Uncategorized

When neighbors want to stop a project or close a business, parking is a convenient complaint.

Neighbors of a long-standing “community healing center” in Northeast Portland may succeed in forcing the business to shut its doors due to a lack of dedicated parking. Occupancy studies indicate the impact from The Everett House on neighborhood streets doesn’t justify a parking lot, but a reliance on ill-fitting parking generation and demand ratios provides cover for regulators to side with complaining residents.

The Everett House is actually a complex of several large homes in a neighborhood bordered by restaurants and shops on NE 29th to the west, more restaurants and shops (and a bus line) on NE Glisan to the north, and more commerce (and a 24 hour bus line) on E Burnside to the south.

For the last 36 years, the business has operated under a conditional use permit that allows the commercial activity in the residentially zoned neighborhood. That agreement, negotiated in June of 1982, requires the facility to provide 30 off-street car parking stalls within 300 feet of the spa for patrons. In the past, the business has contracted with nearby owners of parking to meet the requirements, but recently the lot they leased was closed to be redeveloped into 118 apartments with no on-site parking, and as a result a new conditional use permit, without parking requirements, was sought.

These requirements themselves “lacked evidentiary and legal reasoning” according to the Hearings Officer in the current case. In fact, a previous conditional use from 1981 required only 20 car parking stalls and 10 bicycle parking stalls.

Nearby residents of the complex have, apparently, considered the business a nuisance for decades. A comment, purportedly from neighbor Fred King, on the Willamette Week’s coverage of the story, says “the real problem was that management has constantly tried to expand the business … the opposite of what the conditional use permit required.”

Ultimately, it is the expansion of services, specifically a desire to host up to 12 events per year at the facility attracting approximately 95 patrons, that the Hearings Officer felt did not meet the conditions of approval. Estimated peak occupancy of 65 members at the facility was shown by occupancy studies to not unduly congest parking. An additional 30 visitors two dozen nights a year, and particularly the cars they might drive to the neighborhood for those events, was enough to sink the petition to continue operations without off-site parking.

Parking is an unfortunate proxy for “livability”

A business operating in a residential neighborhood under a conditional use may be a bad neighbor. Neighbors of Everett House have cited noise, unauthorized structures, and other problems with the business. But parking is a proverbial “ace in the hole” when it comes to concerns about livability in a neighborhood. Because parking concerns are nearly always taken seriously and met with sympathy from other people who drive (including nearly every elected official), raising concerns about car parking is an excellent strategy for slowing down or killing a project (or business) that one doesn’t like.

This case highlights the general problem with parking requirements and a reliance on parking generation and parking demand worksheets. The transportation study provided in the application justified the removal of the parking requirement via several lines of argument and evidence. Transit access to the facility and strategies to implement better transportation demand management were mentioned, but the crux of the report depended on parking generation and demand calculations combined with observed parking occupancy.

Peak hour occupancy near the facility was shown to max out at 81%, less than the 85% the city considers congested. The engineer makes the very valid point that if the facility is operating and peak occupancy is below 85%, then the area is clearly able to absorb the demand from the spa.

But because the general assumption is that parking demand should be accommodated with off-street parking, the business is required to prove that special events will not cause parking congestion when calculated demand from those events is added to the current conditions observed at the site. Current conditions likely include “hide-and-ride” commuters who park and take transit, rarely used second or third vehicles owned by residents, and employees of nearby businesses (including the Everett House) who are, rationally, taking advantage of free and convenient parking.

A better approach would be to put the onus on the city to manage the public parking supply with demand based permits, metering, time stays, and other restrictions. A neighborhood permit system could allow much more efficient use of the public resource, potentially raising revenue that could be used to subsidize the transit costs for low-income residents and make capital improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

Such a system could allow patrons to buy virtual permits for their visit to the spa. Residents of the upcoming 118 unit apartment building would have an opportunity to pay market rates for parking, if they need it, just like anyone else in the neighborhood. All may park, all must pay (with proceeds going to subsidize transportation for the poor).

Time for a complete shift in thinking

Car culture brought with it an expectation of cheap and ample parking in our cities. As society faces threats from climate change, traffic carnage, and wealth inequality, this expectation stands in the way of progressive policy. As long as parking complaints are assumed to be legitimate livability concerns, cities will continue to implement backwards policies. In the worst cases cities will maintain parking requirements, but even in cities without parking requirements, pandering to parking demand will hinder effective action.

Car parking is not a community benefit. It leads to traffic that pollutes the air and endangers pedestrians. Car parking takes up space that could be used for housing, transit, parks, and more. Developers who want to build parking should be the ones defending themselves to Hearing Officers for conditional uses. Developers who provide parking should be the ones providing transportation demand management, planting trees, and providing additional affordable homes.

We’ve had things backwards for a long time, it’s time to deweaponize parking and get on with the serious business of solving our problems.

ACTION ALERT: Send an email to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov by Tuesday evening!  Refer to “Agenda Item 68: Parking Toolkit and Parking Permit Pilots.” Let them know that this is long overdue and tell them how excited you are to see Portland finally moving towards better parking policy!

It’s been almost 5 years since the Portland City Council directed the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to develop a residential parking permit (RPP) proposal, two years since a stakeholder committee overwhelmingly endorsed a framework, and one year since council first had an opportunity to approve the plan, so where is it?

