2008 Central City Housing Inventory &ŝŶĂůZĞƉŽƌƚ 2008 Central City Housing Inventory WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJ Portland Development Commission Housing Department ĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŶĚ&ŽƌŵĂƩĞĚďLJ David Sheern WƌŽũĞĐƚdĞĂŵ Rani Boyle, Sharon Johnson, Todd Keley, Kim McCarty, David Sheern, Robert Smith WůĞĂƐĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĂůƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƚŽ͗ ĂǀŝĚ^ŚĞĞƌŶ͕WƌŽũĞĐƚͬWƌŽŐƌĂŵŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ WŽƌƚůĂŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ϮϮϮEtϱƚŚǀĞ WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͕KZϵϳϮϬϵ ƐŚĞĞƌŶĚΛƉĚĐ͘ƵƐ 2008 Central City Housing Inventory TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 INVENTORY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 3 TOTAL HOUSING INVENTORY ................................................................................................. 8 RENTAL HOUSING INVENTORY RESULTS ............................................................................... 10 OWNERSHIP HOUSING INVENTORY RESULTS ....................................................................... 22 RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 26 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 29 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Results of this inventory show clearly that residential development is continuing in the Central City and that the Central City continues to provide a range of housing options for Portlanders. However, the lack of affordability of ownership units and the loss of very-low and low-income rental units may signal reduced housing options for Portlanders earning less than the median income and a loss in the diverse character of Central City residents. Inventory Purpose Every three years the Portland Development Commission conducts an inventory of all residential properties within the Central City as a data collection effort to assist in city-wide decision making and policy development. The Central City Housing Inventory (CCHI) provides a snapshot of the current stock of Central City for-sale and rental housing. Included in this report is information regarding the amount of housing, the type of housing, and the affordability of housing. This information is a critical component in effectively developing and evaluating city policies and initiatives related to housing preservation and development. The last comprehensive Central City Housing Inventory was published by PDC in October 2005. For the 2008 CCHI, Central City refers to the Central City Plan Area as defined by the City of Portland. This area comprises the subdistricts Central Eastside, Downtown, Goose Hollow, Lloyd District, Lower Albina, River District, South Waterfront, and University District.1 The subdistrict boundaries may overlap with, but are not congruent to, urban renewal area boundaries or neighborhood boundaries. Total Housing Units This recent inventory shows that the Central City has 22,994 units, an increase of 4,080 units from 2005 to 2008.2 Of the total units, 68% are rental and 32% are ownership. This represents a shift of 13%, as the 2005 CCHI reported 81% of all Central City units as rental. Additionally, an estimated 4,635 units were constructed 1“Central City” refers to the Central City Plan Area as defined by the City of Portland (33.510) as updated on November 9, 2007 (Ord. No. 181357). 2 Discrepancy between the surveyed result and the accounting of new construction is due to miscalculation in the 2005 CCHI. See p. 8 for further explanation. 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 2 from 2006 to 2008, and another 1,867 units have either been finished and occupied in 2009 or are currently under construction. The River District, South Waterfront, and Downtown subdistricts have experienced the most new construction activity over the past three years. Rental Inventory Central City residential units contain a range of affordability. While the percentage of rental units affordable to very-low- and low- income households has decreased since 2005, rental units affordable to households at or below 60% median family income (MFI) still comprise over half of all rental units. The loss in units affordable to lower incomes has been mirrored by an increase in units affordable to households earning more than 120% MFI. This increase is likely due to the development of the South Waterfront as well as the recent conversion of planned condo developments to high-end rental. During analysis of the inventory data, the following became clear:  Unit Type: Rental units within the Central City continue to be primarily smaller studio and one- bedroom units. Two- and three-bedroom units account for only 11.4% of all rental units.  Affordable Subdistricts: Subdistricts east of the Willamette remain more affordable than those on the west side. Rents per square foot for east side rental units are $.10 to $.20 cheaper than comparable units on the west side.  No Net Loss Units: The City continues to meet the No Net Loss Policy established in 2002. An estimated 8,473 rental units are classified as being within the No Net Loss affordability category. The benchmark established in 2002 was 8,286 units. Ownership Inventory Ownership housing within the Central City continues to exhibit a very limited affordability for households earning at or below the median income. Of the 7,326 ownership units identified in this inventory, only 7% would be within the purchasing power of a household earning below 120% MFI. The bulk of ownership units remain concentrated in the River District subdistrict. However, the South Waterfront subdistrict saw new development of 760 condo units in the past three years, and it now contains 10.4% of the Central City’s total ownership units. The subdistricts east of the Willamette continue to see very little development of ownership housing. Combined, they account for only 3.4% of the total. 13% 23% 18% 18% 14% 14% 2008 Central City Rental Units Affordability by Median Family Income 0-30% MFI 31-50% MFI 51-60% MFI 61-80% MFI 81-120% MFI 120+% MFI 48.7% 26.7% 10.8% 10.5% 2.0% 1.3% 0.01% 0.01% River District Downtown Goose Hollow South Waterfront Lloyd District Central Eastside Lower Albina University Distribution of Ownership Housing 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 3 INVENTORY METHODOLOGY The Central City Housing Inventory is an effort to take a “snap shot” view of residential conditions within the Central City plan area. This includes calculating the total number of rental and ownership units as well as gathering data on rents, demographics, sales prices, and distribution of housing. The Central City Plan District is divided into eight subdistricts. For consistency, the CCHI reports housing data is based on these subdistricts to allow for more detailed geographic analysis. These subdistricts are:  Central Eastside  Downtown  Goose Hollow  Lloyd District  Lower Albina  River District  South Waterfront  University District The South Waterfront and University District subdistricts are new to the 2008 CCHI. The South Waterfront subdistrict was not included in the 2005 CCHI due to the absence of housing within its boundaries, and housing within the University District subdistrict was included within the Downtown subdistrict numbers. A map of each subdistrict is available in Appendix A. Rental Housing Inventory Due to a lack of specific unit and rent data within available databases, the majority of rental data in the 2008 CCHI comes from a rental property survey process. Survey Methodology In early 2008, the CCHI team created a comprehensive rental survey and mailed it to rental property owners and/or managers. The team worked to increase the survey response rate by ensuring that the survey was both concise and easy to understand and fill out. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix B. The survey consists of 4 sections and is focused on collecting information related to building type, utilities, building amenities, rents, unit types, total number of units, income restrictions, and funding subsidy sources. The survey was designed to simplify its completion by property owners but also collect all of the desired information. Using the city’s GIS database, PDC GIS staff identified all rental properties within the Central City boundary. A number of Central City properties had vague designation as “Office with Store/Apartment Above”; these properties were included in the survey group to ensure all rental properties were accounted for. Based on the database, paper surveys were mailed to all known addresses of rental property owners and/or managers. If no address was indicated for the owner/manager, surveys were mailed to the physical address. Of the 456 properties originally identified as potentially containing rental housing units, the first mailing resulted in survey responses from 94 properties. Another 103 properties returned information 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 4 indicating they contained no residential units. Due to the poor initial response rate, the team re-mailed surveys and followed up with phone calls and emails to property owners/managers. This effort resulted in the return of another 51 surveys. In winter 2008, the team contracted Right of Way Assoc. to conduct door-to-door visits to the remaining unresponsive properties. Following this effort, the team was able to collect surveys for 201 total rental properties and 11,764 total rental units. Based on eliminating properties that returned surveys indicating they were non-residential, the estimated total number of Central City rental properties is 293. The 201 returned surveys indicate a response rate of 68.6%. To ensure that the 2008 CCHI captured the full universe of Central City rental properties, the property list was compared against Portland building permit data, internal PDC asset management records, and the 2005 CCHI list of rental properties. After multiple checks, the CCHI team determined that the database contained all known rental properties. Estimating Total Central City Rental Units Unit data for the 85 properties that failed to complete surveys was collected from four external sources. Unresponsive properties were first compared against Portland building permit data for 2005-2008. If property data was not available from this source, the property was compared against the internal PDC asset management database followed by information collected by PDC through the Westside Housing Study. If no unit data for a property was available from either of these sources, the unit data for the property from the 2005 CCHI was used. If unit data for a property was available from multiple external sources and the data conflicted, the figure from the most reliable