TonyJ

More housing and no required parking. It’s time to pass the Residential Infill Project!

January 14, 2020 By TonyJ 2 Comments

Shoupistas, now is our moment in Portland. It’s time to eliminate the remaining residential parking requirements in Portland. The dragon is weak and can be slayed, but we’ll all need to rise to the occasion and support the Residential Infill Project to get the job done.

It’s hard to fit four or more homes and four or more cars on a lot. And even if you can, you won’t have room for much of anything else.

Fortunately, the Residential Infill Project has shaped up to be an aggressive housing policy package that will lead to less displacement citywide, neighborhoods with more economic and racial diversity, more housing options available at more price points, and less cars and a more sustainable and equitable city.

Thanks to your hard work over the years supporting progressive parking policies like residential permits, parking maximums, performance-based parking policy, and elimination of multi-family parking requirements, we don’t have to ask for better parking policy in RIP, it’s great as it is!

What we do need to do is make sure Portland City Council understands that Portland needed this housing and transportation policy, and needed it yesterday.

If you need more information about the Residential Infill Project including talking points and suggestions for how to make the housing part of the policy better, our partners at Portland: Neighbors Welcome have you covered.

Once you’re ready, submit testimony online via the Portland Map App. Let council know why you support eliminating minimum parking requirements so we can build more housing for people!

If you can, there are two opportunities to testify in person: Wednesday 1/15 at 2pm and Thursday 1/16 at 5pm at Portland City Hall (1221 SW 4th). The Portland: Neighbors Welcome link has more information on that too!

Proposal would effectively eliminate minimum parking requirements in Portland

November 4, 2019 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

Mayor Ted Wheeler has proposed an amendment to the city’s Better Housing by Design project that would effectively eliminate the remaining parking requirements for new multi-family housing in Portland. Existing waivers only apply to buildings within an arbitrary distance of frequent service transit, requiring some projects just a few steps away from the boundary to build parking.

Tell City Council by Wednesday, November 6th (2PM) that you support proposed Amendment 2 for Better Housing by Design. This amendment will waive parking requirements for any project that includes regulated affordable housing. You can submit testimony through the Map App https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/testify/#/mdz. For more information on testifying to support the project check out Portland: Neighbors Welcome #BetterBHD action alert.

Better Housing by Design (BHD) revises development and design standards for new apartment zones in Portland. The project will create more housing options for households of all ages, sizes, and income levels. The recommended draft expanded parking waivers for projects on small (<10,000 sq/ft) lots and cut requirements for projects deemed too far from transit in half, but a few recent projects in Portland have shown the problem that transit proximity based parking waivers can cause.

Screenshot of amendment text. Text is as follows. Affordable housing parking exemption:
Amend the Chapter 33.266 affordable housing parking exception so that the exemption from minimum parking requirements for projects providing inclusionary housing units applies regardless of location. The amendment also adds the Deeper Housing Affordability Bonus to the types of affordable housing that can use this exemption.
Sponsor: Mayor Wheeler Code section: 33.266.110.D
The intent of this amendment is to reduce costs and support the economic feasibility of projects that provide affordable housing units by making parking optional, instead of required. The amendment responds to testimony that requested discontinuing minimum parking requirements, but links this to the provision of affordable units. This amendment would affect projects providing affordable units through inclusionary housing provisions, primarily in the multi- dwelling and mixed-use zones, as well as the proposed Deeper Housing Affordability Bonus. Currently, projects utilizing inclusionary housing bonuses are exempt from minimum parking requirements when located within 500 feet of frequent-service transit lines or within 1,500 feet of light rail stations (applies to 73 percent of multi-dwelling zone properties). Outside of these distances, minimum parking requirements apply although affordable units are subtracted from the minimum parking calculations. 95 percent of multi-dwelling and mixed use zone properties are located within 1,500 feet (just over a quarter mile) of frequent- service transit, meaning that most development is close to frequent transit. A feasibility analysis (see Recommended Draft Appendix C – Part 2) indicated that parking requirements impact the economic feasibility of projects with inclusionary housing units (structured parking typically costs around $40,000 per parking space and takes up building area that could be used for housing units). — The proposed amendment (via https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/746130)

If the proposed amendment is accepted, and the larger proposal is passed, then any multi-family project that builds regulated affordable housing in Portland will be exempt from parking requirements. Mandatory inclusionary affordable housing is required in new Portland buildings a containing more than 19 homes. As such, unless the developer chooses to pay in-lieu fees to meet affordable housing requirements, practically any new multi-family development in Portland will be exempt from minimum parking mandates.