On Wednesday January 24th City Council will review (and hopefully approve) the “Parking Toolkit” designed by the Centers + Corridors committee and authorize PBOT to pilot the new residential permit system in a few eastside neighborhoods.  Parking reform may not be politically popular, but it is some of the most effective transportation demand management policy that exists. A robust parking permit program would help Portland meet climate action and mode-share goals as well as encourage the building of more abundant and more affordable housing.

Since May 2017, at least 8 neighborhoods and one neighborhood coalition have joined 20 members of the Centers + Corridors Parking Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee in asking Commissioner Dan Saltzman to provide impacted neighborhoods with effective options to manage parking.

Neighborhoods like Boise and Richmond were found, at the time of the parking study, to be in need of parking management, but they were not nearly as congested as NW Portland. It’s always better to manage an emerging problem before it becomes a crisis. The multi-year delay in approving the permit program has surely allowed the problem to worsen in these neighborhoods.

Northwest Portland was expected to be the initial testbed for the framework which allows for using higher permit prices to manage demand and restricting the number of permits sold, in total and per household. That process has been rocky, however, as attempts by the NW Portland Parking Committee to only restrict the number of permits allowed for residents of larger multi-family buildings, while allowing unlimited permits for other residents, met strong resistance from building managers. The NW Portland pilot has led to an increase in the permit cost (from $60/year to $180 year with discounts for low income households); the surcharge money is being spent to subsidize transit and bike share for residents who do not renew permits.

But Northwest Portland, as committee members argued, was  “not included in the [initial] study and [is] a neighborhood with very different characteristics and history than the inner SE and NE neighborhoods which clamored for [parking management options].” Much of the trouble in NW Portland is the result of a system where far too many permits are already outstanding, and parking has long been in short supply and in high demand.

On October 6th, the first of two hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Early Implementation Project were held at city hall and Portland’s Shoupistas asked city council to eliminate parking requirements in Mixed Use Zones.

At least eight Portlanders, out of approximately 40 citizens who testified on many topics, asked the commissioners to place a higher priority on housing people rather than garaging cars:

• Tony Jordan, founder of Portlanders for Parking Reform, cited the recently released Housing Development Toolkit and the failures of our current requirements to ease curbside parking anxieties as reasons to act now.
• Alan Kessler commended City Council for not expanding parking requirements into NW Portland and asked them to free the rest of the city from the burdensome 2013 requirements.
• Kiel Johnson, owner of the Go By Bike Shop and operator of North America’s largest bike valet told commissioners that he specifically chose to buy a condo in a building with no parking and pointed out that “whatever you build, people will use it and that’s what they will use to get around.”
• Chris Rall spoke as the father of three school age children.  He expressed concern that parking requirements lead to more traffic and more expensive housing.  In 20 years, he wondered, “will there be enough housing for [his children] or only for cars they won’t even be likely to own?”
• Charlie Tso, vice-president of Portlanders for Parking Reform, laid out the case for why our proposal is supported by the current city policy and asked council to “trade parking requirements for more affordable housing.”
• Sam Noble started his testimony by saying “I drive almost everywhere I go.” Nevertheless, he said, it is “not fair to expect residents of new mixed-use buildings to pay more rent in order to subsidize [his] on-street parking.”  Noble’s testimony led to a strange follow-up from Commissioner Amanda Fritz who asked him: “Where do you park your vehicle?”  Mr. Noble said he had a garage and driveway, but pays for a parking permit where he works.  “All right,” was Fritz’ response.
• Margot Black spoke as a renter and a car driver who is against “anything at all that would possibly limit more housing being built or increase the cost of more housing being built”, including parking requirements and downzoning.  Black said that she often hears that renters who can no longer afford to live in the “cool, hip city” of Portland “should just move.” She responded that Portland’s growth “comes with increased parking and traffic situations” and “big cities make room for people, not cars.”  Perhaps, she suggested, people who don’t like not being able to find a parking spot should move as well.” Ms. Black also took time to refer to controversy earlier in the day regarding a proposed police contract. “People of color in this city who are being killed by police officers need to be heard” and “we should listen to their input and prioritize them.”
• Doug Klotz spoke later in the hearing and strongly supported our campaign to eliminate minimum parking requirements in the new mixed-use zones (Doug serves on the Mixed Use Zones Project Advisory Committee).

This in-person testimony is important, but we are asking others to submit letters to city council members and as official comprehensive plan testimony.   Join Oregon Walks, Portland for Everyone, and other concerned citizens and ask City Council to trade parking requirements for more affordable housing.  Ask them to eliminate parking requirements in mixed-use zones.

We have prepared a document with talking points for your convenience.

Send testimony to City Council

Before midnight on Thursday, October 13th you can send written testimony to cputestimony@portlandoregon.gov with subject line “Comprehensive Plan Implementation.”

Write to the Commissioners

Send an email to the members of City Council.  We suggest you do this by October 13th.

Write to Commissioner Steve Novick, Mayor Charlie Hales, Commissioner Nick Fish, Commissioner Dan Saltzman, and Commissioner Amanda Fritz.  Your letter doesn’t need to be very long or wonky, simply let them know that you value housing for people over shelter for cars.