Author Archives: Garlynn Woodsong

I t was in spring 2014 when I became chair of the Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) for Concordia Neighborhood Association (CNA).

Since then, the LUTC has worked with neighbors and the board of directors on a variety of issues, some of which resulted in something that could be called victories. Many others resulted in no changes to the status quo, or problems not solved, or what could be called the opposite of successes.

In this, my final CNews column as the LUTC chair and as a CNA board member, I’d like to focus on the high points.

Over the winter of 2014-2015, CNA worked to identify neighbor priorities for the city’s comprehensive plan, to review these priorities and to submit clear comments. One priority we advocated for was middle housing, which we supported with our requests to legalize duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes within singlefamily-zoned areas.

This comprehensive plan change was followed by the Portland Residential Infill Project (RIP), and I became a member of a citywide stakeholder advisory committee. I represented the LUTCs of both CNA and Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods (NECN).

The Oregon Legislature then passed HB 2001, and the city was required to implement the RIP in at least the manner recommended by the stakeholder committee. The question remains whether RIP will help build the newly-legalized buildings types as profit-seeking activities.

In January 2016, the CNA LUTC began making repeated requests until Portland Bureau of Transportation lowered speed limits on Ainsworth, Killingsworth, Alberta and Prescott streets. More effort is needed to:

Further reduce speed limits to 20 mph on Killingsworth at 33rd and 30th avenues.

Install physical speed-reducing technology, such as raised crosswalks where pedestrians are most likely to try to cross.

Beginning in 2013, CNA worked to spread awareness of and provide support for neighbor-led alley improvement efforts. Partners included Alley Allies, NECN and neighborhoods elsewhere in the city. Interns assigned from the Portland Institute for Sustainable Solutions at Portland State University worked with us two summers. That resulted in multiple alley improvement projects throughout the neighborhood.

Concordia is a very walkable, mixed-use, mixed-income, diverse neighborhood – one that is more livable than most other neighborhoods anywhere on the West Coast.

Yet, it is built on a backbone of historical injustices and continuing to the present day. The work to build a better world goes through building a better neighborhood.

We still have much work to do. Let’s get to it!

Garlynn Woodsong lives on 29th Avenue, serves on the CNA board and is an avid bicyclist. He also is a dad who is passionate about the city his son will inherit. He is the planning + development partner with Cascadia Partners LLC, a local urban planning firm. Contact him at LandUse@ConcordiaPDX.org.

In October, this column continued its series on accessory commercial units (ACUs). This is the fourth and final installment.

The legend of Hewlett Packard’s origin begins, effectively, in an accessory commercial unit (ACU), with Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard developing an audio oscillator in a garage in 1939.

It was not the first company, or the last, to begin in that way:

• Google was begun in a garage, which Larry Page and Sergey Brin rented from a friend, Susan Wijcicki, in September 1998.
• The first Apple computer was developed in 1976 by Steve Jobs – in his parents’ garage – with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne.
• Microsoft started in a small garage in Albuquerque, where Bill Gates and Paul Allen first developed programming and operating systems for IBM.
• Jeff Bezos created the first version of Amazon in his garage in Seattle.
• Walt and Roy Disney even created their first films in their uncle’s Los Angeles garage in 1923!

Yet, in the Concordia neighborhood, it’s unclear to what extent this – or other forms of ACUs – would be legal today.

The residential zones are governed by Table 110-1 of the Portland Title 33 Zoning Code. It states none of the residential single-dwelling zones allow for retail, office or other commercial primary uses.

It does allow for accessory uses that comply with all development standards. But those development standards do not allow for structures within the front setback that would allow for pedestrian-oriented businesses fronting the sidewalk.

On sites served by alleys – because zero-setback buildings are allowed to front on alleys – it’s possible to build structures there containing accessory uses. However:

• Hours are limited to 7 a.m.-9 p.m.
• No more than one nonresident employee is allowed onsite.
• Service is limited to eight customers per day.
• No retail services are allowed onsite.
• The dwelling and site must remain residential in appearance and characteristics.

So, there are very limited types of commercial uses that would be legal under the existing code. Budding entrepreneurs would have to fit within these restrictions. Otherwise, they would not be able to engage legally in their commercial activities in residential zones.

As mentioned in the previous installment in this series, there are good questions to be answered about where – on lots, on which lots, in which parts of the city – ACUs should be allowed. There are many ways to answer these questions, and no necessarily right or wrong answers.

There are just different conclusions that people can come to through the process of community dialogue. Yet, in the Concordia neighborhood, it’s unclear to what extent this – or other forms of ACUs – would be legal today.

Neighbors interested in discussing ACUs further are welcome to join the monthly meeting of the Concordia Neighborhood Association Land Use & Transportation Committee. Find details at ConcordiaPDX.org/CNAMeetings and ConcordiaPDX.org/lutc.

Editor’s note: The first three installments of this Urbanism series about ACUs were published in July, August and October. 

Garlynn Woodsong lives on 29th Avenue, serves on the CNA board and is an avid bicyclist. He also is a dad who is passionate about the city his son will inherit. He is the planning + development partner with Cascadia Partners LLC, a local urban planning firm. Contact him at LandUse@ConcordiaPDX.org.

In August, this column continued its series on accessory commercial units (ACUs), and it focused on placement.

Affordability is also vital.

