The Portland City Council voted unanimously to approve the demolition of the historic Yamaguchi Hotel, also known as the former Blanchet House, picture above.

On July 28^th, the Portland City Council voted unanimously to approve the demolition of the historic Yamaguchi Hotel (former Blanchet House), a rare and very significant building to the Japanese American/AAPI community and a contributing building in the New Chinatown-Japantown Historic District.  Restore Oregon opposed the demolition request because other options had not been fully explored and because it sets a very bad precedent in this small and fragile district.  

We initiated a coalition of preservation and legal experts to join in support of the Japanese American Museum of Oregon and 14 other Japanese American organizations to propose an alternate win-win solution , but the Council’s vote demonstrated an unwillingness to invest any resources to pursue it.

The post In a Precedent-Setting Decision, Demolition of the Historic Yamaguchi Hotel is Approved with a Token Nod to Cultural Heritage appeared first on Restore Oregon.

• Does little to create affordable housing.
• Does not curb the demolition epidemic or displacement of renters.
• Fails to provide real incentives to retain existing, naturally more-affordable homes.
• Drastically changes the livability of neighborhoods.
• Ignores key aspects of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and directives given by City Council.
• And will net merely a couple hundred additional housing units over 20 years!

Without significantly more incentives or regulations to retain existing homes, tens of thousands of Portland renters could be displaced or priced out by RIP-induced demolitions.
Check out this map (https://arcg.is/WiTf9 ) created by Meg Hansen, a Portland housing and preservation advocate and all-around data expert, that illustrates the proposed “a” overlay zone and number of Single Family Residential rental units that would be effected. It also contains layers for median family income, communities of color, vulnerable populations, and gentrification risk zones.
We have been working with a coalition of neighborhood associations and preservationists on this issue.  One group, United Neighborhoods for Reform, has compiled their assessment of the current RIP proposal which we are sharing here.  We encourage those who are concerned about demolitions, affordability, and balancing density with livability to submit testimony or testify in person at one of two hearings being held by the Planning and Sustainability Commission on May 8^th and 15^th @ 5:00pm.
Complete information and how to testify can be found at: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/infill
 
United Neighborhoods for Reform (UNR) Assessment of RIP
Overall:

• The RIP will not provide affordable housing.
• The RIP operates in a vacuum. The proposal does not mesh well with Better Housing by Design, the Comprehensive Plan or any of the other fractured housing policies we have in this city.
• The RIP is not consistent with the city’s transportation and infrastructure policies and goals.
• The RIP violates the purpose of zoning: consistency, predictability and transparency.
• The RIP process is a product of ever changing goals.
• The RIP does not respect the housing choices families have already made.
• The City’s goal should be to bring people together but RIP does the opposite.

 
 
 
The RIP will not result in homes affordable to most people.

• The most affordable house is the one already standing. RIP does nothing to encourage retention of existing relatively affordable homes.
• By pushing more density into to well-established, i.e., “complete neighborhoods,” which come with associated high house and land prices, developers will not build homes affordable to most people in these areas.
• The city needs to encourage the development of new, complete, amenity rich neighborhoods and provide the needed infrastructure to assure this happens. A BPS spokesperson at the February 13, 2018 briefing for PSC acknowledged this need for creating new neighborhoods saying: “We can’t grow without creating new complete neighborhoods.”

 
The RIP does not incorporate the amendments approved by City Council on December 7, 2016.

• The RIP ignores the Council’s amendment disallowing rezoning of narrow lots in R5 zones to R2.5.
• The RIP ignores the Council’s amendment to provide options for the housing opportunity overlay zone map.
• The RIP ignores the Council’s amendment allowing front loaded garages on narrow lots.

  
The RIP does not support major goals of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.

