13:35:12 Just so you 13:35:25 can see that. And I want to take 13:35:27 a moment to talk ant 13:35:32 us as a 13:35:44 commission. So I 13:35:46 found it very interesting. Just the difference 13:35:48 between the three. We have in 13:35:50 our own personal platform, a 13:35:52 conversation about 13:35:55 equity. But we also should be 13:36:00 potentially seeking justice. Just in 13:36:02 conversations that I've had with the 13:36:04 commission over time, I continue to see 13:36:10 just small things within our 13:36:12 way of historical relevance, historical 13:36:14 context and conversations and how that's been 13:36:17 captured over time and that 13:36:19 becomes part of the systemic barrier on 13:36:21 what areas have been preserved, what areas 13:36:23 have been saved, what buildings 13:36:25 are being preserved over 13:36:28 time and you know as we continue 13:36:30 moving forward what I asked commissioners to do 13:36:32 and what I'm trying to do myself is to 13:36:34 continue to have this dialogue, continue 13:36:37 to talk about how we can find ways in 13:36:39 our own work that we're 13:36:41 doing voluntarily to 13:36:43 continue to address some of these things. If you 13:36:45 don't agree with it, I'm okay 13:36:47 with that as well. What I'd love 13:36:49 to have is just continued conversation 13:36:52 and continue to come to the table to at least talk about 13:36:54 what's out there and then 13:36:56 be compassionate about 13:36:58 the difference in opinions. We're 13:37:00 working on legacy business program right now I think 13:37:02 that's one way 13:37:07 to really talk about a way to talk about 13:37:09 equity but also the justice to take down 13:37:11 barriers. There are a lot of other things we can 13:37:13 dive into and that's what I'm looking for is 13:37:15 just examples of things that are out there. 13:37:20 How do we continue 13:37:23 to break down the 13:37:26 systematic barriers built into even what 13:37:28 we do. Land use issues, 13:37:31 how do 13:37:33 we talk about historical relevance, history is 13:37:35 being made literally right now. If 13:37:38 you haven't walked through downtown and if you haven't 13:37:40 had that chance yet, there are 13:37:42 beautiful murals everywhere. 13:37:45 And they replace what was the destruction 13:37:51 that happened from 13:37:55 those who were out there 13:37:57 destroying the city. That's history. I don't know if we can 13:37:59 grab that and take that and 13:38:04 use that as something that these are just 13:38:06 thoughts that my husband brought up to me, friends of 13:38:08 mine were talking this weekend about how do 13:38:10 we preserve pieces like that? 13:38:12 Do we have anything in place to even think 13:38:15 about how to grab that piece of 13:38:17 history 13:38:19 now and bring that forward? And I think 13:38:21 about just the 13:38:26 concept of 13:38:28 art in general. Art is 13:38:31 therapy. I had the beautiful privilege of 13:38:36 going into what they call 13:38:41 commune 13. It was one 13:38:43 of the most dangerous cities in the world where a 13:38:45 lot of drug trafficking took place. 13:38:47 It was through the Pablo Escobar 13:38:49 times. It was a lot of 13:38:54 afro-colombian people living in that area 13:38:56 and a lot of other 13:38:58 immigrants that were in 13:39:02 that area as well. And the 13:39:05 country didn't know what to do how to handle the 13:39:07 situation and what they did is they actually 13:39:09 took their bombs, their helicopters, and they 13:39:11 rolled in on an 13:39:16 area and leveled 13:39:19 it. They leveled it and 13:39:21 displaced and killed hundreds of thousands of people 13:39:23 in an area and it 13:39:25 took years from them 13:39:30 to recover through that period what they ended 13:39:32 up with is something I want to share with you as 13:39:35 well. Are you able to see this, the 13:39:37 picture? >> Yeah. >> 13:39:39 The whole neighborhood has now been 13:39:41 rebuilt 13:39:45 and it's all 13:39:49 art. It tells you the history 13:39:51 of what happened, how they got there, and how 13:39:53 they're trying to rebuild themselves. You get 13:39:55 pictures like this that talk about 13:39:57 the afro-centric 13:39:59 pieces and how important that is to the 13:40:02 Colombian heritage. And if you see 13:40:04 the circles and 13:40:06 dots that are in the actual picture, those 13:40:08 are the bullet holes that went through that 13:40:10 picture. That's where they shot and 13:40:13 where 13:40:16 people were shot either from the 13:40:20 Pablo Escobar 13:40:23 to the military 13:40:26 themselves. I'm trying to 13:40:28 find new innovative ways, if we're going 13:40:31 to set a precedent let's set it on 13:40:33 continuing to unravel these systemic things that are out 13:40:35 there. If we're going to have a conversation about what 13:40:38 can we do, how can we do 13:40:40 it and how can we be 13:40:42 forward thinking so history doesn't capture 13:40:44 20, 30 years down the road, it's happening in front of 13:40:48 our face. And I would appreciate 13:40:56 dialogue around that. How do 13:40:58 we continue to do what I think is important to 13:41:00 all of us on this commission. So that's kind 13:41:02 of where I wanted to leave things 13:41:05 and I appreciate you giving me the chance to 13:41:10 just talk about 13:41:17 this. >> That's really 13:41:19 great. I really appreciate you 13:41:22 bringing that forward and I really would 13:41:24 like to have more dialogue as 13:41:27 a 13:41:31 commission about it and 13:41:34 my personal 13:41:36 reaction to 13:41:39 trying to do something 13:41:41 to really support this cause is that we've 13:41:43 started to do it a 13:41:45 little bit 13:41:50 incrementally. As a white person I'm 13:41:53 really cautious about putting forward things 13:41:55 like oh here's what we should be doing, because this is 13:41:57 a moment in time 13:41:59 that 13:42:01 honestly, white 13:42:03 people should be listening to voices such 13:42:06 as yours, 13:42:08 Derek. But at the same time this shouldn't be all on you. 13:42:11 It's not something that you have to sort 13:42:13 of figure 13:42:18 out what we are going 13:42:20 