW 4th Portland, Oregon 97204~~

~~CC: Nan Stark, BPS NE District Liaison, [email protected]~~

Subject: Recommended Comprehensive Plan Map. Cully Association of Neighbors Supports Rezone from R2h to Mixed Use for multiple properties within the Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative Investment Area between NE 57'h Avenue at Freemon! and NE Cully Blvd at Going Street.

~~Honorable Mayor Hales and City Commissioners:~~

Thank you for providing an additional opportunity to testify on the Recommended Comprehensive Plan 1 Map. On Tuesday November 24 ", 2015 the Cully Association of Neighbors Board accepted their Transportation and Land Use Committee's recommendation to support rezoning of specific properties along Cully Blvd and NE 57th Avenue within the Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative Investment Area from Residential {R2h) to Mixed Use - Neighborhood and/or Neighborhood Commercial. The sites identified are primarily single family owner occupied homes except for 4702 NE Cully Blvd which is l_ow density multifamily within the recently designated Neighborhood Center and NPI Investment Area.

The Board Approves the zone changes based on the following: I \ The sites identified in this set of recommendations were not included in the rezoning of specific sites through the "Cully Commercial Corridor and Local Street Improvement Plan" adopted by Council in August of 2012. The Board agrees that the current zoning is inconsistent with the intent of the adopted plan and continues to inhibit the development of a neighborhood serving business district.

~~The Board supports approval of the following recommendations:~~

~~1. Down-zone 4702 NE Cully Blvd from CNl to Mixed Use Neighborhood, a blighted multifamily property on flag lot between two small convenience stores.~~

2. Up-zone: [4532, 4548, 4558 and 4580] NE 62"' Ave and 6210 NE Going St from R5h to R2 to allow greater flexibility in higher density redevelopment. These four properties are adjacent to CNlh and R2h to the north, south and west as currently zoned. The zone change will allow higher density near the Neighborhood Center and provide a more gradual transition to single family dwellings to the east.

3. Up-zone: 5706 NE Beech, 3724-3726 NE 57th, 5705 NE Alton, 5708 NE Failing, 5709 NE Failing, 3918 NE Cully Blvd from R2h to Mixed Use Neighborhood. These properties are bounded to west by Rose City Cemetery and at the north and south ends by CSh and CS2h designated properties. There is a Pacific Power station at the corner of Beech and 57th. The location of these six adjacent properties is best suited for small storefront with office and/or dwelling spaces above.

4. Up-zone: 6025 NE Prescott, [4516, 4522, 4526, 4535, 4551, 4542, 4546, 4550] NE Cully Blvd, and [4562, 4576 and 4579] NE Cully from R2h to Neighborhood Commercial {CMl or CM2). These properties complete the east side triangle of five corners at the heart of Cully's designated ( 187832

Neighborhood Center. With the exception of Grace Presbyterian Church the properties are ( underutilized, vacant or dilapidated singe family dwellings and one blighted multifamily unit. The current zoning is inconsistent with the Cully Commercial Corridor Plan and the Neighborhood Center Designation.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and offer our support of the Cully Commercial Corridor local Street Improvement Plan and the City of Portland's Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative. In addition, we ask the Council to consider directing BPS staff to conduct a comprehensive study with residents and businesses regarding all the properties located within the Neighborhood Center and Neighborhood Prosperity Investment Area to determine the most appropriate zoning for our community's needs and vision.

~~Respectfully,~~

~~laura D. Young~~

~~Cully Association of Neighbors, Transportation Chair Transportation land Use Committee, Co-Chair Cully Blvd Alliance Neighborhood Prosperity Initiative, District Manager~~

~~6624 NE Going Street ( Portland Oregon, 97218 503-819-6302 [email protected]~~

~~( 187832~~

~~rlEliot ~Neighborhood November 10, 2015~~

~~Portland City Council and Bureau of Planning Staff~~

~~Re: Portland Comprehensive Plan Update, N Williams and N Ivy NE Corner~~

~~Dear Portland City Council,~~

On behalf of the Eliot Neighborhood Association (ENA), I am writing in regard to the proposed zoning map and in particular property owned by Rick Michaelson at the NE Corner of N Williams Avenue and N Ivy Street. The property is currently zoned RXd and was recently purchased by Mr. Michaelson from Mr. Ben Kaiser. The proposed zone on the site in the current version of the Comprehensive Plan Map is RH which reflects the neighborhood desire for medium density housing instead of high. The RH zone has not served the neighborhood particularly well on other projects. At our Land Use Committee meeting on Monday January 11'\ the committee met with Mr. Michaelson, the property owner, and Mr. Kaiser, the former property owner who may be involved with designing a project on the site.

Based on the discussions, it appears that the interests of both the developers and the neighbors would be best served by a mixed use project that supports commercial and other active uses on the ground floor with housing above. The developer showed a tentative massing study based on the zone change agreement · negotiated with City Council and agreed to by both the property owner and the City Council as binding. That study was for a building with 4 stories of residential above 1 story of ground floor retail for a total of 5 stories along Williams no taller than 65 feet including roof attachments, with an alley behind the building ,nd then a row of 2-story live/work units on the east side of the property no taller than 40 feet including ( any roof attachments with a minimum 10 foot setback adjacent to the neighboring property. Both the reduced height and setback provide a buffer to the adjacent residential spaces. This is in line with our desires although it is still really big compared to what could have been built on the site just 3 years ago in· an R1 zone.

The existing owner has committed to comply with the height limits included when the Council adopted the current RXd zone; specifically 65 feet on the western edge of the site and a maximum of 40 feet on the eastern edge with a minimum 1O foot setback. Conditional on this commitment by the owner to the City and the neighborhood and the inclusion of housing above commercial use on the ground floor, the ENA supports maintaining the existing RXd zone. A primary motivation of this agreement is to avoid creating a new nonconforming use on the site if it is developed with retail on the street frontage before the new zoning map is adopted.

~~Thank you~~

~~Allan Rudwick Land Use Chair, Eliot Neighborhood Association 228 NE Morris St Portland, OR 97212~~

~~( www.eliotneighborhood.org • [email protected] 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~crom: Shannon Carney ( nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:05 PM .o: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Matt Brischetto Subject: Support for comp plan proposal at 2717 SE 15th Ave~~

~~Dear City Council,~~

I am writing in support of a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive plan that has been submitted by the prope1iy owner at 2717 SE 15th Ave. I am supp01iing the owner's proposal to change zoning on the property from R2 to CM zoning.

CM zoning would provide either the ability to fund property rehabilitation if granted landmark status, or bring commercial services for the public to the area with green building, affordable housing and public plaza incentives. The existing zoning path (RI) will likely lead to luxury townhome development in the coming decades that will not serve any public benefit.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Shannon @}~~

~~I \ iannon Carney L834 SW Patton Rd Portlrn1d, OR 9720 I~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~Shannon Carney ( ,nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:00 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Matt Brischetto Subject: Comp plan proposal for 822 SE 15th~~

~~Dear City Council,~~

I am writing in supp01i of a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive plan that has been submitted by the property owner at 822 SE 15th. A change from Rl to CM zoning for the property would provide transferable land rights to the Landmark in accordance with Portland's Historic Zoning Incentives.

The owner has been working with the local neighborhood association and has pledged to fund restoration initiatives with the transfer of the land rights, in order to ensure that these prope1iies remain standing and enhancing the historic character of the neighborhood. It's a great plan that will enhance long-tetm livability in a vibrant, close-in Portland neighborhood. I support the proposal to change from Rl to CM zoning in the area.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Shannon~~

~~mnnonCamey ( _.;34 SW Patton Rd Portland, OR 97201~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~·om: Aaron Brischetto ( mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Matt Brischetto Subject: Change zoning at 822 SE 15th Ave to CM~~

To Whom it may concern, My name is Aaron Brischetto and I live at 530 NE Skidmore. I am writing in support of a zoning change to CM for the subject address. The potential benefits of a zone change to CM would outweigh\ the benefits of the existing path. Zoning to CM will provide either the ability to fund property rehabilitation if granted landmark status, or bring commercial services for the public to the area with green building, affordable housing and public plaza incentives. The existing zoning path (Rl) will lead to luxury townhome development in the coming decades that will not serve any public benefit. Please consider this support in consideration of your decision. Thank you, Aaron

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~~rom: Aaron Brischetto ( nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:42 PM .o: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Matt Brischetto Subject: Change zoning at 2717 SE 15th Ave to CM~~

To Whom it may concern, My name is Aaron Brischetto and I live at 530 NE Skidmore. I am writing in support of a zoning change to CM for the subject address. The potential benefits of a zone change to CM would outweigh! the benefits of the existing path. Zoning to CM will provide either the ability to fund property rehabilitation if granted landmark status, or bring commercial services for the public to the area with green building, affordable housing and public plaza incentives. The existing zoning path (Rl) will lead to luxury townhome development in the coming decades that will not serve any public benefit. Please consider this support in consideration of your decision. Thank you, Aaron

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~·om: Mike Purcell ( mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:02 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Scarzello, Christina Subject: Comp Plan Testimony~~

City Council, My name is Michael Purcell and I reside at 10129 SW Lancaster Rd. Portland Oregon. I represent my client, Ng Kam Ping, who owns property located at 12415 SE Powell (Tax Lots 9100 & 9500). We were not able to get into the hearing last Thursday and it is our understanding the hearing was continued to this afternoon. we· are not able to make it downtown today so we are submitting our testimony via email.

The property located at 12415 SE Powell has a building structure originally built in 1946. Access to the property is from SE Powell at the front and from SE 124th via Tax Lot 9500 to the back. The building and property has been in commercial retail use since that time. The front half of Tax Lot 9100 is currently zoned commercial and the back half plus Tax Lot 9500 is zoned residential. We would respectfully request your consideration to make the entire Tax lot 9100 and the adjoining Tax Lot 9500 commercial to reflect the actual usage that has been in place since at least 1946. Our interest is to continue the commercial retail use as it has in the past, but in order for us to continue to make necessary investment to the property and building we need assurance with proper zoning that reflects the history of the property. We again request changing the split zoning on the property to all commercial. Your response to our request would be greatly appreciated.

~~'ke Purcell ( Jject Manager c & M Constructors, LLC. J PO Box 80638 J Portland, OR 97280 Phone: 503.445.6340 J cell: 503.577.5801 J fax: 503.445.6347 I CCB#: 187780~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

,:,m: Michael Miliucci ( .nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:59 PM To: Council Clerk- Testimony; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Hales, Mayor; Commissioner Fritz; Commissioner Fish; Commissioner Novick; Commissioner Saltzman; City Auditor Griffin-Valade; Anderson, Susan; [email protected] Subject: From Michael Miliucci, 76521 SW 31st Avenue, Portland OR 97219 RE: Comp Plan - Public Comment

~~Portland City Council~~

~~Council Clerk~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~1221 SWFomihAvenue,Room 130~~

~~Portland, Oregon 97204~~

~~( Re: Multnomah Village CS Zones~~

The Mixed-Use Zoning Project of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan's proposes to change the Commercial Storefront properties to Commercial Mixed Zone 2 (CM2). I request City Council change this designation to CM!, to which limits building height to 35 feet in the business district of Multnomah Village with a D overlay, in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

With the exception of one 3-story building, Multnomah Village consists of predominantly 2-story buildings, many of which are historic. The Village has a design district overlay under the cun·ent Comprehensive Plan and this overlay states that new development must be consistent with the scale and character of the existing businesses. The new CMl designation is a better fit for the historic Village, which appears to be the last remaining cluster of locally-owned businesses in the City.

~~Please add this to the record.~~

~~( ,hank you, 1 187832~~

~~Michael Miliucci~~

~~7521 SW31'1 Avenue (~~

~~Portland Or 97219~~

~~Michael Miliucci (503) 758-2500 (Cell)~~

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Architectural Heritage Center 701 SE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97214 ~Architectural 503 231-7264 HERfL\,GE CENTER. 503 231-7311 fo ( w.Yw.VisitAHC.org~~

~~January 12, 2016~~

~~Dear Mayor Hales and Council,~~

~~The Bosco-Milligan Foundation's Architectural Heritage Center has reviewed the Recommended Comprehensive Plan and would like to offer the following comments:~~

• We support the Recommended Comprehensive Plan's decision to downzone the Eliot Conservation Dish·ict as requested by the neighborhood, which looked to match zoning with conservation district guidelines. We applaud the effort by citizens to identify these changes and believe that similar efforts would be worthwhile in other historic and conservation districts.

• We support the removal of the "no net loss" housing policy, which has limited flexibility when neighborhood and/or area plans are being prepared. The policy is no longer ( needed, given that existing zoning and recent market trends support substantially more residential capacity than is required in 2035. We believe that there should be flexibility in protecting our historic and conservation districts and as yet undesignated historic areas.

~~• We support the work of the Infill Design Committee and emphasize the importance of its work, especially as it relates to lot confirmation issues.~~

• · We request two designation changes to the Recommended Comp Plan: 1. The Plan includes an upzoning from R5 to R2.5 in the Buckman Neighborhood in the area around SE 18th and Washington. We oppose that upzoning as it increases the risk of demolition of historic and useful houses. We understand that the current zoning creates a number of "non-conforming uses" -- existing buildings with densities higher than R5. We understand that there is also a concern about "spot zoning" small sites. However, much of Buckman, and other close-in neighborhoods, were developed before city zoning or with a pre-WW II zone that allowed a much wider range of densities than is allowed by Portland's current zoning. In many inner neighborhoods, the result is a mix of densities within the same block that is not allowed in the single density zoning popular after WW II. The Recommended Comp Plan zoning would, over time, eliminate this variety and remove historic homes that give character to the neighborhood. ( 187832

Rather than approving the upzoning, we request that Council include a Refinement Plan as part of the work plan for the implementation phase of the ( Comp Plan. This work could address maintaining the mix of building ages and densities in the inner neighborhoods and also promote increased affordability. We should find a zoning solution that can withstand legal challenge and also allow the retention of many solid and useful historic houses.

2. We believe it is appropriate to downzone the Eastmoreland subdivision to R7, as requested by the Eastmoreland Neighborhood. This zoning will better reflect the historic land use, lot coverage and lot pattern of the neighborhood and maintain consistency with the overall public environment created by the streets and landscaping of the district. We also support the effort to create an Eastmoreland Historic District.

• We request that the Implementation phase of the Comp Plan include a Refinement Plan to examine the consistency of zoning and the development guidelines in the historic and conservation districts. As mentioned, we support the downzoning in the Eliot Conservation District as a positive and important step. We encourage you to continue this work in the other districts. Our greatest concern is for downzoning some high-density areas in three existing historic districts: the Alphabet District, Irvington, and Kings Hill. We feel the high Floor Area Ratio allowances in the RH zones do not support the heritage conservation goals of these adopted Historic Districts. A Refinement Plan work element as part of the implementation phase of the Comprehensive Plan is the best way to address these problems.

• Finally, we note that Portland's Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) was completed more than 30 years ago - and has not yet been updated. Portland's planning process is therefore unprepared to assess the historic importance of its very large stock of postwar and Mid-century Modern historic properties. These include buildings constructed between 1934 and 1966, which became eligible for landmark designation after completion of the 1984 Inventory, and also earlier sites in East Portland and other areas annexed after the 1984 inventory. We ask the Council to include an update of HRI as a Refinement Plan and to clarify the HRI role in the zoning code.

~~Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Comp Plan as recommended by the Planning and Sustainability Commission.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~/ /~fla;~ Steve Dotterrer, Chair Advocacy Committee ( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

From: Holly Chamberlain ;ent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:53 PM To: City Auditor, Mary Hull Caballero; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Engstrom, Eric Cc: Steve Dotterrer ([email protected]) Subject: Portland Comprehensive Plan letter of testimony Attachments: AHC Portland Comp Plan letter of testimony to Mayor and Council- 1-12-16.docx

Please find attached the written testimony of the Advocacy Committee of the Architectural Heritage Center/Bosco- Milligan Foundation in regard to Portland's Comprehensive Plan. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Holly~~

~~Holly K. Chamberlain Managing Director Architectural Heritage Center 701 SE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97214 503-231-7264 www.VisitAHC.org Office hours: Tues. - Fri., 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.~~

( egular public operatiug hours are 10:00 am to 4:30 pm, Wednesday - Saturday, although our offices are open earlier and later and also on Tuesdays. Enjoy a virtual museum of the city with our TagWhat smartphone app. Link through Google Play Store or App Store. "Like" us on Facebook and visit our website for updates and our resource directory of preservation professionals at www.visitahc.org.

~~"Historic buildings are the physical manifestation of memory - it is memory that makes places significant" - Donovan Rypkema~~

~~( 1 187832~~

(

~~' C -- •~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

From: Michael Miliucci ,ent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:53 PM To: Council Clerk- Testimony; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: From Michael Miliucci, 76521 SW 31st Avenue, Portland OR 97219 RE: Comp Plan - Public Comment

~~Portland City Council~~

~~Council Clerk~~

~~1221 SWFourthAvenue,Room 130~~

~~Portland, Oregon 97204~~

~~Re: Trnth in Zoning~~

I request specific language shown below be removed from the general description of land use designations on uage GPI0-3 the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This would preserve neighborhood character and would reduce the ( 1mber of demolitions. This would remove the exceptions that allow land divisions less than the base zone. A --:omprehensive map amendment would then be required for a land division less than the base zone.

~~Land use designations - Amendment~~

The Comprehensive Plan is one of the Comprehensive Plan's implementation tools. The Map includes land use designations, which are used to carry out the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation that best implements the plan is applied to each area of the city. This section contains descriptions of the land use designations. Each designation generally includes:

• Type of place or Pattern Area for which the designation is intended . • • General use and intensity expected within the area. In same eases, the alternative aevelspment Sfltisns allowed in single-- dwelling residential zones (e.g. d11ple,rns and attaehe

(

~~1 187832~~

I also request Section 33.110.240.E of the zoning code, allowing comer lots zoned RS or R7 to be rezoned to R2.5 if they are larger than 50 feet by 100 feet, be removed from the zoning code in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. ( Please add these to the record.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Michael Miliucci~~

~~7521 SW 31st Avenue Portland OR 97219~~

~~Michael Miliucci (503) 758-2500 (Cell)~~

~~(- -~~

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

om: Michael Miliucci ( Jnt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:41 PM To: Council Clerk- Testimony; BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Hales, Mayor; Commissioner Fritz; Commissioner Fish; Commissioner Novick; Commissioner Saltzman; City Auditor Griffin-Valade; Anderson, Susan; [email protected] Subject: From Michael Miliucci, 76521 SW 31st Avenue, Portland OR 97219 RE: Comp Plan - Public Comment

~~Portland City Council Council Clerk [email protected] [email protected] 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 130 Portland, Oregon 97204~~

~~Re: Multnomah Village as Neighborhood Corridor~~

I request City Council change the designation of Multnomah Village from a Neighborhood Center to a T~ighborhood Corridor in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. \ Multnomah Village is classified as a Mainstreet in the current Comprehensive Plan. The Mainstreet designation had a prescribed depth of 180 feet which is consistent with the definition of a Neighborhood Conidor. The Village is more linear in nature and thus the characteristics are better defined by the Neighborhood Corridor designation. The change would make the business district of the Village contained within the Neighborhood Conidor designations of the intersection of Multnomah Boulevard and Capitol Highway.

If the Village were designated a Neighborhood Center with a Yz-mile radius, it would overlap with the boundaries of the two adjacent town centers (Hillsdale and West Portland) and the Barbur Boulevard Civic Corridor. The higher-density development in these designations, overlapping with Multnomah, would leave little room for existing single-family zoning as redevelopment continues to occur. The Neighborhood C011'idor designation better fits the design and character of the Village.

~~Both the Multnomah Neighborhood Association and Southwest Neighborhoods Inc. have submitted requests to change the designation to Neighborhood Conidor.~~

~~Please add this to the record.~~

~~Thank you,~~

~~Michael Miliucci 7521 SW 31st Avenue Portland Or 97219~~

~~1 187832~~

~~Michael Miliucci (503) 758-2500 (Cell) (~~

(

~~2 187832 ' .~~

~~Supreme Court of the United States. . ' . · ' Office of the Clerk ') ( . Wa~h}pgton, DC 20543-0QOI , , ._l I ' ; . '\ -) Scott S. Harris Clerk of the Court November 9, 2015 {202) 479·3011~~

~~Mr. Thomas Andrew Garber 1530 S. W. 13th Avenue #514 Portland, OR 97201~~

~~Re: Thomas A. Garber v. Sonya L,-Garber No. 15-6864~~

~~Dear Mr. Garber:~~

~~The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on November 2, 2015 and placed on the docket November 9, 2015 as No. 15-6864.~~

~~A form is enclosed for notifying opposing counsel that the case was docketed.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Scott S. Harris, Clerk~~

~~::.~~Case Analyst~~

~~Enclosures~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~No.------~~

~~IN THE SUPREME COURT~~

~~OF THE UNITED STATES~~

~~Thomas Andrew Garber - PETITIONER~~

~~Vs.~~

~~Sonya Lyn Garber-Farrell-RESPONDENT~~

~~ON PETITION FOR A WRIT~~

~~I \ OF CERTIORARI TO~~

~~The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska~~

~~PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI~~

~~Thomas Andrew Garber 1530 S.W. 13th Ave.# 514 Portland, OR. 97201 (503) 380 - 6579 [email protected]~~

~~( \ 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( QUESTION(S) PRESENTED~~

~~Quoting Superior Court Judge Carl Bauman May }st, 2011~~

"The question Mr. Garber poses through his motion for the appointment of counsel which I did grant in the divorce custody case in light of Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault rnpresentation of Mrs. Garber.

