红桃视频

Listen to this article

Tensions ran high during a recent briefing before the Portland Design Commission, where the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) presented proposed zoning code changes aimed at addressing the city’s housing crisis.

“When I read these 16 amendments,” Commissioner Zari Santner said, “it sort of breaks my heart because it negates a lot of the hard work that you all (BPS) put into as part of the 2035 (Comprehensive) Plan and zoning codes.”

The proposed housing production strategy, outlined in the Housing Regulatory Relief Project, includes a temporary five-year suspension of several zoning codes and development standards identified in a Bureau of Development Services (BDS) survey as the top obstructions to housing production. It includes suspending the requirement for ground-floor active uses in areas outside of the central city, removing eco-roof and bird-safe glazing requirements and shortening the development review process.

BPS, which usually writes the design guidelines and zoning codes, is now asking the Portland City Council to amend them within three months. Sandra Wood, principal planner at BPS, said, “This isn’t an easy task for any of us.”

However, the tight timeframe for studying and discussing the effects of the zoning changes has been criticized as “shortsighted” by members of the Design Commission. Santner expressed concerns that some changes could be “detrimental” to the quality of life and well-being of people, especially in maintaining an active ground floor, which has been shown to reduce crime in areas.

Santner inquired whether the proposed amendments had been studied to determine potential time and cost savings. However, due to the project’s tight schedule, a comprehensive study was not feasible, according to Wood. She added that each of the regulations likely costs less than 1 percent of a building, in the case of a $26 million project.

鈥淚 think what we’re hearing a lot from developers: It’s the cumulative effect of … what we’re trying to balance with this proposal,鈥� Wood said.

Commissioners, however, remain unconvinced that the benefits outweigh the long-term costs of some of these changes. Buildings are constructed to last for 50 years or more, and temporary measures may have lasting consequences.

“My main concern, panic and fear,” Commissioner Jessica Molinar said, “is mostly about ground floors and active use.”

A project’s proposal could temporarily waive requirements for ground-floor active use, height standards and higher window coverage outside the Central City. The intent of the standards are to ensure “mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods.鈥� But survey respondents said it created potential barriers to development and increased costs, especially for affordable housing projects.

Molinar said her primary concern, however, is the blanket approach to waiving ground-floor requirements for all residential areas. She said that ignoring active use on ground floors isn’t the way people experience a city. Suddenly, having sporadic residential sections when walking on a street “destroys the fabric of the public space.”

Commissioner Chandra Robinson likened the situation to what happened downtown. When everyone left the city, businesses struggled to say open, leading to bars on windows, she said.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 why it鈥檚 scary downtown, because there are not enough people on the ground floor looking out for each other, making the street a place that you want to be,鈥� she said.

In contrast, Commissioner Sam Rodriguez, who serves as the senior managing director for Mill Creek Residential, said the proposed zoning code changes are 鈥渢oo little.” He said more needs to be done to prevent Portland from ending up in the 鈥渄oom loop,鈥� where commercial real estate decline affects commerce and local tax revenue.

鈥淲e’re losing the value proposition of living in the city of Portland,鈥� Rodriguez said.

Portland lost around 8,300 people from July 2021 to 2022, making it the sixth-largest decline among U.S. cities, .

However, some measures, such as simplifying the development review process and removing parts of neighborhood contact requirements, appear to limit public input on projects, Robinson said.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 actually (the) cost benefit here? Is it going to save time? Is it going to save money for developers?鈥� she said. 鈥淏ecause if you’re talking about 1 percent, that is not worth changing our zoning code and changing our city for 50 years.

鈥淲e need housing so badly, but we don’t need subpar housing that’s not going to actually get (built) any faster,鈥� Robinson said.