data source was used. Following this method, the team was able to estimate that the additional 85 properties contain an estimated 3,937 units. This accounts for the total rental unit count of 15,601, as of January 31, 2009. Confidence Interval Based on an estimated inventory of 15,601 rental units and a survey sample size of 11,764, the team calculated that the collected data was accurate to within .5% at a 99% confidence level. This confidence interval provides assurance that survey data collected accurately reflects the full inventory of Central City rental units. A review of the survey responses showed that there was no disparity between the number of responses received from non-profit and for-profit owners. Calculating Rental Affordability Levels Following survey collection, the team analyzed the rent data and calculated the affordability level for each unit according the percent of median family income (MFI) a household would need to earn so that the rent and utility costs were no greater than 30% of gross monthly income. To ensure consistency, team used the highest reported rent for each unit. Additionally, based on what type of heat source is used (gas, electric, oil) and what utilities are covered in the rent payment, a monthly utility cost for each unit was calculated using the HUD utility cost chart. The highest rent and calculated utility cost were combined to determine the total monthly cost for each unit. The following table shows the maximum rents plus utilities that are affordable for unit types and household sizes based on MFI. For example, a household of three earning 60% MFI would be able to afford $916/month in housing costs. 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 5 Percent of Median Family Income # of Bedrooms Household Size 30% 50% 60% 80% 120% 0 1 $356 $593 $712 $950 $1,417 1 1.5 $381 $636 $763 $1,018 $1,620 2 3 $458 $763 $916 $1,222 $1,822 3 4.5 $529 $882 $1,059 $1,412 $2,025 (Based on 2008 HUD Portland Area Median Income: $67,500 for family of four) To illustrate MFI levels in practical terms, the following graph shows average wages for a variety of jobs and how they relate to total MFI level.3 For example, a single bank teller making $25,000/year would earn 48% MFI, and therefore would be able to afford up to $636 in total monthly household costs. If a nurse were married to a security guard, their combined incomes would put them in the 100-120% MFI category. Presumably, they would be able to afford to monthly household costs in the range of $1,200 to $1,620. Ownership Housing Inventory The full inventory of for-sale residential units within the Central City is available from the Portland GIS database; each for-sale property is assigned a specific number. As a first step, the PDC GIS team pulled all for-sale property records for the Central City. This list was culled by the CCHI team to remove non- residential property listings, including parking spaces, condo storage spaces, and vacant lots. This initial list included 6,500 units. Following this initial data gathering, several for-sale housing projects were developed and approved for occupancy. If city GIS data were not available for these new properties, unit information was pulled from Portland building permit data. This combination resulted in a count of 7,393 units, as of January 31, 2009. 3 This chart uses an assumed household size of 1.75 as the majority of Central City rental units are 1-bedroom or less. C h ild C a re W o rk e r S e cu ri ty G u a rd R e ta il W o rk e r B a n k T e lle r Ja n it o r G ra p h ic D e si g n e r* A rc h it e ct * A d m in . A ss is ta n t C o n st ru ct io n W o rk e r N u rs e P la n n e r* P ro g ra m m e r* S o ci a l W o rk e r F ir e F ig h te r S ch o o l T e a ch e r P o lic e O ff ic e r Income $21K $24K $25K $25K $26K $30K $33K $37K $39K $39K $40K $40K $43K $47K $49K $54K %MFI 40% 46% 48% 48% 49% 57% 63% 70% 74% 74% 76% 76% 82% 89% 93% 103% Child Care $21K 40% Security Guard $24K 46% Retail Worker $25K 48% Bank Teller $25K 48% Janitor $26K 49% Graphic Design* $30K 57% Architect* $33K 63% Admin. Asst. $37K 70% Constr. Worker $39K 74% Nurse $39K 74% Planner* $40K 76% Programmer* $40K 76% Social Worker $43K 82% Fire Fighter $47K 89% School Teacher $49K 93% Police Officer $54K 103% < 100% MFI > 150% MFI 120-150% MFI 100-120% MFI *Entry level position 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 6 To ensure that the full inventory of for-sale residential units had been counted, this list of properties was compared against the 2005 CCHI properties list, Portland building permit data, and internal PDC databases. This comparison indicated no missing properties. Using this list, the team pulled information on each property including interior unit square footage, assessed value, real market value, property address, and owner address. Calculating Ownership Affordability Levels Calculating the affordability of for-sale units involved formulating an assumed monthly housing cost for each unit. For owned units, monthly housing costs include principal and interest payments, property taxes, home insurance, and utilities/HOA fees. To best determine the current value of for-sale properties, the team used the current market value rates assigned in the property assessor database. It is understood that these market values may not reflect actual current market value given declines in the overall market, but on average they provide a fair look at housing purchase prices. Cost calculation included the following assumptions:  Monthly housing costs as 33% of gross monthly income o 25% of housing costs dedicated to principal and interest loan payments o 8% of housing costs to taxes, insurance, utilities  30 year fixed mortgage at 6.25%  5% down payment As an example, a household of two earning 100% MFI of $54,000/year would be able to afford $1,485 in monthly housing costs. Using the assumptions above, they would be able to afford a mortgage of $182,714. After calculating monthly housing costs and purchase prices, the information was compared to the market value of each unit. For example, a one-bedroom unit with a market value of $235,000 would be affordable to a two-person household earning more than 120% MFI. Issues of Continuity between 2005 CCHI and 2008 CCHI Data collected through the 2008 CCHI is compared in this report with data from the 2005 CCHI. This comparison provides a greater understanding of changes in the Central City Housing market than if the report were to only provide 2008 data. However, there are continuity issues that need to be noted. Despite the information in the 2005 CCHI methodology, the 2005 CCHI chose to include shelter and student beds as units within the total unit count. This is made clear in the chart on p.9. It is this team’s opinion that counting beds as units is inconsistent and serves to inflate the total unit count. For the 2008 CCHI, both shelter and student beds are counted separately from actual rental and ownership units. Also, for comparison of total unit counts in 2005 and 2008, shelter and student beds were removed from the total unit count reported in the 2005 CCHI. This reduces the 2005 CCHI total unit count from 20,016, as originally reported, to 18,914. Additionally, general review of the 2005 CCHI 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 7 shows that data sourcing for the total unit count was inconsistent and leads the reviewer to conclude that the 2005 CCHI total unit count was over reported. Additionally, within the 2005 CCHI, particularly the rental unit inventory section, there are conflicting reports of unit numbers and conflicting calculation methods. Most at odds is the MFI calculations. The 2005 CCHI was consistent in the reported rent levels that were chosen to calculate MFI. For a portion of units the lowest reported rent was used, whereas on other the highest rent reported was used. The 2008 CCHI is consistent in using only the highest reported rents, which may affect some comparisons. It is also unclear how or if the 2005 CCHI used external data sources to supplement survey results in estimating the total unit count. Finally, there are consistency issues concerning calculation of ownership unit affordability. The 2005 CCHI used last sale amount for each ownership unit for the affordability calculation. Therefore, if a unit was last sold in 1985 for 105,000, the 2005 CCHI used $105,000 as the unit’s cost if it were to have been sold in 2005. This method does not reflect appreciation, and thus undervalues the cost of ownership units. Furthermore, the 2005 CCHI makes no mention of the assumptions used to calculate ownership affordability, so the team was unable to compare mortgage rate and tax cost assumptions. 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 8 TOTAL HOUSING INVENTORY The Central City has a varied residential character, ranging from single-family homes in the Central Eastside and Goose Hollow to condominium towers in Downtown, River District, and South Waterfront. At the conclusion of 2008, the Central City contained a total 22,994 housing units. The table below shows the distribution of residential units by tenure and location within subdistricts. Each of the subdistricts contributes differently to the overall Central City housing market. As can be expected, the Downtown and the River District subdistricts account for the majority of housing units; however, due to the subdivision of the University District from the Downtown subdistrict and the growth experienced in the Pearl (River) District, the River District subdistrict now contains the largest proportion of housing units. The subdistricts east of the Willamette River combine for a much smaller portion of the housing market with a total of 2,209 units. This represents only 9.7% of all Central City housing. Housing Increase Since 2005 Comparing 2008 CCHI total unit count with the 2005 CCHI shows that housing in the Central City increased by over 4,000 units in the past three years.4 This is increase is slightly lower, but consistent with, the number of residential new construction projects completed over the same time period. As shown in the table on the following page, the River District and South Waterfront subdistricts saw the greatest increase in units over the past three years, increasing by 2,889 and 1,270 units respectively. In the 2005 CCHI, the University District subdistrict was included as part of the Downtown subdistrict, which accounts for the large difference in this comparison. However, when the 2008 unit counts for the Downtown and University subdistricts are combined and compared with the 2005 CCHI Downtown unit count, there appears to have been a modest decline of 286 units. 