Minutes from Board Meeting 2.4.14

Reed Neighborhood Association Board Meeting

6:35 p.m., Tuesday, February 4, 2014 @ Tucker-Maxon Oral School (new location)

Present:  Doug Menely, Mark Gossage, Heather Fields, Lloyd Lemmermann, Kathy Truman, Marisha Childs, Kelly Fedderson, Gabe Headrick.

 

Meeting convened at 6:40 p.m., Quorum present

 

Prior to moving on to any agenda items, meeting minutes from October need to be approved.  Marisha brought this to the attention of the group.  Gabe motioned to approve the meeting minutes from October, Doug seconded.  All voted to approve.

 

Financials Update

  • Michelle not present, RNA has $2571.78 in account, unchanged from last report.
  • Doug discussed neighborhood clean-up with Eastmoreland to bring in additional revenue.

 

SE Uplift update

  • Kelly Fedderson present to discuss visioning.
    • Brainstorm flyer options
    • March 4th from 6-8, Tucker-Maxon in the gymnasium, kids welcome (Marisha will secure location…done).
    • Marisha moved to allow Kelly to spend no more than $300 of communications fund for visioning flyer.  Gabe seconded.  All in favor, no opposed.  Passed.

 

Reed College Update

  • Kevin Myers no present due to scheduling conflict, will likely send a representative in the future.

 

Website update

  • Mark discussed ideas from communicating with website person to steer traffic to our website.

 

Meeting Schedule

  • Should the meeting schedule change?  Mark and Gabe addressed the issue of meetings.  Marisha had the bylaws read the section regarding frequency of meetings.  Perhaps the meeting frequency should be changed?  Kelly suggested perhaps restyling the meetings into forum with invited guests or allowing neighbors to pick a topic to discuss.  Issue was tabled for now, maybe after the visioning it will have a more clear direction.

 

Land Use

  • Gabe needs a separate evening to discuss all the land-use/Renaissance home issues that are going on, but when to schedule it???
  • Lot at 33rd and Raymond is to be divided and built into three homes courtesy of Renaissance Homes.
    • Heather and Kathy are disappointed as both their homes are negatively impacted by some new homes which have gone up by Renaissance Homes.
    • Heather’s home is now eclipsed by a RenHome and no longer receives sunlight nor does her daughter’s room have the benefit of the moon-glow at night.
    • Kelly inquired about lot splitting limiting height requirements.
      • Gabe’s short answer => there is no mechanism for this.  The only other way is the Historic Preservation.  But this is not an immediate fix, rather long term, comprehensive plan.
        • Historic Preservation would require cataloging the area; what qualifies this are to meet the definition of a “historic district”? Size of land?  Style of house?  This would be a time consuming process and has pros and cons.
        • Kelly encouraged Gabe to connect with Robert McCollough of Eastmoreland as he seems to be connected with civic leaders.  Gabe knows Robert and acknowledged his connectedness, however Gabe also pointed out that although Robert has an ability to meet with people it has not yielded action.
    • Gabe encouraged looking at the Comprehensive Plan map app on the City’s website.

 

Publications in the BEE

  • Marisha mentioned she had communicated with someone at the Bee about publishing our calendar for meetings as a way to encourage greater neighbor participation.  The BEE said it would cost the regular advertising rate.  Since this meeting Michelle and Kevin have since provided me additional information that I could publish this information in the community calendar for FREE (always a good price!).

