Portland Parks & Recreation News

[maccoinnich]

Good Grief. I was trying to see if there were any images of this yet, but it seems like it's bogged down in appeals. A Conditional Use Review for this project was applied for in March of this year, with an initial hearing in June. This was approved by the Hearings Officer, and subsequently appealed by the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association and Hilary Mackenzie (who seems very fond of legal action). The City Council voted to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Hearings Officer. It has now been appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Good Grief. I was trying to see if there were any images of this yet, but it seems like it's bogged down in appeals. A Conditional Use Review for this project was applied for in March of this year, with an initial hearing in June. This was approved by the Hearings Officer, and subsequently appealed by the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association and Hilary Mackenzie (who seems very fond of legal action). The City Council voted to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Hearings Officer. It has now been appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Seems like the West Hills petty bourgeois NA is in full bloom. What the hell do they have against that beautiful garden getting an addition? Seriously. These people are vile.

Edit: Seems like the NA is also using Hilary's family business drama to shake up this project, as well, according to the article. Which is devious and gross, it goes without saying.

[maccoinnich]

Mackenzie v City of Portland is scheduled [PDF] for February 12th at LUBA.

[maccoinnich]

LUBA upheld the City of Portland's decision and dismissed all of Hilary Mackenzie's arguments. Looks like the Japanese Garden expansion has the go ahead.

[65MAX]

Great, another NIMBY bites the dust.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Great, another NIMBY bites the dust.

Ditto! I've been unimpressed with some LUBA decisions recently, so this has raised my hopes.

[maccoinnich]

Pay to Playground

City Commissioner Amanda Fritz proposes overhauling fees on developers to fund parks.




City Commissioner Amanda Fritz is proposing a massive increase in some of the fees the city charges developers of new homes and commercial buildings.
Fritz is proposing an overhaul of the fees used to expand the city’s parks.

The plan Fritz is scheduled to bring before the City Council on April 15 could mandate a 37 percent hike on the fees that a developer of a new, 1,600-square-foot single-family home pays to Portland Parks & Recreation.

The builder of a smaller house could see fees go down. But the developer of a new office building could see the bill from the parks bureau go up nearly 300 percent.

Unlike the much-savaged “street fee” Mayor Charlie Hales has pushed for in the past year, Fritz’s fee change has until now moved forward quietly.

...continues at the Willamette Week.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Willamette Week.

I have a feeling this is a misguided siphon of money. If anything, there should be subsidy for more density replacing a razed house. And the money from this should have a greater percentage going to transit.

[cab]

Shes trying to stall growth. She is not a fan of density or change for that matter. This isn't about parks its about density. I'm surprised she pulled this, I though she would be too busy lying to the Mt bike community over Riverview trails.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by cab

Shes trying to stall growth. She is not a fan of density or change for that matter. This isn't about parks its about density. I'm surprised she pulled this, I though she would be too busy lying to the Mt bike community over Riverview trails.

I am really angry I voted for this small minded conservative.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I have a feeling this is a misguided siphon of money. If anything, there should be subsidy for more density replacing a razed house. And the money from this should have a greater percentage going to transit.

Transportation has its own SDCs that aren't under review here.

Originally Posted by cab

Shes trying to stall growth. She is not a fan of density or change for that matter. This isn't about parks its about density. I'm surprised she pulled this, I though she would be too busy lying to the Mt bike community over Riverview trails.

Given that the SDCs scale up with unit/house size this actually incentives density. The SDC for a typical unit of multifamily housing in the Central City would actually go (slightly) down under this proposal.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Given that the SDCs scale up with unit/house size this actually incentives density. The SDC for a typical unit of multifamily housing in the Central City would actually go (slightly) down under this proposal.

Are you saying that a 6 story 1/4 block apartment building with 40 units would have a lower fee under this proposal than a 6 story 1/4 block apartment building with 20 units? ...for example. How would the fees she's proposing compare to fees currently in place for this fictional example?

[maccoinnich]

Here are the proposed fees for 2015 compared to 2014. Under the 2014 SDCs a 40 unit building in the Central City would pay 40 x $5,528 = $221,120. Under the 2015 SDCs that same building would pay 40 x $5,454 = $218,160, assuming all the units are less than 1,000 sq ft, which is pretty likely. That's admittedly a small decrease, but these fees usually go up every year.

A hypothetical 20 unit building will pay half those fees if the units are also all under 1,000 sq ft. However if the building was the same size as the 40 unit building, just with larger units, then the fees would go up. If the units were all between 1,500 and 2,249 sq. ft it would pay 20 x $9,071 = $181,420. That equals 83% of the fee the building with more units would pay. In this way it incentives the construction of more units, ie higher density.