4 The 2005 CCHI includes shelter beds and special needs beds in the total unit count. For purposes of comparison in this report, shelter beds and special needs beds were removed from the 2005 CCHI total unit count as these were not included as units in the 2008 CCHI. In the 2008 CCHI, shelter beds and special needs beds are calculated and reported separately from residential units. Tenure Central Eastside Downtown Goose Hollow Lloyd District Lower Albina River District South Waterfront University Central City Total Rental 863 4,940 2,162 1,017 86 4,573 503 1,457 15,601 Owner 94 2,002 798 148 1 3,582 767 1 7,393 CC Total 957 6,942 2,960 1,165 87 8,155 1,270 1,458 22,994 % of CC Units 4.2% 30.2% 12.9% 5.1% 0.4% 35.5% 5.5% 6.3% Sources: 2008 CCHI Surveys, Property Ta x Rol l s 2008 Estimated Total Number of Housing Units In the Central City by Tenure and Subdistrict 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 9 Changes in Rental versus Ownership Over the past three years, the Central City has experienced a shift in the tenure make up of residential units. In 2005, 81% of Central City residential units were rental. Rental units now make up 68% of the total. This 13% shift is likely a result of new condo construction as an estimated 3,168 new units have been built over the past three years. The small increase in rental units would indicate that if condo conversions took place, it was not widespread. Further analysis of the total unit counts shows that the ratio of rental units to ownership units for most subdistricts stayed constant. Other than South Waterfront, which contained no units in 2005, Goose Hollow was the only subdistrict to experience a shift from rental to ownership. Over the past three years, Goose Hollow has lost an estimated 458 rental units and gained 550 ownership units. The 554 new ownership units in the Civic, Jefferson, and Westerly Condominium development may account for a portion of this shift, but the loss of rental units signals the likelihood of condo conversions. The largest conversion of rental units to condos took place in the Downtown subdistrict at the Harrison property (1720 SW 4th Ave) where 354 rental units were converted to ownership. Rental Owner Total Central Eastside 2005 852 60 912 2008 863 94 957 Difference 11 34 45 Downtown 2005 7,785 901 8,686 2008 4,940 2,002 6,942 Difference (2,845) 1,101 (1,744) Goose Hollow 2005 2,620 248 2,868 2008 2,162 798 2,960 Difference (458) 550 92 Lloyd District 2005 1,038 121 1,159 2008 1,017 148 1,165 Difference (21) 27 6 Lower Albina 2005 22 1 23 2008 86 1 87 Difference 64 0 64 River District 2005 2,926 2,340 5,266 2008 4,573 3,582 8,155 Difference 1,647 1,242 2,889 South Waterfront 2005 0 0 0 2008 503 767 1,270 Difference 503 767 1,270 University District 2005 n/a n/a n/a 2008 1,457 1 1,458 Difference 1,457 1 1,458 Central City Total 2005 15,243 3,671 18,914 2008 15,601 7,393 22,994 Difference 358 3,722 4,080 Comparison of Total Housing Units 2005 to 2008 by Subdistrict 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 10 RENTAL HOUSING INVENTORY RESULTS The Central City includes an estimated 15,601 rental units ranging in size from duplexes to large developments like the newly constructed 323-unit Ardea in South Waterfront. Rental survey data was obtained for 11,764 units, or 75% of the estimated total. This large sample size provides a high confidence interval of +/- .5% which allows the data user to make accurate assumptions based on survey results. Income Affordability The collected survey data classifies the units by the median family income (MFI) of renters for which they would be considered affordable. The study infers residents’ incomes from the gross rent and number of bedrooms in a unit as described in the methodology. This does not represent the actual income of the resident. The rental units are categorized in income ranges that assume a maximum gross rent of 30% of the tenant’s gross monthly income. The income ranges are based on HUD’s MFI estimates, as detailed in the methodology. According to survey results, over half (54%) of all Central City rental units are affordable to households earning at least 60% MFI, while the large majority (72%) are affordable to households at 80% MFI. At a more detailed level, survey results show that the Central Eastside subdistrict contains the highest proportion of rental units affordable at 60% MFI or below, followed by Lower Albina, Downtown and the River District. In contrast, the South Waterfront, Lloyd District, and University subdistricts contain the highest concentrations of units priced at 80% MFI and above. The South Waterfront and the Lloyd District are the only two subdistricts with no units affordable at 50% MFI or below. The River District subdistrict, which includes both the Pearl and Old Town/China Town neighborhoods, appears to have the most balanced range of affordability in its rental units. It is the only subdistrict where no single MFI level comprises more than 30% of the total units within the subdistrict. 13% 23% 18% 18% 14% 14% 2008 Central City Rental Units Affordability by Median Family Income 0-30% MFI 31-50% MFI 51-60% MFI 61-80% MFI 81-120% MFI 120+% MFI Source: 2008 CCHI Survey Result Confidence Interval: +/- .5% 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 11 Affordability Changes 2005 to 2008 Affordability of Central City rental units has shifted away from very-low and low-income units since 2005. The percentage of total rental units in the 0-30% and 31-50% MFI categories decreased by a combined 22.5% in the last three years. This decrease was mirrored by an 11.8% increase in units affordable to households earning at or above 120% MFI. Central City Subdistricts 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + Unknown Total Units Central Eastside 46 393 125 94 28 0 6 692 % of Units 6.6% 56.8% 18.1% 13.6% 4.0% 0.0% 0.9% 5.9% Downtown 640 1282 424 704 330 458 0 3,838 % of Units 16.7% 33.4% 11.0% 18.3% 8.6% 11.9% 0.0% 32.6% Goose Hollow 161 177 466 620 40 24 0 1,488 % of Units 10.8% 11.9% 31.3% 41.7% 2.7% 1.6% 0.0% 12.6% Lloyd District 0 0 56 72 226 0 0 354 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 15.8% 20.3% 63.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% Lower Albina 0 0 42 24 0 0 0 66 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 63.6% 36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% River District 689 798 812 149 392 951 0 3,791 % of Units 18.2% 21.0% 21.4% 3.9% 10.3% 25.1% 0.0% 32.2% South Waterfront 0 0 0 0 101 79 0 180 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.1% 43.9% 0.0% 1.5% University 3 75 194 476 546 61 0 1,355 % of Units 0.2% 5.5% 14.3% 35.1% 40.3% 4.5% 0.0% 11.5% CC Total 1,539 2,725 2,119 2,139 1,663 1,573 6 11,764 13.1% 23.2% 18.0% 18.2% 14.1% 13.4% 0.1% Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys 2008 Surveyed Rental Housing Units by Median Family Income Income Affordability by MFI Range Confidence Interva l : +/- .5% Central City No Net Loss Units 54.3% of surveyed units 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + Unknown 2005 19.8% 39.0% 15.2% 14.9% 9.5% 1.6% 0.0% 2008 13.1% 23.2% 18.0% 18.2% 14.1% 13.4% 0.1% Difference -6.7% -15.8% 2.8% 3.3% 4.6% 11.8% 0.1% Sources: 2005 CCHI, 2008 Rental Surveys No Net Loss Units Income Affordability by MFI Range Comparison of All Rental Units 2005 to 2008 Includes Restricted and Open Market Rental Units 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 12 Affordability and Distribution of Open Market Rental Units Of the survey responses, 5,135 units (43.7%) indicated as having no tenant or income restrictions. The table below displays the affordability of surveyed, open-market rental units by subdistrict. As is evident, the majority of open-market rental units are priced above 80% MFI with 76% priced above 60% MFI. Only the Central Eastside and Lower Albina subdistricts contain a large percentage of open- market units affordable at 60% MFI and below. Of the westside subdistricts, Downtown and Goose Hollow are the only subdistricts to have more than 10% of their open-market units with rents affordable at 60% MFI and below. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the River District and South Waterfront have the largest proportions of open-market units priced at 120% MFI and above. Affordability Changes 2005 to 2008 The shift toward higher costs reflected in all rental units is primarily due to increasing costs of open- market rental units. The percentage of rental units priced at or below 80% MFI has decreased markedly over the last three years. The proportion of open-market rental units priced above 120% MFI increased by 27.1%, while the proportion of open-market units affordable below 50% MFI decreased by 21.1%. Central City Subdistricts 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + Total Units Central Eastside 2 235 131 94 28 0 490 % of Units 0.4% 48.0% 26.7% 19.2% 5.7% 0.0% Downtown 18 117 220 298 326 458 1,437 % of Units 1.3% 8.1% 15.3% 20.7% 22.7% 31.9% Goose Hollow 2 83 200 512 40 24 861 % of Units 0.2% 9.6% 23.2% 59.5% 4.6% 2.8% Lloyd District 0 0 56 72 226 0 354 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 15.8% 20.3% 63.8% 0.0% Lower Albina 0 0 42 24 0 0 66 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 63.6% 36.4% 0.0% 0.0% River District 0 93 0 0 343 951 1,387 % of Units 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 24.7% 68.6% South Waterfront 0 0 0 0 101 79 180 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.1% 43.9% University 0 0 14 121 164 61 360 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 33.6% 45.6% 16.9% CC Total 22 528 663 1,121 1,228 1,573 5,135 % of Total Units 0.4% 10.3% 12.9% 21.8% 23.9% 30.6% Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Confidence Interva l : +/- .5% 2008 Surveyed Open Market Rental Housing Units by Median Family Income Central City No Net Loss Units 23.6% of open market units Income Affordability by MFI Range 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 13 Distribution of Tenant and/or Income Restricted Rental Units The balance of the survey responses, 6,629 units (56.3%) indicated the units were restricted by tenant or income.5 The table below displays the affordability of surveyed, restricted rental units by subdistrict. 5 Restricted occupancy applies to any unit in which there are occupancy requirements other than basic tenant screening. Restrictions are most commonly tied to public funding such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits, HUD subsidies, other Federal funds, or Tax Increment Financing gap loans. 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + 2005 5.2% 26.6% 19.7% 28.3% 16.6% 3.5% 2008 0.4% 10.3% 12.9% 21.8% 23.9% 30.6% Difference -4.8% -16.3% -6.8% -6.5% 7.3% 27.1% Sources: 2005 CCHI, 2008 Renta l Surveys Income Affordability by MFI Range No Net Loss Units Comparison of Open Market Rental Units 2005 to 2008 Does not Include Restricted Units Central City Subdistricts 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + Total Units Central Eastside 44 158 0 0 0 0 202 % of Units 21.8% 78.