Different treatment by city staff?

What will the future of Lake Oswego?

Development Review Commission schedules Wizer Block deliberations for July 30

After two nights of public comment, the panel is set to decide on controversial project 

Lake Oswego Review (online)  |  Friday, July 26  |  by Saundra Sorensen
Text in red is mone.

Supporters and opponents of a redevelopment proposal for downtown Lake Oswego's Block 137 have had their say, and now the project is in the hands of the Development Review Commission.

After two nights of public comment, the panel is set to decide on controversial projectAfter a five-hour hearing Monday night and three more hours of public testimony on Wednesday, the DRC is set to meet again on July 30 to decide whether to approve the Evergreen Group’s proposal for a 290,000-square-foot, mixed-use development at the corner of A Avenue and First Street.

Different treatment for different developers?

Anne Meneakis, who lives in the Evergreen neighborhood and headed the Evergreen Neighborhood Association while Lake View Village was being considered, detailed what she saw as key differences between the two projects.

“Contrary to the center of the proposed Wizer development, which serves only private purposes, the parking structure in the center of Block 138 serves as an aesthetically concealed public parking structure, which serves the larger community,” Meneakis said. “I respectfully request the Wizer Block developer be equally required to reduce his project's mass and so comply with the code of a community of small structures, just as Gramor was required to do and so complied.”

You can't rebut a rebuttal.  When testimony sounds like PR, that's too bad

Three hours into Wednesday's hearing, Evergreen Group representatives presented their rebuttal, with Gene Sandoval of ZGF Architects saying that the “we believe that Block 137 is the right project."

“It is consistently complementary to the mission of Lake Oswego codes and guidelines," Sandoval said, "and is the recommendation of your city staff.”

Sandoval said Evergreen's redesigned plans for the Wizer Block would give downtown Lake Oswego a feel akin to that of a European city. The design “meets all criteria for village character you have developed for decades,” he said. The plans are "respectful of your code and its intent. It is a good neighbor. It has the village character of this city."

* * * * * * *

The problem is that Kessi's team has consistently twisted city codes to suit their needs and have intentionally presented their outsized design as having "village character"  just because it meets certain numerical codes.  Opponents do not agree.  There are a number of codes they have chosen to slide by the DRC by tacking a pretty face on a solid block of apartments.  They are loathe to make concessions on the bulk of the rentable floor space which would make this design more tolerable.  Size does not equal village character, and no matter how many times they claim otherwise, their project does not fit Lake Oswego.  

DRC -still waiting

After a second day of hearings in front of the Development Review Commission, there is no decision on the approval of the Wizer Block development.  The deliberation portion of the hearing is scheduled for June 30.  Stay tuned.  Whatever the decision, the case will undoubtedly be appealed to the City Council, and then... To LUBA?  For average citizens, this is a real committment to save a city.

For a second time I want to congratulate the professionalism and commitment of the Development
Review Commissioners who labored long hours at 2 meetings this time around that lasted until past 11 pm.  They were fair, inquisitive, and. Had done their homework.  Thank you to all.

Still No Decision on Lake Oswego Apartment Complex
Article and video of last night's meeting on the KOIN website.

Perhaps others can recall a development that has raised this much controversy in the city, but other than the Portland to Lake Oswego streetcar proposal, nothing has come close to attracting this kind of  intense interest.  The passions behind the development mimic the streetcar debte - this is too much for the town - it will have a lasting, negative impact on the character and livbility of the city - the whole thing is an urban concept better left in Portland.  We are not fresh meat to be devoured when the prime stuff is gone from the big table.

As many people who testified explained, this monster, 207-unit apartment in the center of downtown would destroy the small town, small scale village character of Lake Oswego that is part of the East End Redevelopment Plan and which itself is part of the development code.  This project is dangerous and will set a precedent for what is yet to come.

Lake Oswego, with blocks and blocks of this kind of development, would NOT be a desirable place to live anymore.  It's strange that these developers cannot see this or are choosing to close their eyes and ears to what is best for LO and their own project down the road, just for the quick buck they can make today.  This is how the rich get richer.

Lake Oswego city blocks are  260' x 410' (106,600 sf); Portland's blocks are 200' x 200' (40,000 sf)
Lake Oswego city blocks about 2 1/5 times larger than a Portland city block.  

Who are "We?"

 Honestly, when you read or listen to  Mr. Kessi's words, it sounds like he's one of us.  Given the repetitious tone of his opinion piece in the Lake Oswego Review, it's my guess that it was written by one of Mr. Kessi's strategists.   See what you think.

In its editorial last week (“City should hold true to vision for downtown core, reject Wizer plan,” July 17), The Review used a quote from Confucius. The quote — “Study the past if you would define the future” — is sound advice. We should all draw lessons from our past. However, we cannot live backwards. We live in the present and, hopefully, in the future. We are not static. So as this community, the Development Review Commission and the City discuss the redesign of the Wizer Block, I am inclined to put Confucius together with Winston Churchill who said, “... if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find we have lost the future.”

