Zoning

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.

Inclusionary Housing In Sellwood Hits Parking Stumbling Block

April 22, 2017 By TonyJ 9 Comments

Update: Take a minute and email Commissioner Eudaly at chloe@portlandoregon.gov. Ask her to look into this situation in Sellwood. Ask her to work to remove barriers to more housing and let her know you think we need to build affordable housing, not more parking, in Portland. If you can, cc or bcc pdxshoupistas@gmail.com so we know our campaign is working.

In February 2017, new inclusionary housing rules went into effect in Portland and, as of early April, there has been only one qualifying multi-family building submitted for review under the new rules.

As previously reported, the Urban Development Group (UDG) asked for Early Assistance on refiling three permitted developments in Sellwood. If approved, this project could provide 40 units of affordable housing in Sellwood, but the deal is in jeopardy due to minimum parking requirements.

UDG is currently permitted to build three buildings in Sellwood. Combined, the projects would add 187 market rate units, 46 parking stalls, and no units guaranteed affordable for tenants making less than 100% of the median family income (MFI). These permits were filed, along with hundreds more, in the months before February’s inclusionary zoning mandate was enforced.

Less Housing = More (And Affordable) Housing. Permitted development has 187 market rate units, 0 guaranteed affordable, 46 parking stalls, proposal is for 170 market rate, 40 affordable, 0 parking stalls. — UDG Proposal would trade 46 parking stalls for 23 more homes (and allow 40 affordable homes)

The request for early assistance affirms much of what proponents of parking reform have been saying for years: Required parking reduces the amount of housing built and makes it more expensive. With the required 46 parking stalls waived, UDG would be able to build 23 more apartments for a new combined total of 210 homes. Of the 210 apartments, 170 would be market rate, 31 would be affordable to tenants making 60% of the MFI, and 9 would be affordable to tenants making 80% MFI.

For every two parking stalls eliminated in the project, we get one more home for Portlanders. Because those additional homes still bring in rents and the project is not burdened with expensive parking, the development pencils out with the affordable housing as well. This is how the system is supposed to work.

But the deal, as proposed, is unlikely to get approval from Commissioner Eudaly’s Bureau of Development Services (BDS).

To qualify for a parking waiver, the building must be “located 1500 feet or less from a transit station, or 500 feet or less from a transit street with 20-minute peak hour service.” That level of service is defined as “service provided by public transit to a site, measured on weekdays between 7:00 AM and 8:30 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The service is measured in one direction of travel, and counts bus lines, streetcars and light rail lines.” BDS has some leeway in interpreting the code and according to their response to UDG, they don’t consider the level of service near 1717 SE Tenino Street to be sufficient. The issue seems to be a few points in the “peak hour” where the schedules have a gap of a few minutes beyond the 20 minute requirement.

There are two bus lines nearby 1717 SE Tenino that could be considered north/south routes (although one runs east/west at the location), the 99 and the 70 and the MAX Orange Line Station at Tacoma/Johnson Creek is just over 1/2 mile away (3 minutes by bike or 12 minutes leisurely walk). Combined, the transit options are very good and the location is in the heart of Sellwood, walking distance from restaurants, New Seasons, Sellwood Middle School and much more.

But unless BDS interprets the code favorably, say by considering TriMet’s admitted 3 minute plus/minus for schedules to provide some flexibility, it’s very likely that Sellwood will lose the opportunity to have 40 affordable units built and, in their place, shelter for 46 cars will be provided to the community.

Ultimately, however, the situation highlights the capricious nature of minimum parking requirements. A few minutes on a TriMet schedule can lead to a very walkable apartment building having the same requirements as a building far from transit in the SW hills.

If Portland City Council wants affordable housing to be built, they should remove all parking requirements for projects meeting the inclusionary housing mandate, wherever they are built. This would not only prevent corner-cases from sinking much needed housing projects, but would also help Portland catch up to our critical climate action goals.

Parking Minimums Effectively Repealed In Portland – What’s Next?

December 11, 2016 By TonyJ 19 Comments

It took almost four years, but Portland’s growing Shoupista movement succeeded in effectively repealing off-street parking requirements imposed in 2013. This victory demonstrates that parking policy is a viable target for reformers looking to change city policies to encourage more affordable housing, increase use of alternative transportation modes, and take action on climate change.

