Adjustments

No, not switching to campaign mode following the Portland City Council’s referral yesterday of horrible Charter amendments to the May ballot – although that will indeed require an attitude shift. The “Adjustments” of the title are land use reviews, in which developers ask the city to change the standards in the Zoning Code, and citizens are invited to comment on whether and why the requests should be approved. A standard is a rule that is clear and objective, usually measurable – things like requiring 5 feet between a building and a property line, or the number of parking spaces for an office or retail use. An Adjustment allows those types of standards to be waived or changed. A Land Use Review is a process prescribed in the statewide land use planning system, which gives citizens the right to comment whenever discretionary decisions are made in a development application.

Alert readers with good memories, and/or Amanda for Portland campaign supporters, may remember the week after the primary election last May. Not exactly a happy time for folks in the latter group, or for me personally. But life has a funny way of helping you out, as Alanis Morissette pointed out. Mayor Potter chose that week to bring a resolution to Council asking the City to suspend the Adjustment Committee – a group of volunteers who are the final decision-makers on Zoning Code Adjustment requests. The Bureau of Planning wanted to allow a City employee to make those decisions, rather than the committee, alleging that there were no volunteers to fill four vacant seats. Even in my ran-into-a-brick-wall stupor, that was not something I could allow to go unchallenged. The full story is here; the short version is that in less than a week, I recruited 13 volunteers for the 4 spaces, and we were able to get the Council to keep and re-energize the Committee with fresh, diligent volunteers.

So I feel a measure of responsibility and affection for the Adjustment Committee. I want the seven citizens who serve on it to make good decisions that respect the rules in the Code, and give both applicants and neighbors fair and even opportunities to affect whether the request is approved or denied. Stay with me here, as I tell you about a real-life case currently under consideration. Looking at an actual example often helps illustrate the underlying principles and policy issues surrounding infill development in Portland. Updated 2/9/07, 7:30 a.m. & 8:45 a.m.

A case pending in the Buckman neighborhood concerns a proposed development at SE 20th & Morrison. I became very fond of eastside 20th Avenue over the course of my campaign. Our office was at SE 18th/Ash, and I discovered 20th Avenue as a very useful north-south through street, crossing I-84 to the north and intersecting with all the major east-west eastside arterials to the south. It’s a busy street.

The proposal at SE 20th/Morrison currently before the Adjustment Committee is a mixed use development with 48 40 homes, commercial space on the ground floor on Morrison, and 55 underground parking spaces. The Adjustment being requested is to reduce the code-mandated on-site parking area loading spaces of 35’Lx10’Wx13’H (truck size), to 18’Lx9’Wx10’H, or the equivalent of two car-sized parking spaces. Addendum 2/9/07: Note that the Code doesn’t require a particular number of resident parking spaces, because the site is on a frequent bus line.

The way Adjustments work isn’t just getting seven people on the committee to discuss, “well, whaddayathink? Sound good to you?”. There are “approval criteria” in the Code – questions that the decision-makers must answer to determine whether the answer should be Yes or No, Approval or Denial. For Adjustments, perhaps the most important is the first: Will the request equally or better meet the purpose of the standard to be modified? In this case, the applicant is required to show that not having a truck-sized loading area will be just as good as having it.

Now, I haven’t read the file, and I haven’t heard the developer’s or the staff’s sides of the story. But on the face of it, reasonable people should find it hard to decide that not having something is as good as having it. Particularly when the “something” is an area suitable for a moving truck, in a building with 48 homes, or for a supplies truck, for the commercial businesses. The application is asserting the reduced size of the loading area is justified because it leaves more space for parking residents’ cars.

My opinion:

In effect, the neighbors are being asked, “Would you rather have problems with truck loading, or would you prefer problems with more parking on neighborhood streets?” But that’s not the question in the criterion in the Code. The standards in the Code are supposed to ensure that development meeting it will be reasonably compatible with the neighborhood and will have enough of all the needed amenities – truck loading and resident parking. Addendum 2/9/07: Although the Code doesn’t specify a particular number of resident parking spaces on this site, due to the questionable City policy that homes on/near bus routes don’t need any off-street car parking, an Adjustment does require that the proposal be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood – which would generally include consideration of where residents will park. And a truck loading area is a standard that is deemed necessary. That’s why they’re called standards, and the Code requires both – because we want them both. If there isn’t enough room for both areas, that doesn’t mean one or the other should be cut. It usually means the building has been drawn too big for the site, leaving inadequate space for the required parking/loading facilities, and the correct solution is a better building design that fits the lot and leaves room for both the required vehicle areas. [End of my opinion]

There are other complications in the case, such as the question of whether the developer is even allowed to apply for the Adjustment, since a density bonus is also being requested and the Code allows only one or the other. The site has two different zoning designations, so some rules apply on one side, other rules on the other. It’s not an easy, obvious case, and I admire and thank the citizens both in the neighborhood and on the Adjustment Committee, all of whom are volunteering their time and talents to figure out the intricate details and convoluted rules. There is no potential personal benefit to any of these folks in the outcome of the application. They are all in it only because they want to see Portland remain a wonderful place to live, work, and play, as we grow, infill, and redevelop.

Bureau of Development Services staff approved the Adjustment request in an administrative decision, which Buckman neighbors appealed to the Adjustment Committee. Their final decision will be made on February 20. Neighbors have already announced they plan to appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if the Adjustment is approved.

Addendum 2/9/07, 8:45 a.m.: Thinking about this more during the morning drive home from school, with the reminder e-mailed to me that no resident parking is required at this site, I see another twist to the policy issues. And that is, whether the Code or the market should determine the outcome in this case. As noted in the updates, I made a mistake in forgetting there aren’t a certain number of resident parking spaces required here. So if the Adjustment Committee rules only on the Code, it is clear that required truck loading spaces trump non-required car spaces. What they are being asked to consider, really, is the market. In practice, many of the residents of the 40 homes in the new building will have at least one car. And not having on-site parking spaces will make the units less marketable for sale or rent. Rather than redesigning the building to allow for both required truck loading space and desired parking spaces, the application seeks to waive tbe required to meet the desired.

Since, as Frank notes in the comments, this happens frequently, the Adjustment Committee should request that the Bureau of Planning prepare a report for consideration by the Planning Commission. It should look at built projects where the truck parking was waived, and see if that is working; and it should look at residential buildings’ parking capacity and how the policy of not requiring a certain number os spaces has worked out. In the meantime, it seems to me that not providing a truck loading area on busy streets like SE 20th & Morrison, is not equally or better met by adding more parking that the Code doesn’t currently require.