When we redesigned our original concept, we studied the past and learned from it — Lake View Village, Oswego townhomes and the code vision are all incorporated. We studied the community in its present — we didn’t open a quarrel between past and present. We listened to citizens, the DRC and the City, and came up with a significantly improved development that fits the code’s vision. We looked to the future of Lake Oswego and to a place where people want to live, work, shop and play in a core and can leave their cars at home.

We get it - by saying we, you are suggesting you are one of us.  

Mr. Kessi makes it sound like he lives here - like he has a love of the town for more than the money it will make for him and his investors - like at the end of the day, when the project is done, he will go home to his wife and kids somewhere in Lake Oswego and deal (happily) with the downtown he has envisioned.  But he'd better live close to downtown and have one or no cars for his family, because that's what he is asking the rest of the people who live in downtown to do.

It isn't enough that people "leave their cars at home" because there won't be enough parking spaces at home to put their cars if there are more than one per household.  (US Census data show that only 800 households in town do not have cars, while a majority have 2, 3 or more, but Kessi believes up-scale residents won't own any or very many cars.   It doesn't matter what happens to congestion or parking since Kessi will go home to Scapoose where density is very low and parking is not a problem.




So Mr. Kessi - does destroying the past mean progress?  Is it you or citizens who want to reserve their heritage who have a "quarrel with the past?"  What should become of our tangible history that we want to share with our children?  Will future generations value what we build, or will they mourn the things that we destroy?  Progress isn't just flowing the crowd, or creating things that are new, it's knowing what is of value and then moving in that direction.

“A faint smell of lilac filled the air. There was always lilac in this part of town. Where there were grandmothers, there was always lilac.”
― Laura Miller, Butterfly Weeds

Block 137 Tries Again...

It's been a few days since I visited my computer to tell you what's been going on, but most of you have been following the Wizer Block development drama for some time and don't need an update.  The LO Review published an article about Part 1 of the DRC hearing on Monday night - Part 2 will be held tonight starting at 6:00 pm at City Hall.

Again, I want to say how impressed I am Bout the thorough and professional way the Commissioners have listened and responded to testimony.  No one will be pulling any wool over their eyes, so keep the rhetoric at home or on the streets - the slogans and repetitious "We did it!" exclamations are only distractions and a bit off-putting.  If Kessi was trying to persuade anyone his project was an ideal fit on Monday night, he did not "do it."

Block 137 supporters, critics flood City Hall

So many show up for review commission's hearing that a second session is scheduled for Thursday night

Lake Oswego Review  |  July 23, 2014  |  Saundra Sorensen

Supporters and opponents of a redevelopment proposal for downtown Lake Oswego’s Block 137 packed City Council chambers and Municipal Court space and spilled out into City Hall’s foyer Monday night, when the Development Review Commission met for the first of what now looks to be several nights of public debate.

The commission met for five hours Monday, listening first to lengthy presentations from city staff and from developer Patrick Kessi’s Evergreen Group LLC. Commissioners offered comments and asked questions before opening the meeting to the public shortly after 9 p.m.

Because of the huge number of people who signed up to speak, comments will now continue to be heard Thursday night. The DRC meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Lake Oswego City Hall, 380 A Ave.

* * * * * *

A quote from Patrick Kessi:   “At over 100 meetings and public hearings, our initial ideas were met with significant community support, but also some opposition to aspects of the design. We then presented the project to you. You asked for good and important changes.”

I would like to clarify that most of the "100" meetings he refers to were with city officials going over application materials or with a select group of residents he asked to comment on his designs.  

* * * * * *

For opponents, alterations in the redesign were not enough.

“The developer was asked by the DRC in the first hearing to break up the mass of the buildings,” Carol Radich said. “Buildings A and building C are the same height and the same length as they were in the original application — they’re reduced in square footage only by the removal of that first floor on the walkways, but the volume and the height of the buildings have not changed.”

Radich told the DRC that its responsibility was to “protect the city’s aesthetic beauty and character,” adding that “the Lake Oswego character is defined both in the code for the downtown area and in the Lake Oswego urban design plan.

“The code interprets village character as a community of small-scale structures, and an assembly of smaller mixed-use structures,” Radich said. “The proposed development, we believe, does not meet the intent of village character.”

David and Goliath: Prelude to Monday's DRC hearing

Despite the slick flyers and the tent in the Wizer parking lot,

Besides the crony letters to the editor of the LOReview,

In spite of the big bucks thrown at political operatives, websites, PR sent to multiple news outlets, blast emails, contact with downtown businesses and half-page, color newspaper advertising...

the community has not been swayed.  All the money used in the PR campaign to gain favor for the largest, densest development in town has not purchased the hearts and minds of Lake Oswegans.  It's hard to sell when people don't want to buy what you are selling.

