After months of contentious debate over the need for and extent of demolition/development regulation, it was an odd couple that came before the City Council in December to advocate for revisions in the building code. Yet there they were, together in purpose: staff from the developer-oriented Bureau of Development Services (BDS), issuer of city demolition permits, and activists from the resident-oriented United Neighborhoods for Reform (UNR), a neighborhood association-driven grassroots movement promoting a “smart growth” approach to demolition and development policy. But as testimony unfolded, it became clear that BDS’s reform package was not what UNR deemed necessary and sufficient, as expressed in UNR’s Demolition/Development Resolution Call to Action, a document endorsed by over three dozen neighborhood associations and preservation organizations around the city. Still, the fact that BDS was pushing for reform at all—let alone measures initially anathema to developers on its Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)—was a welcome step forward in bridging the gap.
The road to this junction was replete with twists and turns. First, there was the unanticipated citywide support for UNR reform proposals emanating from its three demolition/development summits held over a six-month period beginning back in May. Then there was the unanticipated public promise by Mayor Hales to personally take action to address demolition-development grievances expressed by frustrated residents at a July 31st hearing convened for the presentation of the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission’s annual report, which warned of an ongoing “epidemic” of residential demolitions and called for a task force (never formed) to explore reform options. A few months later, however, the Mayor backed away from his promise, announcing that he was deferring the matter to Commissioner Amanda Fritz (in charge of BDS), who unexpectedly set in motion the creation of a DRAC Demolition Subcommittee charged with considering for recommendation many of the same demolition reforms endorsed by UNR! By early December, the Subcommittee’s recommendations had been finalized and promptly approved by BDS for Council.
So what was recommended by BDS and how does it square with UNR’s action plan?
Where they agree:
1.) Notification to residents and neighborhood associations of applications for demolition, followed by a 35-day delay in BDS approval for the purpose of dialogue and exploration of possible alternatives to demolition of the home.
2.) Notification mailings of pending demolitions to residents and neighborhood associations (e-mail notices for major remodels), plus door hanger alerts.
3.) repeal of “(K)(1)” provision that provides developers with loophole to nullify demolition delays already granted by BDS to neighborhood associations.
Where they differ:
1.) UNR opposes BDS on elimination of 120-day demolition delay request.
2.) BDS opposes UNR on increased developer accountability for hazardous waste.
3.) BDS opposes UNR on incentivized deconstruction (recycling demolition debris).
4.) UNR proposes the creation of a task force to explore options for revising the code to limit mass, footprint, setbacks, and height of construction to that of the average of existing homes within a specified distance in an effort to address the problem of ever-increasing single family demolitions and all-too-frequent replacement with large, expensive, incompatible infill single-family homes. (While this area of reform is not within the purview of BDS, it is safe to say that developers on DRAC—who make up most of the committee—are very opposed.)
A decision from City Council on reforming the code is anticipated by February.