It's a different circumstance with regards to a domestic violence protective order proceeding. There are certainly consequences, serious potential consequences, to Mr. Garber should I find, that by preponderance of the evidence that acts of domestic violence have occurred.

So in that since there's a linkage, if you will, between a DVPO proceeding and custody proceeding. But the Alaska Supreme Court decision last December doesn't at least in the courts reading of that '\ decision require or authorize the appointment of counsel at public expense with regards to domestic violence protective order proceeding even though there may be consequences in · other custody proceedings.

In essence one way of looking at it, from a policy stand point, would be the Alaska Supreme court is saying you're on your own with regards to whether you have or have not committed domestic violence. But, to the extent that a child is being potentially taken from you, then you'i·e entitled to counsel at public expense. But the two are separate considerations, so far as the court is aware."

~~i ( 187832~~

Writ for Certiorari ( 1) Whether the constitutional provision of the Sixth Amendment to; confront witnesses, have a compulsory process for obtaining evidence and witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. Should extend to domestic violence protective order proceedings when there are collateral consequences for the best interest of a child during a simultaneous divorce custody dispute when one party is universally represented by a public agency?

2) Whether the United States Supreme Court requires the appointment of counsel when 'State Action' is present in a simultaneous petition for domestic violence protective order and divorce custody proceedings?

3) Whether collateral consequences from a domestic violence protective order rises to a violation of. the fourteenth amendment 'Equal Protection of the Law' right to counsel when the opposing party has publically funded representation? (

4) Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a higher degree of due process is required for a domestic violence protective order proceeding when there is a criminal citation pending for a violation of that previously gi·anted order?

~~ii ( 187832~~

~~( LIST OF PARTIES~~

~~All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.~~

~~( iii 187832~~

~~TABLE OF CONTENTS ( PAGE#~~

~~QUESTION PRESENTED ...... i~~

~~THE WRIT FOR CERTIORARI ...... ii~~

~~LIST OF PARTIES ...... iii~~

~~TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv~~

~~TABLE OF APPENDICES ...... v~~

~~TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... vi· viii~~

~~STATE STATUTES ...... ix~~

~~OPINIONS BELOW...... 1~~

~~JURISDICTION ...... 1~~

~~CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY ( PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...... 1~~

~~STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...... 2~~

~~COURT ACTION ...... 7~~

~~REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...... 10~~

~~CONCLUSION ...... , ...... 32~~

~~iv ( 187832~~

~~TABLE OF APPENDICES A) Motion to Convert Dissolution to Divorce, 3KN· ll ·654 CI ...... 3 pgs.~~

~~B) Request and Order for Release of Information, 3KN· ll ·306 CI ...... 2 pgs.~~

~~C) Criminal Citation, 3KN·ll·1785 CR ...... :... 2 pgs.~~

~~D) ANDVSA Notice of Appearance, 3KN·ll·654 CI ...... 1 pg~~

~~E) ANDVSA Notice of Appearance, 3KN·ll·306 CI ...... 1 pg~~

~~F) Motion to Request Appointed Counsel, 3KN·ll·654 CI ...... 3 pgs.~~

~~G) Order Appointing Counsel for Plaintiff, 3KN·11·654 CI ...... : ...... 1 pg~~

~~'\ H) OPANotice of Appearance, 3KN·l1·654 CI ...... : ...... I pg~~

~~I) ANDVSA Notice of Appearance, -3KN·11 ·374 CI ...... 1 pg~~

~~J) Motion to Request Appointed Counsel and Affidavit, 3KN·12·374 CI ...... 3 pgs.~~

~~K) Motion to Conjoin Proceedings, 3KN·12·374 CL ...... 1 pg~~

~~L) Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Request Appointed Counsel and Conjoin. 3KN·12·374 CI ...... 2pgs.~~

~~M) Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, 3KN·l1·654 CI ...... 15 pgs.~~

~~N) ORDER denying, 'Petition for Rehearing', 3KN·11·654 CI ...... 1 pg ( V 187832~~

~~TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ( 1. In the Matter of Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, 264 P.3d 835 (2011) ...... 10~~

~~2. Flores v. Flores, 598 P .2d 893 (1979) ...... 13~~

~~3. Cleaver v. Wilcox, 499 F.2d 940 (1974) ...... 13~~

~~4. U.S. Constitution amend XIV,§ 1 ...... 14~~

5. State action doctrine applies to other constitutional amendments. See, e.g., Terry v. Adams, 345·u.s. 461, 462 (1953) (finding state action violating Fifteenth Amendment); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 502 (1946) (finding state action violating First Amendment) ...... 14

~~6. Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) ...... 14 ( 7. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936·37 (1982) ...... 14~~

~~8. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) ...... 14~~

~~9. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) ...... 15~~

~~10.Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ...... , ...... 15~~

~~II.Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services., 452 U.S. 18, 31 (1981) ...... 15~~

~~12.In the Matter ofK.L.J., 813 P .2d 276 (1991) ...... : ...... 16~~

~~13.Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) ...... 16 vi ( 187832~~

~~( 14.Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978) ...... 16~~

~~15.Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. at 937, 939 (1982) ...... 17~~

~~16. Edmonson v. Leesville Construction Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) ...... 18~~

~~17.0mbudsman Investigative Report, Ombud.alaska.gov/reports/J201I-0222_0CS· grievances.pd! ...... 20~~

18. Catherine F. Klein & Leslye E. Orloff, Providing Legal Protection for Battered \¥omen: An Analysis of State Statutes and Case Law, 21 Hofstm L. Rev. 801 (1993), at 895 (noting that protection orders are filed concurrently with criminal pleadings) ...... 21

19.Alaska Statues § 18.66.100. Notification of law enforcement agencies (describing the procedures to \' obtain a protective order including which state actors perform which functions in the process) ...... 21

~~20.Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) ...... 24~~

~~21.Alaska Statues§ 18.66.170. Protective ordern: eligible petitioners; relief (showing that protective orders are granted by judicial officers and are enforced by law enforcement) ...... 24~~

~~22.Barrett v. Gagnon, 516 P.2d 1202 (1973) ...... 28~~

~~23 . .iu·gersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 31 (1972) ...... 28~~

~~24.Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) ...... 28~~

~~25.Gideon v. vVainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) ...... 28~~

~~( vii 187832~~

~~26.Airey v. Ireland, ( 32 Eur. Ct. HR Ser. A (1979) ...... 30~~

~~27.Steel v. United Kingdom, (2005) 41 E.H.R.R. 22 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) ...... 31~~

(

~~viii ( 187832~~

~~( STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mr. and Mrs. Garber were married on June~~

~~19, 1998 in Portland, Oregon. During the couple's~~

~~engagement they had three sons, Zachary (o6-0J·~~

~~1992); Joseph (o7-0J·l993); and Daniel (J0-03·1997).~~

~~The family relocated to Alaska in February of 2002.~~

~~On the evening of February 24, 2011 Mr. Garber~~

~~used corporal punishment against his 17Yz year-old~~

~~son Joseph. On the morning of February 25, Kenai~~

~~Police Officer, JeffvVhannell contacted minor Joseph,~~

~~adult Zachary and 1virs. Gai·ber at Kenai Central~~

~~I High School, to investigate charges against Mr. \ Garber, for his actions the night before. The officer~~

~~arrived at the family home.to interview Mr. Garber.~~

~~No charges were filed, and a referral was sent to the~~

~~'Alaska Office of Childiw1's Se.rvices' (OCS)~~

~~On the night of February 28th Mr. & Mrs.~~

~~Garber had an altercation with Joseph. Due to~~

~~Joseph's homicidal/ suicidal ideation the Kenai~~

~~Police were called, Officer George Kelly ordered~~

~~Joseph to go to the hospital for an evaluation.~~

~~'Central Peninsula Hospital' (CPH)admitted Joseph~~

~~based on this statement: ( 187832~~

~~OPINION BELOW (~~

~~The opinion of the highest state court to review the~~

~~merits appears at Appendix _M_ to the petition and~~

~~has been designated for publication but is not yet~~

~~reported.~~

~~JURISDICTION~~

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was June 24, 2015. A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date: August 20th, 2015, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix ..lL,. (

~~CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED~~

~~Article 1, Section 7, of the Alaska Constitution~~

~~U.S. Constitution amend VI, § 1~~

~~U.S. Constitution amend XIV, § 1~~

~~Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the European Convention~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~STATE STATUTES (~~

~~Alaska Statutes 47.17.069 (c) ...... 3~~

~~Alaska Statutes 11.56.740 ...... 5~~

~~Alaska Statutes 44.21.410 (a) (4) ...... 10~~

~~Alaska Statutes 24.55.140 ...... 20~~

~~7 AAC 54.205 - 240 ...... 20~~

(

~~ix ( 187832~~

3 ( "The patient and father were arguing about a video game. The patient became agitated and upset. Aftel· threatening to harm l1imself and his father, parents contacted the Kenai Police Department."

~~The next day CPH transported Joseph to~~

~~'North Star Behavionil Health' (North Star). Also on~~

~~March 1, Mr. & Mrs. Garber were contacted at their~~

~~home by Lyn Brooks with OCS. Mrs. Brooks~~

~~interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Garber together, and spoke~~

~~to 18 year·old Zachary and 13 year-old Daniel~~

~~individually. On Saturday, March 5 Mrs. Brooks~~

~~conducted a second interview of Mr. & Mrs. Garber \ at the family home. Mrs. Brooks left that meeting~~

~~and travelled to Anchorage. In her official capacity~~

~~under Alaska Statute 47.17.069 (c), the department~~

~~is a criminal justice agency conducting a Cl'iminal~~

~~justice activity; Mrs. Brooks made arrangements~~

~~with the youth facility to interview Joseph on a~~

~~Saturday. On lvfarch 24, 2011 lvfrs. Garber petitioned~~

~~the court for a '20 Day E.x·Party Order' {31(N-J 1 ·~~

~~306CJ), testifying that:~~

~~"[Mr. Garbed has had a couple of altercations with our seventeen year old son who was actually just a few days ago diagnosed as asperger's. So the child does not always ( 187832~~

cooperate, it's not out of defiance, just has ( trouble. My husband has had two incidences recently that have been reported to OCS for abuse, the school reported it, and because they got into the altercation. The police say it's just border line to criminal. So today, I told my husband that OCS said that Joseph could not come home 'we need to be safe' There's concern:, the OCS worker has expressed that she is afraid for Daniel. Because my oldest was going to move out, Joseph's is in North Star, , and she keeps telling me, 'Do you understand that your youngest is now the primary target?'"

~~The petition was granted and on March 30~~

Joseph was released from North Star to his mother's custody. Mr. Garber did not contest the petition for the long·term protective order. It was granted on ( April 12, 2011 for Mrs. Garber on behalf of Joseph.

~~No probable cause was found as to Daniel. On June 6~~

~~the parties filed a dissolution agreement based on~~

~~visitation of Daniel (3KN·ll·654 CJ).~~

~~Mrs. Garber was not honoring the visitation~~

~~agreement, in regards to Daniel, so on July 26 Mr.~~

~~Ga1·ber filed 'Motion to Conved Dissolution to~~

~~Divorce. Mr. Garber also filed a 'Request and Orde1·~~

~~for Release ofJnfo1-mation for the North Star records~~

~~in the domestic violence protective order dispute.~~

~~( 187832~~

~~5 ( North Star records custodian, Misty Butler~~

~~informed Mr. Garber that he had to have Joseph's~~

~~signature or a court order pursuant to federal HIPAA~~

~~Protection Rules. Mr. Gai'ber was precluded frnm~~

~~contact due to the domestic violence protective order~~

~~and unable to acquire exculpatory evidence or speak~~

~~to the attending physician.~~

~~On September 20, the parties met for a motion~~

~~hearing to convert the dissolution to a divorce.~~

~~During that hearing Mrs. Garber testified:~~

~~"The only reason I left, is because the OCS . worker literally came or called me and said we will take Joseph from you and very likely be taking Daniel from you if you don't leave your husbai1d."~~

~~After hearing .Mrs. Garber's statement~~

~~regarding OCS, Mr. Garber hastily authored an~~

~~email that was construed as harassing by l\.frs.~~

~~· Garber. On October 10 Mr. Garber received a~~

~~criminal citation for violating AS 11.56. 740in~~

~~relation to the domestic violence protective order.~~

~~lvlr. Garber was represented by Mr. Pevehouse~~

~~with the 'Public Defender Agency' in that matter~~

~~(3KN·11·1785 CR). During discovery, a digital audio ( 187832~~

~~6 recording that Kenai Police Officer Ben Langham ( made was made available to the defense. On the recording, officer Langham asked Mrs. Garber "So~~

~~your status is you guys split when?" Mrs. Garber~~

~~explained;~~

"I got the restraining order on March 24 because OCS was going to keep Joe. Joe was in North Star. They were going to keep Joe and possibly take Daniel. There is a very good possibility will take Daniel, as well because, he's Tom's next target. She said that Tom and Joe were going to kill each other and that's why they were not going to give him back unless I left."

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( COURT ACTION~~

~~Kathryn Ruff, with the :41aska Netwol'k on~~

~~DomestJ'c Violence and Sexual Assault' (ANDVSA)~~

~~entered a ~Votice ofAppeal'ance' on behalf of Mrs.~~

~~Garber for the divorce custody dispute (3KN·ll·654~~

~~CI) on November 3, 2011.~~

~~Appendix ...... , ...... D~~

~~On December 2, 2011 the Alaska Supreme~~

~~Court held that ANDVSA qualifies as a public~~

~~agency for purposes of Alaska Statue 44.21.410 (a)~~

~~(4) ...... In the lvlatter ofANDVFJA, 264 P 3d 835. ( On December 7, 2011 ANDVSA filed 'Notice of~~

~~Appean1nce'for the party's domestic violence~~

~~protective order (3KN·ll·306 CI).~~

~~Appendix ...... E~~

~~On January 31, 2012 Carol Brenckle with the~~

~~'Office ofPublic Advocacy' (OPA)filed 'Notice of~~

~~Appearance'for the divorce custody dispute on Mr.~~

~~Garber's behalf.~~

~~Appendix ...... : ...... H~~

~~On April 11, 2012 Mrs. Garber filed a second~~

~~petition for a domestic violence protective order ( 187832~~

~~(3KN-J2·374 Cl)the previously filed (DVPO 306) was ( set to expire on June 11th. ANDVSA filed 'Notice of~~

~~Appea1·ance' on April 17th for the new (DVPO 3'7 4).~~

~~Appendix ...... 1~~

~~In response, on April 23 Mr. Garber, as pro·se for (DVPO 374), filed 'Motion to Request Appointed~~

~~Counsel' and 'Motion to Conjoin Pl'Oceedings; asking that Mrs. Brenckle be appointed and/or the cases be conjoined, in light of ANDVSA' representation of~~

~~Mrs. Garber.~~

~~Appendix·...... (J & I{) ( On May 1, 2012 the Superior Court denied Mr.~~

~~Garber's motions to 'Conjoin' the proceedings and/or~~

~~for the 'Appointment of Counsel'.~~

~~Appendix ...... L~~

~~A timely appeal was filed on Apl'il 13, 2013.~~

~~The Alaska Supreme Court filed 'Memorandum~~

~~Opinion and Judgment' on June 24, 2015.~~

~~Appendix ...... M~~

~~Mr. Garber filed 'Petition for Rehearing' on~~

~~June 30, 2015.~~

~~( 187832~~

~~9 ( Order denying 'Petition for Rehearing' was~~

~~filed on August 20, 2015.~~

~~Appendix ...... N~~

~~Mr. Garber respectfully files this timely~~

~~Petition for a wlit ofCedioraziwith tho United~~

~~States Supreme Court, a court oflast resort.~~

(

~~( 187832~~

REASONS FOR GRANTING TillS WRIT ( The Alaska Supreme Court determined that Alaska Statute 44.21.410 (a) (4) requires that the Office of Public Advocacy (Q£A) "provide legal representation to indigent parties in cases involving child custody in which the opposing party is represented by counsel provided by a public agency." the court also held that ANDVSA, which represented Mrs. Garber in both the divorce and domestic violence protective order proceedings, qualifies as a public agency for purposes of the statute and that the superior court properly applied the statute and granted Mr. Garber's motion for appointed counsel in the divorce case, which involved child custody matters.

However, the Alaska Supreme Court did not reach the question whether Alaska Statute 44.21.410 (a) (4) required the appointment of counsel to Mr. Garber in the ( domestic violence protective order proceeding, or the question whether the superior court should have consolidated the domestic violence proceeding with the divorce case, because Mr. Garber's appeal arises solely from the divorce and Mr. Garber may not use the appeal to collaterally attack a separate final judgment. If Mr. Garber believes that the failure to appoint counsel in the domestic violence protective order proceeding was error, he could have filed a timely appeal, but he did not do so."

~~The question of the right to counsel, in the party's dispute, originated with the Alaska Supreme~~

~~Court's holding that ANDVSA qualifies as a public agencyl. ANDVSA entered a notice of appearance for~~

~~( 187832~~

~~11 ( the divorce custody dispute one month prior to the~~

~~holding. Then filed notice of appearance for the~~

~~domestic violence protective order five days after the~~

~~holding was made public.~~

~~Mrs. Brenckle with the Office of Public~~

~~Advocacy refused to file a motion for appointment of~~

~~counsel on Mr. Garber's b~halfin the divorce custody~~

~~dispute. In response Mr. Garber filed the motion,~~

~~Pro·se, in the domestic violence protective order~~

~~dispute asking that the Office of Public Advocacy be~~

~~appointed to represent Mr. Garber equitably. The ( trial court argued in its written denial:~~

"If public funding supported representation for one party, then the party's indigent opponent should also receive representation at public expense in the 'Specific Context of Child Custody Disputes"'.

~~Adding:~~

"While temporary custody of the parties son, Daniel, may be implicated, the Garber's have an open pending custody case and the custody determination in that matter will control any temporary custody decisions made in the domestic violence case. "

~~Additionally the Superior court wrote in its 'Findings~~

~~of Fact and Conclusions of Law':~~

~~( 187832~~

"Taking the forgoing factors into account along with the brief, arguments, exhibits, and ( testimony of the parties in this case as well as in the hearing on the long term domestic violence protective order in Garber v. Garbe1~ BKN-11-374 CJ, the court makes the following findings."

~~The trial court made its findings based on the domestic violence protective order. The 'Points on~~

Appeal' put before the Alaska Supreme Court was whether it is statutorily inappropriate for the trial court to deny the appointment of counsel for the domestic violence protective order dispute when there is collateral consequences for the custody of a minor child? Specifically, a domestic violence ( protective order proceeding, although civil, is quasi- criminal in nature and the state is a party to it.

Mr. Garber's position is that appointed counsel is required for equal protection and due process as a matter of law, which requires the trial court to appoint counsel. The Alaska Supreme Court is in line with the U. S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence support of the due process requirement that parties to a civil proceeding be afforded the benefit of

~~( 187832~~

~~13 ( appointed counsel. In Flores the Alaska Supreme~~

~~Court held:~~

"That the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution guarantees the right to counsel." The court also recognized, "that the right is one usually associated with criminal proceedings. Howevel·, this court has, consistently avoided any formalistic categorization of proceedings as 'criminal' and 'civil' when determining if strict due process safeguards are required. Due process is flexible, and the concept should be applied in a manner which is appropriate in the terms of the nature of the proceedings2."

~~The Ninth Circuit in Cleave;- v. Wilcox held that:~~

"Parents are entitled to a judicial decision on ( the right to counsel in each case. The determination should be made with the understanding that due process requires the state to appoint counsel whenever an indigent parent, unable to present his or her case properly, faces a substantial possibility of the loss of custody or of prolonged separation from a child3."

