The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) has been working directly with Portland Parks and Recreation to ensure valuable materials from the barn are salvaged for reuse. As a result of this effort, BPS was able to facilitate a relationship between the selected demolition contractor and Habitat for Humanity/ReStore. This relationship will lead to a hybrid deconstruction of the barn that will maximize the benefits of mechanized equipment and hand labor. 

A contractor will be taking down large sections of the barn, and will then set them in a space where volunteers can easily and safely pull apart trusses, de-nail lumber, and load quality pieces of old-growth lumber into a donation truck. Volunteers will also take out doors, windows and fixture before they the big equipment arrives.

This is a great opportunity for neighbors and those who like to see immediate results from their hard work, and who are not afraid to get a little dirty.

Volunteers do not need to know anything about construction. Desired skills include a good sense of humor and some flexibility, as we have learned to expect the unexpected on-site! We will provide all the proper training and safety equipment, although you are welcome to bring your own work gloves and/or safety glasses.

Habitat for Humanity is looking for volunteers who are available as early as Tuesday, May 28. The more volunteers we get, the more valuable materials we can save for reuse.

Volunteers must be 16 or over.

Court-ordered community service? You must be pre-approved before volunteering

Groups are welcome!

To get involved, contact Janell Watt at 503-517-0720.

janell@pdxrestore.org

Read more about  reducing, reusing and recycling construction and demolition debris at www.recyclingnutsandbolts.com.

Infrastructure Equity Policy Expert Group
Meeting Date: May 1, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon

PEG Attendees:  Susan Aldrich, Roger Anthony, Roger Averbeck, Alex Deley, Susan Gibson-Hartnett, Karyn Hanson, Jeff Leighton, Kathryn Levine, Karen Meyer, Shoshanah Oppenheim, Midge Purcell, Joe VanderVeer, Randy Webster.

Other Attendees:  Courtney Duke & Patricia Neighbor (PBOT), Chris Scarzello (BPS).

PEG Lead: Bob Glascock

Facilitator:  Andrée Tremoulet, Commonworks Consulting

View the original agenda, including materials, for this meeting.

Welcome (5 minutes)
Presenter: Andrée Tremoulet, Facilitator
Summary: Andree Tremoulet welcomed everyone.  An observation was made that that the City Auditor’s office appears to be doing an audit related to levels of service for East Portland. No additional information is available at this time. Andree reviewed the purpose of the meeting: to review the rough draft of the Infrastructure Equity PEG summary report and to introduce Part 2 of the Comprehensive Plan Update (mapping and implementation of policies).

Discussion of First Draft of IE PEG Summary Report (85 minutes)
Presenter:  Andrée Tremoulet, Facilitator
Handout: IE PEG Summary Report, Draft 1
Summary: PEG member provided initial thoughts and feedback on the draft report.

General Comments:

• The report should recognize the role of private development activities in implementing service provision.  Currently, the memo focuses on public projects. It isn’t clear that these recommendations sufficiently acknowledge how the policies may play out with private development.
• “Equity” isn’t consistently used in the memo. For example, “infrastructure equity” is defined in the beginning but that doesn’t necessarily carry through in the rest of the document. Also, “Environmental Justice” might be a clearer term to use rather than “equity” in some cases. No policies in the Working Draft address the goal of environmental justice.
• Bureaus should consult with the disability commission early in the design stage of a project.
• Universal design should be stressed, including audible sidewalks.
• Use the data we have available currently about locations of populations of color and low income households to inform investments and growth scenarios, and strive to improve the data that is used to evaluate equitable levels of service in the future.
• Incorporate (into the summary report) feedback and discussion from the April 3 IE PEG meeting on assumptions and data feeding into growth scenarios, maps, etc.
• The report was on target; it did cover what was discussed and the discussions were captured appropriately.
• Need further detail on the action verbs: how is it going to be done, who decides it, and when/how will the PEG be able to see the results?
• Too many verbs have ambiguous meanings.
• Themes #1 and #6 were particularly useful and really seemed to capture the ideas of many PEG members.