to do so I think we're 13:42:23 trying to find a good balance and having 13:42:27 us work together on some concrete 13:42:29 ideas and some ways 13:42:32 to go ahead 13:42:36 and push some whether it's preserving some of the 13:42:39 things that have happened downtown or 13:42:41 really reaching out to individual neighborhoods 13:42:43 and how we can do 13:42:46 that just as people 13:42:50 going forth to listen to 13:42:53 communities 13:42:55 that haven't been listened to much 13:42:58 in the past and especially not in the 13:43:00 land of preservation. I don't know but I 13:43:02 definitely think we should put aside a 13:43:05 good chunk of time 13:43:07 soon and it's probably better done 13:43:11 as a retreat. >> Can I say 13:43:13 something? >> 13:43:15 Oh yeah. >> I would 13:43:17 echo Derek's call that if 13:43:20 you have not been downtown you should definitely 13:43:22 go. Because there's some really 13:43:24 powerful art 13:43:26 happening there. 13:43:28 There's also some really 13:43:31 powerful statements 13:43:33 that maybe aren't considered art 13:43:35 and that probably wouldn't end up being 13:43:37 deserved such as the graffiti 13:43:39 on the justice center but there are 13:43:41 incredible pieces of art. And 13:43:43 I think that the 13:43:47 landmarks commission as a body especially if you're 13:43:49 informed by going to look at some 13:43:51 of that 13:43:55 stuff, you could reach 13:43:58 out to 13:44:01 rack and ask them to consider what 13:44:03 they might want to preserve. A 13:44:05 lot of that stuff was created 13:44:08 by people in the public just claiming a piece 13:44:09 of 13:44:13 plywood. So there's some potential ownership 13:44:15 there. But they did put it on 13:44:17 pieces of plywood that are strapped 13:44:20 to private buildings. So I just think it's 13:44:22 a conversation 13:44:25 that could be opened with somebody or 13:44:27 some entity 13:44:30 that has the ability to preserve or 13:44:32 at least 13:44:35 catalog some of that stuff. >> 13:44:37 Yeah, I'll weigh in 13:44:39 as well if I could. This is 13:44:41 Commissioner Smith. 13:44:44 Commissioner 13:44:47 Spears, I also appreciate you bringing this 13:44:49 forward. My family and I drove through downtown on 13:44:51 Friday and I was really 13:44:55 struck by the quantity and 13:44:59 just 13:45:02 quality and expression that was going up on all 13:45:04 of that plywood downtown. And one thing that 13:45:08 occurred to me is I 13:45:10 plan to encourage my clients at 13:45:12 the Portland art 13:45:14 museum to perhaps get involved 13:45:16 with this 13:45:18 and document it, 13:45:20 try and accumulate 13:45:22 it, something or at least be involved in the 13:45:25 conversation about 13:45:28 it. Because I think this is a 13:45:31 really historic time and I think gathering all 13:45:34 of that up and 13:45:36 keeping it is an important thing 13:45:41 for our community. >> Thank 13:45:44 you, Andrew. >> Thank you 13:45:47 so much, Derek. This is commissioner 13:45:51 Mahoney. Sorry, 13:45:53 Mya. Thank you so much for bringing that up. 13:45:55 And I am particularly interested 13:45:57 in learning more about the justice piece 13:45:59 and what we do and having 13:46:02 a discussion around 13:46:04 that. Because I've been doing a lot of 13:46:07 listening and reading 13:46:11 and trying to educate myself 13:46:13 so I appreciate 13:46:16 perspective to continue that 13:46:18 education, my 13:46:22 education. So thank you. >> 13:46:24 Yeah, I second all 13:46:26 of the commissioners thank 13:46:28 you. This is 13:46:30 commissioner 13:46:33 Foty. Thank you 13:46:37 Commissioner Spears for 13:46:39 bringing it up. I feel 13:46:41 overwhelmed and helpless like 13:46:43 what can I do? I don't know what to do. And 13:46:45 I feel like it would be interesting to 13:46:47 brainstorm. I think one thing we 13:46:49 did specifically for the 13:46:51 landmark commission because that's our 13:46:53 purview and what we have some influence over. 13:46:55 Like the African American MPD 13:46:57 that seemed like something that was really 13:47:00 tangible and something that was really helpful and have the national 13:47:02 register nomination came out of it. Maybe 13:47:04 we could brainstorm some other ideas and 13:47:06 what we can do that's nuts and bolts. And maybe 13:47:08 have a task force within the 13:47:10 HLC that says we're 13:47:13 going to focus on this thing as one of our 13:47:15 projects that we have like measurable, this is what we're going 13:47:17 to focus on, we're going to do 13:47:19 this. And it can't be everything but even if 13:47:21 we do one tangible, real, 13:47:24 helpful thing 13:47:26 and we commit to 13:47:29 finishing it, I feel like that would be something I can 13:47:31 wrap my head and focus on. So I think coming up with 13:47:33 a couple of things like that and identifying 13:47:35 who's doing it and what the timeline 13:47:37 is, with my architect brain, 13:47:39 you see 13:47:41 what I'm saying? Instead of 13:47:43 feeling like I don't know what I'm going to do and so many 13:47:45 options and that way we can kind of commit to it 13:47:47 and be proud that we did it and did 13:47:50 something. So I hope we can talk about 13:47:52 that 13:47:56 at our retreat. >> This is 13:47:58 Commissioner Roman. If I can 13:48:01 just add a thanks to 13:48:03 Commissioner Spears and 13:48:05 also to know that we 13:48:07 did have a victory to 13:48:09 celebrate. And 13:48:15 congratulations getting the recommendation 13:48:17 to go forward. And I was just kind of happy 13:48:19 to 13:48:21 hear on so many different media 13:48:24 platforms from the left to the right, 13:48:26 it was a community celebration that 13:48:30 I heard and so special just thanks to 13:48:32 Kristen for doing such a great job 13:48:34 on that. And I think it's, while 13:48:36 it's not related directly to what's 13:48:39 going on, it does relate to the 13:48:41 milestones that can be accomplished and 13:48:43 so we all have 13:48:46 to say positive 13:48:49 and I think like Kristen, 13:48:52 I think as a white person I don't have a lot to say and I 13:48:54 just have a lot 13:48:56 to learn. So 13:48:58 