On June 3, the Portland City Council heard public testimony from nearly 50 of the 100 people registered to testify on several proposed amendments to the Residential Infill Project (RIP). Testimony concluded on June 18, with a final vote by the Council first on the amendments, then on the entire RIP package some time in July.
RIP was established to help the Council find ways to implement the “middle housing” policy adopted in early 2016 by the city in its Comprehensive Plan—a controversial policy that encourages the city to consider zoning decisions to allow more duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, accessory dwelling units, and small multi-unit or clustered residential buildings in single-family residential zones. Long-range in scope, Portland’s Comprehensive Plan is designed to prepare the City for expected population growth and provides direction for City decision-making on land use, transportation, sewer, and water systems and natural resource management programs, while ensuring that investments in major city systems are coordinated.
In January this year, City Council closed public testimony on the RIP Recommended Draft and moved on to consider amendments. The proposed six RIP amendments on which Council heard testimony in June ranged from simple terminology changes for project consistency (e.g., getting into required alignment with Oregon’s new statewide initiative to increase the allowed number of units on single-dwelling lots to four) to more substantive issues, especially in connection with the “Deeper Affordability Bonus” and “Historic Resource Demolition Disincentive” initiatives. While the housekeeping amendments garnered little public commentary, the two meatier amendments drew comments from nearly 100 percent of those testifying at the hearing.
“Deeper Affordability” Bonus: As originally introduced, this zoning code component of RIP is an incentive for builders to construct housing units affordable to those earning 80% of Portland Median Family Income (PMFI). The Deeper Affordability Bonus amendment changes that affordability index to 60% of Median Family Income (MFI).
Today, MFI for a family of four is $87,900 in the Portland-Metro area. To be “affordable” for those at 60% of MFI, rent for a two-bedroom unit would need to be no more than about $1,200/month, well below the market average of about $2,000/month.
To entice contractors to meet this below-market rent, qualifying projects will be allowed a greater Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than standard residential construction projects. FAR is the relationship of building area to the total site area. This amendment allows up to 1.2 FAR, up to 35 feet of height (an additional 5 feet in R7 and R5) along with two more dwelling units (up to six maximum) when at least 50 percent of the units are made affordable to those earning not more than 60 percent of the MFI.
Speaking in support of the amendment, many felt that it would be beneficial for victims of displacement due to gentrification and help support racial equality. “It will allow developers to pursue affordable housing,” said David Sweet, who spoke as a representative of the Cully Association of Neighbors. Sweet is also involved with the grassroots group Portland For Everyone, a program managed by Thousand Friends of Oregon.
Donna Cohen of St. Johns supported the amendment because she believes it will expand neighborhood diversity. “People of mixed incomes should be able to live in all communities,” she said.
Historic Resource Demolition Disincentive: As originally written, the Historic Resource Demolition Disincentive is to encourage adaptive reuse of existing historic resources. This amendment would limit the development options on a site where a historic resource had been demolished in the previous 10 years to include a house, house + 1 ADU, or duplex. Triplexes, fourplexes, additional accessory dwelling units, and deeper affordable 6-plexes (if that amendment passes) would not be available in these cases but would be permissible if the existing resource is retained and converted. This limitation would essentially disallow construction of new, multi-unit housing in some areas of the city.
Critics of this amendment viewed it as a significant concession to developers and those in neighborhoods with large, historic homes who will, if this amendment passes, not be subject to multi-tenant housing construction to the same level as other neighborhoods in the city. And opponents see the amendment as having no real role in preserving Portland’s historic architecture, but simply providing the opportunity to build new large, single-family homes in historic neighborhoods.
Leon Porter, a NE Portland resident, stated he opposed this amendment because he believes it would allow historic homes to be replaced by new, expensive homes. “This only supports exclusive homes built in exclusive neighborhoods,” Porter said.
Doug Clotz, who stated he’d been participating in the RIP process for five years, spoke in opposition to the Historic Resource amendment. “It will result in higher-priced luxury homes.”
Trisha Patterson, representing the group Portland Neighbors Welcome, also opposed the amendment on both the cost of housing and the historic preservation notion. “This amendment will block lower cost housing in these areas and removes any incentive to repurpose historic homes.”
The chair of the Elliott Neighborhood Association, Brad Baker, echoed Patterson’s words about historic preservation. “If the amendment is intended to protect historic housing – it doesn’t,” he said.
For more details and information about RIP and associated amendments moving through Council, visit https://beta.portland.gov/bps/rip/residential-infill-project-documents.
Note to readers: The BWNA board is on record opposing RIP as proposed. Submitting written testimony for the June 3 amendment hearing in support of BWNA’s position was longtime United Neighborhoods for Reform (UNR) activist Terry Parker, relating RIP and the Comprehensive Plan:
“The Comprehensive Plan designates specific areas to apply appropriate zoning for middle housing. Instead, RIP allows for citywide implementation of densities in single-family zones normally found in multi-family dwelling zones.”
With very few vacant lots in neighborhoods densely populated with single-family homes (like Beaumont-Wilshire), UNR and BWNA see RIP as incentivizing destruction of viable homes, already in short supply to entry-level buyers, for the purpose of making way for construction of “plexes” in the heart of established residential communities.