~~Under 'Criminal Gideon' doctrine the right to~~

~~counsel has been firmly established. Mr. Garber~~

~~l'eceived a citation fol' criminal violation of (DVPO~~

~~306), and was provided counsel. Howevel', under~~

~~'Civil Gideon' in the specific context of a child custody~~

~~dispute, a domestic violence pl'otective order based~~

~~on preponderance of evidence has collateral ( 187832~~

~~14 consequences for the best interest of a child in a ( divorce custody dispute which is determined by fact and conclusions oflaw.~~

~~State action is a prerequisite to the application of Fourteenth Amendment due process constraints in civil cases. The Fourteenth~~

~~Amendment guarantees that the state shall not~~

~~deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property~~

~~without due process oflaw," nor shall the state deny~~

~~4 any person "the equal protection of the law ." In~~

~~general, individuals can assert constitutional rights ( only against government entities, rather than~~

~~against actors5. However, courts will apply~~

~~constitutional constraints on private actors if there is~~

~~a sufficient degree of state involvement6. The 'State~~

~~Action' requirement "preserves an area of individual~~

~~freedom by limiting the reach of federal law7," and~~

~~avoids holding states responsible for conduct they~~

~~cannot reasonably control. It also ensures that~~

~~constitutional standards are invoked "when it can be~~

~~said that the State is responsible for the specific~~

~~8 conduct of which the party complains ."~~

~~( 187832~~

~~15 ( The analysis for the right to counsel in~~

~~criminal proceedings emphasizes imprisonment and~~

~~loss of physical liberty. The Supreme Court~~

~~enumerated a number of situations that would~~

~~encompass a definition of liberty, among others is to~~

~~bring up children, which is long recognized at~~

~~common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of~~

~~happinesss.~~

~~In Santosky v. lframerthe court, in~~

~~considering whether the standard of proof of fair~~

~~preponderance of the evidence was constitutionally ( sufficient found that "freedom of personal standards~~

~~choice in matters of family life is a fundamental~~

~~liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth~~

~~Amendment IO."~~

~~Two years after the Alaska Supreme Court~~

~~ruling in Flores the United States Supreme Court~~

~~decided Lassiter v. Dep't ofSoc. Servs.II setting a~~

~~presumption that there was in fact no right to~~

~~appointed counsel unless physical liberty was at~~

~~stake and that a determination of whether counsel~~

~~should be appointed rested on a case by case ( 187832~~

~~16 analysis. Ten years after Lassiter the Alaska (~~

~~Supreme Court did not adhere to that U.S. Supreme~~

~~Courts holding. In the matter ofKL.J.12 the Alaska court rejected the 'Case by Case' analysis set forth in~~

~~Lassiter.~~

~~Alaska adopted the balancing test articulated~~

~~in Jlllathews v. Eldl·idgeto determine what process is~~

~~due; emphasizing that the degree to which due~~

~~process applies is dependent on the importance of the~~

~~interest at stake. The court found, "In parental rights~~

~~termination proceedings, the private interest affected ( is commanding." 1vfathews set forth the balancing~~

~~· test to determine the required level of due process~~

~~protection. Specifically, the court declared that~~

~~Mathews"propounds three elements to be evaluated~~

~~in deciding what due process is required:~~

~~1) The private interests at stake. 2) The government's interest. 3) The risk that the ..procedures used will lead to erroneous decisionsl3,"~~

~~The U. S. Supreme Court has used a two part~~

~~determination to test if state action is present14. This~~

~~( 187832~~

~~17 ( was articulated in Luga1· v. Edmonson Oil Co., the~~

~~court found that Lugarwas deprived of his property~~

~~through state action. The court found state action not~~

~~only because of the private use of state legal~~

~~procedures, but also because the use of state legal~~

~~procedures was accomplished .in conjunction with the~~

~~participation of state officials.~~

~~The first question is whether the claimed~~

~~deprivation has resulted from the exercise of a right~~

~~or privilege having its source in state authority?~~

~~( The second question is whether the parties may be appropriately characterized as 'State Actors'?~~

~~A party may be characterized as a 'State Actor' if,~~

~~10 He I she is a state official. B) The party has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials. C) Because their conduct is otherwise chargeable to the statern.~~

~~The U.S. Supreme Court refined the 'Luger'~~

~~test in Edmonson v. Leesville Co11stl'uction Co.; In .~~

~~the Edmonson case the court applied the Luger~~

~~analysis. In the first test they found that because~~

~~( 187832~~

"peremptory challenges are permitted only when the ( government, by statute or decisional law, deems it appropriate." In the second test they amplified the factors to consider when determining whether a private litigant can be a 'State Actor', the court considered three principles:

~~First, the extent to which the actor relies on government assistance and benefits.~~

~~Second, whether the actor is performing a traditional government function.~~

~~Third, whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of government authority 16 ." ( APPLYING THE MATHEWS' TEST TO THE CASE AT BAR~~

First, Mr. Garber has a fundamental and compelling liberty interest in preserving his custodial rights. A parent's interest in the custody and control of minor chilcb:en has long been recognized as a fundamental liberty interest to be protected. Not only did Mr. Garber lose custody of his child, he is now restrained from engaging in a variety of normal parental functions. The risk of erroneous deprivation also directly correlates to the complexity of the

~~( 187832~~

~~19 ( proceedings and Mr. Garber's inability to effectively~~

~~present himself. The present case involves legal~~

~~issues that Mr. Garber is unequipped to address. As~~

~~such, Mr. Garber has little chance of protecting his~~

~~parental rights without appointed counsel.~~

~~Second, the State has an interest in judicial~~

~~enforcement of a domestic violence protective order~~

~~and divorce custody proceedings. Appointment of~~

~~counsel promotes the government's interest in~~

~~enforcement of child custody laws enacted; it furthers~~

~~( the government's interest in the fair administration of its laws.~~

~~Third, the risk that the procedures used will~~

~~lead to erroneous decisions. The domestic violence~~

~~pro_tective order was sought by Mrs. Garber, based on~~

~~this statement:~~

"The OCS worker has expressed that she is afraid for Daniel. Because, my oldest was going to move out, Joseph is in North Star, and she keeps telling me. Do you understand that your youngest is now the primary target?"

~~A domestic violence protective order is a~~

~~substitute for the criminal prosecution of domestic~~

~~violence. Under Alaska Statute 47.17.069 (c) the ( 187832~~

~~department is a criminal justice agency conducting a ( criminal justice activity, with ANDVSA prosecuting~~

~~.OCS's allegations.~~

~~Five months after OSC entered the Garber~~

~~residence, on July 22, 2011 Ombudsman Linda Lord·~~

~~Jenkins gave written notice of investigation to OCS~~

~~Director Christy Lawton in accordance with Alaska~~

~~Statue 24.55.140. The findings of that investigation~~

~~were published on June 1, 2012, the report found ocs:~~

"Unreasonable in the administration of the grievance procedure under 7 AAC 54.205 - 240, The Office of Children's Services has not ( carried out the grievance process in a fair and efficient manner, has not adequately notified citizens of the process, has not responded consistently to grievances filed by citizens, and has not consistently responded to grievances in a timely or adequate manner17."

OCS entered the Garber home four months prior to the investigation. The report was published fifteen months after OCS entered the Garber residence. How is Mr. Garber to seek redress when the grievance process is defunct prior to the department's initial actions? The only option

~~( 187832~~

~~( available was to file pro·se motion to convert~~

~~dissolution to divorce.~~

~~APPLYING THE LUGER TEST TO THE CASE AT BAR~~

~~The First Question under Lugers' test: Did Mrs. Garber exercise a right or privilege~~

~~having its source in state authority? Mrs. Ga1·ber~~

~~sought a domestic violence protective ordel' which is~~

~~pel'mitted only by statute its basis is in state~~

~~legislative authority which deems it appropriate.~~

~~Domestic violence protective ordel's exist only ( because the state has legislated the cause of action into existence. The use by private litigants of the~~

~~state statutory framework to obtain an order~~

~~necessarily requires the joint participation of 'State~~

~~Actors'l8. Civil ordel'S for protection are a companion~~

~~to and in some cases a substitute fol' criminal~~

~~prosecution of domestic violencel9.~~

~~The Second Question under Lugers' test: Is whether Mrs. Garber may be appropriately characterized as a 'State Actor'?~~

~~A) Ml's. Garber is not a st.ate official.~~

~~( 187832~~

~~B) Mrs. Garber received the domestic violence (~~

~~protective order in conjunction with the participation~~

~~of state officials. Mrs. Garber relied on the assistance~~

~~or benefited from the support of OCS's testimony to~~

~~support the substantiated charges of physical and~~

~~emotional abuse. Additionally, Mrs. Garber testified~~

~~four times that she sought the protective order under~~

~~coercion.~~

~~C) Mrs. Garber's conduct is otherwise chargeable~~

~~to the state. Mrs. Garber initiated the judicial~~

~~process th1·ough the domestic violence protective ( order. Mrs. Garber acted in conjunction with and~~

~~obtained significant aid from state officials to initiate~~

~~the judicial process. Mrs. Garber utilized the judicial~~

~~process to coerce Mr. Garber into a dissolution~~

~~agreement. After not adhering to the dissolution~~

~~agreement Mr. Garber utilized the judicial process by~~

~~filing counter claims through the divorce seeking~~

~~redress. The state took a supporting role through a~~

~~public agency, ANDVSA. The State further enforced~~

~~its authority when issuing a criminal citation for~~

~~( 187832~~

~~( violating a domestic violence protective order. Under~~

~~the Lugers'test Mrs. Garber is a 'State Actor'.~~

~~REFINING THE LUGERTEST IN EDMONSON~~

~~The first question is to what extent did the~~

~~actor rely on government assistance and benefits?~~

~~l\!Irs. Garber filed a petition seeking a protective~~

~~order with OCS's coercion. Then the state took a~~

~~supporting position through a public agency~~

~~'ANDVSA'. A custody investigator participated,~~

~~making a recommendation for the best interest of the~~

~~( child. The state emphasized its authority when Mr. Garber received a criminal citation for violating AS~~

~~11.56. 740 [3KN-J2-J785 CR] Thereby Mrs. Garber~~

~~relied on govei·nment assistance to the point she~~

~~benefited by obtaining physical and legal custody of~~

~~the minor child precluding any contact forthwith,~~

~~without the due process of law. Iflvir. Garber would~~

~~have conceded to this onslaught his parental rights~~

~~would have gone uncontested.~~

~~The second question is whether the actor is~~

~~performing a traditional government function? The~~

~~only means of resolving the parties' dispute is ( 187832~~

~~through the judicial process. Domestic violence ( protective order, marriages and divorce are created~~

and administered through state authority. At that point the state has an ultimate monopoly on all judicial process and attendant enforcement machinery. As a practical matter, if disputes cannot be successfully settled, such as dissolution, then the court system is "the only forum effectively empowered to settle disputes20." In order to receive a divorce or a protection order, the party must apply to the court system for relief, the determination of whether to grant an order"is made by a judicial ( officer, and orders are enforced by governmental authorities. Once petitioner invokes governmental power by accessing judicial proceedings, the judicial proceeding becomes the only effective means of resolving the dispute and due process applies. The state statutory scheme to create orders for protection contemplates a process in which 'state actors' overtly participate in the process at every stage and ultimately produce a binding state·enforced order21, the end result is a custody determination. ·whether

~~( 187832~~

~~( that is temporary through a domestic violence~~

~~protective order or permanent through a divorce the~~

~~order is binding and enforceable by state statutes.~~

~~There is a grievance disadvantage when one party~~

~~has unrestricted publicly funded representation and~~

~~the other indigent party has representation~~

~~restricted to the Alaska Supreme Court's undefined~~

~~definition of "In the Specific Context of Child~~

~~Custody Disputes". ANDVSA and the Office of~~

~~Public Advocacy administered their own definition.~~

~~The third question is whether the injury ( caused is aggravated in a unique way by the~~

~~incidents of government authority? The incident of~~

~~government authority is to issue a domestic violence~~

~~protective order based on preponderance of the~~

~~· evidence. In the case at bar, OCS caused the injury~~

~~by supporting allegations that were based on~~

~~contested facts. The court blinded belief that~~

~~domestic violence accord, against the Garber's~~

~~seventeen and a half year old son, provided it~~

~~authority to make a temporary custody~~

~~determination for the thirteen year old child.~~

~~( 187832~~

~~OCS took state action to coerce Mrs. Garber to ( petition for a domestic violence protective order. The~~

~~parties had reached a dissolution agreement based~~

~~on visitation. The divorce was initiated with custody~~

~~of the thirteen year·old child being the only contested~~

~~issue. The injury caused was aggravated in a unique~~

~~way when the state provided representation~~

~~'ANDVSA' to support the findings of contested facts.~~

~~Further injury was caused when the trial court did~~

~~not take interlocutory action to resolve the question~~

~~oflaw of what the Supreme Court meant by the~~

~~'specific context of child custody disputes'. In turn (~~

~~another state agency administered the holding~~

~~without clear boundaries.~~

~~FACTS THAT THIS COURT SHOULD BE AW ARE OF~~

~~On June 1, 2012 the Superior Court held its~~

~~second trial call for the divorce, Mr. Garber was not~~

~~present nor was he ever informed about this~~

~~discussion until he received the recording while~~

~~preparing the Alaska Supreme Court appeal. During~~

~~that hearing Mrs. Ruff expresses her concerns for:~~

~~( 187832~~

( "l\frs. Garber's DV protective order, I know that this is trial call related to the divorce case, but I think that because the DV protective order has now become wrapped up in the trial here we need to determine what's going to happen with Mrs. Garber's DVPO case too."

The court replied: "The way I do these and hopefully it's not too statutorily inappropriate is, if it needs to be continued out. The ex·party DVPO is generally continued in effect, until we can have the long term hearing if the extending is at the request of the respondent, which here in essence it is because the respondent through his council is not ready to go to trial the week of June 11.''

~~Mrs. Brenckle stated: "But I don't represent him in the DV, your hoi1or."~~

~~The court replied: "But it's the same function bottom line."~~

~~Mrs. Brenckle added: "I would not anticipate asking questions or cross examining or anything like that."~~

The court responded; "I understand that, but it's the same functional bottom line, except to the extent that it's part of your divorce trial custody dispute so it's not going to be a separate hearing it's going to be a combined hearing."

~~Mrs. Brenckle states: "I believe that Mr. Garber intends to proceed on his own". 187832~~

~~On June 1 Mrs. Brenckle was well aware that ( Mr. Garber had filed pro-se on April 23 a 'Motion to~~

~~Conjoin' and 'Motion for Appointment of Counsel'for~~

~~(DVPO 374), Mrs. Brenckle took the position that~~

OPA would not pay her to represent Mr. Garber with regards to the domestic violence protective m·der unless she was appointed. Mrs. Brenckle was attorney of record but not in spirit22, Mrs. B1·enckle refused to initiate the motions on Mr. Garber's behalf in the divorce custody proceeding.

~~The U.S. Supreme Court found that "The assistance of counsel is often a requisite to the very ( existence of a fair trial23.'' Citing both PowelflA and~~

~~Gideon25, the court noted the differential in resources~~

~~and power between the defendant and the~~

~~government, as well as the vulnerabilities a~~

~~defendant faces when trying to mount' a defense~~

~~without the skills and knowledge of an attorney.~~

~~Mrs. Brenckle, as a state employee, took the position~~

~~that she did not represent Mr. Garber when issues of~~

~~the domestic violence protective order would be~~

~~raised during the divorce proceeding. Mrs. Brenckle~~

~~( 187832~~

~~was firm in her statement "I would not anticipate~~

~~asking questions or cross examining or anytl_1ing like~~

~~that." lVIr. Garber was not present at the June 1~~

~~hearing to hear that conversation, until receiving the~~

~~record on appeal.~~

~~State courts, as public entities, must comply~~

~~with Title II of the ADA by ensuring that all of their~~

~~services, programs, and activities are available to~~

~~qualified individuals with disabilities. Federal comts~~

~~must meet the same standards under Section 504 of~~

~~the Rehabilitation Act. In fact, Title II of the ADA \ was "expressly modeled after" sec. 504 of the~~

~~Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and extends those~~

~~principles to state and local governments.~~

~~Mrs. Brenckle addressed Mr. Garber's physical~~

~~disabilities with the trial court, which sap energy~~

~~and vitality to the extent that Mr. Garber's ability to~~

~~participate meaningfully in his defense is greatly~~

~~hindered. Mr. Garber suffers from neuropathy in the~~

~~lower extremities with debilitating episodes of~~

~~sciatica, as well as severe depression, hearing loss~~

~~( 187832~~

~~30 and apraxia. Mr. Garber has a disability designation ( through the Social Security Administration.~~

Mr. Garber respectfully argues that the trial court abused its discretion in a unique manner which was aggravated by the court's lack of authority to appoint counsel without restrictions. The court couldn't interpret the Alaska Supreme Court's holding 'In tho Specific Context of Child Custody

~~Disputes'. Thus the governmental authorities~~

~~(ANDVSA & OPA) took it upon themselves to define~~

~~the meaning and Mrs. Garber directly benefittod.~~

~~The court further erred when it took those findings (~~

~~into the divorce proceedings and made a~~

~~determination for the best interest of the child.~~

~~In 1979 the European Court of Human Rights~~

~~decided Afrey v. Jrela11cfl6. The court held that Mrs.~~

~~Airey's denial of counsel was a violation of article 6,~~

~~paragraph 1 of the European Convention - a~~

~~provision promising civil litigants a fair hearing in~~

~~pertinent part, the clause provides that~~

~~"In the determination of their civil rights and obligation or of any criminal charge against [them], everyone is entitled to a fair and public~~

~~( 187832~~

~~( l1earing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."~~

~~In the Matter ofSteel v. 1'lie United~~

~~K.ingdo11121, the court looked at the "equality of arms"~~

~~between the opposing litigants and held that the~~

~~indigent defendants were at such a disadvantage~~

~~without counsel that they could not receive a fair~~

~~hearing. Reiterating the importance of an~~

~~opportunity to effectively present a case, the court~~

~~stated:~~

"It is central to the concept of a fair trial, in I \ civil as in criminal pl'Oceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively beforn the court and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arm with the opposing side."

~~The court further mentioned that:~~

"The provision of legal aid ... must be determined ... [by] the particular facts and circumstances ... and will depend ... upon the importance of what is at stake ... the complexity of the foase] ... and the applicant's capacity to represent himself or herself effectively."

~~The court proceeded to address the possible~~

~~financial concerns when an appointment of counsel~~

~~becomes mandated: ( 187832~~

"It is not incumbent on the State to seek ( through the use of public funds to ensure total equality of arms between the assisted person and the opposing party, as long as each side is afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis·a ·vis the adversary."