anyway let's keep 13:49:00 educating ourselves and being open to 13:49:02 change because that's the biggest thing is people don't 13:49:04 like to change and so we just need to 13:49:07 accept that change is a good 13:49:10 thing. Anyway thank you 13:49:18 all. >> Commissioner 13:49:21 Spears I want to thank you for bringing this 13:49:24 up. I want to thank you for giving a broader view 13:49:26 beyond the U.S. And I think we also 13:49:28 can learn 13:49:32 from those countries 13:49:34 and many 13:49:36 countries that have been through 13:49:38 processes like this. Many of them started 13:49:41 early on and we can probably 13:49:43 see from the results and learn from them 13:49:45 doing more research on what's being 13:49:48 done. We have 13:49:52 processes from the 13:49:54 Berlin wall and things that have been 13:49:56 changed through the wall. I remember in Spain 13:49:58 when I went to Spain that you could 13:50:00 walk through the campus 13:50:02 and you could see the 13:50:04 bullets that were from the civil war everywhere. 13:50:06 And there were reminders and 13:50:09 flags and information everywhere about what 13:50:11 the 13:50:13 civil war was. So I know that 13:50:15 there's some things that we need to 13:50:17 start now since many things 13:50:21 might be forgotten. 13:50:24 But I agree also that 13:50:26 I'd like 13:50:29 to see 13:50:31 something more option 13:50:33 done and have measurable goals. And I would 13:50:35 like to be part of if we do a 13:50:37 task force maybe if we divided in different 13:50:40 ones so we all each one can have a 13:50:43 small piece of it. I would really like 13:50:45 to be part of that process 13:50:50 too. So thank you and 13:50:54 I look forward to talk 13:50:56 more of this not only at the 13:50:59 retreat but maybe a little bit in each 13:51:02 of our sessions where 13:51:05 we stand on 13:51:07 it. Thank you. >> I 13:51:10 just want to 13:51:12 say again, I want to continue 13:51:15 thanking you all for this to 13:51:17 happen. Without going into my story, when I talked 13:51:19 to Kristen before I became a 13:51:21 commissioner, I didn't come from a 13:51:24 place that your faces would have these 13:51:26 conversations with 13:51:28 me this way. So it helps 13:51:30 me when I talk to others 13:51:32 and ask where are we at, where are we 13:51:34 going, 13:51:36 how do we find hope in 13:51:39 some of these things. These moments are 13:51:41 my hope that people who don't look 13:51:43 like me, who 13:51:45 haven't had my experiences 13:51:47 can listen and they can 13:51:49 learn and we can move forward. 13:51:53 So I appreciate that. I'll always be 13:51:55 indebted to you all 13:51:57 and thankful to you all for these 13:51:59 moments so 13:52:02 again thank you for that. >> I think we 13:52:08 feel the same 13:52:12 13:52:14 way. >> I guess 13:52:16 would, as 13:52:19 one last piece of that, 13:52:21 Commissioner Smith, I 13:52:23 know you mentioned your client is the 13:52:26 Portland art museum and 13:52:29 Commissioner Roman, if I were 13:52:31 to 13:52:34 call, I think you had 13:52:36 a role looking at 13:52:38 murals with rack 13:52:40 at some point, is that right or am I 13:52:43 forgetting? Oh it was Commissioner 13:52:46 Mahoney. I guess I would ask both of 13:52:48 you commissioners if you would be 13:52:50 willing just to have a quick 13:52:52 conversation with that body and 13:52:55 then let us know if 13:52:57 they're open to sort of continuing 13:52:59 this conversation or if they are 13:53:02 already doing something and if 13:53:04 we could be involved. So 13:53:06 this is just specifically 13:53:08 about the pieces that are 13:53:11 downtown, all of the art on the plywood. 13:53:13 And then we can have a 13:53:15 further conversation once we know what 13:53:18 rack and Portland art museum are 13:53:20 considering 13:53:22 or would be open 13:53:24 to. Thanks. >> This is Hillary. 13:53:28 I also have a contact that 13:53:31 I could reach out to 13:53:34 about archiving some of this 13:53:36 work. >> That would be 13:53:41 great. >> But in addition 13:53:43 to 13:53:46 that immediate 13:53:49 task, I think I'm going to 13:53:51 look into potentially maybe 13:53:53 setting up a one drive 13:53:56 folder where we can dump information that we want 13:53:59 to share and just 13:54:01 have access to it 13:54:03 permanently so that we 13:54:05 don't have to send each other articles 13:54:07 via email. It could just 13:54:11 be a repository. 13:54:13 And then looking into a 13:54:16 retreat date 13:54:18 which we need anyway but maybe we can 13:54:20 pump out the 13:54:25 timeline for 13:54:27 that. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there 13:54:29 any 13:54:32 other items of interest? >> Before we leave 13:54:34 that, I just wanted to, I 13:54:37 missed the date on the joint commission hearing. 13:54:39 Could you repeat that, 13:54:42 Hillary? >> 13:54:45 July 14th, Tuesday I 13:54:50 believe. >> 13:54:54 Great. Thanks. >> Okay. 13:54:56 The next item on the 13:54:59 agenda is a 13:55:02 briefing. So I'm not sure who the 13:55:04 staff person is assigned to 13:55:06 that. >> It's 13:55:08 me. Me all day. >> 13:55:11 Okay. 13:55:14 Hillary. >> I don't have a powerpoint for 13:55:16 this, but I did send a memo 13:55:19 specifically highlighting 13:55:23 the 11 resources, one 13:55:25 of which is south 13:55:27 Portland historic district which 13:55:30 contains additional 13:55:33 resources under that umbrella. 13:55:35 But folks from metro and 13:55:38 PDOT are here to give you the 13:55:41 full rundown. 13:55:43 And I believe we will probably have 13:55:46 testifiers 13:55:50 as well. >> Okay. 13:55:53 So yeah, thank you for being here to 13:55:55 present to us. If you could 13:55:58 go ahead and start with your name and 13:56:00 mailing address and then go ahead and launch 13:56:04 your presentation. Thank you. >> Sure. 13:56:06 I'll go ahead and 13:56:08 start. I'm Teresa 13:56:10 Boyle with the Portland 13:56:14 Bureau of Transportation. I 13:56:16 wish I could remember my 13:56:20 inner office or street address, it's been a while. 