Today's Lake Oswego Review (July 17, 2014) editorial:  City should hold true to vision for downtown core, reject Wizer plan

LOCAL (Lake Oswego Citizen Action League) - Survey on the Wizer Block

Other grass roots groups that have testified in opposition to the size, scale and density of the project:
LONAC (Lake Oswego Neighborhood Association Action Coalition)
Evergreen Neighborhood Association 
Save Our Village

Thank you Mr. Bergstein

Desr Mr. Bergstein,

I am sorry I haven't gotten back to you before now - I have had visitors from out of town and businesses to attend to, but I have not forgotten you.

I want you and my readers to know how much I appreciate your response to my letter a few weeks ago inquiring about information Evergreen Group has been reporting in the news and in promotional flyers.  I was suspicious about the square footage quoted that compared the revised Block 137 design with that of Lake View Village and you offered to send me proof of the legitimacy of your figures.

You sent me the proof that Lake View Village does, indeed, have 236,000 sq. ft.  For the sake of my readers, this figure includes the parking garage on the Lake View Village block.  Len - This is where we part ways with our comparisons.

Lake View Village has about  99,000 sq. ft. and that Block 137 has about 290,000 sq. ft., making it 3x bigger than its neighbor next door.  While I admit your figures are absolutely true, you measured total DEVELOPED area, while I measured total RENTABLE area.  You also seem to have forgotten to include Block 137's parking in your comparison so the Lake View Village number was increased by including parking space, while the Block 137 number was not.  You are juggling apples and peaches.

By including parking in the mix, we get into very muddy waters.  Lake View Village has 365 PUBLIC parking spaces total, while Block 137 redesign eliminated 60 spaces and has only 155 PUBLIC parking space and 275 private spaces.  Most of Block 137's parking will be for tenant use - 275 spaces, with 26 pushed out onto the streets because our city planners determined downtown has adequate transit options (uh huh) and can handle the extra parking load the development would bring (right).  I realize space in the apartment garage will be dear with only .7 to 1.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit.  Will the tenant parking be rented to tenants like landlords do in Portland?  And do you count the on-street parking that has been substituted for garage space as public or private parking space?  So much to think about!

As you can see, throwing parking into the area calculations confuses things immensely, so for the sake of simplicity I will stick to RENTABLE INTERIOR SPACE to compare the size and volume of the two developments.  Perhaps we can tackle the parking issue in a later discussion as that is another issue I'm sure we can have fun debating.  We can even talk about bicycle parking (I see Block 137 has increased bicycle parking for residents with the redesign - do facilities for "active transportation" allow you to cut out automobile parking?).  We can throw in transit and it will be a very lively discussion indeed!

Well, I have to get back to my day job, but I just wanted to let you know how grateful I am for your follow-up with me as I know you are a very busy man.  I hope you are having a great time with your family this summer - children and grandchildren are a blessing in one's life and special moments are fleeting.

I'll see you on Monday at the Development Review Commission public hearing.  Until then,

My kind regards,

Up Sucker Creek

• Bicycle parking is increased. The development is providing four times as many resident bicycle spaces than required by city code

Five days to Round 2

In five days, the Development Review Commission will continue its public hearing on the building permit application for the Wizer Block (Block 137).  I predict it will be SRO at the hearing, but that's a safe bet considering the attendance at the first hearing and the interest in the topic.

  Development Review Commission  

        Public Hearing        

    Land Use Case LU 13-0046          

         Monday, July 21, 2014       

              6:00 pm           

             City Hall          

Unless I am very much off the mark, you can expect to see the Chamber of Commerce, members of KLOG (Keep Lake Oswego Great), and members of The Coalition testifying at the hearing in favor of the development.  The membership in each of these organizations overlaps so the total number is not that of three discrete groups but three groups, each with a slightly different focus. Not he emphasis is on greater density and commercial development of the East End Redevelopment District (Downtown) with the expectation that more people will mean more customers for downtown businesses.  I have a suspicion that they are wrong, or at least the negatives will outweigh the positives so that dense development will not be the plus these groups anticipated.

In opposition to the development will be members of Save Our Village and LOCAL who are committed to lower density development and the retention of the small town character of Lake Oswego which defines the superior quality of life people moved here to enjoy.  The Wizer Block development is the wrong development in the wrong place, and it is just too massive for anyplace in the "small scale" "village" Town Centers.

If you have something to say about the development, get your written testimony in to the DRC quickly (by Friday if you want it read over the weekend) and/or come to the hearing on Monday evening.  Please don't be intimidated to take the microphone and speak to your Commissioners; they are Lake Oswego residents and may even be your neighbors.  This is your opportunity to have a say in how you want your city to develop.  But first you should review the Revised Development Narrative, Revised Drawing Set and Revised Code Evaluation PLUS the brand new Revised Parking Study.  Read the narratives with a critical eye and you can find a lot to talk about.