~~CONCLUSION~~

This pro·se petition for a 'Writ of Certiorari' should be granted because the State of Alaska has denied Mr. Garber's constitutional rights. Alaska's own analysis of what procedural process is due begins with article I, section 7, of the Alaska

~~Constitution, which provides in part: "No person ( shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."~~

The Alaska Court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court. The Alaska Supreme Court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

~~Alaska wrnte:~~

~~"We have repeatedly stated that 'What procedural due process may require under any particular set of circumstances depends on tho~~

~~( 187832~~

~~33 ( nature of the governmental function involved and the private interest affected by the governmental action."'~~

~~The Alaska Supreme Court rejected the 'Case~~

~~by Case' analysis established by the United States~~

~~Supreme Courts holding in Lassite1; "In Alaska, we~~

~~have adopted the balancing test from Ma thews to~~

~~determine what process is due."~~

~~Mr. Garber prays that the United States Supreme Court grants this 'Writ for Certiorari', respectfully submitted.~~

~~, 2015 I~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~No.------IN THE SUPREME COURT QF THE UNITED STATES Thomas Andrew Garber - PETITIONER Vs. Sonya Lyn Garber-Farrell RESPONDENT~~

~~PROOF OF SERVICE~~

~~I, Thomas Andrew Garber. do swear or declare that~~

~~on this. d • 2015. as~~

~~required by Supreme Court Rule 29. I have served the~~

~~enclosed Petition fo1· a Wdt ofCertio1-ari on each party to~~

~~the above proceeding or that paxty's counsel, and on every~~

~~person required to be sexved, by depositing an envelope~~

~~containing the above documents in the United States mail~~

~~properly addresses to each of them and with fust·class~~

~~registered first·class postage prepaid.~~

~~The name and address of those served are as follows: Sonya Lyn Garber-Farrell. 50465 Sterling Hwy. Soldotna, AK. 99669~~