On November 22nd, the Portland City Council voted to waive minimum parking requirements in new developments near frequent transit if those developments contain affordable housing units. The Comprehensive Plan containing the new rules should go into effect in January 2018, but the parking requirements will most likely fade away much sooner, in February 2017. On December 13, 2016, council is poised to approve an inclusionary housing package that includes the same waiver for parking requirements in exchange for affordable housing. The inclusionary housing rules require affordable homes in any building with 20 or more units. Since parking requirements aren’t triggered until 31 units are built, parking requirements will be waived for (nearly) all new buildings starting in February 2017.

Mayor Charlie Hales casts vote to repeal parking minimums. — For the second time this year, Mayor Hales gives a shoutout to Portlanders for Parking Reform.

The hearing, which you can watch here, was intriguing. The passage of amendment 34 was in serious doubt up to the day of the vote. Commissioner Dan Saltzman had gone on record as opposing removal of the requirements (he wanted to maintain them as a bargaining chit for the inclusionary housing bill) and Commissioner Nick Fish was keeping his cards close to his chest on this one. Commissioner Fish, who has a reputation for being a consensus builder, ended up crafting a compromise amendment which tied the waiver to affordable housing, this brought Saltzman into the fold and ended up winning support for a 4-1 vote in which Commissioner Steve Novick cast a protest vote. Commissioner Amanda Fritz’s support for the amendment (in fact she brought the amendment to the table) was so surprising that it seemed there had to be some catch, a poison pill perhaps, in the amendment. As it turns out, Commissioner Fritz was confused about what she was voting for and has asked council to hold another vote. We expect that Commissioner Novick will switch his vote as well if they re-vote, maintaining a 4-1 majority for this amendment.

Commissioner Amanda Fritz is so committed to car culture that she wants to make sure her record doesn’t reflect a vote against more parking for cars.

We Did It And We’ll Do It Again

Portland Shoupistas has grown, in just one short year, into Portlanders for Parking Reform, a group with credibility and a number of significant wins under our belt. Progressive parking policy is a critical component to providing more affordable housing and encouraging people to drive less, but there have been few, if any, examples of grassroots movements committed to demanding parking reform.

Thank you and congratulations to the hundreds of people who have participated in our actions, amplified our message, and gotten informed about the high costs of our current parking policies. We have a lot more work to do, in Portland and elsewhere, and we plan to keep at it.

What Is Next?

This next week there are two important votes at Portland City Council that are related to parking minimums.

Inclusionary Housing

On Tuesday, December 13th, council will hold a hearing a vote on the Inclusionary Housing package mentioned above. Portland’s Shoupistas are encouraged to support this package as it is the action which will effectively repeal parking minimums. There is a change we would like to see in this package: developers who pay in-lieu fees rather than building affordable units are still required to build parking; these developers should be offered an in-lieu option for parking as well. Those additional fees could go directly to affordable housing funds or towards affordable transit subsidies for low income residents. You can send an email to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov and to dan@portlandoregon.gov with the subject “Inclusionary Housing.” Include your name and address.

Residential Parking Permits

On Thursday, December 15th, council will hold a hearing and vote on a new overnight Residential Parking Permit program for Portland neighborhoods. This program, which is very close to what we described in our post in January 2016, is a critical step towards managing on-street parking in Portland. The proposal is fairly flexible and we expect that over the next few years a very strong permit program will take shape.

There are two important parts to this proposal that Shoupistas should support. First, update purpose of Portland’s permit program to clarify that it is a “tool to achieve the City’s mode split goals by promoting the use of mass transit, car pooling, bicycling, and walking.” Secondly, the resolution will grant administrative rule-making power, including base permit prices, for the program to the Director of the Portland Bureau of Transportation. This is very important as it will allow the management of the public resource of on-street parking to be implemented with much less political interference.

You can send an email encouraging council to pass this package to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov with the subject “Residential Permit Program.” Include your name and address.

Questions Remain About Portland’s Downtown Parking Plans

September 26, 2016 By TonyJ 1 Comment

A map showing the locations of the Goodman family's proposed Ankeny Blocks project. — The CC2035 Proposal would allow an additional 1,200 parking stalls in the proposed “Ankeny Blocks” development.