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

City Club of Portland Views on Water/Sewer rates

Draft City Club report recommends changes to Portland water, sewer bureaus to improve oversight and build ratepayer confidence
Report recommends ‘no’ vote on proposed ballot measure, proposes alternate structure
The City Club of Portland today released a draft research report that recommends a new governance structure to improve oversight of the Portland’s water and sewer bureaus, while recommending a “no” vote on a proposed ballot measure to create a separate Portland Public Water District.
“While changes are needed in oversight and management of these bureaus, this ballot measure is not the solution,” the committee states in its report. “More modest steps can improve the process of setting (bureau) budgets and rates and enhance the effectiveness and efficiencies of the bureaus.”
New Governance Structure
The committee recommends creating a semi-autonomous Portland Water and Sewer Authority that would remain part of City government, but would provide independent management and oversight of the Portland Water Bureau and the Bureau of Environmental Services, which manages the city’s sewer and wastewater services.
The Authority would propose budgets to City Council and set utility rates. While City Council would continue to set policy for the utilities and approve their overall budgets, it would not engage in any administrative functions related to the utilities. The Authority would appoint an administrator for each utility who would oversee and manage the bureaus.
The goal of establishing the Authority is to “promote independent, accountable, sustainable and effective management and oversight,” the report states. “The Authority will better insulate the utilities from political and special interest pressure and help ensure accountability for long-term planning and efficient management.”
The report notes that Portland’s water and sewer bureaus are doing several things right in midst of challenges. For example, the city bureaus are taking expensive but necessary steps to meet environmental regulations and replace aging infrastructure, and their work in asset management is highly regarded in the industry.
Still, the research committee found several problems with the current structure, and concluded: “ratepayers are rightly concerned about how their utility dollars are being spent.” Public services as essential as sewer and water require more focused, dedicated and experienced oversight, the report concludes.
Ballot Measure Recommendation
In recommending a “no” vote on the May 20 ballot to create a new government entity, the committee found the ballot measure is poorly structured, likely to face legal challenges, and unlikely to save money. “Your committee sees nothing in the measure that will guarantee (lower rates.)  Rates will continue to be subject to upward pressure, regardless of the utilities’ governance.
The draft research report and recommendations, titled “ Rising Rates and Customer Concerns: Assessing Governance of Portland’s Water and Sewer Utilities,” will become the official position of the City Club of Portland if a majority of its members vote to approve it by March 19. The committee interviewed 31 witnesses, including supporters and critics of the City’s water and sewer bureaus. The committee also studied the governance, of water, sewer and wastewater utilities in other municipalities.
DISCUSS
City Club will host an informational town hall about the report’s findings, conclusions and recommendations,Wednesday, March 12, 5:30-7:00pm at the Green Dragon, 928 SE 9th Ave., Portland. FREE and open to everyone, but space in limited. Click here to reserve your space.
VOTE
City Club members will vote on the report and its recommendations prior to the forum on Friday, March 14, at The Governor Hotel, starting at 11:30am; doors will open at 11:00am. Voting will occur at that meeting and online. The outcome of the vote will be published on the City Club of Portland’s website and reported in the City Club Bulletin, released Thursday, March 20. Voting on City Club reports is a perk of membership, along with all these other benefitsJoin today!
GET INVOLVED
Help shape the future of Portland & Oregon. Apply by Friday, April 4 to serve on a Board or Committee at City Club of Portland. We have openings on the Board of Governors, Research Board, Advocacy Board, Friday Forum, Member-Led Forum and New Leaders Collective.Click here to fill out an application.

Current trends in Land use

Trends In Land Use – March Edition
By: Bob Kellett

The amount of new development in the SE Uplift coalition neighborhoods has been significant over the past year. Apartment buildings are seemingly springing up left and right, homes are being demolished and replaced by something different, and the splitting of lots is continuing to take place. Our quadrant is clearly a place where people want to live and where developers are eager to cash in on that desire.

house3One issue that has sprung up from this new development is the impact it can have on the solar access of neighboring properties. You’ve probably seen examples of this where a single story older home is right next to a recently built modern home that is much taller and bigger in scale. The difference in height and the placement of the new home effectively blocks the older home, and its backyard, from light it used to get prior to the new home’s construction.

For many of us, access to light seems like it should be a right and when it has been taken away it feels like our rights have been violated. The Doctrine of Ancient Lights, based on English law, essentially makes that case by saying that after a number of years the owner of a long-standing building has the right to maintain her home’s level of illumination. If a neighbor wants to build something that obscures the light, the neighbor must get permission.

This doctrine has been rejected in the U.S. courts, most notably by the Florida Appellate Court in the landmark Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. case in 1959. The court ruled that a property owner does not have the legal right to the free flow of light and air across the adjoining land of his neighbor.

Even with this ruling, there are regulations that cities can enact to try to protect solar access. In fact, Portland once did this very thing. Back in 1986, Portland City Council passed ordinances that prohibited new houses from casting shadows on their neighbors. The impetus at that time was to encourage the use of a solar energy.

The regulations were met with strong resistance from the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland who argued that they limited the types of homes that could be built and drove up the cost of doing business. After three years of contentiousness, a compromise deal was reached with most of the solar access regulations being removed. What remains in the zoning code today is very little in terms of solar protection.

SolarAccess-FortCollinsThe current pace and form of new development has led to a renewed interest in exploring ways to protect solar access. For some people, solar access protection means limiting the building heights of adjacent properties. That certainly would be one option that could be explored. Some cities have had success with regulations that require developers to orient and design lots so that structures of a certain height will not block solar access to adjacent lots. This often takes the form of requiring buildings to have “step downs” in height as it gets closer to an adjacent property.

Another approach is to create “solar setbacks” for new development. These are determined by a formula that considers the height of a building, the angle of the sun when it is at its highest point, and the topography of a lot.