• The Buildable Land Inventory states there is sufficient land to meet Portland’s growing population for the next twenty years without changing zoning and allowable density.
• Allowing duplexes and triplexes in the Single Dwelling Zone makes large portions of these areas into de facto multifamily zones without going through the process of changing the zoning designation. This does not lead to predictability and transparency.
• Using a one-size-fits-all formula encourages demolitions of smaller houses, provides inequitable opportunities, and rejects protection of neighborhood character and historic context.
• Dispersed higher density development is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan directives to focus density around centers and transportation hubs. This results in greater auto dependency and inefficient use of infrastructure.
• The RIP does little to encourage the development of smaller single family houses, the most desired type of housing stock.
• The RIP does not encourage the development of new high amenity, walkable neighborhoods.

 
The RIP will result in more displacement of renters and vulnerable homeowners.

• Within the RIP “a” overlay there currently are many rental units dispersed throughout the area.
• BPS planners acknowledge displacement of renters as a potential outcome of the up-zoning and “opportunity” overlay but only exempt some small areas in three neighborhoods and East Portland. This analysis grossly underestimates the potential for displacement.
• Many renters already have been displaced from the “opportunity” overlay. Many more rental homes will be demolished under the RIP because builders profit from tearing down an affordable rental home and building bigger houses or multiple market-rate units.
• For years homeowners in Portland have been receiving never-ending postcards and letters from developers offering to buy their houses for cash without any need to do repairs and without any need to involve realtors. This is predatory behavior particularly when it targets older homeowners.

 
The most affordable and “greenest” house is the one already standing; RIP does little to encourage retention of existing houses.

• Bonus units should only be allowed if the existing house is retained.
• The exterior of the existing house should remain reasonably intact.

 
Promoting ADUs is a positive but only if use is restricted to long-term renters

• Since 2012 the City of Portland has been encouraging development of ADUs by eliminating system development fees.
• The RIP further encourages ADU development by allowing more than one ADU on a property.
• ADU development is a positive for Portland but only if the ADU is used to help with the housing crisis, i.e., only if the ADU use is restricted to a full-time renter.
• Furthermore, taxpayers should only be subsidizing development of ADUs that are used for full time rentals, not vacation rentals.

 
Other, more progressive cities, are doing far more than Portland to analyze the potential impacts of new infill activity.

• Tacoma, Washington has chosen to do a pilot program to promote residential infill development types and housing choice, while ensuring that such development demonstrates high quality building and site design that is responsive to and harmonious with neighborhood patterns. The pilot is intended to develop a body of successful, well-regarded examples of innovative residential infill in order to inform a future Council decision on development regulations and design standards for some or all of these infill housing types. Read the link for more information: http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Residential%20Infill%20Pilot%20Program/Tacoma%20Infill%20Pilot%20Program%20Handbook%20(Nov2016).pdf
• The City of Los Angeles put in place code to preserve the scale and character of its irreplaceable single-family neighborhoods. Read the link for more information: http://www.nomoremcmansionsinlosangeles.org/the-conclusion

 
The housing option “a” overlay does not follow the intent of the missing middle housing concept.

• “Missing middle” housing is designed to transition between higher density and detached single family housing. The housing options overlay does not make this transition; there are no adjoining single family housing areas.
• Based on the Comprehensive Plan, middle housing and higher density should be located around centers. The RIP does not do this.
• What the RIP overlay does do is promote helter-skelter development with multi-units allowed randomly throughout areas of single family homes. In effect the entire overlay becomes a multi-unit zone.

 
These portions of the April 2018 RIP proposal are positive step:

• Reduced scale of houses, provided that all habitable space be included in the FAR (floor area ratio).
• Reduced height limits
• Increased front setbacks
• Limiting the height of the first floor above grade
• Incentives for affordable housing. (However, we oppose allowing developers to purchase the right to build bigger homes by contributing to an in-lieu fund)
• Incentives for historic preservation, including flexibility for internal conversions of existing homes

(Reprinted with permission)

The post Call to Action for Those Worried About Demolitions! appeared first on Restore Oregon.