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Downtown 622 1165 204 406 4 0 2,401 % of Units 25.9% 48.5% 8.5% 16.9% 0.2% 0.0% Goose Hollow 159 94 266 108 0 0 627 % of Units 25.4% 15.0% 42.4% 17.2% 0.0% 0.0% Lloyd District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Lower Albina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% River District 689 705 812 149 49 0 2,404 % of Units 28.7% 29.3% 33.8% 6.2% 2.0% 0.0% South Waterfront 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% University 3 75 180 355 382 0 995 % of Units 0.3% 7.5% 18.1% 35.7% 38.4% 0.0% CC Total 1,517 2,197 1,462 1,018 435 0 6,629 % of Total Units 22.9% 33.1% 22.1% 15.4% 6.6% 0.0% Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Confidence Interva l : +/- .5% 2008 Surveyed Restricted Rental Housing Units by Median Family Income Central City No Net Loss Units 78.1% of restricted units Income Affordability by MFI Range 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 14 While the Downtown and River District subdistricts contain the largest number of restricted rental units, the South Waterfront, Lloyd District and Lower Albina subdistricts contain few or no restricted rental units. Additionally, the majority of surveyed rental units in the University, Downtown, and River District subdistricts have some type of restriction (73%, 63%, and 63% respectively). The large majority of restricted units are made affordable at 60% MFI and below, primarily due to the availability of tax credits and public financing products for units at these affordability levels. Tenant-Based Section 8 Vouchers Of the 201 rental properties surveyed, 31 indicated that they currently accept HUD Section 8 vouchers6 for individual tenants and 323 Section 8 vouchers are in use. Applied to the full inventory of rental properties, this survey data would indicate that 15% of Central City rental properties, or 44 properties, accept Section 8 vouchers. Project-Based Section 8 Properties In addition to tenant-based assistance, the Section 8 program also awards vouchers to specific projects that enter into assistance contracts with the local housing authority. The rental assistance is tied to a specific number of units within the project and the housing authority pays the owner the difference between 30 percent of family income and the gross rent for the unit. Project-based assistance contracts are generally in place for 10 years and are dependent on continued federal funding. Twenty-two of the surveyed properties indicated that they currently have project-based assistance contracts with the local housing authority covering a total of 1,798 units. Over half of the properties receiving assistance and over 60% of these subsidized units are government or non- 6 Through the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program, the administering housing authority issues a voucher to an income-qualified household, which then finds a unit to rent. If the unit meets the Section 8 quality standards, the PHA then pays the landlord the amount equal to the difference between 30 percent of the tenant's adjusted income and the PHA-determined payment standard for the area. The rent must be reasonable compared with similar unassisted units. (From hud.gov) Central City Subdistrict Total Buildings # of Vouchers in Use Central Eastside 3 31 Downtown 9 94 Goose Hollow 3 14 Lloyd District 1 1 Lower Albina 0 0 River District 13 180 South Waterfront 0 0 University 2 3 CC Total 31 323 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Tenant-Based Section 8 Properties 2008 Surveyed Rental Properties Accepting Tenant- Based Section 8 Vouchers by Subdistrict Central City Subdistrict Total Buildings Subsidized Units Total Units Central Eastside 1 57 58 Downtown 12 1,171 1,231 Goose Hollow 3 137 185 Lloyd District 0 0 0 Lower Albina 0 0 0 River District 6 433 491 South Waterfront 0 0 0 University 0 0 0 CC Total Non-Profit/Gov't Owned For-Profit Owned 22 13 9 1,798 1,121 677 1,965 1,237 728 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Project Based Section 8 Properties 2008 Surveyed Rental Properties with Project-Based Section 8 by Subdistrict 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 15 profit owned, the remainder being privately owned. This is important to note, as units with expiring Section 8 contracts are in jeopardy of losing their affordability if federal assistance is not continued. The City of Portland is currently assessing the future funding options for all Central City project-based Section 8 properties. No Net Loss Units The “No Net Loss” Resolution (#36021) passed by City Council in August 2001 establishes the policy that either through preservation or replacement, the City will maintain the number of units that were affordable at 60% MFI and below in 2002, according to the baseline established in the 2002 CCHI. The 2002 CCHI estimated there were 8,286 rental units affordable at 60% MFI and below in the Central City. The 2008 CCHI rental surveys indicate that 6,389 (54.3%) surveyed rental units currently meet the designation as No Net Loss units. Projections of these survey results to the estimated total inventory of Central City rental units would indicate that approximately 8,473 Central City rental units are affordable at 60% MFI and below. Consequently, the No Net Loss policy is currently being met. As shown in the table below, the bulk of No Net Loss units (81%) have attached tenant or income restrictions. Only 19% of No Net Loss units are being provided by the unrestricted, private market, the majority of which are in the Central Eastside, Downtown, and Goose Hollow subdistricts. While the distribution of No Net Loss units varies throughout the Central City, the Central Eastside, Downtown, and River District each have a higher proportion of No Net Loss units compared to their proportion of total number of rental units. The University subdistrict is the most out of proportion when comparing No Net Loss units to total units.  0-30% MFI Rental Housing: Housing units affordable to very low-income households account for 13% of the total, surveyed rental units. The Downtown subdistrict has the majority of the open- market 0-30% MFI units; while the Downtown and River District contain the majority of restricted 0-30% MFI units. Units % Units % Central Eastside 202 35% 368 65% 570 9% Downtown 1,991 85% 355 15% 2,346 37% Goose Hollow 519 65% 285 35% 804 13% Lloyd District 0 0% 56 100% 56 1% Lower Albina 0 0% 42 100% 42 1% River District 2,206 96% 93 4% 2,299 36% South Waterfront 0 - 0 - 0 0% University 258 95% 14 5% 272 4% CC Total 5,176 81% 1,213 19% 6,389 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys % of Total NNL Units 2008 Surveyed No Net Loss Rental Units by Subdistrict and Restriction Confidence Interval: +/- .5% Central City Subdistricts Restricted Open Market No Net Loss Units Total NNL Units 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 16  31-50% MFI Rental Housing: Over 43% of surveyed no net loss units are affordable at 31-50% MFI, making this the largest affordability tranche. More than half of the total surveyed units in the Central Eastside subdistrict are priced in this range; at the same time, only 22% of all surveyed rental units in subdistricts west of the river are affordable at 31-50% MFI.  51-60 % MFI Rental Housing: Units in this category account for 55% of all surveyed, open-market no net loss units. A lower percentage of 51-60% MFI rental units have restrictions compared to the lower-income categories. The River District subdistrict has the highest percentage of surveyed 51-60% MFI units, although all units at this income are restricted and none is open- market. No Net Loss Rental Unit Ownership Survey data indicate that over half of all no net loss units are owned by public or non-profit entities, as well as the majority of no net loss units in the Downtown, River District, and University subdistricts. Lloyd District, Lower Albina, Goose Hollow and Central Eastside subdistricts all have a majority of privately-owned no net loss units. No Net Loss Rental Units Sizes Survey results show that single resident occupancy and studios account for the large majority (77%) of all surveyed no net loss units. Remarkably, only 3% of all no net loss units are two- or three-bedroom units and virtually all of those larger units are located within the River District subdistrict. CES DT GH Lloyd Low Alb RD SW Univ Public/Non-Profit Owned 241 1,307 173 0 0 1,678 0 255 3,654 57.2% Privately Owned/Restricted 50 684 346 0 0 528 0 3 1,611 25.2% Privately Owned/Unrestricted 279 355 285 56 42 93 0 14 1,124 17.6% Total Units 570 2,346 804 56 42 2,299 0 272 6,389 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys 2008 Surveyed No Net Loss Units by Owner Type and Subdistrict Confidence Interval : +/- .5% Ownership Type & Restriction Central City Sub Areas Total Units % of Total Units Central Eastside 9% 6% 3% Downtown 37% 33% 4% Goose Hollow 13% 13% 0% Lloyd District 1% 3% -2% Lower Albina 1% 1% 0% River District 36% 32% 4% South Waterfront 0% 2% -2% University 4% 12% -7% Confidence Interva l : +/- .5% % of Total NNL Units % of Total Rental Units Difference Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Central City Subdistricts 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 17 Moderate, Middle and High Income Rental Housing  61-80% MFI Rental Housing: Housing serving moderate-income residents makes up 18% of the total surveyed units. The highest concentrations of moderate income rental units are in the Downtown, Goose Hollow, and University subdistricts. In the River District, 61-80% MFI units comprise only 3% of the subdistrict’s total rental units; outside of the South Waterfront, which contains no 61-80% MFI units, the River District is the subdistrict with the lowest percentage of moderate income units. For contrast, 61-80% MFI units make up 18% and 35% of the units in Downtown and University subdistricts respectively. Middle and High Income All told, rent levels affordable to households at or above 80% MFI make up 28% of the total surveyed rental units, but account for over 54% of total, open-market surveyed rental units. CES DT GH Lloyd LA RD SW Univ Total SRO 0-30% MFI 0 239 2 0 0 577 0 0 818 31-50% MFI 159 385 30 0 0 284 0 29 887 51-60% MFI 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 145 231 Total 1,936 Studio 0-30% MFI 14 333 85 0 0 43 0 0 475 31-50% MFI 140 741 75 0 0 374 0 46 1,376 51-60% MFI 84 242 341 13 42 386 0 49 1,157 Total 3,008 One Bedroom 0-30% MFI 29 67 73 0 0 53 0 0 222 31-50% MFI 93 156 72 0 0 121 0 0 442 51-60% MFI 36 73 112 38 0 313 0 0 572 Total 1,236 Two Bedroom 0-30% MFI 2 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 13 31-50% MFI 1 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 20 51-60% MFI 5 23 11 3 0 113 0 0 155 Total 188 Three Bedroom 0-30% MFI 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 31-50% MFI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51-60% MFI 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total 11 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Central City Subareas# of Bedrooms MFI Level Confidence Interva l: +/- .5% 2008 Surveyed No Net Loss Units by Unit Type, MFI Level and Subdistrict 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 18  81-120% MFI Rental Housing: The majority of surveyed units in both the Lloyd District and South Waterfront subdistricts fall within this income range; while units in this range account for less than 10% of surveyed units in the Central Eastside, Downtown, and Goose Hollow subdistricts.  