Search city website using keyword: LU 13-0046
Look for all new documents - June 2014 to date

LOCAL survey hits the mark

LOCAL, Lake Oswego Citizens' Action League, just released it's citizen attitude survey on local political issues.  (LOCAL is listed on Blog list in right menu column:  (www.locitizens.com). See the survey and more on their website.  The survey results include commentary from the respondents that is also very important regarding their concerns for the city.

We cannot afford the old government's "vision" for our town.  Government has intruded into our lives, our pocketbooks and our backyards too much and we need to change the agenda at City Hall - and Metro.  As you can see, tied for 2nd place as a concern is "Staff driving city agenda vs elected officials.  While some inroads have been made, there is a long ways to go and we can't afford to have the status quo further degrade the quality of life in Lake Oswego in the meantime.

Results of LOCAL's Summer Survey

LOCAL recently conducted a non-scientific survey in order to identify those issues which our citizens and voters are most concerned about as we head into the Fall Election. Respondents were asked to rank 10 issues listed in alphabetical order on a scale of 1 to 5 in terms of which ones they are least and most concerned about. 1 = Unconcerned. 2 = Somewhat Concerned. 3 = Concerned. 4 = Very Concerned. 5 = Extremely Concerned. Here is a summary of results aggregated from nearly 300 responses:

• "Fiscal Responsibility" was the area of most concern at 4.2.
• "Staff Driving City Agenda (Versus Elected Officials)" and "Water Rates" tied for second at 4.0.
• "Property Use Restrictions (Also Known As Sensitive Lands)" ranked fourth at 3.8.
• "Block 137 Project (Also Known As 'The Wizer Project') came in fifth at 3.7.
• "Current City Development Code" and "Density" tied for sixth at 3.5.
• "Street Maintenance" and the "West End Building (WEB)" tied for eighth.
• "Bike/Pedestrian Paths" was dead last as an area of concern at 2.3.

With fiscal responsibility being paramount on the minds of LO citizens, it is important to note that in the coming election three City Council positions will be contested. What that means is that citizens will have an opportunity to again elect fiscally conservative Council members to ensure we continue to have a fiscally conservative Council majority, rather than return to the free-spending days of prior administrations which have resulted in our current ever-rising water and tax bills.

Fiscal responsibility, water rates are top concerns for residents, PAC says
The Oregonian  |  July 14, 204  |  By Michael Bamesburger

Lake Oswego residents are most concerned about fiscal responsibility, water rates and a city staff-driven agenda, according to a non-scientific survey conducted a local political action committee.
The Lake Oswego Citizens Action League, or LOCAL, received close to 300 responses to a survey asking residents to rank their level of concern regarding 10 city issues. The survey was sent to members of the group's email list, which contains about 2500 email addresses, said member Cheryl Salamie. 

"We hear the community saying loud and clear that they want their tax money spent wisely," she said. 

In addition, Salamie noted that the bike and pedestrian paths that are a focus of the proposed update to the city's Transportation System Plan are ranked very low. 

From Heaven to Earth

Astronomy Photographer of the Year
Selected images from this year's shortlisted entries.
www.rmg.co.uk/astrophoto
A gallery curated by the Royal Observatory

Photos also on Slate Magazine website

Star trails sweep over the Giant’s Causeway, dust clouds are moulded into colossal arrangements by cosmic radiation, a bright meteor passes over Indonesia’s smoke-spewing Mount Bromo - the 2014 Astronomy Photographer of the Year competition has received more outstanding pictures than ever before.

    







Supermoon  - if you missed it this weekend, there are two more to come this summer.
The first of three "supermoons" this summer appeared on Saturday. Because of its closer proximity to the earth this month, the moon appeared 13.3 percent larger and will cast more reflected light during the evening.  The next Supermoon will appear on Aug. 10, and a third will occur on Sept. 9.

per·i·gee

ˈperəˌjē/

noun:  ASTRONOMY

the point in the orbit of the moon or a satellite at which it is nearest to the earth.

 

Supermoon with Portland Convention Center

Supermoon over Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem 

Gramor's game-changer for Vancouver

If anyone wonders where some of those 750,000 people forecast to move to the Metro area in the next 25 years will live, it will be Vancouver.  And it won't be Cootyville.  A new development, The Waterfront Vancover, will give the Pearl and SoWa a run for their money.  With urban development spread across 35 acres (22 blocks) along the Columbia River waterfront, the development will include "3,000 housing units, 10 park acres, 1.2 million feet of office space and 250,000 square feet of retail and hospitality space."  Barry Cain, President of Gramor development is heading this major endeavor.  