~~I declare undei· penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.~~

~~Executed on ~6't.--- ,;;.z__ • 2015~~

~~~~Thomas A. Garb~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~.;,~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~·om: Nancy Oberschmidt \ ,nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:55 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: Proposed Changes #62, 348 and 928~~

~~I oppose the following proposed numbered zoning changes to the Buckman neighborhood:~~

• #62 - greatly increasing building height between Belmont and Morrison effectively dividing the neighborhood in half • #348 - changing a 7 block area from RS to R2.5. This would increase density, yes by making demolition even more attractive. Historic strnctures which tell the story of our neighborhood would be torn down and replaced. • #928 - changing a half block from RS to Rl. This half block contains a large apartment building a duplex and a fourplex. Two of these buildings are historic. ·

Buckman has a variety of affordable housing types. We are nearly smTounded by new development (SE Hawthorne, 12th and Burnside). This is plenty of potential density. Save Buckman and save the green space of our neighborhood. Infill and ADUs can add to the density in the heart of our neighborhood.

~~Nancy Oberschmidt 1507 SE Alder St. ~~rtland, OR 97214 I\ ,3-231-7322 [email protected]~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~·om: Heidi Settlemier ,mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:35 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: 2717 SE 15th Avenue~~

~~To Whom It May Concern,~~

I am writing to show my support for the owner's proposal to change the zoning from R2 to CM zoning, as I feel it would be beneficial to the city in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration.

~~G ------~~

~~4229 NE 33rd Avenue Portland, OR 97211~~

~~( :hird Generation Family Realtor~~

~~Direct: 503-307-1502 I~~

~~[email protected] I www.Settlemier.com~~

~~Five Star Professional Realtor Award 2011-2015~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~"':rom: Heidi Settlemier ( .mt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:33 PM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: 822 SE 15th Avenue~~

~~To Whom It May Concern,~~

~~I am writing to show my support for the owner's proposal to change the zoning of the property from Rl to CM zoning as I feel it would be beneficial to the city. Thank you for your consideration.~~

~~0 ----·------~~

~~4229 NE 33rd Avenue Portland, OR 97211~~

~~( Third Generation Family Realtor~~

~~Direct: 503-307-1502 I~~

~~[email protected] I www.Settlemier.com~~

~~Five Star Professional Realtor Award 2011-2015~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

·om: Don Baack < [email protected]> ( ~nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:52 AM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: [User Approved] Fwd: Comments on the August 2015 Draft of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan Attachments: 2016 1 7 Comments on 2015 Comp Plan Draft.xis

~~Please include this comment in the file on the Comp Plan.~~

~~don Baack~~

~~------Forwarded Message ------Subject:Comments on the August 2015 Draft of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan Date:Thu, 7 Jan201613:01:08-0800 From:Don Baack To:Fish Nick CC:Fredrickson Joan~~

~~See attached XL file with page by page comments on the draft Plan.~~

is clear there has been a great deal of thought and work put into ( .:;sernbling reviewing and approving the draft comp plan by many knowledgeable people. My comments are from a SW citizen who has been involved in planning in our part of the city for 20 years.

Attached is a spreadsheet with about 25 suggested changes in the wording of the Comp Plan. The majority of the cormnents focus on two issues: 1. Attention to the details of preventing wildfire which I believe has gotten lost in the effort to emphasize a "green city". and 2. Trails and Transportation where we seek to have our SW Urban Trail network classified as a Neighborhood Greenway and mapped as such.

~~Thanks for taking the time to address these suggested changes.~~

~~Don Baack [email protected] 503-246-2088 call if you need response quickly~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Page Policy Comments~~

~~( GP3-27 3.1 ... pedestrian and bicycle connections, greenways as well as off-street trail conni Explanation: It is important that the SW Urban Trails be classified as greenways 1~~

~~3.103 Develop Pedestrian Oriented Greenways and enhance the Western Neighborhoc~~

~~GP4-6 4.4 Integrate natural and green infrastructure such as trees, green spaces, ecoroofs,~~

~~4.6 Promote building and site designs that enhance the pedestrian experience with, Explanation: In SW Portland, it is important to provide connections through the 1~~

~~4.8 Encourage the continued use of alleys for parking access while preserving pedei~~

~~GP4-13 Dsnw/ .... reduction of landslide, wildfire and flooding risks, protection or enhancemen1 · Nature~~

~~GPS-9 5.25 MFI is not defined in the text, explain it.~~

~~GPS-13 5.54 This draft does not add provisions to allow more intense use of our existing ho~~

~~GP7-9 7.11.h In my view and experience, the risk of wildfire extends well beyond the urban· (~~

~~GP8-7 8.H The City manages its natural areas and urban forest to protect unique urban hab~~

~~GP8-16 8.51 Plan, improve, and maintain the citywide trail system so that it connects and imJ~~

~~Explanation: In SW Portland, it is important to provide connections through the 1~~

~~GP8-17 8.55 Coordinate the planning and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle trails as pa Explanation: It is important that the SW Urban Trails be classified as greenways 1~~

~~GP8-22 8.93 Add: Recognize that pedestrian and bicylcle trails are also key components oft~~

~~GP8-24 8.111A Add Policy to state: Ensure that public schools allow public pedestrian and biq~~

~~GP8-24 8.116 Encourage collaboration with private schools and educational institutions to SL Explanation: Using Lewis & Clark as an example, the pedestrian trail through the~~

~~GP8-24 8.117 Maintain and enhance the City's technology and communication facilities to ens~~

~~GP9-1 Guide the location and design of new street, pedestrian, bicycle and trail infra st~~

~~( GP9-10 9.14 Encourage repurposing street segments that are not critical for transportation C( 187832~~

~~9.15 Promote street and trail alignments and designs that respond to topography am~~

~~9.16 Encourage walking as the most attractive mode of transportation for most short (~~

~~9.17 Create, sign, and document more complete networks of pedestrian facilities, an~~

GP9-14 Sys Mgt Portland's transportation system is an integrated network of roads, rails, trails,! Add: Make the pedestrian and bicycle networks easily followed and well map1 Explanation: The SW Urban Trails System has not been visible to planners and 1

~~LP-5 SM-10 Fanno/Tryon Drainage Shoulder Improvements. It is imperative that both of th,~~

~~LP-6 SM-13 Stephens Creek Stormwater System Improvements. Add: Coordinate all actions~~

~~Wilson HS Zoning Of particular concern is the current IR zoning for Wilson HS. It was put in place~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( ections to, through, and from residential neighborhoods. Nhere people are walking in streets with no sidewalks. We seek to have traffic calming and 20 mph spe,~~

~~ids distinctive system of trails to increase safety, expand mobility .....~~

~~gardens, green walls, and vegetated stormwater management systems, into the urbanenvironment in ,~~

windows, entrances, pathways, and other features that provide connections to and between the street neighborhoods, not just to the activity centers. Such connections foster neighbor to neighbor access th,

~~;trian access. Expand the number of alley-facing accessory dwelling units.~~

~~t of fish and wildlife habitat, and opportunities for Portlanders to enjoy naturein their daily lives.~~

~~using stock by suggesting removing limits on numbers of families or unrelated persons that can live in~~

~~forest. This plan does not focus sufficient attention to the prevention of wildfire in urban neighborho (~~

~~,itats, prevent wildfire and offer Portlanders an opportunity to connect with nature.~~

iroves access to and through Portland's neighborhoods, commercial areas, employment centers, schoc neighborhoods, not just to the activity centers. Such connections foster neighbor to neighbor access th,

~~rt of the City Greenways system Nhere people are walking in streets with no sidewalks. We seek to have traffic calming and 20 mph spe,~~

~~:he transportation network.~~

~~rcle access across school property due to the super block size of the facilities.~~

~~ipport community, transportation and recreational use of their facilities. ir campus is a key link between the Willamette River and the rest of the SW community.~~

~~ure public safety, facilitate access to information,state of the arrt communication systems and maintai~~

~~ructure.~~

~~( innectivity to other public community purposes. 187832~~

~~j natural features, when feasible, and protect streams, wildlife habitat, and native trees.~~

~~trips, within neighborhoods and to centers, corridors, and major destinations, and as a means for accei (~~

~~d improve the quality of the pedestrian environment.~~

~~;idewalks, bicycle paths, and other facilities within and through the city. ied. therefore has often been neglected when new development has been authorized. We seek a clear ov,~~

~~ese projects and any similar subsequent project include a provision that an extended {didened) shoulc~~

~~; with PBOT to assure the street, trail and other transportation needs are met concurrently.~~

~~, in 1997 as part of the Hillsdale Town Center Plan. It came with the assurance by the Planning Bureal~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( ed limits as provided by the greenway designation for these routes. The through addition refers to the~~

~~1 manner that does not increase the risk of wildfire .~~

~~. environment. 3t are missing in a typical wheel and spoke approach of connecting to activity centers.~~

~~, a house. I think this should be examined as a way of significantly increasing our housing stock.~~

~~ods. Too much emphasis on the green infrastructure without balancing that with wild fire prevention (~~

ils, parks, natural areas, recreational facilities, regional destinations, the regional trail system, and other it are missing in a typical wheel and spoke approach of connecting to activity centers.

~~ed limits as provided by the greenway designation for these routes.~~

~~n City operations.~~

~~( 187832~~

~~;sing transit. (~~

~~erlay of the entire Urban Trail System, and identified as neighborhood greenways. Same applies to bi,~~

~~ler be provided for pedestrian, mobility defices and bicycle safety. Federal studies show such low cos '~~

~~1 that a detail plan for the campus would be jointly developed by the Hillsdale Neighborhood and PPS~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( need for pedestrian connections between neighbors to avoid long drives where a short walk would suff~~

~~, in terms of vegetation near structures, building materials, etc. Policy makers should review the 1951 (~~

~~key places that Portlanders access in their daily lives.~~

~~( ' 187832~~

(

~~cycle oriented neighborhood greenways.~~

~~t improvements (15% of full sidewalks) result in 80% of the safety results of full sidewalks. This is aw~~

~~,. After almost 20 years no such plan has been accomplished amd no such plan is on the horizon. Me,~~

~~( 187832~~

~~( ice if safe, walkable connections existed .~~

~~. Forest Park Fire, the 1991 Berkley-Oakland Ca fire that destroyed 3000 + structures to see what wildl (~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~•ay of making our limited transportation dollars yeild much greater returns to a much larger segment,~~

~~mwhile, the campus has had a number of significant changes that we have had no opportunity to com~~

(

~~( 187832~~

(

~~fire can do if proper prevention measures are not taken. With the advent of global warming, we face (~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~of the poplulatin.~~

~~1ment on or influence in any manner. We request the Wilson HS zoning be reset as residential 7 as it~~

(

~~( 187832~~

(

~~a (~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~was before 1997 until after the sucessful completion of a campus plan we can support.~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~·om: Rachel Hill ( ,nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:20 AM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Subject: Comp Plan testimony~~

~~Hello,~~

~~I live at 2515 N Lombard Street, Portland 97203. My name is Rachel Hill. 503.849.8337~~

I would like to ask that the zoning change not occur from the intersection ofN Catlin, to the northwest, to single family residential. It is currently Rl and R2. I found out yesterday that a developer just submitted plans for 7 units on a lot that would be rezoned as single family. This will continue to complicate the land use along this street. Developers are responding in one way - the City in another. I think we need a more collaborative approach.

Personally, I do think that the zoning should be flexible enough to have multi-family and perhaps office or commercial. Is there a designation for this? However, as I said in my previous email, if made only single family zoning, the single family homes will likely degrade as home owners have no incentive to improve them since the increased emphasis on the truck route makes it incompatible with single family homes, with pockets of \'ger development occur where they were able to get permits before the change. I think this will be a mess. \ I believe it is better to find a more compatible zoning category that keeps development having a .mix of small scale commercial and residential. Multi-family housing seems appropriate ifit is thought of holistically (ideally not lot line to lot line opportunistic development) along the street.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Rachel Hill~~

~~rachel hill [email protected] Portland, OR 503.849.8337~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( Subject: Health Overlay Zone Introdnction~~

North Portland is a vibrant, diverse community of single and multi-family homes, commercial centers, and industrial preserves situated at the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette rivers. Our eleven neighborhoods face increasing growth and density in the coming years. The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan identifies inner neighborhood areas such as North Portland as ideal for increased density. The plan recognizes, however, that increased density carries with it the challenge of maintaining a healthy, connected city where residents have access to clean air, accessible green space, and vibrant employment centers.

In order to meet the coming growth in our community without compromising the health and well being of our residents, North Portland's neighborhood representatives recommend a health overlay zone. This zone applies specific land use, design, and monitoring requirements on new development in North Portland to mitigate negative health and safety impacts. The health overlay zone supports a vision along with goals and strategies outlined below that together preserve and enhance our way of life while accommodating new development in our conununity.

Our community draws inspiration for our recommendations from two key sources. Portland's comprehensive plan update, Policy 4.28.d, encourages design and land use patterns that mitigate negative air quality and noise impacts in Portland neighborhoods, especially near high vehicle traffic areas, and other sources of air pollution. Similarly, Pmtland's Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals 1-4 aim to reduce the environmental impacts of new development through more sustainable land use and design principles.

~~( Vision~~

~~A North Portland community that preserves and enhances the health and well being of its residents while accommodating growth and density needs.~~

~~Goals~~

~~To achieve our vision, North Portland's neighborhoods propose the following three goals:~~

• Better Air and Water Quality: Land use, design, and monitoring requirements that reduce or minimize the negative impact of future development on energy demand, air conditioning use, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality.

~~• · Reduced Noise Pollution: Land use, design, and monitoring requirements that reduce or minimize the negative impact of future development on unwanted or distressing sound.~~

~~• Increased Safety: Land use, design, and monitoring requirements that reduce or minimize the negative impact of future development on criminal activity and emergency preparedness. Strategies~~

Goals provide benclnnarks by which to measure progress towards our vision. Each goal, however, is supported by specific, actionable strategies that residents, community leaders, and City of Portland staff can use to better our community. We provide an illustrative list of strategies below based on NPLUG discussions, but we expect individual neighborhood association meetings to generate and refine strategies to best fit our community vision. ( 187832

Better Air and Water Quality ( • Improve stom1 water management design standards for new developments , • Require air filtration in all new residential developments • Improve ventilation requirements for new residential developments • Require building features that facilitate less energy use • Require moisture-infiltration and ventilation features that reduce mold formation • Eliminate exposure to harmful asbestos materials • Install traffic-calming, pedestrian, and bicycle features to minimize the use of single- occupancy vehicles (SOVs) • Install more and better transit infrastructure to encourage more energy-efficient transportation modes • Require low-emissions freight vehicles • Preserve and build connections between existing green spaces • Plant trees that will help filter the air of carbon dioxide, harmful particulates, and other atmospheric contaminants in all new housing developments • Install air-monitoring stations in North Portland neighborhoods 1

~~Reduced Noise Pollution • Improve noise abatement design standards for new developments • Install noise abatement walls or similar constructs between residential areas and freight corridors~~

Increased Safety • Educate residents on emergency preparedness procedures • Improve coordin.ation between neighborhood organizations and Portland Police Bureau North ;.recinct servidc~s . b . b h d . . d p d p· d R (___ • _unprove coor malion etween ne1g 11 or oo orgamzatwns an ort1 an ire an escue • Improve coordination with other neighborhood, city, county, and state emergency and safety preparedness groups

~~Conclusion~~

These goals and strategies suppmt our community vision of a North Portland that accommodates future growth and density without compromising our health, safety, or well being. By incorporating these elements into the City of Portland comprehensive plan update, we may ensure our community is ready and capable of meeting future growth needs while guaranteeing existing and future residents enjoy a healthy, safe, and vibrant North Portland.

~~1 Monitoring stations do not directly affect air quality, but do allow for on-going ( evaluation of air quality mitigation efforts. 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

1m: Hanson, Laura ( ,nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:17 AM To: Scott Bricker Cc: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony; Shriver, Katie Subject: RE: St Johns Neighborhood Association Urges Health Overlay Zone Attachments: NPLUG_HealthOverlay Final.pd/

Hi Scott, Thank you for taking the time to share the St. Johns Neighborhood Association's comments on the Comprehensive Plan. I have shared your testimony with the BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony account and with the staff person in my office who is the lead on this issue.

~~All best,~~

~~Laura Hanson Scheduler & Constituent Relations Coordinator Office of Commissioner Steve Novick 503-823-4682 portlandoregon.gov/novick~~

~~From: Scott Bricker [mailto:[email protected]] ·~nt: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:07 AM ( : Commissioner Novick JUbject: St Johns Neighborhood Association Urges Health Overlay Zone~~

~~St. Johns Neighborhood Association~~

~~January 13, 2016~~

~~Re. St. Johns Neighborhood Association Urges Health Overlay Zone~~

~~Dear Commissioner Novick:~~

The St. Johns Neighborhood is deeply concerned about the impact of transportation, land use, and industrial development on health. Research is clear that where you live and the associated transportation, land use, and environmental conditions are directly linked to your ( 1alth in many ways, and this why we urge the City to add a Health Overlay Zone into the . Jity of Portland Comprehensive Plan. The Health Overlay Zone proposal is attached.

~~1 187832~~

We believe that a Health Overlay Zone would strengthen the core believes of people of North Portland and the draft Comprehensive Plan. The connectivity of transportation, land use and( health are wide reaching. These include the drastic health benefits of walking and biking for daily transportation, traffic safety issues from poorly designed roadways, pollutants from trucks and automobiles, industrial pollution, crime prevention through environmental design, and emergency preparedness.

~~We thank you for your consideration and support for adding this concept to the Comprehensive Plan Update.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Scott Bricker~~

~~St. Johns Neighborhood Association, Board Member St. Johns Safety and Livability Team, Chair (~~

~~8716 N Syracuse, 97203~~

~~503.757.8342 [email protected]~~

~~Attachment:~~

~~- NPLUG Health Overlay Final~~

(

~~2 187832~~

~~Arevalo, Nora~~

~~t:rom: Matt Brischetto ( ent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:10 AM To: BPS Comprehensive Plan Testimony Cc: Christine Yun; Sheila Baraga Subj~ct: 348 and 928~~

~~Hi,~~

~~I'm writing into to testify my support of Clu·istine Yun and Buckman residents in eliminating proposals 348 and 928.~~

While I am in favor of increased density along the corridors such as Belmont, Monison, etc. to accommodate the population growth expected in the coming decades, I favor doing what's possible to protect the historic fabric of the inner/side streets between the conidors. Keeping a lower zoning will avoid adding tear-down pressure on non-protected strnctures in the short term. Longer term, I'd would greatly supp01i a solution of historic designation overlay which wo'uld provide more substantial protection and other benefits - but this will serve in the short term. If historic overlays can be achieved, then subsequently exploring increasing density makes sense if that density could be used to reliably support preservation (i.e. transfer development rights) rather than tear down.

~~Best,~~

~~:att Brischetto 1503 SE Belmont St.~~

(

~~1 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~( Working Waterfront~~

~~Coalition~~

~~Comprehensive Plan Comments~~

~~January 7, 2016~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Working Waterfront ( C O A L T 0 N~~

~~City of Portland City Council January 7, 2016 Portland City Hall 1221 SW Fourth Avenue Portland, OR 97204~~

~~Dear Mayor Hales and Portland City Commissioners:~~

The Working Waterfront Coalition (WWC) respectfully requests that City Co'uncil return to the mid-range growth forecast in the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) -- the forecast that Council adopted in the 2012 EOA and the forecast used by Metro in their urban growth report.

~~A Medium Growth Forecast ls Supported by Substantial Evidence, Is Consistent with Other Adopted Plans and Is Good Policy~~

Based upon historic data and future projections, the City must assume a medium-growth cargo forecast for harbor-related tonnage across all cargo types, and not assume a low forecast (Attachment A). A low forecast is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and does not comply with Statewide Planning Goal 2's requirement for consistency among all adopted City plans. A low forecast contradicts historical trends and recent harbor infrastructure ) (_ _ improvements that have resulted in substantial private sector investment (Attachment B . The low forecast as proposed by the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) is a policy choice that retreats from historic cargo trends and plan for a decline in harbor business, despite contrary private sector investments and adopted plans. The PSC's recommendation sends the wrong message lo Oregon businesses and to the public about the importance and future of the Portland Harbor, and the many businesses and employees who rely upon it.

~~Harbor Jobs are Middle-Income Jobs that Further the City's Equity and Housing Affordability Goals~~

The City should support additional middle-income job growth in the Portland Harbor, which will help the City achieve its equity and housing affordability goals. Harbor businesses are major Portland employers that employ more than 31,000 men and women, and support 29,000 more employees, which are largely paid middle-income wages. The harbor is a place of job diversity and predominantly middle-income wages (Attachment C). One harbor employer has more than 19 languages spoken on site. Many harbor businesses work directly with community college programs for job placement and skill development for existing employees. Job growth in the harbor is exactly what our City needs to ensure future work force diversity and middle income wages so more Portland citizens can afford a reasonable standard of living in Portland. Middle income wages are also one way to address Portland's housing affordability gap. Income disparity is part of our community's housing crisis, and that disparity is in part because of the flattening of middle income wages and loss of middle income jobs.

~~Harbor businesses are also a major source of revenue for the City of Portland's small and medium sized business. More than fifty percent of harbor business procurement of supplies, raw ( 187832~~

~~( C O A L T 0 N~~

materials, capital goods and services comes from small local businesses. This relationship is meaningful to the neighborhoods and the people employed as a result (Attachment D). The PSC recommended low forecast assumes one percent or less of annual growth in the harbor - limiting job opportunities and procurements of supplies, raw materials and services from local businesses.

~~The EOA Overestimates the Supply of Industrial Land and Potential for Additional Capacity ·• Brownflelds, Transportation Improvements and Shifting of Some Jobs~~

The WWC strongly supports brownfield redevelopment. However, we are concerned that the City's assumption that 60% of the brownfields in the harbor will be cleaned up and available for industrial use over the planning horizon is unsupported by data and is unrealistic without financial and policy support. Brownfield redevelopment to industrial use is difficult due to time and costs associated with addressing contamination, ownership issues, uncertainty about Superfund liability and market constraints on industrial property (Attachment E). These factors influenced the City Council to assume that only 40 percent of the brownfields in the harbor would be remediated when the Council adopted the 2012 EOA. At that time owners of industrial properties In the Portland Harbor were skeptical about that assumption because it did not account for the uncertainty related to Superfund. The PSC's assumption about brownfield redevelopment Is a 20% increase over what Council adopted 2012, but the policy, economic or ( evidentiary basis for this increase has not been identified. The City cannot assume that unfunded transportation improvements will create more cargo efficiency and increase industrial land capacity in the Portland Harbor. The PSC recommended a Transportation System Plan (TSP) with 78 percent of city resources targeted to active transportation projects instead of improvements to road and rail that would support harbor businesses (Attachment F). The City Council cannot rely upon improvements to the transportation system to create more cargo efficiency and increase industrial land capacity until improvements to road and rail that support harbor businesses are funded.

There is no evidentiary basis for an assumption that moving some existing office jobs associated with harbor businesses offsite will increase industrial land capacity in the harbor. There are a limited number of jobs with administration functions located on site of harbor businesses and they provide a critical function specific to onsite business operations and industrial activity. Moving office functions would both affect the efficiency of the operation and add cost, and not significantly increase industrial land supply.

~~WWC's Request and Why t_he Middle-Range Cargo Forecast Matters~~

~~The WWC requests that the City Council assume a more robust harbor forecast consistent with data and trends and support for middle-income jobs growth by:~~

• Targeting infrastructure and brownfield investment and polices to support harbor business expansion • Expediting permitting • Addressing conflicting regulations that hinder harbor business investment

~~( 2 187832~~

~~Working Waterfront ( C O A L T 0 N~~

The Comprehensive Plan is an aspirational document, a document filled with hopes and dreams for Portl.and, and a document that addresses and plans for expected growth over the next 20 years. Planning for growth, housing, jobs and people is addressed in every part of this policy document - - except for harbor industrial lands. How can we have a document that addresses growth for everything except for Portland harbor industrial lands?

The Planning Commission recommended a low growth forecast as a policy choice that is not based on data. The Working Waterfront Coalition requests that Council base its decision upon the data, and to make a choice that supports Portland's future, our industrial harbor's future, and our middle-income Job future.

Why does this matter so greatly to harbor businesses? It matters because it sends a negative message, the wrong message about what is happening in the harbor. Substantial investment in the harbor has occurred since the Columbia River channel deepening in 2010. More than $370 million investment has occurred since 2010 - generating an estimated $4.5 million annually in tax revenues. The tonnage generated from these facilities is significant. Even with the recent loss of container service at the Port of Portland's Terminal 6 the volume in the Portland harbor is about equal to the volume in either Seattle or Tacoma. Portland Harbor tonnage, coupled with the Columbia River tonnage, creates the second largest gateway on the West Coast behind ( only Los Angeles /Long Beach (Attachment G ).

It matters because it will discourage opportunities for future investment by private and public entities. This low forecast will impact our ability to obtain public or private funding for infrastructure, brownfield re-development and even harbor business expansion. All grant and investment concepts require future forecast information as justification for the requested investment. We will not compete well if our own assessment of our future is not positive and below the growth rate established by the region. ·

And finally, ii matters because the harbor employs more than 31,000 men and women and supports 29,000 more employees. If there is any place in this City that leadership should support job growth, it is the Portland Harbor. If you care about the diverse employment opportunities and middle-income wages for Portland residents, then you should ensure that there is adequate growth in the harbor. The WWC urges you to change the Portland Harbor lands forecast back to the "most likel'y'' moderate growth as originally adopted by City council in 2012.

Making a policy choic.e to adopt a low growth forecast sends the wrong message - that our City does not support harbor businesses and harbor jobs. We are open for business and with your help would like to continue to be so for years to come.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Ellen Wax, Executive Director ( 3 187832~~

~~Working Waterfront ( C O A L T 0 N~~

~~Attachments:~~

~~Attachment A: WWC Issue Matrix and Recommendations~~

~~Attachment B: Impacts of Channel Deepening on the Columbia River and Investment Growth and the Continued Impact of the Portland Harbor~~

~~Attachment C: Portland Harbor Workforce Demographics~~

~~Attachment D: Economic Linkages from Marine Industrial Businesses~~

~~Attachment E: Brownfield/Greenfield Development Cost Comparison Study~~

~~Attachment F: City Recommended Projects - TSP Summary Chart~~

~~Attachment G: West Coast Ports Tonnage (~~

Established in 2005, the Working Waterfront Coalition, with its extensive knowledge of harbor industry needs and active industry participation, is dedicated to working with its partners to ensure an appropriate balance between environmental concerns and the needs of river-related, river-dependent employers. Portland's Harbor is a vital employment area: home to thousands of valuable high-wage, high-benefit jobs. In addition, WWC members are conscientious stewards of the environment, making significant investments in the harbor consistent with state and federal laws.

~~( 4 187832~~

given the current code, was to acquire the minimum lot size of the current R7 zone (4,200 sq ft) - in other words, given the actual density of the neighborhood, which to us is characteristic of the current meaning of the R7 zone, and playing by the nonsensical rules ( of the Alice in Wonderland world of the current code would get us closer to the minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft- the typical meaning ofR5.

But as you know, once we understood the craziness of the current code, we have always advocated for a serious review of the code and its impacts on the city as a whole. Patt of what has been so frustrating about this whole process is that BPS can't even model the code's real impacts given the data and resources that it has. I would note that comments by BPS staff relating to the actual impacts of the code on neighborhood were incorrect in that the impacts of the underlying lots in the historic Eastmoreland section of the neighborhood have not been analyzed. Rod and I went through that exercise for a pottion of the no1thwest patt of the neighborhood and came up with a large number of possible new lots.

In any case, I very much appreciate the fact that the City will revisit the residential code. It is hugely impo1tant and as I have said we on the Eastmoreland Land Use Committee will do all that we can to be supportive and to be of assistance.

Meg On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stockton, Matty wrote: Hi Meg, The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the documents and presentations link: https ·//www.oortlandoregon.gov/bps/article/5 29 238 ( Also, according to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that part should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Part 1 link). Finally, there were four area discussed/shared in the presentation yesterday, but all ten were analyzed using the methodology we shared with you all a couple meetings ago. Deborah will follow up with maps or all the areas reviewed by staff. We will also have a final memo to the PSC that includes these ten areas. On a personal note, I am also still processing my thoughts about yesterday's work session. I knew the PSC discussion was going to be close. It was painful for me as I have worked with you all on the Eastmoreland request for a year now. I too would have liked a more analytical, thoughtful and sensitive discussion around their recommendation. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503 823.2041 f: 503.823 5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland ( 187832

an underlying lot line but we don't know if Renaissance is smmt enough to know that. As of yet, the only information that we have comes from the demolition permit. In any case, ( the current house is high on a bluff and two houses will require substantial modifications to the topography we suspect. Renaissance always builds from its stock portfolio rather than site sensitive designs. We have tried to work with Randy Sabastian before in the area east of 36th for modifications that would protect neighbors privacy but Randy Sabastian has no interest in that. No "for sale" sign was ever put up because the sellers were convinced to sell to a bulk, all cash purchaser, PDX Remodelers - who merely acted as an agent for Eden Enterprises and Renaissance. Portland Chronicle indicates 20 demolition permits citywide for the most recent week alone. So, understandably, we are very concerned and feel ve1y vulnerable under the current conditions. Thanks, Meg On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Stein, Deborah wrote:

Hi Meg, I apologize that I haven't yet sent the full set of maps I _referenced in the PSC meeting the other day. The folks who developed the maps are not in the office, and I n1=ed their help to sort through a number of maps in the GIS folder to find the correct ones. So, when staff are back on Monday I'll ask for help! And as Marty says below, I plan to forward the full set of maps to the PSC as well, since they didn't have the benefit of viewing the details for all of the study areas I referenced. Thanks for your patience. Also, I wanted to thank you for the note below and for your efforts and ( advocacy. Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503 823 6991 deborah .stei n@portl an doregon .gov www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City nY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick[mailto:meg.merrick@gmail com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:11 AM To: Stockton, Marty Cc: Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Re: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Thanks, Matty!

~~Our request for the zone change came in large part with the understanding that the ( residential zones no longer had any real meaning and that the only way to protect ourselves, 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: ~Meg Merrick"; Rod MeITTck; Clark Nelson Cc: Stockton, Martv; Wood. Sandra ( Subject: RE: Slideshow from today"s BPS Commission meeting Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:12:56 PM~~

Hi Meg, Thanks for letting me know. Your understanding of the project is correct. Sandra Wood, Supervising Planner and manager for the single dwelling development standards project, is following up with the Mayor's Office to clarify the scope of work and confirm expectations that the underlying lots issue will indeed be addressed. I have copied Sandra and she can follow up with you. Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 debo rah. stei n@portl an doregon .gov www portiandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 5:18 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Cc: Stockton, Marty ( Subject: Re: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Deborah, Thanks. I look forward to seeing the maps. Also, our neighborhood association chair was given some information from the mayor's office about the single family residential code project that does not indicate that the underlying lot problem will be addressed. We are very concerned about this since BPS staff stated at the recent BPS Commission hearing (that retained the R5 zone for the neighborhood) that the problems that Eastmoreland is experiencing with lot splitting due to the underlying lots would be better addressed with this project than a rezoning to R 7. As you know, the activation of these lots is a key driver behind the lot splitting that has led to the inappropriate scale of development and environmental degradation. Our suppott of this project was predicated with the understanding that the underlying lot problem would be examined and addressed but the information that we have received, in writing now, suggests otherwise. Before we were able to get the written information from the mayor's office, Marty confirmed that the underlying lots would be addressed with this project but maybe BPS hasn't seen what is coming out of the mayor's office - or maybe the mayor's office doesn't understand the issues and has misstated the purpose of the project. It would be great if you could clarify as soon as possible. The destruction to neighborhood character continues as we speak. On May 7, Eden Enterprises with Renaissance Homes as the developer, filed for a demolition permit for the entire structure of a beautiful 1924 house at 3030 SE Rex - the heatt of the neighborhood. It is clear why they were willing to pay $675,000 just to demolish it. The lot is a 9,700 sq ft corner lot with an underlying lot line - couldn't be split if the minimum lot size in the R5 zone was 5,000 sq ft. Technically, they could probably build three houses there since it is a corner lot and has ( 187832

