SUBJECT: City of Portland Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 001-13
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption.
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached.  A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office.  
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL:  Thursday, May 16, 2013 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption  pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government.  If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline.  Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice
of the final decision from the local government.  The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).  Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
*NOTE:     The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
        government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
        DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA  
       Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
Cc: Matt Wickstrom, City of Portland
Gordon Howard, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist
Anne Debbaut, DLCD Regional Representative
<paa> YA
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
04/30/2013
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist
~52 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
DO in 
A 
'c 0 mailed I 
T 
! E 
s 
T 
A 
M 
L.ANO CONSERVATION 
NO DEVELOPMENT 
This Form 2 must be mailed to DLCD within 20-Working Days after the Final 
Ordinance is signed by the public Official Designated by the jurisdiction 
and all other requirements ofORS 197.615 and OAR 660-018-000 
p For Office Use Only 
Jurisdiction: City of Portland Local fi le number: Ordinance 185974 
Date of Adoption: 4/10/2013 Date Mailed: April 25, 2013 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? 1ZJ Yes 0 No Date: 2/6/2013 
0 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 0 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
1ZJ Land Use Regulation Amendment ·0 Zoning Map Amendment 
0 New Land Use Regulation 0 Other: 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
1. Require parking for multi-dwelling buildings with more than 30 units in certain commercial and high density 
residential zones, with a graduated number of required spaces 
2. Require parking for multi-dwelling buidings with more than 30 units and within 500 feet of frequent transit, or within 
1,500 feet of a light rail station, with a graduated number of required spaces 
3. Other amendments address: loading requirements, allowed substitutions for required parking, limitations on 
substitutions, joint use parking, bike parking requirements, and proximity of off-site parking to nonresidential uses 
4. Add language to the Minimum Required Parking purpose statement 
5. Clarify Transit Street Main Entrance requirements 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Yes, Please explain below: 
The adopted amendments made minor changes to the staff proposal mailed on February 6, 2013. The amendments: 
1. Require parking for buidings with more than 30 units with a graduated parking requirement for larger buildings 
(Proposal required parking for buildings with more than 40 units with no graduated increase for larger buildings). 
2. Maintain the cWTent definition of frequent transit service (Proposal changed the definition). 
3. Do not allow off-site residential parking and increase allowed distance for non-residential off-site parking from 300 feet 
to 500 feet (Proposal allowed off-site parking for residential uses and did not increase allowed distance for nonresidential 
off-site parking). 
4 . Li.mjt allowed substitutions to 50 percent of the required parking (Proposal did not limit allowed substitutions). 
5. Add a parking requirement and exception for sites within 1,500 feet of a light rail station (Proposal did not change 
parking requirements or exceptions based on light rail station proximity) 
6. Clarify Transit Street Main Entrance requirements (Proposal was silent on these requirements). 
Plan Map Changed from: 
Zone Map Changed from: 
Location: 
Specify Density: Previous: 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
to: 
to: 
New: 
Acres Involved: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
~~DDD~D D ~~D~~DDDDDD 
Was an Exception Adopted? D YES 1ZJ NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment. .. 
35-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? 
[8J Yes 
DYes 
D Yes 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
DLCD, Metro, Multnomah County 
DNo 
DNo 
DNo 
Local Contact: Matt Wickstrom 
Address: 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 7100 
Phone: (503) 823-2834 Extension: 
Fax Number: 503-823-7800 
City: Portland Zip: 97217 E-mail Address: matt.wickstrom@portlaodoregoo.gov 
DLCD file No.----------
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This Form 2 must be received bv DLCD no later than 20 working davs after the ordinance has been signed bv 
the public official designated by the jurisdiction to sign the approved ordinance(s) 
per ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 
1. This Form 2 must be submitted by local jurisdictions only (not by applicant). 
2. When submitting the adopted amendment, please print a completed copy of Form 2 on light green 
paper if available. 
3. Send this Form 2 and one complete paper copy (documents and maps) of the adopted amendment to the 
address below. 
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the final signed ordinance(s), all supporting finding(s), 
exhibit(s) and any other supplementary information (ORS 197.615 ). 
5. Deadline to appeals to LUBA is calculated twenty-one (21) days from the receipt (postmark date) by DLCD 
ofthe adoption (ORS 197.830 to 197.845 ). 
6. In addition to sending the Form 2 -Notice of Adoption to DLCD, please also remember to notify persons who 
participated in the local hearing and requested notice ofthe final decision. (ORS 197.615 ). 
7. Submit one complete paper copy via United States Postal Service, Common Carrier or Hand 
Carried to the DLCD Salem Office and stamped with the incoming date stamp. 
8. Please mail the adopted amendment packet to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
9. Need More Copies? Please print forms on 8Y1-112xll green paper only if available. If you have any 
questions or would like assistance, please contact your DLCD regional representative or contact the DLCD 
Salem Office at (503) 373-0050 x238 or e-mail plan.amendments@state.or.us. 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml Updated December 6, 2012 
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
Innovation. Collaboration. Practical Solutions. 
Certificate of Mailing 
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2013, I mailed a correct copy of Form 2, DLCD Notice of 
Adopted Amendment, with the following documents: 
• Ordinance #18597 4, adopted by Portland City Council on April 10, 2013 
• Ordinance #18597 4 Exhibits A-E 
• Summary of Adopted Amendments to the Portland Zoning Code and corresponding 
attachments 
to the following persons by first class mail at the post office at Portland, Oregon. 
Name Address 
Plan Amendments Specialist 
Planning Manager 
Stuart Farmer 
Dept. of Land Conservation & Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 
Paulette Copperstone, Compliance 
Coordinator 
Land Use Planning Department 
Metro 
Portland, OR 97232-2736 
Multnomah County Land Use Planning 
1600 SE 1901h Ste 116 
Portland OR 97233 
By separate notice on the same day, Matt Wickstrom mailed and em ailed a Notice of Decision: 
New Apartments and Parking Zoning Code Amendments , to the addresses listed on the 
attached lists for U.S. Post office and Email. 
~ ~ '-f-.25 - 13 
oaf'lHamilton ' Date 
Management Assistant 
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
C:ity of Portland. Oregon Bureau of Planning and Sustainability I www.portlandonline.comjhps 
1900 SW •Hh Avenue. SuJte 7 100, Portland. OR 9720 1 phone: 503-823-7700 I fox· 503-!123-i!lOO tty: 503-U23-6!l68 
Notice of Decision: 
New Apartments and Parking Zoning Code Amendments 
Why am I receivi ng this notice? 
You are receiving this notice because you participated in the Planning and Sustainability Commission or City Council 
proceedings on this project, expressed interest in this project, asked to be notified of certain Bureau of Planning and 
Sustainability projects, are on one of our advisory groups, or are a member of a neighborhood or business association. 
What is this project about? 
In the last year, there has been an increase in development of new multi-dwelling buildings that do not include off-street 
parking. On April1o, 2013, the Portland City Council adopted zoning code amendments related to parking requirements 
for multi-dwelling development in certain zones and near frequent transit. The adopted amendments: 
• Require parking for multi-dwelling development in the CM, CS, RX, CX and C01 zones for buildings with more 
than 30 units, 
• Require parking for multi-dwelling development of more than 30 units within soo feet of frequent transit or 
within 1,500 feet of light rail stations, 
• Allow several amenities to substitute for some required parking, including designated carshare parking and 
bikeshare facilities 
• Cap the amount of required parking that may be reduced using substitutions at so percent of required parking, 
• Refine loading space requirements, 
• Set size requirements for long-term bicycle parking, 
• Allow joint use of residential parking and increase allowed proximity to nonresidential off-site parking, and 
• Clarify the applicability of Transit Street Main Entrance requirements in the Portland Zoning Code. 
How can I review the decision? 
View the decis ion online or a paper copy. The New Apartments and Parking ordinance, exhibits, amended zoning 
code regulations, summary of those amendments, and Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of 
Adoption are online at http: //www .portlandoregon.gov /bps/61997. Paper copies of these items can be reviewed at our 
office at 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 'fh Floor. Please callso3-823-7700 to make arrangements. 
Is there an appeal process? 
Th e decision of City Council is the final local decision. City Council's decision may be appealed to the Oregon 
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), as specified in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.830 - 197.845. Among other 
things, ORS 197.830 requires that: 
• An appellant before LUBA must have participated (orally or in writing) as part of the local hearings process before 
the Planning and Sustainability Commission and/or City Council; and 
• A notice of intent to appeal must be filed with LUBA within 21 days after the date this notice was mailed to you. 
You may contact LUBA at 1-503-373-1265 or www.oregon.gov/LUBA for further information on filing an appeal. 
For more information: 
Contact Matt Wickstrom, SE District Liaison/ City Planner II, at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability at 503-823-
2834 or matt.wicskstrom@PortlandOregon.gov. You may also visit the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability's website: 
http: //www.portlandoregon.gov /bps/ 59974· 
Notice of adoption mailed on Apri125, 2013 by Matt Wickstrom, SE District Liaison/ City Planner II 
................................................... ........................ 
The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is committed to providing 
equal access to information and hearings. 
If you need special accommodation, please call 503-823-7700, 
the City's TTY at 503-823-6868, or the Oregon Relay Service at 1-800-735-2900. 
City of Portland, Oregon 
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
1900 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 7100 
Portland, Oregon 97201-5380 P516 
New Apartments and Parking 
www.portlandoregon.govjbps 
. . . . . ... . .. ................................................................ 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N~~ AP.~r~~~~.t~. ~~.«:! .~i!~~~r}g_ .. . ................. . 
Notice of Decision 
Zoning Code Amendments Adopted by City Council 
Effective date: May 1 0, 201 3 
..... ................... ......... ................ . ...... ................... 
Full Name Organization Name Address City/State/Postal Code 
Steven Abel Stoel Rives Boley 900 SW 5TH AVE STE 2600 PORTLAND OR 97204-1235 
Ruth Adkins PPS - Portland Public Schools PO BOX 3107 PORTLAND OR 97208 
Benjamin Adrian NECN 4815 NE 7TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97211 
Brian Alfano Clean Energy Works 
Daniel Andersen 2144 NW Flanders Portland OR 97210 
Susan Anderson BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability TO: 299/71 00 
Amy Anderson 3735 SE SHERMAN ST PORTLAND OR 97214-5855 
Michael Armstrong BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability TO: 299n100 
Tim Askin 934 SE 15TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-2609 
David Aulwes 2131 SE BROOKLYN ST PORTLAND OR 97202-2131 
Jean Baker Ada's Heir's 4039 SE GRANT CT PORTLAND OR 97214-5942 
Jean Baker APNBA 240 N BROADWAY STE 127 PORTLAND OR 97227-1801 
Sean Barnett 
Andre' Baugh 333 SE 2nd Ave Ste 200 Portland OR 
Joseph Beer 
Richard Benner 2204 NE 16th Ave Portland OR 97212 
Robert Bennett Portland Sustainability Institute 1122 NW DAVIS ST PORTLAND OR 97209 
Laurie Berkowitz 3111 SE 22ND AVE PORTLNAD OR 97202 
Patience Bingham 2533 SE 38th Ave Portland OR 97202 
Richard Boak 3634 SE CLINTON ST PORTLAND OR 97202-1538 
Dennis Bodeman 
Robert Boileau 
Joseph Bradford Urban Evolution 7400 SE MILWAUKIE AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-6111 
Erik Brakstad 
Bonnie Bray 3634 SE CLINTON ST PORTLAND OR 97202-1538 
Aaron Brown 4047 N MICHIGAN AVE PORTLAND OR 97227-1152 
Douglas Brown 
Jim Brown Alameda NA 
Rex Burkholder Metro- Main TO: 128/METRO 
Joan Burleigh 
Ellen Burr 1123 SE HARNEY ST PORTLAND OR 97202-6930 
Laurie Butler First American Title Insurance 222 SW COLUMBIA ST STE 400 PORTLAND OR 97201 
Ma~ Cannon and Hugh Moore 3604 NE 45TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213 
Brian Cefola 3244 NE SCHUYLER ST PORTLAND OR 97212-5131 
John Charles 4850 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD APT 103 PORTLAND OR 97225-1 632 
Catherine Ciarlo 1804 SE 34TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-5033 
Full Name Organization Name Address City/State/Postal Code 
Charlie Clark PO BOX 42228 Portland OR 97242 
Thomas Cody 
Alicia Cohen 2240 SE 24TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-5506 
Jeff Cropp 1525 SE 41ST AVE APT 8 PORTLAND OR 97214-5247 
Gary Davenport and Sue Davenport 3907 N MASSACHUSETIS AVE PORTLAND OR 97227-1033 
Margaret Davis 
Margaret Davis 3617 NE 45TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213 
Catherine Dee 
Jeff Deiss 2600 SE Clay St Portland OR 97214 
Tamara DeRidder Tamara DeRidder and Assoc 1707 NE 52ND AVE PORTLAND OR 97213-2727 
Mark Desbrow 
Reuben Deumling 3309 SE MAIN ST PORTLAND OR 97214-4258 
B Donovan 
Nancy Doty 4030 NE 42ND AVE PORTLAND OR 97213-1012 
Tim Dragila 4340 SE WOODWARD ST PORTLAND OR 97206-2234 
Alan Duming 1402 3rd AVE UNIT 500 Seattle WA 98101 
Joseph Edge 1400 NW Marshall Apt 507 Portland OR 
Woodlawn NA 1134 NE Dean St PORTLAND OR 97211 
AI Ellis 3635 NE SKIDMORE ST PORTLAND OR 97211-8216 
Donna Emst 2372 SE 46TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97215-3738 
Mark Faust 2934 SE 36TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-1808 
Robert Fedoroff 1924 SE Spokane St Portland OR 
Allen Field 3290 SE GRANT ST PORTLAND OR 97214-5728 
Judy Fiesta! 
Karl Finkelnburg 5885 SW MEADOWS RD UNIT 600 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 
Tony Fischer 4030 SE IVON ST APT 2 PORTLAND OR 97202 
Nick Fish Office of Commissioner Nick Fish TO: 131/240 
Jeffrey Fish Fish Construction Northwest 1834 SW 58TH AVE STE 1 02 PORTLAND OR 97221-1455 
Heather Flint Chatto 2121 SE 32ND PL PORTLAND OR 97214-5705 
Miss Flora 
DR Scott Forbes 3737 SE CARUTHERS ST PORTLAND OR 97214-5827 
Peter Forrest 3335 SE CLINTON ST PORTLAND OR 97202-1448 
Markland Fountain 4008 N COLONIAL AVE PORTLAND OR 97227-1010 
Julie Garver Innovative Housing Inc. 219 NW 2ND AVE PORTLAND OR 97209-3905 
John Golden 501 N DIXON ST PORTLAND OR 97227-1804 
Judah Gold-Market 3587 SE Sherman St Portland OR 
Full Name Organization Name Address City/State/Postal Code 
Alexis Grant 1925 NE 19TH AVE APT 5A PORTLAND OR 97212-4543 
Karen Gray 900 NW LOVEJOY ST APT 411 PORTLAND OR 97209 
Kasandra Griffin 
Jere Grimm 1734 NW ASPEN AVE PORTLAND OR 97210-1209 
Paul Gronke 
Gary Grossman 
Matt Grumm Office of Commissioner Dan Saltzman TO: 131/230 
Pamela Gumari 2615 SE Salmon Portland OR 97214 
Steve Gutmann 
Anyeley Hallova 2928 SE FRANCIS ST PORTLAND OR 97202-3555 
Connie Halperin 2717 SE 33RD PL PORTLAND OR 97202-1430 
Rebecca Hamilton 1632 NW 29TH AVE UNIT 2 PORTLAND OR 97210 
Don Hanson OTAK Inc 17355 BOONES FERRY RD LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035-5217 
Esther Harlow 3150 NE 76TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213-6502 
Michael Harrison Harrison Consulting 837 NW 25TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97210-2827 
Jeanne Harrison Harrison Consulting 837 NW 25TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97210-2827 
Michael Hayes 8848 SE 11TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202 
Margaret Herrington 2520 SE CLAY ST PORTLAND OR 97214-4938 
Christine Heycke 2605 SE 25TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-1217 
Adrienne Hill 2178 SW KINGS CT PORTLAND OR 97205-1118 
Ken Hills 
Richard Hitect 
Debra Hochhalter 2133 SE 32nd Ave Portland OR 97214 
Bryan Hockaday Hockaday TO: 131/340 
Ross Honeyfield Honeyfield 
Mike Houck Urban Greenspaces Institute 2433 NW QUIMBY ST PORTLAND OR 97210-2644 
Sally Johnson and Bernard Koser 2715 SE 34TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-1438 
Dan Johnson Beaumont Business Association 3519 NE 15TH AVE UNIT 540 PORTLAND OR 97212 
Lauren Jones 1015 NW 11TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97209 
Aaron Jones 
Tony Jordan 4540 SE Yamhill St Portland OR 97215 
Sally Joughin 2715 SE 34th Ave Portland OR 97202 
Stephen Judkins 416 N Beech St Portland OR 97227 
Kerstin Juerges 
Karen Karlsson KLK Consulting 1130 SW MORRISON ST STE 245 PORTLAND OR 97205-2211 
Angela Kirkman Kems NA 2228 NE DAVIS ST PORTLAND OR 97232-3125 
Full Name Organization Name Address City/State/Postal Code 
Pamela Kislak 
Sue Knight 
Anne Kolibaba 5005 NE WASCO ST PORTLAND OR 97213-2836 
Gerik Kransky Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) 618 NW GLISAN ST suite 401 PORTLAND OR 97209-3781 
Julia Kuhn Kittelson and Associates 610 SW ALDER ST STE 700 PORTLAND OR 97205-3625 
Ted Labbe 
Glen Lamb Columbia Land Trust 1351 OFFICERS ROW VANCOUVER WA 98661-3856 
Kathy Lambert Division Hardware 3734 SE DIVISION ST PORTLAND OR 97202-1548 
Gerri Sue Lent 1834 SE Spokane St Portland OR 97202 
Susan Levine 3605 SE DIVISION ST PORTLAND OR 97202-1545 
Susan Lindsay PSU PO BOX 751 PORTLAND OR 97206 
Richard Lishner 2545 SE 37TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-1525 
Karen Lucchesi BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability TO: 299n10o 
Becky Luening 5209 SE 60TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97206-4700 
Don MacGillivray 2339 SE YAMHILL ST PORTLAND OR 97214-2848 
Michelle Machado 
Richard Mackin 2522 SE 35TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-1502 
Jeff Mandel 224 NE 29th Ave Portland OR 97232 
Greg Manning Banner Bank 101 SW MAIN ST STE 154 PORTLAND OR 97204-3228 
Lisa Marechal 9405 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97231-2626 
Nancy Matela 625 SE 16TH AVE APT 2 PORTLAND OR 97214 
Nyla McCarthy Portland Commission on Disability 421 SW 6TH AVE STE 500 PORTLAND OR 97204 
Roslyn McCormick 
Kirk McEwen and Sara Wright 2364 SE 46TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97215-3738 
Joan McGuire 
Richard Melo 
J Rob Merrick Merrick Architecture Planning 3627 SE COOPER ST PORTLAND OR 97202-7745 
Rick Michaelson 906 NW 23rd AVE PORTLAND OR 97210 
Linda Mlynski 3728 SE Caruthers ST PORTLAND 97214 
Hugh Moore 3604 NE 45TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213 
Karla Moore-Love Moore-Love TO: 131/140 
Phil Morford 
Lupin Morgan 
Thomas Morris 
David Mullens 
Tom Neilsen and Christine Neilsen 1221 SW 10TH AVE UNIT 1604 PORTLAND OR 97205 
Full Name Organization Name Address . City/State/Postal Code 
Patty Nelson 4230 NE KLICKITAT ST PORTLAND OR 97213-1156 
Jeremy Nelson 
Linda Nettekoven 2018 SE LADD AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-5419 
Eliot Njus Oregonian, The 1320 SW BROADWAY PORTLAND OR 97201 
OEHR OEHR 421 SW 6TH AVE STE 500 PORTLAND OR 97204 
Housing Land Advocates 
Julie Ocken BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability TO: 299/7100 
Michael O'Connell 2333 SE 38TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-5907 
Casey Ogden Ogden TO: 131/340 
Joe Omelchuck and Barbara Ross 
Lai-Lani Ovalles NAYA 5135 NE COLUMBIA BLVD PORTLAND OR 97218-1201 
Peter Ovington 4621 NE KILLINGSWORTH ST UNIT 19 PORTLAND OR 97218-1932 
Gary Oxman 3431 NW RALEIGH ST PORTLAND OR 97210-1932 
Andrew Paddock 
Nicole Park Park TO: 131/220 
Terry Parker 1527 NE 65TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213-4802 
David Partridge 808 SW 3RD AVE PORTLAND OR 97204-2400 
Susan Pearce 3142 SE 25TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-2118 
Christina Pera 19:12 SE Spokane St Portland OR 97202 
Lee Perlman 512 NE BRAZEE ST PORTLAND OR 97212-3819 
Travis Phillips 2725 SW SHERWOOD DR PORTLAND OR 97201-2250 
Sandy Polishuk 
Ryan Porter 1512 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97214-3742 
Brian Posewitz 8508 SE 11TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-6921 
Renate Powell 
Michelle Poyourow 
Jane Pullman 3423 SE ALDER ST PORTLAND OR 97214-3123 
Pamela Quinlan 
Wendy Rahm and Richard Rahm 1221 SW 10TH AVE UNIT 1001 PORTLAND OR 97205 
Lidwien Rahman Rahman PO BOX2252 Portland OR 97208 
Chris Rail 
Tim Ramis PO BOX 230669 PORTLAND OR 97281 
Emily Rampton 
Jere Ray 
Joe Recker 615 NE 64TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213-5045 
Ted Reid Metro- Main TO: 128/METRO 
Full Name Organization Name Address City/State/Postal Code 
Mary Sue Renfrow 
Bob Richardson 1105 NE 60TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97213-4209 
Jessica Roberts 6337 N Albina Ave Portland OR 97217 
Michael Robinson Perkins Coie 1120 NW COUCH ST FL 10 PORTLAND OR 97209-4114 
Thomas Robinson 
Sam Rodriguez Trammel Crow Residentia l 220 NW 2ND AVE STE 900 PORTLAND OR 97209-3942 
Steph Routh Routh 240 N Broadway Ste 215 Portland OR 97227 
Michelle Rudd 2213 NW PINNACLE DR PORTLAND OR 97229-9108 
Allan Rudwick 228 NE MORRIS ST PORTLAND OR 97212-3040 
Virgina Rumfelt 
Terry Rusinow 
Dan Sadowsky 1737 N JARRETI ST PORTLAND OR 97217-4621 
Jeff Sakamoto 7136 N Montana Portland OR 97216 
Dan Saltzman Office of Commissioner Dan Saltzman TO: 131/230 
Ryan Schenk 2140 SE 50TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97215-3825 
Ben Schonberger Winterbrook Planning 310 SW 4TH AVE STE 1000 PORTLAND OR 97204-2343 
Kurt Schultz SERA Architects 338 NW 5TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97209-3825 
Katherine Schultz 1120 NW Couch Ste 300 Portland OR 
Mary Ann Schwab 605 SE 38TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-3203 
Brenda Ray Scott 7823 SE 16TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-6019 
Phi l Selinger 2466 NW THURMAN ST PORTLAND OR 97210-2523 
Ethan Seltzer PSU- Urban Studies PO BOX 751 PORTLAND OR 97207-0751 
Howard Shapiro 1025 NW COUCH ST UNIT 1513 PORTLAND OR 97209 
Linda Silver 8328 SE 19TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97202-7311 
Chris Smith 2343 NW PETIYGROVE ST PORTLAND OR 97210-2609 
Carol Smith 3046 NE GLISAN ST PORTLAND OR 97232-3273 
John Smith 
Joseph Spencer 3277 NE SKIDMORE ST PORTLAND OR 97211-7718 
Eli Spevak and Noelle Studer-Spevak 4736 NE GOING ST PORTLAND OR 97218-2002 
Beth St. Amand 
Susan St. Michael 1333 SE 23RD AVE PORTLAND OR 97214-3906 
Bob Stacey and Adrienne Stacey 3434 SE BROOKLYN ST PORTLAND OR 97202-1820 
Dan Steffey 710 NW 14TH AVE 2nd floor PORTLAND OR 97209-2701 
Deborah Stein BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability TO: 299/7100 
Bill Stites Stites Design 3224 SE ALDER ST PORTLAND OR 97214-3120 
Jeanette Stoddard 
Full Name 
Steve Stolze 
Mark Strek 
lan Stude 
Anna Stulz 
David Sweet and Rosemarie Sweet 
Ashe Urban 
John Urbanowski 
Irma Valdez 
Joy Valine 
Don Vallaster 
Joe Vanderveer 
Elisabeth Va~a 
Desiree Vaughn-Rose 
Paul Verhoeven 
Jeff Vincent 
Mark Wheeler 
Matt Wickstrom 
Jonathan Winslow 
George Wolters 
Bruce Wong 
Justin Wood 
Justin Wood 
and Numbers Words 
Robert Wright and Janice Wright 
Sara Wright 
Diana Yates 
Russell Yee 
Christine Yun 
Joe Zehnder 
Organization Name 
PSU - Transportation and Parking Services 
Vallaster and Corl 
BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
Portland Saturday Market 
Address 
15575 SW 74TH AVE UNIT 2 
7 405 SE 22ND AVE 
4520 NE 19TH AVE 
3015 NE Couch 
620 NW NAITO PKY APT B9 
711 SW ALDER ST 
6815 SW CAPITOL HILL RD UNIT 11 
2335 SE 37th 
TO: 299171 00 
108 W BURNSIDE ST 
City/State/Postal Code 
PORTLAND OR 97223 
PORTLAND OR 97202-6234 
PORTLAND OR 97211 
Portland OR 97232 
PORTLAND OR 97209-3771 
PORTLAND OR 97205-3429 
PORTLAND OR 97219-2665 
Portland OR 97214 
PORTLAND OR 97209 
5229 N MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD PORTLAND OR 97211 
628 SE 58TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97215-1826 
BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability TO: 299/7100 
1034 NW 21ST AVE UNIT 22 
7430 SE MILWAUKIE AVE 
Chinatown History 1941 SE 31ST AVE 
Wood 
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Porth 15555 SW BANGY RD STE 301 
Words and Numbers 
8T8 Hospitality 
BPS - Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
1221 SW 10TH AVE UNIT 505 
2364 SE 46TH AVE 
1735 SE NEHALEM ST 
2031 LILLI LANE 
1915 SE ALDER ST 
TO: 299/7100 
PORTLAND OR 97209-1553 
PORTLAND OR 97202-6111 
PORTLAND OR 97214-5063 
PORTLAND OR 97035-3200 
PORTLAND OR 97205 
PORTLAND OR 97215-3738 
PORTLAND OR 97202-6733 
LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 
PORTLAND OR 97214-2724 
NAME 
Abel, Steven 
Adkins, Ruth 
Adrian, Benjamin 
Alfano, Brian 
Andersen, Daniel 
Anderson, Amy 
Anderson, Susan 
Armstrong, Michael 
Askin, Tim 
Baker, Jean 
Baugh, Andre' 
Beer, Joseph 
Bennett, Robert 
Bingham, Patience 
Bodeman, Dennis 
Bradford, Joseph 
Brown, Aaron 
Brown, Jim 
Burkholder, Rex 
Burleigh, Joan 
Cannon, Marj 
Cefola, Brian 
Charles, John 
Clark, Charlie 
Cropp, Jeff 
Davis, Margaret 
Deiss, Jeff 
DeRidder, Tamara 
Deumling, Reuben 
Edge, Joseph 
Ehelebe, Anjala 
Ellis, AI 
Faust, Mark 
Federoff, Robert 
Field, Allen 
Fish, Nick 
Flint Chatto, Heather 
Flora, Miss 
Forbes, Scott 
Forrest, Peter 
Fountain, Markland 
Gold-Markel , Judah 
Grant, Alexis 
Gray, Karen 
Griffin, Kasandra 
Gronke, Paul 
Grumm, Matt 
Gurnari, Pamela 
Halperin, Connie 
Hamilton, Rebecca 
Hanson, Don 
E-MAIL ADDRESS 
swabel@stoel.com; 
radkins@pps.k12.or.us; 
benjamin@necoalition.org; 
brian@cleanenergyworksoregon.org; 
danderso@q.com; 
advocate55@q .com; 
Susan.Anderson@portlandoregon.gov; 
Michaei .Armstrong@portlandoregon.gov; 
tim.askin@gmail .com; 
mjeanbaker@peoplepc.com; 
Andre@GroupAGB.com; 
josephmartinbeer@gmail.com; 
rbennett@pdxinstitute.org; 
patibingham@gmail.com; 
dennisbodeman@hotmail.com; 
joseph.bradford@urbanevolution.us; 
aaronmbrown503@gmail.com; 
jimbrownorch@q.com; 
rex.burkholder@oregonmetro.gov; 
oldacer@yahoo.com; 
marj_ hugh@comcast.com; 
bjcefola1984@aol.com; 
john@cascadepolicy .org; 
oregonphotog@hotmail .com; 
jcropp@runbox.com; 
manaobooks@gmail .com; 
odeiss@mac.com; 
sustainabledesign@tdridder. users. panix.com; 
9watts@gmail.com; 
jedge242@hotmail.com; 
beeteam2000@yahoo .com; 
apelainjoy@aol.com; 
faust@fischerfaust.com; 
bobfed@gmail.com; 
allen_field@yahoo.com; 
Nick.Fish@portlandoregon.gov; 
flintheather@yahoo.com; 
missflora503@yahoo.com; 
shforbes@gmail. com; 
pdxpete57@gmail.com; 
marklandf@msn .com; 
rnrg37@gmail.com; 
alexisg@gmail.com; 
karen_gray@parkrose.k12.or.us; 
kasandra@upstreampublichealth.org; 
paul.gronke@gmail.com; 
Matt.Grumm@portlandoregon.gov; 
pgurnari@comcast.net; 
connie@mcdonaldpc.com; 
rhamilt04@hotmail.com; 
don.hanson@otak.com; 
NAME 
Harlow, Esther 
Harrison, Jeanne 
Harrison, Michael 
Hayes, Michael 
Herrington, Margaret 
Heycke, Christine 
Hill, Adrienne 
Hochhalter, Debra 
Hockaday, Bryan 
Honeyfield, Ross 
Houck, Mike 
Johnson, Dan 
Jones, Lauren 
Jordan, Tony 
Joughin, Sally 
Judkins, Stephen 
Juerges, Kerstin 
Kirkman, Angela 
Kolibaba, Anne 
Kransky, Gerik 
Kuhn, Julia 
Labbe, Ted 
Lamb, Glen 
Lambert, Kathy 
Lent, Gerri Sue 
Levine, Susan 
Lindsay, Susan 
Lucchesi, Karen 
Luening, Becky 
MacGillivray, Don 
Mackin, Richard 
Mandel, Jeff 
Manning, Greg 
Marechal, Lisa 
Matela, Nancy 
McEwen, Kirk 
Wright, Sara 
McGuire, Joan 
Moore, Hugh 
Moore-Love, Karla 
Morford, Phil 
Mullens, David 
Neclsen, Tom 
Nettekoven, Linda 
Njus, Eliot 
O'Connell, Michael 
Ocken, Julie 
Ogden, Casey 
Ovalles, Lai-Lani 
Ovington, Peter 
Oxman, Gary 
E-MAIL ADDRESS 
esther. harlow@gmail .com; 
cats@aracnet.com; 
hconsult@aracnet.com; 
mllmhayes@gmail .com; 
herrinm@europa.com; 
cheycke@msn.com; 
dhill167@comcast.net; 
bhch@teleport.com; 
bryan. hockaday@portlandoregon .gov; 
ross@gaidsury.com; 
mikehouck@urbangreenspaces.org; 
beaumontbusinesses@gmail .com; 
ljones@capstone-partners.com; 
twjordan@gmail.com; 
sjoughin@earthlink.net; 
stephen .jud kins@gmail .com; 
april2890@gmail.com; 
kernsna@gmail .com; 
kolibaba@peak.org; 
gerik@btaoregon .org; 
jkuhn@kittelson.com; 
ted .labbe@gmail .com; 
glamb@columbialandtrust.org; 
kathy1 @divhw.com; 
gerrisuelent@yahoo.com; 
susan@metalurges.com; 
lindsays@pdx.edu; 
Karen.Lucchesi@portlandoregon.gov; 
becky.pdx@gmail.com; 
mcat@teleport.com; 
richmackin@gmail.com; 
jeff@exitshoes.com; 
gmanning@bannerbank.com; 
lisa@neodesignstudio.com; 
nmatela@pacifier.com; 
mcewenkirk@yahoo.com; 
saraemily_1 @yahoo.com; 
joanmcg@comcast.net; 
marjhugh@gmail.com; 
karla.clark@portlnadoregon.gov; 
pjmpacific@comcast.net; 
davidlmullens@gmail .com; 
tomneclsen@mac.com; 
linda@lnettekoven.com; 
enjus@oregonian.com; 
michael .oconnell@schlesingercos.com; 
Julie.Ocken@portlandoregon.gov; 
casey .ogden@portlandoregon.gov; 
lailanio@nayapdx.org; 
povington@yahoo.com; 
gary.l.oxman@co.multnomah.or.us; 
NAME 
Park, Nicole 
Parker, Terry 
Pearce, Susan 
Perlman, Lee 
Polishuk, Sandy 
Powell, Renate 
Poyourow, Michelle 
Pullman, Jane 
Rahman, Lidwien 
Rail, Chris 
Ray, Jere 
Recker, Joe 
Reid, Ted 
Richardson, Bob 
Roberts, Jessica 
Robinson, Michael 
Routh, Steph 
Rudd, Michelle 
Rudwick, Allan 
Saltzman, Dan 
Schenk, Ryan 
Schonberger, Ben 
Schultz, Katherine 
Schwab, Mary Ann 
Scott, Brenda Ray 
Selinger, Phil 
Shapiro, Howard 
Silver, Linda 
Smith, Chris 
Spencer, Joseph 
Spevak, Eli 
Studer-Spevak, Noelle 
Stacey, Bob 
Stacey, Adrienne 
Stein, Deborah 
Stites, Bill 
Stulz, Anna 
Sweet, David 
Urbanowski, John 
Valdez, Irma 
Varja, Elisabeth 
Vaughn-Rose, Desiree 
Verhoeven, Paul 
Wheeler, Mark 
Wickstrom, Matt 
Winslow, Jonathan 
Wolters, George 
Wong, Bruce 
Wood, Justin 
Yates, Diana 
Yee, Russell 
E-MAIL ADDRESS 
nicole.park@porltandoregon.gov; 
parkert2012@gmail.com; 
sue@suepearce.biz; 
lee@midcountymemo.com; 
polishuk@easystreet.net; 
powellrenate318@gmail.com; 
mpoyourow@gmail.com; 
jane.scout@gmail.com; 
info@wpcwalks.org; 
christopherjrall@gmail.com; 
jereray@spiritone.com; 
joe.recker@gmail.com; 
ted. reid@oregonmetro.gov; 
bob@peak.org; 
robertsjessicaa@gmail.com; 
mrobinson@perkinscoie.com; 
steph@oregonwalks.org; 
mrudd@stoel.com; 
arudwick@gmail.com; 
Dan.Saltzman@portlandoregon.gov; 
rcschenk@gmail.com; 
ben@winterbrookplanning.com; 
Katherine@gbdarchitects.com; 
e33maschwab@gmail .com; 
adept_diva@hotmail.com; 
selingerp@gmail.com; 
howmel@comcast. net; 
silver.linda@ymail.com; 
chris@chrissmith.us; 
jspencer013@earthlink.net; 
eli@aracnet.com; 
noellest@gmail.com; 
bobstacey@mac.com; 
adriennestacey@mac.com; 
Deborah.Stein@portlandoregon.gov; 
bill@stitesdesign.com; 
annastulz@comcast.net; 
david@sabingreen.net; 
jurbanowski@comcast.net; 
irma@irmavaldez.com; 
beesinthetrees@gmail .com; 
Desiree.Vaughn-Rose@portlandoregon.gov; 
paul@saturdaymarket.org; 
mark@rootsrealty .com; 
Matt. Wickstrom@portlandoregon .gov; 
jswinslow9@yahoo.com; 
georg.wolters@gmail.com; 
maotd@msn.com; 
justinw@hbapdx.org; 
dianayates@comcast. net; 
russellyee@comcast.net; 
NAME 
Yun, Christine 
Zehnder, Joe 
E-MAIL ADDRESS 
cpypdx@gmail.com; 
Joe.Zehnder@portlandoregon.gov; 
·! 