120% + MFI Rental Housing: This income category contains 13% of all surveyed rental units and 31% of all surveyed open-market rental units. The highest number and highest proportion of units priced at or above 120% MFI are found in the River District, with units at this price level accounting for a quarter of the River District subdistrict’s total units. None of the eastside subdistricts has units in this range. The inventory of units in this income category is likely to increase in the coming year as several large condo projects have converted to high-end rental. Open Market Rental Rates The table on this page displays the average rent costs (not including utilities or parking costs) by square foot for open-market rental units according to surveyed properties. As would be expected, eastside subdistricts all have lower square foot costs than westside subdistricts. The River District and University subdistricts have the highest costs, with both topping $2/ft2. The Central City as a whole averages approximately $1.49/ft2. Compared with averages from the 2005 CCHI, it appears rent averages have increased slightly overall, with the largest increases occurring in the River District and Central Eastside subdistricts. Additional Entry Costs Of the 201 surveyed rental properties, 121 indicated that they charged entry costs to new tenants beyond standard application fees and security deposits. This is important to track, as any additional costs to rent a unit may create an additional barrier for low- and moderate-income residents in finding a place to rent. These additional charges are often described as move in/move out fees, cleaning fees, or apartment preparation fees. Fees associated with pets are not included in this analysis. The additional costs ranged from $10 to $800, with the average being $145 and the median $50. The difference between average and median costs shows that there are a few properties that charge high fees, but that the majority of charges are in the range of $25 to $100. 2005 Average 2008 Average Difference Central Eastside $1.17 $1.26 $0.09 Downtown $1.68 $1.62 ($0.06) Goose Hollow $1.29 $1.30 $0.01 Lloyd District $1.32 $1.09 ($0.23) Lower Albina n/a $1.21 - River District $1.89 $2.08 $0.19 South Waterfront n/a $1.44 - University n/a $2.06 - Central City $1.47 $1.49 $0.02 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Central City Subdistricts All Open-Market Rental Units Average Rent per Square Foot for Surveyed Central City Rental Units 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 19 Unit Types Survey results clearly indicate that the vast majority of Central City rental units are small units aimed at individuals and couples. Over 88% of all surveyed rental units were one- bedroom or less, with the majority being studios or single resident occupancy units. The chart and table below display the rental survey results by unit type and subdistrict. While the River District has the greatest number of larger units (two- and three-bedroom)7 with 595, large units make up a larger percentage of the South Waterfront’s rental stock.8 SRO and studio units comprise over 67% of the University subdistrict; however, the Downtown subdistrict has the largest number of surveyed small units with 2,392. 7 Overall, only 40 3-bedroom units were indentified in the survey (.3% of the total surveyed units). 8 In the South Waterfront subdistrict, only 180 rental units were constructed and occupied at the time of the survey and included in the unit size data. More rental units have since been completed and may or may not reflect the sizes of the initial 180. 35.3% 35.0% 18.1% 11.1% 0.3% 1 Bedroom Studio SRO 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Prevalence of Rental Unit Types Central City Subdistricts SRO Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Manager Central Eastside 159 239 254 34 3 3 692 % of Units 23.0% 34.5% 36.7% 4.9% 0.4% 0.4% Downtown 908 1484 1096 334 9 7 3,838 % of Units 23.7% 38.7% 28.6% 8.7% 0.2% 0.2% Goose Hollow 32 683 677 88 5 3 1,488 % of Units 2.2% 45.9% 45.5% 5.9% 0.3% 0.2% Lloyd District 0 19 213 120 2 0 354 % of Units 0.0% 5.4% 60.2% 33.9% 0.6% 0.0% Lower Albina 0 42 24 0 0 0 66 % of Units 0.0% 63.6% 36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% River District 861 888 1446 576 19 1 3,791 % of Units 22.7% 23.4% 38.1% 15.2% 0.5% 0.0% South Waterfront 0 22 79 79 0 0 180 % of Units 0.0% 12.2% 43.9% 43.9% 0.0% 0.0% University 174 735 369 75 2 0 1,355 % of Units 12.8% 54.2% 27.2% 5.5% 0.1% 0.0% CC Total 2134 4112 4158 1306 40 14 11,764 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Unit Type Total Units Confidence Interva l : +/- .5% 2008 Surveyed Rental Housing Units by Unit Type 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 20 Comparison of Unit Type 2005 to 2008 When looking at 2005 CCHI data compared with the current inventory, it is clear that there has not been a significant change in the unit type make up of Central City rental units. It is likely that the decrease in percentage in one-, two-, and three-bedroom units is due to the construction of smaller units and not the loss of existing larger units. (The 2008 CCHI does not categorize shelter beds as units but does account for manager units. This creates some differences with the 2005 CCHI.) Student Housing Included in the overall unit count are 1,663 private rental units which are dedicated to student housing. There are currently 14 rental properties that serve students, the majority being in the University subdistrict near Portland State University. A number of the student units are double or triple occupancy, which accounts for the higher number of available student beds. Portland State University and the City of Portland have been working together to formulate a plan to address the growing need for student housing in the Central City, specifically near PSU. Comparison of student units in this inventory with the 2005 CCHI is difficult because the 2005 CCHI did not delineate between student units and beds. Even so, the 2005 CCHI showed a total student unit count of 1,997 (which is presumed to also include beds), which would reflect minor growth in student housing over the past three years. SRO Studio 1-bedroom 2-bedroom 3-bedroom Manager Shelter 2005 16.5% 32.8% 35.8% 11.9% 1.0% - 2.0% 2008 18.1% 35.0% 35.3% 11.1% 0.3% 0.1% - Difference 1.6% 2.2% -0.5% -0.8% -0.7% - - Sources: 2005 CCHI, 2008 Rental Surveys Comparison of Rental Unit Types 2005 to 2008 Unit Types Central City Sub Areas Total Buildings # of Student Units # of Student Beds Central Eastside 0 0 0 Downtown 3 96 96 Goose Hollow 1 221 221 Lloyd District 0 0 0 Lower Albina 0 0 0 River District 0 0 0 South Waterfront 0 0 0 University 10 1,346 1,967 CC Total 14 1,663 2,284 Source: 2008 CCHI Surveys Student Housing Properties 2008 Surveyed Student Housing Rental Properties by Subarea 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 21 Shelter Beds In this inventory, shelter beds have not been included in the overall unit count. However, it is important to note that the Central City currently has 446 year-round shelter beds, the majority of which are in the Old Town/China Town Neighborhood of the River District subdistrict. Also, as need dictates, the City of Portland routinely opens cold-weather shelters throughout the Central City to accommodate increased need for shelters during cold weather events. Central City Subareas # of Shelter Beds Central Eastside 72 Downtown 0 Goose Hollow 60 Lloyd District 0 Lower Albina 0 River District 314 South Waterfront 0 University 0 Central City 446 Source: Bureau of Hous ing and Community Development Year-Round Shelter Beds in the Central City by Subdistrict 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 22 OWNERSHIP HOUSING INVENTORY RESULTS Ownership housing within the Central City is made up of 7,326 units and contains a variety of types and sizes of units. Since 2005, public investment in infrastructure, private development investment, and demand for ownership units have converged to create a boom in high-rise, for-sale condominium development, particularly in the River District and South Waterfront subdistricts. This increase in new construction has doubled the amount of for-sale homes in the Central City since 2005. (The 2005 CCHI reported 3,671 existing ownership units.) As seen in the chart below, the River District subdistrict now contains close to half of all Central City ownership units. The proportion of ownership units within the River District has decreased since 2005 due primarily to the development of the South Waterfront subdistrict which now accounts for over 10% of Central City ownership units. South Waterfront contained no for-sale units prior to 2005. The Downtown and Goose Hollow subdistricts were the only subdistricts to increase their percentage of ownership housing since 2005; both increased by 2%. Homeownership Rate The 2005 CCHI indicated that the homeownership rate within the Central City was around 19%.9 The review of 2008 tax rolls shows that the homeownership rate has increased by 14% to 33% overall. Surprisingly, the greatest changes in homeownership were found in the Goose Hollow and Lloyd District subdistricts. For Lloyd District, this change may be in part to conversion of rental units to ownership, as there was not a notable amount of new, ownership construction in the last three years. Also of note, the ownership rate in River District has decreased even as total ownership units have increased by 1,200 units. In fact, River District is the only subdistrict where rental unit development outpaced for-sale unit development. At the time of this inventory, the South Waterfront had an 81% ownership rate; however, this will even out as 808 new rental units are scheduled to come online in South Waterfront in 2009. 9 Analysis of the homeownership rate does not reflect the rate of owner-occupancy. It is assumed that a portion of owned units in the Central City are rented to second parties. The owner-occupancy rate for the Central City was not calculated as a part of this report. 