Staff from the Portland Bureau of Transportation have responded to concerns that the Central City 2035 plan is taking a step backward by increasing maximum parking entitlements in the soon-to-redevelop “Ankeny Blocks.” Unfortunately, the memorandum doesn’t provide a convincing justification for allowing up to 1,200 additional parking stalls to be built between SW Washington and W Burnside, east of SW 6th Ave.

The arguments for “adjust[ing] office ratios in three existing downtown parking sectors upward [are] to reflect actual demand for parking in downtown, account for the loss of approximately half of the surface parking that existed when the current regulations went into effect in 1996, and in order to blend with other areas of the Core sub district that have current ratios varying from 1.0/1000sf to 2.0/1000sf.” The report further states that “the proposed ratio allows the sub district to continue to rely on non-auto trips for its growth yet it provides more flexibility to the market in some areas of downtown to support redevelopment.”

The Ankeny Blocks buildings would redevelop 225,000 sq/ft of surface lots, replacing approximately 750 parking stalls, many of which are currently occupied by food carts.

A graph showing the increase in allowed parking of 1,200 additional parking spaces. — Under the proposal, 1,200 additional parking stalls could be built in the “Ankeny Blocks.”

Questions Remain

Can the city meet mode split and climate action goals if we continue to increase downtown parking supplies?

Can our streets handle the traffic from drive-alone commuters we have today, let alone the potential traffic when thousands more stalls are available for workers in 2035?

If we anticipate that new technology and better transit will deliver the mode split changes we desire, then why should we signal that this additional supply in downtown is warranted, expected, or wanted?

It is true that the Central City Parking Policy Update Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) recommended these ratios, but there were reservations expressed and 8/19 of the committee members (see page 12) voted for the proposed ratios “with concerns.” [disclaimer: the author of this article served on that committee and voted in favor of the policy recommendations in totality]

The staff report doesn’t quantify the effect that the new maximum ratios might have on mode split targets. While affirming that the SAC “endorsed adjusting maximum parking ratios in a manner that generally relates parking allowances to mode split targets for the Central City 2035 Plan,” there is no evidence provided to the Planning Commission or the public that the amount of parking that could be built under this plan would support the needed 25% drive alone rate to downtown in 2035. In fact, at current rates, the city of Portland will add nearly 130,000 new drive-alone commuters (citywide) by 2035 (see page 47-48).

In response to concerns that the new ratios will lead to undesired amounts of parking built, the memo is optimistic. “Given other parking policies, present and future transportation investments and past trends, it is unlikely that [a scenario where developers will build to the maximum allowable ratio] will come to pass.” This begs another question, however, what is the purpose of a set of ratios that are rarely expected to be a limiting factor? The residential ratios, for example, are set at a ratio that is more than 40% higher than the average parking ratio by building built since 1995 (.85 vs. 1.2).

Don’t Go Backward On Parking Ratios

City staff are working hard to create a proposal that pleases many masters, and there are great things in this plan, but in the face of climate change and a dire need for increased traffic safety, we must be bold in setting our goals for 2035.

Taking a step backward now and allowing more parking in parts of the city core would be a mistake.

The Planning and Sustainability Commission should recommend that no maximum parking ratios be increased in the city center. Furthermore, they should ask staff to show evidence that the maximum parking ratios, to the extent possible, are fully supportive of the most aggressive mode split goals.

Did Portland City Council Suppress Housing Supply in 2013?

June 28, 2016 By TonyJ 10 Comments

On July 6th, Portland City Council will be asked by members of the NW Parking Stakeholder Committee to require tiered minimum parking requirements, described below, in the Northwest Plan District.

Although the Planning and Sustainability Commission declined to recommend this zoning change, citing concerns about housing affordability, several commissioners remain undecided and it seems very possible that council will override the planning commission’s recommendation.

Regardless of the outcome next week, a larger question looms for those concerned about housing affordability and the impacts of parking policy on our city: When will we revisit the 2013 decision to require parking in transit oriented housing developments?

A Recap

In 2002, City Council passed zoning rules that allowed new residential developments within 500 feet of frequent service transit to be built without on-site parking. Unfortunately, City Council, which included then-councilman Charlie Hales, did not follow up and provide neighborhoods with viable residential parking permit programs and other parking management tools to accompany the potential new developments.

