Minimum Parking Requirements

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.

Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements In Favor Of More Affordable Residential Infill

May 13, 2018 By TonyJ 3 Comments

Action Alert: Submit testimony to the Planning and Sustainability Commission by Friday, May 18th. You can do this easily online at this link. We encourage you to support Portland for Everyone’s suggested modifications for the Residential Infill Project and to strongly support eliminating minimum parking requirements in all residential zones.

For several years, Portland’s planners have been crafting a proposal to encourage more housing to be built in our “single-family” neighborhoods. The general goal of the proposal is to discourage the 1:1 replacement of smaller, often more affordable, single-family homes with very large and expensive homes, often called “McMansions.” Instead, the city would like to see more housing created in these neighborhoods in the form of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and internal conversions of large older homes into duplexes or triplexes.

The plan hopes to achieve these goals by allowing homeowners and developers in “single-family zones” to build additional ADUs and allowing duplexes mid-block (currently they are restricted to corners). There are a lot of aspects to the proposal and you can read a detailed analysis and suggested improvements from our coalition partners at Portland for Everyone.

It is critical to push for a complete elimination of residential parking requirements if this plan is to succeed. Even though the plan recommends waiving parking requirements in many cases, many homes will never be built if shelter for cars continues to be given a priority over housing for humans.

As an example, a garage can be converted to an ADU without providing an additional off-street parking stall for the ADU, but in most cases the homeowner will still be required to maintain at least one off-street stall! This is even more ridiculous when one considers that an off-street stall requires a curb-cut which removes one public on-street parking stall from circulation.

Maintaining our current arbitrary parking requirements will lead to more traffic, less safe streets, more pollution, less housing, more expensive housing, and more trees removed. It’s a bad policy that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

For some inspiration, here is the testimony I gave at the Planning and Sustainability Commission hearing on May 8th.

Send in testimony now (certainly before May 18th) to ask the planning commission to support Portland for Everyone’s recommendations for the Residential Infill Project and, particularly, to recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements.

Affordable Housing, Open Spaces, Abundant Parking: Pick Two

March 13, 2018 By TonyJ 2 Comments

It’s time for Portlanders to pick their priorities and stick with them.

ACTION ALERT: Send email to betterhousing@portlandoregon.gov by Monday, March 19th telling staff you choose affordable housing and open space over parking requirements.

Portland planners are preparing a host of policy suggestions under the banner of Better Housing By Design. The project which is a counterpart to the Residential Infill Project has four goals for improving the zoning code governing multi-family housing including (from the project website):

Help meet Portland’s diverse housing needs, including housing that is affordable to lower income households and units designed for people of all ages and abilities.
Include open space and green elements that support healthy living for residents.

These are laudable goals, but Portland’s desire for more affordable housing and open space are at direct odds with our minimum parking requirements.

a picture of housing, a picture of a garden, a picture of a parking lot, the text reads, pick 2 — Portland must choose between affordable housing and open space and more parking.

Better Housing By Design allows more density in multi-family zones and adds new landscaping and outdoor space requirements to larger lots (20,000 sq/ft+). In addition, the proposal limits surface parking to 30% of the site area and limits impermeable paved surfaces to 15% of the site area. These restrictions are meant to reduce “heat islands” and excess runoff, and those are important goals, but this is greenwashing unless minimum parking requirements are completely eliminated first. What the suggested requirements in the discussion draft do are to complicate site planning for new housing and potentially make any required parking more expensive.

A developer building a project which triggers required parking will find it difficult to accommodate the open space requirements and the parking requirements without building structured parking. Structured parking takes up space that could be used for more homes and is much more expensive than surface parking.

This plan is over-thinking solutions to our most pressing problems. We need housing and we need open space much more than we need to require parking. Eliminating minimum parking requirements will allow the flexibility for builders to erect more aesthetically pleasing, functional, and affordable housing projects. Many developers will continue to build parking, but the parking they do build will be voluntary (and more “green”). If parking demand declines in the future, developers of new projects will be free to build fewer stalls without a city council fight to change requirements again.

The Discussion Draft of the plan has gotten better from the concept draft, staff are currently proposing to eliminate parking requirements for lots which are 7,500 sq/ft or smaller. They are also proposing to cut remaining parking requirements in half, from 1 required stall per home to 1 stall for every two homes in a housing development. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to go further. Ask staff to recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements for all multi-family housing zones as part of Better Housing By Design.

ACTION ALERT: Send email to betterhousing@portlandoregon.gov by Monday, March 19th telling staff you choose affordable housing and open space over parking requirements.

Update: Affordable Housing Plans In Sellwood Still Somewhat Stymied

November 29, 2017 By TonyJ 4 Comments

Children playing and a parking lot divided by a question mark. — Will Portland choose to prioritize new residents or new cars?

In September, Portland’s Bureau of Development Services released a review of the impact of the inclusionary housing (IH) policy enacted in February 2017. Highlighted in the review are three proposed buildings in Sellwood which make up the bulk of “good news” in the report, but the news would be better if Portland would stop requiring mandatory shelter for cars.

Post Inclusionary Housing Permit Activity Between February 1, 2017 and August 1, 2017, permits were filed for 11 projects subject to IH requirements. Six were privately financed and five were affordable housing projects receiving some level of assistance from the Portland Housing Bureau. The six privately financed projects included 406 market-rate residential u — The report from BDS highlights the proposed affordable units in Sellwood.

Urban Development Group (UDG), the developer, was initially planning to build three buildings in Sellwood containing a total of 187 market-rate apartments and 46 required car parking stalls. After the passage of the inclusionary housing rules, the developer sought assistance to determine the feasibility of utilizing the parking waiver for projects under the IH program to, instead, build 210 total units, 170 at market-rate, 31 affordable to households making 60% of the MFI and 9 for households at 80% of MFI, with no on-site car parking.

While transit-frequency requirements disqualified one of the buildings from receiving a waiver for mandatory car parking, UDG is still pursuing the project reconfiguration, albeit with less affordable housing and more car parking. The most current proposal includes 170 market-rate units, 29 units at 60% MFI and 9 units at 80% MFI, along with required 19 car parking stalls at 1717 SE Tenino.

This reconfiguration demonstrates the impact that parking requirements have on affordability. Parking requirements for mid-sized housing projects (50-150 units) are suppressive and expensive. When allowed to build 27 fewer parking stalls, UDG is willing (and able) to build 21 more homes total and 38 permanently affordable units.

Portland is in dire need of more affordable housing and the city should be aggressively seeking to work with developers who are willing to participate in the IH program. If UDG wasn’t required to build shelter for 19 cars at SE Tenino, what other incentives or changes could unlock the potential to build another 15 or 20 homes, including several more affordable units. Portland should eliminate all parking requirements for multi-family housing and use parking management, such as residential permits, to encourage developers to “right-size” their parking.