48.7% 26.7% 10.8% 10.5% 2.0% 1.3% 0.01% 0.01% River District Downtown Goose Hollow South Waterfront Lloyd District Central Eastside Lower Albina University Distribution of Ownership Housing 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 23 Income Affordability The following table indicates affordability ranges of Central City ownership units by subdistrict. The purchase affordability was calculated using real market values from the Portland property assessor database. 2008 real estate value data shows that ownership options for households at or below the area median income are very limited; 90% of for-sale, Central City units are affordable only to those making more than 120% of the median, which reflects no significant change since 2005. Central City Subdistricts # of Units Ownership Rate # of Units Ownership Rate Percent Change Central Eastside 60 2% 94 12% 10% Downtown 901 25% 1,954 34% 9% Goose Hollow 248 8% 792 35% 27% Lloyd District 121 3% 148 30% 27% Lower Albina 1 - 1 2% - River District 2,340 64% 3,557 48% -16% South Waterfront - - 767 81% - University - - 1 0.1% - Central City 3,671 19% 7,314 33% 14% 2005 2008 Source: 2005 CCHI and Property Tax Rol l s Change in Ownership Rate 2005 to 2008 Central City Subdistricts 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + Unknown Total Units Central Eastside 0 0 0 13 60 21 0 94 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 63.8% 22.3% 0.0% 1.3% Downtown 0 0 0 0 42 1909 3 1,954 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 97.7% 0.2% 26.7% Goose Hollow 0 0 0 0 343 449 0 792 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.3% 56.7% 0.0% 10.8% Lloyd District 0 0 0 0 8 140 0 148 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 94.6% 0.0% 2.0% Lower Albina 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% River District 0 0 0 0 24 3517 28 3,569 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 98.5% 0.8% 48.7% South Waterfront 0 0 0 0 11 543 213 767 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 70.8% 27.8% 10.5% University 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% CC Total 0 0 0 13 489 6580 244 7,326 Income Affordability by MFI Range Source: Property Tax Rol l s 2008 Ownership Housing Units by Median Family Income 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 24  Moderate Income Ownership Housing (61-80% MFI): The Central City provides extremely limited, if any, opportunity for affordable homeownership. The Central Eastside is the only subdistrict with homes potentially affordable below 80% MFI.  Middle Income Ownership Housing (81-120% MFI): More opportunity for homeownership is found for households earning at or just above median, but opportunities remain limited. Seven percent of ownership units were determined to be affordable between 81-120% MFI, with the majority of these units trending toward the high end of the category. Again, Central Eastside and Goose Hollow are the subdistricts that provide the most homeownership opportunities for middle income homebuyers.  High Income Ownership Housing (120% + MFI): As would be expected, the vast majority of ownership homes in the Central City are priced above the median affordability level. Close to all for-sale units in Downtown (97.7%), Lloyd District (94.6%), and the River District (98.5%), are only affordable to households earning above 120% MFI. Comparison of Affordability 2005 to 2008 Comparison of the affordability of ownership units between the current data and the 2005 CCHI is difficult as the 2005 CCHI used original purchase prices for calculating present affordability and did not take into account appreciation or the 2005 market value. Affordability calculations for this CCHI are based on 2008 market values drawn from the City tax database. This change in methodology is likely the reason for the differences in the following chart, particularly in the 51-60%and 61-80% MFI categories. Regardless, the comparison of current data with 2005 shows that, overall, there has been little shift in the opportunity for lower- or middle-income homeownership in the Central City. Unit Size and Type A review of ownership units with interior square footage available in the city GIS database shows that the Central City has a healthy range of for-sale unit sizes; with the River District and Downtown subdistricts having the most even spread of units sizes. Over one half of the ownership units with available size data are smaller than 1,000 square feet (SF). The Lloyd District is the subdistrict with the highest portion of its units under 1,000 SF. On the flip side, the large majority of units in both the Central Eastside and South Waterfront subdistricts are greater than 1,000 SF. 0-30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 120% + Unknown 2005 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 10.4% 88.9% 0.0% 2008 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 6.7% 89.8% 3.3% Difference 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% -0.4% -3.7% 0.9% 3.3% Sources: 2005 CCHI, City Property Tax Database Comparison of All Ownership Units 2005 to 2008 Income Affordability by MFI Range 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 25 Central City Subdistricts 0-600 601-800 801-1,000 1,001-1,200 1,200+ Total Units Central Eastside 0 10 2 1 81 94 % of Units 0.0% 10.6% 2.1% 1.1% 86.2% Downtown 338 333 376 149 757 1,953 % of Units 17.3% 17.1% 19.3% 7.6% 38.8% Goose Hollow 52 255 117 61 154 639 % of Units 8.1% 39.9% 18.3% 9.5% 24.1% Lloyd District 41 59 18 6 24 148 % of Units 27.7% 39.9% 12.2% 4.1% 16.2% Lower Albina 0 0 0 0 1 1 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% River District 66 824 632 502 873 2,897 % of Units 2.3% 28.4% 21.8% 17.3% 30.1% South Waterfront 0 155 101 45 466 767 % of Units 0.0% 20.2% 13.2% 5.9% 60.8% University 0 0 0 0 1 1 % of Units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CC Total 497 1,636 1,246 764 2,357 6,500 Source: Property Tax Rol l s (Not a l l properties had s ize data ava i lable at time of review) 2008 Ownership Housing Units by Unit Size Unit Size by Ft 2 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 26 RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Housing Constructed Since 2005 CCHI From January 1, 2006 through the end of 2008, 4,635 for-sale and rental units were developed within the Central City boundary. The table on the following page outlines the new projects by type, subdistrict, and number of units. None of the eastside subdistricts saw new residential development over the past three years; however, the Downtown, River District, and South Waterfront all experienced significant growth with the construction of over 1,000 new units in each subdistrict. Given its smaller size, the addition of 554 new units in the Goose Hollow subdistrict also represents significant growth. The amount of new residential development from 2006 to 2008 was substantially greater than the previous three year period. From 2003 to 2005, 3,100 new units were constructed, 1,535 fewer than in the last three years. Development of for-sale units made up 68% of the new development, a third of which occurred within the River District subdistrict. The largest proportion of new rental unit development also occurred within the River District with 592 units or 40% of new rental construction. The largest new-construction projects, in terms of number of units, are generally found in the South Waterfront. The Ladd Tower on the South Park Blocks in the Downtown subdistrict has the distinction of being the largest new rental development during 2006 to 2008. Three affordable rental projects came online between 2006 and 2008. The Jeffery, Musolf Manor, and Morrison projects combined for 315 new units which replaced or rehabbed functionally obsolete or dilapidated buildings. The Morrison was part of a larger, mixed income project with the Civic that reinvigorated a large stretch of land on West Burnside. Only one major condo-conversion project, the Harrision Condominiums, took place in 2006-2007. This project originally was intended to convert all three towers (561 units) from rental to for-sale. At the time of this report, 354 units remain as for-sale with the remainder being renovated and re-opened as rental units. 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 27 Central City Subdistricts Project Name/Address Units Year Central Eastside - - - Downtown Rental Ladd Tower/1300 SW Park Ave The Jeffery/1201 SW 11th Ave* For-Sale Riverplace-The Strand/2100 SW River Prkwy Harrison Condominiums (Conversion)/1720 SW 4th The Benson/1500 SW 11th Ave The Eliot/1221 SW 10th Ave Total 332 80 216 354 150 223 1,355 2008 2008 2006 2007 2007 2006 Goose Hollow Rental The Morrison/1959 SW Morrison St* For-Sale The Civic/1926 W Burnside St Jefferson/1234 SW 18th St The Westerly/2351 NW Westover Total 140 261 49 104 554 2007 2007 2007 2007 Lloyd District - - - Lower Albina - - - River District Rental The Crane Building/710 NW 14th Ave* The Wyatt/1200 NW Marshall St The Asa/1303 NW Lovejoy St Musolf Manor/216 NW 3rd Ave For-Sale The Pinnacle/NW 9th and NW Overton Riverscape Townhomes/NW Naito Prkwy Block 90/322 NW 14th AVe The Metropolitan/1001 NW Lovejoy St The Encore/949 NW Overton St The Casey/311 NW 12th Ave Pacfica Tower/1830 NW Riverscape 937 Condos/937 NW Glisan St Waterfront Pearl/1300 NW Naito Parkwy Total 30 231 236 95 179 104 12 136 177 61 74 114 194 1,643 2007 2008 2008 2008 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 South Waterfront Rental The Ardea/3720 SW Bond For Sale The Merriwether/3570 SW River Prkwy The John Ross/3601 SW River Prkwy Atwater Place/0841 SW Gaines St Total 323 245 303 212 1,083 2008 2006 2008 2008 University - - - Central City 4,635 *Conta ins income-restri cted renta l uni ts New Housing Development Projects Occupied 2006-2008 Source: Ci ty of Portland Bui lding Permits and Property Tax Rol ls 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 28 Housing Recently Occupied or Under Construction Ten development projects either have been occupied in early 2009 or are currently under construction. Due to the surplus of un-sold for-sale units in the Central City and the slowdown of the real estate market, all ten are rental projects. The South Waterfront is significantly expanding its rental stock with the development of 808 new market-rate rental units, and the Downtown subdistrict is also seeing growth, particularly with the Cyan and 12W projects. Two new affordable rental projects are already under construction in 2009. Rose Quarter Housing and University Place will each provide units to very-low, and low-income residents, with Permanent Supportive Housing units reserved for chronically homeless individuals. Permanent Supportive Housing units also provide in-house direct