Cain is the developer who worked so diligently with citizens to make sure Lake View Village successful and fit the character of downtown LO.  Lake View Village is now being threatened by the proposed Wizer Development that would overwhelm the district.  What every city needs are not more big buildings, but more good neighbors.  

The scale of the Vancouver undertaking is breathtaking - a small city really.  Reclaiming an old mill site for new development is a good match for land needed for housing and employment, and the apparent need for these services.  

Rather than trying to disperse density into towns that clearly don't want it, the Central Planners should concentrate their efforts on places where it is wanted.  In other words, a Metro should walk their talk - work with communities to realize their own visions for the future - not just some version of the oppressive Metro Plan.   

Vancouver waterfront developer nearing agree-ments with tenants; construction could start in 2015
The Oregonian  |  July 11, 2014  |  By Elliot Njus 


The developer behind a plan to build a business, residential and entertainment district at a former  lumber mill on the Vancouver waterfront says he's close to agreements with tenants that would
occupy its first buildings.

Gramor Development President Barry Cain, speaking before a crowd of 200 hosted by the Vancouver Downtown Association, said he's in talks with two restaurants and a hotel company  whose buildings could be among the first in the mixed-use development. He said his company is working on a residential building that would start construction at the same time.

"We're getting so, so close to getting really started," he said.

Cain said several businesses had expressed
 interest in the office space, and that he on.wouldn't move forward on an office building before a tenant had signed.

The waterfront development has been in the works for nearly a decade since Boise Cascade shuttered its lumber mill, leaving fallow a 35-acre site near the Port of Vancouver. It was largely cut off from downtown by a railroad berm until the city finished a $44.6 million access project to dig under the rails and connect the area to downtown roads this year.

Cain said the 22-block site is unlike any other in the Portland area because of its south-facing waterfront views. He said, too, that the development team is selling sites there for half of what a site in Portland's Pearl District would cost.

Gramor is known for retail-centered developments around the Portland region, including Lake View Village in downtown Lake Oswego and Progress Ridge TownSquare in Beaverton.

Old homes are endangered species

It's not just happening in Portland.  Million-dollar houses on the lake are tone down to make way for bigger homes, and smaller, older older homes in and around town are disappearing fast, making Lake Oswego less affordable than ever.  When it happens next door, and the new neighbors are peering into your formerly private backyard (or bedroom windows), or blocking the sunlight, to your home and yard, gentrification isn't pleasant at all.

New endangered species: old homes 
Population growth spurs demolitions, new infill projects

Portland Tribune  |  July 10, 2014  |  By Jim Redden

by: TRIBUNE PHOTO: JONATHAN HOUSE - Local home builder Jeff Fish is chairman of a city advisory committee working with neighbors upset about demolitions and infill projects.

Neighborhood activists and preservationist are scrambling to prevent the demolition of another old house in Portland, the Markham home at the entrance to the Laurelhurst neighborhood. A developer has bought the rambling 1906 structure and requested a meeting with the Bureau of Development Services to discuss its future.

“I’m not against change, but this is a historically important home to the neighborhood,” says Terra Wheeler, who was circulating fliers asking people to sign an online petition to save the home. She operates the Facebook page Portland Historic Building Demolition Alert.

The buyer, developer Peter Kusyk, says he has not yet decided what to do with the home. But the property has been heavily modified over the years and the house shows signs of serious deterioration.

“I’m still in the planning stages, but I’m leaning toward tearing it down, dividing the lot, and replacing it with two homes that reflect the character of the neighborhood,” Kusyk says.

Local homebuilder Jeff Fish says such controversies are being driven by Portland’s growing popularity and land-use planning laws that limit available homesites.

Compare and Contrast: LO & St. Johns

Could this be our future?  

St. Johns with new Cathedral Apartments

This is happening all across Portland.  Is this what we want for Lake Oswego - to be like Portland?

 

Mass and scale                                                                Dominates landscape

Traffic jam trying to get across bridge - Hwy. 30                                                              

   Small scale downtown

Quaint, historic downtown buildings

Kessi's Group: How they did it in Portland

Note:  Because of the length of the previous edition, this post has been revised.  All material removed is part of the City of Portland Design Review and can be viewed in the original document. 

Below are excerpts of the City of Portland Design Review for the Cathedral Apartments in St. Johns, developed by both Kessi and Wegner. The actual document is very long and can be viewed HERE.

It is surprising to the average person reading this because there appear to be so many contradictions between the requirements for a small scale Main Street that preserves the historical look and feel of the St. Johns area, and what is being proposed.  When it comes time to address how the project fulfills these requirements, city staff admits that the design, scale and mass of the building do not blend in with the area, but are appropriate to other parts of the city.  That is enough to get over this significant hurdle.  The list goes on - from the requirement for 50' storefronts to setbacks from the street and view corridors.  In the end, the city acknowledges that the applicant revised the plan to accommodate some of the criticisms of the project, but it remains essentially the same as before.