(

~~Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

Finally, there were four area discussed/shared in the presentation yesterday, but all ten were analyzed using the methodology we shared with you all a couple meetings ago. Deborah will ( follow up with maps of all the areas reviewed by staff. We will also have a final memo to the PSC . that includes these ten areas.

~~With kind regards,~~

~~Matty~~

From: Meg Menick [mailto:meg.merrick@gmail com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Maity; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting

~~Hi Deborah and Matty,~~

Could you please send me a copy of the slides that you presented today to the BPS Commission regarding the RS to R7 request? I am particularly interesting in seeing maps of each of the areas that were considered.

~~Thanks!~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick ( 187832~~

~~From: Meg Merrick To: Stockton, Marty ( Cc: Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Re: Stldeshow from today''s BPS Commission meeting Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:12:28 AM~~

~~Thanks, Marty!~~

Our request for the zone change came in large part with the understanding that the residential zones no longer had any real meaning and that the only way to protect ourselves, given the current code, was to acquire the minimum lot size of the current R7 zone (4,200 sq ft) - in other words, given the actual density of the neighborhood, which to us is characteristic of the current meaning of the R7 zone, and playing by the nonsensical rules of the Alice in Wonderland world of the current code would get us closer to the minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft - the typical meaning of RS.

But as you know, once we understood the craziness of the current code, we have always advocated for a serious review of the code and its impacts on the city as a whole. Patt of what has been so frustrating about this whole process is that BPS can't even model the code's real impacts given the data and resources that it has. I would note that comments by BPS staff relating to the actual impacts of the code on neighborhood were incorrect in that the impacts of the underlying lots in the historic Eastmoreland section of the neighborhood have not been ( analyzed. Rod and I went through that exercise for a portion of the notthwest part of the neighborhood and came up with a large number of possible new lots.

In any case, I very much appreciate the fact that the City will revisit the residential code. It is hugely imp01tant and as I have said we on the Eastmoreland Land Use Committee will do all that we can to be supportive and to be of assistance.

~~Meg~~

~~On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stockton, Maity wrote:~~

~~Hi Meg,~~

~~The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the documents and presentations link:~~

~~https-//www portlandoregon gov/bps/article/529238~~

Also, according to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that patt should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Patt 1 link). ( 187832

~~Meg ( Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Meo Merrick; Stein, Deborah; Rod Merrick; dark Nelson ( Subject: RE: Slideshow from today"s BPS Commission meeting Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:42:00 AM~~

Hi Meg, The PowerPoint presentation has been posted to the meeting recap webpage, please go to the documents and presentations link: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/529238 Also, according to my colleague that staffs the PSC, assuming the second part of the video uploads in a reasonable time, that part should be available later this afternoon (she'll add the link after the Part 1 link). Finally, there were four area discussed/shared in the presentation yesterday, but all ten were analyzed using the methodology we shared with you all a couple meetings ago. Deborah will follow up with maps of all the areas reviewed by staff. We will also have a final memo to the PSC that includes these ten areas. On a personal note, I am also still processing my thoughts about yesterday's work session. I knew the PSC discussion was going to be close. It was painful for me as I have worked with you all on the Eastmoreland request for a year now. I too would have liked a more analytical, thoughtful and sensitive discussion around their recommendation. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison ( Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Slideshow from today's BPS Commission meeting Hi Deborah and Marty,

Could you please send me a copy of the slides that you presented today to the BPS Commission regarding the R5 to R 7 request? I am particularly interesting in seeing maps of each of the area·s that were considered.

~~Thanks! ( 187832~~

~~the city where similar conditions exist, using the same analysis approach we are using for Eastmoreland. That expanded analysis is now underway, so I don't yet have anything new (, to report.~~

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:merrick [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. ( Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771.7762~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: "Rod Merrick"; Clark Nelson ( Cc: Meg Merrick; Jorn Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcllffe Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:48:13 PM~~

Hi Rod, Clark, Meg and Tom, I won't have anything ready to share until late in the week, but I can carve out 30 minutes Thursday or Friday to share what I'll be presenting to the PSC. Here is my availability: • Thursday, May 7 between 4:00 and 6:00 • Friday, May 8 between 11:00 and 1:00. I am sorry Meg won't be available, but I'm hoping that one of these slots will work for the rest of you. Best, Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah stein@portlandoregon gov www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:49 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland Deborah, I sympathize that you are busy but I believe there was a clear commitment to meet with us once you were closer to a recommendation. If that has to be early next week I am sure we would be able to accommodate that as well. Regards, Rod Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB JYtjnifiiwi74r9fillfflureiRlli:ifflioe Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

~~From: "Stein, Deborah" To: 'Rod Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick ; Tom Hubka ; "Stockton, Marty" ; "Dacanay, Radcliffe"~~

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:19 PM Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi everyone, Sorry for the delayed response; I'm just getting back to my desk from meetings the first time since yesterday morning. Both Thursday and Friday this week are completely booked for me, and next week is very full for me as well. Since we last met, we have continued to review the materials you provided us as well as the set of analysis maps we prepared and shared with you. As you recall, we were also asked by the PSC to look at other areas in ( 187832

~~deborah,[email protected]~~

~~www.p01tlandoregon.gov/bps (~~

From: Rod Merrick [mailto;merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Mel'l'ick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland

~~Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. (~~

~~Regards, Rod~~

~~Rod Jvferrick, AJA NCARB~~

~~Merrick Architecture Planning~~

~~Portland, OR 503. 771, 7762~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:49 PM ( To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland

Deborah, I sympathize that you are busy but I believe there was a clear commitment to meet with us once you were closer to a recommendation. If that has to be early next week I am sure we would be able to accommodate that as well. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB~~

~~Merrick Architecture Planning~~

~~Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

From: 11 Stcin, Deborah" To: 'Rod .Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: Nieg Merrick ; Tom Hubka ; 11 Stockton, Marty" ; 11 Dacanay, Radclift"'e" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:19 PM Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland

~~Hi everyone,~~

Sony for the delayed response; I'm just getting back to my desk from meetings the first time since yesterday morning. Both Thursday and Friday this week are completely booked for me, and next week is ve1-y full for me as well. Since we last met, we have continued to review the materials you provided us as well as the set of analysis maps we prepared and shared with you. As you recall, we were also asked by the PSC to look at other areas in the city where similar conditions exist, using the same analysis approach we are using for Eastmoreland. That expanded analysis is now underway, so I don't yet have anything new to repmt.

~~Best,~~

~~Deborah~~

~~Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability~~

~~1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503 823 6991 ( 187832~~

~~From: Meg Merrick To: Stein Deborah Cc: Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson; Tom Hubka; Stockt;oo Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe ( Subject: Re: Regathertng Eastmoreland Date: Thursday. April 30, 2015 4:53:02 PM~~

~~So will I be out of town - in Pittsburgh all next week.~~

~~Meg~~

~~On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Stein, Deborah wrote:~~

~~Hi Rod, Clark, Meg and Tom,~~

~~I won't have anything ready to share until late in the week, but I can carve out 30 minutes Thursday or Friday to share what I'll be presenting to the PSC. Here is my availability:~~

~~• Thursday, May 7 between 4:00 and 6:00~~

~~•Friday, May 8 between 11:00 and 1:00.~~

~~I am sony Meg won't be available, but I'm hoping that one of these slots will work for the rest of you. ( Best,~~

~~Deborah~~

~~Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Potiland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability~~

~~1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Pmtland, OR 972011503 823 6991~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~www.pottlandoregon.gov/bps~~

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Po1tland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. ·

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Clark Nelson To: Rod Merrick; Stein. Deborah ( Cc: Mea Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:05:57 PM~~

~~Thursday should be fine for me Clark Nelson Seniol' Project i\fanager Clark.Nelson@pbsem,.com 503.417.7691~~

PBS E_ngineering + Environm.ental Engineering J Natural Resources I Em•ironmental I Health and Safety W'tYW,pbsem'.CODI 4412 SW Corbett AYenue. Portland OR, 97239 ph: 503.248.1939: fax: 866.727.0140 This electronic communication and its attachments are intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any action relying upon this message is prohibited. If you have receh'ed this Jnformatio_,~ i_n ~~-r_~r,__ ~.!~~s_e_~~~-~:..!!!_~-~~_!!~~~~---- ______From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Deborah Stein; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Marty Stockton; Radcliffe Dacanay Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB 1\ferrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR503.771.7762~~

~~( 187832~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

~~( From: "Stein, Deborah" To: 'Rod Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick ; Tom Hubka ; "Stockton, Marty" ; "Dacanay, Radcliffe"~~

From: Rod Merrick [maHto:merrick [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

~~( 187832~~

From: Rod Merrick To: Stein, Deborah Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe; Clark Nelson; Judith Kenny ( Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Frtday, May 1, 2015 3:27:29 PM

Deborah, Tom Hubka and Judith Kenny will be joining me in meeting. with you and other BPS staff Thursday, May 7 between 4:00 and 6:00. Seventh floor? Many thanks. Rod Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB M~""'-c1CWAYQHitlfotur:e~Rfileu'J . . . _ . ·~·--- . .. nn10 '"-:ti . Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

From: "Stein, Deborah" To: 'Rod Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka ; "Stockton, Marty"; "Dacanay, Radcliffe" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:48 PM Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:49 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland Deborah, I sympathize that you are busy but I believe there was a clear commitment to meet with us once you were closer to a recommendation. If that has to be early next week I am sure we would be able to accommodate that as well. Regards, Rod Rod Merrick, A/A NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning ( 187832

~~From: Stein Deborah To: "Rod Merrick"; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay Radcliffe Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:19:40 PM~~

Hi everyone, Sorry for the delayed response; I'm just getting back to my desk from meetings the first time since yesterday morning. Both Thursday and Friday this week are completely booked for me, and next week is very full for me as well. Since we last met, we have continued to review the materials you provided us as well as the set of analysis maps we prepared and shared with you. As you recall, we were also asked by the PSC to look at other areas in the city where similar conditions exist, using the same analysis approach we are using for Eastmoreland. That expanded analysis is now underway, so I don't yet have anything new to report.

Because my team and I are so swamped with work right now, I can't commit to another meeting. Nevertheless, when we have a recommendation ready for the PSC I'd be happy to share it with you in advance of the May 12 meeting. Best, Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah stejn@portlandoregon gov • www.port\ando~egon gov/bps \. To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka;.Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Mifjj'J_glf¥A!'<;liifo:tyr~BJK6bilm Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: "Stein, Deborah" To: 'Rod Merrick' ; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick ; Tom Hubka ; "Stockton, Marty" ( ; "Dacanay, Radcliffe"~~

From: Rod Merrick [maHto:merrick map@yahoo,com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:04 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton, Marty; Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: Regathering Eastmoreland Hi Deborah and all, Can we do the followup meeting this week with the team to discuss the updated findings for Eastmoreland? Thursday looks best at this point. Meg is out next week. Regards, Rod

~~Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Rod Merrick To: Stein Deborah; Oark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka; Stockton Marty; Dacanay Radclfffe Subject: Re: Regathering Eastmoreland Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:50:48 PM~~

~~Thanks Deborah. May 7 4-6 sounds best...others? Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB JYrerric~.AtcJiile~otiff'.eme1annin'§ Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

From: 11Stein, Deborah 11 To: 'Rod Merrick'; Clark Nelson Cc: Meg Merrick; Tom Hubka ; "Stockton, Marty"; "Dacanay, Radcliffe" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:48 PM Subject: RE: Regathering Eastmoreland

Subject: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis Hi Deborah, ( In reviewing the map ofEastmoreland that was used in the BPS Commission meeting, I am confused by some of the analysis because there are places where it doesn't appear to make sense but maybe I am not understanding exactly how the calculation were done.

The attached pdf shows the map that you presented and a map of all of the tax lots that are 6,370 sq. ft. or more (2011 were used because it was just prior to the recent lot splitting although I don't think for this purpose it would make any difference if current tax lots were used). The black outlines show some areas that I had questions about. While the western-most area may have fallenjust below the 50% threshold, the area just to the west and immediately n01th of Berkeley Park is really strange to be identified as 49% or less. Most of these lots are very large.

The map that simply shows where the 6,370 sq. ft. lots are makes a pretty compelling case, using your criteria, for a down zone of the area n01th of Bybee and west of38th with the exception of the lots facing Woodstock east of36th.

Looking at the other areas that BPS analyzed, they appear to be subareas of neighborhoods and not entire neighborhoods. I am not sure why BPS ultimately came down against the subarea approach for Eastmoreland since it followed that approach elsewhere.

~~In any case, I am most concerned about the accuracy of the analysis given the results based on my superficial review of the BPS map. Clarification would be great. ( Thanks,~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Loehlein Nell To: Stockton Marty ( Cc: Dacanay Radcliffe Subject: RE: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis Date: Monday, June 8, 2015 1:46:49 PM~~

Hi Marty, Yes, the percentages are calculated block-by-block, so the two areas that Meg had questions about exclude a bunch of lots that are less than 6,370 sq ft. The block that encompasses Berkeley Park is a little strange, because there are a handful of extremely small records that reside along the backs of some of the parcels, distorting the percentage a bit. That's the only block in Eastmoreland that has that issue though. Neil From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 1:25 PM To: Loehlein, Neil Cc: Dacanay, Radcliffe Subject: FW: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis Hi Neil (and Radcliffe), There have been a few emails following this original clarification request and attachment (please review). In regards to Meg's questions: • - My understand is that this is a block-by-block percentage. -We did not conduct analysis by neighborhood association boundaries but rather subareas, ( which tend to be subdivision plats, within neighborhood association boundaries. I will be emphasizing that the staff recommendation at the May 12th PSC work session was to down- designate area within existing Eastmoreland Plan District boundaries from RS to R7. Any other points to add? Thanks! Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: marty [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto-meg merrick@gmail com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty ( Cc: Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson 187832

e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon gov/bps ( To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City m 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty Cc: Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis Hi Deborah,

In reviewing the map ofEastmoreland that was used in the BPS Commission meeting, I am confused by some of the analysis because there are places where it doesn't appear to make sense but maybe I am not understanding exactly how the calculation were done.

The attached pdf shows the map that you presented and a map of all of the tax lots that are 6,370 sq. ft. or more (201 l were used because it was just prior to the recent lot splitting although I don't think for this purpose it would make any difference if current tax lots were used). The black outlines show some areas that I had questions about. While the western-most area may have fallen just below the 50% threshold, the area just to the west and immediately no1th of Berkeley Park is really strange to be identified as 49% or less. Most of these lots are ( very large.

The map that simply shows where the 6,370 sq. ft. lots are makes a pretty compelling case, using your criteria, for a down zone of the area north of Bybee and west of38th with the exception of the lots facing Woodstock east of 36th.

~~In any case, I am most concerned about the accuracy of the analysis given the results based on my superficial review of the BPS map. Clarification would be great. Thanks,~~

~~Meg~~

~~Meg Merrick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton, Marty To: Meg Merrick; Stein Deborah ( Cc: Rod Merrick; dark Nelson Subject: RE: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:52:00 AM~~

Hi Meg, Thanks for your patience in my reply. I needed to check in with a few staff on this response. Eastmoreland · Yes, the percentages of tax Jots that are 6,370 sq ft or more are calculated block-by-block, so the two areas that you had questions about exclude a bunch of lots that are less than 6,370 sq ft. The block that encompasses Berkeley Park is a bit of an outlier, because there are a handful of extremely small records that reside along the backs of some of the parcels, distorting the percentage a bit. That's the only block in Eastmoreland that has this issue though. Other analysis areas · Eastmoreland and South Burlingame, to date, are the only neighborhoods where there was an analysis of the full area with a Comprehensive Plan designation of RS in response to the neighborhood request of R7. Note that in South Burlingame there are also RlO and commercial designations, which were excluded from this analysis. -In conducting the citywide RS to R7 analysis, you're correct that most of these ending up as "subareas" within a larger neighborhood association boundary. These subareas often, but not always, reflect subdivision plat boundaries that had a more consistent R7 Jotting ( pattern. A good example of this is within the Reed Neighborhood Association boundary, it was only the Reedwood and Reed College Heights subdivisions that were included in the citywide analysis. Back to Eastmoreland, at the May 12lh PSC work session staff presented two options for consideration within the PowerPoint as shown on slide 14 and excerpted below: a. Retain the RS b. Down-designate area within existing Eastmoreland Plan District boundaries from RS to R7* *a minor refinement to the July 2014 proposal Here are the minutes from the May 12th PSC work session. As you know, the Planning and Sustainability Commission tentatively voted on their recommendation of "a" listed above. The Planning and Sustainability Commission's final vote will be on July 14th_ Eastmoreland residents are encouraged to raise this with City Council in written and in- person testimony once the Recommended Draft Comprehensive Plan is released in August. The City Council hearings are tentatively scheduled starting in November. Thanks Meg. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 ( 187832

~~Meg ( Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: Meg Merrick; Stockton Marty ( Cc: Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: RE: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 4:34:13 PM~~

Hi Meg, Rod and Clark, Good questions. I've asked Marty and Radcliffe to re-look at the analysis map and Marty will respond to your questions next week. Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 debora h.stei [email protected] www portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Meg Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:00 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty Cc: Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: Question about the Eastmoreland analysis ( Hi Deborah,

In reviewing the map of Eastmoreland that was used in the BPS Commission meeting, I am confused by some of the analysis because there are places where it doesn't appear to make sense but maybe I am not understanding exactly how the calculation were done.

The attached pdf shows the map that you presented and a map of all of the tax lots that are 6,370 sq. ft. or more (2011 were used because it was just prior to the recent lot splitting although I don't think for this purpose it would make any difference if current tax lots were used). The black outlines show some areas that I had questions about. While the western-most area may have fallen just below the 50% threshold, the area just to the west and immediately notth of Berkeley Park is really strange to be identified as 49% or less. Most of these lots are very large.

The map that simply shows where the 6,370 sq. ft. lots are makes a pretty compelling case, using your criteria, for a down zone of the area north of Bybee and west of 38th with the exception of the lots facing Woodstock east of36th.

~~In any case, I am most concerned about the accuracy of the analysis given the results based on my superficial review of the BPS map. Clarification would be great. Thanks, ( 187832~~

Any thoughts you have for our upcoming agenda appreciated. Please let me know if you are unable to reschedule for next week. Enjoy the sunshine. Rod ( Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

(

~~( 187832~~

underlying platted lots (a concern of many Eastmoreland neighbors that prompted the down-designation request). Note: BPS's 2015-16 Requested ( Budget includes a one-time funding request for a Single-dwelling Standards Project and Historic Resources Inventory update, and this project may address this situation. There is a lot to consider and discuss here. It is important for me to convey this information to you. As I noted above, I would have liked to have done so in person. I am available to attend the ENA Land Use meeting on March 9th, if you would like for me to attend. Please let me know how I can be of assistance. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

( From: Rod Merrick [mailto:merrick [email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:14 PM To: Meg Merrick: Kimberly Koehler: Clark Nelson; Joanne Carlson; Tom Hubka; Ed Dundon; Bill Morgan; [email protected]; Stockton, Marty; Bruce Sternberg; Roberta Hyde; Judith Kenny Cc: McCullough, Robert; Aubrey Bauer Subject: Land Use Meeting -Monday March 9 Land Use Team, I would like to ask your forbearance to postpone this months meeting until next Monday March 9 as much time last month was devoted to preparation of the Comp Plan Testimony - the final version of which is attached. The testimony was presented to the ENA Board in February, approved by unanimous vote, and subsequently submitted to the PSC and City Council among others. This version includes the exhibits and Appendix. Please take time to review and digest the contents and be prepared to discuss any criticisms or issues that we might need to defend. Our household is also dealing with Meg's fall last Friday, the result of our increasingly hazardous sidewalks, from which she is nursing a shattered elbow and awaiting surgery. The meeting notes will be issued when she is up to typing. There are 2 meetings this month - aside from Land Use that should be on our calendars: Tuesday March 8: A presentation of the proposed MIXED USE ZONES at Cleveland High School 5:30 to 8:30. It would be helpful if all committee members could attend at least enough of this to grasp the scope. See htt1:r//www portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/518935 and related links. We will want to provide comment on this as it will represent the most significant change in zoning associated with the Comprehensive Plan. Tuesday, March 24 2015, 3:00 PM to 5:30 PM PSC work session to discuss proposed zoning map changes. We will need a couple of observers for this. Keep an eye out for possible schedule changes but our neighborhood will, we are informed, be on the agenda. ( 187832

The March 1O work session is not listed on the website that I could find-only the one on March 24. But assuming this was not moved to the later date that I identified we will have to divide our attention between the mixed use presentation and the PSC work session. TBD next Monday. ( Rod Merrick, A/A NCARB Merrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503.771.7762

From: "Stockton, Marty" To: Rod Merrick ; Meg Merrick ; Kimberly Koehler ; Clark Nelson ; Joanne Carlson ; Tom Hubka ; Ed Dundon ; Bill Morgan ; "jay fetherston@gmail com" ; Bruce Sternberg ; Roberta Hyde ; Judith Kenny ~ Cc: "McCullough, Robert" ; Aubrey Bauer Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 4:19 PM Subject: RE: Land Use Meeting -Monday March 9 Dear Rod and all, Thanks for the update. I had very much wanted to meet with you all in person this evening, but for the reasons in Rod's email below, postponing the meeting is completely understandable. I am in the process of reading and digesting the Comp Plan Testimony. Thank you. The ENA testimony is very thorough and does a good job laying out the issues. Two items of note: 1) in the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Requested Budget, there are two projects (page 3 of the hyperlinked PDF) I believe directly relate to ENA testimony: Development Standards for Single-Dwelling zones and a process to initiate an update to the Historic Resources inventory. Since these are both bureau funding requests, ( they are not a given and will be decided in the City's Budget Process. 2) Materials for the March 1O PSC work session are now posted at http-//efiies portiandoregon.gov/Record/7220942. This includes staff reports and background for two of the work session topics, Residential Densities and Housing. Please review the Residential Densities staff report, especially starting on page 16 through page 21, which discusses the Eastmoreland proposal, among others in the R5 to R7 grouping, and the staff recommendation, which I have included an excerpt from page 21 below. 1. Does the PSC generally support the approach of applying R7 to areas where lot sizes are predominantly 7,000 sq ft as well as R5 areas where lots are predominantly 5,000 sq ft, near but not adjacent to centers and corridors? 2. Eastmoreland: Does the PSC support the following refinements to the July 2014 proposal? a. Acknowledge current lots sizes: Staff recommends retaining the current R5 designation where there are a large number of existing lots between 5,000 and 6,400 sq ft to avoid making these areas nonconforming in density: along SE 30th, 31st and 32nd, south of SE Bybee Blvd and north of SE Rex St, from SE 2?1h Avenue to SE Reed College Place. A portion of this area is within % mile of the new SE Bybee LRT station. b. Historic landmarks and inventoried structures: Staff continues to propose R7 north of SE Bybee Blvd and south of SE Rex St. North of SE Bybee Blvd is where the largest concentration of individually listed Historic Landmarks and structures on the Historic Resources inventory (HRI) are located. c. Address underlying platted lots: Staff recommends that code changes be considered to address the potential for confirming and building on ( 187832

Dear Deborah- the summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at ( once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R? expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony and a balanced presentation of the issues is the lease we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials relating the Eastmoreland be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand. More to follow. Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Memcl(fArc111tmu1e2P111nnW!i Portland, OR 503,771.7762

From: "Stockton, Marty" To: Rod Merrick ; Meg Merrick ; Kimberly Koehler ; Clark Nelson ; Joanne Carlson ; Tom Hubka ; Ed Dundon ; Bill Morgan ; Bruce Sternberg ; Roberta Hyde ; Judith Kenny Cc: "McCullough, Robert" Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:46 AM Subject: RE: PSC Work session date correction and briefing Thanks Rod. Confirming my attendance at the ENA Land Use Committee meeting next ( Monday, March 9th. Here is information on the March 10th PSC work session, which starts at 12:30p.m.: http·llwww.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/510458 The annotated March 10th agenda is here: http://efiles portlandoregon gov/RecordU235929 Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Rod Merrick [mailto:merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 12:27 AM To: Stockton, Marty; Meg Merrick; Kimberly Koehler; Clark Nelson; Joanne Carlson; Tom Hubka; Ed Dundon; Bill Morgan; Bruce Sternberg; Roberta Hyde; Judith Kenny Cc: McCullough, Robert Subject: PSC Work session date correction and briefing Many Thanks to Marty for her comments and interest in briefing us. She will be most welcome next weekl ( This will be a very important meeting for us. 187832

~~From: Engstrom Eric (Plannfna) To: Stockton, Marty; Stein Deborah; Zehnder Joe Subject: RE: PSC W°(!< session Misrepresentations ( Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 4:11:39 PM~~

It might be good to clarify a few things with him. The published PSC agenda simply identifies this as a Comp Plan work session. Our e-news and other published materials have identified the residential topic as something that will be discussed. The general agendas and e-news do not typically include the detailed decision lists/annotated agendas that the Commission sometimes uses to manage their time within each topic - but we are happy to provide that - it is not necessarily secret. Send them the detailed annotated agenda if they need to see that. Their most recent testimony will not be ignored - it simply came in after we wrote the staff report. Remind them that these work sessions are iterative. If the Commission wants staff to respond to specific points in the testimony they will certainly do that, and that discussion could continue at a future work session. From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:51 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Zehnder, Joe Subject: Fw: PSC Work session Misrepresentations Heads up. Please see below.

Sent using OWA for iPhone ( From: Rod Merrick Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 3:25:12 PM To: Stockton, Marty; Meg Merrick; Kimberly Koehler; Clark Nelson; Joanne Carlson; Tom Hubka; Ed Dundon; Bill Morgan; Bruce Sternberg; Roberta Hyde; Judith Kenny Cc: McCullough; Robert; Bud Oringdulph; Catherine Mushel Subject: Re: PSC Work session Misrepresentations Land use Team. Assuming you have read the documents Marty referenced there are very serious problems with the mis-representation of the Eastmoreland requests for R7 and the questions to be answered by the PSC. There is no mention of our testimony submitted last week. These "questions" are to be discussed according to Marty during the PSC work session during the March 1O meeting -next Tuesday afternoon. Looking at the agenda I dont see specific reference to the subjects so this must be a secret agenda. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels around architectural heritage: there is no research and no documentation to counter our research. Tom and Joanne are working on a response. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to "slow the rate of change". There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. I am working with Robert on an inter-neighborhood wide response. I propose to issue the following initial response addressed to the author: ENA Testimony Ignored. ( 187832

~~Service: 711.~~

( From: JR Merrick [mailto·jrm@merrick-archplan com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 I :42 PM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: meeting Marty, when you get a chance give a call to discuss the proposed technical meeting. Regards, Rod Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB Merrick Architecture Pla1111i11g Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

~~Meg Merrick~~

(

~~( 187832~~

aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. (

From: Meg [mailto:meg merrick@gmail com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 8:14 AM To: J R Merrick Cc: Stockton, Marty; Clark Nelson; Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: Re: meeting time I can do any time before 2:00. Meg

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 27, 2015, at 10:02 PM, JR Merrick wrote:~~

We are trying to set a time for the technical meeting to analyse lot and density issues among other issues. Let me know your availability please. I am available Wednesday April 1 after 11 :30, out of town on the 8th Rod Rod Merrick, AL4 NCARB Merrick Architecture Pla1111i11g 0 Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

From: "Stockton} Martyn ( To: JR Merrick Cc: 11 Stein, Deborah 11 ; "Dacanay, Radclift"e 0 Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:07 PM Subject: RE: meeting Hi Rod, I just left a voicemail for you. Right now, we have some availability on Wednesday, April I st in the morning or Wednesday April 8111 in the morning. There may be other dates and times as well, but I wanted to check in with you on those two options first. I am out of the office tomorrow, Friday, March 27, so if one of these dates/times works, please "reply all". Thank you. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I P01tland, OR 97201 p: 503,823.2041 f: 503,823.5884 e: marty.stockton@pmtlandoregon gov w: www.pmtlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City ·of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay ( 187832

Clark.Nelson@phseny com 503.417.7691 ( PBS Engineering+ Environmental Engineering J Natural Resources] Enyironmental I Health and Safety lDD'' nhseny,com .J412 SW Corbett A\'enue, Porllaml OR, 97239 pb: 503.248.1939: fa~: 866,727.0140 This electronie communication and its attachments are intended oni.'' for the person(s) to whom it is :1ddressed and ma,\' conlain confidential information, If you arc not lhc inlended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified lhat any use, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any al'tion relying upon this message is prohibited. If you ha\'e reeeh'ed this . i_nform_ation in error, e!_e..'..~!..•.!E.!.i_f>.:__~!!_~-~c-~~-u.______---··--·~·-··-.------__ From: N!eg Nierrick [mailto·meg merrick@gmail com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:50 PM To: Rod Merrick Cc: Stockton, Marty; Clark Nelson; Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: Re: meeting time Marty,

~~I can do the Wednesday times and I could meet on Friday morning but would need to be out by 12:15 pm.~~

Meg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Rod Merrick wrote: Marty, Friday ( 4/3 10:30-1) is NA for me. Other times Friday ok for me. The Wednesday 11: 15 to 12:30 would be better unless others are not available through lunch. Tuesday and Thursday are open as well. Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB 1 Wll.ilfji!lif!ifiit1llte--1r:iR-cc - .. . -- _IJ}'!lJ,J[,,.,iJIJJP~"'·-"iJif!i ' ( Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

From: "Stockton, Marty" To: Meg ; JR Merrick <;[email protected]> Cc: Clark Nelson ; Tom Hubka ; Judith Kenny Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:20 PM Subject: RE: meeting time Hi all, The 1 la.m. to noon is the only available window with a couple key staffs schedules on Wednesday, April lst.1 have a tentative hold on that time slot. I see that Rod is out of town on the 8111• Perhaps we should try another day? Does Friday, April 3rd 10 to 1 la.m. work? Again, I do have Wednesday, April 1st at 11 to noon held, but I am aware that this may not work with Rod's schedule. We'll keep trying. Thanks, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Po1tland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Pottland, OR 97201 p: 503,823.2041 f: 503,823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.po1tlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will ( provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliaty 187832

Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability ( 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 [ Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.p01tlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:43 PM To: 'Clark Nelson'; Meg Merrick; Rod Merrick Cc: Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: RE: meeting time Hello, Thanks to you all for your quick replies. I think it is best ifwe stick with the Wednesday, April 1st from 1 la.m. to noon date/time. Rod, we'll expect you around 11 :15. We'll be.meeting in our building at 1900 SW 4th Avenue on the i 11 Floor in Conference Room 7A. Radcliffe Dacanay and I can stay past noon, but Deborah Stein has to leave close to noon for a monthly technical advisory committee meeting at the airport. Morgan Tracy who is scoping the Single-Dwelling Development Standards Project will also be joining us. The purpose of this meeting is to share om· refined methodology and analysis. We will be sharing ( this information with the Planning and Sustainability Commission in a memo on Monday of next week. I am happy to put together an agenda. Please let me know if you collectively would like an agenda item(s). This time is a shared opportunity. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxilimy aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Clark Nelson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3 :0 I PM To: Meg Merrick; Rod Merrick Cc: Stockton, Matty; Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: [Approved Sender] RE: meeting time I can meet Wednesday but not Friday. Clark Nelson Senior Project Manager ( 187832

~~From: Rod Merrick To: Stockton Marty; Clark Nelson; Mea Merrick ( Cc: Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for meeting tomorrow at 11a.m. Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:55:40 PM~~

~~Thinking along the same lines, .....~~

Marty Stockton Bev Stein Rod Merrick Morgan Tracv Clark Nelson Meg Merrick Radcliff Tom and or Judith Hubka Items for discussion 11: Introductions Underlying lot lines. Mapping challenges and impacts analysis 11 :15 Reviewing the issues and options for resolution Resolving Goal conflicts within the Plan Parallel projects- code revisions, housing study, Questions for policy analysis and decisions Presentation and decision schedule 11:50 Problem definition and Presentation of issues and scope of staff recommendations to the PSC Requesting party review 12:15 Wrap up and Action items Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Milrfck~Ccnlle'citutDJanntiJ.ti Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

~~From: "Stockton, Marty" To: Clark Nelson ; Meg Merrick ; Rod Merrick Cc: Tom Hubka ; Judith Kenny Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:49 PM Subject: Proposed agenda for meeting tomorrow at 11 a.m.~~

Good evening, The proposed agenda includes: - Introductions ( all) -Purpose of this meeting and timeline (Deborah and Marty) -Overview of the refined methodology and analysis (Radcliff) -Discussion around Eastmorelancl 's five questions {all) -Next steps (Matty) In regards to the agenda item in bold above, you may want to prioritize items for discussion due that we have an hour for this meeting. I have attached the five questions that Rod generated for staff. We look forward to meeting with you tomorrow. Thanks again for making time for this discussion. With kind regards, ( 187832

0 Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762 ( From: 11 Stockton, Marti' To: JR Merrick Cc: 11 Stein, Deborah" ; 11 Dacanay, Radcliffe" Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:07 PM Subject: RE: meeting Hi Rod, I just left a voicemail for you. Right now, we have some availability on Wednesday, April 1st in the morning or Wednesday April gth in the morning. There may be other dates and times as well, but I wanted to check in with you on those two options first. I am out of the office tomorrow, Friday, March 27, so if one of these dates/times works, please "reply all". Thank you. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Pottland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Po1tland, OR 97201 p: 503,823.2041 f: 503,823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Pottland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and ( provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: JR Merrick [mailto:jrm@merrick-archplan com) Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:42 PM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: meeting Matty, when you get a chance give a call to discuss the proposed technical meeting. Regards, Rod Rod Merrick, AL4 NCARB Merrick Architecture Pla1111i11g Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762

~~MegMenick~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Thursday are open as well. ( Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB ~~rr1Ji1lf1fttll;fJ.Jftlll-._t®lffiJJ!i1 Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

From: "Stockton, Marty" To: Meg ; JR Merrick Cc: Clark Nelson ; Tom Hubka ; Judith Kenny Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1 :20 PM Subject: RE: meeting time Hi all, The l la.m. to noon is the only available window with a couple key staff's schedules on Wednesday, April 1st. I have a tentative hold on that time slot. I see that Rod is out of town on the 3th. Perhaps we should try another day? Does Friday, April 3rd IO to I la.m. work? Again, I do have Wednesday, April 1st at 11 to noon held, but I am aware that this may not work with Rod's schedule. We'll keep trying. Thanks, Maity Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison P011Iand Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503,823.2041 f: 503,823.5884 ( e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

From: Meg [mailto:meg.men'ick@gmail com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 8:14 AM To: JR Merrick Cc: Stockton, Matty; Clark Nelson; Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: Re: meeting time I can do any time before 2:00. Meg

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 27, 2015, at 10:02 PM, JR Merrick wrote:~~

We are trying to set atime for the technical meeting to analyse lot and density issues among other issues. Let me know your availability please. I am available Wednesday April I after 11:30, out of town on the 8th Rod Rod Merrick, AL4 NCARB ( Merrick Architecture Pla1111i11g 187832

Radcliffe Dacanay and I can stay past noon, but Deborah Stein has to leave close to noon for a monthly technical advisory committee meeting at the airpo1t. Morgan Tracy who is scoping the Single-Dwelling Development Standards Project will also be joining us. ( The purpose of this meeting is to share our refined methodology and analysis. We will be sharing this information with the Planning and Sustainability Commission in a memo on Monday of next week. I am happy to put together an agenda. Please let me know if you collectively would like an agenda item(s). This time is a shared opportunity. With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Pottland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.pmtlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City lTY 503-823-6868,oruse Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Clark Nelson [mailto:Clark.Nelson@pbseny com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:01 PM To: Meg Merrick; Rod Merrick Cc: Stockton, Marty; Tom Hubka; Judith Kelllly Subject: [Approved Sender] RE: meeting time ( I can meet Wednesday but not Friday. Clark Nelson Senior Project 1\fanager Ciark,Nelson®pbseny,com 503.417.7691

PBS Engineering+ Environmental Engineering I Natural Resources I Ellvironmental j Health and Safety www nhsenY rom 4-112 SW Corbett An:·nue. Porthrntl OR, 97239 ph: 503.HS.1939: fax: 866.727.0140 This electronic communkation and its iltfachments nre intended only for the pcrson(s) to whom it is addressed and may rontain confidential information. If you are not the intem.Ied recipient of this message, )'OU are her('by notified that any use, retransmission, distribution, re-production or any action relying upon this messag(' is prohibited. If you have receked this .!!formation in error, plea~t_!_l_o_tify the sender'. ______From: Meg Nierrick [mai1to-meg [email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:50 PM To: Rod Merrick Ce: Stockton, Marty; Clark Nelson; Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: Re: meeting time Marty,

~~I can do the Wednesday times and I could meet on Friday morning but would need to be ont by 12: 15 pm.~~

Meg On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Rod Merrick wrote: Mmty, Friday (4/3 10:30-1) is NA for me. Other times Friday ok for me. The Wednesday 11: 15 to 12:30 would be better unless others are not available through lunch. Tuesday and ( 187832

~~From: Rod Merrick; To: Stocktoo Marty; Clark Nelson; Meg Merrick ( Cc: . Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for meeting tomorrow at 11a.m. Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:58:44 PM~~

~~Marty - for this exercise ii would be good to attach and have available the relevant maps Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB JV1Jffi\tclc$J9]Jiti!fcttrt.~Rffinl:lijjff Portland, OR 503. 771. 7762~~

~~From: "Stockton, Marty" To: Clark Nelson; Meg Merrick; Rod Merrick Cc: Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:49 PM Subject: Proposed agenda for meeting tomorrow at 11 a.m.~~

Good evening, The proposed agenda includes: - Introductions ( all) -Purpose of this meeting and timeline (Deborah and Marty) - Overview of the refined methodology and analysis {Radclifl) -Discussion around Eastmoreland's five questions (all) -Next steps (1vlarty) In regards to the agenda item in bold above, you may want to prioritize items for discussion due that we have an hour for this meeting. I have attached the five questions that Rod generated for staff. We look forward to meeting with you tomonow. Thanks agaiq for making time for this discussion. With kind regards, Maiiy Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Pmiland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Po1iland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Monday, March 30, 20 l 5 4:43 PM To: 'Clark Nelson'; Meg Merrick; Rod Merrick Cc: Tom Hubka; Judith Kenny Subject: RE: meeting time Hello, Thanks to you all for your quick replies. l think it is best ifwe stick with the Wednesday, April l st from l la.m. to noon date/time. Rod, we'll expect you around l l: 15. We'll be meeting in our ( building at 1900 SW 4th Avenue on the ?1h Floor in Conference Room 7A. 187832

~~From: Tracy, Morgan ( Planning} To: JR Merrick Cc: Steln, Deborah; Dacanay, Radcliffe; Stockton Marty ( Subject: RE: Links and plans Date: Wednesday, April I, 2015 4:37:40 PM~~

Rod, Thanks for sharing this info. I appreciate the commitment of time and effort involved. I'll let you know next month when we have more certain direction on the single dwelling zone project. Also, keep me posted if you wouldn't mind as you flesh out the testing diagrams. Nice meeting you. Sincerely, Morgan Tracy, AICP I City Planner II City of Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW Fourth Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 www portlandoregon gov/bps/ricap 503.823.6879

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-6879, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. ( From: JR Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:53 PM To: Tracy, Morgan ( Planning) Cc: Stein, Deborah; Dacanay, Radcliffe; Stockton, Marty Subject: Links and plans Morgan, Good to meet you today and I look forward to working with you. Here are the documents discussed. Comp Plan Testimony including Appendix A history Comp Plan Testimony supplemental questions Special (Area Plan or Plan District) current draft with implementation plan Testing diagrams. (these are crudely rendered and in draft form but to the point) And finally a link to the neighborhood goals workshop presentation that in addition to history addresses the zoning code issues. http://www.eastmoreland org/wp-contenl/uploads/2014/03/ENA-Landuse- Neighborhood-Workshop-1-11-2012 pdf Let me know when you get to a point (in May) when you would like to discuss the issues. Thanks again for meeting with us. Rod Rod Merrick, A/A NCARB t@JiriittR~AJ{

couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. ( A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC conunission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to 11 "slow the rate of change • There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. Rod Merrick, AJA NCARB 1'.Ierrick Architecture Planning Portland, OR 503.77/.7762

~~I \~~

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Anderson, Susan To: Stein Deborah Cc: Zehnder Joe; Engstrom Ede (Planning}; Stockton, Marty; Wright Sara ( Subject: Re: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 9:40:28 PM~~

~~Since he copied the Mayor, please check with Jackie and see if they were going to reply ... Then we can decide what to send. Thanks~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:39 PM, "Stein, Deborah" wrote:~~

I'll draft a reply tomorrow (and run it by you first, if you want). I'm going to assert that the PSC has the benefit ofreviewing Eastmoreland's testimony directly; it's not necessary to incorporate it into our report ( and, of course, we received their most recent testimony filkr our repo1t was published). Our methodology is different than theirs -- in large part because our desired objectives are different. I can highlight these differences for the PSC at the work session on Tuesday. Postponing the discussion isn't a good plan, because it's quite possible that the PSC might want to digest the information, ask a lot of questions, and then follow up at a subsequent session (March 24 or April 14). If we postpone, we have less time available for any follow up. This is all complicated stuff and we made a conscious attempt to simplify our staff report so it's digestible. We didn't attempt to incorporate all of the background work we did in order to arrive at our recommendations, but we ce1tainly can share this with ( the PSC. Any other points I should make? Deborah Stein J Principal Planner J Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 J Portland, OR 97201 J 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www.p01ilandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of P01tland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxilimy aids/services/alternative fo1mats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [majlto·merrick map@yahoo com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robe1t; Stockton, Mmty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- We arc formally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March 10 work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and docs not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are ( 187832

Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability ( 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 debora h .stein@portla n doregon .gov www.portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- \Vc are formally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March 10 work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, distmis the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional information to follow this. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or oflhe adopted 0 11 neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to slow the rate of change • There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Meiiick?Areliitel:tui'.e~Janijijig Portland, OR 503.771. 7762

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stein Deborah To: "Rod Merrick"; McC111fo11gh Robert Cc: Stockton. Martv ( Subject: RE: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 5:03:53 PM~~

Rod and Robert, please see the corrected date highlighted in yellow below. I hope you both have a good weekend. Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 [email protected] www portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City m 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Stein, Deborah Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:39 PM To: 'Rod Merrick'; McCullough, Robert; Planning and Sustainability Commission Cc: Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor; Robinson, Matthew; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Subject: RE: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Rod and Robert, My team and I appreciate the depth of analysis and documentation your neighborhood has prepared, and I want to ( sincerely thank you for your detailed testimony. We received Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association's testimony after the February 25, 2015 staff report had already been completed, and this is why your testimony was not directly acknowledged in that report. I want to make sure that the process is transparent to you and other members of the public. Testimony is being bundled and sent to PSC members on a regular schedule. Testimony received up until noon on February 24th. was delivered to the PSC on February 25th, in preparation for the March 10th work session. I understand that your testimony arrived ofter that time, and consequently wasn't included in that packet. I agree it's very important for the PSC to have ample time to review your detailed testimony in advance of their work session. Therefore, we decided to alter the agenda for March 10th and postpone discussion of Eastmoreland and other related R5/R7 areas to the following work session on March 24th_ Much of your testimony addresses issues that comprise the basis for a "single-dwelling housing and compatibility" project staff proposes to commence this summer, pending approval of funding in the 2015-16 budget. Your testimony about issues related to alternative development standards and lots of record entitlements is quite helpful to advance this discussion; we appreciate how you've documented these issues. In a budget request for the FY 2015-16 budget, staff proposes to examine and revisit regulations related to: • demolition of existing housing stock • scale and design of new single-dwellings and the role of neighborhood character • narrow-Jot development and density • transitions between single- and multi-dwelling development • design in conservation and design districts I understand that Marty Stockton will be joining you for your neighborhood association discussion Monday evening, and she'll be happy to elaborate and answer questions. Regards, Deborah ( 187832

~~Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association~~

~~( robert@mresearch com 503-771-5090~~

(

~~( 187832~~

~~From: Stockton, Marty To: Rod Merrick; Clad< Nelsoo Cc: Robert McCullough; McCullough, Robert ( Subject: RE: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:39:00 PM~~

Dear Rod and Clark, In regards to tonight, please let me know what I can bring that would be helpful to the conversation. Otherwise, I plan to join you at 7:00p.m. Hard copies of the residential densities staff report? Other? I am leaving the office at 5:00p.m. or shortly thereafter to grab dinner. Thanks! With kind regards, Marty Marty Stockton J Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 J Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portfandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, ( translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TIY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Robert McCullough [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:31 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Marty; Rod Merrick; Clark Nelson Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah: Thanks for your timely response last Friday.

Eastmoreland wants to reiterate the need to revise the staff report to reflect the questions and positions as presented in the ENA testimony in advance of the March 24 work session. Accurately representing the testimony would seem to be consistent with the intent and purpose of public engagement. I have asked our land use committee to prepare a detailed rebuttal. The land use committee will be working with Marty on this on Monday. ' Infill, demolition, displacement. and design are issues that middle class tax paying single family neighborhood residents take very seriously. By all appearances the BPS seems to be attempting to brush off the issues and ignoring the crisis of confidence that they have been instrumental in creating holding up density as a self evident public good. Selectively increasing density is only one of many goals advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Since it is not even mentioned in the "Guiding Principals" it appears to be somewhere down the list of indicators or criteria for creating and healthy. equitable, resilient. and prosperous city envisioned in the plan. Robert McCullough

~~President ( 187832~~

appropriate zoning for the Eastmoreland neighborhood is confusing and simplistic at once. The summary fails to acknowledge the original request from the ENA December 2013 that stem from adopted neighborhood goals, ( distorts the representation of the overwhelming opinion of support for the R7 expressed in the MapAp, and does not include the extensive written testimony provided by the neighborhood previously submitted and attached to this email. The arguments are couched in such a way to bias the outcome of the discussion in favor of the status quo. The neighborhood expended a great deal of effort over an extended period to develop the testimony. A balanced presentation of the issues is the least we can expect. For this reason we request that these materials be withdrawn and rewritten in consultation with the neighborhood(s) in question so that the PSC commission has information that accurately reflects the questions at hand after the end of the comment period March 13. Some of the issues: The issue of density vs lot size is not addressed. There is no mention of our original request to place the entire neighborhood in the R-7 zone that city staff have chosen to ignore in the MAP APP Related to architectural heritage. The description dividing of the neighborhood into confusing parts and parcels is incomprehensible. There is no research and no documentation to counter our research as presented with additional infonnation to follow this. The summary of the comments from the map app makes no indication of the level of support or of the adopted neighborhood goals underlying the requests- Just that the neighborhood is attempting to "slow the rate of change". There is no discussion of the underlying lots of record issues. The argument posed by staff against the changes is that changing the zoning will compromise density standards which is precisely what the code has done. Rod Merrick, AIA NCARB Miffi'.wffi'Al'milifflrfiifelefannmu Portland, OR 503.771. 7762

(

~~( 187832~~

From: Stein, Deborah To: nRod Merrick"; McCullough, Robert; Planning and susta!oabflity Commission Cc: Stockton Marty; Hales, Mayor; Robinson ·Matthew; Engstrom Ede (Plannfng) ( Subject: RE: ENA Testimony Ignored Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 4:39:03 PM

Dear Rod and Robert, My team and I appreciate the depth of analysis and documentation your neighborhood has prepared, and I want to sincerely thank you for your detailed testimony. We received Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association's testimony after the February 25, 2015 staff report had already been completed, and this is why your testimony was not directly acknowledged in that report. I want to make sure that the process is transparent to you and other members of the public. Testimony is being bundled and sent to PSC members on a regular schedule. Testimony received up until noon on February 23rd was delivered to the PSC on February 26th, in preparation for the March 10th work session. I understand that your testimony arrived after that time, and consequently wasn't included in that packet. I agree it's very important for the PSC to have ample time to review your detailed testimony in advance of their work session. Therefore, we decided to alter the agenda for March 10th and postpone discussion of Eastmoreland and other related R5/R7 areas to the following work session on March 24th. Much of your testimony addresses issues that comprise the basis for a "single-dwelling housing and compatibility'' project staff proposes to commence this summer, pending approval of funding in the 2015-16 budget. Your testimony about issues related to alternative development standards and lots of record entitlements is quite helpful to advance this discussion; we appreciate how you've documented these issues. In a budget request for the FY 2015-16 budget, staff proposes to examine and revisit regulations related to: • demolition of existing housing stock • scale and design of new single-dwellings and the role of neighborhood character • narrow-lot development and density ( • transitions between single- and multi-dwelling development • design in conservation and design districts I understand that Marty Stockton will be joining you for your neighborhood association discussion Monday evening, and she'll be happy to elaborate and answer questions. Regards, Deborah Deborah Stein I Principal Planner I Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 I 503.823.6991 deborah [email protected] www.portlandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me at 503-823-6991, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Rod Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:06 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Planning and Sustainability Commission; Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Cc: McCullough, Robert; Stockton, Marty; Hales, Mayor Subject: ENA Testimony Ignored Dear Deborah- ,ve are formally requesting that the discussion of the R-7 zoning specifically relating to Eastmoreland be removed from the PSC Commission agenda for the March 10 work session. The summary of issues to discuss assembled for the PSC commission as of February 25 regarding zoning ( 187832

~~From: Stockton Marty To: Frederiksen Joan; Stein Deborah ( Subject: RE: edits· re S Burlingame sections and minor other Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:37:00 AM~~

Edits to page 21 per Joan/Marty check-in: 7 Discussion questions: 1. Does the PSC generally support the approach of applying R7 to areas where lot sizes are predominantly 7,000 square feet, and RS where lots are predominantly 5,000 square feet, near but not adjacent to centers and corridors? 2. Eastmoreland: Does the PSC support the following refinements to the July 2014 proposal? a. Acknowledge current lots sizes: Staff recommends retaining the current RS designation where there are a large number of existing lots between 5,000 and 6,400 square feet to avoid making these areas non-conforming in density: along SE 30th, 315t and 32nd, south of SE Bybee Blvd and north of SE Rex Street, from SE 27th Avenue to SE Reed College Place. A portion of this area is within Y, mile of the new SE Bybee LRT station. b. Historic landmarks and inventoried structures: Staff continues to propose R7 north of SE Bybee Blvd and south of SE Rex Street. North of SE Bybee Blvd is where the largest concentration of individually listed Historic Landmarks and structures on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) are located. Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability ( 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. From: Frederiksen, Joan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:01 PM To: Stein, Deborah; Stockton, Marty Subject: edits re S Burlingame sections and minor other See edits on pages 2, 3, 17, 18, 22 Thank you for all your awesome work. Feel free to rejigger any of it or text me with question. I am happy to be available. Joan

~~( 187832~~

> ( > Sorry to be so annoying, I just want to make sure I get everyone's proposals right and don't miss anything. You all have a lot of proposals in, so it's not an easy process for you to review them all, but we must.

~~> > Thanks for all your help, I am under the general impression that it all went smoothly this time, which kind of scares me ...~~

~~> > Carmen~~

~~> > Carmen Piekarski - GIS Analyst~~

~~>[email protected] > 503-823-6891 ( > City of Portland - Bureau of Planning & Sustainability~~

~~> 1900 SW 4th Ave #7100~~

~~> Portland, Oregon 97201~~

~~> >~~

~~( 187832~~

~~-----Original Message----- From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) ( Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:30 PM To: Piekarski, Carmen Subject: Re: Comp Plan map status~~

~~So far the PSC has not changed anything today, except they decided to not down zone Eastmoreland. It stays RS.~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~> On May 12, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Piekarski, Carmen wrote:~~

~~> Hi All~~

> I believe the map is done, with the exception of a few properties for IC that Marty and John are sorting out. ( > I have cross checked GIS data to Database, and vice-versa. You all have fixed errors I noted. So, I think we are just about there. Right?

~~> I have attached export from the database this morning. I put each DL's records on a separate tab (Nan, you get 2 tabs, one extra for Open Space).~~

~~> I have included ALL records, Active (status= 1) or Inactive (status= 0) so that you can insure you have everything checked the way you want it.~~

~~> If you change something from here on out you have got to let me know.~~

~~> A word of warning - again - if something is in the database and not checked ACTIVE and you've never told me about it. It will not be in ( GIS data. 187832~~

~~From: Stockton. Marty To: Piekarski, Cannen Cc: Cole John Andrew ( Subject: RE: Easbnoreland Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:47:00 PM~~

~~Hi Carmen,~~

~~Without verifying all the R numbers, it appears that both records 132 and 133 need to come off. I just deactivated these two records.~~

~~Marty~~

Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 1900 SW 4th Avenue I Suite 7100 I Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www portiandoregon.gov/bps To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will ( provide translation, reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact me, call 503-823-2041, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711.

~~From: Piekarski, Carmen Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:55 PM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: Eastmoreland~~

~~Hi Marty,~~

~~So per Eric's response below. Eastmoreland comes off the map. There are 2 records 132 & 133. Do they both come off or just 133?~~

~~Carmen~~

~~<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> ( 187832~~

~~> ( > If you change something from here on out you have got to let me know.~~

~~> > A word of warning - again - if something is in the database and not checked ACTIVE and you've never told me about it. It will not be in GIS data.~~

> > Sorry to be so annoying, I just want to make sure I get everyone's proposals right and don't miss anything. You all have a lot of proposals in, so it's not an easy process for you to review them all, but we must.

~~> > Thanks for all your help, I am under the general impression that it all went smoothly this time, which kind of scares me ... ( > > Carmen~~

~~> > Carmen Piekarski - GIS Analyst~~

~~> [email protected]~~

~~> 503-823-6891~~

~~> City of Portland - Bureau of Planning & Sustainability~~

~~> 1900 SW 4th Ave #7100~~

~~> Portland, Oregon 97201~~

~~> >~~

~~( 187832~~

~~Hi Marty,~~

~~So per Eric's response below. Eastmoreland comes off the map. There ( are 2 records 132 & 133. Do they both come off or just 133?~~

~~Carmen~~

~~<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>~~

~~-----Original Message----- From: Engstrom, Eric (Planning) Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:30 PM To: Piekarski, Carmen Subject: Re: Comp Plan map status~~

~~So far the PSC has not changed anything today, except they decided to not down zone Eastmoreland. It stays RS.~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~> On May 12, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Piekarski, Carmen wrote: ( >~~

~~> Hi All~~

~~> > I believe the map is done, with the exception of a few properties for IC that Marty and John are sorting out.~~

~~> I have cross checked GIS data to Database, and vice-versa. You all have fixed errors I noted. So, I think we are just about there. Right?~~

~~> I have attached export from the database this morning. I put each DL's records on a separate tab (Nan, you get 2 tabs, one extra for Open Space).~~

~~> I have included ALL records, Active (status= 1) or Inactive (status= 0) so that you can insure you have everything checked the way you want it. ( ' 187832~~

~~From: Piekarski Carmen To: Stockton, Marty ( Subject: RE: Eastmoreland Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:48:36 PM~~

~~Thanks, will do.~~

~~From: Stockton, Marty Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 4:48 PM To: Piekarski, Carmen Cc: Cole, John Andrew Subject: RE: Eastmoreland~~

~~Hi Carmen,~~

~~Without verifying all the R numbers, it appears that both records 132 and 133 need to come off. I just deactivated these two records.~~

~~Marty~~

~~( Marty Stockton I Southeast District Liaison Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability~~

~~1900 SW 4th Avenue J Suite 7100 J Portland, OR 97201 p: 503.823.2041 f: 503.823.5884 e: [email protected] w: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps~~

~~From: Piekarski, Carmen Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:55 PM To: Stockton, Marty Subject: Eastmoreland ( 187832~~

~~From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 A11PDT To: smanharkan~~

'ff Bobtrt Ms:Cullongh, fa51mm:law:I I EAQ Ik.ar Neighbors: Re: Res)dentia\ lots of=ot"dandzon,e changes We request the honor of your pre;enre in silent protest at the Planning and Su,tairubility Commission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or before 4pm at 1900 SW 4th Aw. Rm 2SOO. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will diswss 'Residential D:nsities." lw PSC \\ill consider requested and/or proposed zoning chmges and "historic lots ofre..."Ol"d" policies in several neighbomoods under ooruideration for zoning appropriate for the context Carefully prepared testimony fromEa.stmoreland and other neighborhoods was di~regarded in the staffs forcd march to prq,are their report and rec=odations on testimofly before the testimony was due. The is.sues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastmore!and are presented and discounted in a \\ay that rou!d be characterizd as intentionally misleading. This was the timing of events: February 24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmot"eland submits its te5timony February 25, 2014: Staff coounents issued March 10,2014: PSA Work.Session March 13. 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misupresented in the que,tions posed and then recommended for rejection. The scores of comments favoring

change on the "Map App TI hm~ bun distilled into a corso,y sentenre followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal wai filed as part ofthe testimony. 1he March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns' was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is expected to focus on the local issues on a city wide basis. Howewr the staff report and rewmmenda.tions stand. Planning staff received 4000 items of testimony in the dosing week alone and are in process of digesting. Our position that staff have ample time to digest all testimony and to commwiicate \\ith recognized organizations-esp,xially Neighborhood Associations- to verify that their con,;erru are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to be addm.sed. ( Again, please attend on Tuesday March 24 at or b-efore 4pm (or as early as Jprn)at 1900SW 4thAve,Rm2SOO, street or basement parking or bus 19, to obserye the discussion and silently expres.s your concem PS At this time materials for the March IO PSC work s=ion are not available to the public on the website. We \\ill updlte \\hen available. The pos.ted agenda (bHp-/6-ww portlaudoo:goo godms'artid ) is as follows. Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Or<.kr Items of Interest from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 p.IIL Consent Agenda Consideration of Minutes from 3/10/15 PSC meuting 3:05 p.m. Comprehensi•,e Plan Update - \\wk session PP&R Transportation Non.:onfocming Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.IIL Adjourn hl..J.r...2.LinililliEJ. to w11r O'i~hlwhrr,J

~~Yw c.w. al50 reply to this rn:i:!il. "",e Nnldoorfor ~or &:.l.rcii~~

~~Thi, ~-..i,.trknWf«r ,... -~.-·\ ·-<-,-.,.,, ,.--] .y.-., !o~ ~'SJJl:,· 'l ,,t·11r:1 m·,,J sr,-ti,-,-,~~

~~( 187832~~

~~from, ~ T<>: S.RO,',Q;'ffim foQ~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Susan Anderson mote:~~

~~Please connect with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can get the word out.~~

~~Sent from mobile devic.:.~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:26 PM, ~Engstrom, Eric (Planningt wrote:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanisrn to rorrect a few things with this group, rd focus on this:~~

~~1) The 4000 comments is the number of romments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March IO. Tiiat date was simply one of7 or 8 different work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

3) The residential density topic is scheduled for the March 24 session, but it is scheduled between approximately 5:45 and 6:45. There are sevcra\ other topics scheduled earlier on the same work session, which starts at 3.

~~4) All slaff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were firsl released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or ( Next door? I'd hate to see a crowd of angry people haye to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~- Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail v.Tote:~~

~~Yes. The misinformation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial ...~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, ·Dabbs, Eden~ <&Jen Dahhs,Wrx:utlandoregon gov>v.TOte:~~

FYI, this looks like a Nextdoor post, which means it's going out to eve[yone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good moti\·ation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. Ed,,. P.W,., ('oa;a;,,Ll<•l>.-u, "Pot& .\fl"dr> Cily«P-lfu.'«1>,:,ff'i~o:,JS~~C:,, p5'l3 lill%>;3ic5'lJ2ffi)J.-Jl lf5')l ll23 lb)l ~T»tho:-=-·BFSE-<:~~«':<>, ,=.... h'y ,,,.~;i;:fy p;,liti,.'<1. <>.~'t me, c,U 5')).$13.(;947, Ci!,' TTY S,JJ-823~. ,;,r = Ot:eg,.""' Rehy Sonic~; 711. From: Gmail [mailtn11S1nlli1rkandecson'?gmail rnm] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 I 1:25 AM To: Dabbs, Eden; Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Stein, Deborah Subject: Fwd: Eastmordand presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Much of this is incorrect ... .like the 4000comments in the last week. .. Also we delayed hearing the eastmoreland part so that PSC could review their romments Deborah, what do you think about calling him? And ask him to correct the misinfonnation.

~~Sent from my iPad ( Begin forwarded message: 187832~~

3:03 p.m. Consent Agenda Consideration ofMinutes from 3/10/15 PSC m-ting 3:0S p.m_ CompreheIBive Plan UJXlate -work =ion PP&R ( Transportation Non.:onforming Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn lli.2.Lin iliAfwl. to your nfiob hmb,v,J

TB,~'~fo,~~•'wl-,,--a.. .,,-,,)"'~ I' s krnb: v •f;!-11,•1;w,l s; ·· l'

(

~~( 187832~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~( On 1far 21, 2015, at I 1:32 AM, ftDabbs, Eden" \note:~~

FYI, this looks like a Next door post, which means it's going out to everyone who signed up for that news feed. Susan, et al- We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good moti\•ation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, Jet's talk about the most es.sen ti al Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. r,&..D,bb,,("oa.n.tlktlbul'l,.l&,\JTW-, Citr dP.or'....::J Ba=<, dF!,,,., h~ o,,!S~""'7-""-~ p 5')} ID ,;,;,:•I I c ~J U:,J 3Y.l! I f5()} tl3 71>)l Ss..'=>0< 11> & .,,.,.- BPS £-c,c,;s'.,a,. ru,:mt.'y m,Jify ,._,s.:>e;.'pr,..,.J,_.,,e, am f"'\-i,1,, ~,.rilitt}· ails.'=vi,~~'a."t=, tt1n1!>l>.,as,. ,:,.'O:f".1!.t,t,., UJd !,:lJ;ti,.'<1i! o:[,:irm,.1k,a, ,:,.~~ rr.o. cill 5'JJ-S2J-69H, Gt)· TTY 51ll-SB-a6S.,

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 AM PDT To: wwobilckander:sonfnlgmail com Subject: Eastmorelaod presence needed at Comprehensh·e Plan meeting Reply-To: repJy+Gf4DMNRRHA:W&!DSN5SHKY1I JNEX\V4X20!5 JYIXZRQAYPSNRYGQ-t°====@rastmoa:Jaodor nestdoor com