It was exciting to see that the voice of Oregon preservation is loud, clear, and strong!

Many thanks to community organizers across the state for advocating for their neighborhoods and the places that matter to us all.
Here’s the three things that mattered to us this session:

1. SB 311 – An early victory: Our first advocacy effort came in April of this year with the passage of Senate Bill 311 which helps close the funding gap for seismic retrofitting of properties across Oregon.

What does it do?

SB 311 allows cities or counties to provide up to a 15-year property tax exemption to owners of commercial, industrial, or multifamily buildings built before 1993 to offset seismic retrofitting costs.

Why is this important?

The high cost of retrofitting deters many owners from rehabbing their historic buildings. With the help of SB 311, old and historic buildings have a greater chance at renovation instead of heading towards demolition.

2. HB 2007 – Fix & “Rehabbed” into SB 1051

Not even a month after we celebrated the SB 311 victory, the preservation community was blindsided by HB 2007: an attempt to relieve some of the housing pressure in Oregon. While the heart of the bill was in the right place, its implementation would have incentivized more demolitions of existing homes and undermined what little protections Oregon has in place for historic districts. Restore Oregon strongly believes that historic buildings and neighborhoods can be part of the affordability solution.

Along with a coalition of preservation-minded community members across Oregon, including the Portland Coalition of Historic Resources, Restore Oregon advocated fiercely in opposition of the bill; providing testimony in Salem and community organizing. By the time the session closed earlier this month, the bill was “rehabbed” into a new bill, SB 1051, that both preservationists and affordable housing advocates could support.

What does it do?

SB 1051 incorporated the positive aspects of HB 2007 while deleting the most egregious provisions.  It accelerates review and permitting of construction for affordable housing, including:

– Removing restrictions on the operation of the new Goal 5 Rules for historic resource protections.

– Using “clear and objective standards” for new construction design while retaining the ability to protect historic character.

– Removing a mandate to allow duplexes in all single-family zones and its unintended effect of incentivizing more demolitions of modest housing.

– Calling for ADUs to be allowed in all single-family zones, a proven strategy to increase density without demolition.

– Allowing construction of affordable housing on religious institution property.

Why is this important?

We believe reusing old buildings, adding ADUs, or the internal conversion of large homes into multiple units is the more sustainable way to add housing within our urban growth boundary. Restore Oregon continues to advocate for policy that positively impacts our state’s preservation, sustainability, and affordable housing efforts. The new SB 1051 will allow for building of more housing without putting old neighborhoods and vintage homes at greater risk for demolition.

3. Capital Projects Approved

Through the allocation of several funding sources, including lottery funds, the Legislature approved the following preservation projects supported by Restore Oregon:

– Friends of the Oregon Caves and Chateau: One of our Most Endangered Places, received 1,500,000 for balcony restoration Project.

– $5M for Main Street Preservation Grants: Restore Oregon advocated for the original Main Street Grants bill in 2015, which is now doubled with this additional funding.

– Two historic theatres funded: La Grande’s Liberty Theatre and Medford’s Holly Theatre received funding as well.

While the legislature takes a summer break
Restore Oregon continues to work on our mission: to preserve, reuse, and pass forward the historic places that make our communities livable and sustainable. With Oregon having some of the weakest protections for our historic places and landscapes in the country, we will continue to make our voices heard in Salem and bring forward solutions that protect and incentivize better stewardship of Oregon’s historic and cultural resources.

Help move our work forward

If you care about the outcomes of our advocacy work in this session; if you support Restore Oregon’s role as preservation watch-dog, please help fund our work. Your donation furthers our mission, but we can’t do it alone. We need your support! Please become a member today!

The post A Preservationists’ Perspective: What Went Right in the Oregon Legislature this Year appeared first on Restore Oregon.

The post Inventorying Portland's History appeared first on Restore Oregon.