Other municipalities have processes for obtaining solar access permits or recording solar easements, which can establish the right to solar access for an existing or planned lot (this usually is done to protect solar panels from being blocked). A few cities have used a concept of a “solar fence” which is a hypothetical opaque fence that encircles a property at up to a certain height above the ground.

While some of these options would be difficult to implement in an urban environment like what we have in our neighborhoods, it seems that they might be at least worth considering as our city continues to try to accommodate new development while also trying to maintain the existing character of the neighborhoods.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Ways to save energy and money this winter

 

Headline: Easy ways to save energy—and money—this winter

 

As temperatures begin to drop, heating bills across Reed will begin to rise. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the typical U.S. family spends at least $2,000 a year on home utility bills. Unfortunately, a lot of that money is wasted when heat escapes through leaky windows or ducts, walls and ceilings without insulation, or by inefficient heating and cooling systems.

 

Luckily, there are many things North Reed neighborhood residents can do to prepare our homes for the cold months ahead. An energy-efficient home will keep your family comfortable while saving you money—and in the long-term, energy upgrades increase the value of your home.

 

What can you do right now to help your home run more efficiently and feel more comfortable? Here are four easy energy-saving steps that are good for both pocketbooks and the environment.

 

  • Take advantage of winter sun. The sun does come out in Portland in the winter. When it shines, be sure to open south-facing window curtains, drapes and blinds during the day, as sunlight can naturally heat your home. Close window coverings at night to keep the heat in.

 

  • Cover drafty windows. Tape a do-it-yourself, clear plastic film to the inside of your window frames. Make sure the plastic is sealed tightly to the frame. Installing window treatments, such as blinds, drapes or shades, can also help reduce heat loss.

  • Adjust the temperature. Set the thermostat 10 to 15 degrees cooler when you’re not home to use less energy and lower utility bills. You can also lower the temperature slightly at night and add an extra blanket to the bed for a comfortably warm night.

 

  • Get a free home energy assessment to remove the guesswork and pinpoint more energy saving opportunities. Clean Energy Works will send a certified contractor to your home to identify ways to make it more efficient. Get a customized report that includes which energy efficiency upgrades will help generate the most energy savings. Those savings may be worth an additional $2,000 in incentives, and Clean Energy Works also points you to the best financing options for the upgrades.  Get started with your free energy assessment here: www.cleanenergyworksoregon.org/energy-assessment

 

Whether you take simple steps or use the whole-house approach—making your home perform better will stretch your investment and comfort in your older home.

 

About Clean Energy Works

Clean Energy Works (CEW) is a non-profit, public-private partnership that accelerates total home performance across Oregon. The organization brings together local contractors, lenders, governments, and utilities to make it easy and affordable for Oregonians to improve the comfort and health of their homes, while lowering energy waste by a third or more. Learn more online: http://www.cleanenergyworksoregon.org

 

District Mapping Sessions- Definitions / Acronyms

District Mapping Sessions Definitions and Acronyms May/June 2013

The following are definitions and acronyms of commonly used terms related to district mapping conversations:

1. Comprehensive Plan Update and Periodic Review – Portland’s Comprehensive Plan helps the City prepare for and manage expected population and employment, as well as plan for and coordinate major public investments. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended several times since it was adopted in 1980 but it has never been updated as a whole. Portland is now updating the entire Comprehensive Plan for the next 20 years. Portland is updating its Comprehensive Plan, as required by the State of Oregon, through a process called “periodic review”. The fundamental purpose of periodic review is to ensure that cities’ comprehensive plans are:

Page 1

May 2013

• • •

Updated to respond to changes in local, regional and state conditions, Coordinated with other comprehensive plans and investments, and In compliance with the statewide planning goals, statutes and rules.

2. Transportation System Plan (TSP) – The TSP includes the City’s 20􏱄year plan for transportation improvements and transportation policies. The purpose of the TSP is to guide the maintenance, development and implementation of Portland’s transportation system. It also implements State and Regional plans and regulations.

3. Citywide Systems Plan (CSP) – A list of significant projects that describe major public facilities, such as streets, sidewalks, stormwater systems and parks, needed to support future development.

4. Urban Design Framework – A map of the city that illustrates the direction and future aspirations for the city’s physical environment, identifying areas of change and future connections, along with major built, natural and cultural features.

5. Pattern Areas – Portland is defined by five broad “pattern areas” defined by characteristics such as: topography and physical features, streets and block patterns, form and intensity of development, character of landscape, time period in which the area was developed, and land use.

CENTERS

6.

7.