Since 2002, Portland has had a roller coaster relationship with parking requirements for housing. In 2002 the city removed requirements for buildings near transit, but, after neighborhood outcries, a new set of tiered requirements was imposed in 2013. Parking was, again, required in buildings with more than 30 homes until February 2017 when the city passed mandatory inclusionary housing rules. Still, parking was required if a larger project was more than 500 feet from a frequent service bus line or 1500 feet from a light rail station.

Better Housing by Design is one of several important Housing Opportunity Initiative projects being developed by Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. In December, hearings for the Residential Infill Project will begin, this project will legalize smaller “missing middle” types of housing in our current single-family exclusive zones. Concurrent to these efforts, a coalition of stakeholders is working with the city to develop more robust anti-displacement measures and stronger tenant protections.

Better chances for affordable housing? Not if parking is required.

October 1, 2019 By TonyJ 1 Comment

Action Alert: send in testimony by 3pm, Wednesday 10/2/2019 to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov. Let’s increase the odds of more affordable housing by eliminating arbitrary parking requirements in Better Housing by Design.

Quick Update: Sightline Institute has published an article this morning which delves deeper into the City of Portland’s scenario modeling for Better Housing by Design and explains why parking requirements will be so detrimental to more affordable housing. Check it out!

On Wednesday afternoon (October 2nd, 2019) Portland’s city council will hold a hearing on Better Housing by Design (BHD). BHD is a planning project that has been in development for several years with goals to encourage more housing types for all income levels built in more connected and healthy ways. BHD is focused on existing multi-family residential zones.

Probably the most impactful policy changes to help meet those goals are proposals to reduce or eliminate existing minimum parking requirements in these zones. Currently, parking is not required in apartments, condos, or townhomes, if the new building is within 1,500 feet of a light rail station or 500 feet of a frequent transit stop. Elsewhere, one parking stall is currently required for every home.

Because parking stalls take up hundreds of square feet and can cost tens of thousands of dollars, a project with required parking will usually contain fewer homes, at higher costs, than one without. In fact, the city’s own analysis showed that if parking is required on lots in the proposed RM2 zone, the most profitable (and perhaps most likely) type of development will be $700K townhouses. If parking isn’t required, the most profitable development would be $280K condos in buildings which could be big enough to trigger mandatory permanently affordable housing.

On-site parking requirements lead to development of fewer, more expensive, homes.

The BHD proposal would eliminate parking requirements for projects on lots less than 10,000 square feet and would reduce parking requirements on other lots that currently require parking from one space per home to .5 spaces per home.

This is a small step in the right direction, but there is little risk in just eliminating the existing requirements. Most of the potential development would take place in areas near transit, but the transit grid leaves hundreds of properties out of the waiver zone, often by just a couple dozen feet. Requiring parking on one side of the street and not on the other doesn’t make sense, particularly if we want to build more affordable housing and reduce driving to meet climate goals. Additionally, the BHD proposal mandates “greener” parking stalls in the form of permeable or covered spaces. While this is a nice gesture, there’s no such thing as a “green” required parking space.

On-street parking needs better management

If the city requires parking, more cars will be invited into our communities at a critical time when our climate goals necessitate reductions in driving and vehicle ownership. PBOT is pursuing bold plans to improve public transit, but those plans will be undermined by the sprawl and traffic that these additional cars will cause.

The only potential downside of not requiring parking is that incumbent residents of the neighborhood who utilize free (or very cheap) parking in Portland’s neighborhoods might experience more difficulty finding a parking space very close to their house. A good working definition for “congested parking” is when there is less than one space available on a block-face for long periods of time. By that definition, few Portland neighborhoods are currently congested.

Nevertheless, if there is parking congestion caused by new, more affordable, homes without parking, then there are plenty of solutions available to manage the on-street public parking supply. The city has a Parking Management Toolkit, passed in 2016, but council has refused to grant PBOT the authority to actually create effective parking permit zones.

Eliminate minimum requirements in new housing, manage the on street parking we have, and use parking revenues to subsidize and improve the safety of transit and other modes.

Action Alert: send in testimony by 3pm, Wednesday 10/2/2019 to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov. Let’s increase the odds of more affordable housing by eliminating arbitrary parking requirements in Better Housing by Design.

Changes coming to NW Portland Parking

May 6, 2019 By TonyJ 1 Comment

A few changes are coming to NW Portland parking. PBOT is hosting an online open house and an in-real-life Open House on Tuesday, May 7.