13:56:22 But I am in the 13:56:24 Portland building. We were here with you actually 13:56:26 almost a month ago to do an 13:56:28 overview briefing of the southwest corridor project and 13:56:30 I am the 13:56:33 city's project manager on the team 13:56:35 representing the city to 13:56:38 tri-met and metro for the project. So that was 13:56:40 a briefing about the project 13:56:42 in total in the Portland 13:56:44 area and today is a little bit 13:56:47 different. This is part of the 13:56:50 environmental process for the 13:56:55 project and I'm joined by 13:56:58 others from metro and 13:57:00 tri-met, they'll introduce themselves and they will 13:57:02 be leading this 13:57:04 presentation and I'll be available here if 13:57:06 there are questions. So I'm going 13:57:09 to mute my mic and 13:57:14 they can get 13:57:17 started. >> Go 13:57:19 ahead, Chris. >> Oh, 13:57:21 it's me, okay. 13:57:23 Hi, I'm Chris 13:57:27 Ford from 13:57:30 Metro. Saw some of you back 13:57:32 in 2016 when you 13:57:35 releafed the draft. 13:57:38 -- released the 13:57:40 draft. >> I'm Dave 13:57:42 Unsworth from 13:57:45 TriMet. I'm 13:57:47 excited to give you an understanding 13:57:50 of the project and what we've 13:57:52 found. Andrea? >> 13:57:54 Andrea 13:57:57 Blaser I'm a 13:57:59 senior 13:58:01 architectural historian and we're 13:58:04 working with 13:58:06 13:58:09 TriMet and Metro on 13:58:11 what might be affecting our project. >> 13:58:13 We're here to talk to you about the 13:58:16 southwest corridor light rail project. 13:58:18 We're going to move on. 13:58:20 We'll 13:58:22 use the old fashioned universal signal 13:58:24 next to go to the next slide. I'm going to say next 13:58:28 now. >> Next. Metro 13:58:30 is the regional planning agency and we help 13:58:32 work and collaborate 13:58:34 on major regional transportation projects can 13:58:36 TriMet and 13:58:38 our other partners such as the 13:58:40 city of Portland, 13:58:43 ODOT and there's a 13:58:45 bunch listed on the slide. 13:58:47 We work with 13:58:50 TriMet for the federal review 13:58:52 process. I'll tell you about 13:58:54 that process and then I believe Andrea 13:58:56 will speak a little 13:58:59 more. So with a major 13:59:03 transportation project like this 13:59:06 there can be effects on 13:59:08 a lot of different issue 13:59:13 areas. Traffic, land use, it's 13:59:15 incumbent on us to also 13:59:17 disclose and document and work on other properties 13:59:19 with adverse 13:59:21 effects. And so 13:59:24 it's part of that process of 13:59:26 how things can impact historic 13:59:29 resources we came to the historic landmarks commission to 13:59:31 give you an update. The big document that 13:59:33 gets produced 13:59:36 by the federal transit agency is 13:59:38 a draft 13:59:40 environmental impact statement. 13:59:43 It's a big 13:59:45 document that went through and evaluated the possible 13:59:47 effects of a lot of different 13:59:49 alignment options on the project. Because there were 13:59:51 many different alignments 13:59:54 being shown throughout Portland. This is a project that 13:59:56 runs all the way from Portland 13:59:59 state out to 14:00:01 bridge port village. So we came 14:00:03 to you at that time and presented what all 14:00:06 of the different possible effects on historic 14:00:08 resources would be at the time. 14:00:10 Had a really helpful conversation I thought. We got 14:00:12 a letter from you, we'll get to that in a 14:00:14 little bit. And then we went back 14:00:16 and after a final route was 14:00:18 chosen 14:00:20 regionally, then others will have design work 14:00:22 done by 14:00:25 TriMet. We came back last month to talk 14:00:27 about what the project was looking like and 14:00:29 came back today to tell you 14:00:31 about section 106 and the 14:00:33 environmental process and where it's all going. This is the federal 14:00:35 process, I keep saying that 14:00:37 word because this has not 14:00:39 replaced any local process including that of the 14:00:42 permits that are needed from the city of 14:00:44 Portland. That's really important. This is the start 14:00:46 of possibly many years of conversations about 14:00:52 this 14:00:56 project. Next. 14:00:58 So when a draft 14:01:00 environmental impact statement 14:01:04 comes out, sometimes 14:01:07 ODOT does them for 14:01:09 major transportation 14:01:11 projects. Any time there's a 14:01:13 federal action the Federal Government is funding. 14:01:15 There's a public comment period and we received a 14:01:17 letter from your commissioner at the time. It was 14:01:19 a very nice letter and 14:01:21 included a little guidance and directions and 14:01:24 thoughts. The project was considering an 14:01:27 alignment through south Portland 14:01:29 and another alignment. 14:01:31 Your letter stated a preference for the 14:01:33 barber alignment. One of the 14:01:36 issues was it also had fewer 14:01:38 adverse effects on 14:01:40 historic resources. Flight concern for the 14:01:42 Jewish shelter home. That is outside the historic 14:01:44 district but it is on a national register 14:01:47 of 14:01:50 historic places. And 14:01:52 section 106 mitigations and here 14:01:54 we are. The May meeting a 14:01:56 month ago we 14:01:58 focused on 14:02:00 Terwilliger Parkway. It's a little 14:02:02 complex and we had a conversation 14:02:04 about 14:02:08 that. Next. So one 14:02:10 of the purposes, there's I would say many 14:02:12 ways, three purposes of federal 14:02:14 environmental law. And so one 14:02:16 of those is to make sure that 14:02:18 all of the necessary agencies collaborate 14:02:20 with each other. Another 14:02:22 person is to and really it's 14:02:25 primary purpose is to disclose 14:02:27 adverse effects from a project. It's not to 14:02:29 say that you can't have them 14:02:31 happen, but it is important so that people 14:02:33 know so there's not a surprise later. And 14:02:35 then the third 14:02:38 thing is to work to avoid 14:02:40 minimized or other mitigate adverse 14:02:42 effects. So what this compares is 14:02:44 where the designs we're 14:02:48 looking and at the time 14:02:51 of the draft years ago and 14:02:53 based on today is comments and feedback we've 14:02:55 