Comments on specific themes:

• Theme #1:
  • Use similar kinds of services together (not sidewalks and streetcars).
  • Strongly disagree that water and sanitary sewer have relatively equitable levels of service. This is an oversimplification and isn’t necessarily true.  We aren’t yet at a full understanding of the equity implications of our current service levels for our current systems. An evaluation needs to be conducted before a conclusion such as this can be made. Other PEG members felt that this is a relatively appropriate comment as it relates to the Water Bureau’s services.
  • Need to map out basic levels of service for all infrastructure systems, and look at equity patterns.
  • The definition of “basic level of service” for each bureau and how you measure it is not clear. We don’t want to send the wrong signal in terms of what our goals are (e.g. don’t want to set too low of a bar). We should aspire toward a relatively high standard for a “basic level of service” – this should be more clear and/or explicit.
  • Levels of Service: We need to be clear about the definitions, who develops them (which bureaus), what barriers exist, and what strategies should be employed to overcome those barriers. Aspirational statements (that we all deserve it) do not go far enough.
  • Should we/how could we address desired service levels for services that the City does not provide, such as transit?
  • Recognize how standards for one type of service can impact the ability to provide others (e.g. stormwater and transportation) – and the equity implications that might result. Identify ways to resolve disparities jointly, such as through flexible standards.
• Theme #2:
  • Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation, lacks “equity lens” or “equity framework” language. This is important, and it seems to be missing.
  • Need to look at how this gets implemented using goal based budgeting. Chapter 8 should include language about goal based budgeting and equity lens/standards. If we want to take equity seriously and ensure it is implemented throughout, that needs to be revisited in Chapter 8. This chapter presents the best opportunity to ensure this work gets carried out.
  • Where are we better able to achieve better equity outcomes?  That may drive investment choices.
• Theme #3:
  • Equity should be an overarching concern and framework.  However, in Theme #3, the recommendation to make the inclusion of equity intentional/consistent/targeted seems inconsistent with making equity an overarching goal. It’s a challenge to effectively and consistently incorporate equity (it also applies to other topics/issues, not just equity).
• Theme #4:
  • Chapter 1 should go further in making it easier for people to become involved and get background information.
• Theme #5:
  • Cost of basic services bullet: Replace the buzz word “robust” with the word “better” [or, higher”].  Add examples of basic services and distinguish from higher-level services.
  • Change the wording; instead of the costs of infrastructure, it should be about the affordability of the costs of infrastructure. There is a difference. This section could be strengthened by acknowledging more clearly that cost recovery and affordability can be divergent goals.
  • Portland has a water and sewer utility fee, but not a street maintenance fee.  Other jurisdictions in the region have transportation maintenance fees.  Should PBOT continue to rely on other funders’ project criteria?
• Theme #6:
  • The discussions about gentrification and economic opportunity should address business stability and equity. We often focus on families and residential impacts of gentrification, but we should talk about businesses as well.
  • Should be more explicit about policy tools to mitigate gentrification (community development block development grants, affordable housing mix as part of a redevelopment plan, rent stabilization, inclusionary zoning {when/if it becomes legal}, form based codes, etc.).
  • Add inclusionary zoning as a potential tool to address gentrification and help move people to desirable locations with abundant services, in anticipation of the lifting of the state ban.
• Theme #7:
  • Physical accessibility should be added to the statement about “invest in affordable fair housing…”
• Theme #8:
  • Bullet two (setting a higher priority to projects that complete a network or connect travel modes) seems, potentially, in conflict with Theme #1, providing a basic level of service. The language here needs to be clarified so the meaning is more defined and clear. What is the appropriate size of the gap?

Public Comment 

No public comment was received at this meeting.

Comprehensive Plan Update, Part 2 (30 minutes)
Presenter: Michelle Kunec-North, BPS
Materials: Comprehensive Plan Update:  Introduction to Working Draft Part 2
Summary: Michelle Kunec-North gave an introduction to the Working Draft Part 2 to help orient the IE PEG to the materials and discussions that will be coming in the future months.

Comments and questions from the IE PEG included:

• The City should look at the Portland Public Schools public facilities plan, which is also a State requirement.
• Suggestions for district mapping conversations:

1)     Use demographic information to enable an equity conversation. [Yes, this can be made available.]

2)     Use historical information to inform where we might want to go in the future. In particular, this historical view might help us better understand what has led to inequities we see today. This could/should also be discussed in the annotations on the map. This could also help challenge some assumptions (e.g., annexation history has resulted in XYZ). [Good suggestion.  We will consider it.]

3)     Use a density layer.