People wait for a bus at night. — Zone M Parking in NW Portland

For the last 7 years, the NW Parking Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) has been trying to manage 5,264 of the most desired parking spots in the city for the greatest good. But, despite their efforts, 7,600 permits were sold in 2018 for those 5,264 spaces, a 614 permit increase over 2017.

The permit program is still one of the most advanced in the nation. The permits, while still 1/10 the cost of off-street parking, are sold for $180 a year. Progressive pricing of permits (the second, per driver, costs more than the first) keeps Jay Leno from parking 100s of cars on the street. Revenue from the permit surcharge funds the innovative Transportation Wallet program, bike parking, and more.

Prices might go up, a little bit

The NW Parking SAC decided against increasing the surcharge for permits (the base charge in 2018 was $60 + $120 surcharge) but the city has upped the base fee to $75. It’s unclear if permit rates will go up $15 to $195/year to cover the increase.

In contrast, the Central Eastside Industrial District has raised permit fees every year and Zone G residential permits are now $370 per year. Committing to a schedule for several years of performance-based increases would be a good next step for the NW Parking SAC.

Accounting for off-street parking

One of two proposed changes for 2019-2020 is that buildings/households with available off-street parking will lose permit availability proportional to that off-street supply. In an example given by PBOT, if a household has two vehicles registered and one off-street parking space, then the household can purchase only one permit.

Restricting business permits

Another proposed change is to limit the amount of permits available to businesses. There are 6 employers in NW Portland with more than 50 permits allocated to their employees. The proposed changes would limit the allowable permits to any business to 50. PBOT is considering making more subsidized transportation wallets available to employers to mitigate the impact of this change.

Expanded Transportation Wallets

One change that is already here is an expanded Transportation Wallet for 2019. The wallet now includes:

$150 in TriMet credit
An annual BIKETOWN membership
An annual Portland Streetcar pass
$25 in Car2Go credit.

All for just $99 dollars! This is a great program, the city should expand subsidies so that low-income residents who do not purchase permits get Transportation Wallets for free.

Let PBOT know you support good parking policy!

The NW Parking SAC is taking a thoughtful approach to parking management since they cannot require structured parking in new buildings. Take a minute to explore the on-line open house. Fill out their survey.

If you are a NW resident or worker, try to show up at the Open House on May 7th from 5pm – 7pm at the Eleanor Event Space (1605 NW Everett St) and share your input on permit changes coming to Zone M this September!

You’ve got a rare opportunity to tell the IRS to tax parking fairly, seize it.

February 21, 2019 By TonyJ 1 Comment

Opportunities to influence parking reforms on a national level are very, very rare, but one such window is open until 11:59PM EST on February 22nd and a bunch of smart comments could have a big impact.

As reported by Michael Andersen from Sightline Institute, Trump put a huge tax on parking lots, maybe by mistake, and the IRS is seeking guidance on the extremely important details of a seemingly esoteric change to the way our tax law subsidizes commuter parking benefits. Basically, corporations will now have to pay taxes on “commuting benefits” as if they were corporate profits.

It’s a weird law. But if it falls equally on parking and transit benefits, it could be a huge incentive for employers to replace universal free employee parking with a more equitable benefit.

Previously an employer paying $250 a month for an employee’s parking space (or bus pass) could deduct that cost from their income, but now that $250 will actually be taxed as if it were money made and kept by the company.

To put it another way, as Jason Pavluchuk with the Coalition for Smarter Transportation said: “the days of free and unaccounted-for employee parking are coming to an end.”

The IRS is in the process of writing rules about how this actually goes into effect, and they are considering effectively exempting employers with their own employee parking lots (like Nike), as well as large big-box retailers with huge surface lots (like Walmart) from the parking tax. Even worse, the tax would still apply fully to transit benefits from those same employers.

This would be a step in the very wrong direction. Ideally, employers would have to pay taxes on parking and not on transit. Barring that, Congress could ditch commuter fringe benefits and employers could voluntarily give a cash allowance for employees to get to work.

36 Hours To Make A Difference

So you have about 36 hours from when this article is published to submit a comment to the IRS asking for them to tax parking fairly.

You can COMMENT NOW via a form on Regulations.gov, here is a sample letter (with a placemarker for a personal note). Remember, this comment period ends at midnight EST Friday night. Just take 5 minutes right now and do it! This is a very rare opportunity to make a major national impact on parking.

After you send that letter, we also encourage you to visit the Coalition for Smarter Transportation’s campaign to urge your Congressional representativeto join Rep. Earl Blumenauer in asking the IRS to tax parking fairly.