ORDINANCE No. 1 8 5 9 7 4 As Amended 
Amend Title 33, Planning and Zoning, to require parking for multi~welling buildings in some situations 
where parking currently is not required (Ordinance; Amend Title 33, Planning and Zoning) 
The City of Portland Ordains: 
Section 1. The Council fmds: 
General Findings 
1. The Portland Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to "regulate off-street parking to promote good 
urban form and the vitality of commercial and employment areas". Objectives related to this policy 
refer to "eliminating requi.renlents for off-street parking" in areas of the city with good pedestrian, 
bicycle, and transit access, encouraging redevelopment of surface parking lots and limiting 
development of new parking spaces. 
2. Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (fPR) limits the amount of parking allowed, and calls for a 
10 percent reduction per capita in parking spaces citywide. Local jurisdictions must comply with the 
TPR. 
3. Portland has implemented this Comprehensive Plan policy and the TPR through several actions. In 
one action, the Council adopted two new commercial zones that do not require qff-street parking. 
These zones, the CS (Storefront Commercial) and CM (Mixed Use Commercial) zones, were applied 
to properties along a number of commercial streets in close-in areas in 1991 . The CS and CM zones 
were created and applied because of concerns that the main street/storefront character of these 
commercial streets was being affected by surface parking lots that served multi~welling 
development. 
4. In a second action, the Council amended the Portland Transportation System Plan and Zoning Code 
to not require parking on sites within 500 feet of streets with 20-minute transit service during morning 
and evening commute hours. 
5. ·, Over the last three years, a number of apartment buildings have been built with little or no off-street 
parking, as allowed by these provisions. Some of these projects are of significant size, with more 
than 40 units. Neighbors have expressed concern about the parking impacts on neighborhood 
residential and commercial streets. · 
6. The vacancy rate for multi-dwelling rental units in Portland is extremely low. According to the Metro 
Multifamily Housing Association, it was less than 2 percent as of June 2012 in inner eastside Portland 
neighborhoods. The low vacancy rate makes it likely that multi-dwelling development will continue 
at a rapid pace, especially on close-in sites. 
7. In response to community concerns, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) completed a 
series of parking studies. These studjes and their results are described in detail in Exhibits B, C, D, 
and E of this ordinance, and the findings are summarized here: · · 
a . Counts of available on-street parking in the vicinity of eight existing residential and mixed use 
buildings with little or no parking were taken. For seven of the sites, there was at least one block 
Page 1 of 14 
~. . . -· - .. - . 
face that was at capacity. The eighth site had no nearby block faces at capacity. For all eight 
sites, other block faces within two blocks were less than 45 percent occupied, indicating that 
parking was generally available. 
b. An examination of travel, parking behavior, and vehicle owners~p found that 72 percent of 
households living in the eight buildings studied own a car, and 12 percent of those own two cars. 
Transit is a more common means to commute to work for these households. Many of the vehicle-
owners have an option to pay for onsite parking but choose to park on the street to avoid the 
additional cost, and presumably because nearby on-street parking is available as was found in on-
street parking portion of the study. 
c. Development data was modeled to evaluate the cost of providing onsite parking for infill 
apartments and the impact on affordability for residents of those dwelling units. Results showed 
that buildings with more than 40 units were better able to absorb the additional cost of a small 
amount of onsite parking without passing on significant costs to residents. 
d. To evaluate whether the sites of new multi-dwelling buildings both with and without parking are 
vulnerable to cuts in transit service, BPS looked at transit service near 45 multi-dwelling 
buildings with permits issued since 2010. The analysis examined the frequency of transit service 
in 2007 (prior to significant service cuts) and current service levels to evaluate whether locations 
where new apartments are proposed are vulnerable to service cuts. Results showed that transit 
service frequency either did not decrease or decreased by less than 3 minutes during morning and 
evening commute hours for 44 of th~ 45 buildings with permits issued since 2010. 
e. BPS examined trends in development and parking by reviewing building permits for multi-
dwelling development issued between 2006 and 2012. 
• Between 2006 and 2008, permits were issued for 78 multi-dwelling or mixed-use 
buildings. Of those 78, about two~thirds (52), included parking. The parking was at a 
rate.of almost one space per dwelling unit. 
• Almost no new development occurred in 2009. 
• In the past three years, permits were issued for 52 multi-dwelling or mixed-use buildings. 
Of those, about one-third (19), included parking. The parking was at a rate of 
approximately 0.6 spaces per unit. 
8. The conclusion reached on the basis of these studies is that while there appears to be on-street parking 
capacity within two blocks of the buildings inventoried and that developers are providing parking as 
part of most of the new multi-dwelling buildings being constructed, introducing large buildings 
without parking can upset the balance of the on-street parking supply shared by existing residents, 
new residents, and the employees and customers of nearby commercial uses. 
9. The studies also indicate that buildings with more than 40 units are more able to absorb the cost of 
including on-site parking without significantly increasing the cost per unit of development and as a 
result the cost of rent. 
10. Considering the analysis ofbuilding permits, coupled with the low vacancy rate for apartments, it is 
reasonable to expect that the current trend of a "boom" in building apartment buildings will 
eventually abate. Creating a minimum pa.rking requirement for large buildings creates a better 
likelihood that the on-street and off-street supply of parking will be able to meet needs in the long run 
at a level consistent with City policies supporting compact development, transit use, and 
neighborhood livability. 
Page2 of 14 
185974 
11. Results of these studies were released on November 8, 2012, and were presented to the Planning and 
Sustainability Commission (PSC) at their November 13,2012 meeting. The PSC heard community 
testimony at this meeting. Some who testified were concerned about the impacts to on-street parking, 
particularly the cumulative impacts, and the effect that would have on neighborhood livability. Others 
were concerned about the effect that requiring parking would have on the affordability of rental units 
and the City's policies supportive of transit, walking and bicycling. 
12. A report summarizing the studies were presented to the Portland City Council on January 10, 2013 
and the Council beard additional commWlity testimony at this meeting. Testimony was similar to that 
heard by the PSC at their November 13, 2013 meeting. CoWlcil accepted the studies and directed 
staff to develop a changes to parking regulations by early February 2013. 
13. On February 6, 2013, notice of the proposed action was mailed to the Department of Land 
Conservation and Development. 
14. New Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code Amendments was published Febru.ary 8, 2013 . 
The proposal included six amendments to standards in Chapter 33.266, Parking and Loading, of the 
Portland Zoning Code. 
15. On February 8, 2013, notice was sent to all neighborhood associations, coalitions, and business 
associations, as well as other interested people to notify them of the Planning and Sustainability 
Commission (PSC) hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. 
16. On March 12,2013, PSC held a hearing on the proposal. Staff presented the proposal and the PSC 
heard public testimony. The PSC made several amendments, and recommended that City CoWlcil 
adopt the amended version of the New Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. 
Much of the testimony focused on the impact-either current or future-<>f large multi-dwelling 
developments on the neighborhood on-street parking supply. Some of the neighborhoods surrounding 
these buildings have little or no off-street parking, and so are reliant on on-street parking. Many 
neighbors of these new buildings were concerned about being able to park near their houses, and 
about their visitors being able to park. They were concerned that the additional demand for on-street 
parking would reduce the livability of their neighborhoods. Some testifiers spoke generally of the 
need to require off-street parking with new development; others felt that the threshold proposed by 
staff of 40 units was too high, and that parking should be required either for more than 20 units, or for 
any number of units. Some of those who testified, including several who supported a lower threshold, 
felt that the proposed regulations didn't address potential cumulative effects of having several 
buildings without parking in an area, and the variety of users-residents, employees, and visitors. 
Testifiers also considered this an urgent problem, because of the current "boom" in development of 
multi-dwelling buildings without parking. 
Other testimony was concerned that requiring parking at all would affect affordability of housing, an 
increasing problem in Portland, and would be contrary to policies supporting transit, walking, and 
biking. Some testifiers agreed that the more units in a building, the less parking costs would affect 
rent. Some also said that requiring parking was an inefficient use of close-in land with good transit or 
bicycle access. Some testifiers also felt that requiring on-site parking was not the best solution, and 
advocated for proposals to address on-street parking instead, such as permit progranis. 
Planning and Sustainability Director Susan Anderson noted that this proposal was an initial step, and 
that it was important to get something into effect soon that will help residents in areas where new 
Page3 of14 
185974 
buildings are coming in for building permits now. 
The conclusion reached after considering all testimony is that further work will need to be done on 
this issue, including consideration of parking permit programs. However, given the current building 
"boom," these amendments should proceed for the reasons given by Susan Anderson. While there 
was some testimony that requested more parking be required and so~e that requested less, the 
threshold of 40 dwelling units on a site, and 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, balances the policies to 
support non-automobile transportation, affordability, and neighborhood livability. 
17. On March 22, 2013 BPS sent notice sent to 638 individuals and organizations, including all who 
testified at the PSC in person or in writing; all neighborhood associations, coalitions, and business 
associations; and others who have requested notice. The notice was to inform them of the City 
Council hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. 
18. On March 25, 2013, New Apartments and Parking Zoning Code Amendments: Recommended Draft 
was published. 
19. On April 4, 2013, City Council held a hearing on the New Apartments and Parking Zoning Code 
Amendments: Recommended Draft, including the recommendations and amendments from the PSC. 
Staff presented the proposal and public testimony was received. On Apri111, 2013, City Council 
voted to adopt the recomn1endation and amend the Zoning Code. 
Findings on Statewide Planning Goals 
20. State planning statutes require cities to adopt and amend comprehensive plans and l~nd use 
regulations in ~ompliance with state land use goals. Only the state goals addressed below apply. 
21. Goall, Citizen Involvement, requires provision of opportunities for citizens to be involved in all 
phases of the planning process. The preparation of these amendments has provided numerous 
opportunities for public involvement, including: 
• In March 2012, BPS staff released a Frequently Asked Questions memo about new 
apartments and parking. The memo provided information on the emerging topic of apartment 
buildings without parking in the planning or construction stage as well as information about 
the process for studying and addressing community concerns. The memo was updated in 
April2012, July 2012, August 2012, September 2012, November 2012, January 2013, 
February 2013 and March 2013. It was distributed to interested community members via 
email and as paper copies at neighborhood meetings. It was also posted on the BPS website. 
• Staff compiled an email list of those interested in the topic of new apartments and parking 
and sent periodic updates to these individuals, including updates to the Frequently Asked 
Questions memo, BPS studies and research, announcements of public meetings, and the New 
Apartments and Parking Proposed. Zoning Code Amendments. More than 210 people are 
currently on the list. 
• Staff attended numerous neighborhood association and district coalition meetings to discuss 
the topic of new apartments and parking and to provide information when developers 
attended these meetings to present plans for new apartments without parking. 
Page4 of 14 
185974 
• The October 2012 issue of the Comprehensive PlanE-News included a story about the 
studies and research related to new apartments and parking. BPS sends theE-News to more · 
than 5,000 email addresses. 
• The November 2012 issue of the Comprehensive PlanE-News included a story about the 
PSC Public Fonim on new apartments and parking. TheE-New's is sent to more thai15,000 
email addresses. 
• In November 7, 2012, BPS created a page on the BPS website on the topic of new apartments 
and parking. The webpage has been updated periodically and has been viewed more than 
9,000 times. 
• On November 13, 2012, the PSC held a public forum on new apartments and parking. BPS 
staff presented the results of studies and research on this topic as well as a summary of public 
concerns and comments. Time was provided for public comment. More than 100 people 
attended the public forum. 
• In December 2012, staff presented information on new apartments and parking as well as 
results of BPS studies and research at the Neighborhood Centers and Networks 
Comprehensive Plan Update policy expert group meetings. The policy expert groups (PEGs) 
are advising the City on the update of Portland's Comprehensive Plan. The PEGs include 
members of the public. · Approxilnately 15 people also attended the Neighborhood Centers 
presentation. 
• On January 10, 2013, City Council held a Council meeting to hear BPS's report on new 
apartments and parking. BPS staff presented the results of studies and research on this topic 
as well as a summary of public concerns and comments. Time was provided for public 
comment. More than 50 people attended the City Council session. 
• An Apartments/Parking Task Force was formed through the Citywide Land Use Group 
(CLUG). CLUG, an organization that discusses local land use issues, is comprised of 
neighborhood land use chairs and community members. The task force provided another 
opportunity for public discussion. City staff provided information to the group to assist in 
discussion. The task force provided formal responses and recommendations related to the 
new apartments and parking topic as well as in response to the New Apartments and Parking 
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. The task force also sent a survey about new apartments 
and parking to neighborhood association land use chairs and members of the public. The task 
force received more than 1,100 responses to the survey. These results and an analysis were 
provided to BPS. 
• On September 1 0, 2012, BPS and Portland Bureau of Transportation staff attended a meeting 
of the Accessibility in the Built Envirorunent Subcommittee of the Commission on 
Disabilities. Staff provided infotination and answered questions on the topic ofnew 
apartments and parking. The Subcommittee provided two letters to BPS. One letter was 
geperal and relayed concerns about the development trend and impacts on those with 
disabilities, while the other letter contained specific recommendations about design and 
implementation for disabled parking and loading zone requirements included in the New 
Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. 
Page5ofl4 
185974 
• On February 6, 2013, BPS sent notice to all neighborhood associations, coalitions, and 
business associations, and to other interested parties to notify them of the PSC hearing on the 
New Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. 
• On February 8, 2013 BPS published the New Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code 
Amendments. The proposal was emailed to community members on the email list for tills . 
topic. Copfes were also available at the BPS office, and it was posted on the BPS website. 
• In February and March 2013, BPS held six public workshops on the update to the Portland 
Comprehensive Plan. Project staff were at all workshops to provide infonnation on new 
apartments and parking and to explain the proposed amendments in the New Apartments and 
Parking Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. 
• On March 12, 2013, the PSC held a public hearing to discuss and take testimony on the New 
Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code Amendments. Following public testimony, 
. the PSC made six amendments to the staff proposal and voted to forward their 
recommendation to City Council. 
• Local papers and television stations carried stories about new apartments and parking, 
including the Oregonian, the Portland Tribune, the Portland Mercury, Willamette Weejc, the 
Portland Business Journal, the Daily Journal of Cominerce, the Hollywood Star, the 
Southeast Examiner, the Northeast Examiner, the Northwest Examiner, and all local news 
programs, . The "Portland-a-foot" blog also carried stories on the topic. Many of the stories 
included dates of public meetings and hearings. · 
22. Goal2, Land Use Planning, requires the development of a process and policy framework that acts as 
a basis for all land use decisions and assures that decisions and actions are based on an understanding 
of the facts relevant to the decision. The amendments support tills goal because development of the 
recommendations followed the established City procedures for legislative action in Zoning Code 
Chapter 33.740. They also improve the clarity and comprehensibility of the City's codes. The 
amendments do not require changes to the existing land use review processes that serve as the basis 
for land use decisions. See also findings for Portland Comprehensive Plan Goall , Metropolitan 
Coordination, and its related policies and objectives. 
23 . Goal6, Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality, requires the maintenance and improvement of the 
quality of air, water, and land resources. The amendments support tills goal because infill multi- . 
dwelling housing development will continue to provide housing options in locations where residents 
have access to transportation options other than single-occupant veillcles. The proposal to allow 
carshare vehicles to substitute for some required onsite parking also encourages a more efficient use 
ofveillcles which in turn can result in lower rates of driving by carshare participants. Reduced and 
more efficient use of veillcles reduces air and water pollution, in support of this goal, and requires less 
area devoted to parking, which results in more efficient use of land. 
24. Goal 9, Economic Development, requires provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of 
economic activities vital to public health, welfare, and prosperity. The amendments support tills goal 
because no 9hanges to allowed uses in any zone are made as part of the proposed amendments. 
25. GoallO, Housing, requires provision for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The amendments 
support this because multi-dwelling development is still allowed. Requiring parking where it is 
currently not required can increase the cost of development, thus reducing the affordability of rental 
units. To counter this, these amendments add the parking requirement only for larger developments, 
and only in certain locations. In addition, the number of parking spaces required is small. Continuing 
Page6 of 14 
I 
J 
I 
I 
I 
i 
l 
I. 
l 
18 59 7.4 
to exempt many developments from parking will contribute to housing affordability. Requiring a 
small number of spaces limits costs and increases affordability. Requiring parking only for larger 
apartment buildings gives the developer more units to absorb the cost of parking, and so reduces the 
impact on affordability of providing parking. See also findings for Portland Comprehensive Plan 
Goal4, Housing and Metro Title 1. 
26. Goal 12, Transportation, requires provision of a safe, convenient, and economic transportation 
system. The amendments support this goal because the small amount of parking required for most 
larger multi-dwelling buildings will limit the potential for on-street parking congestion. The 
amendments also allow carshare parking· to substitute for some required vehicle parking which results 
in a more efficient use of vehicles and parking spaces. The amendments clarify size requirements for 
long-term (resident use) bike parking which helps promote feasible locations and placement of bike 
parking. See also fmdings for Portland Comprehensive Plan Goal 6, Transportation, and its related 
policies and objectives .. 
The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted in 1991 and amended in 1996 and 2005 
to implement State Goall2. The TPR requires certain findings if the proposed regulation will 
significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. 
This proposal will not have a significant effect on existing or planned transportation facilities because 
the amendments will result in only a small increase in onsite parking for most larger multi-dwelling 
development. The proposal to align locations where parking is allowed but not required with 
TriMet' s Frequent Service Corridors represents better congruency between land use and 
transportation for several reasons. Areas where parking is not required are located where TriMet has 
the most certainty that existing regular frequent transit service will continue over the long-term. 
Frequent service is currently defined as every 20-minutes during morning and evening commute 
hours. Changing the allowance to align TriMet's frequent service goal better reflects frequent transit 
service than the current approach based on 20-minute service. 
The TPR (OAR 660-012-0045) requires local governments to adopt land use regulations that 
designate "types and densities of land uses adequate to support transit" and those that "reduce reliance 
on the automobile and allow transit-oriented developments on land along transit routes." These 
amendments support these requirements. Parking is currently allowed but not required within 500 
feet of a MAX line . . A recommended PSC amendment states that parking is allowed but not required 
within 500 feet of a MAX station. This ensures that transit oriented development may continue 
around MAX stations, but recognizes that different considerations are necessary around MAX lines 
where there may be no convenient access to MAX stations: An additional recommended PSC 
amendment also allows carshare parking to substitute for a vehicle parking; this promotes a more 
efficient use of vehicles which helps reduce reliance on single-occupan~ vehicl~. 
27. Goal13, Energy Conservation, requires development of a land use pattern that maximizes the 
conservation of energy based on sound economic principles. The amendments support this goal 
because the proposal continues to allow compact urban development in locations that are served by 
frequent transit service and that are in proximity to a variety of services such as restaurants or retail, 
or that have the potential for further development of these supportive neighborhood uses. 
Findings ~n Metro Urban Growth Mana~ement Functional Plan 
28. The following elements of the Metto Urban Growth Management Functional Plan are relevant and 
applicable to the proposed amendments to minimum parking regulations for larger multi-dwelling 
buildings. · 
Page 7 of 14 
185974 
29. Title 1, Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation, requires that each 
jurisdiction contribute its fair share to increasing the development capacity of land within the Urban 
Growth Boundary. This requirement is to be generaJly implemented through citywide analysis based 
on calculated capacities from land use designations. The amendments are consistent with this title 
because they do not significantly alter the development capacity of the city. See also findings under 
Comprehensive Plan Goals 4 (Housing) and 5 (Economic Development). 
30. Title 2, Regional Parking Policy, regulates the amount of parking permitted by use for jurisdictions 
in the region. The amendments are consistent with this title because they require a small amount of 
onsite parking for most larger multi-dwelling buildings. These requirements ensure that cumulative 
impacts of multiple larger multi-dwelling buildings in an area do not overtax the supply of on-street 
parking, while also allowing smaller multi-dwelling development to continue without required onsite 
parking. 
31. Title 7, Affordable Housing, ensures opportunities for affordable housing at all income levels, and 
calls for a choice of housing types. The amendments are consistent with this title because minimum 
parking requirements were based on analyses of the cost of onsite parking. The threshold for when 
parking is required is, in part, based on the results of these analyses which fo'lind that buildings with 
more than 40 units are better able to absorb the additional cost of some onsite parking, without 
passing significant expenses on to residents. See also Statewide GoallO, Housing. 
Findings on Poqland's Comprehensive Plan Goals 
32. T):le following goals, policies and objectives of the Portland Comprehensive Plan are relevant and 
applicable to the proposed minimum parking regulations to larger multi-dwelling buildings and 
related zoning code amendments. 
33. Goall, Metropolitan Coordination, calls for the Comprehensive Plan to be coordinated with 
federal and state law and to support regional goals, objectives and plans. The amendments support 
this goal because they do not change the policy or intent of existing regulations relating to 
metropolitan coordination and regional goals. 
34. Policy 1.4, Intergovernmental Coordination, requires continuous participation in intergovernmental 
affairs with public agencies to coordinate metropolitan planning and project development and 
maximize the efficient use of public funds . The amendments support this policy because a number of 
other government agencies were notified of this proposal and given the opportunity to comment. 
Notified agencies included the Parkrose School District, Portland Sustainability Institute, Reynolds 
School District, the Oregon Department of Transportation, David Douglas School District, Centennial 
School District, TriMet, the Regional Arts and Culture Council, the Port of Portland, Portland State 
University, and Metro. 
35. Goal 2, Urban Development, calls for maintaining Portland's role as the major regional employment 
and population center by expanding opportunities for housing and jobs, while retaining the character 
of established residential neighborhoods and business centers. The amendments support this goal 
because they update and improve the City's land use regulations to better facilitate the development 
of housing and to align areas where parking exceptions apply with TriMet' s Frequent Service 
Corridors to encourage transit-oriented development where frequent transit service exists. 
36. Policy 2.1, Population Growth, calls for accommodating the projected increase in city households. 
The amendments support this policy because they allow infill multi-dwelling development to 
continue along Portland' s transit corridors, albeit with a small amount of required parking for some 
properties. 
Page& ofl4 
1859'14 
3 7. Policy 2.2, Urban Diversity, calls for promoting a range of living environments and employment 
opportunities for Portland residents. The amendments support this policy because a variety of 
residential development options are allowed to continue. Further housing options are promoted by 
requiring a small amount of parking for larger multi-dwelling buildings, while no parking is required 
for smaller multi-dwelling buildings. This provides greater options for those who own vehicles and 
for those who do not. 
38. Policy 2.9, Residential Neighborhoods, calls for allowing a range of housing types to accommodate 
increased population growth while improving and protecting the city's residential neighborhoods. 
The amendments support this policy because a variety of residential development options along 
transit corridors and in commercial zones are allowed to continue. Further housing options are 
promoted by requiring a small amount of parking for larger multi-dwelling buildings, while no 
parking is required for smaller multi-dwelling buildings. This provides greater options for those who 
own vehicles and for those who do not. Furthermore, the amendment to require some onsite parking 
for larger multi-dwelling buildings helps avoid creating or exacerbating parking congestion on 
residential streets, especially in instances where multiple large multi-dwelling buildings are 
constructed in the same area. 
39. Policy 2.12, Transit Corridors, calls for providing a mixture of activities along major transit routes 
and Main Streets to support the use of transit and is compatible with the surrounding area. The 
amendments support this policy because they allow transit-oriented development along transit 
corridors and main streets, albeit a small amount of on-site parking is required for some larger multi-
dwelling buildings. This requirement supports the overall function of transit corridors and Main · 
Streets by avoiding or reducing on-street parking congestion. 
40. Policy 2.15, Living Closer to Work, calls for locating greater residential densities, including 
affordable housing, near major employment centers, such as Metro-designated regional and town 
centers to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita. The amendments support this policy because the 
~evelopment of multi-dwelling buildings with a variety of unit types and levels of affordability may 
continue to be constructed along Portland's transit corridors, many of which are in regional and town 
centers. 
41 . Policy 2.18, Transit Supportive Density, calls for establishing average minimum residential 
densities of 15 units per acre within one-quarter mile of existing and planned transit streets, main 
streets, town centers, and transit centers, and 25 units per acre within one-quarter mile of light rail 
stations and regional centers. The amendments support this policy because the small amount of 
required parking for most larger multi-dwelling buildings will not significantly reduce potential 
residential density. Furthermore, the amendment that aligns the frequent transit service parking 
exception with TriMet's Frequent Service Corridors does not preclude densities defined in this policy. 
42. Policy 2.19, Infm and Redevelopment, calls for encouraging infill and redevelopment as a way to 
implement the Livable Cities growth principles and accommodate expected increases in population 
and employment. The amendments support this policy because the regulations requiring some onsite 
parking would not apply to smaller buildings that are often located on smaller lots or in mid-block 
locations with no side-street access. Mid-block curb cuts disrupt the pedestrian environment on 
commercial streets and can pose safety concerns. Amendments also allow mixed use transit-oriented 
development to continue; these types of development help implement the Livable Cities growth 
principles. 
43. Policy 2.22, l\:1ixed Use, calls for a mechanism that will allow for the continuation and enhancement 
of areas of mixed use character where such areas act as buffers and where opportunities exist for . 
creation of nodes or centers of mixed commercial, light industrial and apartment development. The 
amendments support this policy because they do not restrict the development of mixed :Use buildings 
Page 9 of 14 
and apartment development. The small amount of required parking for larger multi-dwelling 
buildings will not significantly reduce development potential. 