gotten in general from partners 14:02:58 and the public and just evolving the 14:03:01 signs. TriMet has been trying 14:03:03 to reduce the effects on historic 14:03:06 resources. I want to make it clear when 14:03:08 I talk about historic resources, 14:03:10 these are potentially eligible for the national 14:03:12 register of historic places. And we'll get to 14:03:15 that in 14:03:19 a moment. Next. 14:03:23 There's two federal, they're not technically both 14:03:25 laws but regulations that we are 14:03:27 working with here. You may have heard of them 14:03:29 but when the feedback that we got 14:03:31 back in May was can you explain a little 14:03:36 more what these 14:03:38 are. There's sections of different laws that 14:03:40 both relate to transportation projects in 14:03:42 particular. And so section 106 is a 14:03:44 process. It's a process of 14:03:47 consultation, and ultimately it is us 14:03:50 working on behalf of the federal transit 14:03:53 administration to work with the 14:03:56 state historic 14:03:58 preservation office. Section 4f 14:04:00 is more powerful, it says 14:04:02 when there is an adverse effect on a 14:04:04 park, we're not 14:04:06 doing waterfowl 14:04:08 ref 14:04:13 uges on this but then we have to go 14:04:15 through more of a historic 14:04:18 process. What 4f 14:04:21 requires you to do, actually let's talk about 14:04:23 106 because Dave moved 14:04:25 on to that. It's a process. It's making 14:04:27 sure that you do a thorough vetting of 14:04:29 seeing if there are historic resources somewhere. 14:04:31 And this project is going into an area 14:04:33 with a lot of different historic resources. 14:04:35 I say resources because it is 14:04:37 often buildings. But it can be, we have 14:04:39 three bridges that we consider 14:04:41 historic. And so what 14:04:44 the project has 14:04:46 done during the draft 14:04:48 EIS and we've done a recent update 14:04:50 of this is identifying an area of 14:04:53 potential effect and this 14:04:55 captures all of the area where construction 14:04:58 in the project could affect the historic 14:05:00 resource. So 14:05:02 TriMet has a lot of experience 14:05:04 with this. But we need 14:05:06 to be careful about when you're constructing 14:05:08 something would it affect a historical resource. 14:05:14 We have had a few definitions of areas 14:05:17 of potential effect to consider all of 14:05:19 that and working with 14:05:21 FTA. And so once in there we 14:05:23 did a 14:05:25 survey of what would be potentially 14:05:27 eligible resources. Whether or not something 14:05:29 is in the national register, we treat it 14:05:32 the same way. Then we have to 14:05:34 decide whether or not there's adverse effects 14:05:36 and there's documentation 14:05:39 associated with it. A 14:05:41 DOE and FOE form. 14:05:48 DOE is if you think 14:05:50 it's eligible or not. And 14:05:52 then would there be an 14:05:55 adverse effect. When there's an 14:05:57 adverse effect we work towards having 14:05:59 a memorandum of agreement to work 14:06:02 this out. Next. There's a 14:06:04 lot of small print there I'm not 14:06:06 going to 14:06:09 get into here. We can send 14:06:11 this to you. This comes from, I think 14:06:14 it's from the 14:06:17 advisory council on 14:06:22 historic, 14:06:24 but ultimately what we're 14:06:28 aiming for the Federal Government will 14:06:30 consult saying do you feel we've adequately 14:06:33 documented the effects on this. And this would 14:06:35 be a documented men ram dumb 14:06:37 of agreement. 14:06:39 So agree that there is 106 consultation now 14:06:41 what we're trying to do is 14:06:43 gather input on 14:06:46 ways to mitigate adverse effects on 14:06:50 historic 14:06:52 resources. Section 4f I 14:06:55 mentioned before. It has additional requirements 14:06:59 on it. 14:07:02 It 14:07:08 -- we really fold those both in together. Ultimately 14:07:11 what 14:07:14 we're looking for 14:07:17 is they feel like the project 14:07:19 has done all reasonable or possible planning 14:07:22 to minimize the effect on 14:07:24 historical resources. At this point I'm 14:07:26 turning it over to Andrea. 14:07:28 Actually there is a key point on this 14:07:30 which is we're going to 14:07:33 see a lot of things here 14:07:35 about the adverse 14:07:37 effects on historic resources. I mentioned the 14:07:39 disclosure part of environmental law. And what 14:07:42 we really have to do is 14:07:44 disclose the maximum possible adverse effect. 14:07:46 So sometimes we may say hey a 14:07:48 resource we believe could be 14:07:50 demolished as a result of a 14:07:52 project. It does not mean it will be, 14:07:54 it is possible that with 14:07:57 more time to evolve designs or other 14:08:00 adjustments that something can be avoided, 14:08:02 it is not a promise of that. But 14:08:04 we have to look at a 14:08:06 worst case scenario here. We need 14:08:08 to make sure the public and other decision 14:08:11 makers are aware of what the project could do 14:08:14 at its most. The project is at about 14:08:16 15% designs, we'll move on to 14:08:18 30% and 60% work. So this is not the 14:08:20 last chance saloon. 14:08:22 This is part of a 14:08:24 conversation. >> Chris, will you explain what area 14:08:27 of potential effect is and why 14:08:30 we chose this and how 14:08:32 it was determined? >> The area 14:08:34 of potential 14:08:36 effect can always change within areas of an 14:08:38 environmental review can have different study 14:08:41 areas. What this one 14:08:43 was is it's 14:08:45 defined based on the 14:08:48 construction 14:08:51 footprint of the process plus I believe maybe it's another 50 14:08:53 feet, and that's to ensure that this 14:08:55 area of potential effect that 14:08:59 runs from the start of the project captures 14:09:01 all of the places that there would 14:09:03 be a physical change even during construction of the 14:09:05 area. And so we want to look 14:09:07 at historic 14:09:09 resources within this we don't 14:09:11 think that things would be affected outside of 14:09:13 it. When you see this, 14:09:15 it does not mean that this is the 14:09:17 footprint of the project. It is the area where 14:09:19 historic resources could be 14:09:25 potentially affected. 