Affordable commercial space is not necessarily easy to come by in this neighborhood.

This is largely due to city zoning rules, under which most commercial uses are not allowed outside commercial/mixeduse zones. That’s where the price of land is higher on a per-square-foot basis than for land with residential zoning – even if just on the other side of a lot line from commercially-zoned parcels.

This is partly a function of the potential residual land value of developing to the highest and best use allowable on a property.

Seller expectations also play a role, with an expectation of a seven-figure sales price for commercially-zoned land in a hot corridor, even if it isn’t currently producing income of any sort. Even vacant lots can command a price premium, if they are commercially zoned.

Even if commercially-zoned lots were the same price as residentially-zoned lots, a lot in Concordia with a viable building on it of 2,000 square feet or more will likely cost more than $650,000. A smaller building might fetch as little as $250,000, if not in great condition.

That is a lot of cash.

Many people can afford to buy a home for those prices, because they’re able to save for down payments and can obtain federally-backed low-interest mortgages.

Yet purchasing a commercial property for a similar price to start a new, unproven small business is not really within the realm of possibility for these same people.

Therein lies a conundrum. To start a new business, a budding entrepreneur needs space within which to operate. Often, the entrepreneur-to-be may have access to a single-family home, perhaps with a garage or basement that provides the extra space within which to set up specialized equipment and create a product to offer.

The incremental price to build a new commercial structure as an accessory to a home is just the cost of the structure. The land has already been paid for by the primary use.

The incremental price of a new business could thus be reduced by an order of magnitude. It could be as little as the cost of bringing in a shipping container, trailer, camper, prefab shed or other space sufficient to house a small new business. That expense could be small enough to put on a credit card or saved within a reasonable amount of time on a middle income.

Bringing down the cost of entry can reduce the barriers of entry into affordable commercial space. This can ease attainment to the first rungs on the ladder of economic opportunity and make business creation more accessible to folks without subsidy.

The only requirement is to change zoning codes to allow for the legal concept of accessory commercial space.

Editor’s note: The first two installments of this Urbanism series about ACUs were published in July and August. 

Garlynn Woodsong lives on 29th Avenue, serves on the CNA board and is an avid bicyclist. He also is a dad who is passionate about the city his son will inherit. He is the planning + development partner with Cascadia Partners LLC, a local urban planning firm. Contact him at LandUse@ConcordiaPDX.org.

Last month, I introduced the concept of accessory commer–cial units (ACUs) that redress the historical wrongs that created economic exclusion by enacting racial segregation.

ACUs create new destinations within our neighborhoods and enhance walkability.

What forms might accessory dwelling units (ADUs) take as infill within an existing neighborhood such as ours? A traditional building form sometimes found within the front setback in our neighborhood is a carriage house, with a residence above a garage on the ground floor.

A twist on an ACU could see one placed on the ground floor facing the sidewalk, with an ADU on the second floor. This arrangement could also work in an alley.

This sort of gentle infill could help to build neighborhood intensity without significantly changing neighborhood character. It could build the local demand for services, such as retail and transit, that do better when there are more customers within a short walking distance.

When considering where ACUs might be appropriate, there are at least four different potential regulatory paradigm concepts worth considering:

1. Along all frontages facing bicycle boulevards/greenways
2. Only at new village center nodes, such as selected intersections along family-safe bicycle facilities
3. At intersections
4. Everywhere, on any properties, for any reasons, as long as they face a sidewalk or internal courtyard accessible by pathways from the sidewalk that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Concept 1 would deliver on the original vision, to give bicyclists the option to choose local retail by bicycle, since it appears that our main streets aren’t going to be made family-bicycle-friendly, anytime soon.

However, by allowing ACUs on greenways everywhere, there would be potentially greater conflicts with neighbors interested in a strictly residential character for the street they bought into.

Concept 2 concentrates ACUs within smaller, more defined areas, minimizing the potential of conflict with neighbors. From an equity perspective, however, it would be the least equitable, as the least number of property owners would have the opportunity to provide and benefit from revenues of ACUs.

Concept 3 spreads the opportunity for revenue, lowers the barrier to opening a new business and increases access to the lowest rungs on the economic ladder to those who need it most. Those include populations victimized historically by racism, sexism and other forms of oppression. By allowing ACUs on any properties – or perhaps any served by ADA-compliant sidewalk networks – ACUs could come to areas where residents may have moved to find life in peaceful, quiet neighborhoods.

Neighbor concerns could be addressed through regulations that use ambient standards to deal with noise, odors, traffic and other potentially-noxious impacts – or by addressing the impacts rather than by establishing use regulations.

It’s up to each community to engage in dialogue over these three paradigms and choose the one that resonates most with community members participating in the public process.

Editor’s note: Garlynn’s first install–ment about ACUs was published in July at ConcordiaPDX.org/2021/07/urbanism-acus-could-make-shopping-by-bike-more-safe. In a future CNews, he’ll dive deeper into questions of commercial space affordability and a discussion of the potential benefits to neighbors from ACUs.

Garlynn Woodsong lives on 29th Avenue, serves on the CNA board and is an avid bicyclist. He also is a dad who is passionate about the city his son will inherit. He is the planning + development partner with Cascadia Partners LLC, a local urban planning firm. Contact him at LandUse@ConcordiaPDX.org.