Town Centers – Town centers serve a number of neighborhoods, or districts, providing a wide range of commercial, employment and community services. Town Centers also play an important role in accommodating growth. Many town centers in Portland are already designated in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept.

Neighborhood Centers – Neighborhood centers are smaller and primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods and provide opportunities for additional housing and low􏱄rise commercial and mixed use buildings. Neighborhood centers have aPage 2

May 2013

District Mapping Sessions Definitions and Acronyms May/June 2013

central role in helping achieve more “complete communities” where Portlanders have the option of meeting their daily needs within a walking distance of home.

CORRIDORS

8. Civic Corridor – the city’s most prominent streets, and often the widest. They connect centers, help unify the city and region, and have the potential to be distinctive places of community pride.

9. Neighborhood Corridor 􏱄 connect neighborhoods with each other and with other parts of the city. Some Neighborhood Corridors serve as the anchor of activity within a Town or Neighborhood Center

10.Greenways – make up an accessible system of pedestrian􏱄 and bike􏱄friendly green streets and trails that link centers, parks, schools, natural areas, and other key community destinations.

11.Habitat Corridors – are a system of habitat connections and linked tree canopy that benefit people and wildlife by weaving nature into the city and connecting large natural areas. Habitat Corridors range from streams and the associated tree canopy to broad swaths of habitat such as Forest Park.

TRANSIT STATIONS

12.Urban Center Stations 􏱄 provide access to a mixed􏱄use center or corridor. These areas are the greatest priority for housing development because they provide access to both high􏱄quality transit and services.

13.Neighborhood Stations 􏱄 provide access to a primarily residential area with high􏱄density housing. Areas within 1⁄2 mile of the stations are the focus for housing development to expand opportunities for people to live close to high􏱄 quality transit.

14.Employment Stations 􏱄 provide access to employment areas, serving areas with concentrations of jobs and commercial uses. Residential development is not an important component.

15.Commuter Stations 􏱄 provide multimodal connections to light rail (bus connections, bike access, park􏱄and􏱄ride facilities, etc) but do not play a major role in accommodating residential or employment growth.

16.Destination stations 􏱄 provide access to regionally important places, such as the Portland Zoo, the Airport, or Cascade Station. Housing and employment is not an important component.

Summary Notes from the Comprehensive plan conversations

Summary Notes Comprehensive Plan Update District Mapping Conversations Southeast District Meeting 1 –June 1, 2013 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Next SE District Mapping Session: June 22, 2013, 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. at SE Uplift 3534 SE Main

Twenty􏱁five community members in attendance: Peter Stark (Central Eastside Industrial Council, Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee), Bob Kellett (SE Uplift), Rober McCollough (Eastmoreland), Melissa Bockwinkel (North Tabor), Tony Jordan (Sunnyside), Doug Klotz (pedestrian advocate, Richmond), Terry Griffiths (Woodstock), Gene Dieringer (Woodstock), Linda Nettekoven (Hosford􏱁Abernethy, Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee), Steve Schmunk (Sellwood􏱁Moreland), Gabriel Frayne (North Tabor), Brian Posewitz (Sellwood􏱁Moreland), Meg Merrick (Eastmoreland), Rod Merrick (Eastmoreland), Mat Millenbach (Sellwood􏱁Moreland), Steve Szigethy (Brooklyn), Julia Goode (Sunnyside), Jean Baker (Division􏱁Clinton Business Association), Lew Scholl (Montavilla), Travis Diessen (Portland State University), Heather Flint Chatto (Richmond), Don MacGillivray (Buckman), Susan Pearce (Hosford􏱁Abernethy), Nancy Chapin (Community and Neighborhood Business Organizations Coordinator, Brentwood􏱁Darlington), Bob Stacey (Metro, Richmond)

Four Bureau of Planning and Sustainability staff in attendance: Matt Wickstrom, Tom Armstrong, Spencer Williams, Ken Kalynchuk

1. Materials. Attendees were provided with an agenda containing three working assumptions related to the SE District mapping session. These working assumptions were: Citywide:

A. Current Comprehensive Plan Map designations provide adequate capacity for housing and commercial uses to accommodate projected population growth.

B. Current Comprehensive Plan Map designations do not provide adequate capacity for industrial and institutional employment lands to meet projected growth in the next 25 years.

Southeast:

C. In all existing and potential centers and corridor areas, there is enough Comprehensive Plan Map capacity for residential and commercial growth. The discussion in SE is about place making – identify/re􏱂affirm, refine and make more complete through land use, infrastructure projects, other implementation programs, etc.

Discussion questions were also included on the agenda. They were:

A. What does more “complete communities” look like for SE? What are each area’s assets and what’s missing in these different areas?