185974 
44. Goal3, Neighborhoods, calls for preserving and reinforcing the stability and diversity of the city's 
neighborhoods while allowing for increased density. The amendments support this goal ·by allowing 
· continued development of residential and mixed use buildings that provide neighborhood-serving 
uses and population densities necessary to support those services. The amendments also require a 
small amount of onsite parking for larger multi-dwelling buildings. This ensures that potential 
parking congestion resulting from a clustering of larger apartment buildings does not cause undue on-
street parking congestion; such congestion can conflict with other users of on-street parking such as 
neighborhood businesses, visitors, and exisfing residents. 
45. Policy 3.3, Neighborhood Diversity, calls for promoting neighborhood diversity and security by 
encouraging a diversity in age, income, race and ethnic background within the City's neighborhoods. 
The amendments are consistent with this title because minimum parking requirements were based on 
analyses of the cost of providing onsite parking. The threshold for when parking is required is in part 
based on the results of these analyses which found that buildings with more than 40 units are better 
able to absorb the additional cost of some onsite parking, without passing significant expenses on to 
residents. 
46. Policy 3.5, Neighborhood Involvement, calls for providing for the active involvement of 
neighborhood residents and businesses in decisions affecting their neighborhood. Neighborhood 
·associations, business associations, and the community-at-large have had opportunities to comment 
on the amendments and overall concept in several public forums. 
47. Goal4, Housing, calls for enhancing Portland' s vitality as a community at the center of the region's 
housing market by providing housing of different types, density, sizes, costs and locations that 
accommodates the needs, preferences, and fmancial capabilities of current and future households. The 
amendments are consistent with this goal because the minimum parking requirements were based on 
analyses of the cost of onsite parking. The thn;shold for when parking is required is in part based on 
the results of these analyses which found that buildings with more than 40 units are better able to 
absorb the additional cost of some onsite parking, without passing significant expenses on to 
residents. The amendments also promote a greater diversity 'ofhousing types as smaller multi-
dwelling buildings do not require parking while larger multi-dwelling buildings require a small 
amount of parking to accommodate residents who own a vehicle and desire an onsite parking space. 
See also the findings for Statewide Planning Goal, Goal 10, Housing and for Metro Title 1. 
48. Policy 4.1, Housing Availability, calls for ensuring that an adequate supply of housing is available to 
meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Portland's households now and in the future. 
The amendments support this policy because the development of multi-dwelling buildings is allowed, 
albeit with a small parking requirement for some larger multi-dwelling buildings. The threshold for 
when parking is required is in part based on the results of these analyses which found that buildings 
with more than 40 units are better able to absorb the additional cost of some onsite parking, without 
passing significant expenses on to residents and thus maintaining affordability. 
49. Policy 4.1, Objective E calls for encouraging efficient use of infrastructure by focusing well-
designed new and redevelopment housing on vacant, infill and under-developed land. The 
amendments support this objective because multi-dwelling infill development may continue, albeit 
with a small parking requirement for some larger multi-dwelling buildings. The amendment that 
aligns the frequent transit service parking exception with TriMet's Frequent Service Corridors 
encourages development on vacant, infi.ll, and under-developed lands close to frequent transit service. 
50. Policy 4.2, Maintain Housing Potential, calls for retaining housing potential by requiring no net loss 
of land reserved for, or committed to, residential and mixed use development. The amendments 
Page 10 of 14 
support this policy because residential and mixed use development are still allowed uses in 
commercial zones. 
185974 
51. Policy 4.3, Sustainable Housing, calls for encouraging housing that supports sustainable 
development patterns by promoting efficient use of land; conservation of natural resources; easy 
access to public transit and other efficient modes of transportation; easy access to services and parks; 
resource efficient design and construction; and the use of renewable energy resources. Tlie 
amendment that aligns the frequent transit service parking exception with TriMet's Frequent Service 
Corridors encourages development on sites with access to frequent public transit. 
. . 
52. Policy 4.3, Objective C calls for encouraging the development of housing at transit-supportive 
densities near transit streets to ensure that the benefits of the public's investments in those facilities 
are available to as many households as possible. The amendments support this objective because 
multi-dwelling development at transit-supportive densities may continue, albeit with a small.parking 
requirement for some larger multi-dwelling buildings. 
53. Policy 4.7, Balanced Communities, calls for striving for livable mixed-income neighborhoods 
throughout Portland that collectively reflect the diversity of housing types, tenures (rental and 
ownership) and income levels in the region. The amendments support this policy because no changes 
to the zoning rules which allow mixed use development in commercial zones are proposed. The 
amendments also support different tenures in that both apartment and condominiwn development 
may continue along transit streets. Affordability was addressed-through research which found that 
buildings with more than 40 dwelling units are better able to absorb the cost of some onsite parking 
without passing significant expenses on to residents and thus maintaining affordability. 
54. Policy 4.7, Objective G calls for encouraging the development and preservation ofhousing that 
serves a range of household income levels at locations near public transit and employment 
opportunities. The amendment that aligns the frequent transit service parking exception with 
TriMet's Frequent Service Corridors encourages development on sites with access to frequent public 
transit. Affordability was addressed through research which found that buildings with more than 40 
dwelling units are better able to absorb the cost of some onsite parking without passing significant 
expenses on to residents and thus maintaining affordability. · 
55. Policy 4.9, Fair Housing calls for ensuring freedom of choice in housing type, tenure, and 
neighborhood for all, regardless of race, color, age, gender, familial status, sexual orientation, 
religion, national origin, source of income or disability. The amendments allow a continued diversity 
of housing types and tenures in all neighborhoods where zoning allows multi-dwelling development. 
City staff reviewed requirements and processes for installing disabled parking and found that 
amendments can increase the supply of disabled parking and adequate processes are in place to locate 
disabled parking for residents who request it. 
56. Policy 4.10, Housing Diversity, calls for promoting a range of housing types, prices and rents to (1) 
create culturally and economically diverse neighborhoods; and (2) allow those whose housing needs 
change to find housing that meets their needs within their existing community. The amendments 
support this policy because it maintains opportunities for a broad array of housing that can serve a 
broad range of incomes. 
57. Policy 4.11, Housing Affordability, calls for promoting the development and preservation of quality 
housing that is affordable across the full spectrum of household incomes. Affordability was 
addressed through research which found that buildings with more than 40 dwelling units are better 
able to absorb the cost of some onsite parking without passing significant expenses on to residents 
and thus maintaining affordability. The amendments are supported by this research. 
58. Goal 6, Transportation calls for developing a balanced, equitable, and efficient transportation 
system that provides a range of transportation choices; reinforces the livability of neighborhoods; 
Page I I of 14 
185974 
supports a strong and diverse economy; reduces air, noise and water pollution; and lessens reliance on 
the automobile while maintaining accessibility. The amendments support this goal by allowing a 
certain amount of bike share parking and carshare parking to substitute for private vehicle p~king as 
well as by clarifying size requirements for long-term (resident use) bike parking; both carshare and 
bicycle use help reduce reliance on personal vehicles. 
59. Policy 6.19, Transit-Oriented Development calls for reinforcing the link between transit and land 
use by encouraging transit-oriented development and supporting increased residential and 
employment densities along transit streets, at existing and planned light rail stations, and at other 
major activity centers. The amendments support the link with transit-oriented development by 
aligning frequent transit service parking exception with TriMet's Frequent Service Corridors which 
encourages development on sites with access to frequent public transit.. 
60. Policy 6.23, Bicycle Transportation, calls for making the bicycle an integral part of daily life in 
Portland, particularly for trips of less than five miles, by implementing a bikeway network, providing 
end-of-trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making 
bicycling safer. The amendment that clarifies size requirements for long-term (resident use) bicycle 
parking encourages more thoughtful placement of long-term bicycle parking in mixed use and other 
development projects and can thereby encourage bicycle use. 
61. Policy 6.25, Parking Management, calls for managing the parking supply to achieve transportation 
policy objectives for neighborhood and business district vitality, auto trip reduction, and improved air 
quality. The amendments support this policy by requiring a small amount of onsite parking for most 
larger multi-dwelling buildings. This helps ensure that larger developments or the clustering of larger 
developments do not overburden available on-street parking and disrupt neighborhood and business 
district vitality. 
62. Policy 6.26, On-Street Parking Management, calls for managing the supply, operations, and 
demand for parking and loading in the pubic right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, safety for 
all modes, and livability of residential neighborhoods. The amendments support this policy by 
requiring a small amount of onsite parking for some larger multi-dwelling buildings. This helps 
ensure that larger apartment developments or the clustering of larger apartment developments provide 
an adequate supply of onsite parking so as to not oyerburden the supply of on-street parking. 
63. Policy 6.27, Off-Street Parking, calls for regulating off-street parking to promote good urban form 
and the vitality of commercial and employment areas. The amendments supp_ort this policy by 
applying minimum parking requirements for larger multi-unit buildings rather than smaller buildings. 
If applied to smaller buildings, parking would likely be provided on surface parking lots. If it were 
provided inside or under a small building, it is likely that the ground floor would be dominated by 
entrances to parking rather than active uses such as Retail Sales And Service uses. The amendments 
also support this policy by requiring a small amount of onsite parking for some larger multi-dwelling 
buildings. This helps ensure that larger apartments or the clustering of larger apartments provide an 
adequate supply of onsite parking so as to not overburden the on-street parking that is shared with 
nearby businesses, visitors, and other neighborhood residents. 
64. Policy 6.27, Objective A calls for considering eliminating requirements for off-street parking in areas 
of the City where there is existing or planned high-quality transit service and good p~destrian and 
bicycle access. The amendment that aligns the frequent transit service parking exception with 
Tri.¥et's Frequent Service Corridors encourages development on sites with access to frequent public 
transit. This also results in applying the parking exception in locations with good pedestrian and 
bicycle access (inner Portland) but reducing the parking exception in locations that are lacking in 
pedestrian and bicycle access (East Portland). 
Page 12 of. 14 
18 59 7 4 
65. Policy 6.27, Objective C calls for limiting the development of new parking space;s to achieve land 
use, transportation and environmental objectives. The amendments support this objective because 
only a small amount of parking is required for some buildings with more than 40 dwelling units. 
Parking exceptions still apply for sites with access to frequent transit service, which is based on 
TriMet's Frequent Service Corridors. 
66. Policy 6.28 Trav~l Management, calls for reducing congestion, improving air quality, and 
mitigating the impact of development-generated traffic by supporting transportation choices through 
demand management programs and measures and through education and public information 
strategies. The amendments support this policy through the option to substitute carshare and bike 
share parking for required vehicle parking. 
67. GoalS, Environment, calls for maintaining and improving the quality of Portland's air, water, and 
land resources, as well as protecting neighborhoods and business centers from noise pollution. The 
amendments support this goal because they facilitate the efficient use of land resources by applying 
strategically defined parking requirements for some multi-dwelling buildings with more than 40 units. 
68. Policy 8 .4, Ride Sbaring, Bicycling, Walking and Transit, calls for promoting the use of 
alternative modes of transportation such as ridesharing, bicycling, walking, and transit throughout the 
metropolitan area. The amendments support this policy by aligning the frequent transit service 
parking exceptions with TriMet's Frequent Service Corridors which encourages development on sites 
with access to frequent transit service. The amendment that clarifies size requirements for long-term 
(resident use) bicycle parking encourages more thoughtful placement oflong-term bicycle parking in 
mixed use and other development projects which thereby encourage bicycle use. 
69. Goal9, Citizen Involvement, calls for improving methods and ongoing opportunities for citizen 
involvement in the land use decision-making process, and the implementation, review and 
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendments support this goal for the reasons found in 
the findings for Statewide Planning Goall , Citizen Invo.lvement. 
70. Goal12, Urban Design, calls for enhancing Ponland as a livable city, attractive in its setting and 
dynamic in its urban character by preserving its history and building a substantial legacy of quality 
private developments and public improvements for future generations. The amendments support this 
goal by crafting onsite parking requirements that consider the impacts that vehicles, curb cuts and 
driveways have on the pedestrian realm. 
71. Policy 12.4, Provide for Pedestrians, states that Portland is experienced most intimately by 
pedestrians. The policy calls for providing a pleasant, rich and diverse experience for pedestrians. 
The amendments support this policy because the regulations requiring some onsite parking would not 
apply to smaller buildings which are often located on smaller lots or in mid-block locations with no 
side-street access. Mid-block curb cuts disrupt the pedestrian environment on commercial streets and 
can pose safety concerns. If parking is required for smaller buildings, parking would likely be 
provided on surface parking lots, which create a "dead" spot in the pedestrian environment. If it were 
provided inside or under a small building, it is likely that the ground floor would be dominated by 
entrances to parking rather than active uses such as Retail Sales And Service uses, , which would not 
contribute positively to the pedestrian environment. 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs: 
a . Adopt Exhibit A, New Apartments and Parking Zoning Code Amendments: Recommended Draft, 
dated March 25,2013. 
Page 13 of 14 
1859 74 
b. Amend Title 33, Planning and Zoning, as shown in Exhibit A, New Apartments and Parking 
Zoning Code Amendments: Recommended Draft, dated March 25,2013. 
c. Adopt the commentary and discussion in Exhibit A, New Apartments and Parldng Zoning Code 
Amendments: Recommended Draft, dated March 25, 2013, as further findings and legislative 
intent. 
d. Direct the Bureau of Transportation to continue exploring permit parking programs suitable for 
dynamic commercial streets with adjacent single and multi-dwelling residential uses, and 
promotes equity and inclusion of both renters, homeowners and neighborhood businesses. 
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, diagram, designation, or drawing contained 
in this Ordinance, or the plan, map or code it adopts or amends, is held to be deficient, invalid or 
unconstitutional, that shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. The Council declares that it 
would have adopted the plan, map, or code and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, 
diagram, designation and drawing thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, 
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, diagrams, designations, or drawings contained in this Ordinance, 
may be found to be deficient, invalid or unconstitutional. 
Passed by the Council: APR 10 2013 · 
Mayor Charlie Hales 
Prepared by: Matt Wickstrom 
Date Prepared: March 22, 2013 
Page 14 of 14 
LaVonne Griffin-Valade 
Auditor of the City of Portland by~~~~ 
- ·329 - = 
--81t6-=• . 
Agenda No. B 5 4. ORDINANCE NO. 1 . 9 7 As Amended 
Title 
Amend Title 33, Planning and Zoning, to require parking for multi-dwelling buildings in som e 
j situations where parking currently is not required (Ordinance; .Amend Title 33fl?.taRnlug_arrd:::Ztn:HA§") 
INTRODUCED BY CLERK USE: DATE FILED MAP 1) 9 ''01"' l d \ .d 4.! t_ \,
Commissioner/Auditor: 
Mayor Charlie Hales 
COMMISSIONER APPROVAL LaVonne Griffin-Valade 
Mavor-Finance and Administration ·;?a~ Auditor of the City of Portland 
Position 1/Utilities ·Fritz ~.~~ 
"' 
Position 2/INorks • Ash By: 
/. (+- £ 1..._ 
,.~" Deputy , 
Position 3/Affalrs • Saltzman 
Position 4/Safety • Novicl:< ACTlON TAKEN: 
-BUREAU APPROVAL APR 0·4 2013 PASSED TO SECOND READING As Amended Bureau: Pia~ "r!f!:. Susrninabil~ APR 10 2013 Bureau 1-~ : u Anderson 2P.M. ~ .A 
Prepared by: Matt Wickstrom 
Date Prepared: March 21 , 2013 
Flnanciallm P.act & Public 
Involvement Statement 
Completed [81 Amends Budget 0 
Portland Policd; Document . 
If "Yes" requires ·ty Polley paragraph stated 
in.~l . IX] Yes No 
Council Meeting Date 
April4, 2013 
City Attorney Approval: ql .. 1-
required for contract, code, easement, 
franchise comp plan charter 
AGENDA FOUR-FIFTHS AGENDA COMMISSIONERS VOTED 
AS FOLLOWS: 
TIME CERTAIN 181 
Start time: 2:00 PM YEAS NAYS 
Total amount of time needed: 3 hrs 
(for presentation, testimony and discussion) 
1. Frftz 1. Fritz v 
Ill-
·J 2. Fish 2l Fish 
CONSENTO 3. Saltzman 3. Saltzman v 
REGULAR 0 4. Novick 4. Novick 
Total amount of time needed: 
--(for presentation, testimony and discussion) Hales Hales v 
New Apartments and Parking 
Amendments to the Portland Zoning Code 
April 10, 2013 
At its Thursday, April10, 2013 session, City Council voted on several 
amendments to the Portland Zoning Code parking requirements for multi -
dwelling development. Code amendments include: 
1. Require parking for multi-dwelling development in the CM, CS, RX, CX, 
and C01 zones using a tiered approach . This requires parking in these 
zones if the site has more than 30 units, with a graduated number of 
spaces. 1 (ATTACHMENT A} 
2. Require parking for multi-dwelling development within 500 feet of 
transit and within 1,500 feet of light rail stations using the t iered 
approach. This requires parking near transit if the site has more than 30 
units, with a graduated number of spaces. 2 (ATTACHMENT A) 
3. Allow parking for carsharing and bike share facilities to substitute for 
some required parking. This will keep the substitutions currently in the 
Code, such as providing extra bicycle parking, or motorcycle parking, 
and add two more options. {ATTACHMENT A) 
4. Cap the amount of required parking that may be reduced using 
exceptions at 50 percent. This limits the amount of required parking 
that may be reduced by providing certain amenities. (ATTACHMENT A) 
5. Allow required parking for nonresidential uses to be located within 500 
feet of the site. This increases the current Code requirement from 300 
feet to 500 feet. (ATTACHMENT B) 
6. Allow joint use of required residential parking spaces when analysis 
shows peak parking times occur at different times. The Code currently 
allows nonresidential uses to pursue joint use parking agreements. This 
will allow parking required for residential uses to also be used for joint 
use parking. (ATTACHMENT B) 
7. Require an onsite loading space for multi -dwelling buildings with more 
than 40 units. This will reduce the threshold that triggers an onsite 
loading space for multi-dwelling buildings from those with more than 50 
units, to those with more than 40 units. (RECOMMENDED DRAFT PAGE 
29) 
1 Parking regula tions in a plan district or overlay zone (e .g. Central City, Gateway and 
Northwest plan districts) supersede minimum parking requirements. 
2 Parking regulations in a plan district or overlay zone (e .g. Central City, Gateway and 
Northwest plan districts) supersede minimum parking requirements. 
8. Define size requirements for long-term bicycle parking. This will keep 
size requirements currently in the Code for short-term bicycle parking 
and add the same size requirement for long-term bicycle parking. 
(RECOMMENDED DRAFT PAGES 25 AND 27) 
9. Add language to the purpose statement for Minimum Required Parking. 
The purpose statement language reflects Council ' s discussion and a new 
sentence added at the hearing. (A TI ACHMENT C) 
10. Add language to clarify that the Transit Street Main Entrance 
Requirement applies only to nonresidential uses on the ground floor of a 
building. This clarifies the intent of these development standards in 
various locations throughout the Code. (ATI ACHMENT D) 
Further evaluation 
City Council asked for further analysis of the following: 
1. How minimum parking requirements for multi-dwelling development 
could impact historic buildings and affordable housing projects. 
2. Applicability of parking permit programs for inner neighborhoods such as 
Richmond. 
ATTACHMENT A 
Amendments 
Revised minimum parking standards close to transit (amend. /#7, 8) 
Amended description/ requirements on frequent transit (amend. 1#9) 
Maximum number of parking spaces reduced through exceptions (amend. 110) 
This set of code provisions reflects the following requested amendments: 
• Minimum parking for sites well-served by transit References to the Tri-Met frequent 
transit service map are removed, and the existing language referring to 20-minute 
frequency is retained. The provision allows an additional distance to 1500 feet from 
transit stations, which are defined as light rail stations. The new range of parking 
requirements are incorporated into the requirements for Household Living uses. 
• The remaining exceptions to minimum parking requirements are incorporated into their 
own subsection, and a maximum reduction of 50% of the minimum parking required is 
applied to the cumulative set of exceptions. 
• Table 266-1 is amended to include the range of parking requirements for Household Living 
uses in the CM, CS, RX, CX, CO 1 zones. 
33.266.110 Minimum Parking Requirements 
B. Minimum number of parking spaces required. 
1. The minimum number of parking spaces for all zones is stated in Table 266-1. 
Table 266-2 states the required number of spaces for use categories . The 
standards of Tables 266- 1 and 266-2 apply unless specifically superseded by 
Subsection D or other portions of the City Code. 
2 . Joint use parking. SEE ATTACHMENT B: 
C. Carpool parking. For office, industrial, and institutional uses where there are more 
than 20 parking spaces on the site, the following standards must be met: 
1. Five spaces or five percent of the parking spaces on site, whichever is less, must 
be reserved for carpool use before 9:00AM on weekdays. More spaces may be 
reserved, but they are not required. 
2. The spaces will be those closest to the building entrance or elevator, but not closer 
than the spaces for disabled parking and those signed for exclusive customer use. 
3. Signs must be posted indicating these spaces are reserved for carpool use before 
9:00AM on weekdays . 
D. a. Exeeptieas Minimum for sites well served by transit. There is ne minimum 
pa,rleing requirement .Efor sites located less than 1500 feet from a transit station or less 
than 500 feet from a transit street with 20-minute peak hour service, the minimum 
parking requirement standards of this subsection applv. Applicants meeting these 
standards this eJmeption must provide a map identifying the site and TriMet schedules 
for all transit routes within 500 feet of the site. The minimum number of parking 
spaces is: 
Attachment A Page 1 Apn19, 2013 
1. Household Living uses. The minimum number of parking spaces required for sites 
with Household Living uses is: 
a. Where there are up to 30 units on the site, no parking is required; 
b. Where there are 31 to 40 units on the site, the minimum number of parking 
spaces required is 0.20 spaces per unit; 
c . Where there are 41 to SO units on the site, the minimum number of parking 
spaces required is 0.25 spaces per unit; and 
d. Where there are 51 or more units on the site, the minimum number of 
oarking soaces required is 0.33 spaces per unit. 
2. All other uses. No parking is required for all other uses. 
E . Exceptions to the m inimum number of parking spa c es . 
1. The minimum number of required parking soaces mav not be reduced bv more 
than SO percent through the exceotions of this subsection. The SO percent limit 
aoolies cumulativelv to all exceptions in this subsection. 
2_4. Exceptions for sites where trees are preserved. Minimum parking may be reduced 
by one parking space for each tree 12 inches in diameter and larger that is 
preserved. A ma.."<imum of 2 parking spaces or 10 percent of the total required 
may be reduced, whichever is greater. However, required parking may not be 
reduced below 4 parking spaces under this provision. 
~~. Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required parking. For every 
five non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long- term bicycle 
parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one 
space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. 
~- Substitution of transit-supportive plazas for required parking. Sites where at least 
20 parking spaces are required, and where at least one street lot line abuts a 
transit street may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking, as 
follows. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these 
provisions. Adjustments to the regulations of this paragraph are prohibited. 
a . Transit-supportive plazas may be substituted for up to 10 percent of the 
required parking spaces on the site; 
b. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a 
bus stop along the site's frontage, the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop; 
c. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a 
lO'x lO' square will fit entirely in the plaza; and 
d. The plaza must include all of the following elements: 
Attachment A 
(1) A plaza open to the public. The owner must record a public access 
easement that allows public access to the plaza; 
(2) A bench or other sitting area with at least 5 linear feet of seating; 
Page2 Apn£9, 2013 
(3) A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 
square feet. If the plaza is adjacent to the bus stop, TriMet must approve 
the shelter; and 
(4) Landscaping. At least 10 percent, but not more than 25 percent of the 
transit-supportive plaza must be landscaped to the Ll standard of 
Chapter 33.248, Landscaping and Screening. This landscaping is in 
addition to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas 
by the Zoning Code. 
~· Motorcycle parking may substitute for up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required 
automobile parking, whichever is less. For every 4 motorcycle parking spaces 
provided, the automobile parking requirement is reduced by one space. Each 
motorcycle space must be at least 4 feet wide and 8 feet deep. Existing parking 
may be converted to take advantage of this provision. 
6. Substitution of car sharing spaces for required parking. Substitution of car 
sharing spaces for required parking is allowed if all of the following are met: 
a . For everv car-sharing parking space that is provided, the m otor vehicle 
parking requirement is reduced by two spaces, up to a maximum of 25 
percent of the required parking spaces; 
b. The car-sharing parking spaces must be shown on the building plans; and 
c. A copv of the car-sharing agreement between the property owner and the 
car-sharing company must be submitted with the building permit. 
7. Substitution of bike sharing facility for required parking. Substitution of a bike 
sharing facility for required parking is allowed if all of the following are met: 
a. A bike sharing station providing 15 docks and eight shared bicvcles reduces the 
motor vehicle parking requirement by three spaces. The provision of each 
addition of four docks and two shared bicycles reduces the motor vehicle 
parking requirement bv an additional space, up to a maximum of 25 percent of 
the required parking spaces; 
b . The bike sharing facility must be adjacent to, and visible from the street, and 
must be publiclv accessible; 
c. The bike sharing facility must be shown on the building plans ; and 
d. Bike sharing agreement. 
Attachment A 
(1) The property owner must have a bike sharing agreement with a bike-
sharing company; 
(2) The bike sharing agreement must be approved by the Portland Bureau of 
Transportation; and 
(3) A copv of the signed agreement between the property owner and the bike-
sharing companv, accompanied by a letter of approval from the Bureau of 
Transportation, must be submitted before the building permit is approved. 
Page3 April 9, 2013 
Table 266-1 
Minimum Requiied and Maximum Allowed Parking Spaces By Zone ll l 
Zone Require ment 
OS, RF- RH, IR, CN2, C02, Minimum is Standard A in Table 266-2. 
CG, EG,f Maximum is Standard 8 in Table 266-2. 
EX Minimum- None, except: 
Household Living: minimum of 0 for l to 3 units, I 
per 2 units for four+ units, and SROs exempt. .. 
Maximum is Standard A in Table 266-2, except: 
1) Retail, personal service, repair-oriented -
Maximum is I per 200 sq. ft. of floor area. 
2) Restaurants and bars- Maximum is 1 per 75 
sq. ft. of floor area. 
3) General office - Maximum is 1 per 400 sq. ft . 
of floor area. 
4) Medical/Dental office- Maximum is l per 330 
sq. ft. of floor area. 
CNl Minimum -None. 
Maximum of l space per 2,500 sq. ft. of site area. 
CM, CS, RX, CX, COl Minimum- None. except:: 
Household Living: minimum of 0 for 1 to 30 ynits, 
0.2 oer unit for 31-40 units, 0.25 osr unit for 41-50 
units, and 0.33 per unit for 51+ units 
Maximum is Standard 8 in Table 266-2 . 
Ill Regulauons m a plan d1stnct or overlay zone may supersede the standards of this 
table . 
Attachment A Page 4 April9,2013 
ATTACHMENT B 
Amendment: The PSC had recommended to allow residential parking to be located off-site and 
extended the distance for all off-site parking to within 500 feet of the site. Additionally, they 
recommended allowing joint use of parking areas fo r both residential and non-residential uses, 
provided the parking was in a zone that allowed the related use. The City Council voted to 
remove the option to allow residential parking to off-site (but did not change the distance 
amendment}, and kept the option for joint use parking agreements to include residential 
development. The code referencing the "proximity of parking to use" is returned to its current 
format. (amend. Ul) 
33.266.100 General Regulations 
A-D. No Change. 
E. Proximity of parking to use. Required parking spaces for residential uses must be 
located on the site of the use or within a shared court parking tract owned in common 
by all the owners of the proper ties that will use t he tract. On-street parking within a 
private street-tract other than a shared court does not count towards this requirement. 
Required parking spaces for nonresidential u ses must be located on the site of the use 
or in parking areas whose closest point is within ~~00 feet of the site. 
F-G. No Change. 
33.266.110 Minim.Ulil Required Parking Spaces 
A. No Change. 
B. Minimum number of parking spaces required. 
2. Joint use parking. Joint use of required parking spaces may occur where two or 
more uses on the same or separate sites are able to share the same parking 
spaces because their parking demands occur at different times . Joint use of 
required parking spaces is allowed onlv if the uses and housing tvpes to which the 
parking is accessorv are allowed in the zone where the parking is located. Joint 
use of required neHresidential parking s paces is allowed if the following 
documentation is submitted in writing to BDS as part of a building or zoning 
p ermit application or land use review: 
a. The names and addresses of the uses and of the owners or tenants that are 
sharing the parking; 
b. The location and number of parking spaces that are being shared; 
c . An analysis showing that the peak parking times of the uses occur at 
different times and that the parking area will be large enough for the 
anticipated demands of both uses; and 
d . A legal instnunent such as an easement or deed restriction that guarantees 
access to the parking for both uses. 
Attachment B Page 1 April 10, 2013 
ATTACHMENT C 
Amendment: Expand Purpose statement for Minimum Required Parking Spaces (includes 
language discussed during City Council hearing). (amend. # 12) 
33.266.110 Minimum Required Parking Spaces 
A. Purpose. The purpose of required parking spaces is to provide enough on-site parking 
to accommodate the majority of traffic generated by the range of uses which might 
locate at the site over time. Sites that are located in close proximity to transit , have 
good street connectivity, and good pedestrian facilities may need little or no off-street 
parking. Multi-dwelling development that includes a large number of units may require 
some parking to support existing and future uses in the area and serve residents and 
guests. especiallv those with disabilities. Parking requirements should be balanced 
with an active pedestrian network to minimize pedestrian. bicycle and vehicle conflicts 
as much as possible. Transit-supportive plazas and bicycle parking may be substituted 
for some required parking on a site to encourage transit use and bicycling by 
employees and visitors to the site. The required parking numbers correspond to broad 
use categories, not specific uses, in response to this long term emphasis. Provision of 
carpool parking, and locating it close to the building entrance, will encourage carpool 
use. 
Attachment C Page 1 Apn1 10, 2013 
ATTACHMENT D 
Amendment: Clarification of Main Entrance Requirements (amend. #13) 
Note: This series of amendments, moved to approval by City Council, clarifies that the main 
entrance requirements throughout the Zoning Code are intended to apply to only to ground floor 
non-residential tenant spaces. A recent LUBA case indicated that this intent was not clear. 
Revisions are proposed within the Commercial and Employment base zones, the Main St Overlay 
zone for Division St, and the Gateway and East Corridor plan districts (which have slightly 
different regulations that do not distinguish between residential and non-residential). 
COMMERCIAL ZONES 
33.130.242 Transit Stre et Main Entrance 
A. Purpose. Locating the main entrance to a use on a transit street provides convenient 
pedestrian access between the use and public sidewalks and transit facilities, and so 
promotes walking and the use of transit. 