~~~ Rf«f1 MrOd)ongb, fasmorel;m~~

~~from1 To: fog;tn;o Frie '%::rioo'r ~ Th= J ~.., '" Re:~,:rea,"d~a,.-..,.,d,2d;,tCoT~cl-.iffi\S!l'1a!'lrc..«,o;i ""'""'Date: S<.r,d,J,f, ~.,,-ch 22, 2015 lt:3-S:41AH ( Good morning,~~

I spoke with Rod Merrick, ENA Land Use Chair, last Thursday afternoon. He is already clear that staff is not presenting on the designation/zoning staff recommendation for Eastmoreland on Tuesday. lie is also clear that staff are open to some R7 in Eastmoreland, but is unclear about political support.

We should discuss on Monday what our next steps with Eastmoreland are. Rod is already aware of the refined methodology and analysis we're conducting. A small follow up m~ting is needed, quickly, \\ith the Merricks/Robert/etc.

~~Note there is work that can be collaborated on \\ith the ENA Land Use Committee and then there is the ENA pubilc campaign/advocacy that we will see on Tuesday.~~

As Rod said to me two weeks ago ... the designation/zone change is the end game. There is no confidence that the underlying lots "ill be addres.sed which is the root cause of ENA frustration. Parallel fmstrations are demolitions and the scale/design of new housing stock. This is a theme in submitted testimony from Eastmoreland, Concordia, South Burlingame, Mt. Scott·Arleta, etc. Concordia is now asking for the R7 designation/zone. I would expect more neighborhoods to take this route.

~~This deseryes more discussion.~~

~~Thanks, Marty~~

~~Sent using OWA for iPhone~~

From: Stein, Debor.ah Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:29:45 AM To: Susan Anderson Cc: Engstrom, Eric (Planning); Dabbs, Eden; Thompson, Julla; Stockton, Marty Subject: Re: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting One more bit of clarification: my plan for the 3/24 work session is to introduce the issues related to Eastmoreland (as part of a larger set of refine trial do"n designations), but not ask PSC for a recommendation. Unfortunately we'll need to find an upcoming agenda to fit this into. I think there is simply too much to cowr in one hour this Tuesday and we can't jump into the designation/zone question in eastmoreland without explaining the issue of underlying lots and minimum lot sizes, etc. (which all relates to the scope of the sf residential scope of work that I believe Eric is presenting at the April 14 work session as in informational item). So, we should infonn eastmoreland folks that PSC won't be deciding anything Tuesday- but we will be outlining the issues.

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Susan Anderson «;11sanharkanderson@gmai! rom>\\Tote: (~~

~~Please conne<:t with Robert directly on Monday morning so he can gel the word out.~~

~~Sent from mobile device.~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at I :26 PM, ~Engstrom, Eric (Planning)9 \note:~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, I'd focus on this:~~

~~I) The 4000 comments is the number of comments rec-ei\·ed during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the fmal week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March 10. That date was simply oneof7 or 8 different work.sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for v,hich they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or Nextdoor? rd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start al 3.

~~· Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail <~nsmhackanderson@pmail corn> \note:~~

~~Yes. The misinformation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial... ( 187832~~

1900 SW 4th Ave, Rm 2500. The Planning and Sustainability Commission will discuss "Residential Demi ties." The PSC \\ill consider requested and/or proposed zoning changes and vhistoric lots of record" policie-s in several ( neighborhoods under consideration for zoning appropriate for the context. Carefully prepared testimony from Eastmoreland and other neighborhoods was disregarded in the stall's fOfced march to prepare their report and recommendations on testimony before the testimony was due. The issues as framed for the PSC regarding Eastmoreland are presented and discounted in a way that could 00 characterized as intentionally misleading. 1his was the timing of events: Februruy24, 2014 4:45 PM: Eastmoreland submits its testimony Februaiy 25, 2014: Staffcomments issued March 10, 2014: PSA Work Session March 13, 2014: Testimony Deadline In the staff report ENA positions are being misrepresented in lhe questions posed and then reCOllllllended for rej«tion. The scores of comments favoring change on the "Map App" have b«n distilled into a cursory sentence followed by opposition arguments. A partial rebuttal was filed as part of the testimony. The March 10 Agenda "Lot Patterns• was deferred and the staff presentation on the 24th is exJ>«-led to focus on the local issues on a city wide basis. However the staff report and recommendations stand. Planning staffrn--eived 4000 items ofte-Stimony in the closing week alone and are in process of digesting. Our position that stall'hm, ample time to digest all testimony and to conununicate with recognized organizations-especially Neighborhood Associations- to verify that their concerns are being presented in an even handed manner is yet to 00 addressed. Again, please attend on Tuesday :March 24 at or before 4pm (or as e3fty as 3pm) at 1900 SW 4th A\•e, Rm 2500, street or basement parking or bus 19, to observe the discussion and silently express your concern. PS At this time materials foc the March IO PSC work session are not available to the public on the website. We will update when a\·ailable. The posted agenda (bUp.,/»:ID'' oortlandill!:t'OU gm·1hps.'vtid ) is as foHows. Agenda 3:00 p.m. Call to Order Items oflnterest from Commissioners Director's Report 3:03 p.m, Consent Agenda Consideration of Minutes from3/I0/15 PSC meeeting 3:05 p.m. Comprehensi\·e Plan Update- work session PP&R Transportation Nonconforming Uses Residential Densities Centers & Corridors 7:45 p.m. Adjourn .hlr!L.2.1.in .G..ml:!a.l to your n,•igbhwbrot

~~Fn'l'®:rI'>· Cf "''Ill'!,~,, omil su;n -;~~

~~( 187832~~

~~from: foom ftic moco:m) To: c., ~St&! Prl?ri@h·Jbt:·n;v,~~

~~Eden,~~

~~If there is a mechanism to correct a few things with this group, I'd focus on this:~~

~~l) The 4000 comments is the number of comments received during the entire 9 months that testimony was accepted. We received a few hundred comments in the final week.~~

2) The PSC did not discuss Eastmoreland on March 10. That date was simply one of7 or 8 dift'erent work sessions that the PSC has had since November, after holding 4 public hearings. There are several additional sessions scheduled, including March 24, April 14, May 12, May 26.

3) The residential density topic is scheduled for the ·March 24 session, but it is scheduled between approximately 5:45 and 6:45. There are several other topics scheduled earlier on the same work session, which starts at 3.

~~4) All staff reports are posted online, and can be most easily located at the PSC website, under the date of the session for which they were first released.~~

Do we take the opportunity to email the neighborhood, or directly post a hint about Tuesday's schedule on their Facebook page or Next door? I'd hate to see a crowd of angry people have to wait 2 hours before this topic comes up. We should try to alert them that this topic does not start at 3.

~~- Eric~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Gmail «;us,1oh.-1ckaodersool'mgmail com> ·wrote:~~

~~Ye-s. The misinfonnation flying around on Nextdoor posts is substantial..~~

~~Sent from my iPad ( On Mar 21, 2015, at 11:32 AM, ~Dabbs, Eden" wrote:~~

FYI, this looks like a Ne:-.idoor post, which means it's going out to e\·eryone who signed up for that news feed. Stt.-an, et al - We're about ready to launch our ND site. This could be good motivation to make it happen soon! Eric/Deborah, let's talk about the most essential Comp Plan messages to get out via this channel. l'.dn:IS..:s'.li:u1:ilitr p503 Sl39'A(lru.oly rrx..Jify p,.-.&ks.-'pn.,~,, and pro.-ide a'Riliuy a.i.f;/5e" i...... -'altcrn,ti;-., for=ts to per-;ms ffi!h dis,l,ilmes.. foe a,mm.m

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~Begin forwarded message:~~

From: Nextdoor Eastmoreland Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:02:22 Mi PDT To: S11Sanbackandersonl'mgmail com Subject: Eastmoreland presence needed at Comprehensive Plan meeting Reply-To: repJy+QE4DMNRRHA3Y64DSN5SHKY3l TNFXW4X2QJSJVIXZRGAYDSNRYC',Q4Q====@eastmoreiaodor oextdoor com lJ1 Robert McCnllongb, Blstrnoreland r FAD Dear Neighbors: Re: Residential lots of record and zone changes We request the honor ofyour presence in silent protest at the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) on Tuesday March 24 at or ix fore 4pm at ( ' 187832

~~December 28, 2015.~~

~~( TO: Mayor Hales and City Commissioners~~

~~FROM: NWDA Transportation Committee~~

~~RE: Transportation-Related Comprehensive Plan Policies, Projects and Programs~~

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recommended Draft of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Some of our previous comments on the Staff Recommendation have been incorporated into the Recommended Draft, but we also continue to have some concerns.

Policies We support the added emphasis on transportation demand management (Policies 9.52 - 9.54), but we understand that the actual regulatory elements are not yet fully developed. It is hard to support policies without the accompanying code and ordinances. For transportation demand management to be fully effective, new regulations should apply to all development, not only to new development.

We also support the increased emphasis on parking management, particularly Policies 9.58, Share space and resources, and 9.59, Cost and Price. While we support "Discourage employee and resident parking subsidies," we are interested in how'the City will implement this statement.

( Policy 9.60, Bicycle Parking, has improved, but we continue to be concerned that adequate bicycle storage for residents is not reflected in current code language. As we said earlier, "The bicycle parking requirements need to be updated to require adequate space for on-site bicycle storage that is not in residential units and accommodates larger bicycles and bicycle trailers. This is particularly important as new residential units are often quite small and a bicycle is not easily accommodated.

Concerns Under Campus Institutions, Policy 6.57, Development Impacts, calls for protecting the livability of neighborhoods though adequate infrastructure. In Northwest Portland, there is very little ability to increase capacity to address institutional growth. This policy, or a new one, should address the need of institutions to have rigorous transportation demand management programs to reduce the impacts of growth.