Having been so successful in achieving their goal with Portland building officials, Kessi and crew could be expecting the same in Lake Oswego: revise parts of the building to appease critics, but not address the main objections of mass and scale. You will note at the end that the report contains information supplied by the applicant, so it would be a good idea to carefully read through the Revised Design Narrative on the LORA Project page for descriptions of the Wizer block project.

Excerpts:  (emphasis mine)

NOTICE OF A TYPE II DECISION AND POTENTIAL APPEAL HEARING DATE ON A PROPOSAL IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
The Bureau of Development Services has approved a proposal in your neighborhood.
The reasons for the decision are included in the version located on the BDS website http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=46429. 

 CASE FILE NUMBER: LU 12-169740 DZM – ST. JOHNS IVANHOE

GENERAL INFORMATION

Applicant:
Property Owner:

Jennifer Jenkins, Ankron Moisan Architects
6720 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97219
Cathedral Group LLC Attn.: Geoff Wenker P.O. Box 1105 Scappoose, OR 97056 

REVISIONS: In response to staff concerns, the applicant has made some minor changes to the project since the mailed notice. The majority of the rooftop lounge structure has been changed to an open wood trellis with the same height and footprint, concrete versus cement panel is proposed at the podium level on the Syracuse and Alta elevations, and a decorative trellis screen has been proposed in several locations at the base of the building on Philadelphia and Ivanhoe. Otherwise, the project remains the same as shown in the original mailed notice.

Zoning: The Neighborhood Commercial 2 (CN2) base zone is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods. The emphasis of the zone is on uses which will provide services for the nearby residential areas, and on other uses which are small scale and have little impact. The Design (d) overlay zone is intended to preserve, enhance, and protect areas of the City with special scenic, architectural or cultural qualities. Regulations of the Design overlay zone require either a Design Review or compliance with the Community Design Standards for new buildings and most exterior alterations to a site. The Scenic (s) overlay zone is intended to protect Portland’s scenic resources as identified in the Scenic Resources Protection Plan. At this site, the scenic resource is a Panorama from the center of the St. John’s Bridge span of the surrounding hills and mountains, but there is no specific height restriction within this particular panorama designation.

The St. Johns plan district provides for an urban level of mixed-use development including commercial, employment, office, housing, institutional, and recreation uses. Specific objectives of the plan district include strengthening St. Johns role as the commercial and civic center of the North Portland peninsula. 

Neighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on September 6, 2012. A total of three written responses have been received from either the Neighborhood Association or notified property owners in response to the proposal.

The first letter was received from a representative of the St. Johns Main Street Coalition. This letter includes a cover letter that is generally supportive of the project, but also specific suggestions made by six different coalition members from a meeting on the project. The comments are also generally supportive, but include the following recommendations and concerns:

• There could be more diversity in the façade, greater setbacks from the street, and perhaps visible rooftop gardens;
• The internal courtyard could benefit from having some visibility to the street;
• The design could be more reflective of the existing patterns in St. Johns, with more of a
  main street, small-town character;
• The design could reduce the mass and scale of the building by greater definition at the
  ground floor, and a more distinct and defined top floor given the high visibility of the
  structure;
• Greater and more public spaces should be provided along the street adjacent to the
  sidewalk;
• The building design should break down the facades into 50’-0” or less increments per the supplemental design guidelines for St. Johns; and 
• The building has a Brutalist, office-like feel, and is out of character with the St. Johns Main Street neighborhood.

Another letter, from a nearby resident, asks that the proposal be rejected. This letter objects to the loss of views of the river and Forest Park from downtown St. Johns, and that the high- density building and parking will create traffic and safety problems in the area. The author feels that the building bears no design relationship to other buildings in St. Johns, that it will cast shadows over the main street district, and that the building should be constructed at a different location.

The third letter is submitted on behalf of the Friends of Cathedral Park Neighborhood Association, the St. Johns Neighborhood Association, and the St. Johns Main Street Coalition Design Committee. While the letter expresses overall support for the project, several specific design-related concerns have been raised. In general, the industrial modern design of the building challenges the history of St. Johns and its small town character, and it’s not an immediately obvious fit. However, the architectural diversity of St. Johns allows room for such modern design, and the project includes elements that recognize the surrounding historic architecture. Concerns remain about the scale and massing of the building in relation to the adjacent small town context. Though the design creates a successful pedestrian-scale rhythm of façade materials that break down the horizontal mass of the building, the elevation views don’t fully achieve similar integration to the small town fabric of the community, particularly on the Ivanhoe frontage. The integration of façade material changes and balconies on the Philadelphia frontage much more successfully addresses this challenge, and efforts should be made to better integrate the design with the streetcar-era building facades nearby.