B. Applicability. 
1. Generally. All sites with at least one frontage on a transit street, and where any of 
the floor area on the site is in nonresidential uses, must meet the following 
standards ef Subeeetien C, belew for the nonresidential uses. If the site has 
frontage on more than one transit street, the standards of Subsection C, below, 
must be met on at least one of the transit streets; 
2. Houses, attached houses, manufactured homes, and duplexes. Houses, attached 
houses, manufactured homes, and duplexes must meet the standards of 
33.130.250.C, Residential Main Entrance, instead of the requirements of this 
section. 
C. Location. For portions of a building within the ma"<imum building setback, at least 
one main entrance for each nonresidential tenant space on the ground floor must meet 
the standards of this section. The ground floor is the lowest floor of the building that 
is within four feet of the adjacent transit street grade. The main entrance must: 
1. Be within 25 feet of the transit street; 
2. Allow pedestrians to both enter and exit the building; and 
3. Either: 
a . Face the transit street; or 
b. Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the transit street, measured from 
the street property line, as shown in Figure 130-6, below. 
D . Unlocked during regular business hours. The main entrance that meets the 
standards of Subsection C, above, must be unlocked during regular business hours. 
Attachment D Page 1 Apri110, 2013 
Figure 140-6 
Transit Street Main Entrance 
,-----------------, 
MAIN 
ENTRANCE 
L /45• /.~ ___/., orles_ 
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES 
33.140.242 Transit Street Main Entrance 
+ 25' 
' 
A. Purpose . Locating the main entrance to a use on a transit street provides convenient 
pedestrian access between the use and public sidewalks and transit facilities, and so 
promotes walking and the use of transit. 
B. Applicability. 
1. Generally. In the EX and EG 1 zones, all sites with at least one frontage on a 
transit street, and where any of the floor area on the site is in nonresidential uses, 
must meet the following standards for the nonresidential uses. If the site has 
frontage on more than one transit street, the standards of Subsection C, below, 
must be met on at least one of the transit streets; 
2. Houses, attached h ouses, manufactured homes, and duplexes. Houses, attached 
houses, manufactured homes, and duplexes must meet the standards of 
subsection 33.140.265.0, Residential Main Entrance, instead of the requirements 
of this section. 
C. Location. For the portion of buildings that conform to the maximum building setback, 
at least one main entrance for each n onresidential tenant space on the ground floor 
must meet the standards of this section. The ground floor is the lowest floor of the 
building that is within four feet of the adjacent transit street grade. The main entrance 
must: 
1. Be within 25 feet of the transit street; 
2 . Allow pedestrians to both enter and exit the building; and 
3 . Either: 
a . Face the transit street; or 
b. B~ at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the transit street, measured from the 
street property line, as shown in Figure 130-6, below. 
Attachment D Page2 April 10, 2013 
D. Unlocked during regular business hours. The main entrance that meets the 
standards of Subsection C, above, must be unlocked during regular business hours. 
Division Street Regulations 
33.460.300 Purpose 
Figure 140-6 
Transit Street Main Entrance 
~-----------------~ 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
MAIN 
ENTRANCE 
I /. + 
I /45~ I ~ L-------__/_ .i_les!L_ - .l..__!__ 
These regulations promote development that fosters a pedestrian- and transit-oriented main 
street and reinforces the pattem of older industrial, commercial, and residential buildings 
along the street. These regulations ensure that development: 
• Activates Division Street comers and enhances the pedestrian environment; 
• Steps down building heights to reduce the negative impacts of larger scale buildings on the 
adjoining single-dwelling zones; 
• Is constructed with high quality materials in combinations that are visually interesting; 
• Consists of retail that primarily serves the surrounding neighborhood, is small in scale and 
promotes pedestrian activity; and 
• Provides neighbors with the opportunity to give early input to developers on significant 
projects. 
33.460.310 Additional Standards. 
A. Reinforce the comer. This standard applies to all sites where any of the floor area on 
the site is in nonresidential usesT Where a site abuts both Division Street and an 
intersecting street: 
1. Setbacks. The requirements of Subparagraph 33.130.215.C .2.e, Setbacks in a 
Pedestrian District must be met; 
2. Main entrance. For portions of a building within the maximum building setback, 
at least one main entrance for each nonresidential tenant space on the ground 
floor must meet the standards of this section. The ground floor is the lowest floor 
Attachment D Page3 AprillO, 2013 
of the building that is within four feet of the adjacent street grade. The main 
entrance must: 
a. Be within 5 feet of the fac;:ade facing Division Street; and 
b. Either: 
(1) Face Division Street; or 
(2) Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from Division Street, measured from 
the street property line. 
3. Surface parking areas are not allowed within 40 feet of the comer. 
B-D.[No change.] 
EAST CORRIDOR PLAN DISTRICT 
33.521.250 Entrances 
A. Purpose. These regulations ensure that at least one of the main entrances into a 
building, and each tenant space in a building that faces a street, be oriented to public 
streets or light rail. This requirement enhances pedestrian access from the sidewalk to 
adjacent buildings. Together with the building design and pedestrian standards, these 
standards ensure that sidewalks in the plan district are convenient, active, pleasant 
environments with a high level of pedestrian amenities. 
B. Where these regulations apply. In the RH, Rl , and C zones, buildings must meet th e 
standards of Subsection C., below. 
C. Entrances. For portions of a building within the maximum building setback, at least 
one main entrance for each tenant space on the ground floor must meet the standards 
of this section. The ground floor is the lowest floor of the building that is within four 
feet of the adjacent street grade. Entrances that open into lobbies, reception areas, or 
common interior circulation space must also meet the standards of this section. The 
entrances must: 
1. Face a public street or light rail alignment; 
2. Be within 15 feet of the public street or light rail alignment it faces; 
3. Be oriented to nearby transit facilities as follows: 
a. If a site abuts a street containing a light rail alignment, the entrance must 
orient to that alignment. If the proposed building is within 100 feet of a 
transit station, at least one entrance must be along the fJ.rst 25 feet of the wall 
nearest the s tation. 
b. If a site abuts a transit street other than a light rail alignment, the entrance 
must orient to that street. 
c. If the site abuts intersecting transit streets, the main entrance must orient to 
the street with the highest classification. 
Attachment D Page 4 April 10, 2013 
d. If the site abuts intersecting t ransit streets with the same classification, the 
entrance may be at a 45-degree angle to both streets or within 25 feet of the 
comer along either transit street. 
GATEWAY PLAN DISTRICT 
33.526.270 Entrances 
A. Purpose. These regulations en sure that at least one main entrance in to a building, 
and each tenant space in a building that faces a street, be oriented to public streets or 
the light rail alignment. This requirement enhances p edestrian access from the 
sidewalk to adjacent buildings. Together with the Enhanced Pedestrian Street, ground 
floor window, and pedestrian standards, the entrance standards ensure that the 
sidewalks in the plan district are convenient, active, pleasant environments with 
pedestrian amenities. 
B. Where these regulations apply. In R l , RH, RX, C, and EX zones, buildings must 
meet the standards of Subsection C., below. 
C. Entrances. For portions of a building within the ma.'C:imum building setback, at least 
one main entrance for each tenant space on the ground floor must meet the standards 
of this section. The ground floor is the lowest floor of the building that is within four 
feet of the adjacent street grade. Entrances that open into lobbies, reception areas, or 
common interior circulation space must also meet the standards of this section . The 
entrances must: 
1. Face a public street or light rail alignment; 
2. Be within 15 feet of the public street or light rail alignment it faces; 
3. Be oriented to nearby transit facilities as follows: 
a. If a site abuts a light rail alignment along East Burnside Street, the main 
entrance must orient to that alignment. If the proposed building is within 
100 feet of a transit station, at least one entrance must be along the first 25 
feet of the wall nearest the station. 
b . If a site abuts a transit street other than a light rail alignment, the entrance 
must orient to that street. 
c . If the site abuts intersecting transit streets, the main entrance must orient to 
the street with the highest classification. 
d . If the site abuts intersecting transit streets with the same classification, the 
entrance may be at a 45 degree angle to both streets or within 25 feet of the 
comer along either transit street. 
Attachment D PageS AprillO, 2013 
Zoning Code 
Amendments 
Exhibit A 
Recommended Draft 
March 2013 
New Apartments and Parking 
Planning and Sustainability Commission 
Recommended Draft 
Zoning Code Amendments 
The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is 
committed to providing equal access to 
information and hearings. If you need special 
accommodation, please call 503-823-7700, the 
City 's TTY at 503-823-6868, or the Oregon Relay 
Service at 1-800-735-2900. 
For more information about New Apartments and Parking Proposed Zoning Code 
Amendments please contact: 
Matt Wickstrom, City Planner/SE District Liaison 
Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
1900 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 71 00 
Portland, Oregon 97201-5380 
Phone: 503-823-2834 
Email: matt. wickstrom@portlandoregon.gov 
For media requests, please contact: 
Eden Dabbs, Communications / Public Affairs 
Phone: 503-823-9908 
Email: eden . dabbs®portlandoregon. gov 
A digital copy of this report can be found at: 
http: //www.portlandoregon.gov / bps / 59974 
A public hearing on the recommendation of the Planning and Sustainability 
Commission will be held before the Portland City Council on April 4, 2013 at 2:00p.m. 
at 1211 SW 4th Avenue, Council Chambers. 
Testimony may be submitted in person, or in advance by emailing karla .moore-
love@portlandoregon.gov or mailing testimony to Council Clerk, 1211 SW 4th Avenue, 
Portland, OR 97204. 
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
i.l:f"'o.:.•·anor ... Co.I:UJJJ-nUcn : rJctic:.l s.~.nmor:.s 
March 25, 2013 
Portland City Council 
Portland City Hall 
12.11 SW 4th A•.1enue 
Portland. OR 972().1 
Dear Mayor Hales and City Council Members: 
Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission 
Andre B~ugh. Ch:~ir 
11-lichelle Rudd, Vic!! ChJtr flow¥d Shapiro, Vice Chair 
Km'n Gny Gary Oxman 
Don Hanson Katherine Schultz 
Mike Houck Chris Smith 
Lai-Lani OvaUes 
On March t:Z. 2013 the Plannin~ a11d Sustalnability Commission (PSC) voted 7-1 to forward the New 
Apartments and Parkin'S: Proposed Zonin'i! Code Amendments to City Council for approval with some 
minor changes. 
The hearin15 was a direct follow-up from our work session on llovembE>r 12, 2012 when? staff provided 
backqround res<?arch on th~ recent growth in new apartments built without vehicle parking. At the 
hearing, the PSC heard pas5ionate tes•imony from a brwd spectrum of interests. \'/hile sympathetic to 
man:1 of the concerns raised, the PSC understands that this project could not address all concerns and 
shortcomings associated vrith neighborhood parking issues. There are many components of the process 
beyond the scope of this project: hov1t;>•.rer. we 1riew this package of amendments as an initial approach 
to address an immediate concern while a more holistic and long-term pcltcy dir9Ction is developed 
through the Comprehensive Plan rewrit=? and implementation projects. 
The PSC has requested that the code align more tightly "'lith TriMet's ft·equent service and high capacity 
transit line; to support the Portl.~nd Plan's cemers stratqgy and ensure that neighborhoods with no / lov' 
park:ng buildings ha•te high quality transit service. V'/.;; a~.o Included dev£>lopinq altemativ£>s like bike-
share in the measures to reduce par·king demand. 
In addition to the Zomng Code amendml?nts. the PSC requests that tt·,e City Council direct the Bureau 
of Transportation to continue exploring neighborhood parking permit programs and review their policy 
recommendations with us to allow devP.lopment of a comprehensive approach to parking management 
in neight.orhoods. Any potential par!dng permit program would operate as a piece of a greater 
Transportation Demand Management strategy for areas that ha•:e been impacted by the recent multi-
dwelling development projects. 
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. 
Sincerely, 
Michele Rudd 
\Ike Chair 
Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission 
Cit:> <>I' ?o1·t l,1 1d. tlrepn !;1 r~~" oll ?IJn n1ng ,;no! Su>r~i nablhty ! '·'''""port l andor~gong<w: bp~ 
l CJOO 5'"\' Hh Avc.·n.•Jt! Suite: lCU. Penland, OR q;:u .. ! ;lbJne :t:3·!:!.!3·.,700 fo~.\ :103 823- ;soc• L:.y · :.r:3-0.!3-o0&8 
r,. .. ; ... J,, .:. .. ~ , .. r ,,., . .,.....,_ ,... -.'.,,, . 1 ... 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 1 
Page 2 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
New Apartments and Parking 
In the last year, there has been an increase in development of new multi-dwel ling 
buildings, including projects that do not include off-street parking. Many of these 
buildings are being developed along commercial streets in neighborhoods. The projects 
are being built under current city policies and zoning code provisions, some that have 
been in place since the 1980s. Community members have reacted with concern about the 
number of these projects and about the new buildings' height, size, density, design and 
lack of off-street parking. 
Responding to community concerns, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) 
completed a series of studies about new apartments and parking. These studies included: 
• Parking and travel behavior study - an examination of travel, parking behavior 
and vehicle ownership by residents of eight existing residential and mixed use 
buildings with little or no parking. The study included counting vehicles parked on 
surrounding streets, interviews with residents and others, and a survey of 
residents. 11 6 completed surveys were received out of 333 mailed. 
• Cost of parking analysis - BPS modeled development data to evaluate the cost of 
providing onsite parking for infill apartments and impacts on.affordability for 
apartment dwellers. 
• TriMet service review - an examination of the frequency of transit service in 2007 
(prior to service cuts) and current service levels evaluating whether locations 
where new apartments are proposed are vulnerable to service cuts. 
• 2006-2012 permits - a review of mul~i-dwelling permits from 2006 to June 2012 to 
examine trends related to development and parking. 
Results of studies and research related to new apartments and parking, as well as a 
summary of community concerns were presented at a November 13, 2012 Planning and 
Sustainability Commission (PSC) meeting and City Council session on January 10, 2013 . 
Public testimony was taken at both meetings. Some community members expressed 
opposition to current regulations . Others, who were supportive of curren t policy, still felt 
the need for improvements. · 
At the January 1oth City Council session, Council accepted the BPS studies and requested 
that staff develop and publish a near-term proposal of concepts and regulatory changes to 
the parking regulations by early February 2013. This proposal is a response to Council's 
directive and contains: 
• Summary of six proposed amendments to the Portland Zoning Code and discussion 
of each amendment, 
• Information on disabled parking, 
• Continued work items, and 
• Commentary and proposed Portland Zoning Code amendments. 
These amendments were brought forward to the Planning and Sustainability Commission 
at their hearing on March 12th, and a recommendation was made with minor amendments 
to the staff proposal. 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 3 
Page 4 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Summary of Proposed Code Amendments 
This project proposes six amendments to the Portland Zoning Code. This section lists the 
proposed amendments, fol lowed by a discussion of the rationale for each . 
Amendment #1 -Minimum Parking Requirements 
Amendment #2 - Frequent Transit Service Exception 
Amendment # 3 - Carshare/ Bikeshare Exception 
Existing 
One parking space required per dwelling unit 
in most zones. 
No parking required in CM, CS, RX, CX, and 
C01 zones. 
No parking required for sites less than 500 
feet of a t ransit street with frequent service. 
Note: Frequent service is defined in the 
Portland Zoning Code as service occurring 
every 20 minutes or less during morning and 
evening commute hours. 
Several reductions in parking spaces are 
allowed, such as: 
• 
• 
For every five non-required bike 
parking spaces provided, required 
vehicle parking may be reduced by 
one space (up to 25% of required 
parking) . 
For every four motorcycle parking 
spaces provided, required vehicle 
parking may be reduced by one space 
(up to five spaces or 5% or required 
parking, whichever is less). 
Proposed 
No change. 
Amendment #1 : 
One parking space per four dwelling uni ts for 
new development of more than 40 units in 
CM, cs, RX, ex, and C01 zones. 
Amendment #2: 
One parking space per four dwelling units for 
new development of more t han 40 units that 
are on sites within 500 feet of TriMet's 
designated Frequent Service corridors, 
transit stations and Portland Streetcar. 
Note: TriMet 's Frequent Service lines, MAX 
and Portland Streetcar are the region's best-
served routes connecting the regional hubs 
where many riders live and work . The 
proposed requirements will align with 
TriMet's 15-minute or better service goal 
seven days a week from designated Frequent 
Service corridors. 
Amendment #3 : 
Allow additional reductions: 
Car-sharing 
• For every one space dedicated to a 
carsharing vehicle, required vehicle 
parking may be reduced by two 
spaces (up to 25% of the required 
parking). 
• To qualify as a carsharing space, an 
executed contract with a recognized 
carshare organization must be 
provided. 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 5 
Bike sharing 
• Allow a reduction of three vehicle 
spaces for a bike-sharing facility 
containing 15 docking points and 8 
shared bicycles. Each additional 4 
docking points and 2 shared bicycles 
reduces parking by an additional 
space (up to 25% of the required 
parking). 
• To qualify, an executed contract 
with a bikeshare organization must 
be provided, and the contract 
approved by t he Portland Bureau of 
Transportation . 
Parking regulations in a plan district or No change. 
overlay zone (e.g. Central City, Gateway and 
Northwest plan districts) supersede minimum 
parking requirements. 
Amendment #1 - Minimum ParkinQ Reauirements: 
The Ci ty's current policy to allow for development of new multi -dwelling buildings in 
mixed-use districts and on frequent transit corridors seems to provide a ba lanced 
supply of off-street parking overall. Today over half of the new multi-dwelling 
development built in the city's neighborhoods provide parking at a ratio of nearly one 
soace per unit. Cumulatively for buildings with and without parking, the parking ratio 
for new multi-dwelling development is approximately one space per every two uni ts. 
Therefore, on the whole, the supply of parking has increased with the development of 
new units. 
However, a reasonable case can be made that larger mul ti -dwelling projects (more 
than 40 units) without parking pose a risk of overtaxing the supply of local on-street 
parking. This can be especially of concern on neighborhood commercial streets, where 
the supply of on-street parking is shared by nearby stores, restaurants and services, as 
well as neighboring residents. 
Many recent examples of new multi-dwelling development have been built on 10,000 
square foot lots that face a commercial street and an in tersecting side street. The 
most common approaches to providing parking on a lot this size would be either to 
reduce the building footprint to provide a surface parking lot or to include parking in 
some or all of the first floor of the building. This impacts the design and density of the 
building. It also affects the character of the surrounding streets by adding driveway 
curb cuts, which interrupt the sidewalk pedestrian environment and eliminate at least 
one on-street parking space. Still there are good design solutions and many successful 
examples of larger multi-dwelling development buildings with parking in these 
neighborhood locations. 
The Bureau's study of the development economics of new buildings suggests that 
buildings with more than 40 units are able to better absorb the cost of providing on-
Page 6 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
site parking without requiring significant rent premiums. The proposed amendment 
requires parking for development with more than 40 uni ts, which helps address the 
concern about the impact of parking minimums on housing affordability. 
The proposed regulations would not apply to smaller buildings for several reasons. 
First, allowing some smaller buildings to be built without parking helps keep a mix of 
housing that offers residents housing options, including units that do not carry the cost 
of parking that they may not need or use. Second, smaller buildings are often on 
smaller lots and in mid·block locations with no side-street access. Mid-block curb cuts 
disrupt the pedestrian environment on commercial streets and pose safety concerns. 
Curb cuts for minimal parking associated with smaller projects may remove a 
comparable amount of on-street parking. Third, requiring larger parking minimums can 
result i n undesired building forms such as narrow buildings next to surface parking lots 
or curb cuts accessing smal l sites, which creates minimal ground floor presence. 
Finally, there are good design solutions and many examples of successful smaller 
multi-dwelling buildings being developed as infill on neighborhood commercial st reets. 
Amendment #2 -Frequent Transit Service Exception: 
The zon ing code currently defines frequent transit service as 20-minute service in the 
morning and evening commute hours. There can be problems implementing this 
exception because the frequency of service can increase or decrease over time, 
schedules can vary over the peak hours and many mobility needs occur during other 
t imes of the day and weekends. TriMet is committed to providing designated Frequen t 
Service corridors with high-frequency service (with a goal of 15 minute or better 
headways throughout the day, seven days a week) on a permanent basis. TriMet makes 
this commitment so that residents, businesses, developers, local j urisdictions and 
regional decision-makers can count on the long-term presence of Frequent Service. 
Due to current budget restrictions, Frequent Service lines are not currently providing 
15-minute service throughout the day. This is a temporary response to budget 
pressures and TriMet expects to restore the service to it s 15-minute or better service 
goal as soon as budget conditions allow. 
Aligning the zoning code parking exception with TriMet Frequent Service corridors, 
MAX transit stations and Portland Streetcar, better reflects frequent transit service 
compared with today's 20-minute service defined in the Portland Zoning Code. Using 
TriMet's designated Frequent Service corridors rather than the measures currently 
defined in the Portland Zoning Code will allow long-term development with reduced 
parking to focus along corridors that will always receive TriMet's most frequent service. 
Amendment #3 - Carsharing and Bike Share Exceptions: 
Carsharing is becoming increasingly popular in Portland, where several di fferent 
models of carshare programs exist. Carshare allows members an option to not own a 
vehicle and to instead reserve and use a fleet or peer vehicle when they need it. 
Carshare allows for more efficient use of vehicles and parking. Data shows that 
carshare provides potential environmental benefi ts as participants general ly drive less 
than when they owned a personal vehicle. For these reasons, allowing on-si te carshare 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 7 
spaces t o substi tute for up to 25 percent of required parking spaces allows for a more 
efficient use of the site area, by providing one or more vehicles that can be shared by 
all residents of the development. 
Regional leaders approved funds in 2011 to start Portland Bike Share (scheduled to 
being in Spring 2014). Bike Share relies on a system of self-service bike stations where 
residents and visitors may check out a bike, ride to their destination and return the 
bike to any docking station near that destination. Allowing bike share to substitute for 
onsite parking can help build the Portland Bike Share network and provide a new 
amenity for residents and visitors of Portland 's neighborhoods. 
Amendment #4- Joint Use Parking 
Existing I Proposed 
Residential parking must be located on the Multi-dwelling residential parking may be 
same site. located in parking areas within 500 feet of the 
si te provided the parking area is zoned 
commercial or multi-dwelling residential. 
Amendment #4 - Joint Use Parking 
Allowing nearby underutilized parking areas to accommodate parking for new multi-
dwelling development allows more eff icien t use of parking. Current zoning rules allow 
off-site perking for commercial uses. This amendment expands the allowance to multi-
dwelling development. A proposal to use an offsite parking lot for join t use must 
include an analysis of the hours of peak demand for both uses that will park there. In 
addition, an easement or deed restriction that guarantees access for all uses is 
required. 
Amendment #5 - Loading Spaces 
Existing Proposed 
1 on -site loading space is required where 1 on-site loading space is requi red where 
there are more than 50 dwelling units. there are more than 40 dwelling units. 
Amendment #5 - Loading Spaces 
A required loading space for larger multi-dwelling buildings helps ensure the 
availability of a designat ed loading space for moving in and out, dropping off groceries 
and other needs. Currently multi-dwelling buildings with more than 50 units are 
required to provide an onsite loading space. Lowering the threshold to more than 40 
units aligns the loading space requirement with the new on-site parking requirement 
for multi -dwelling buildings with more than 40 units. 
Requiring on-site loading for smaller buildings (those with fewer than 40 units) would 
result in additional curb cuts and effectively eliminate a comparable amount of on-
Page 8 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
street parking where loading and unloading also occurs. Smaller buildings are often on 
smaller lots and in mid-block locations with no side-street access. Mid-block curb cuts 
disrupt the pedestrian environment on commercial streets and pose safety concerns. 
The on-site loading space is intended to serve residents and is smaller in size. The 
space could also be used for outside delivery if the parking/loading area is accessible 
to the public. UPS, TriMet LIFT service and other service vehicles may also use existing 
on-street spaces or require an on-street space designated for loading by the Portland 
Bureau of Transportation; however, the driveway or curb cut associated with the 
onsite parking and loading spaces will provide an additional space for quick pull -in and 
drop-off. For times of high loading and unloading needs such as the opening of a new 
multi-dwelling building, building managers may request a temporary loading and 
unloading space through the Portland Bureau of Transportation. 
Amendment #6 - Bicycle Parking 
Ex i st i ng Proposed 
Size requirements only apply to short-term Size requirements for long-term (resident use) 
(guest use) bike parking. bicycle parking are defined. 
Amendment #6 - Bicycle Parking 
Current bicycle parking requirements state that each short-term (guest use) bicycle 
parking space must be at least 2 feet by 6 feet but do not define size requ irements for 
long·term (resident use) bicycle parking. Undefined long-term bicycle parking 
standards can lead to installation of required bike racks in inappropriate locations. It 
is the intent of this amendment to allow long-term bike parking to continue within 
residential units, however the location of the spaces must be clearly defined and meet 
safety and new size requirements. 
Information on Disabled Parking 
Over the course of the new apartments and parking discussion, considerable concern 
and attention has focused on the needs of residents with disabilities. In response, staff 
reviewed current requirements and processes for installation of disabled parking 
spaces, three of which are important to highlight: 
1. Disabled parking is triggered with the first on-site parking space. When one or 
more on-site parking spaces is created, at least one disabled space is required. 
Therefore, applying a minimum parking requirement for multi-dwelling 
buildings with more than 40 units, ensures that at least one on-site disabled 
parking space is provided. 
2. Residents with disabilities may continue to request installation of an on-street 
disabled parking space free of charge. When possible, the Portland Bureau of 
Transportation will work with the resident to accommodate the request in the 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 9 
most suitable location. This space will be available for use by anyone with a 
valid disabled permit, not just the requesting resident. 
3. On-street loading and unloading spaces and limited duration spaces (e.g. 15-
minute limit spaces) may be requested through the Portland Bureau of 
Transportation which will assess the need, suitable locations and proximity to 
other spaces. On-street loading spaces serve as suitable locations for TriMet 
LIFT service. 
Continued Work 
While the proposed zoning code amendments are intended as attainable near-term 
solutions, continued work is expected. Items that require continued observation and 
evaluation include: 
1. Monitor permits and development activity including measuring on-street 
parking congestion before and after the construction of the 81-unit building 
at SE Division & SE 37th Avenue. 
2. Explore neighborhood parking permit programs such that any potential 
parking permit program would operate as a piece of a greater Transportation 
Demand Management strategy for areas that may see impacts related to 
recent multi-dwelling development projects. 
Planning and Sustainability Commission ' s Reco mmendat ion 
The Planning and Sustainability Commission recommends that the City Council take the 
following actions: 
• Adopt this report; 
• Amend the Zoning Code (Title 33) as shown in this report; 
• Adopt the report and commentary as further findings and legislative intent; and 
• Adopt the ordinance. 
Page 10 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Amendments to Zoning Code 
The amendments to the Zoning Code are in this section of the report. 
• 
• 
Staff commentary explaining the code language is on the left-hand pages . 
Code language is on the right-hand pages. Code language to be added is 
underlined. Code language to be deleted is shown in strikethrough. 
Commentary 
CHAPTER 33 .130 
COMMERCI AL ZONES 
Table 130- 3 - S ummary of Deve lopment Standards in Commercial Zones 
This table in the current code contains a line that summarizes whether parking is required in 
the d ifferent commercial zones. 
The amendment to Chapter 33.266 , Parking and Loading , requires parking for larger multi -
dwell ing developments. Due to this change, the parking information in t his table is no longer 
correct or useful , and should be deleted. Deleting the information will also make this table 
consistent with the tables for other zones. 
Page 12 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Standard 
Maximum FAR 
(see 33.130.205) 
Maximum Height 
(see 33.130.2101 
Min. Building Stbks 
(see 33.130.215) 
Street Lot Line or 
Lot Line Abut-
ting an OS, RX, 
C, E, or I Zone 
Lot 
Lot Line Abut-
ting other R 
Zoned Lot 
Garage Entrance 
Setback 
(see 33.130.2SO.E) 
Ma"<.Building Stbks 
(see 33. 130.2 1S) 
Street Lot Line 
Transit Street or 
Pedestrian District 
Building Coverage 
(see 33.130.220) 
Min. Landscaped 
Area 
(see 33. 130.225) 
Landscaping 
Abutting an R Zoned 
Lot 
(see 33.130.21S.B.) 
Ground Floor 
Window Stds. Apply 
(see 33.130.230) 
Pedestrian 
Requirements 
(see 33.130 240) 
ReEI~o<ired 
~ 
r. 
..,.., """ 
·-
March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
CHAPTER 33.130 
COMMERCIAL ZONES 
Table 130·3 
Summary of Development Standards in Com=ercial Zones 
CNl CN2 COl C02 CM cs 
. 75 to 1 .75 to 1 . 7S to 1 2 to 1 1 to 1 3 to 1 
See 
33.130.253 
30ft. 30ft. 30ft. 4S ft. 45ft. 4S ft. 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
See Table See Table See Table See Table See Table See Table 
130-4 130-4 130-4 130-4 130-4 130-4 
5/18 ft Sf 18 ft 5 /18 ft 5/ 18ft 5/18 ft 5/18 ft 
None None None None 10ft. 10ft. 
10 ft. 10ft. 10ft. 10ft. 10ft. 10ft. 
Ma"<. of Ma"<. of Max. of Ma"<. of Min. of 50% Min. of 
85% of 6S% of SO% of 65%of of site area SO% of 
site area site area site area site area site area 
15% of 1S% of 15% of 15% of 
site area site area site area site area None None 
S ft.@ L3 S ft.@ L3 S ft.@ L3 S ft.@ L3 5 ft.@ L3 S ft.@ L3 
or none or none or none or none or none or none 
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
~ ~ ~ ~ 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft 
CG ex 
3 to 1 4 to 1 
45ft. 75ft. 
0 0 
See Table See Table 
130-4 130-4 
5/18 ft Sf 18 ft 
None None 
10ft. 10ft. 
Ma-..;:. of 
8S%of No Limit 
site area 
15% of 
site area None 
5 ft.@ L3 S ft.@ L3 
or none or none 
Yes Yes 
Yes Yes 
~ 
~ ~ 
Page 13 
Commentary 
CHAPTER 33 . 266 
PARKING AND LOADING 
Motor Vehicle Parking 
33 . 266. 100 Gener a l Regulations 
E. Proximity of parking t o use . Currently, required parking for all residential uses must 
be on the site of the development or within a shared court. Required parking for 
nonresidential uses may be located off-site , if the parking area is within 300 feet of 
the site of t he development. 
This amendment allows required parking for multi-dwelling development to be off-site, 
similar to the provision for nonresidential uses. In addit ion, the code amends the 
provision to extend the area where the perking con be located to be wit hin 500 feet of 
t he development site. It i_s intended t o work in conjunction with the new parking 
requirements that ore port of this package to provide c little more f lexibility for 
deve lopment proposals. If the perking is r.ot under the some ownership as the 
development s ite, on agreement between the owners of the two parcels would be 
necessary. 