Walnut Park is important.
But it’s likely that you’ve never heard about it. That’s forgivable. Restore Oregon didn’t know it existed until last summer. It’s probable that even some residents of Walnut Park don’t know that they live within its boundaries.
When platted in 1904, this undeveloped island of forest in Northeast Portland was bounded by Alberta to the south and Killingsworth to the north. Its western boundary, Congress Street, was subsequently vacated for the construction of Jefferson High School and, to the east, what was once Union Avenue is now Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. While much of the original plat’s western blocks were devoted to a mix of uses, the eastern half of the neighborhood was developed with a pleasant variety of middle-class housing types from the decades leading up to the Second World War.
Walnut Park was first sold to and occupied by the typical American mixture of Western European immigrants including families of Irish, German, and Scandinavian ancestry. In keeping with the rest of Northeast Portland which surrounded it, Walnut Park saw a cultural and racial change in its residents after World War Two. Prominent black Portlanders replaced white occupants of the neighborhood as it continued to ground the social and civic life of Northeast Portland. In the last 15 years, Walnut Park’s demographics have begun to shift once again. As in much of the city, many of the neighborhood’s older families have left in response to internal and external pressures. The inherent charm and history of the streets and their houses have attracted new residents who join a community which has evolved for a century.
Walnut Park is important because of that brief, paraphrased history.
It’s representative of much of Northeast Portland and speaks to significant eras in the city’s development and evolution. But that story is threatened.
In the summer of 2016, Walnut Park neighbors were surprised to learn that a landmark which had anchored their neighborhood for 105 years would be demolished. The Ocobock House and the fight to save it galvanized the residents who surround it. Their ultimate success, facilitated by Restore Oregon, but initiated, led, and secured by a core band of neighbors started a conversation about the value of Walnut Park and the likelihood of its survival in an ever-changing Portland. They have requested our assistance to continue evaluating options for the community which would document their history and identity and we agreed.
Like many across the city, the residents of Walnut Park have discovered that their neighborhood is vulnerable. Their stories might go untold. Their landmarks might be demolished. But unlike so many others, the citizens of Walnut Park are working proactively to shape the evolution of their neighborhood. Not to arrest change but to effect that change and direct it in a way that sustains their story and builds on the power of place that has been preserved in this corner of the city. And Restore Oregon will help.

The post Introducing Walnut Park appeared first on Restore Oregon.

Executive Director Peggy Moretti testified on May 25th to the House Committee On Human Services and Housing in Salem. More details as we learn them. Scroll down to the bottom for relevant articles and OpEds.

Call to Action: Email Your Opposition to HB 2007!

In an extreme example of good intentions degenerating into bad outcomes, a bill intended to promote affordable housing will actually incentivize demolition of existing affordable housing, strip away protections for historic districts, prohibit design review for new construction, and usurp local control over zoning and density.
Sponsored by House Speaker Tina Kotek with backing from the Oregon Homebuilders Association and 1000 Friends of Oregon, HB 2007 ostensibly seeks to fast-track construction of affordable housing and add density within Urban Growth Boundaries statewide. These are important goals that Restore Oregon enthusiastically supports, but the bill goes off the rails with provisions that would severely degrade the livability of our neighborhoods.
It gives developers a free pass to demolish good, modest-priced houses and replace them with much more expensive homes that will do nothing to ease the affordability crisis.  As currently written, HB 2007:

• Offers no protections against the demolition of existing affordable homes, and includes no requirement that a demolished home be replaced by affordable units.
• Eliminates discretionary design review for ALL housing types, not just affordable housing, sharply reducing neighborhood input and local control over compatibility.
• Compels cities to allow duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all single-family zones.
• Prohibits historic overlay zones that might effect density (i.e. would deny districts the ability to reduce the scale of a building to make it compatible with its neighbors).
• Denies historic districts protections against demolition or incompatible infill.