Staff Response: Concerns about the design of the building, including conformance with the ‘desired characteristics and traditions’ sub-guidelines for St. Johns, will be considered in the findings of this decision. The applicant has indicated that follow-up meetings occurred between them and the neighborhood associations, leading to the re-design of the proposal to include vegetated trellis work at the ground floor along both Philadelphia and Ivanhoe, as well as replacement of the enclosed rooftop gathering space with an open wood trellis structure. Views through the site from downtown St. Johns to the bridge and Forest Park are not protected under current zoning, which allows for the proposed four-story building at this site. 

P1. Plan Area Character. Enhance the sense of place and identity by incorporating site and building design features that respond to the area’s desired characteristics and traditions.
Findings: The site is in the Downtown St. Johns urban character area in the Desired Characteristics and Traditions appendix (K) to the Community Design Guidelines. This appendix includes suggestions about how new buildings should support St. Johns role as the heart of the town center, with a strong pedestrian-oriented presence. Strategies to support this include the following:

• Developing small-scale buildings of 50 feet in width or less, one to three stories in height. Mass of taller or wider buildings can be moderated by incorporating architectural details that individualize storefronts or stepping back from the street; 
• The transition between commercial and residential zones is important. New development along boundary streets such as Syracuse on the west edge of the project should include design elements that reflect the scale and character of the residential zone. 

0. The building type is reminiscent of early twentieth century courtyard apartment buildings in Portland, with a central courtyard and exterior building walls at or near the street lot line, often with a narrow row of plants or shrubbery along the sidewalk. The four-storey height of the building, however, was not traditionally found in the St. Johns neighborhood, but is found in Northwest, Downtown, and parts of close-in East Portland. 
   

D7. Blending into the Neighborhood. Reduce the impact of new development on established neighborhoods by incorporating elements of nearby, quality buildings such as building details, massing, proportions, and materials. 

The visual mass of the building is broken down into vertical segments through the use of the repeating, random brick pilasters. The vertical brick banding is a complementary, modern nod to the old city hall across the street, and to the soaring cable stays and towers of the bridge. The cement panel system has an integral color treatment, which ensures a long-lasting, durable finish to the gray-brown primary background walls of the building. The large storefront windows at ground level and custom trellis structures with climbing vines at the ground floor help to distinguish and soften the Philadelphia and Ivanhoe frontages, with entries further detailed by projecting canopies and lighting.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the information contained in this report was provided by the applicant.
As required by Section 33.800.060 of the Portland Zoning Code, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the approval criteria are met. The Bureau of Development Services has independently reviewed the information submitted by the applicant and has included this information only where the Bureau of Development Services has determined the information satisfactorily demonstrates compliance with the applicable approval criteria. This report is the decision of the Bureau of Development Services with input from other City and public agencies. 

The war against suburbia

The attack on suburbia comes from without, and curiously, from within - from people who have made the choice to live here and now want to change it.  It is those who don't believe in our lifestyle that are our "betters" who are affecting changes to our town without the awareness of the public about what is happening.  Our way of life is being stolen from under us through master plans and code changes that most know nothing about.  The city isn't ours anymore - it's being manipulated by those who don't respect our lifestyle and who have immense control over how the city transitions into the future.  Whether we like it or not.

The Central Planners do not believe in personal or community autonomy, individual property rights, liberty or even a democratic, less regulated form of government.  Whatever the reason, from misapplied environmentalism to envy to power to greed, they have the upper hand and are using it against us.

Below are excerpts of a long piece on the Newgeography website.  It is a wonderful explanation of is happening in the war on suburbia, and gives some startling facts that contradict "conventional wisdom" of the day.  I highly recommend this article to everyone.  Read it and use the facts to refute the untruths you hear every day.  Fighting back - saving suburbia for generations to come - is a noble cause.

The War on Suburbia
Newgeography
By Joel Kotkin  |  1/21/10

Contrary to much of the current media hype, most Americans continue to prefer suburban living. Indeed for four decades, according to numerous surveys, the portion of the population that prefers to live in a big city has consistently been in the 10 to 20 percent range, while roughly 50 percent or more opt for suburbs or exurbs. The reasons? The simple desire for privacy, quiet, safety, good schools, and closer-knit communities. The single-family house, detested by many urbanists, also exercises a considerable pull. Surveys by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders find that some 83 percent of potential buyers prefer this kind of dwelling over a townhouse or apartment.