4)     Show where revenue comes from, by district (e.g. can we make connections between where revenue comes from and existing prosperity and disparities?). [This information is available on the City Budget Office website, as Budget Maps.]

• Why are some Centers missing from the Urban Design Framework map? (e.g. West Portlandcenter). [Answer not known.]
• How will new/additional plans be incorporated (e.g. citywide transition plan)? [Answer not known.  Let’s consider the plans, and how they may fit it.]
• Coordinate with Metro’s livability study work.

IE PEG’s suggestions for upcoming agendas on Part 2:

• Let’s bring back the level of service maps and discussions;
• Project prioritization and criteria and if/how an equity lens is used;
• How the growth scenarios play out (and the associated data and performance measures) – continuation of April meeting discussion;
• More about the mapping discussions – maybe seeing the preview/beta versions of the district working maps.

Wrap Up

For more information, please contact Bob Glascock, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, at 503-823-7845 or Bob.Glascock@portlandoregon.gov or Andrée Tremoulet, Facilitator, at 503-267-9255 or andree@commonworksconsulting.com

Date: June 5, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. (noon)
Location: 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Portland, 2^nd floor, Conference Room 2500A

Meeting Purpose:

1)      To identify IE PEG’s remaining topics and schedule
2)      To review IE PEG’s summary memo; and
3)      To discuss local street design and connectivity in context of Transportation Systems Plan 

Welcome (5 minutes)
Presenter: Andree Tremoulet, facilitator 

Remaining Topics (5 minutes)
Presenter: Bob Glascock

• July 10, August 7
• September—joint PEG discussions (topics and dates to be determined)

Background material:

• IE PEG Schedule and Topics – revised

Finalize IE PEG Summary Memo (15 minutes)
Presenter: Andree Tremoulet

• Review final draft (memo with addendum)
• Group Discussion—did we capture the PEG’s key messages?

Background material

• IE PEG Summary Memo – final draft
• IE PEG Summary Memo – 1^st to final draft

Public Comment (10 minutes)

Street Connectivity and Flexible Residential Street Standards (55 minutes)
Presenters: Denver Igarta, Christine Leon & Courtney Duke, PBOT

• Cully Plan and future neighborhood street plans
• Street by Street Initiative – new street standards
• How this relates to Part 1 policies and Transportation System Plan
• Group Discussion

For more information, please contact Andree or Bob:

• Andree Tremoulet, Commonworks Consulting, at 503-267-9255 or andree@commonworksconsulting.com.
• Bob Glascock, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability at 503-823-7845 or Bob.Glascock@portlandoregon.gov

According to Metro, Portland is expected to grow by 132,000 new households and 147,000 new jobs by 2035. Land use and investment decisions will shape how and where Portland grows over the next 25 years, which in turn will affect our ability to meet larger community goals.

Read the Growth Scenarios Report

How will we use the Growth Scenarios Report?

Where will new households and businesses develop if trends continue? Is there a form of growth that will help Portland advance prosperity, equity, health and sustainability? What investments are needed to support those choices? And how can the growth patterns help us achieve our goals?

Each of the four growth scenarios tests different hypothetical growth patterns: 

1. A “Default” pattern based on development trends over the last 15 years.
2. A dispersed network of Neighborhood Centers that helps create more complete communities throughout Portland. 
3. Growing in a more linear pattern along several key Corridors.
4. A more compact growth pattern that focuses growth in the Central City and surrounding neighborhoods.

Each alternative is evaluated using the Portland Plan Measures of Success, including access to parks, frequent transit, bike networks, natural areas and family-wage jobs; watershed health and tree canopy; and displacement risk. These metrics provide detailed analysis for community discussion about appropriate policies, housing location, urban design and public infrastructure investments throughout the city.

In particular, the performance measures provide a framework to evaluate different land use options as we update the Comprehensive Plan.