services for residents to be successful in a permanent housing environment. Several, new construction affordable rental projects are in development throughout the Central City, and depending on financing should be constructed within the next two years. Included in these projects are a new family-sized affordable development in the Pearl District and an affordable development in the South Waterfront focused on veteran’s housing. Central City Subdistricts Project Name/Address Units Central Eastside - - Downtown Rental 12W/430 SW 13th Ave Esquire/620 SW Park Park Avenue West University Place/1510 SW 13th Ave* The Cyan/333 SW Harrison Total 273 19 85 48 354 779 Goose Hollow - - Lloyd District Rental Rose Quarter Housing* Total 176 176 Lower Albina - - River District Rental The Enso/1400 NW Marshall Total 152 152 South Waterfront Rental The Alexan/3732 SW Moody The Mirabella/3550 SW Bond 0677 SW Lowell Total 294 240 274 808 University - - Central City 1,915 Source: Ci ty of Portland Bui lding Permits *Conta ins income-restricted renta l uni ts New Housing Development Projects Occupied or Under Construction in 2009 2008 Central City Housing Inventory Page | 29 APPENDICES Appendix A: Maps I5 NAITO I40 5 12 TH GR AN D BR OA DW AY BURNSIDE I84 11 TH VIS TA 18 TH 19 TH 23 RD 17 TH LOVEJOY 21 ST WEIDLER STARK SAND Y 4TH CLAY BELMONT BARBUR POWELL DIVISION LLOYD 20 TH 6TH FRONT YEON MORRISON SUNSET MI LW AU KIE HAWTHORNE MARKET MA CA DA M TE RWILLIGER HO OD HWY 30 NICOLAI MCLOUGHLIN HOLGATE ROSS ISLAND JEFFERSON VAUGHN GREELEY FRE MO NT CA NYO N ALDER HA RB OR MADISON I5- I84 MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG 13T H COLUMBIA I5 FW Y-I 84 FW Y KELLY I405 FWY-SU NSET HWY MAR QUA M I5 FWY-I405 FWY STEE L 3R D IN TER STATE LARRABEE SUNS ET H WY- CAN YO N R D ARTHUR WASHINGTON CORNELL I84 -I5 PA TTON I5-GREELEY I405 FWY-MARQUA M B RG OREGO N I84 FWY-I 5 FWY I405 FW Y-K ERB Y AV E I405-I5 MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR I405 FWY-I5 FWY I5 FW Y-M OR RIS ON ST I5- MO RR ISO N MADISO N ST-HAWTHORNE BRG I405 F WY-4TH AVE I84 FWY-LLOYD BLVD I5 FW Y-H OO D A VE I5-BELMONT I5 FWY-BROADWAY CARUTHERS GLISAN I5- I40 5 STEPHENS I40 5 FRE MO NT SUNSET 3RD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR I5- I84 RO SS IS LA ND 21 ST MORRISON 12T H 20 TH VAUGHN I5 FWY-I40 5 FWY MADISON I40 5 -I 5 HAWTHORNE BELMONT I5 I84 SUNSET I5 I5 I5- I84 20 TH MORRISON I405 I40 5 I5 FW Y-I 84 FW Y MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG MORRISON HARBOR WASHINGTON 21 ST I84- I5 2008 Central City Housing Inventory 0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000625 Feet Legend Central City Plan District - subdistricts Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Tenure: Shelter New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 River District Lower Albina Lloyd District Central Eastside South Waterfront Downtown University District Goose Hollow I5 NAITO I40 5 12 TH GR AN D BR OA DW AY BURNSIDE I84 11 TH VIS TA 18 TH 19 TH 23 RD 17 TH LOVEJOY 21 ST WEIDLER STARK SAND Y 4TH CLAY BELMONT BARBUR POWELL DIVISION LLOYD 20 TH 6TH FRONT YEON MORRISON SUNSET MI LW AU KIE HAWTHORNE MARKET MA CA DA M TE RWILLIGER HO OD HWY 30 NICOLAI MCLOUGHLIN HOLGATE ROSS ISLAND JEFFERSON VAUGHN GREELEY FRE MO NT CA NYO N ALDER HA RB OR MADISON I5- I84 MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG 13T H COLUMBIA I5 FW Y-I 84 FW Y KELLY I405 FWY-SU NSET HWY MAR QUA M I5 FWY-I405 FWY STEE L 3R D IN TER STATE LARRABEE SUNS ET H WY- CAN YO N R D ARTHUR WASHINGTON CORNELL I84 -I5 PA TTON I5-GREELEY I405 FWY-MARQUA M B RG OREGO N I84 FWY-I 5 FWY I405 FW Y-K ERB Y AV E I405-I5 MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR I405 FWY-I5 FWY I5 FW Y-M OR RIS ON ST I5- MO RR ISO N MADISO N ST-HAWTHORNE BRG I405 F WY-4TH AVE I84 FWY-LLOYD BLVD I5 FW Y-H OO D A VE I5-BELMONT I5 FWY-BROADWAY CARUTHERS GLISAN I5- I40 5 STEPHENS I40 5 FRE MO NT SUNSET 3RD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR I5- I84 RO SS IS LA ND 21 ST MORRISON 12T H 20 TH VAUGHN MADISON I40 5 -I 5 HAWTHORNE BELMONT I5 I84 SUNSET I5 I5 I5- I84 20 TH MORRISON I405 I40 5 I5 FW Y-I 84 FW Y MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG MORRISON HARBOR WASHINGTON 21 ST I84- I5 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: Subdistricts and Urban Renewal Areas 0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000625 Feet Legend Central Eastside URA Downtown Waterfront URA Interstate Corridor URA North Macadam URA Oregon Convention Center URA River District URA South Park Blocks URA River District Downtown South Waterfront Lloyd District Central Eastside I5 8T H 9T H 1ST 12 TH 11 TH 10 TH 3R D 5TH 2N D I84 MAIN 15 TH CLAY BURNSIDE WA TE R 14 TH OAK LLOYD PA RK MILL MADISON SAN DY DAVIS I5 FW Y-I 84 FW Y STARK COUCH MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR BR OA DW AY NAITO MOODY HOLLADAY BELMONT ALDER EVERETT LADD PINE ASH 6T H TAYLOR GLISAN YAMHILL DIVISION GRANT 4T H SALMON POWELL IVON ELL IOT T I84 FW Y-I 5 F WY CLINTON HOYT STEE L 16TH IRVING HA RB OR RIVER GR AN D ANKENY MAPLE MARKET GIDEON HARRISON FLANDERS JEFFERSONCOLUMBIA CO RB ET T HAWTHORNE UNNAMED SPR UCE WOODWARD ROSS ISLAND KELLY WASHINGTON PALM I5 FWY-CLAY ST MAR QUA M ORA NGE LA RC H I405 FWY-I5 FWY I5 FWY-I405 FWY CARUTHERS HARBOR DR-I5 FWY BIRCH I5 FW Y- M OR R IS O N S T MULBERRY HALL 7T H MO RR ISO N B RG -I5 FW Y I405 S T ATION I405 FWY-MARQUAM BRG IRONSIDE ARTHUR MORRISON MEADE MI LW AU KIE MARQUAM BRG-I4 05 FW Y MO R R ISO N B RG -I8 4 F WY OREGON MORRISON BRG-BELMONT ST HOLLY PACIFIC MORRISON ST-MORRISON BRG HOOKER INTERSTATE 13 TH MADISON ST-HAWTHORNE BRG PORTER TAGGART RO SE HICKORY MONTGOMERY LINCOLN HAWTHORNE BRG-HAWTHORNE BLVD NA ITO PK WY FR ON TA GE EVE RET T ST -I84 FW Y BROOKLYN I84 FW Y-LLOYD BLVD MACADAM AVE-KELLY AVE STEEL BRG-GLISAN ST MACADAM AVE-I5 F WY MORRISON BRG-WATER AVE I5 FW Y -W ATER ST SHERMAN BAKER STEPHENS ALDER ST-MORRISON BRG SALMON 16T H MORRISON 16 TH CARUTHERS HOYT3R D 7T H UN NA ME D 14 TH RIV E R W A TE R 16 TH STARK WA TE R OAK GRANT SHERMAN BELMONT LINCOLN 6T H 6TH UNNAMED HOYT 7T H ANKENY HARRISON FLANDERS COUCH WASHINGTON 8T H 6T H MEADE 2N D IRVING 2N D 6TH HA RB OR CLAY I405 OREGON PINE IRVING 9T H I5 UNNAMED YAMHILL ALDER MAR QUA M WOODWARD 1S T 1S T HARRISON TAGGART YAMHILL 16 TH ANKENY GLISAN 10 TH 7T H EVERETT 11 T H 13 TH HA RB OR HAWTHORNE MAIN MARKET DAVIS GLISAN SHERMAN TAGGART I5 HA RB OR STEPHENS 1S T RO SS IS LA ND 13 TH I5 WA TE R UNNAMED MORRISON TAYLOR PINE PORTER EVERETT 13 TH YAMHILL UNNAMED OAK 14 TH 9T H 16 TH IVON MORRISON I84 15 TH ALDER 16 TH CARUTHERS MADISON GR AN D ASH 4TH 15 TH 13 TH2008 Central City Housing Inventory: Central Eastside 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400300 Feet New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend River District Downtown South Waterfront Goose Hollow University District 4TH 6TH 1ST I40 5 NA ITO 3R D 2N D 12T H 10T H1 1TH 13T H 14T H 9T H COUCH ALDER CLAY OAK DAVIS I5 TAYLOR EVERETT BURNSIDE YAMHILL SALMON STARK MAIN MARKET COLUMBIA JEFFERSON 15T H PINE ASH 8T H MADISON HARRISON WASHINGTON 5TH 18 TH 17T H MILL HA RB OR RIVER HALL ANKENY 16 TH PAR K MO OD Y WATER HAWTHORNE LINCOLN MAR QUA M BROADWAY TAY LO R S T-I 405 FW Y HOFFMAN JACKSON CARUTHERS COLLEGE SHERIDAN I405 FWY-MARQUAM BRG SHEFFIELD I40 5 F WY -14 TH AV E MORRISON I5 FWY-CLAY ST CARDINELL MARQUAM BRG-I405 FW Y BU CK ING HA M SU NS ET HW Y-I 40 5 F WY I405 FWY-I5 FWY I405 FWY-4TH AVE SHERMAN 6TH AVE-I405 FWY I40 5 F WY -SU NS ET HW Y I5 FWY-I405 FWY UN NA ME D RO SE 5TH AVE-I405 FWY EVERETT ST-I405 FWY CH ELM SFO RD TANGEN T MONTGOMERY DAVENPORT RIV ING TO N I405 FWY-6TH AVE CROSS GRANT I40 5 F WY -DA VIS ST CLIFTON I405 FWY-BROADWAY BROADWAY-I405 FWY BA RB UR MYRT LE COUCH ST- I405 FWY ALDER ST-MORRISON BRG CANNING TE RW ILL IG E R MONTGOMERY ST-I405 FWY 13TH AVE-SUNSET HWY HAWTHORNE BRG-MAIN ST MILL STREET HA RB OR GRANT COLLEGE ANKENY MONTGOMERY 17 TH I4 05 FWY-SU NSE T HWY 15 TH GRANT UNNAMED MONTGOMERY DAVIS 3R D MAR QUA M PINE CARUTHERS LINCOLN 1S T WASH INGTON HALL MONTGOMERY PAR K CLAY HA RB OR HA RB OR PAR K I5 I5 16T H I5 MADISON I40 5 MILL 10T H CLAY PA RK SHERMAN HARRISON WASHINGTON PA RK 17 TH RIV ER SHER IDAN DAVIS MORRISON MONTGOMERY 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: Downtown 0 400 800 1,200 1,600200 Feet New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend Goose Hollow University District I40 5 VIS TA HOYT 14T H 20T H 13T H 21 ST GLISAN IRVING 12T H EVERETT BURNSIDE SALMON FLANDERS 17 TH KIN G SUNSET 11T H 18T H 24 TH PARK 15 TH CA NYO N MORRISON COLUMBIACLAY ALDER MAIN COUCH 19T H MILL WESTOVER ST CL AIR MARKET 10T H DAVIS GRE EN KINGS TAY LO R S T-I 405 FW Y 16T H YAMHILL 22 ND MADISON MARKET STREET S UNSET HWY-I405 FWY I 405 FW Y- SUNSET HWY CARTER TR IN ITY I40 5 F WY -14 TH AV E OSAGE CEDAR CACTUS SU NS ET HW Y-C AN YO N R D CA BLE JACKSON 23R D JEFFERSON AR DM OR E EVERETT ST-I405 FWY M UR R AY COUCH ST-I405 FWY I4 0 5 F WY - C OU CH ST MO NT GO ME RY UPTOWN HALL UPPER HALL HARRISON 13TH AVE-SUN SET H WY TAYLOR DO UG LA S MILL ST RE ET FO RD STR EET I40 5 FWY-DAVIS S T SUNSET HWY-13TH AVE SAC AJAW EA I40 5 F WY -G LIS AN ST GLISAN ST-I405 FWY HOWARDS PROSPECT U NNAMED COLLINS WASHINGTON FLANDERS TAYLOR I40 5 IRVING MAIN CLAY 23 RD 20 TH MAD ISO N 16 TH MARKET HOYT 20T H 1 7TH DAVIS 17 TH YAMHILL JEFFERSON 14 TH 17T H MONTGOMERY 21S T 20 TH MAIN 19 TH 16T H DAVIS MADISON SUNSET 18 TH 16T H 15T H 19T H YAMHILL 21S T 22 ND 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: Goose Hollow 0 300 600 900 1,200150 Feet New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend River District Lloyd District Lower Albina I5 NAITO FLI NT I40 5 RUSSELL RIVER VA NC OU VE R INTERSTATE GRAHAM 9T H BRO ADW AY 11 TH 12 TH KE RB Y LORING 10 TH LARRABEE LOVEJOY MI SS ISS IPP I TILLAMOOK PAGE WHEELER STANTON UNNAMED DIXO N FRE MO NT I5 FWY-I405 FWY MARSHALL WINNING I5 FWY-GREELEY AVE KNOTT NORTHRUP STATION THOMPSON I405 FWY-I5 FWY BENTON OVERTON WEIDLER AL BIN A KER BY AVE -I40 5 F WY GREELEY MONROE LEW IS ROSS GREELEY AVE-I5 FWY THUNDERBIRD WILLIAMS AVE-I5 FWY I5 FWY-BROADWAY I405 FW Y-K ERB Y AV E DRE XLE R RAN DO LPH IN T E RS TA T E AV E-L AR RA BE E A VE BO RT HW ICK COMMERCIAL GA NT EN BE IN MORRIS CE NT ER CO UR T ESS EX CLA RK QUIMBY NES MIT H HAN COC K HAR DIN G MU LTN OM AH CR OS BY BR EN DL E CO MM ER CIA L KE RB Y HAR DIN G I5 GA NT EN BE IN HANCOCK FLI NT PAGE TILLAMOOK STANTON UNNAMED I40 5 WHEELER RO SS RIVER KNOTT FRE MO NT ALB INA LEW IS GA NT EN BE IN AL BIN A PAGE MORRIS LOVEJOY UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED KE RB Y KNOTT CO MM ER CIA L FLI NT UN NA ME D ALB INA UNNAMED UNNAMED RAN DO LPH LA RR AB EE BO RT HW ICK CLA RK 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: Lower Albina 0 325 650 975 1,300162.5 Feet New Construction