Ten years later, some developers began building apartments with little or no on-site parking, most notably along SE Division Street. The result was a backlash from influential neighborhood activists who demanded that on-site parking be required. After several hearings, City Council imposed a tiered system of minimum parking requirements on new construction:

Buildings with 30 or fewer housing units could be built with no parking.
Buildings with 31-40 units would need to build parking at a ratio of 1 stall for every 5 housing units.
Buildings with 41-50 units would require 1 stall for every 4 housing units.
Buildings with 51+ units would require 1 stall for every 3 housing units.

See page three of this PDF for the actual zoning code.

Opponents to these rules pointed out that parking is expensive. An average parking stall in the USA adds ~$225 in costs for a building, therefore a required parking ratio of 1:3 adds a cost burden of more than $70 per housing unit. If a property manager can’t recoup the full cost of parking by renting the space, then the overage will be spread out among the other residents of the building.

Furthermore, parking requirements generally lead to less housing. Surface parking uses up land that could hold more housing units. Above ground parking takes up space in the building where more people could live. Underground parking is most expensive and takes up less space, but room for apartments is still lost to entrances and stairways to access the parking.

What Was The Effect?

So what effect did the 2013 changes have on our rental housing market?

No one knows for sure.

The city did not make estimates in 2013 of the effect on housing supply and prices. The city did not study the effects of the new policy. The NW Parking Stakeholder Committee has not provided estimates on the effect of housing supply and prices in NW Portland if they are successful in their appeal for minimum requirements.

What we do know is that the average cost per housing unit in Portland was on the decline prior to the 2013 amendments (although we cannot prove that increase was caused by the parking requirements).

We can also look around and see that there are new developments going up with exactly 30 units and that’s a sign that parking minimums are restricting housing supply. There’s no reason a development should have exactly 30 units, but a survey of Next Portland reveals an unusually high number of those buildings. To collect the data for the following graph we did a search on for articles on NextPortland.com and “3X unit” or “3X units” where X was 0-9. We placed each development’s address on a list. While not scientific, this provided an eye opening distribution.

There are at least 14 projects proposed or built in the last two years with exactly 3o housing units (at least one has on-site parking). There are 12 other developments with 31-39 units. Of the 12 developments with 31-39 units, three of them are east of SE 140th, one is a subsidized affordable housing development on the South Waterfront with no on-site parking, and two are in NW Portland which (currently) has no minimum parking requirements.

Without an arbitrary parking requirement, how many of the buildings with exactly 30 units would have more housing? We can’t know for sure, but it is very likely that 30-60 additional units would have been built among those developments, two additional building’s worth. A similar, but smaller, spike for buildings with exactly 40 units exists with very few buildings built containing 41-45 units.

Why 30?

Surely there was a good data driven reason to pick 30 units as a threshold.

But there wasn’t. The Planning and Sustainability Commission proposed a single 40 unit threshold for new transit oriented developments with a single ratio of 1 space for every 4 units. Commissioner Nick Fish proposed an amendment that created two additional tiers at 3o and 50 units. The effect of these amendments was to further suppress the amount of housing built in the city of Portland since 2013, a time period coinciding with record rent increases due to extreme demand for housing.

Fool Me Once…

In 2013 the City Council made a bad decision because there was public pressure from influential activists and anxious neighbors to solve a perceived crisis. In 2013, no one had heard of Lyft, rents were high but not as astronomical as they are now, and impacted neighborhoods had few tools at their disposal to manage parking.

In 2016, NW Neighbors have a plethora of parking management options at their disposal. They recently expanded permit zones and won’t know the effect that has had until later this year. Meanwhile, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and council should think very long and hard about enacting policies that lead to less housing. Who is clamoring for this policy? Is it renters and affordable housing advocates? Doubtful. Homeowners with stable housing who enjoy a highly subsidized public resource of on-street parking are the influential group who are lobbying council for these restrictions.

We should be repealing minimum parking requirements throughout the city, not expanding them.

Please join Portlanders For Parking Reform on July 6th and testify against this regressive policy.

Note: This article was originally published with data that did not include 2 additional 30 unit buildings and 5 buildings with 31-39 units. The collection method is not scientific and it is very possible that there are additional developments we are not aware of, or developments which were proposed with 30 units and were built with more or fewer than the proposal. The premise of the article, however, should hold: an arbitrary threshold will suppress housing development above that threshold.