14:09:27 There are 2A 14:09:33 PE's on here. We are working as 14:09:35 partners to provide the federal and 14:09:38 environmental clearance that that project may require. So we're 14:09:40 also looking at that. As you 14:09:42 can see from this map this 14:09:44 APE overlaps quite 14:09:46 a bit with the south Portland historic district. >> 14:09:49 And for the purposes of historic and 14:09:51 archaeological, that's the area in which 14:09:53 we used to determine 14:09:56 whether or not there is a resource, potential 14:09:58 resource in 14:10:00 there? >> You mentioned 14:10:02 archaeological 14:10:04 things 14:10:06 which by the way I don't believe any 14:10:08 archaeological resources have been 14:10:12 found of great note. However there would 14:10:13 still be monitoring and other work 14:10:16 that happens during construction of the project. 14:10:19 This is a developed area it's difficult to 14:10:21 at this moment 14:10:23 ascertain whether or not there's any significant archaeological 14:10:25 resources. You find that out when 14:10:27 you build. >> We think 14:10:30 there are some significant areas 14:10:32 but they're generally farther 14:10:34 south. Andrea, do you want to talk 14:10:36 about the determination of eligibility 14:10:38 and the draft finding of effect. >> 14:10:41 Yeah, sure. And I should note to get to the 14:10:44 properties where we actually did determinations of 14:10:46 eligibility and findings of effect we looked 14:10:48 at over 600 building 14:10:51 structure site objects that are from the 14:10:53 APE. And we did kind of what 14:10:55 we call a baseline level of 14:10:57 reporting where we gather a general amount 14:10:59 of information on every resource 14:11:01 out there that's 45 years in age or 14:11:03 older and we do that to 14:11:05 give a five year buffer. We do that 14:11:07 so that while the project is developing and 14:11:10 things are changing we identify things 14:11:12 that will become 50 years in age while that process is 14:11:14 continuing. So that gives us a 14:11:16 little extra wiggle room 14:11:19 on how long our survey results remain 14:11:22 valid. We narrow down based on 14:11:24 integrity and what we know about the general 14:11:26 context of an area to kind of get 14:11:28 down to this core group of 14:11:31 properties that we think might be eligible for 14:11:33 listing in the national register based on applying for 14:11:36 criteria and also looking at the seven 14:11:38 aspects of integrity. And then, 14:11:40 Dave, I don't know if you want to throw up the 14:11:42 example form really quickly. This is an example 14:11:44 of the form that we 14:11:47 did for 14:11:49 Capitol Hill motel. 14:11:52 We documented the determination of 14:11:54 eligibility and finding of effect 14:11:56 in the same form. That was kind of 14:11:58 able to build in some efficiency 14:12:00 for the project and not do two separate 14:12:02 forms for each property that might be 14:12:04 historically significant. Each of these 14:12:06 forms includes a 14:12:08 description of the building, 14:12:10 what it's character defining features 14:12:12 are, what its 14:12:15 boundary is, what its 14:12:17 period of significance is, essentially 14:12:19 establishing all of the details we want to know when we 14:12:21 get to the finding of effect so that 14:12:23 we know how this property 14:12:25 might be affected by the project. 14:12:27 Dave, if you want to keep scrolling down. 14:12:29 These forms are fairly 14:12:31 intensive. There's a lot of information in them. And of course 14:12:34 as the project develops some 14:12:36 of what we have for the 14:12:38 finding of 14:12:40 effect might change over time. 14:12:42 But at least this provides us a snapshot 14:12:45 in time right now for the 14:12:47 FEIS that we can use for project planning 14:12:50 purposes and to figure out mitigation 14:12:53 strategies for things that might be 14:12:56 adversely affected including Capitol Hill motel 14:12:58 here. For some of these it's 14:13:00 easier to find historical 14:13:02 photographs than others. Right here 14:13:04 for instance we used aerial footage 14:13:06 to show the impact of 14:13:09 Capitol Hill motel just before and after 14:13:11 the construction of I-five outside of the 14:13:13 building. Others we have nice, 14:13:15 historical photographs like for the 14:13:17 synagogue on 14:13:19 Barker Boulevard of 14:13:23 it being 14:13:27 constructed. Then all of these 14:13:29 forms, a good chunk of them 14:13:31 so far have been informally 14:13:33 reviewed by the state historic preservation 14:13:35 office. And we've been getting 14:13:37 feedback from them so that by the 14:13:39 time the final forms get to them as 14:13:42 part of a final report we're all on the same page and there's 14:13:44 no surprises and there's been 14:13:47 consultation leading up to the actual 14:13:49 mitigation that's been 14:13:52 proposed. >> This is 14:13:54 showing I think where the roadway would have to be 14:13:57 expanded to kind 14:13:59 of 14:14:01 accommodate light rail, sidewalks, 14:14:03 bicycle lanes in many cases don't exist 14:14:05 on this roadway now to current roadway 14:14:07 standards. And it shows that we're getting into this 14:14:10 building and so therefore this would 14:14:13 be an adversely affected building. 