HB 2007 sets up a false conflict between affordable housing and historic preservation that is not borne out by the facts.  It is important to note that historic districts represent a tiny fraction of the total residential zoning statewide.  In Portland, it’s less than 3%.  No rules currently governing historic districts prohibit affordable housing or compatible infill development, and there are many examples of affordable housing in historic buildings. Urban historic districts are already dense, and opportunities abound to add even more density through internal conversion of historic homes into multiple units or the addition of ADUs.
There is no doubt that an affordable housing crisis exists and density needs to be encouraged within Urban Growth Boundaries, but we can achieve density without demolition, and affordability without sacrificing livability.  As it stands, this tangled mess of a bill will do more harm than good.
The good news is that HB 2007 doesn’t need to be scrapped altogether, but it does need a major rehab (pun intended). We endorse provisions that would:

• Speed up affordable housing permits
• Establish “clear and objective standards” for affordable housing design
• Study ways to shorten the development timeline
• And allow religious institutions to create affordable housing on their property.

We Need Your Help to FIX HB 2007 and Protect Our Neighborhoods! 

Email Speaker Kotek and members of the Ways and Means Committee today – especially co-chairs Richard Devlin and Nancy Nathanson – and tell them to rehab HB 2007:

• Limit fast-track approvals to affordable housing only.
• Add prohibitions to the demolition of existing housing.
• Amend the building code to make it easier to do internal conversions of historic houses.
• Remove prohibitions to design review because ugly buildings last a lifetime.
• Leave protections for historic districts in place – they are not the problem, and are too important to sacrifice.

Restore Oregon and a coalition of preservation and livability-minded groups will be formally presenting these amendments in the next week. Stay tuned for further updates.

Additional Resources & Information:

Erickson Fritz Apartments:  A good example of affordable housing in a historic district can be found in the Erickson Fritz Apartments, a DeMuro Award Winner:



 
 
 
 
 
 

• Interesting take on affordability in San Francisco –  How to Be a Housing Ally (Or, Why I’m Not a YIMBY)
• My View: HB2007 undercuts best urban qualities
• The myth that more supply will result in affordability
• Analysis of Affordable Housing Costs
• Critique of HB 2007 by internationally renowned architect and planner, Michael Mehaffey

The post Misguided Attempt to Boost Affordable Housing Will Create More Demolition, Strip Protections from Historic Districts appeared first on Restore Oregon.

Annabella

The post Save Milwaukie High School appeared first on Restore Oregon.

• Can properties in new historic districts be demolished?
• Are interior and exterior alterations subject to review?
• How does National Register listing impact neighborhood density?

The FAQ also provides information on financial incentives for historic designation and defines some common historic preservation jargon.
In 2016, Restore Oregon released a FAQ handout that addressed common questions for those living in existing Portland historic districts.
Many of Portland’s historic neighborhoods are concerned about demolitions and the preservation of neighborhood character. In Portland, National Register listing is linked through local policy to zoning ordinances which provide added oversight for these important community assets.

Click here to download.

The post Living in a Portland Historic District: FAQ appeared first on Restore Oregon.

End of an Era: Phil Oatfield House to be Demolished

Early 1903 was an exciting time for Philip T. Oatfield. His father, Michael Oatfield, had just deeded him 100 acres of his 600 acre farm. Phil was about to propose to his neighboring sweetheart, Dora Thiessen of the adjacent farming family of Henry and Selena Thiessen. Michael Oatfield had immigrated to the U.S. from Austria in 1853 and settled south of Milwaukie in the early 1860’s. By 1870 Michael had accumulated over 600 acres primarily by purchases of land from the Kellogg family. He had married Minerva Thessing in 1867 and they raised six children on their farm – Phil being the third. In 1890 Michael and Minerva had sold the school district one acre of their farm for what became Concord School. The family had remained on their farm all these years, but Michael was getting older and by 1903 had decided to divide his farm up six ways among his children. Phil received 100 acres between today’s Hill Rd. and View Acres Rd., and from Oatfield Rd. to the crest of Oatfield Ridge. The Thiessens had bought in 1879 and the two families were very good friends.