Key Findings

The analysis also highlights several opportunities and challenges:

• Choices for Prioritizing Growth ― Portland’s existing zoning allows for more than enough development capacity to accommodate the future growth forecast of 132,000 new households. This capacity creates an opportunity to make choices about where to focus or prioritize that growth.
• A Legacy Landscape ― As an already urbanized city, Portland’s existing development pattern defines many of the challenges. The forecasted growth represents roughly one-third of the total households and employment that will make up Portland in 2035, which means that two-thirds of the future built environment is already in place. This legacy development pattern will have a significant impact and moderating influence on how well future development patterns perform over the next 25 years. Large improvements in performance from land use changes will take more time. Other interventions, such as infrastructure investments, will be necessary to achieve the goals identified in the Portland Plan.
• Investment Priorities ― How and where public infrastructure investments are made will make a significant difference in how Portland performs. The performance of the different growth scenarios shows that most of the anticipated new growth should occur in a way that provides progress toward meeting the objectives. However, to meet those objectives Portland will need to invest in historically underserved areas to reduce disparities and increase equity. This two-track strategy will allow Portland to improve performance across the board by focusing growth in high-performing areas, while at the same time improving conditions in areas previously neglected.

Next Steps

With the publication of the Growth Scenarios Report, the City of Portland is kicking off Task 3: Consideration of Alternatives of Periodic Review as required by the state, which includes developing draft land use maps and project lists for the Comprehensive Plan Update — to be released during the summer. The next steps include:

• Model the effects of infrastructure investments: The scenarios in this report model the likely effects of 25 years of growth (the location of new jobs and housing), but not infrastructure investments. The next step is to add 25 years of corresponding infrastructure investments and show the resulting performance gains.

• Community mapping: In Fall/Winter 2013, community members will be engaged in a mapping exercise where they will discuss preferred approaches for managing growth and identify needed investments.

• Citywide Systems Plan and Transportation System Plan: To meet state requirements, the City must complete new fiscally constrained Citywide Systems and Transportation System Plans, which will describe the infrastructure (sewer, water, transportation) system improvements necessary to serve anticipated growth.

An addendum to this report will be prepared to evaluate a “preferred scenario” based on the community mapping exercise and the infrastructure investment plans.

For more information about the Comprehensive Plan Update and to stay informed, please visit our Get Involved page.

For more information about the Growth Scenarios Report please visit http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/62384 or contact Tom Armstrong at tom.armstrong@portlandoregon.gov. 

The PSC will hold a work session on May 28, 6-9 p.m., to discuss the WHI testimony and suggested amendments to the WHI plan. The PSC will hold a final work session and plans to make a recommendation for the WHI plan on Tuesday, July 9, at the meeting beginning at 12:30pm on that date.

Please check the WHI calendar for more information.

There are several times during the week for participation, and the general public is invited to attend two open houses. All events will take place at 1900 SW 4^th Avenue, Room 7A (7^th floor).

• Open House #1: Tuesday, June 11, 5 – 7 p.m., Informal review and Q&A
• Open House #2: Friday, June 14, 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m., Formal presentation at 12 p.m.

To attend for a longer time and help develop ideas for the West End, Downtown and South Downtown areas, consider coming on Monday, June 10. There will be an opening presentation and three breakout sessions to choose from:

• Opening Presentation: 8:30 – 10:15 a.m., Review Goose Hollow, Pearl District, Old Town/Chinatown, South Waterfront concepts
• Breakout Session A: 10:15 am – 12:15 p.m., Concept development for Downtown, South Downtown and West End
• Breakout Session B: 1:15 – 2:45 p.m., Concept development for smaller areas within Downtown, South Downtown and West End
• Breakout Session C: 3 – 4:30 p.m., (Same as Session B)

Project staff will be working with other agencies, City bureaus and the West Quadrant Stakeholder Advisory Committee the rest of the week. The general public is also invited to attend Report Back and Q&A sessions at the end of the day on Wednesday, June 12 (4 – 5 p.m.) and Thursday, June 13 (4:45 – 5:15 p.m.). A week-long charrette schedule with all event details is also available for review.

But what the heck is a charrette?

A charrette is an intense period of design or planning activity. Often used to bring together multiple stakeholders during one timeframe, a successful charrette will generate many ideas and promote joint ownership of solutions.

Roughly at mid point in the process, the West Quadrant Plan team is holding the charrette to synthesize the research and ideas gathered so far with stakeholders and the public in order to move into the next phase of the planning process ― concept planning. The West Quadrant Plan will ultimately guide growth, development and investments in the western part of Portland’s Central City.

For questions or comments regarding the West Quadrant Charrette or the planning process please contact Elisa Hamblin at (503) 823-9714 or via email at elisa.hamblin@portlandoregon.gov.

Photos courtesy of Bruce Forester and Sally Painter.