14:14:15 Correct me if I'm 14:14:17 mistaken here? >> That's correct. >> You've done 14:14:19 one of these. I'm going to go back to the 14:14:21 powerpoint, if I can. >> I will point out 14:14:23 what I said earlier. So what 14:14:26 we're proposing is that the final 14:14:28 environmental impact statement is working towards in the 14:14:34 related documentation that this would be a 14:14:36 demolition. The reality 14:14:38 may end up being that parts of it could be 14:14:41 preserved. But we don't know that at this point and 14:14:43 so it's incumbent 14:14:45 upon us to document the 14:14:47 maximum possible effect. >> So clearly we're 14:14:50 taking out some portion of the building so it is 14:14:52 clearly one of the 14:14:54 adversely affected properties that's 14:14:56 listed on the slide here. Let's focus in 14:14:58 on the inner 14:15:02 Portland area first. >> Yeah, 14:15:04 so most of the eligible properties that we identified were 14:15:06 in this inner Portland area 14:15:09 which makes sense because 14:15:11 it's a dense concentration of historic 14:15:13 buildings and 14:15:15 then the south Portland historic 14:15:17 district is right smack dab in the 14:15:19 middle. I think along 14:15:21 the light rail portion 14:15:24 of the project there are 30 I believe 14:15:26 contributing buildings 14:15:28 of the district within that area alone. So there's 14:15:30 a lot of overlap between the 14:15:32 two projects although for the bridge 14:15:34 head we're still in the process of looking at 14:15:36 potential effects for that project. 14:15:38 But what is proposed 14:15:41 there is fairly minor outside of the 14:15:43 actual realignment of the bridge 14:15:45 head. So we're not anticipating any further 14:15:48 adverse 14:15:51 effects from the bridge head of the project. 14:15:53 We have some parks as well 14:15:55 that aren't going to be 14:15:57 adversely affected they're just being 14:15:59 called 14:16:03 out. Dunaway Park is not going to be 14:16:05 affected at all. 14:16:08 Then we have 14:16:10 Terwilliger Parkway and the Jewish 14:16:12 shelter home which will likely be 14:16:15 adverse effects from the project. >> So 14:16:17 by impacting something, 14:16:20 continuing resources in the South Portland 14:16:22 Historic District we may 14:16:25 adversely affect some portion of the district 14:16:27 itself. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> 14:16:29 What's interesting here is you can see 14:16:31 the location of the Jewish 14:16:35 Shelter Home and the district itself as we come 14:16:37 down through this. >> Then the further south 14:16:39 you go down, there's 14:16:41 less buildings along the corridor because that's 14:16:43 where it becomes kind of green and there's a 14:16:45 few ravines that cut through east 14:16:47 to 14:16:51 west. We have the southwest 14:16:53 Newbury street viaduct 14:16:55 and the southwest Vermont street viaduct. 14:16:57 And Barbara boulevard was 14:17:01 constructed along the former railroad. So 14:17:03 those viaducts are 14:17:07 former 14:17:12 trestles for other 14:17:14 railroad. The Oregon 14:17:16 electric railroad crossing which used to be the 14:17:19 alignment of the Oregon electric 14:17:21 railway. So that's why it has that 14:17:23 name. That's the other bridge constructed in the 14:17:26 early 1930s when Barbara Boulevard was 14:17:29 completed and they're just too small to 14:17:31 accommodate the light rail 14:17:34 infrastructure, and 14:17:37 vehicles, and pedestrians at the 14:17:39 same time in a safe way. And there's a 14:17:43 couple of buildings south 14:17:49 at intersection 14:17:51 and they will be adversely effected because they're 14:17:53 in the way of the park and ride 14:17:55 location. And I don't think 14:17:59 we have a 14:18:01 slide showing 14:18:06 farther south. It's not going to be 14:18:09 adversely 14:18:13 affected. And industrial properties which was constructed in the 14:18:16 1960s and it's associated with an 14:18:18 industrial boom that happened at that point in time. 14:18:20 We're not anticipating any adverse 14:18:22 effects in that part 14:18:25 of the project. >> Basically you can see 14:18:27 this is 14:18:29 a shot of southwest 14:18:31 Barbur Boulevard. Pretty 14:18:33 typical, it was 14:18:35 an old state highway before bike lanes 14:18:37 were required before sidewalks were considered. So in 14:18:40 many places we're having to go back through and add 14:18:42 a sidewalk, a planner strip, 14:18:44 a bicycle lane, car lanes, and 14:18:46 light rail. This is what it will look like when 14:18:48 we're done. You can see 14:18:50 from the right on the section below 14:18:52 a 15-foot sidewalk, protected 14:18:54 bike lane, vegetation strip, two 14:18:56 lanes of traffic, light rail in the center, 14:18:59 and you can 14:19:01 see on the opposite side. If you're 14:19:03 going to put all of that in there and we looked 14:19:05 at many, many alternatives you're 14:19:07 going to have to squeeze the right of way. And that 14:19:09 right of way is going to get a little bit 14:19:11 larger. This is 14:19:13 in the inner 14:19:15 part of 14:19:17 Barbur Boulevard. We're not having as 14:19:19 many traffic lanes here but we can still see 14:19:21 ample sidewalks in here. It gets 14:19:25 tighter. We've squeezed things as we 14:19:27 go adjacent to historic buildings. First and 14:19:29 foremost I will say we tried 14:19:31 to avoid to the degree possible 14:19:34 impacts to historic and 14:19:36 parklands which is required of us as we 14:19:38 go through this federal 14:19:40 process that I first described. Here's some examples 14:19:42 of some of those 14:19:44 resources, Andrea. >> 14:19:46 Yeah so for this discussion 14:19:50 we've kind of 14:19:53 ground things 14:19:55 thematically. It's nice to do individual things 14:19:58 for each of these which is 14:20:01 proposed but it's also nice to find 14:20:03 opportunities to discuss themes that you're 14:20:05 finding 14:20:07 historically along such a long linear 14:20:10 corridor. So upper left is 14:20:13 Rasmussen Village. 