Watering-down Portland Preservation Regulations

 

For the past several years, planning agencies at the state and city of Portland have issued a steady drip, drip of regulations aimed at diluting state and local historic preservation laws.

 The latest proposed swipe at history comes in the proposed city’s Historic Resources Code Project.  Under the worst analysis, the proposed changes would virtually eliminate the possibility of adding new historic resources while hacking away on the boundaries of existing historic districts.

 The Code Project is a comprehensive reworking of the city’s preservation laws, prompted in part by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission’s decision in 2016 to reduce design review of changes for historic buildings included in National Register Districts.

 The proposed changes are the result of three years of examination by the City of Portland to reorganize its rules about historic resources.  Brandon Spencer-Hartle, the city’s historic resources manager, told heritage advocates that public comments during the study were split: Many people thought the city wasn’t aggressive enough in protecting historic, while many others felt the preservation rules were too restrictive on new development.  Spencer-Hartle said the proposal aimed at “balancing” those competing views.

 The “balance” limits the power of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission, and would have the Planning and Sustainability Commission make recommendations to the City Council on any new historic districts.

 As it stands, the Planning Commission is weighted with representatives of the development community, and at present has nobody with any historical interest or knowledge. 

 “The PSC is largely opposed to any sort of preservation,” said Rod Merrick, an Eastmoreland architect who has been deeply involved in preservation.  “This is very, very troubling.”

 Jim Heuer, an Irvington resident and historian of Portland’s neighborhoods, is concerned that the PSC also would be enabled to ask the City Council to reduce or modify current historic districts.  He said the proposal “sees historic designation as a ‘zero sum game’ between the historically dominant culture and underserved and under-represented communities, so that we need to de-designate historic resources associated with ‘over-represented’ communities, rather than simply broadening our concept of what is ‘historic.’’

He added, “The proposal allows districts to be resized and protections removed if the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are better served in the opinion of City Council and the PSC.”

Indeed, one of the rationale's for the putting the PSC in the driver's seat for any new historic districts is that the PSC, not the Landmarks Commission, is charged with reviewing zoning code rules that determine what kinds of activities and buildings can occur in any of the city's dozens of land-use zones.

At a work session on Oct. 12, Kristen Minor, chair of the Landmarks Commission, said, "There are some really great things in the (proposed) code, as well as some we are concerned by."  The commission she chairs will discuss the code further before preparing testimony for the Planning Commission later this month.

One important amendment to the proposed new rules would be requiring at least some of the PSC members to be knowledgeable about architectural history and Portland's neighborhood history.  For the past several years, the PSC has been largely dismissive of any public testimony speaking to the value of Portland history. 

 Spencer-Hartle said the Landmarks Commission would play an advisory role to the Planning Commission in recommending new districts or amendments or down-sizing of existing districts.  Heuer said the proposal would take the Landmarks Commission “out of the process of adding potentially historic resources to the ‘significant historic resources’ list, which is the first important step in designating new historic resources and districts.”

 There is no desire here to criticize Spencer-Hartle for this unfortunate proposal.  He is trained in preservation and worked for Restore Oregon, a state-wide preservation advocacy non-profit before going to work for the city.  Heuer believes Spencer-Hartle has added a few elements that could benefit preservation despite pressure from his bosses at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and from Eli Spivak, the chair of the PSC, a developer/builder. who has firmly opposed preservationists’ concerns over several years.  

If approved, the changes would make it easier to add solar panels to buildings in historic districts.  It also would be easier to remove “secondary” buildings from a historic site, such as small or non-functional garages.

 The changes also would put the Landmarks Commission in charge of hearings, not currently available, when an owner wants to demolish a building that has been identified as a historic resource but has not been designated as a landmark or located in a historic district.  The proposal also suggests greater flexibility in finding new uses for historic buildings that otherwise would not comply with current zoning rules.  That latter element could help valued historic properties find successful new lives. 

 Before going to the City Council, the proposed new rules will be heard by the Planning Commission on Oct. 27.  As Spencer-Hartle noted -- which some take as a warning --  the commission can amend the proposal as it wishes.  That being the case, some of the "positives" for historic preservation could be removed. 

 The hearing will be held via the internet.  More information about the proposal and details on how to testify can be found at www.portland.gov/bps/hrcp

For the dedicated among you, you can find more than 200 pages of specific code changes if you filter far enough through the website.  Trying to absorb it all is a daunting task.