ermits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend River District Downtown Lloyd District Central Eastside Lower Albina I5 7T H 9T H I84 8T H 2N D BURNSIDE 15 TH WEIDLER BROADWAY 14 TH10 TH LLOYD SAN DY ALDER 3R D 1S T 12 TH 11 TH HALSEY FLI NT SCHUYLER RUSSELL MULTNOMAH MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR HOLLADAY 16TH WI LLI AM S 13 TH ASH TILLAMOOK RO DN EY VA NC OU VE R IRVING PINE OAK WH EE LER I84 FW Y-I 5 F WY INTERSTATE I5 FW Y-I 84 FW Y STEE L LARRABEE WASCO SAN RAFAEL DAVIS NAITO COUCH FLANDERS GLISAN ANKENY PAGE DIXO N EVERETT KE RB Y STARK CLACKAMAS WINNING I5 FW Y-M OR R IS ON ST BRAZEE WA TE R BENTON MO RR ISO N B RG -I5 FW Y VIC TO RIA MORRISON UNNAMED 6T H MO RR ISO N B RG -I8 4 F WY THOMPSON OREGON ROSS PACIFIC WILLIAMS AVE-I5 FWY THUNDERBIRD I5 FWY-BROADWAY SACRAMENTO HASSALO I84 FWY-HOL LADAY ST HOYT LLOYD CENTER DRE XLE R GRAND I84 FWY-LLOYD BLVD RO SE QUA RTE R T C I5 F WY-WEIDLER S T BO RT HW ICK CO M M ER CIA L EVE RET T ST -I84 FW Y NAITO PKWY-STEEL B RG CR OS BY HAN COC K ALDER ST-MORRISON BRG IR ONS IDE WHEELER AVE-I5 FWY WASH INGTON GA NT EN BE IN 16 TH 10 TH PAGE 2N D IRVING TILLAMOOK EVERETT 12 TH 14 TH 3R D OAK 13 TH UNNAMED 13 TH 14 TH STARK 2N D 9T H WASHINGTON 13 TH BRAZEE OAK THOMPSON 6T H 16 TH EVERETT GLISAN EVERETT 1S T THOMPSON 1S T 1ST PAGE RUSSELL 11 TH FLANDERS UN NA ME D HANCOCK 6T H KE RB Y 15 TH DAVIS UN NAMED 7T H OREGON FLI NT HANCOCK RO SS 15 TH SACRAMENTO I5 ASH WHEELER I84 2N D COUCH UNNAMED 8T H THOMPSON 3R D 1S T TILLAMOOK GLISAN FLANDERS 6T H 11 TH FLI NT ANKENY 16 TH PINE MORRISON ALDER HOYT 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: Lloyd District 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend River District Downtown Goose Hollow Lloyd District Lower Albina I40 5 9T H 18 TH I5 14 TH 19 TH 21 ST 13T H 12T H 11 TH 17 TH 10T H 16 TH NAITO 6TH 5T H 15 TH 4TH 3R D GLISAN EVERETT COUCH OAK 2N D BURNSIDE ALDER DAVIS PA RK 20T H STARK LOVEJOY FRONT OVERTON JOHNSON MARSHALL MORRISON RIVER HOYT NORTHRUP 8T H 1ST KEARNEY SAVIER RALEIGH YAMHILL PINE RUSSELL IRVING SALMON BRO ADW AY ASH INT ER ST AT E QUIMBY TAYLOR GRAHAM PETTYGROVE LORING FRE MO NT WASHINGTON FLANDERS KNOTT LARRABEE HWY 30 MAIN ANKENY VAUGHN STATION TILLAMOOK KE RB Y UNNAMED PAGE UPSHUR YORK DIXO N MI SS ISS IPP I I5 FWY-I405 FWY THOMPSON WHEELER BENTON WILSON TR IN ITY AL BIN A RIVERSCAPE STEE L IRONSIDE HWY 30 HWY-I405 FWY I405 FWY-HWY 30 HWY LEW IS ROSS MADISON I405 FWY-I5 FWY THURMAN THUNDERBIRD EVERETT ST-I405 FWY THURMAN ST-VAUGHN ST COUC H ST- I405 FWY I4 0 5 F WY - CO UC H S T RAN DO LPH KER BY AVE -I40 5 FW Y BO RT HW ICK CO MM ER C IA L GA NT E N BE IN WINNING I40 5 F WY -DA VIS ST HWY 30 HWY-FREMONT BRG I5 FWY-GREELEY AVE ESS EX I40 5 F WY -G LIS AN ST NAITO PKWY-STEEL BRG CLA RK REED STEEL BRG-GLISAN ST NES MIT H HAN COC K HAR DIN G BR EN DL E UNNAMED RAN DO LPH 20 TH PAGE PINE 19T H I40 5 ALB INA UNNAMED ANKENY YAMHILL QUIMBY KE RB Y UNN AME D 15T H UNN AME D 18T H YAMHILL 17 TH I40 5 IRVING UNNAMED DAVIS U NNAMED WASHINGTON 20 THDAVIS UNNAMED UNN AME D CLA RK GA NT EN BE IN AL BIN A 21 ST UNNAMED BO RT HW ICK LA RR AB E E I5 20 TH LEW IS KNOTT FRE MO NT CO MM ER CIA L RO SS 19T H I40 5 IRVING 17T H UNN AME D HOYTHOYT FLANDERS 16T H UNN AME D TAYLOR ALB INA DAVIS 20 TH 1S T IRVING HWY 30 UN NA ME D LOVEJ OY RIVER KE RB Y 1S T QUIMBY THURMAN 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: River District 0 510 1,020 1,530 2,040255 Feet New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend Downtown South Waterfront Cental Eastside I5 1S T MO OD Y BA RB UR NA ITO KE LLY CO RB ET T HO OD 2N D MA CA DA M BO ND RIV ER I405 TERWILLIGER ROSS ISLAND CURRY I405 FWY-I5 FWY WA TE R 3R D GAINES BANCROFT GIBBS I5 FWY-I405 FWY HOOKER MEADE 4T H VIE W PO INT LINCOLN I5 FWY-CLAY ST HARBOR DR-I5 FWY LANE 5T H HA MI LTO N MAR QUA M ARTHUR GROVER HALL WHITAKER WOODS HO OD AV E-I 5 F WY CO ND OR I405 FWY-MARQUAM BRG I5 FWY-HOOD AVE MARQUAM BRG-I405 FWY ABERNETHY SHERIDAN CARUTHERS UNNAMED NAITO PKWY-BARBU R B LVD I405 FWY-4TH AVE PORTER HARBO R MA CA DA M AV E-I 5 F WY RO SE MACADAM AVE-KELLY AVE LOW ELL HAR RISO N KE LL Y AV E -N A IT O P K W Y HO ME ST E A D GRANT I5 FW Y-M AC AD AM A V E BROADWAY PENNOYER NA ITO PK WY FR ON TA GE THOMAS SHERMAN US VE TER AN S H OS PIT AL BAKER CAM PUS NAITO PKWY-ROS S ISLAND BRG BAR BUR BL VD-NAITO PKWY HOOD AVE-MA CA DA M AV E BARBUR BLVD FRONTAGE CO ND OR LANE RO SS IS LA ND GROVER WOODS 4TH HOOD AVE-I5 FWY PORTER HAMILTON KE LLY 4T H BANCROFT PENNOYER WOODS CO ND OR VIE W PO INT CURRY KELLY RIV ER UNNAMED CARUTHERS 4T H MO OD Y HAMILTON ABERNETHY LOWE L L WHITAKER WA TE R WA TE R PENNOYER GRANT HARBOR RIVER THOMAS ABERNETHY LOWELL GAINES CO RB ET T 3R D LOWELL MAR QUA M HAMILTON LOWELL WATER MEADE I5 WA TE R I405 SHERIDAN GIBBS GIBBS WA TE R GROVER UNNAMED 5TH HAMILTON HA RB OR WA TE R WA TE R HOOKER LANE GROVER ARTHUR U NNAMED BANCROFT BANCROFT WHITAKER MEADE 5T H CURRY CARUTHERS LOWELL 2008 Central City Housing Inventory: South Waterfront 0 350 700 1,050 1,400175 Feet New Construction Permits 2005 - 2008 Tenure: Shelter Tenure: Rental Tenure: Owner Central City Plan District - subdistricts Legend Page 1 -Survey Continues on Back! CENTRAL CITY HOUSING INVENTORY RENTAL HOUSING SURVEY (FILL OUT ONE FORM PER BUILDING) Property Address Building Address (if different from above): Date: Years Owned by Current Owner: Management Co.: Person Completing Survey: Title: Phone: Fax: E-mail: For an Electronic Version of this Survey, Please E-mail sheernd@pdc.us Request to Receive Electronic Copy of Final Inventory Report Is building part of larger complex? Yes No If yes, Building # or letter this form pertains to Total # of Buildings in Complex Rental Building Type: Single-Family-detached Single-Family-attached (Row/Townhouse) Live-work Duplex (or Single Family with Accessory Dwelling Unit) Plex with 3-4 Units (Triplex or Four-plex) Apartment Building with at Least 5 Units Low-rise (1-3) Stories- Garden Apts. Low-rise (1-3) Stories Mid-rise (4-6) Stories High-rise (7+) Stories, with Elevator Residential Hotel Other Special Housing Type/Use: Homeless Shelter Student Dormitory/Housing Group Home Other # of Above-Ground Stories: # of Below-Ground Stories: Tenant-Based Section 8 Vouchers issued by Housing Authority of Portland (HAP), excluding Project-Based Section 8: Not Accepted Accepted, # Currently in Use: Lease Term: Month-to-Month Lease, # of Months: Other: Utilities (check one box in each category): Utilities Included in Rent Not Included in Rent Electricity Garbage Water/Sewer Heat Hot Water Source of Heat Heat Type Electric Gas Oil Other (specify below) Hot Water Type Electric Gas Oil Other (specify below) Building Amenities (check all that apply): Elevator Controlled Entry Door Person Play Area (Children) Outdoor Area (Courtyard, Rooftop Garden, Patio, etc.) Recreational Room / Pool Community Room Meal Service Community Kitchen Laundry Facilities Handicap Accessible (Communal Areas) Environmentally Sustainable Features Standard Non-Refundable Fees $ (Move-in fees including application fee and cleaning fee) # Off-Street Parking Spaces: # Spaces Included in Rent # Spaces Not Included in Rent Parking Cost to Tenant per Month $ Please Mail to: RE: Central City Housing Inventory Portland Development Commission 222 NW 5th Ave Portland, OR 97209 or Fax to: 503-865-3644 ATTN: CCHI For more information, please contact: David Sheern at 503-823-4103 Page 2 Please enter unit details. Similar unit types may be grouped together. Enter N/A where not applicable. You are encouraged to include documentation (rent rolls, brochures) with your completed survey! Unit Type Tenant Rent Rent Subsidy Gross Rent Regulated Unit Size Unit Type Choices: Total # Units Rent Paid by Tenant Per Month (Excluding Any Subsidy) Subsidy Per Month Gross Rent Collected Regulated Units Range of Unit Sizes (in Square Feet) Group Together Similar Type of Units for Unit Count Choices: Beds in Shared Rooms (More than 1 Person per Room) Single Room Occupancy (SROs) Studio Loft Style (0 Bedrooms + >600 SF) 1 Bedroom (bdr) 2 Bedrooms (bdrs) 3 Bedrooms (bdrs) Manager/units type above Other (specify) Lowest Rent Per Unit Highest Rent Per Unit Averaged Rent Paid by Tenant Per Unit Averaged Subsidy Per Unit Averaged Rent Paid by Tenant + Averaged Subsidy Per Unit Restricted by Income Level as % of Median Family Income (MFI) Choices: 0-30% MFI 31-50% MFI 51-60% MFI 61-80% MFI 81-120% MFI None (no Restriction) Smallest Unit Size Largest Unit Size Averaged Unit Size Example: 1 bdr 5 450 500 480 200 680 None 500 650 575 Example: SRO 20 250 300 280 150 430 31-50% MFI 150 350 200 Example: Manager/ 2 bdrs 1 700 900 800 N/A 800 None 900 900 900 Total # Units in Building Rent Subsidy Type: Sec.8-Tenant Based Sec. 8-Project Based Tax Credit Other (specify) Source of Rent Subsidy: HUD HAP Other (specify) Total # Subsidized Units Total # Vacant Units Use additional copies of sheets if needed for unit type list above Building Program # Units Primary Unit Amenities # Units Plans to eliminate or convert rental units? Other comments? Total # Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Units Total # Transitional Units Private Bath/Toilet Breakdown of # Transitional Units Program Name #Units Private Kitchen # Units Not in Special Program N/A Private Washer/Dryer or Hook-up # Units with Special Program (1) ADA* Accessible # Units with Special Program (2) *Meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design (Fill in both #Beds and #Units below) #Beds #Units # Senior Housing Homeless Shelter (Do Not Double Count Shelter Beds With Units Above) #Group Housing # Student Housing # All Other Units Type: M, W, Family #Rooms #Beds Total # Units in Building (should match above table) Appendix C: Affordability Tables HH size 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 100% 120% 150% 1 14,250 23,750 28,500 33,075 38,000 47,250 56,700 70,875 2 16,300 27,150 32,600 37,800 43,450 54,000 64,800 81,000 3 18,350 30,550 36,660 42,525 48,900 60,750 72,900 91,125 4 20,350 33,950 40,740 47,250 54,300 67,500 81,000 101,250 5 22,000 36,650 43,980 51,030 58,650 72,900 87,480 109,350 6 23,650 39,400 47,280 54,810 63,000 78,300 93,960 117,450 HUD 2008 Median Family Income (MFI) HH size 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 100% 120% 150% 1 48,240 80,400 96,480 111,968 128,641 159,955 191,945 239,932 1.5 51,710 86,155 103,420 119,966 137,866 171,380 205,656 257,070 2 55,180 91,910 110,360 127,964 147,090 182,805 219,366 274,208 2.5 58,650 97,665 117,232 135,961 156,315 194,230 233,077 291,346 3 62,120 103,420 124,104 143,959 165,540 205,656 246,787 308,484 3.5 65,505 109,175 131,010 151,957 174,680 217,081 260,497 325,622 4 68,890 114,930 137,916 159,955 183,821 228,506 274,208 342,760 Affordable Sale Price Target by % of MFI* Homeownership Affordability Summary