33.266.110 Minimum Required Parxing S paces 
A. Purpose . The current purpose statement explains the exceptions to minimum parking 
requ irements in certain situations, such as areas close to transit, and with good 
connectivity and pedestrian features . This amendme nt explains why some parking would 
be required , regardless, for some multi-dwelling developments. 
Page 14 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
CHAPTER 33.266 
PARKING AND LOADING 
Motor Vehicle Parking 
33.266. 100 General Regulations 
A-D. No Change. 
Zoning Code Amendments 
E . Proximity of parking to use . Required parking spaces for residential uses must 
be located on the site of the use, except as follows: 
1. For houses and duplexes. the reauired parking mav be-e-F within a shared 
court parking tract owned in common by all the owners of the properties that 
·will use the tract. On-street parki.<g within a private street-tract other than a 
shared court does not count towards this requirement. 
~Required parking spaces for all other nonresidential uses rna~be located 
on t..'le site of t..'1e :.:se or in parking areas whose closest point is V;ithin ~~00 
feet of the site. 
F-G. No Change. 
33.266.110 Minimum Required Parking Spaces 
A. Purpos e. The purpose of required parking spaces is to provide enough on-site 
parking to accommodate the majority of traffic generated by the range of uses 
which might locate at the site over time. Sites that are located in close proximity to 
transit, have good street connectivity, and good pedestrian facilities may need 
lesslitUe or no off-street parking. Multi-dwelling development that includes a large 
number of units may require some parking to ensure there is an adequate supplv 
of on-street parking for existing and future uses in the area. Transit-supportive 
plazas and bicycle parking may be substituted for some required parking on a site 
to encourage transit use and bicycling by employees and visitors to the site. The 
required parking numbers correspond to broad use categories, not specific uses, in 
response to this long term emphasis. Provision of carpool parking, and locating it 
close to the building entrance, will encourage carpool use. 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 15 
Commentary 
B. Minimum number of parking spaces required . 
Page 16 
2. Joint use parking. Joint use parking IS currently a llowed between non-residential 
uses, if specif ied standards are met. Because the amendment to 33.266.100.E.2 , 
above, will allow parking required for multi-dwelling development to be off-site, 
allowing residential uses to participate in joint use of parking will increase 
opportunities for such off-site parking . Current policy is that parking serving uses 
on other s ites is only allowed in zones where those uses are allowed. For example , 
parking serving commercial uses is not allowed in residential zones. The sentence 
added t o this paragraph clarifies this intent. 
3. Exceptions for well served by transit . In most locations, one parking space is 
required for each dwelling unit . However, near streets that are "wel l served by 
transit" no parking is required. Streets well served by transit are those with 20-
minute peak hour service, wh ich is determined by consulting TriMet maps and 
schedules. Because the frequency of service can increase or decrease over t ime , 
and schedules can vary over t he peak hours, there are some problems 
implementing the exception. 
This amendment amends and clarif ies what is meant by "well served by trans1t" by 
referring to the TriMet Frequent Service corridors , the routes of the Por tland 
S t reetcar, and locations of MAX transit stations . These locat ions are easier for 
the public and staff to identify to verify if a site qual if ies for the exception. Not 
all streets that have 20-mi nute peak hour service ere on t he map. (Line i¢17-
Holgate/ Broadway is an example), which will reduce the creas e ligible for this 
exception. (See next page f or TriMet's Frequent Service Corr idors map a nd 
additional discussion.) 
The current exception completely removes the requirement for parking for a ll 
uses. Although the exception has been in the Zoning Code s ince 2002 it is only in 
the past three years that permits have been issued for many inf ill mult i-dwelling 
developments that include little or no parking. The construction of these 
residential and mixed-use projects has created concerns that the parking impacts 
from larger-scale developments will spill into adjoining neighborhoods. 
To address t his concern , the parking exception is removed for larger scale multi-
dwell ing development, and is replaced with a regulation that requires a smal l 
amount of perking if there ere more then 40 units on the site. The requirement is 
0.25 perking spaces for each dwelling unit . For example , c proposed building with 
45 units to be built on c street with frequent transit service would be a llowed now 
with no parking. This amendment would require 12 parking spaces; for minimum 
requirements, frcct ions are a lways rounded up. 
Wher e parking is required , the Build ing Code requires at least one space to meet 
ADA requi rements. More informat ion is a lso provided in the commentary for Tab le 
266-1. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
B. Minimum number of parking spaces required. 
1. The minimum number of parking spaces for all zones is stated in Table 266-1. 
Table 266-2 states the required number of spaces for use categories. The 
standards of Tables 266-1 and 266-2 apply unless specifically superseded by 
other portions of the City Code. 
2. Joint use parking. Joint use of required parking spaces may occur where two 
or more uses on the same or separate sites are able to share the same parking 
spaces because their parking demands occur at different times. Joint use of 
r equired parking spaces is allowed onlv if the uses to which the parking is 
accessory are allowed in the zone where the parking is located. Joint use of 
required nonresidential parking spaces is allowed if the following 
documentation is submitted in writing to BDS as part of a building or zoning 
permit application or land use review: 
a. The names and addresses of the uses and of the owners or tenants that 
are sharing the parking; 
b. The location and number of parking spaces that are being shared; 
c. An analysis shovving that the peak parking times of the uses occur at 
different times and that the parking area vvill be large enough for the 
anticipated demands of both uses; and 
d. A legal instrument such as aJl easement or deed restriction that 
guarantees access to the parking for both uses. 
3. Exceptions for sites well served by transit. There is no minimum parlring 
requirement .Efor sites located less than 500 feet from a streetcar alignment. a 
transit station. or a street shm.vn on the TriMet Frequent Service Lines Map in 
effect on [Effective date of this regulation]. the following exceptions aoplv: 
tra11.sit street v:ith 20 rnin :.:te peak hour ser ; ice. Applica.qts requesting this 
e:weption must provide a map identifying the site and TriMet schedules for all 
transit routes wiLl} in 500 feet of t."le site. 
March 2013 
a. Household Living uses. The minimum parking reauirement is reduced for 
sites with Household Living uses as follows: 
(1) Where there are up to 40 units on the site . no parking is required. 
(2) Where there are 41 or more units on the site. the minimum parking 
requirement is 0.25 spaces per unit. 
b. All other uses. No parking is required for all other uses . 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 17 
Commentary 
Current TriMet Frequent Transit Service Map (Available at TriMet.org). 
For e.st MAX Blut Lint 
Page 18 
Oregon City 
Note: at the PSC hearing, t here was concern that t he current code provisions focus on 
light-rail stations , but don't anticipate future "high speed capacity" transit such as bus 
rapid transit. Staff reviewed the current code and feels that usir.g the current 
definit ion of "transit station" makes the most sense , as it provides a logical way to 
identify the station and measure the distances from the station as applicable to light 
roil lines. These definitions can be amended at a future date (along with the map) when 
other high speed capacity transit is implemented. In addition, it may be possible t hat 
BRT corridors could be considered frequent service or cou ld include frequent local bus 
service, which would be covered through t he mapping of the frequent service lines. At 
this t ime, we do not know the layout of these future types of stations (whether they 
have a platform, etc), or the types of lines, so it is premature to create code to 
address this situation. 
4-7. No changes are being made to these exceptions. They ere included here to 
illustrate some of the other provisions that allow reductions in the number of 
required parking spaces. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
4. Exceptions for sites where trees are preserved. Minimum parking may be 
reduced by one parking space for each tree 12 inches in diameter and larger 
that is preserved. A maximum of 2 parking spaces or 10 percent of the total 
required may be reduced, whichever is greater. However, required parking may 
not be reduced below 4 parking spaces under this provision. 
5. Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required parking. For 
every five non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long-term 
bicycle parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced 
by one space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this 
provision. 
6. Substitution of transit-supportive plazas for r equired parking. Sites where at 
least 20 parking spaces are required, and where at least one street lot line 
abuts a transit street may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required 
parking, as follows. Existing parking areas may be converted to take 
advantage of these provisions. Adjustments to the regulations of this 
paragraph are prohibited. 
a. Transit-supportive plazas may be substituted for up to 10 percent of the 
required parking spaces on the site; 
b. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there 
is a bus stop along the site's frontage, the plaza must be adjacent to the 
bus stop; 
c. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that 
a lO'xlO' square will fit entirely in the plaza; and 
d. The plaza must include all of the following elements: 
(1) A plaza open to the public. The owner must record a public access 
easement that allows public access to the plaza; 
(2) A bench or other sitting area with at least 5 linear feet of seating; 
(3) A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 
20 square feet. If the plaza is adjacent to the bus stop, TriMet must 
approve the shelter; and 
(4) Landscaping. At least 10 percent, but not more than 25 percent of 
the transit-supportive plaza must be landscaped to the L1 standard 
of Chapter 33.248, Landscaping and Screening. This landscaping is 
in addition to any other landscaping or screening required for 
parking areas by the Zoning Code. 
7. Motorcycle parking may substitute for up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required 
automobile parking, whichever is less. For every 4 motorcycle parking spaces 
provided, the automobile parking requirement is reduced by one space. Each 
motorcycle space must be at least 4 feet wide and 8 feet deep. Existing parking 
may be converted to take advantage of this provision. 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 19 
Comme ntary 
Page 20 
8. Substitution of car-sharing spaces for required parking. As part of a longer term 
analysis of parking requirements for infill development, staff with the Bureau of 
Planning and Sustainability and the Bureau of Transportation will be analyzing 
various strategies to reduce car use. However, in the interim, this amendment 
allows a reduction in required parking for developments that dedicate parking 
spaces to cor shoring programs, where the cars can be used by r esidents of the 
development. This may help reduce reliance on private automobiles. A maximum 
limit is placed on the amount of substitution t hat can take place, pending 
addi t ional study as part of a later phase of the parking issue. 
9. Substitution of bike-shoring spaces for required parking. This amendment is 
similar to the provision for car-sharing spaces, and was added after discussion at 
the Planning and Sustainabili t y Commission hearing. With the expected opening of 
the city's bike-sharing program, multi-dwelling developers may have on interest in 
providing bike-sharing facilit ies. The bike-sharing program is expected to open in 
2014 . Allowing bike share to substitute for onsite parking would help build the 
bike share network and provide a new amenity f or residents and visitors of 
Portland's neighborhoods. 
These bike-shoring facilit ies, or stations, consist of a series of bike docks, wh ich 
lock and release the bikes ct the beginning and end of r ides, bike share bikes , a 
power source (usually solar). payment interface end signcge t o mcke the stations 
visible and easy to use .. A minimum number of bicycle docks are needed t o ensure 
the faci lity is feasible. A facility with 15 cocks is expected to have 7-8 dedicated 
bicycles ther e at any one t ime, but could accommodate a larger amount dur ing a 
peck usage t ime. The investment in a facility with 15 docks and t he purchase of 8 
bikes should result in a reduct ion of 3 motor vehicle parking spaces. Larger 
projects may be able to expend the number of cocks . Every expansion of four 
docks and two bicycles would allow an additional reduction of a motor veh icle 
parking space for each additional expansion. 
The overall reduction is capped at 25% of the requir ed parking. At a minimum, a 
proposed development that is required to provide parki ng would have t o be large 
enough to require at least 12 motor vehicle parking spaces in order to be allowed 
to reduce their parking by 3 spaces for a bike-sharing faci lity. Reducing r equired 
parking by providing a bike-sharir.g facility requires an execut ed contract with the 
bike sharing company, approved by Portland Bureau of Transpor tation. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
8. Substitution of car sharing spaces for required parking. Substitution of car 
sharing spaces for required parking is allowed if all of the following are met: 
a. For everv car-sharing parking space that is provided. the motor vehicle 
parking requirement is reduced by two spaces, up to a ma..ximum of 25 
percent of the required parking spaces: 
b. The car-sharing parking spaces must be shown on the building plans: 
and 
c. A copy of the car-sharing agreement between the applicant and the car-
sharing companv must be submitted 'Yvith the building permit. 
9. Substitution of bike sharing facility for required parking. Substitution of a bike 
sharing facilitv for required parking is allowed if all of the following are met: 
March 2013 
a. A bike sharing station providing 15 docks and eight shared bicycles reduces 
the motor vehicle parking requirement by three spaces. The provision of 
each addition of four docks and two shared bicvcles reduces the motor 
vehicle parking requirement bv an additional space. up to a ma..'<imum of 25 
percent of the required parking spaces: 
b. The bike sharing facility must be adjacent to. and visible from the street. 
and must be publicly accessible; 
c. The bike sharing facilitv must be shown on the building plans: and 
d. Bike sharing agreement. 
(1) The applicant must have a bike sharing agreement with a bike-sharing 
companY: 
(2) The bike sharing agreement must be approved bv the Portland Bureau 
ofTransportation;and 
(3) A copy of the signed agreement between the applicant and the bike-
sharing companv. accompanied b v a letter of approval from the Bureau 
of Transportation. must be submitted before the building permit is 
aporoved. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 21 
Commentary 
Table 266-1 
Page 22 
Tab le 266-1 spells out basic parking requirements that apply to each of the zones in 
the city. (Table 266-2, not shown, is the table that lists minimum parking r equirements 
by use. As mentioned above. Household Living requires one parking space per dwelling 
unit in many zones.) Current ly, there are several zones where no parking is required. 
Many of these zones. such as the CS (Commer cial Storefront) and CM (Mixed 
Commercial) zones have had no minimum parking requirements for more 20 years. 
However. recent projects that f ocus on residential development have generated 
concern that the parking impacts from larger scale developments will spill into t he 
adjoining neighborhoods. 
To address th is concern (similar to the exemption for sites near Frequent Transit 
Service above) . a new standard is applied t o t he zones that now require no parking for 
Household Living uses. The new st andard would apply only t o development t hat includes 
more t han 40 dwelling units, and 0 .25 spaces per unit wou ld be required. For example, a 
proposed build ing with 45 units t o be built on a street with f r equent transit would now 
be allowed with no parking. This amendment would require 12 parking spaces; for 
minimum r equirements, fractions are always r ounded up. 
Where perking is required, the Building Code requires at least one space to meet ADA 
r equirements. More t han one space mcy be required, depending on t he overall number 
of spaces provi ded. 
The new par king standard is not being added in t he CN1 (Neighborhood Commercial 1) 
zone. This zone appl ies to very small areas of t he city, generally consisting of small lots 
with in neighborhoods, and par king is discouraged in these zones; there is a very low 
maximum parking limit. The size of t he lots, and t he height limit (30- feet) precludes 
larger scale bui ldings from locating on these sites. 
Footnote 1 in the table remai ns, which states t hat parking regulations specific to a plan 
district, such as the Central City, may override these rat ios. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
Table 266-1 
Minimum Required and Ma.:timum Allowed Parking Spaces By Zone [1] 
Zone Requirement 
OS, RF- RH, IR, CN2, C02, Minimum is Standard A in Table 266-2. 
CG, EG,I Maximum is Standard B in Table 266-2. 
EX Minimum- None, except: 
Household Living: minimum of 0 for l to 3 units, 1 
per 2 units for four+ units, and SROs exempt ... 
Maximum is Standard A in Table 266-2, except: 
1) Retail, personal service, repair-oriented -
Maximum is 1 per 200 sq. ft. of floor area. 
2) Restaurants and bars - Maximum is 1 per 75 
sq. ft. of floor area. 
3) General office- Maximum is 1 per 400 sq. ft. 
of floor area. 
4) Medical / Dental office - Maximum is 1 per 330 
sq. ft . of floor area. 
CNl Minimum- None. 
Maximum of 1 space per 2,500 sq. ft. of site area. 
CM, CS, RX, CX, COl Minimum- None. exceot:: 
Household Living: minimum of 0 for 1 to 40 units, 
0.25 oer unit for 41 + units 
Maximum is Standard B in Table 266-2. 
[1] Regulations m a plan distnct or over lay zone may supersede the standards of thts 
table. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 23 
Commentary 
Bicycle Parking 
33 . 266 . 220 Bicycle Parking Standards 
Issues relat ed t o bicycle parking have come up during review of permits for multi -dwel ling 
deve lopments that are bui lt with no automobile parking. 
A. Short-term bicycle parking . Currently the short-term bicycle par king regulat ions 
have standards t hat allocate a specific dimension (2-feet by 6-feet) for each bicycle 
space , to ensure that racks be installed with adequate spacing. A less specif ic 
requirement is currently in the standards for all bike parking , which requires that a 
bike rack be sufficiently spaced t o hold a bike six feet long (see Section 
33.266 .220.C.3). Staff with Bureau of Development Services (BDS) have requested 
that there be more consistency in t he standards for the two sections . The 2-foot by 
6-foot d imension better ensures that enough room is reserved for the storage of each 
bike . This amendment removes the standard from the short-term bicycle parking 
standard , and adds the specific requirement to the standards addressing racks for all 
bike parking. 
Page 24 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
Bicycle Parking 
33.266.220 Bicycle Parking Standards 
A. Short-term bicycle parking. 
1. Purpose. Short-term bicycle parking encourages shoppers, customers, 
messengers, and other visitors to use bicycles by providing a convenient and 
readily accessible place to park bicycles. Short-term bicycle parking should 
serve the main entrance of a building and should be visible to p edestrians and 
bicyclists. 
2. Standards. Required short-term bicycle parking must meet the following 
standards: 
a. Short-term bicycle parking must be provided in lockers or racks that meet 
the standards of Subsection 33.266.220.C. 
b. Location. (No change) 
c. ~tar:dards for short term bicycle parking. Each required short term 
bicycle parL:.i..xg space must be at least 2 feet by 6 feet. See figure <?66 11. 
f.d. Bicycle Parking Fund. (No cha nge) 
B . Long-term bic:ycle pa rking . (No cha nge) 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 25 
Commentary 
C. Standards f or a ll bicycle parking . 
Page 26 
3. Bicycle Racks. The short-term bike standard requir ing each bicycle parking space 
to measure at least 2 feet by 6 feet is moved to the standards for a ll bicycle 
parking to ensure that adequate room is provided for all required bicycle parking , 
whether satisfying the short-term or the long-term requirement. 
4 . Parking and maneuvering areas. Th is provision is not changing but is shown here for 
information. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
C. Standards for all bicycle parking. 
1. Purpose. These standards ensure that required bicycle parking is designed so 
that bicycles may be securely locked without undue inconvenience and will be 
reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. 
2 . Bicycle lockers. Where required bicycle parking is provided in lockers, the 
lockers must be securely anchored. 
3. Bicycle racks. The Office of Transportation maintains a handbook of racks 
and siting guidelines that meet the standards of this paragraph. Required 
bicycle parking may be provided in floor, wall, or ceiling racks. Where 
required bicycle parking is provided in r acks, the racks must meet the 
following standards: 
a. The bicycle frame and one wheel can be locked to the rack >vith a high 
security, U-shaped shackle lock if both wheels are left on the bicycle; 
b. A space 2 feet bv 6 feet mus: be provided for each required bicvcle parking 
space. so that a bicycle six feet long can be securely held with its frame 
supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall in a manner that 
will damage the wheels or components (See Figure 266-11); and 
c. The rack must be securely anchored. 
4. Parking and maneuvering areas. 
a. Each required bicycle parking space must be a ccessible vvithout moving 
another bicycle; 
b. There must be an aisle at least 5 feet vvide behind all required bicycle 
parking to allow room for bicycle maneuvering. Where the bicycle parking 
is adjacent to a sidewalk, the maneuvering area may extend into the right-
of-way; and 
c. The area devoted to bicycle parking must be hard surfaced. 
5-7. (No Change) 
March 2013 New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 27 
Commentary 
Loading 
33 . 266.310 Loading Standards 
C. Number of loading spaces . Current regulations do not require a loading space for 
multi-dwelling buildings unless there are more than 50 units in the build ing. The lock of 
loading spaces, along with the leek of parking , has been port of the concerns raised by 
those living near developments proposed without parking. 
Page 28 
This amendment lowers the t hreshold that t riggers a loading space for mult i-dwelling 
development f r om 51 uni t s to 41 uni t s . The new t hreshold is consistent with the new 
threshold that requires parking for multi-dwelling development in Commercial Zones or 
near frequent transit. Providing a loading space is easier with development that is 
already triggering a curb-cut , driveway, and set of parking spaces. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft March 2013 
Zoning Code Amendments 
Loading 
33.266.310 Loading Standards 
A. Purpose . A minimum number of loading spaces are required to ensure adequate 
areas for loading for larger uses and developments. These regulations ensure that 
the appearance of loading areas will be consistent with that of parking areas. The 
regulations ensure that access to and from loading facilities will not have a 
negative effect on the traffic safety or other transportation functions of the abutting 
right-of-way . 
B . Where these regulations apply. The regulations of this section apply to all 
required and non required loading areas. 
C. Number of loading spaces. 
1. Buildings where all of the floor area is in Household Living uses must meet the 
standards of this Paragraph. 
a. One loading space meeting Standard B is required where there are more 
than ~0 dwelling units in the building and the site abuts a street that is 
not a streetcar alignment or light rail alignment.,. 
b. One loading space meeting Standard B is required where there are more 
than 20 dwelling units in a building located on a site whose only street 
frontage is on a streetcar alignment or light rail alignment. 
c. One loading space meeting Standard A or two loading spaces meeting 
Standard Bare required when there are more than 100 dwelling units in 
the building. 
2. Buildings where any of the floor area is in uses other than Household Living 
must meet the standards of this Paragraph. 
March 2013 
a . Buildings with any amount of floor area in Household Living and V\lith less 
than 20,000 square feet of floor area in uses other than Household Living 
are subject to the standards in C.l. above. 
b. One loading space meeting Standard A is required for buildings with at 
least 20,000 and up to 50,000 square feet of floor area in uses other than 
Household Living. 
c. Two loading spaces meeting Standard A are required for buildings with 
more than 50,000 square feet of floor area in uses other than Household 
Living. 
New Apartments and Parking - Recommended Draft Page 29 
Acknowledgements 
Portland City Council 
Charlie Hales, Mayor 
Nick Fish, Commissioner 
Amanda Fri tz, Commissioner 
Steve Novick, Commissioner 
Dan Saltzman, Commissioner 
Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission 
Andre Baugh, Chair 
Michelle Rudd, Vice Chair 
Howard Shapiro, Vice Chair 
Karen Gray 
Don Hanson 
Mike Houck 
Lai-Lani Ovalles 
Gary Oxman 
Chris Smith 
Katherine Schultz 
Irma Valdez 
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
Charlie Hales, Mayor, Commissioner -in-charge 
Susan Anderson, Director 
Project Staff 
Joe Zehnder, Chief Planner 
Matt Wickstrom, City Planner IS£ District Liaison 
Phil Nameny, City Planner 
Other Contributors 
Sara Schooley, Portland Bureau of Transportation 
Rob Burchfield, Portland Bureau of Transportation 
Paul Smith, Portland Bureau of Transportation 
Courtney Duke, Portland Bureau of Transportat ion 
Kurt Krueger, Portland Bureau of Transportation 
Mauricio Leclerc, Portland Bureau of Transportation 
Rebecca Esau, Bureau of Development Services 
Kristin Cooper, Bureau of Development Services 
Tim Heron, Bureau of Development Services 
Bureau of Planning ilnd Sustainability 
inn.w,lt:()n. CoHabor:tt hln Pr.lctlca! ~vlurion~. 
Cot.' uf PurtlatiJ, Ore:gon 
Ci1t1t l1tt Jl.:!~tS. Y.oyor · S01.<ttJn Andl!rsnn.D•rc<.ror 

CITY OF PORTLAND 
PARKING IMPACTS FOR NEW TOD ALONG 
PORTLAND INNER COR RIDORS 
PARKI NG STUDY 
Prepared for 
City of Portland 
Bureau of Planning and Sust ainability 
900 SW 4th Ave., Suite 7100 
Portland, OR 97201 
NOVEM BE R 2012 
Prepared by 
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 
2100 SW River Parkway 
Portland, OR 97201 
November 2012 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ... .... .. .... .. .. .. ........... .. ... .... ..... ............ ................. .. .... ............................ .............. ...... ...... 1 
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT PURPOSE ............ .. ................. ..... ............... ..... ..... .. ............... .. .. .......... .. ........ .. .. ..... .. 5 
STUDY AREA .. .......................................... ............................................................. ........................ ................................. 5 
METHODOLOGY ........ ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. ............... ...................... .. ................... .. ..................... .... .. ... 11 
SUMMARY OF ARTICLES ....... ......................... ..... ... ..................................................................................... .................... 11 
KEY TAKEAWAYS .... .... .................................................................................................................................................. 14 
PARKING INVENTORY AND UTILIZATION ............. ... ....... .. .. .. .... ........ .. ......... .. .. .................................... ....... .......... 16 
PARKING INVENTORY ......... .................. ...... ............................................... .................... .... ............. ........ ... ...... ..... ......... 16 
PARKING UTILIZATION ............................. ... ............. ............ ............... .............. ............................................................. 17 
MAILER AND ON-LINE SURVEY RESULTS .................. ......... ........................ ........ ................................................... 33 
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS ........................ ................. ... .............. ..... ............... ................... .......... .... .. ... ... 34 
RESIDENT AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS .... ........ .. ..... ....... .. .. .............. ........... ......... .. .. ....... ............. ............ .... . 36 
RESIDENT INTERVIEWS .. ...................... ................ ..................... ........................... ......... ....... : ...... ............. ... ................... 36 
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ............................................................... ... ........................... ............... ..... ........ ................... 39 
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ....... .. .. ........ ........... ............ ........................ .. .. ......... ............ .. .. ................ ................ 41 
TABLE OF FIGURES 
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA .. ................... ......................... .................... ........... ................ .................. ........ ..... ....... ...... ............... 6 
FIGURE 2. PATTON PARK PEAK UTILIZATION - 9:30 PM WEEKEND ......................................................................... ........ 25 
FIGURE 3. ECOFlATS PEAK UTILIZATION -6:30 PM WEEKDAY .................................................. ..................................... 26 
FIGURE 4. SHAVER GREEN PEAK UTILIZATION - 9:30AM WEEKDAY .................................. .. ........................ ......... .......... 27 
FIGURE 5. IRVINGTON GARDEN PEAK UTILIZATION - 6:30 PM WEEKEN D ...................................................................... 28 
FIGURE 6. THE 20 ON HAWTHORNE PEAK UTILIZATION -6:30 PM WEEKEND ............... ................................................. 29 
FIGURE 7. ANDRIA PEAK UTILIZATION - 9:30 AM WEE KEND .................................................... ............................ .......... 30 
f iGURE 8. 3810 SE DIVISION PEAK UTI LIZATION - 9:30AM WEEKEND ................... ........................................................ 31 
f iGURE 9. 43 DIVISION PEAK UTILIZATION - 12:30 PM WEEKEND .................................................................................. 32 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page i 
November 2012 
LIST OF TABLES 
TABLE 1. UTILIZATION SUMMARY ...... ... .............................................................................. ...................................... ... .......... 2 
TABLE 2. VEHICLES PER LiVING UNIT ............................ ..... ... ...... ................................ .. . ......................................... .. .............. 3 
TABLE 3. DATA COLLECTION 0ATES ................................... .. ............. . ........ .... ....... ................. ........................ ......... .. . ............. 8 
TABLE 4. PARKING INVENTORY ................................................................................................................... ......................... 16 
TABLE 5. U TILIZATION SUMMARY ..................................................................... ......... ...................... ....... .. ........ . .. . . .............. 24 
TABLE 6. A VAILABLE PARKING ...................... .. ......... .... . ... . ...... .... ...... . . .. . ... . .......... ...... ..... .......... ... . ... ........... . .... .... .. ....... .... .. . 24 
T ABLE 7. VEHICLES PER LIVING U NIT .................................................................................................................................... 35 
LIST OF APPENDICES 
APPENDIX A : PARKING UTILIZATION 
APPENDIX 6: MAILER AND ONLINE SURVEY 
APPENDIX(: RESIDENT AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page ii 
November 2012 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Upcoming apartment construction with little to no on-site parking in the City of Portland's inner 
neighborhoods has raised concerns about the potential for on-street parking congestion and overall 
negative impacts on adjacent low-density residential areas and commercial districts. The purpose of this 
study is to evaluate use and ownership of vehicles at eight locations (Project Locations) that have little 
or no off-street parking. Opportunities for and barriers to encouraging alternatives to motorized vehicle 
ownership are also evaluated 
The four main sources of data for this study are: 
• Documented research/literature review 
• Parking inventory and utilization at each Project Location 
• Tenant surveys at each Project Location 
• Stakeholder and tenant interviews at each Project Location 
Each of the Project Locations has different features that contribute to the parking supply and utilization, 
but all have the common attribute of being on or near a commercial street, with both businesses and 
residences in the surrounding area. Each Project Location has a study area boundary of approximately 
two blocks around each building, determined by its unique roadway network. The eight Project 
Locations (which were provided by BPS) were chosen based on their limited on-site parking supply and 
proximity to commercial streets. The Project Locations are : 
• Patton Park Apartments - 5272 N Interstate Ave., Portland, OR 97217 
• ecoFLATS Apartments- 3951 N Williams Ave., Portland, OR 97227 
• Shaver Green Apartments- 375 NE Shaver St., Portland, OR 97212 
• Irvington Garden Apartments - 1516 NE Hancock St., Portland, OR 97212 
• The 20 on Hawthorne- 1550 SE 20th Ave., Portland, OR 97214 
• Andria Condominiums- 910 SE 42"d Ave., Portland, OR 97215 
• 3810 SE Division Apartments- 3810 SE Division St. , Portland, OR 97202 
• 43 Division Micro-Units- 4300 block of SE Division St., Portland, OR 97206 
The literature review conducted through this study suggests that the unbundling of parki ng and rent 
lowers rental costs. This literature suggests that density and carsharing reduce personal motorized 
Parking Impacts f or New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 1 
November 2012 
vehicle ownership rates, and dense neighborhoods with strong transit and active transportation options 
reduce driving. According to the Forinash et al. research, carsharing can dramatically decrease the need 
to own a private vehicle. However, of the eight Project Locations studied, few have designated 
carsharing parking spots in the immediate vicinity. Developers and the City may consider designating 
prime parking locations for carshare in a designated space (i.e. zip car to incentivize their use. 
The on-street parking observations found that all eight project locations have peak period parking 
utilization below 85 percent of the existing capacity, which indicates t hat there is adequate parking 
within a two block walking distance of each project location. Even though the average utilization is 
below 85 percent, all locations have areas with high parking demand with one or more blocks at 
capacity during peak periods. All locations also have other existing businesses and apartments with little 
or no on-site parking in addition to the project location studied. Irvington Gardens and The 20 on 
Hawthorne are the most utilized of the eight project locations as shown in Table 1. None of the project 
locations have a clear pattern of high on-street parking demand around t he project bu ildings. 
