 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
FEATURE ARTICLES | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memo's | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
Tenant evictions, Ron Tonkin heads to courts, special study
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
The Portland City Council adopted the Gateway Zoning Regulations Project last month in a strange anti-climax, with some of its biggest issues still to be resolved in other processes. The project changes and revises zoning and land use regulations governing new development in Gateway, and in a corridor between Northeast Glisan and Southeast Stark Streets eastward to 162nd Avenue. Most of the major issues had been resolved through hearings and negotiations before the document reached Council for the first time last month.
Eviction and assistance
Easily the most dramatic moment of the April hearing was the testimony of about a dozen tenants of the Gateway Apartments, a 32-unit complex at 811-837 N.E. 102nd Ave. Owner Ted Gilbert, who is seeking redevelopment of the site, sought a zone change from RH (high density residential) to CX (high density commercial.) He had also served all his tenants with 30-day eviction notices. After tenants and organizers from the Community Alliance of Tenants, or CAT, had told Council of their plight, Gilbert said he was canceling the notices.
At the second hearing it became obvious that the issue for both CAT and Gilbert was not whether the zone change was granted and the tenants evicted, but how the latter would take place. At issue was a lot of money.
In most cases, residential tenants in Oregon can be evicted on 30 days written notice, with no reason required. However, when the eviction is done to make way for a project that has government participation, the Federal Uniform Relocation Act kicks in. Under this, the landlord is required to pay his tenants’ relocation costs. Further, if the only available comparable housing costs more than the rent the tenant had been paying, the landlord must pay the difference for up to three years.
Thus, it was CAT’s job to tie the evictions to the actions of a government agency (in this case the Portland Development Commission, or PDC), and Gilbert and PDC’s job to distance themselves from such a partnership.
PDC’s Chip Lazenby told Council that the agency advised Gilbert to rescind the eviction notices because they contained a reference to urban renewal. “Those are the sort of legal matters we take very seriously,” he said. “We realized it would trigger these types of concerns.”
Gilbert is considering a mixed-use development on the site. “There’s a proposal for (urban renewal) funding we haven’t acted on,” Lazenby said. “We don’t have an investment in the property at this time. Mr. Gilbert’s reasons for evicting the tenants are his own.”
Asked by commissioner Erik Sten what would happen to evicted tenants if PDC did assist the project later Lazenby said, “There is a ‘look back’ period. If we invested dollars, we would analyze claims for relocation assistance on a case by case basis.”
Gilbert promised that when the time came, all tenants would receive “not less than” 90 days notice. “The primary reason the units are being vacated is because they are beyond their functionality,” he said. “Is something going to be built here? When? Will the public be involved? I don’t know, and I can’t be more honest than that.”
Making the counter-argument, CAT director Ian Slingerland told Council, “Lack of funding doesn’t change the fact that displacement is directly the result of urban renewal. The Planning Bureau is recommending rezoning, and the clear intent is to allow another use. We know this is the result of urban renewal because the owner said so. That the owner could displace the tenants under the existing zoning is true, but also irrelevant.”
Attorney Micki Ryan of the Oregon Law Center argued, “Real people are being displaced, and nothing is being done to help them.” The matter means that “the worst fear of the public with regard to urban renewal is being realized,” she said.
Commissioner Jim Francesconi replied, “At issue is why we do urban renewal at all, and whether poor people benefit. In the past we have used urban renewal to move poor people out, but this Council has used it to create low-income housing.” He added that CAT and the law center were “doing exactly the right thing in advocating for these tenants.”
Planner Joe Zehnder argued that, the tenant issues aside, the rezoning made sense, bringing the property in question into conformance with everything around it. “Nothing in the zoning proposal results in that (eviction) action,” he said. Council agreed.
Quick decisions
Nor was the Ron Tonkin Corporation’s issue dealt with. The project did not change current regulations forbidding “exterior storage and display” near light rail stations, a direct conflict with the auto dealer’s plans to expand his facilities on and near Northeast 122nd Avenue. Instead, the issue was referred to a follow-up study. Hazelwood Neighborhood Association representatives have expressed concern that Tonkin is funding the study and that it will therefore disproportionately reflect their viewpoint. Zehnder assured Council that the Planning Bureau has done this before with satisfactory results. Council accepted this without argument.
Likewise, they passed without further discussion the bureau’s recommendation to place a height limit of 75 feet for property along Northeast 102nd Avenue. The current height limit is 120 feet. Neighbors on adjacent property along Northeast 103rd Avenue said such structures would interfere with their privacy and devalue their property, and called for a limit of three stories. Planners originally proposed to lower the 102nd Avenue limit to 100 feet, then to 75 at the urging of the Opportunity Gateway Program Advisory Committee. The matter had consumed hours of testimony and discussion during the project’s evolution.
How much parking
The longest discussion at the final session concerned maximum permitted parking in parking structures. Planners want to turn Gateway into an urban, highly utilized place, and to eliminate the acres of surface parking lots, often unused, that dot the area today. At the same time, they recognize the need to provide enough parking for the area’s destination to be competitive with Clackamas Town Center, Washington Square, and other suburban outlets. They proposed to allow up to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area offices in surface lots, 3.4 per 1,000 for offices with parking structures, 4.9 per 1,000 for any kind of parking for medical facilities.
A group of Opportunity Gateway representatives, led by developer and former PAC chair Dick Cooley, said there should be unlimited parking in parking structures as an incentive for developers to build them. Structures are a more efficient use of land, they said, but they are far more expensive than surface lots, costing $15,000 or more per space. As one proponent put it, “It’s so expensive it’s self-regulating. If you’re going to pay that much money for parking, it means you really need it.”
Further, Cooley told Council, “The only way anyone will build a parking structure is if it allows you to do more than you could otherwise.”
The planners countered that in their view structures would not be built unless they were financially subsidized. Transportation planner Jeanne Harrison told Council, “Our experience is that, if you allow 3.4 spaces per thousand, it allows every employee in the building to have their own space. A ratio of 3.7 is very generous; it means you’ll have vacancies on a given day.” Council ultimately sided with the bureau.
Cooley got his way on another issue. Gateway has a master street plan showing where new roads should go. The new regulations contain a requirement that whenever a parcel over 40,000 square feet is developed or redeveloped, rights of way for new streets are dedicated in keeping with the master plan. This was later tweaked to allow city traffic engineers to decide specifically what dedication is needed in each case. “New streets and connectivity is one of the most important needs of the area,” Zehnder said. “We have in the past missed opportunities to get street segments that we need. But keeping flexibility is important.”
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home