In other words, suburbs have expanded because people like them. A 2008 Pew study revealed that suburbanites displayed the highest degree of satisfaction with where they lived compared to those who lived in cities, small towns, and the countryside. This contradicts another of the great urban legends of the 20th century—espoused by urbanists, planning professors, and pundits and portrayed in Hollywood movies—that suburbanites are alienated, autonomous individuals, while city dwellers have a deep sense of belonging and connection to their neighborhoods. Indeed on virtually every measurement—from jobs and environment to families—suburban residents express a stronger sense of identity and civic involvement with their communities than those living in cities. One recent University of California at Irvine study found that density does not, as is often assumed, increase social contact between neighbors or raise overall social involvement. For every 10 percent reduction in density, the chances of people talking to their neighbors increases by 10 percent, and their likelihood of belonging to a local club by 15 percent.

Ultimately, the war against suburbia reflects a radical new vision of American life which, in the name of community and green values, would reverse the democratizing of the landscape that has characterized much of the past 50 years. It would replace a political economy based on individual aspiration and association in small communities, with a more highly organized, bureaucratic, and hierarchical form of social organization.

In some ways we could say forced densification could augur in a kind of new feudalism, where questions of land ownership and decision making would be shifted away from citizens, neighbors, or markets, and left in the hands of self-appointed “betters.” This seems strange for an administration—and a party—whose raison d’être ostensibly has been to widen opportunities rather than constrict them.

If Metro & Lake Oswego want more affordable housing...

I was recently informed about a local couple who wants to create an accessory dwelling unit on their property for their visiting mothers-in-law.  The unit would be in a converted shop on the property.  When they applied for the building permit, they were told the SDCs (System Development Charges) for the remodel would be about $20,000 and that these municipal fees were on top of the remodeling costs.  The SDCs for a new house in Lake Oswego are about $30,000 and are equivalent to other area jurisdictions.  I was dumbfounded that the charges are so high, especially for simple guest quarters in an existing structure.  Clearly a granny-flat is out of reach for the average homeowner, yet it is being encouraged as a way to increase density in existing neighborhoods.

What is going on?  This article from Newgeography by Wendell Cox (11/01/10) explains how land and regulation costs have pushed the costs of housing up in cities where Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) have restricted the supply of land, and code restrictions, usually in the form of Smart Growth, have added thousands to the construction costs of new homes, and likewise increased the price of existing homes and rentals.  Unfortunately, Central Planners believe that affordable housing only comes in the form of subsidized housing, which itself makes housing less affordable.

* * * * *

NEW INDEX ESTIMATES NEW HOUSE COST IMPACT OF LAND REGULATION

The Land and Regulation Ratio

For decades, construction costs of tract house on the urban fringe in the United States have represented 80% or more of the advertised house price. The balance of 20% or less has been for land and regulation costs and will be referred to as the "land and regulation cost ratio." In metropolitan markets with less restrictive land use regulation, the historic 20% or less land price ratio remains in place. The Demographia Residential Land & Regulation Cost Index assumes a 20% expected land and regulation ratio.

In some metropolitan markets, however, house prices have increased far more rapidly than in the rest of the nation. The greater increase in house prices and escalation of land costs above the historic 20% land and regulation cost ratio has occurred in metropolitan markets burdened by more restrictive land use regulations. Urban growth boundaries, limits on the number of houses that can be built, large lot zoning and excessive development impact fees and the like are regulation strategies that increase the cost of land for building houses. These land cost increases are not the result of more rapidly rising construction costs or underlying market forces such as consumer demand.                                             

More restrictive land use land use regulation also creates obstacles to people buying houses, requiring them to devote more money to housing than necessary and increases their vulnerability to losses in the event of a financial downturn. This exposes mortgage lenders to increased risks of loan defaults. Finally, more restrictive land use regulation makes residential land development more dependent on politics, with the potential for greater influence through campaign contributions.

Economic research has associated rising residential land costs with more restrictive land use regulations. The table indicates some of the more important price increasing impacts of more restrictive land use regulation. 

More Restrictive Land Use Regulation: Factors that Can Drive House Prices Higher

1.. Increases underlying land costs

2.. Increases planning and development costs

3.. Raises financing costs

4.. Encourages more expensive houses.

5.. Increases construction costs

6.. Encourages concentration of market power and land banking

7.. Encourages land and housing speculation

Results

The overwhelming majority of new housing in the United States continues to be detached and is built near or on the urban fringe. For new detached homes, the Index is 1.0 in six metropolitan markets (Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham and St. Louis). This indicates that land use regulation is less restrictive and does not add more than normal to the price of new homes.

In the other five metropolitan markets, the land and regulation cost ratio has risen above 20%, resulting in a higher Index. The Index is 2.4 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, 3.9 in Seattle, 4.5 in Portland, 5.7 in Washington-Baltimore and 13.2 in San Diego. It is estimated that more restrictive land use regulation raises the price of the least expensive detached houses from nearly $30,000 (in Minneapolis-St. Paul) to more than $220,000 (in San Diego) than would be expected if these metropolitan markets had retained less restrictive land use regulation.