TABLE 1. UTILIZATION SUMMARY 
Peak Utilization2 
Project Location On-Street Parking Capacitl Weekday Weekend 
Patton Park Apartments 528 40% 41% 
ecoFLATS Apartments 544 61% 59% 
Shaver Green Apartments 653 50% 42% 
Irvington Garden Apartments 752 66% 69% 
The 20 on Hawthorne 451 61% 75% 
And ria Condominiums 394 48% 51% 
3810 SE Division Apartments 400 45% 45% 
43 Division Micro-Units 415 28% 32% 
Notes: 
1. Capacity for each project location is based on an area within a two-block walkable radius, as outlined in the Methodology 
section of this report. 
In general, the survey results do not suggest a relationship between on-site parking and vehicle 
ownership. Survey responses indicate that residents at both types of buildings (those with on-site 
parking and those without on-site parking) have similar trends in motorized vehicle ownership. The 
range of vehicles per unit determined in the statistical analysis varies from a low of 0.2 vehicles to a high 
of 2.0 vehicles per unit as shown in Table 2. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page2 
November 2012 
TABLE 2. VEHICLES PER LIVING UNIT 
Number of On-Site Survey Responses Average Cars per Unit (95% 
Residential Parking from Project Cars per Confidence 
Project location Units Spaces location Unit Interval) 
Patton Park 54 33 13 0.8 0.3-1.2 Apartments 
ecoFLATS Apartments 18 None 6 1.2 0.4 - 2.0 
Shaver Green 85 32 26 0.5 0.3-0.7 Apartments 
Irvington Garden so None 12 0.9 0.6-1.2 Apartments 
The 20 on Hawthorne 51 34 15 1.0 0.6-1.4 
Andria Condominiums 27 15 10 1.2 0.9-1.5 
3810 SE Division 23 None 23 0.8-1.4 Apartments 1.1 
43 Division Micro-Units 29 None 10 0.6 0.2 - 1.0 
WHAT ARE OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS TO ENCOURA GING A LTERNATIVES TO M OTORIZED 
VEHICLE OWNERSHIP? 
Twenty eight percent of all the households surveyed as part of this project study do not own or lease a 
car. The remaining 72 percent do own or lease at least one car, and two-thirds (67 percent) of t hem 
indicated that they park on the street. Survey responses indicate that the primary mode of 
transportation for commuter trips is spread between 20 percent of people biking to work, 9 percent 
walking, 23 percent riding public transit, 3 percent carpooling, and 36 percent driving a vehicle alone. 
For non-work travel, 16 percent ride their bikes, while 20 percent walk, 3 percent use a carsharing 
service, 6 percent carpool, 4 percent ride public transit, and 44 percent drive their vehicles. This shows 
t hat while residents use multiple forms of non-motorized vehicles for transportation, they also own cars 
for occasional use. So, t hough many of t he responders bike, walk, take transit , and use carsharing 
services for many of their daily trips (to commute, run errands, etc.), they still feel the need for a vehicle 
and are reluctant to become completely car free. One of the questions the survey asked was what 
amenities wou ld reduce the respondent's need for motorized vehicle ownership. Many people stated 
that there were no amenities that would reduce their need for a vehicle. Of those who would consider 
to live car-free, the most commonly needed amenities were easy access to t ransit and services such as 
stores and restaurants; however, the following responses were also given: 
• More secure bicycle parking that is convenient to residences 
• Transit that travels to my place of work/ school 
• More carsharing options 
• Affordable, high quality daycare in the area 
To better understand what the concerns about parking were truly based on, many of the survey 
questions were specific to those who owned vehicles. Responses to these questions varied from 
concerns about convenience, to safety concerns, to a few responses that indicated that the person did 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 3 
November 2012 
not feel parking was a problem now, but t hey were concerned it would be in the future. Business 
owners and Neighborhood association representatives were also conce rned about t he cumulative effect 
of multiple bu ildings being developed with little or no on-site parking. Many of the responses were 
concerned with neighborhood character and amenities, rather than about the amount of available 
parking. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page4 
. ' 
November 2012 
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT PURPOSE 
Several planned and recently constructed apartment buildings along transit lines in Portland's inner 
neighborhoods provide little or no on-site parking, raising concerns from adjacent neighborhoods about 
the potential for on-street parking congestion and overall negative impacts on adjacent low-density 
residential areas and commercial districts. The public has voiced concerns about how new housing, 
mixed-use projects, and retail developments are changing, and will continue to change, the character of 
their neighborhoods, intensifying the need to complete a parking study. The Portland Bureau of 
Planning and Sustainability (BPS) has undertaken this parking study to determine the supply and 
demand for parking in the vicinity of recently constructed apartment buildings with limited on-site 
parking to identify if the units have an adverse effect on residential and commercial parking availability 
and to identify whether or not further action is necessary to accommodate future development. 
The study evaluates on-street parking utilization within a two-block area of eight locations (Project 
Locations) that have little or no off-street parking. The study has collected and evaluated the following: 
• Estimate of existing on-street parking supply 
• Inventory of facilities for long-term (resident use) bicycle parking 
• Estimate of weekday and weekend on-street parking utilization 
• Use and ownership of vehicles by residents of Project Locations 
• Alternative transportation use by residents of Project Locations 
• Opportunities and barriers to encouraging alternatives to motorized vehicle ownership 
• Parking impacts of developments without dedicated off-street parking 
The study area is composed of eight Project Locations, as shown in Figure 1. Each of the Project 
Locations has different features that contribute to the parking supply and utilization, but all have the 
common attribute of being on or near a commercial street, with both businesses and residences in the 
surrounding area. Each Project Location has a study area boundary of approximately two blocks around 
each building, determined by its unique roadway network. The eight Project Locations (which were 
provided by BPS) were chosen based on their limited on-s ite parking supply and proximity to commercial 
streets. The Project Locations are : 
• Patton Park Apartments- 5272 N Interstate Ave., Portland, OR 97217 
• ecoFLATS Apartments - 3951 N Williams Ave., Portland, OR 97227 
• Shaver Green Apartments - 375 NE Shaver St., Portland, OR 97212 
• Irvington Garden Apartments - 1516 NE Hancock St., Portland, OR 97212 
• The 20 on Hawthorne -1550 SE 201h Ave., Portland, OR 97214 
• Andria Condominiums- 910 SE 42"d Ave., Portland, OR 97215 
• 3810 SE Division Apartments- 3810 SE Division St., Portland, OR 97202 
• 43 Division Micro-Units- 4300 block of SE Division St ., Portland, OR 97206 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors PageS 
LEGEND 
0 Project Locations 
RUS Data 2012 Porrland, Oregon 
ESRI, Arr;GIS Online. World Imagery Aenals Express (AEX) 2009 Portland, Oregon 
~0 1 
Figure 1 
Study Area 
Project Locations 
DRAFT 
N ••••===::!Miles 
November 2012 
The project team collected and reviewed the following data to better understand and evaluate the 
unique parking patterns of residential building with little to no on-site parking: 
• Document research/literature review 
• Parking inventory and utilization at each Project Location 
• Tenant surveys at each Project Location 
• Stakeholder and tenant interviews at each Project Location 
I DOCUMENT RESEARCH/LITERATURE REVIEW 
Online research from scholarly sources was conducted to look at parking and travel behavior of 
apartment residents to determine the degree to which building amenities, such as secure bike parking 
or required carshare membership, influence car ownersh ip rates as well as how social and cultural 
dynamics can factor into car ownership and use. Initially, only articles in peer-reviewed journals were 
used, but the search was broadened due to the limited number of available articles. This report 
summarizes the salient information from this research along with add itional analysis that contextualizes 
research findings to fit Portland and the eight Project Locations. 
I PAR KING INVENTORY AND UTILIZATION 
The study of parking impacts along Portland inner corridors included data collection efforts within the 
project study area to assess on-street parking, available bike parking, and current parking restrictions. 
The parking data considered utilization and turnover by location and time of day. The data collection 
techniques and analysis follow the methodology outlined in Parking Management Made Easy: A Guide 
to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast1• 
DATA COLLECTION 
The project team inventoried all on-street parking within the study area (an approximately two-block 
walkable radius) at each of the eight Project Locations. Because of t he differing roadway networks 
throughout the study area, the two-block walkable radius is a unique collection area for each location. 
BPS provided information about the amount and location of on-site parking for each Project Location for 
vehicles and bicycles to the project team. Data collection was performed at each Project Location for 
one weekday and one weekend day. The weekday data was collected for five time periods starting at: 
6:30a.m., 9:30a.m., 12:30 p.m., 3:30p.m., and 6:30p.m. The weekend day data was also collected for 
five time periods starting at : 9:30a.m., 12:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 6:30p.m., and 9:30p.m. 
1 Oregon Downtown Development Association, "Parking Management Made Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking 
Beast" (2001): 1-12. Oregon Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of land Conservation and Development. Web. 
<http ://www.oregon.gov/LCD/ docs/publications/parkingguide.pdf> 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 7 
November 2012 
Observation time periods were chosen to coincide with key activity t imes. The weekday data collection 
started at 6:30a.m. in order to capture work week commuters. For the weekend, the data collection 
needed to capture the later evening times when people are more likely t o be staying out at the 
restaurants and bars along the commercial streets. Beginning weekend data collect ion at 9:30a.m. 
captures the weekend brunch traffic and provides enough overlapping t ime periods to compare 
weekdays t o weekend days. 
Table 3 lists the date of data collection for each Project Location. Before the data collection days, t he 
Project Locations were mapped, aerials were visually assessed, and data collection t emplates were 
created. 
TABLE 3. DATA COLLECTION DATES 
Project location Weekday Weekend 
Patton Park Apartments Thursday, 9/27/2012 Saturday, 9/ 29/2012 
ecoFLATS Apartments Tuesday, 8/28/2012 Saturday,9/ 29/2012 
Shaver Green Apartments Tuesday,8/21/2012 Saturday, 9/29/2012 
Irvington Garden Apartments Tuesday, 8/21/2012 Saturday, 10/6/2012 
The 20 on Hawthorne Tuesday,8/28/2012 Saturday, 10/6/2012 
Andria Condominiums Thursday, 9/27/2012 Saturday, 9/ 29/ 2012 
3810 SE Division Apartments VVednesday,8/29/2012 Saturday, 9/ 29/ 2012 
43 Division Micro-Units VVednesday, 8/29/2012 Saturday,9/ 29/ 2012 
CAPACITY, UTI LilA T/ON, AND TURNOVER 
VVeekday data collection at the Project Locations included documentation of the last th ree digits of 
vehicle license plates to determine uti lization, turnover, and length of stay. VVeekend data collection at 
the Project Locations included only veh icle counts to determine utilization . No license plate information 
was collected on the weekend, thus turnover information is not available for the weekend. 
Utilization is assumed to be the percentage of spaces that are occupied within a specific section of t he 
study area (block face, Project Location , etc.) at any moment. 
Turnover is assumed to be the number of different vehicles parked in a given parking space or area 
during the observed time periods. A parking space that was not utilized at any point during observed 
time periods is not included in the turnover calculation. Turnover is a good indicator of how well the 
demand, in terms of duration of stay, for a particular parking space aligns with the intended use of the 
parking space. The bulk of the project study area has no parking restrictions, and for these areas we can 
use the turnover rate to gauge how long vehicles are stay ing parked in one spot. Normally, higher 
turnover is expected along the commercial streets, and longer-term parking is expected in the 
residential areas su rrounding the commercial streets. 
Parking Impacts for New TOD Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 8 
November 2012 
An estimate of the total number of on-street parking spaces (capacity) within the study area was 
determined from the data collection, though this value is difficult to determine since there is no 
indication of specific spot location (paint or markings). To estimate the on-street parking capacity per 
block, the following procedure was used: 
1. Measure the block, via aerial; 
2. Conduct parking availability assessment: consider yellow rNo Parking") paint, "No Parking" 
signs, and driveways that impede the ability to park along a stretch of roadway; 
3. Reduce block length based on parking availability (step 2); 
4 . Assume a parking space length of 15 feet; 
5 . Divide reduced block length by 15 feet per space (step 3); and 
6. Confirm, or if needed, adjust approximate capacity by visual assessment during on-site data 
collection . 
Based on capacities estimated using the methodology outlined above, utilization was then determined 
for each block face at the Project Locations. 
85 PERCENT RUL E 
Though capacities were estimated, the reality is that once parking use reaches approximately 85 percent 
of the available parking spaces, it becomes difficult to find an open parking space. 2 As a result, drivers 
are often required to circle the block or blocks, which impacts t raffic flow and creates delay for drivers 
looking for parking. The goal of efficient parking management is to provide enough spaces so that 
excessive circling is not required, yet not reserve more land fo r parking than is needed. This report 
defines 85 percent of capacity as the effective capacity threshold. To help assess locations within the 
study area that are approaching the effective parking threshold (85 percent), a secondary criteria of 60 
percent is used. Qualitative assessment of parking supplies has been assigned based on the follow ing 
utilization thresholds: 
• 60 percent or less utilization is considered underuti lized parking supply 
• 60 percent to 85 percent utilization is considered adequate parking supply 
• 85 percent or more utilization is considered deficient parking supply 
I MAIL ER AND ON- LI NE TE NA NT SUR VEYS 
In addition to collecting data on parking inventory and utilization, a mailer and an on-line survey were 
sent out to tenants of the Project Locations. David Evans and Associates developed a 23-question survey 
to collect data on the use and ownership of personal vehicles and bicycles among residents of the 
Project Locations, as well as on the use of membership programs that offe r alternatives to vehicles 
ownership, such as carsharing, transit use, walking, and bicycling to meet transportation needs. 
2 Weinberger, Rachel, John Kaeney, and Matthew Rufo. " U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies." 
Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (2010). Web. 
<http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP _US_Parking_Report.pdf> 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page9 
November 2012 
Once the data was collected, the results were summarized and further analyzed to determine whether 
there is a measurable correlation between car ownership and residences with limited on-site parking. 
I STAKEHOLDER AND RESID ENT INTERVI EWS 
As a follow-up to the mailer and on-line surveys, David Evans and Associates developed a set of 
questions for residents who indicated an interest in participating in a phone interview. Additional sets of 
interview questions were created that catered to business owners, neighborhood association leaders, 
and developers. Nineteen residents, three developers, two business owners, and one neighborhood 
association member were interviewed. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 10 
November 2012 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
Current ly, limited research exists about the provision of dense residential units with little to no off-
street parking. The following four articles discuss parking requirements, the provision of bicycle parking, 
and access to carsharing vehicles. Their key points are summarized below. 
I SMART GROWTH ALTERNATI VES TO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2003) 3 
This article delves into the possibilities of encouraging new development that offers smaller, more 
walkable neighborhoods and mixed-use zoning. Such "smart growth" is attainable through on-street 
parking management and changing the minimum parking requ irements. According to Holtzclaw et al. 
(2003, as cited in Forinash et al.), "Each time residential density doubles, auto ownership fa lls by 32 to 
40 percent" ; as destinations are closer together, more places can be accessed without a car. Therefore, 
to lower car ownership it is imperative to focus on smart land development that encourages density. 
Some of the factors that are correlated with lower motorized vehicle ownership in urban areas are: 
• Small household sizes, 
• , Frequent transit service, 
• Lower incomes, 
• Higher proportion of seniors, and 
• Rental housing. 
The report identifies several techniques that can be applied to achieve smart growth, such as : 
• Transit zoning overlays (incorporating good transit service into zoning changes} 
• New zoning or specific area plans (to bypass or lower the minimum number of parking spaces 
required for developers) 
• Parking freezes (capping the total number of parking spaces supplied within a district) 
• Parking reductions for affordable and senior housing (because these populations are less likely 
to own vehicles, it is costly and unnecessary to over-build parking capacity) 
• Case-by-case evaluation (context-specific analysis) 
• land banking and landscape reserves (setting land aside that can be converted to parking if 
demand is higher than anticipated) 
The authors discuss the benefits of using carsharing programs to decrease parking demand; carsharing 
can dramatically decrease the need to own a private vehicle. For example, in San Francisco almost 60 
percent of those who owned a vehicle before joining a carsharing service had given up one of the ir cars 
within a year, and another 13 percent were considering selling their cars.4 This shows that carsharing 
3 Forinash, Christopher V., Adam Millard-Ball, Charlotte Daughtery, and Jeffrey Tumlin. "Smart Growth Alternatives to 
Minimum Parking Req uirement s." Transportation Research Board (2003): 12p. Online. 
4 Nelson/ Nygaard Consult ing Associates, 2002, as cited in Forinash et al., 2003 (ibid.). 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Port land Inner Corridors Page 11 
November 2012 
services can be particularly effective in reducing motorized vehicle ownership. The authors do note that 
developers may need t o contribute to set-up costs and/or provide parking spaces near their buildings to 
ensure that carsharing is part of their project. 
j THE EVIDENCE BASE FO R PARKING POLICIES- A REVIEW (2006) 5 
This article broadly covers the history of parking restrictions and residential parking issues in both North 
America and Great Britain . Most notably, the author, Greg Marsden, discusses how the costs associated 
with requiring off-street parking are sometimes paid by non-car-owning households. 6 This happens 
because parking costs are often bundled into the costs of renting or owning. By separating parking and 
rent costs, only those who pay for parking directly will have access to it, and people who do not need to 
park at all will not be paying for something unnecessary. The United Kingdom now recommends a 
maximum level of off-street parking for new houses at 1.5 spaces per househo ld, while houses in areas 
w ith better transit access should have a lower requirement. 7 
Balcome and York (1993)8 examined the parking patterns at eight sites in southern England that were 
experiencing parking problems. With at least 10 percent of car owners parking their vehicles more than 
50 meters from their homes, they found the following three trends: 
• The distance that vehicles were parked from the home was deterring the purchase of better 
vehicles for fear of vandalism. 
• The inconvenience of losing a parking spot and searching for a new one deterred people from 
using their car for short trips (people either walked or took public transit rather than driving). 
• Increased parking congestion led some residents to look into reducing the number of cars 
owned and others to look into relocating to areas with better parking provisions. 9 
Marsden states, "Supply restrict ions (reducing minimum parking requ irements) have benefits for the 
design of more compact and livable urban developments. However, by themselves they appear to be an 
ineffective tool as they can generate substantial overspill on-street parking problems that detract from 
the quality of the local st reet environment." It is also possible that parking restrictions potentially act as 
a contributing factor in people's decisions to relocate to areas where parking is less of an issue. Marsden 
argues t hat parking restraint policies should be coupled with demand restrictions, such as parking 
permits and time-restraint parking. The two primary barriers to these policies, however, are the 
enforcement costs and community resistance. 
5 Marsden, Greg. "The Evidence Base for Parking Policies- A Review." Transport Policy 13.6 (2006): 447-57. Print. 
6 Shoup, 1995; Jia and Wachs, 1999; Litman, 2004; as cited in Marsden, 2006. 
7 Marsden, Greg. "The Evidence Base for Parking Pol icies-A Review." Transport Policy 13.6 (2006): 447-57. Print. 
8 As cited in Marsden, 2006. 
9 It was also noted in the article that while some residents were looking to reduce the number of vehicles owned by the 
household, "elsewhere in the interviews at least 10% of residents were, at the time of survey, considering acquiring an extra 
vehicle" (page 15). The authors did not explain the reasons offered for wanting to own anot her vehicle, nor did they delve 
into this inconsistency any further. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 12 
November 2012 
Marsden concludes by stating that "Residential parking suffers from the biggest dearth of research 
evidence" and will benefit from more study. 
CARSHARING : ESTABLISHING ITS ROLE IN THE PARKING DEMAND MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX 
(2006) 10 
This master's thesis by Gina Filosa explores the concepts of urban parking and carsharing as a parking 
demand management strategy while determining its viability. Questions answered include: 
1. How does carsharing impact parking demand? 
2. How is carsharing incorporated in today's current developments? 
3. What are the obstacles to using carsharing as a parking demand management strategy? 
4. How best to promote carsharing? 
Filosa explains how carsharing and personal motorized vehicle ownership offer different incentives and 
costs per use. Because of this, carsharing is not only a good way to more efficiently use vehicles and 
have fewer cars that require parking space, but it can also reduce vehicle miles traveled . She says: 
With private vehicles, the majority of costs are fixed, i.e. purchase price, depreciation, 
financing, registration and insurance. As a result, private vehicles are expensive to own 
but cheap to drive, providing an incentive for owners to maximize usage (Litman, 1999, 
as cited in Filosa) . In contrast, the majority of costs associated with carsharing are 
variable, which provides members with an incentive to drive less and use alternative 
transportation more. 
Additionally, carsharing provides "more efficient vehicle usage, a reduct ion in the space devoted to 
transportation infrastructure, and the benefits of gained space as the result of vehicles being used more 
intensively in parking lots at transit spots, workplaces, and schools" (Sperling, Shaheen, and Wagner, 
1999, as cited in Filosa). 
Filosa cites an empirical example of how reducing both the demand and supply for parking can lead to 
an increase in urban density. The following example of development specifications shows that lowered 
development parking requirements coupled with increased participation in carsharing programs would 
lower parking demand: 
• Housing development of 34 units (assume that 1.5 adults occupy each unit for a total of 51 
adults). 
• Zoning requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling, for a total of 51 parking spaces. 
• Participation rate in the carsharing program among residents is 20 percent, or 10 adults . 
• If upon joining the carshare program these 10 people were to give up their personal vehicle and 
no longer need a private parking space, then the parking spaces per dwelling would be reduced 
from 1.5 spaces to 1.2 spaces per dwelling. 
1° Filosa, Gina. "Carsharing: Establishing Its Role in the Parking Demand Management Toolbox." (2006): 1-64. Urban and 
Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University. Web. <http:/ /67.205.121.233/images/filosa_carsharing.pdf>. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 13 
November 2012 
Although this example assumes that the 20 percent of adults using the carsharing service completely 
give up access to their personal vehicles (a generous assumption), it st ill shows that if even 5 percent of 
people give up their personal vehicle, there would be a decrease in parking demand. 
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING IMPACTS ON CAR OWNERSHIP , VEHICLE MILES 
TRAVELED, AND RELATED CARBON EMISSIONS (2009) 11 
This paper details a pilot study to explore parking in two New York City neighborhoods: Jackson Heights, 
Queens, and Park Slope (Brooklyn). Jackson Heights has a total of over 256 percent more off-street 
parking choices than Park Slope (3,633 spots versus 1,416), such that is has approximately 1.14 off-
street parking spaces per dwelling, while Park Slope has 0.06. The authors calculated the number of 
pa rking spaces (both on- and off-street), the number of cars owned, and commuter patterns. 
Researchers found that "[w]hile the finding of the pilot study cannot be generalized to larger geographic 
areas ... it strongly points to off-street parking as tipping the utility in favor of driving when other viable 
alternatives exist." 12 This is because the annoyance of finding on-street parking is such that people will 
typically choose transit over driving (which is why Jackson Heights residents drove more than Park Slope 
residents). 
This New York City pilot study finds that "[p]arking supply affects driving demand by changing t he 
underlying cost structure associated with mode choice decisions." 13 The authors explain that when 
parking is relatively scarce (and therefore more expens ive), cities have higher transit usage, though 
there is no previous literature on residential parking requirements and persona l vehicle usage. Finally, 
"the evidence suggests that households with on-site, off-street pa rking [garages, driveways] are inclined 
to drive more than their neighbors are." 14 
The literature review shows that the unbundling of parking and rent lowers renta l costs. Dens ity and 
carsharing reduce personal motorized vehicle ownership rates, and dense neighborhoods with strong 
transit and active transportation options reduce driving. Although 28 percent of all the households 
surveyed as part of this project study do not own or lease a car, roughly 72 percent do own or lease at 
least one car, and two-thirds (67 percent) of t hem indicated that they park on the street. This shows 
that while residents use multiple forms of non-motorized vehicles for t ransportation, they also own cars 
for occasional use. Survey responses indicate that the primary mode of t ransportation for commuter 
trips is spread between 20 percent of people biking to work, 9 percent walking, 23 percent riding public 
transit, 3 percent carpooling, and only 36 percent driving a vehicle alone. For non-work travel, 16 
11 Weinberger, Rachel , Mark Seaman, and Carolyn Johnson. "Residential Off-Street Parking Impacts on Car Ownership, Vehicle 
Miles Traveled, and Related Carbon Emissions." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Boord 
2118.-1 (2009): 24-30. Print. 
12 1bid. 
13 Ibid. 
14 Ibid. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 14 
November 2012 
percent ride their bikes, while 20 percent walk, 3 percent use a carsharing service, 6 percent carpoo l, 4 
percent ride public transit, and 44 percent drive their vehicles. So, though many of the responders bike, 
walk, take transit, and use carsharing services for many of their daily trips (to commute, run errands, 
etc.), they still need parking space. 
The Weinberger, et al (2009) research finds that parking supply affects driving demand such that when 
parking is relatively scarce (and therefore more expensive), cities have higher transit usage. The 
research also "[ ... ]suggests that households with on-site, off-street parking [garages, driveways] are 
inclined to drive more than their neighbors are."15 
According to the Forinash et al. research, carsharing can dramatically decrease the need to own a 
private vehicle. The San Francisco example shows that nearly 60 percent of those who owned a vehicle 
before joining a carsharing service had given up one of their cars within a year.16 If Port land were to 
follow a similar pattern, it cou ld see that a significant reduction in motorized vehicle ownership if a more 
robust carsharing system and education were available. Of the 19 residents interviewed, 7 of them have 
used a carsharing service and 3 more have recently considered using a carsharing service. 
Of the eight Project Locations studied, few have designated carsharing parking spots in the immediate 
vicinity. Developers and the City may consider designating prime parking locations for carshare in a 
designated space (i.e. zip car to incentivize their use. 
15 Ibid. 
16 Nelson/ Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2002, as cited in Forinash et al., 2003. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 15 
November 2012 
PARKING INVENTORY AND UTILIZATION 
The following sections present the utilization rates observed during the data collection as well as the 
land use characteristics associated with areas of higher parking utilization at each Project Location. 
Parking capacity varies by block due to the varying instances of driveways, parking restr ictions, bus 
stops, and other facilities that reduce space for on-street parking. The reported utilization considers the 
available parking per block, with existing driveways and restrictions in place. Table 4 summarizes the 
parking supply for each Project Location, and Figure 2 through Figure 9 show the peak observed 
utilization as well as a summary of each time period for the approximate two-block walking distance 
around each Project Location. 
TABLE 4. PARKING INVENTORY 
Number of On-Site On-Street Bicycle Parking2 
Residential Parking Parking 
Project location Units Spaces Capacitl Short-term long-Term 
Patton Park Apartments 54 33 528 0 (Bike 13 Fund) 
ecoFLATS Apartments 18 None 544 10 12 
Shaver Green Apartments 85 32 653 5 22 
Irvington Garden Apartments so None 752 5 64 
The 20 on Hawthorne 51 34 451 5 16 
Andria Condominiums 27 15 394 4 10 
3810 SE Division Apartments 23 None 400 3 26 
43 Division Micro-Units 29 None 415 3 32 
Notes: 
1. Capacity for each project location is based on an area within a two-block walkable radius, as outlined in the Methodology 
section of this report. 
2. Bicycle parking information provided by BPS. 
There are three carsharing companies that serve the eight Project Locat ions, with two of the three 
carsharing companies (Car2go and Zipcar) using on-street parki ng for their vehicles. Car2go is a one-way 
(or "point to point") carsharing service. Car2Go has a defined "home area" which is a geographic zone in 
which you can park the car and end a rental. The vehicles do not have to be reserved to re nt (you can 
just find one on the street and swipe your card to begin) and the cha rge is per minute (at the moment, 
it' s 38 cents/minute). The price covers fuel and insurance. 
Zipcar is a round-trip carsharing model in which vehicles (cars and trucks) and assigned to a specif ic 
locat ion either on street or in private lots. Zipcar members (there is an annual membership fee) can rent 
vehicles up to a year in advance and pay per hour. The prices genera lly range from $7-$15 depending on 
the vehicle and include fuel and insurance. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 16 
November 2012 
Getaround is a peer-to-peer carsharing network. Individuals can "sign up" their vehicle by registering at 
Getaround.com and then others (who have also registered and in doing so have gotten their driving 
record checked) can sign up to rent vehicles. Vehicle owners set their own hourly, daily and weekly rate 
and can choose to accept or deny rental requests at will. The retal price covers insurance- it is up to the 
renter to pay for fuel. 
I PATTON PARK APARTMENTS 
The Patton Park Apartments is a multi-family affordable housing development located in North Portland 
on N Interstate Avenue in the Overlook neighborhood. Interstate Avenue in the study area carries 
TriMet's Yellow MAX Line and has extremely limited on-street parking. Off of N Interstate Avenue, the 
local streets serve mainly the residential neighborhood, because the majority of businesses in the study 
area have parking lots to serve t heir customers and employees. Figure 2 shows a graphical 
representation of the observed on-street parking utilization during the peak observation period, and a 
chart of the variation in on-street parking use throughout the observed weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DATA 
The weekday data for this location indicates that on-street parking supply is underutilized. All of the 
collection periods observed an average utilization well below the 85 percent effective capacity, with all 
t ime periods below 40 percent utilized. The blocks with the highest utilization (65 to 85 percent) mainly 
result from the lack of parking spaces rather than high demand, and are located closer to the main 
streets within the study area (Interstate Avenue and Killingsworth Street). As a driver, one ra rely, if ever, 
has to circle the block to find a parking space within a one-block walking distance to Patton Park 
Apartments. 
During the week, most of the blocks surveyed had very little turnover, w ith most of the observed 
parking spaces having one or two vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the day. Of the 45 block 
faces surveyed that had available parking, 20 blocks (44 percent) had at least two vehicles parked for the 
entirety of the observed time periods (at least 12 hours). The area with the highest turnover was in the 
northeast corner of the Project Location study area on Maryland Street. 
WEEKEND DATA 
Similar to the weekday, weekend data indicates that on-street parking supply is sufficient, w ith the 
average utilization of this Project Location's study area slightly higher than on the weekday, but still 
below 50 percent. Weekend utilization peaked during the 9:30p.m. collection period, which was also 
the overall peak utilization period at Patton Park Apartments. The block faces bordering Patton Park 
Apartments were below 85 percent utilization for all time periods except the peak, w hen two block 
faces reached 85 percent. There was still ample parking within a one-block walking distance. 
Parking Impacts f or New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 17 
November 2012 
I ECOFLATS APARTMENTS 
The ecoFLATS building is a mixed-use commercial building shared by apartments and a bike-centric 
restaurant/ bar located in North Portland on Williams Avenue. Williams Avenue in the Project Location 
study area is a designated bike route, and has a combination of non-restricted and time-restricted on-
street parking. Off of Williams Avenue, the local streets serve mainly the residential neighborhood, 
though there may be spillover from patrons of businesses in the study area. Figure 3 shows a graphical 
representation of the observed on-street parking utilization during the peak observation period, and a 
chart of the variation in on-street parking use throughout the observed weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DATA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street parking supply is underutilized. All of 
the data collection t ime periods observed an average utilization well below the 85 percent effective 
capacity-uti lization ranged from 37 to 61 percent. The peak util ization for this location was during the 
week, at the 6:30p.m. observation time period. A few block faces near, and on, Williams Avenue 
reached capacity, which is a real parking concern and is likely the cause of spillover into the residential 
neighborhoods. Because of the presence of time restrictions for parking along sections of Williams 
Avenue, the parking is likely from business patrons who need to park for longer than the time 
restrictions allow. 