Phil and Dora were to be married in November 1903 so Phil commenced building a home for them on his piece of the farm. He chose a site on the east side of Oatfield Rd. at what was to become Risley Ave. Completed in the summer of 1903 his house stood out, being the only one for a mile in either direction and visible nearly from River Road. Phil plumbed the house for gas, electricity not arriving until about 1913. Phil and Dora married Nov. 8, 1903, moved into the house, and started their family. To complement the landscape Phil planted an orchard and four Giant Sequoia trees from Broetje’s Nursey on Oatfield and Courtney Rds. – now Clackamas County Heritage Trees.

Phil continued helping to farm the remainder of Michael’s farm with his brother John Oatfield, calling their business “Oatfield Bros.Farming”. Their home was frequented by their neighbors and close friends the Risleys, who owned much of the land across Oatfield Rd., the Thiessens, and family. During the years 1904 to 1908 Phil and Dora had two daughters, Inez and Irene, whom they raised in the house into their teen years.

Around 1920 Dora had a stroke and it became difficult for her to negotiate the stairs up to their bedroom. So Phil decided to build a newer house, with a bedroom on the main floor, down the road three hundred yards further north, on land he still owned. The family moved into their new house in 1922, selling their first house and 10 acres to Fred W. and Leah Schwarz. Phil continued farming, and in later years became involved with managing First State Bank in Milwaukie. Dora died in 1935, but Phil continued living in their newer home until his death in 1950.

The Schwarzs lived in Phil’s 1903 house until sometime after 1930 when they moved to east Portland, selling to F Schneider. The property went through several hands until more recent times when in the 1970’s James R. and Frances Rothschild became the owners. In 1986 the house was placed on Oregon’s cultural resources survey inventory and in 1987 designated a Clackamas County Historic Landmark. At the time of its listing it was incorrectly identified by the Rothschilds as the “John Oatfield House”. James Rothschild died in 2006, and Frances continued living in the house until her death in 2011. By then the house had fallen into disrepair, and Frances’ children sold it. In 2014 the property was purchased by Hilltop Contractors LLC, a development company based in Hawaii, which has recently petitioned the county to demolish the house and will be proposing to subdivide the property.

The purpose of both Oregon’s Historic Preservation Office and Clackamas County’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is to protect and preserve our historic and cultural resources. Unfortunately without the stewardship of a caring owner this process can be circumvented and financial realities can intervene. The legacy of the Oatfield family is quickly disappearing, and unless a philanthropic individual steps forward to move this house to a new location this historic community icon will be lost forever. A required notice placed in the Clackamas Review instructs to call “Paul at 808-866-4454” – in Hawaii. Paul has a local address. As per Emmert International the cost of moving this house could be upwards of $85,000, excluding the cost of another lot, permits, and a new foundation. Much of this depends on the distance it would be moved and the cost of moving wires.

If no one steps forward to move the house Clackamas County requires that the owner provide an opportunity for salvaging architectural features from within or on the house. A public hearing has been scheduled regarding this demolition for Mar. 9, 2017

Mike Schmeer
Chairman, Oak Lodge History Detectives

The post Clackamas County Landmark to be Demolished appeared first on Restore Oregon.

1. A further reduction in the allowed size of new single-family houses to approximately 2,000 square feet. Although new duplex/triplex construction would be allowed to be slightly bigger (approximately 2,500 square feet), these “middle housing” designs would be subject to a higher bar of design controls than single-family houses.
2. Allowing for the internal conversion of existing houses into multiple dwelling units citywide, but ensuring that such conversion projects do not inadvertently result in frankenbuildings.
3. Greatly reducing the percentage of Portland neighborhoods where skinny houses and lot confirmations would be allowed to reduce demolition pressure and ensure greater compatibility of new construction.

The post Portland City Council Responds to RIP Testimony; Continued Advocacy Needed in 2017 appeared first on Restore Oregon.