[Encolpius]

[Edit: I had a lot of questions, but clicking on the link on maccoinnich's post above helped to clear them up a bit.] It sounds like the one claim in that article that's not misleading or blatantly false is that fees per square foot of commercial real estate will go up significantly. But it's bullshit for developers to claim this will increase the cost of housing. Actually it will encourage developers to build smaller units, stimulating density (as maccoinnich said) and increasing the proportion of more affordable housing. Sounds like a very sensible revision to me. The WW's city hall reporter is crap, though.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Here are the proposed fees for 2015 compared to 2014. Under the 2014 SDCs a 40 unit building in the Central City would pay 40 x $5,528 = $221,120. Under the 2015 SDCs that same building would pay 40 x $5,454 = $218,160, assuming all the units are less than 1,000 sq ft, which is pretty likely. That's admittedly a small decrease, but these fees usually go up every year.

A hypothetical 20 unit building will pay half those fees if the units are also all under 1,000 sq ft. However if the building was the same size as the 40 unit building, just with larger units, then the fees would go up. If the units were all between 1,500 and 2,249 sq. ft it would pay 20 x $9,071 = $181,420. That equals 83% of the fee the building with more units would pay. In this way it incentives the construction of more units, ie higher density.

It also seems to heavily penalize really large houses - over 2,250 ft2 and up outside of the Central City (not that there are many residential units that size in the CC, but anyway...). Although it appears the proposal raises the fee for every type of construction, the financial incentive for density is a good thing.

[RED_PDXer]

A big 'NO' to the 300% increase in parks fees for commercial developments. We need more jobs in the city, not less. This just adds to the reasons why a developer would choose to build office space in the burbs than the central city. Given that we're unlikely to see new parks in the central city, this makes absolutely no sense.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

A big 'NO' to the 300% increase in parks fees for commercial developments. We need more jobs in the city, not less. This just adds to the reasons why a developer would choose to build office space in the burbs than the central city.

That's an interesting point, although it is worth noting that the suburban jurisdictions charge SDCs too. For instance, Wacom is taking up 56,000 sq ft in Pearl West with plans to bring 300 employees there. Were the developer charged under the 2015 methodology they'd pay 56,000 x $2.37 = $132,720. If they were in the Tualatin Valley Parks & Rec district they'd pay $167 per employee, or $50,100. I'm not in commercial real estate, so I don't know if that represents a tipping point. Given that the difference is probably less than the total compensation one employee receives in a year, my guess is that's not. (And if I'm recalling correctly Tualatin Valley Water District charges SDCs that are eye wateringly large compared to the ones the Portland Water Bureau charges).

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Given that we're unlikely to see new parks in the central city, this makes absolutely no sense.

Parks has the following capital projects planned in the Central City SDC sub area: Ross Island Bridge Park; remaining South Waterfront greenway gaps between SW River Parkway and Gibbs, SW Gaines and Bancroft, and at Benz Springs; Buckman Community Center; Park Block 112 (in front of the new PNCA); and the Conway Park at NW 20th & Pettygrove.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Parks has the following capital projects planned in the Central City SDC sub area: Ross Island Bridge Park; remaining South Waterfront greenway gaps between SW River Parkway and Gibbs, SW Gaines and Bancroft, and at Benz Springs; Buckman Community Center; Park Block 112 (in front of the new PNCA); and the Conway Park at NW 20th & Pettygrove.

Good points about the parks, but most of them serve adjacent residential neighborhoods, like South Waterfront, Lair Hill, and NW and it makes sense to levy these fees primarily on new residential as there's an obvious nexus.

I don't know if these fees are the breaking points for certain types of commercial development, but cumulatively they are making commercial construction more costly, particularly for outer Portland neighborhoods, where that breaking point may be more fine. There's plenty of other SDCs being levied on new development already.

Part of me is really just annoyed that Fritz was so concerned about the new street fee being a burden and then she goes around after the parks bond passes and tries to up the fees for her bureau. And now Nick Fish is doing the same with water and sewer fees. It seems hypocritical to me.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by red_pdxer

part of me is really just annoyed that fritz was so concerned about the new street fee being a burden and then she goes around after the parks bond passes and tries to up the fees for her bureau. And now nick fish is doing the same with water and sewer fees. It seems hypocritical to me.

100% this.

[maccoinnich]

Businesses, home builders balk at Portland plan to increase fees for parks



Portlanders love their parks. Paying for them? That's the challenge.

City Commissioner Amanda Fritz wants to double and in some cases nearly quadruple the amount of parks-specific fees that developers pay to build new business space in Portland.

Fritz also wants to create a sliding scale for new homes, condos and apartments, with discounts for smaller units and increases for medium and larger units.

The parks-funding proposal, headed to the City Council April 15, is drawing fire from homebuilders and business leaders. But Fritz, in charge of Portland Parks & Recreation, is defending the plan.

"New development needs to pay its way," she said. "No more, no less."

...continues at the Oregonian.