During the week, Williams Avenue and adjacent blocks experienced frequent turnover, with most of the 
observed parking spaces having more than two vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the day 
(which is expected due to the presence of t ime restrictions and businesses). Of the 41 block faces 
surveyed that had available parking and no time restrictions, 13 blocks (32 percent) had at least two 
vehicles parked for the entirety of the data collection period (at least 12 hours). 
WEEKEND DATA 
Similar to the weekday, weekend data indicates that on-street parking supply is sufficient off of Williams 
Avenue, with t he average utilization of the study area at this Project Location ranging from 44 to 60 
percent. Weekend utilization peaked during the 12:30 p.m. data collection time period, which coincides 
with the weekend lunch and brunch crowd. More block faces reached capacity during the weekend 
peak, but the outlier block faces had lower utilization. 
I SHAVER GREEN APARTMENTS 
Shaver Green Apartments is a low-income housing building in North Portland on the corner of Shaver 
Street and Martin Luther King (MLK) Boulevard. MLK Boulevard is a state highway (OR 99E) and has only 
a handful of on-street parking spaces available within the study area. Off of MLK Boulevard, the local 
streets serve mainly the residential neighborhood, and the many of the businesses in this area have 
parking lots for their patrons. Figure 4 shows a graphical representat ion of the observed on-street 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 18 
November 2012 
parking utilization during the peak observation period, and a chart of the variation in on-street parking 
use throughout the observed weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DATA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street parking supply is underutilized. All of 
the data collection time periods observed an average utilization well below the 85 percent effective 
capacity-utilization ranged from 29 to 58 percent. The peak utilization for this location was during the 
week, at the 9:30a.m. observation time period. Block faces near Shaver Green Apartments were below 
the 85 percent effective capacity, though Failing Street and MLK Boulevard reached capacity. However, 
there are only nine total spaces on those two block faces. 
During the week, the study area for this Project Location experienced little turnover, with most of the 
observed parking spaces having between one and two vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the 
day. Of the 54 block faces surveyed that had available parking, 25 blocks {46 percent) had at least two 
vehicles parked for the entirety of the data collection time period (at least 12 hours). Some residents 
may leave their car parked for an extended period of time, although any long-term parking does not 
appear to be from the Shaver Green Apartments, or does not have a measureable impact on parking 
use. 
WEEKEND DATA 
Similar to the weekday, weekend data indicates that on-street parking supply is sufficient, with the 
average utilization of the study area at this Project Location ranging from 36 to 42 percent. Weekend 
utilization peaked during the 9:30a.m. data collection time period. Two block faces adjacent to Shaver 
Green reached capacity during the weekend peak; although a block away, there is ample parking. 
'IRVINGTON GARDEN APARTMENTS 
The Irvington Garden Apartments building is located in the Irvington neighborhood in northeast 
Portland, several blocks north of Broadway. This Project Location is the most utilized of the eight 
locations in regard to parking. Broadway is a commercial street in the study area that is home to several 
businesses, with limited off-street parking and time-restricted on-street parking. Off of Broadway, the 
local streets serve mainly the residential neighborhood, though there is spillover from patrons of the 
Broadway area. Figure 5 shows a graphical representation of the observed on-street parking uti lization 
during the peak observation period, and a chart of the variation in on-street parking use th roughout the 
observed weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DATA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street pa rking supply is adequate if the 
utilization for the two-block walkable area is averaged, but it is insufficient on many of the blocks 
emanating from Broadway. All of the data collection time periods observed an average utilization below 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 19 
November 2012 
the 85 percent effective capacity-utilization ranged from 61 to 66 percent. The majority of the blocks 
that reached capacity had less than eight available spaces to begin with, and several had on ly three. As a 
resident of Irvington Garden Apartments, one rarely, if ever, must circle the block to f ind a parking space 
within a one-block walking distance of the apartments, even if the streets directly bordering it are at 
capacity. It becomes much more difficult if you want to park nearer to Broadway. 
During the week, most of the blocks surveyed had very little turnover, especially north of Hancock 
Street, where there are no time restrictions. Most ofthe observed parking spaces had only one or two 
vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the day. Because of the presence of time rest rictions along 
Broadway and the adjacent side streets, turnover was more frequent in those areas. However, some 
vehicles were observed to be parked in the same spot for the entirety of the data collection period (at 
least 12 hours). What this tells us is that between Broadway and Hancock Street, residents and/ or 
employees a·re competing for the same parking. 
WEEKEND DATA 
The weekend day is worse for parking than the weekday, with average util ization still below the 
effective 85 percent capacity threshold, but ranging from 67 to 72 percent. Weekend util ization peaked 
during t he 6:30p.m. collect ion period, which was also the overall peak utilization period at the Irv ington 
Garden Apartments Project Location. Similar to the weekday, many block faces reached capacity (and 
the 85 percent effective capacity). 
I TH E 20 ON HAWTHO RNE 
The 20 on Hawthorne is located in southeast Portland on Hawthorne Bou levard on the northeast border 
of Ladd's Addition. The building was designed and built to a LEED Gold Certification standard and 
promotes sustainabi lity. In this Project Location study area, Hawthorne Boulevard is a commercial street 
that is home to a few businesses, with limited off-street parking and mostly time-restricted on-street 
parking. Off of Hawthorne Boulevard, the local streets are mostly without parking time restrictions. 
There are two designated car share spaces on 20th Street bordering the 20 on Hawthorne building. 
Figure 6 shows a graphical representation of the observed on -street parking utilization during the peak 
observation period, and a chart of the variation in on-street parking use throughout the observed 
weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DA TA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street parking supply is underuti lized. All of 
the collection periods observed an average utilization below the 85 percent effective capacity-
utilization ranged from 52 to 61 Percent, with peak utilization observed at 6:30p.m. A few block faces 
reached capacity during the weekday peak, only one of which is adjacent to the 20 on Hawthorne (and 
that block face has a capacity of only five vehicles) . 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 20 
November 2012 
During the week, the study area experienced little turnover, with most of the observed parking spaces 
having between one and two vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the day. Block faces north of 
and bordering Hawthorne Boulevard experienced the most turnover and also had higher utilization, 
most likely due to their proximity to businesses. 
WEEKEND DATA 
The weekend day average utilization also peaked during the 6:30 p.m. data collection time period, but it 
was higher overall than the weekday utilization. Average utilization was still below the effective 85 
percent capacity threshold-utilization ranged from 61 to 75 percent. Similar to the weekday, many 
block faces reached capacity, with several more exceeding the 85 percent effective capacity than on the 
weekday. Many people visit the area for dinner and movies on the weekend evenings, contributing to 
the additional block faces reaching capacity. 
I ANDRIA CONDOMINIUMS 
Andria Condominiums is located on Belmont Street in southeast Portland and has on-site parking that 
was included in the cost of the residential unit. A collection of food carts are located adjacent to the 
building, and no parkihg is provided for these. Belmont Street through the study area at this Project 
Location has a mixture of unrestricted and t ime restricted on-street parking. Figure 7 shows a graphical 
representation of the observed on-street parking utilization during the peak observation period, and a 
chart of the variation in on-street parking use throughout the observed weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DATA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street parking supply is underutilized. All of 
the data collection time periods observed an average utilization well below the 85 percent effective 
capacity-utilization ranged from 38 to 48 percent. Two block faces exceed the 85 percent effective 
capacity; both are on Belmont Street. The block that reached capacity had only three ava ilable spaces. 
As a driver, one rarely, if ever, has to circle the block on a weekday to f ind a parking space near Andria 
Condominiums. 
During the week, most of the blocks surveyed had minimal turnover, with most of the observed parking 
spaces off of Belmont Street having one or two vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the day. Of 
the block faces off of Belmont Street, 75 percent had at least one car parked there for the entirety of the 
data collection period (at least 12 hours). Areas with parking time restrictions or near the businesses on 
Belmont Street experienced higher turnover, which is to be expected. 
WEEKEND DATA 
Similar to the weekday, weekend data indicates that on-street parking supply is sufficient, with the 
average utilization of the study area at this Project Location ranging from 39 to 51 percent. However, 
block faces along Belmont Street reach capacity during the 9:30a.m. data collection period, coinciding 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 21 
November 2012 
with the weekend brunch crowd. Similar to the weekday patterns, drivers should easily be able to find 
parking within a block of their destination at this Project Location. 
13 810 SE DI VISION APA RTMENTS 
Located in southeast Portland on Division Street, 3810 SE Division Apartments is a mixed-use building 
that has been built to a LEED Platinum Certification standard and is located in a transit-oriented retail 
corridor. In the study area, Division Street has limited off-street parking, bike corrals, bus stops, and 
sporadic time-restricted on"street parking. Off of Division Street, the local st reets serve the residential 
neighborhoods. Figure 8 shows a graphical representation of the observed on-street parking utilization 
during the peak observation period, and a chart of the variation in on-street parking use throughout the 
observed weekday and weekend day. 
W EEKDA Y DA TA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street parking supply is underutil ized. All of 
the collection periods observed an average utilization below the 85 percent effective capacity-
utilization ranged from 29 to 45 percent. The weekday utilization peaked during the 6:30 p.m. data 
collection time period, at which t ime two block faces exceeded the 85 percent effective capa city and 
one reached capacity. Both of these block faces were on Division Street, and the block that reached 
capacity had only four available spaces. 
During the week, the study area at this Project Location experienced little turnover, with most of the 
observed parking spaces having between one and two vehicles parked in a spot over the course ofthe 
day. Of the 32 block faces surveyed that had available parking, 15 of them (46 percent) had at least two 
vehicles parked for the entirety of the data collection time period (at least 12 hours). Alt hough any long-
term parking does not appear to be specific to 3810 SE Division and cu rrent weekday utilization does not 
indicate consistent parking concerns, additional housing or businesses could strain the available parking 
in the area near 37th Avenue and Division Street. 
WEEKEND DATA 
The weekend average utilization was fairly consistent throughout the day, ranging f rom 41 to 45 percent 
and peaking during the 9:30a.m. data collection period. Average utilization was st ill below t he 85 
percent effective capacity threshold, even though three block faces reached capacity, two of which were 
near 3810 SE Division. However, since the block face directly in front of t he building on Div ision Street 
did not reach even the 85 percent effective capacity, it is not likely that the apartment is causing 
measurable parking problems. 
143 DI VISION M ICRO- UNITS 
Located in southeast Portland, 43 Division is a community of micro-homes occupying t he corner of SE 
42"d Avenue and Division Street. This location is only f ive blocks away from t he 3810 SE Division project 
Parking Impacts f or New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 22 
November 2012 
location, though the character of Division Street at the 43 Division Project Location is slightly different in 
that it has less on-street parking and fewer businesses. Figure 9 shows a graphical representation of the 
observed on-street parking utilization during the peak observation period, and a chart of the variation in 
on-street parking use throughout the observed weekday and weekend day. 
WEEKDAY DATA 
The weekday data for this Project Location indicates that on-street parking supply is underutilized. All of 
the collection periods observed an average utilization well below the 85 percent effective capacity, 
ranging from 26 to 28 percent, with the peak occurring at 9:30a.m. This is the lowest peak utilization 
observed for any of the eight Project locations. Only one block exceeds the 85 percent effective capacity 
for any of the observed time periods, and that block is south of 43 Division, across Division Street. 
Because there is ample parking available on the same side of Division Street as the micro-homes, the 
parking causing this block to exceed the effective capacity is likely not spillover from 43 Division. 
Available parking is more than sufficient in the 43 Division Project location study area on the weekday. 
During the week, most of the blocks surveyed had very little turnover, with most of the observed 
parking spaces having one or two vehicles parked in a spot over the course of the day, although 
generally there were fewer vehicles observed parked on the street than at other Project Locations. The 
area with the highest turnover was on Division Street near a popular coffee shop. 
WEEKEND DATA 
Similar to the weekday, weekend data indicates that on-street parking supply is sufficient, with the 
average utilization of the study area at this Project location ranging from 26 to 32 percent. The peak 
utilization occurred at the 12:30 p.m. data collection period, which coincides with the weekend lunch 
and brunch crowd. However, there was still ample parking available on Division Street and in the 
surrounding neighborhood. 
I UTILIZATION SUMMARY 
Table 5 provides a summary of the peak observed utilization of on-street parking within a two block 
walking distance of each project location. 
Parking 1m poets for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 23 
November 2012 
TABLE 5. UTILIZATION SUMMARY 
On-Street Parking Peak Utilization2 
Project location Capacitl Weekday Weekend 
Patton Park Apartments 528 40% 41% 
ecoFLATS Apartments 544 61% I 59% 
Shaver Green Apartments 653 50% 42% 
Irvington Garden Apartments 752 66% 69% 
The 20 on Hawthorne 451 61% 75% 
Andria Condominiums 394 48% 51% 
3810 SE Division Apartments 400 45% 45% 
43 Division Micro-Units 415 28% 32% 
Notes: 
1. Capacity for each project location is based on an area within a two-block walkable radius, as outlined in the Methodology 
section of this report. 
2. Peak utilization is the highest average utilization for the entire parking supply at a project location. 
As shown in Figures 2 through 9 the variat ion in parking utilization is fairly consistent throughout the day 
o the weekday and weekend. Table 6 provides a summary of the parking that is available based on an 85 
percent effective capacity and the peak weekday and weekend parking utilization within the two block 
wa lking distance around each project location. 
TABLE 6. AVAILABLE PARKING 
On-Street Effective On- Effect ive Parking Available3 
Parking Street 
Project location Capacitl Capacity2 Weekday Weekend 
Patton Park Apartments 528 449 53% 52% 
ecoFLATS Apartments 544 462 28% 31% 
Shaver Green Apartments 653 555 41% 51% 
Irvington Garden Apartments 752 639 22% 19% 
The 20 on Hawthorne 451 383 28% 12% 
Andria Condominiums 394 335 44% 40% 
3810 SE Division Apartments 400 340 47% 47% 
43 Division Micro-Units 415 353 67% 62% 
Notes: 
1. Capacity for each project location is based on an area within a two-block walkable radius, as outlined in the Methodology 
section of this report. 
2. Effective capacity is 85% of the total available on-street parking spaces. 
3. The effective parking is the percentage of spaces available before reaching the effective capacity (85% of capacity). 
Detailed parking utilization data is in Appendix A. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 24 
c 
0 80% 
".;:::: 
(Q 
.!::! 60% 
".;:::: 
::J 
~ 40% 
Cl 
(Q 20% .... ~ 
> 
: ~ 
r- ;., 
< 0% l ..:. 
6:30AM 9:30AM 
LEGEND 
8 Patton Park 
•••• No Parking 
0 City Park 
RLIS Data. 2012. Portland. Oregon. 
~; -[J .. 
1-:· 
r--
~ t ; ; 
12:30 PM 3:30PM 
Parking Utilization by Block 
- <1 5% 
- 15-45% 
45-65% 
65-85% 
..-,-
6:30PM 
o-o 
I C: ~~ I ~ ~~~r 
,a u, 
9:30PM 
r--
•weekday 
DWeekend 
DRAFT Figure 2 
Patton Park Apartments 
Parking Utilization 
85-99% ~0 400 -100% 
ESRI, ArcGIS Online, World Imagery. Aerials Express (AEX) 2009 Portland, Oregon N • -==• -=:::::J Feet 
~_(.\_ 1liilr (!X!} 
100% 
c:: 
0 80% 
+=' (U 
N 60% 
+=' 
:::l 40% ~ 
Cl 
(U 20% ... ~ 
> 
< 0% 
- f.1' ~- --~ ~ o"t:l 
-..,.._ I t::~ ~ 
~ 1:!~1--
-)ts 8l ,, 
6:30AM 9:30AM 12:30 PM 
• 
Existing Apt. 
- < 15% (No On-Site Parking) 
- 15-45% 0 Existing Apt 
(Limited 45 - 65% 
On-Site Parking) 65 - 85% 
~ Existing Business (No On-Site Parking) 85- 99% 
RLIS Data. 2012. Portland. Oregon. -100% 
ESRI, ArcGIS Online, World Imagery. Aerials Express (AEX) 2009. Portland. Oregon. 
- .. 
3:30PM 
_\ 
N 
-
6:30PM 
0 
DWeekday 
----{a~~--
,c: 't! 
---iE ~!- ,_ 
l o ol 
,c u, 
DWeekend 
9:30PM 
DRAFT Figure 3 
ecoFLATS Apartments 
Parking Utilization 
400 
_______ ____, Feet 
~_m_ 
1liilr {!X!) 
c: 
0 80% ; 
co 
.t::! 60% 
·.;:; 
:::l 
40% 41 
Cl 
co 20% ... 41 
> 
< 0% 
6:30AM 9:30 AM 12:30 PM 3:30 PM 6:30 PM 
a weekday 
"===--- aweekend 
9:30 PM 
LEGEND Parking Utilization by Block DRAFT Figure 4 
Shaver Green 
Parking Utilization 
8 Shaver Green 
•••• No Parking 
e Existing Apt. - < 15% 
(No On-Site Parking) - 15 _ 45% 
e Existing Apt. 
(limited 
On-Site Parking) 
~ Existing Business 
(No On-Site Parking) 
45-65% 
65-85% 
- 85-99% 
-100% 
RL/S Data. 2012. Portland, Oregon. 
ESRI, Arc:GIS Online, World Imager;. Aerials Express (AEX). 2009 Portland, Oregon 
~ 
N 
0 400 
• -==-•::::J Feet 
~_m_. 
1liilr {9(!) 
c: 
0 80% :.;::; 
C1l 
N 60% 
:.;::; 
:::l 
40% 41 
Cl 
C1l 20% ... 41 
> 
<t 0% 
6:30 AM 9:30AM 12:30 PM 3:30 PM 
LEGEND Parking Utilization by Block 
8 Irvington Garden 8 
• • • • No Parking (i) 
Existing Apt. - < 15% 
(No On-Site Parking) - 15 _ 45% 
Existing Apt. 
(Limited 45 65% 
On-Site Parking) 65 - 85% 
[gJ Existing Business 
(No On-Site Parking) 85-99% 
-100% 
RLIS Data. 2012. Portland, Oregon. 
Aerial Imagery- City of Portland, 2012. 
~ 
N 
6:30PM 
a weekday 
CWeekend 
9:30PM 
DRAFT Figure 5 
Irvington Garden 
Parking Utilization 
0 400 
•-==-•::::J Feet ~ ....m.. 1liilr~·l 
Document Paih P IF'PO,V.<COOCC1!t2'060fJJNFO,GS\arcmaa\l..U:aucn ;wt.'7 Cha,TiParf!mg_UMIZPt;cn_ft.Vee~o:end_fnnngtcnGarcen_PE.OK_fiJCPW mxd 
100% 
c: 
0 80% :;:::; ~ 
ctl 
.~ 60% 
:;:::; 
::::l 
Q) 40% 
Cl 
ctl 20% ... Q) 
> 
<( 0% 
,._.- -1 ~ r---
-~ ngEi r,···• t.~ . I ~ 
~ ~B~~ ••t r 
I 0 81 l&l 1;~1;~ IJC 't 
6:30AM 9:30AM 12:30 P M 3:30PM 6:30PM 
LEGEND 
G) The 20 on Hawthorne e Existing Apt. 
(No On-Site Parking) 
E) Existing Apt. 
(Limited 
On-Site Parking) 
(8J Existing Business 
(No On-Site Parking) 
Parking Utilization by Block 
- < 15% 
- 15-45% 
45-65% 
65-85% 
- 85-99% 
- 100% 
-
r-fa-]~ 
c: t l 
I ~~ B-~OOJ 
Jc ~i 
-
-
-
a w eekday 
a weekend 
9:30PM 
DRAFT Figure 6 
The 20 on Hawthorne 
Parking Utilization 
400 
Feet 
~ ...tel... 1lii1r C!X!) 
Document Path P 1PPDXXOOOOOJ92\0IJOOINFO\GS\arcmap\Utrfllatlon mth Chart1Par*mg_Uiifllalion_Weekend_Hawthome_PE4K_530PM m<d 
Dare 111512012 Time t0~03SAM UserName a>1b 
100% 
c 
0 80% .. 
(II 
N 60% 
.. 
:J 
40% (I) 
C) 
(II 20% ~ (I) ~ 
> 
<( 0% 
LEGEND 
8 Andria 
i:..--1 ~ 
= 
c -c 
r l c: t; j I ~  
.8-~8 8 1 ~, 
It I fct 
6:30AM 9:30AM 
8 Existing Apt. 
(No On-Site Parking) 
[gJ Existing Business 
(No On-Site Parking) 
RL/S Data. 2012 Portland, Oregon 
"7'" 
,, ;; 
~f~i: :• 
'&','' 11' 
12:30 PM 3:30 PM 6:30 PM 
Parking Utilization by Block 
- >15% 
- 15 - 45% 
45 - 65% 
65 - 85% 
85-99% 
- 100% 
0 
r ... - - 1 j"' c "t 
t:: ~ I u l f---4 .8 ~(. 
1° Sl Lc 1 
9:30PM 
1--
DWeekday 
a weekend 
DRAFT Figure 7 
Andria Condominiums 
Parking Utilization 
ESRI. ArcGIS Online, World Imagery. Aerials Express (AEX). 2009. Portland, Oregon. N 
400 
•-==--~Feet 
~ ..JO\.. 1fiilr (!Xel 
c 
0 80% :;:; 
111 
.!::! 60% 
:;:; 
:::> 40% 41 
C) 
111 20% .... 41 
> 
< 0% 
6:30AM 
LEGEND 
8 3810 Division St 8 
•••• No Parking 
RLIS Data. 2012. Portland, Oregon. 
9:30AM 
Future Planned 
Apartments 
Existing Business 
(No On-Site Parking) 
12:30 PM 3:30PM 
Parking Utilization by Block 
- < 15% 
- 15 - 45% 
45 -65% 
65 - 85% 
85 - 99% 
- 100% _\ 0 
II Weekd ay 
a Weekend 
6:30PM 9:30PM 
DRAFT Figure 8 
3810 SE Division Apartments 
Parking Utilization 
ESRI, ArcGIS Online, World Imagery. Aerials Express (AEX). 2009. Portland, Oregon. N 
400 
•-==-•:=:~ Feet 
~..L6.. 1fiilr~ 
100% 
c 
0 80% 
'.;: 
co 
, .... --, 
r-------------------------...;1 2 ~~---- DWeekend 
II Weekday .~ 60% 
5 
40% 
, .... --1 
Q) o-o ~ t t l I 0uJ I tl1 tJ~iU C) 1 c: ~ , co 20% ll~~~. I .... Q) > <{ 0% 
LEGEND 
8 43 Division 
•••• No Parking 
!S$1 
!:::. Future Planned 
Apartments 
() Existing Apt. 
(Limited 
On-Site Parking) 
Parking Utilization by Block 
- <1 5% 
- 15 - 45% 
45 -65% 
65 - 85% 
0 Existing Business 85 _ 99% 
(81 Existing Business - 1 OO% 
RLIS Data. 2012. Portland. Oregon (No On-S1te Park1ng) _\ 
ESRI. ArcGIS Online, World Imagery Aerials Express (AEX) 2009 Portland, Oregon. N 
DRAFT Figure 9 
43 Division Micro-Units 
Parking Utilization 
0 400 
•c::..:::::::JFeet 
~~ 1liilr (!}(. ) 
November 2012 
MAILER AND ON-LINE SURVEY RESULTS 
The survey results provide a good understanding of motorized vehicle ownership, parking behavior, and 
commuting trends for the eight Project Locations. Though many of the buildings aim to reduce the need 
for a vehicle, the bottom line is that people still want the safety net of having a car, even if they rarely 
drive it. Even if parking is available on-site, the general trend is that residents will not use on-site parking 
if they have to pay extra for it, since parking on the street is free and one rarely has to park more than a 
block away. Results of the survey are summarized below, and answers to each survey question may be 
found in Appendix B. 
Based on the 116 responses to the questions asking about primary modes of transportation, the top 
three modes of commute travel are as follows: 
1. Motor vehicle (single occupant) - 36 percent 
2 . Public transit- 23 percent 
3. Bicycle- 20 percent 
Based on data provided by the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation the average mode split in 
Portland is 59 percent motor vehicle (single occupant) which is notably higher than the 36 percent single 
occupant motor vehicle mode split for the eight project locations. Transit and bicycle use at t he project 
locations are also higher than the Portland average. 
An important point to draw from these results is that 64 percent of residents are getting t o work via a 
non-single-occupant vehicle. Almost a third (28 percent) of those surveyed belong to car-free 
households. This is notable higher than the 12 percent car-free average in Portland. Even though there is 
a higher than average percentage of households that are car-free, cars are still the preferred mode of 
travel for many of the survey respondents. Most of the vehicle owners (67 percent) park on the street 
without a permit and have t o walk less than two minutes to reach thei r place of residence, and they 
spend only five minutes or less searching for a parking spot. Though some t ime periods are more 
congested than others (4 p.m. to 7 p.m., for example), the results varied by location, with people rarely 
having to park more than a couple blocks from their house. 
A common trend in this study is that people are reluctant to get rid of their vehicles. One of the 
questions the survey asked was what amenities would reduce the respondent 's need for motorized 
vehicle ownership. Many people stated that there were no amenities that would reduce their need for a 
vehicle. Of those who would consider a car-free life, the most commonly needed amenities were easy 
access to transit and services such as stores and restaurants; however, the following responses were 
also given: 
• Transit that travels to my place of work/school 
• More carsharing options 
• Affordable, high quality daycare in the area 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 33 
November 2012 
To better understand what the concerns about parking were truly based on, many of the survey 
questions were specific to those who owned vehicles. Responses to these questions varied from 
concerns about convenience, to safety concerns, to a few responses that indicated that the person did 
not feel parking was a problem now, but they were concerned it would be in the future. Many of the 
responses were concerned with neighborhood character and amenities, rather than about the amount 
of available parking. The most common concerns with parking, as listed in the survey responses, are as 
follows: 
• Theft and damage to car parked on the street 
• Winter parking/inconvenience of parking more than one block away 
• Running out of parking in the future with increased population and more development 
• Cost of secure parking, especially for income-restricted residences 
• Additional developments being built in the area without parking 
• Crowded on-street parking making streets narrow and hard to navigate 
• Cars staying parked in the neighborhood for long periods of t ime 
Some respondents had no concerns about parking. 
To develop an estimate of the vehicles generated per unit by the developments studied, su rvey data has 
been compiled and summarized using a basic statistical analysis . For this analysis, it was assumed that 
each survey response represents one unit of the building, the responses provide a representative 
sample of the tenants at each Project Location, and that the responses for the number of vehicles for 
each household follows a two-tailed t-distribution. An estimate for the number of cars parking on the 
surrounding streets at each Project Location assumed that any provided off-~treet parking is fully 
utilized. 
Question 7 of the survey asked residents how many cars are owned or leased by the people living in 
their household. The numbers generated from this question were separated by Project Location and 
compiled to show the total number of cars owned by the residents surveyed in each location. From the 
total cars per Project Location and the number of survey responses, a car per unit average was found. 
To determine a range of vehicles generated per unit with a 95 percent degree of confidence, the sample 
size (number of survey responses), population size (number of units in each Project Location), and the 
vehicle per unit average for each Project Location can be used. Further calculations can be found in 
Appendix A. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 34 
November 2012 
TABLE 7. VEHICLES PER LI VING UN IT 
Survey 
Number of On-Site Responses Average 
Residential Parking from 'Project Cars per Cars per Unit (95% 
Project Location Units Spaces Location Unit Confidence Interval) 
Patton Park Apartments 54 33 13 0.8 0.3-1.2 
ecoFLATS Apartments 18 None 6 1.2 0.4 - 2.0 
Shaver Green 85 26 0.5 0.3-0.7 Apartments 32 
Irvington Garden so Apartments None 12 0.9 0.6-1.2 
The 20 on Hawthorne 51 34 15 1.0 0.6-1.4 
Andria Condominiums 27 15 10 1.2 0.9-1.5 
3810 SE Division 23 23 1.1 0.8-1.4 Apartments None 
43 Division Micro-Units 29 None 10 0.6 0.2 - 1.0 
In general, the survey results do not imply a relationship between whether or not provided parking at a 
build ing actually attracts car-owners or vice versa. Survey responses indicate that res idents at both 
types of buildings (those with on-site parking and those without on-site parking) have simila r trends in 
motorized vehicle ownership. The range of vehicles per unit determined in the statistical ana lysis varies 
from a low of 0.2 vehicles t o a high of 2.0 vehicles per unit (see Table 7 for a more detailed breakdown). 
Since motorized vehicle ownership appears to be consistent, it is likely that provided parking and the 
location of a building t o nearby amenities and transit has more influence on whether or not residents 
actually use their ca rs. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 35 
November 2012 
' ' . ' . . ' ' 
RESIDENT AND STAKEHOLDER IN_TERVIEWS 
, , , 
A wealth of information was gathered from the resident and stakeholder interviews. Though opinions 
varied between residents and stakeholders, some commonalities emerged. Few interviewees are 
concerned with the current availability of parking, but most worry what the compound effect of multiple 
developments in an area would be. The following section details t he interview responses from each 
Project Location. For the individual survey responses, see Appendix C. 
The responses varied by Project Location and by the resident's lifestyle. Most residents do not feel there 
is a significant problem with parking, but in some locations the residents do not feel secure when 
parking their vehicle in the surrounding neighborhoods, and would prefer to have accessible parking 
close by. In other buildings, however, the residents do not have a problem finding parking at all. For 
bicyclists, secure indoor parking is a very desirable amenity. Most residents will store their bike in their 
apartment rather than in the less secure parking provided by the ir building. Several times, interviewees 
raised the point that, for the income-restricted buildings, they feel that the cost for parking is far too 
high for the many families that live there and own a vehicle. 
I PATTON PA RK AP ARTM ENTS 
Patton Park residents interviewed feel that on-street parking in the area is ample for their apartments. 
While Patton Pa rk Apartments does provide off-street parking for an additional fee, the lot is rare ly full, 
and most residents are able to find on-street parking on the two adjacent streets. Typically, weekdays 
after 5 to 6 p.m. are the worst times to park because of the traffic generated by businesses and 
restaurants in the area . 
Secure bike storage is an amenity that the Patton Park Apartments needs to address. The two residents 
surveyed keep their bikes in their units, because they do not feel comfortable leaving t hei r bikes in t he 
outside storage area. One of the residents has had two bikes stolen from the outdoor parking, and both 
residents have heard of neighbors' bikes being stolen from the on-site bike parking. 