B. What are the key places you’d like to see connected within SE and to other destinations outside of SE? How might existing connections be improved?What types of new connections are desired and where might they be located?

C. What principles should guide planners as they consider possible land use changes to address each of these situations:

• • •

Non􏱂conforming commercial uses in residential zones Differently􏱂designated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map areas Split map designations on individually􏱂owned parcels

Attendees also received a list of definitions and acronyms (attached) related to the district mapping conversation. Maps were displayed throughout the room including the District Assessment map, a gentrification neighborhood typology, Portland Plan study areas, habitat corridors and unimproved streets.

2. Warm􏱃up Mapping Exercise. Attendees were asked to identify on maps one (or more) places or attributes in SE Portland that are special to them in 5 words or less. Responses included: Parks, sweet commercial centers, large tree canopy, access to transit, Springwater Corridor trail, Brooklyn area, Eastmoreland, Woodstock/historic gateway (community center, walkability, neighborhood feel), lots of walkability, abandoned lot, bike paths, 69th exit community garden, gardens, riverfront esplanade, Ross Island, Oaks Bottom, tree􏱁lined streets, Sellwood Park, Sellwood Gap, Westmoreland business district, railroad yards, 3100/3200 block of SE 25th Avenue, centers on corridors, Division Hardware, Woodstock and Cesar Chavez Business District.

Attendees were also asked to refer to a District Assessment Map presented at the Comprehensive Plan Work Draft SE Community Workshop in March, and to add comments to the map.

3. Comprehensive Plan and Overview and Urban Design Framework Presentation. City staff gave an overview presentation of the Comprehensive Plan and the District Mapping Sessions. The presentation shared information about key Comprehensive Plan policy concepts and the intent of the mapping sessions to gather feedback and ideas to help shape proposals for the next working draft of the Comprehensive Plan to be released in summer 2013. A key focus of the mapping session is the 30% draft of the Urban Design Framework map. Please find the presentation at this link (the Urban Design Framework map can be found on slides 21 to 34):

ftp://ftp02.portlandoregon.gov/BPS/Tech_Services/SE_DMC_6.1.13.pdf

4. Introduce Maps and Begin Mapping Discussion. Attendees (sitting at 3 separate tables) were provided with a base map showing zoning in SE Portland as well as 3 layers of transparencies showing:

A.

Existing and proposed centers and station area designations a. Existing town center b. Proposed town center c. Potential neighborhood center

d. Neighborhood station e. Employment station f. Urban station g. Neighborhood business districts

B.

Existing and proposed corridors

C.

a. Civic corridors b. Neighborhood corridors c. Greenways d. Recreation trails

Existing and proposed high frequency transit (MAX, streetcar and potential rapid bus)

a. MAX lines b. MAX stations c. High frequency transit (under study) d. High frequency transit stations (under study) e. Existing streetcar f. Candidate streetcar g. Possible streetcar

Attendees at each table discussed information on the transparency maps and added comments to the maps and overlays with a particular focus on the SE Mapping Discussion Questions (above). Themes of comments include:

• Locations for potential neighborhood centers – not already shown on transparency maps (72nd & Flavel, 68th & Foster, Powell & Milwaukie, Westmoreland, Tacoma Station area, Powell & Foster, 42nd & Division, 52nd & Belmont,

• Locations of candidate or possible streetcar lines • Ideas for potential Belmont􏱁Hawthorne􏱁Division town center to include

areas east of Cesar Chavez and Clinton • Improvements for potential civic corridor (Cesar Chavez) • Attributes of station area (Holgate) • Questions of how to encourage historic reuse • Location for potential town center (82nd & Stark) • Considering smaller “corridor nodes” rather than neighborhood centers

(Division) • How much commercial is the right amount and how can ground floors of

buildings accommodate residential or commercial as dynamics change? • More street activity and vibrancy on main street (Woodstock) • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to transit stations, potential

neighborhood centers, transit streets and the Willamette River (82nd & Stark, 30’s and Powell, Ladd’s Addition area, Bybee Station, Brooklyn, Springwater Corridor Trail, Reedway across heavy and light rail tracks, Clinton Station, Eastern neighborhoods and MAX Green Line).

• Stormwater and habitat corridors. • Industrial lands opportunity near MAX orange line and Holgate.

5. June 22nd district mapping session. The maps, comments and discussion questions will be a basis for the next district mapping session on June 22nd. Below is a tentative agenda:

• Review of input from June 1st SE district mapping session • Focus on SE district mapping discussion questions and maps • Overview of Transportation System Plan and connection to Urban Design

Framework • Next steps and how input will be used

Lambert Gardens (before the apartments)