I ECOFLATS APARTM ENTS 
The two residents interviewed from the ecoFLATS Apartments are typically able to find on-street parking 
within one block of the apartments. One resident parks in a small lot behind t he apartments that has 
unofficially become a parking lot for ecoFLATS residents. The on-street parking is located in the 
surrounding neighborhoods, and one resident feels that it is not secu re. Several break-ins have been 
reported, and one resident's partner' s car has been broken into in the past Although there is no off-
street parking prov:ided at the ecoFLATS Apartments, one interviewee wou ld be w illing to pay up to 
$100 per month for a secure parking spot, whereas the other is considering gett ing rid of her car. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 36 
November 2012 
The bike parking at ecoFLATS is inside the building in the lobby. The bike parking is relatively secure and 
is usually almost full. Business and restaurant traffic in the evenings causes congestion and can create a 
parking issue for bikes and cars, especially on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights. One resident 
would like to see more bike parking and more time-restricted parking spots on Williams Avenue for the 
restaurant patrons, and both residents would like to see more reliable bus service and would like the 
city to do a better job encouraging active transportation. 
I SHAVER GREEN APARTMENTS 
From interviews with two residents of Shaver Green Apartments, the on-street parking around the 
apartments is very difficult. It is always hard to find a parking spot, and usually the only spaces available 
are two or more blocks away. Residents feel that the neighborhoods around the building are not secure, 
and many feel uncomfortable parking their car in the neighborhoods due to frequent break-ins and 
broken glass all over the neighborhood sidewalks . For this income-restricted residence, the off-street 
parking that is provided is too expensive. Parking is usually the worst on weekday and weekend 
evenings. 
Bike parking at the Shaver Green Apartments is not secure. The provided bike parking is an outdoor bike 
column, from which bikes have been stolen repeatedly. Most residents have to store their bikes inside 
their units. 
I IRVINGTON GARDEN APARTMENTS 
All three of the residents interviewed from Irvington Garden Apartments admitted that parking can be 
inconvenient at times, but they do not see the need for designated off-street parking. Two of the 
residents do not drive a car every day, and typically leave their cars parked for multiple days at a time. 
The other resident owned a car but sold it, because parking was inconvenient and driving was 
unnecessary. The farthest these residents ever have to park away from their building is two blocks away, 
after circling the block for five minutes looking for a spot. They feel that the large number of apartment 
complexes located close to Irvington Garden Apartments is creating the parking issue on Hancock 
between 15th and 16th Avenues, and it is not the businesses on Broadway. One resident wishes the 
developers would have considered providing parking for the sake of the neighborhood, but from her 
perspective the parking is not bad enough to require off-street spaces. Generally, evenings between 
4:30 and 6 p.m. and after 7 p.m. are the worst for parking. 
The secure bike parking at Irvington Garden Apartments is adequate, and most residents utilize the 
vertical hanging spaces on each floor, though one resident would like to see more bike parking on the 
lower floors. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Part/and Inner Corridors Page 37 
November 2012 
I THE 20 ON HAWTHORNE 
Both residents of The 20 on Hawthorne who were interviewed own cars, though only one resident has 
purchased a spot in the building's parking structure. On-street parking seems to be busiest in the 
evenings when people are home from work. 
According to one resident who owns two bikes, the bike parking provided is too small and crowded, 
which makes it too hard to use. She would like to see improvements to the provided bike parking. Both 
residents use transit, though they would like to see more robust and frequent service. Neither resident 
uses carsharing services, although they are aware of them. One resident mentioned that "parking" 
works as a way for people to fight the development of large apartment buildings. If they do not like big 
buildings or density, then the issue of parking is one way to make a case against it. 
I ANDRIA CONDOMINIUMS 
The two residents interviewed at the Andria Condominiums own cars and park them in the lot next to 
the building. Their parking spots were included with the purchase/rental price of their apartment units. 
While neither resident parks on the street, they say that parking during the days and on Saturdays seem 
to be the busiest. 
The bike parking at the Andria Condominiums is just a single room without ra cks or hooks, and it is 
inadequate and insecure. Neither resident had used a carsharing service, because they own cars and 
have good parking spots. One resident mentioned concern with the future vitality of ca rsharing services 
if on-street parking is so hard to find . For example, if all on-street parking is already taken, how will 
drive rs be able to find good, accessible parking? The other resident mentioned the difficulty that on-
street parking poses for visibility when drivers are turning onto Belmont. With cyclists and cars sharing 
such a small space, Belmont tends to feel congested. 
13810 SE DI V ISION APARTMENTS 
All three residents interviewed from the 3810 SE Division Project Location indicated that parking in the 
area has not been an issue. One resident has noticed that parking around their apartments has gotten 
progressively worse over the past several months, but that it still isn't hard to find a spot. In general, it 
takes the residents no more than five minutes to find a parking spot in t he surrounding neighborhoods. 
Evening parking after around 6 p.m. can be difficult because of all the restaurant traffic, but by the 
morning, most of the evening cars are gone. 
The bike storage room in the building provides adequate capacity and security for most residents. To 
reduce the need for a car, these residents would like to see a carsharing option located on-site, as well 
as more frequent and reliable bus service in the area. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 38 
November 2012 
14 3 DIVISION MICRO-UNITS 
According to the three residents interviewed for 43 Division, on-street parking around the Project 
Location is not hard to f ind. The two residents who own cars are able to find a spot within one block 
away on one of t he neighborhood streets. One resident feels slightly uneasy about parking on narrow 
streets such as 43'd Avenue, where he has heard of neighbors getting side-swiped, but other than that 
issue, the ne ighborhood parking is fai r ly secure. Parking in the evenings around 6 p.m. can be difficult 
because of the restaurants in the area. Parking along Division Street between 43'd and 441h Avenues 
seems to be the worst. 
The secure bike room provided has plenty of room for all of the bikes and has adequate capacity for the 
development. One resident suggested that a dedicated carsharing parking spot located closer to the 
building would be advantageous. A resident of the 43 Division building has used Zipcar before and plans 
to sign up for Getaround (a peer-to-peer carsharing service). The closest designated Zipcar spot is on 
391h Avenue, several blocks from 43 Division. If he could access a carsharing service more easily, this 
resident might use the services more frequently (though he does not own a car at all). 
In regard to the new developments planned for Division Street, two of the residents interviewed are not 
concerned about the parking situation around the building as it is now, but worry that this may change if 
more of these developments are built close by. One resident cited concern about the new 81-unit 
development on 37th Avenue and Division, and feels that a development this size is unreasonable for the 
area. 
I DE VELOPERS 
The deve lopers interviewed shared similar views regarding these properties. In general, the developers 
do not provide parking because their target market does not feel t he need for it and tenants do not 
want the additional cost of parking rolled into their rent or added as a month ly expense. Providing 
parking at a building raises the cost of each unit, especially when underground parking is built. The 
majority of the tenants at these properties like them because they can live in the city along t ransit and 
bike corridors, with many different resources within walking distance without having to pay rent that 
are as high as at traditional developments with off street parking. Before purchasing a piece of land for 
construct ion of buildings with little to no on-site parking, developers do studies focused on determining 
the walk-ability of the neighborhood, including the proximity to transit lines, grocery stores, restaurants, 
etc. Developers usually look at the existing neighborhoods beforehand to try to get a feeling for the 
number of available on-street spots. In locations that have the potential to lease parking from a nearby 
business, many developers will pursue leasing unused parking for their residents. The developers and 
tenants agreed that there is never enough bike parking. Tenants want safe, indoor, and convenient bike 
parking. 
Parking Impacts for New TOD Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 39 
November 2012 
According to the developer interviews, changing parking requirements for this type of development 
would ultimately drive developers away from building highly dense residences in the area, depending on 
what the requirement was. Generally, developers expressed that a parking requirement of 0.5 to 1.0 
spaces per unit is just not possible in the areas that the city wants developed. Most developers try to 
work with t he neighborhood associations beforehand, offering to meet and discuss the proposed 
development, although the level of acceptance by these neighbors can vary greatly. The developers feel 
that these high-density deve lopments are bringing the neighborhoods the type of business and 
commercial development that the neighbors want to see. 
I BUSINESSES 
Businesses are primarily concerned with the amount of nearby parking for their patrons. Clinics that 
have elderly or injured patients, or businesses that sell large items such as furniture are worried that if 
their patrons cannot park close enough, they won't continue to come. Along commercial districts such 
as those on Mississippi and Division, the evening hours are usually the busiest because of all of the 
restau rant traffic. Developments close to these districts that do not provide parking can take close-by, 
on-street parking away from customers, especially if the building residents' cars do not move for days at 
a time. Businesses themselves need to do a better job of encouraging their employees t o park farther 
away, leaving the nearby parking for patrons. Several business owners feel that large developments 
should be required to provide off-street parking to accommodate their residents. It is not the effect of 
one building that is of concern; rather, it is the effect of many of these developments being built in the 
same area. 
I NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 
From the perspective of an Overlook Neighborhood representative, the Patton Park Apartments 
development does not significantly impact the Patton Park Neighborhood. The representative of the 
neighborhood association stated that these types of developments are good for the area when they are 
built in the locations that can support it. A primary concern is the cumulative effect of many of these 
developments causing a real parking issue. The proposed development north of the Overlook Park MAX 
station is an example of a location where this type of development is very concerning. Limited access 
into the neighborhood and narrow streets create a safety concern for the neighborhood. Additionally, 
the issue of "curb-to-curb" access for disabled residents who rely on para-transit options is a much-
understated concern. He feels that some sort of zoning or process of review for these developments is 
necessary. 
Parking Impacts far New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 40 
November 2012 
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 
The literature review suggests that the unbundling of parking and rent lowers rental costs. The literature 
also suggests that density and carsharing reduce personal motorized vehicle ownership rates, and dense 
neighborhoods with strong transit and active transportation options reduce driving. Twenty eight 
percent of all the households surveyed as part of th is project study do not own or lease a car. The 
remaining 72 percent do own or lease at least one car, and two-thirds {67 percent) of them indicated 
that they park on the street. This shows that while the target demographic is largely multi-modal, they 
also own cars for occasional use. Survey responses indicate that the primary mode of t ransportation for 
commuter trips is spread between 20 percent of people biking to work, 9 percent walking, 23 percent 
riding public transit, 3 percent carpooling, and 36 percent driving a vehicle alone. For non-work t ravel, 
16 percent ride their bikes, while 20 percent walk, 3 percent use a carsharing service, 6 percent carpool, 
4 percent ride public transit, and 44 percent drive their vehicles. So, though many of the responders 
bike, walk, take transit, and use carsharing services for many of their daily trips (to commute, run 
errands, etc.), they still need a place to park their car. 
According to the Forinash et al. research, carsharing can dramatically decrease the need t o own a 
private vehicle. However, of the eight Project locations studied, few have designated carsharing parking 
spots in the immediate vicinity. Developers and the City may consider designating prime parki ng 
locations for carsharing vehicles to incentivize their use. 
The on-street parking observations found that all eight project locations have peak period parking 
utilization below 85 percent of the existing capacity, which indicates that there is adequate parking 
within a two block walking distance of each project location. All locations have areas with high parking 
demand with one or more blocks at capacity during peak periods. Irvington Gardens is most utilized, but 
none of the project locations have a clear pattern of high on-street parking demand around the project 
bu ildings. 
Based on the 116 responses to the survey questions asking about primary modes of transportation, the 
top three modes of commute travel are as follows: 
1. Motor veh icle (single occupant)- 36 percent 
2 . Public transit- 23 percent 
3 . Bicycle- 20 percent 
An important point to draw from these results is that 64 percent of residents are getting to work via a 
non-single-occupant vehicle. Almost a third (28 percent) of those surveyed be long to car-free 
households; however, cars are still the preferred mode of travel for many of the survey respondents. 
Most of the vehicle owners (67 percent) park on the street without a permit and have to walk less than 
two minutes to reach their place of residence, and they spend only five minutes or less searching for a 
parking spot. Though some time periods are more congested than others (4 p.m. to 7 p.m., for 
example), the results varied by location, with people rarely having to park more than a couple blocks 
from their house. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page 41 
November 2012 
A common trend in this study is that people are reluctant to get rid of their vehicles. One of the 
questions the survey asked was what amenities would reduce the respondent's need for motorized 
vehicle ownership. Many people stated that there were no amenities that would reduce their need for a 
vehicle. Of those who would consider a car-free life, the most commonly needed amenities were easy 
access to transit and services such as stores and restaurants; however, the following responses were 
also given: 
• Transit that travels to my place of work/school 
• More carsharing options 
• Affordable, high quality daycare in the area 
To better understand what the concerns about parking were truly based on, many of the survey 
questions were specific to those who owned vehicles. Many of the responses were concerned with 
neighborhood character and amenities, rather than about the amount of ava ilable parking. 
In general, t he survey results do not imply a relationship between whether or not provided parking at a 
building actually attracts car-owners or vice versa. Survey responses indicate that residents at both 
types of buildings (those with on-site parking and those without on-site parking) have similar trends in 
motorized vehicle ownersh ip. The range of vehicles per unit determined in the statistical analysis va ries 
from a low of 0.2 vehicles to a high of 2.0 vehicles per unit 
Both residents and developers saw a need for additional bicycle facilities, with residents indicating a 
need for secure indoor parking as a very desirable amenity. Most residents will store their bike in their 
apartment rather than in the less secure parking provided by their building. Several times, interviewees 
raised the point that, for the income-restricted buildings, they feel that the cost for parking is far too 
high for the many fam ilies that live there and own a vehicle. 
Both residents and the Overlook Neighborhood Association indicated that are not as concerned with the 
effect of one building parking impact; rather, it is the effect of many of these developments being built 
in t he same area. 
Parking Impacts for New TOO Along Portland Inner Corridors Page42 
November 2012 
Exhibit C 
Cost of Onsite Parking+ Impacts on Affordability 
The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability modeled development data to evaluate the cost of providing onsite 
parking for in fill apartments and impacts on affordability. Six different development prototypes were evaluated. A 
description of methodology used for this evaluation follows. 
Methodology 
i WHAT ARE THE PARKING ALTERNATIV ES THAT WERE EVALUATED? 
Diagram A. Building Prototype Form 
No Parking Tuck-Under Surface Parking 
Podium Mechanical Underground 
, Tuck-
Under Parking 
Tuck-under parking is distinguished by its open configuration. One wall of the parking area is open with no garage 
door. Most tuck-under areas have living space or commercial space abutting the rear wall of the parking area . 
Surface Parking 
Surface parking is a parking lot located on street level. 
Pod ium Parking 
Podium Parking is similar in design to tuck-under parking though will occupy a larger percentage of the 
ground floor. Podium parking would likely require two curb cuts (in and out) to allow for circulation of 
veh icles and may have a negative impact to continuous frontage (street-level activity). 
Cost Comparison: Parking Proto type Impacts on Form and Ajjordabilit y 
Prepared by Bureau of Planning and Susta inability 
Page 1 
November 2012 
Mechanical Parking 
Parking lifts are automated or manual lift systems designed to stack one or more vehicles vert ica lly. Pa rking 
lifts may be located indoors or outdoors. Where space to provide parking is limited, parking lifts may be an 
appropriate method for meeting parking requirements. Parking lifts located outdoors must meet applicable 
height and screening requirements. 
Underground Parking 
Underground parking is a below ground parking lot that is accessed by a ramped entry. Due to the limited site 
size for this building prototype, multi-story parking is not considered as the space required for circulation 
between floors adds significant cost and limits the number of practical spaces per floor. As a result, one level 
of underground parking is considered . 
[HOW \NERE THE BU ILDING PROTOTYPES MODELED? 
Envision Tomorrow 
Envision Tomorrow puts powerful tools in planners' hands to design and test land use, site development, and 
transportation decisions. Envision Tomorrow provides planners with an easy-to-use, analytical decision 
making tool. 
The Envision Tomorrow Prototype Builder & Return on Investment (ROI) Model tests the physical and 
fina ncial feasibility of development. The tool allows for the examination of land use regulations in relation to 
the current development market and considers the impact of parking, height requ irements, construction 
costs, rents and subsidies. This tool can be used to evaluate what development assumptions will generate a 
project profit (reported as 7 to 10 profit on investment in th is study). In this study, the model was used to 
assess how alternative parking scenarios and forms of development, such as tuck-under and podium, might 
become more f inancially feasible. Similarly, by keeping a standard return on investment rate, a range of 
monthly rental rates can be modeled t o more accurately depict the impact on affordability. 
i INH.ll.T DEVE LOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS WERE USED FOR MODELING? 
Site Development Assumptions 
Cost Comparison: Parking Protot>;pe Impacts on Form and Aftardability 
Prepared by Bureau of Planning and Sustamability 
Page 2 
November 2012 
All development prototypes assume a 10,000 square feet lot size with 100 foot depth, or 0.23 acres. CS 
(Storefront Commercial) or Mixed Commercial/Residential (CM) zone is assumed. Both zones intend to 
promote development that combines commercial and housing uses on a single site. This zone allows 
increased development potential on busier streets without fostering a strip commercial appearance. 
Development is intended to consist primarily of businesses on the ground floor with housing on upper stories. 
Development is intended to be pedestrian-oriented with bui ldings close to and oriented to the sidewalk, 
especially at corners. 
Diagram B. CS/CM Building Envelope Guidelines 
J 5' 
.j 
Each development prototype assumes 4 stories of development with an 86% utilization rate. This utilization 
rate accounts for an eleven foot rear building set back and a maximum height reduction to 35 feet for a 25 
foot depth, also at the rear of the building (see Diagram 8). These reductions amount to an approximate loss 
of 6,000 square feet buildable area . 
As part of the modeling, circulation, lobby, and egress spaces internal to the building are discounted from the 
gross building square footage. The no parking development prototype assumes 50 units, which transla tes to 
an average unit size of 550 square feet after circulation spaces. This unit size remains constant throughout 
each of the alternative building prototypes. 
Cost Comparison: Parking Prototype Impacts on Form and A/fordability 
Prepared by Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 
Page 3 
November 2012 
:""" .... ······"--··-· .. ····""'-'"' '' ................ ··- _ .................................................. -....... - ···· · ··---~-·-·· .................. ·-·····-···· -....... . . .. -····----·······--·· ..................... -............... -·········-
! WHAT DEVELOPMENT COST ASS UM PTIONS IJV ERE USED FOR MODELING? 
A site acquisition cost of $27.00/sq ft was assumed based on a sampling of land values in CS zones in Inner 
Portland neighborhoods. For a 10,000 sq foot site this translates to $270,000. Construction costs for 
residential units were set at $109 .00 a square foot. Given an average unit size of 550 sq feet, th is translates 
to approximately $60,000 to produce a residential unit. Standard parking spaces are generally assumed to 
occupy 260 sq feet (including circulation area ). Mechanical parking utilizes half th is space on account for 
stacking spaces. In general two standard parking spaces will replace a res idential unit. This is importa nt as the 
main drivers for unit cost are number of units and overall construction cost. As the cost to produce additional 
parking spaces becomes greater than the cost of the units not produced, rental rates rise. Similarly, as the 
number of units decreases within a project, project costs are distributed in greate r proportion to renters. For 
example, in the tuck-under development prototype there is an overall cost savings as the 5 units that are not 
produced (at a cost of $300,000) come at a greater savings than the cost associated with producing 9 parking 
spaces (at a cost of $20,000 a space or total cost of $180,000). There is a small decrease in the overa ll project 
cost ; however, as there are 5 fewer units to generate monthly revenue, a slim rental rate increase is 
observed. In other development scenarios, as the cost to produce parking increases, there is an increase in 
project cost and a decrease in the tota l number of units resu lting in larger rental rate increases. 
Table A. Cost of Parking 
Parking Type Parking Costs Per Space 
Surface $3,000 
Podium/Structured (above ground) $20,000 
Underground $55,000 
Internal (Tuck Under or Sandwich) $20,000 
Mechanical $45,000 
, HO\N DO THE BU ILDI:'-lG PROTOTYPE ALTERNATIVES PERFORM? 
• A building with no parking is able to utilize the full capacity of the development on the site (factoring in 
assumptions above). In this scenario fifty units and zero parking spaces are constructed. Th is is the most 
affordable unit produced amongst the alternatives. 
A building with tuck-under parking is able to utilize nearly all development capacity, with a loss of 5 
residential units. In this scenario 45 units and 9 parking spaces are constructed. There is a moderate rental 
Cost Comparison: Parking Prototype Impacts on Form and Affordability 
Prepared by Bureau of Planning and Sustamability 
Page4 
November 2012 
rate increase associated with this scenario to accommodate the cost associated with providing tuck-u nder 
spaces and loss of potential residential units. 
• A building with surface parking is able to utilize 50 percent of development capacity. In this scenario 30 
units and 19 parking spaces are constructed. Th ere is a rental rate increase associated wit h this scenario 
to accommodate for t he opportunity cost associated with not producing 20 units. 
• A building with podium parking utilizes 75% of the ground floor to provide parking. In this scenario 42 
units and 22 parking spaces are constructed. There are negative impacts to ground floor activity and 
street frontage which may have a direct impact on surrounding businesses, pedest rians, and street 
character due to additional curb cuts and loss of continuous storefront/ first floor character. 
• A building with mechanical parking utilizes 40% of the ground floor to provide parking. In th is scenario 46 
units and 23 parking spaces are constructed. Mechanical parking is a space-efficient parking alternat ive as 
it stacks parking spaces with the aid of mechanical systems. As a result, more parking spaces can be 
constructed in a smaller space; however, it adds significant cost, at $45,000 a space. 
• A building with underground parking is challenged given the limitations of the 10,000 sq foot lot . The 
practicality of producing underground parking is challenged given the short bay width (less than 100') and 
limitations to circulation between levels. In th is scenario 44 units and 33 parking spaces are construct ed . 
The rental increase can be attributed directly to the cost of providing underground pa rking at a cost of 
$55,000 a space. 
Table B. Building Prototype Summary 
Building 
#of Parking 
Development #of Units 
Prototype Spaces 
No Parking 50 0 
Tuck-Under I 
45 9 
Surface 30 19 
Podium 42 22 
Mechanical 46 23 
Underground 44 33 
•Note: ROI= Return on Investment 
... 
Parking 
7% ROI* Monthly 10 % ROI* Monthly Spaces per 
Unit Rent Rent 
0 $800 $1150 
0.25 $850 $1200 
0.6 $1200 $1800 
0.5 $950 $1350 
0.5 $1175 $1660 
0.75 $1300 $1900 
Cost Comparison: Parking Prototype Impacts on Form and Affordability 
Prepa red by Bureau of Planning and Susta ina bility 
Page 5 
Nov~mbtr 10 J 1 
Cost of Onsite Parking +Impacts on Affordabil ity 
Development U of Uof Parking % of Ground Parking Cost as a Const ruction Potential Monthly Rental Monthly Rent Increase as a 
Prototype Unit s Parking Spaces per Floor used for Percentage Cost Range (550 sq ft apartment)• percentage above No Parking 
Spaces Unit parking of Total Development Prototype 
Construction Cost 
No Parking 0 0% 0% 4.3 M $800 $1,150 
, 
IHI:lloUibi.,CliiiMMU [ ]I.; Ulol&.llllio:lllllilolllillllt:i 50 0 A building with no parking is able to utilize the full capacity of the development on t he site (factoring in assumptions out lined in Met hodology). In llilllllilt:iWWWiilllilihili this scenario fifty units and zero parking spaces are constructed. 
A ... I / UlollolllliillliWIIIblld ... UWUtJiJiJWUIWioi 
Tuck-Under 0.25 I 33% I 4% 4.3 M $850 $1,200 6% 
~ 
llllllitlll'lllllllfllil!l. A building w1th tuck-under parking is able to utilize nearly all development capacity, with a loss of 5 residential units. In this scenario 45 units and 9 I· ,U '-' •ltllion:iWIIIIWtaM 45 9 parking spaces are constructed. There is a moderate rental rate Increase associated with t his scenario to accommodate the cost assoc1ated with lt~WWI!itlillillllllo!li lllll 
" 
. ! . .I 
llot.. t..IWiiilllliUWI>IM providing tuck-unrter spaces and loss of potential residential units. B 11'1 .. 
.... b!hltli.'ildililli lllll 
Surface 0 .6 I 47% I 2% 2.8 M $1,200 . $1,800 SO% 
-
·•''· r1 h.l!'liillllllllll···· A building with surface parkmg Is able to utilize 50 percent of development capacity. In this scenano 30 units and 19 parking spaces are c '• [. ~ ~f' JOJI!Ua~ lollli•••• 30 19 Wli.ll&ftli llllilli·lllll·· constructed. There Is a rental rate mcrease associated with this scenario to accommodate for the o pport unity cost associated with not p roducing . . . 
... .. lif~ lollll···· ·~.... ~- I I 1 ~" ww~•w•••• 20 units. 
Podium 0.5 66% 10% 4.3 M $950 . $1,350 19% 
.. 
.. [ ..lll.l,lllliiii•U• A building with podium pa rking utilizes 75% of the ground floor to provide parking. In this scenario 42 units and 22 parking spaces are constructed . .~1 WliilllliiW~WWiollll 42 22 Jillillllllitillliohii •M There are negative impacts to ground floor activity and st reet frontage which may have a direct impact on surrounding businesses, pedest rians, and -:-~, 
•' tillillllidlolbjllljg •• street character d ue to additional curb cut s and loss o f cont inuous st orefront/ fi rst fl oor character. 0 lilllliihUUoWW•M 
.... ~. 
-
Mechanical 0.5 40% 22% 5.4 M $1,175 $1,660 47% 
Sti Wlllllllllll A building with mechanical parking utilizes 40% of the ground floor to provide parking. In t his scenario 46 un its and 23 parking spaces are I fillioiiiolllllilllil:illilill. 46 23 .]. &lillt.:lh~IIIIWittll• constructed. Mechan ical park1ng is a space-efficient pa rking alternative as it s tacks parking spaces with the aid of mechanical systems. As a result, liailillilllili~ WiliwU:.i• 
E I L I , ilJLIII>lillil llltlfllljU• more parking spaces can be constructed In a smaller space ; however, It adds significant cost, at $45,000 a space. 
Underground 0.75 I 20% I 28% 6.5 M $1,300 $1,900 63% 
-
.. li11'11111111iliiiDII•III 
' bllillllilllliill:llillliiW A building with unde rground parking is challenged given the limitations o f the 10,000 sq foot lo t . The practicality of producing underground parking F I .II.· IUIWWillltlil IIIII II. 44 33 is challe nged given t he short bay width (less than 100') and limitations t o circulat ion between levels. In this scenario 44 units a nd 33 parking spaces llialllilllllillllfll>iilllljllol• 
•., 
,_!:, I • e tWflliiUIIIIflliWilld l are constructer1. The rent almcrease can be attnbuted directly to the cost of providing unde rground parking at a cost of $55,000 a space. 
t!]uousma Urut 
l. tlou~ng Un11 w/PJ~fklf\8 Space 
Based on Results of Env1slon Tomorrow Return on Investment Model & AnalySIS. 
Developm~nu with a Return on lnvestmrnt ofl to JO" ore reported 
--- -------- ll liou\ .ng Un•l Not Buill iii\ • re1ull of provtdtns Piil•k~ns ------------------------------------,--,----:--:-:--::------::---:-:--::--::~ 
Cosr CornporJ,on: Par lcmg Prototype Jmpocu on f otm and Alfordublllty 
Prepared by Bureau of Plolnnlnc and S u5taln<l~llt'r' 
POQ~6 
Let end 
Mu!U-Dwelling Penni! Issued or In progress 
* (#units I# parking spaces) 
City of Portland 
Transit ~rvice 
--No change In Peak Hour service headwa~ 
3 minutes or less increase In Peak Hour service headwa~ 
--Greater than 3 minute Increase In peak hour servtc" headwa~ 
Only bus lines serving pennltted and IJI)Cornlng multl·dw.,Uing projects are 
"Non-Peak" service headwa~ generally r~alned the same or Increased by 
up to 5 minutes, with the exception of lines 24,44 an. 
-
..... 
I 
Multi-Family building permits 2006 - 2012 
New Buildings by District 
DISTRICT #Buildings Total Dus 
No Pkg Pkg No Pkg Pkg 
NORTH 18 17 268 1116 
SE 21 14 472 577 
NW 4 8 206 571 
NE 13 9 305 251 
EAST 4 19 86 478 
sw 5 10 115 273 
TOTAL Non CC 65 77 1452 3266 
cc 7 29 324 5440 
TOTAL All Districts 72 106 1776 8706 
Multi-Family building permits 2006- 2012 
Buildings by Number of Dwelling Units 
Buildings outside Central City 
Building size 
#of units #Buildings Total Dus 
No Pkg Pkg No Pkg Pkg 
1-19 34 32 167 305 
20-39 19 15 499 396 
40-59 10 11 485 525 
60-79 2 10 152 705 
80 or more 1 10 150 1375 
Total 66 78 1453 3306 
Multi-Family building permits 2006 - 2012 
Buildings by Year of Permit 
Buildings outside Central City 
Building size 
#of units #Buildings Total Dus 
Exhibit E 
Avg # Dus Per Average 
Building Spaces I DU 
Parking 
spaces Build ings All 
No Pkg Pkg provided w/ pkg Projects 
15 66 927 0.8 0.7 
22 41 437 0.8 0.4 
52 71 525 0.9 0.7 
23 28 129 0.5 0.2 
22 25 497 1.0 0.9 
23 27 300 1.1 0.8 
22 42 2815 0.9 0.6 
46 188 5820 1.1 1.0 
25 82 8635 1.0 0.8 
Avg # Dus Per Average 
Building Parking S_Q_aces I DU 
spaces Buildings All 
No Pkg Pkg I provided w/ pkg Projects 
5 10 334 1.1 0.7 
26 26 355 0.9 0.4 
49 48 348 0.7 0.3 
76 71 526 0.7 0.6 
150 138 1268 0.9 0.8 
22 42 2831 0.9 0.6 
Avg # Dus Per Average 
Building Parking Spaces I DU 
spaces Buildings All 
No Pkg Pkg No Pkg Pkg No Pkg Pkg provided wl pkg Projects 
2006 11 21 103 572 9 27 623 1.1 0.9 
2007 15 16 303 601 20 38 559 0.9 0.6 
2008 0 15 0 648 0 43 624 1.0 1.0 
2009 1 2 5 71 5 36 53 0.7 0.7 
2010 8 2 207 84 26 42 47 0.6 0.2 
2011 9 3 264 99 29 33 58 0.6 0.2 
2012 16 14 492 976 31 70 708 0.7 0.5 
Total 60 73 1374 3051 23 42 2672 0.9 0.6 
Pet of 
Total DUs 
w/o 
Parking 
19% 
45% 
27% 
55% 
15% 
30% 
31% 
6% 
17% 
of Planning and Sustainability 
City of Portland, Oregon 
SW 4th Ave. Suite 7100, Portland, OR 97201 
P-276 
PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPT. OF LAND C&D 
635 CAPITOL STREET, #150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301 -2 540 
016H26520410 
$03.77Q 
0 412512013 
Ma 1led Fro m 97204 
US POSTAGE