14:20:15 It was an apartment complex constructed in 14:20:18 1941 and some additional 14:20:20 buildings were constructed behind it 14:20:22 in 1951 a little bit later. It's 14:20:24 a good example of 14:20:26 an art deco apartment complex. It 14:20:28 also has a garage that's behind it which is kind 14:20:30 of a neat feature for an apartment 14:20:32 complex from that time period. We're 14:20:35 recommending that it's 14:20:37 eligible under criteria 14:20:39 C for it's type and period of 14:20:41 construction. And it's going to be 14:20:43 adversely affected because there's 14:20:45 a really nice stucco wall that 14:20:48 incorporates signage for the property. It 14:20:51 appears to be original to the period of 14:20:53 significance. And the removal of that wall 14:20:55 for the project in addition to a change in circulation where the 14:20:57 entry is going to change, we're 14:20:59 recommending that that's going to 14:21:01 lead to an adverse 14:21:03 effect. The buildings will 14:21:05 not be 14:21:07 taken down. Capitol Hill 14:21:09 motel is the 14:21:11 upper right. It was constructed in 14:21:14 1940 and it's a 14:21:16 minimal traditional auto court motel. There used to be 14:21:18 a lot of these on 14:21:21 Barbur Boulevard and there's still a few 14:21:23 around. But most of them have really 14:21:25 poor integrity, they have lost many of their aspects of 14:21:27 integrity. Capitol Hill 14:21:30 Motel also doesn't have the greatest 14:21:32 integrity. Most of its 14:21:34 original windows have been swapped out. There's some vinyl 14:21:36 siding on there as well. But because it's kind 14:21:38 of a disappearing resource, 14:21:40 this is actually one of the best examples left 14:21:43 on Barbur Boulevard and it 14:21:46 still has enough of its aspects of 14:21:48 integrity. It still has 14:21:50 the individual garages associated with 14:21:52 each individual unit, and it's got its 14:21:54 neon signs from the 1950s 14:21:56 that we feel there's enough 14:21:59 integrity there left that 14:22:01 we feel it is indeed eligible for 14:22:05 listing on the national register 14:22:08 and under criterion 14:22:10 C for embodying distinctive 14:22:12 characteristics of this type 14:22:14 and period of construction. As you 14:22:16 saw on that map 14:22:18 earlier, part of the building is going to have to be 14:22:21 demolished to make way for the project. So even 14:22:24 if it ends up that part of it can be 14:22:26 saved if they still have 14:22:28 to take out part of the building we're going to say that 14:22:30 that's going to be an 14:22:35 adverse 14:22:37 effect. The lower 14:22:39 two are at that 53rd avenue and 14:22:42 Barbur Boulevard intersection where 14:22:44 they're going to be doing those park and ride. And 14:22:46 the building on the bottom left is 14:22:48 a commercial building that was built in 1969 14:22:50 and it really stands out for the area 14:22:52 for its design. We weren't able to find 14:22:54 an architect for it, not 14:22:57 yet. We'll still keep 14:22:59 looking before everything is 14:23:01 finalized but we're proposing 14:23:03 it is eligible under 14:23:05 criterion C. And then this 14:23:08 house was built in 1938 and even though 14:23:10 it's a modest home it's a really 14:23:12 good example of the mixture of the Tudor 14:23:15 revival and minimalistic 14:23:18 styles. It's distinctive for its varied construction 14:23:20 and so we're recommending that 14:23:22 it's eligible under criterion 14:23:24 C. Next slide. So for the mitigation 14:23:29 for these resources the 14:23:31 project is recommending at this 14:23:33 point in time to do state level 14:23:35 documentation for each of those buildings. 14:23:38 Which the state 14:23:40 level documentation involves a 14:23:42 historical narrative, it 14:23:45 requires photo 14:23:47 documentation done to the national 14:23:50 register standards. There's usually a 14:23:52 requirement for measured 14:23:55 drawings of the floor plans of the buildings. And if 14:23:57 you come across any 14:24:00 great 14:24:03 archival information that stays on file 14:24:05 and usually goes to 14:24:11 a second repository where 14:24:13 it can be publicly available 14:24:16 to people. Then on top of 14:24:18 that, for these four 14:24:20 buildings, we thought it would be nice 14:24:22 to do something that provides a narrative of the history of 14:24:25 Barbur Boulevard from its 14:24:27 construction in the 1930s and how 14:24:30 it had an impact along this very long 14:24:32 stretch of the project. There's a 14:24:34 lot of neat commercial industry along this 14:24:36 corridor and other industries 14:24:38 that aren't being adversely 14:24:40 affected. There's 14:24:42 things like the pancake 14:24:45 house. There's other 14:24:47 businesses Portlanders know along the 14:24:49 stretch that would be great to be tied 14:24:51 into these other buildings being 14:24:53 adversely affected and how this area of Portland 14:24:55 has changed over time. So 14:24:57 doing some sort of narrative history and 14:25:00 making that publicly available and having that up 14:25:02 for a while so people could refer 14:25:04 to it. 14:25:06 All right. Next. 14:25:08 So these are the three bridges that will have 14:25:11 to be removed to make way 14:25:13 for the project. They were all constructed during the 14:25:15 early 1930s when 14:25:17 Barbur Boulevard was originally being 14:25:20 constructed. They were all federal aid projects so they 14:25:22 got funding through the national industrial recovery 14:25:24 act. The funding for that 14:25:26 was distributed by 14:25:28 the bureau of public roads which was a 14:25:30 predecessor of federal highway administration 14:25:32 and the predecessor for 14:25:36 Oregon Department of Transportation. 14:25:38 For the two viaducts up top they were constructed just 14:25:40 about the same time in the 14:25:42 same year, 14:25:44 very similar plans. All three of these are 14:25:47 Category 2 bridges by 14:25:49 ODOT standards which 14:25:53 identifies them as being historic and 14:25:55 likely eligible but either having maybe 14:25:57 some integrity issues or of a more 14:26:00 standard plan. The two 14:26:02 viaducts do have integrity issues. 14:26:05 You probably can't tell that 14:26:07 well by the upper right 14:26:09 hand photographer the railing on the 14:26:11 Vermont street viaduct has been altered 14:26:13 same with the Newbury 14:26:17 viaduct. The Oregon electric 14:26:19 railway appears to be more of a 14:26:21 standard ODOT design. 14:26:23 For all three of these we're 14:26:25 recommending they are historically significant under 14:26:27 criterion A for 14:26:29 their association 14:26:32 with the early 14:26:34 association of federal aid projects at 14:26:37 a time period when new deal era programs 14:26:39 were a big deal because they were putting people to 14:26:41 work. The two viaducts as well 14:26:44 on top of having that significant association we're also 14:26:46 recommending that they're eligible under 14:26:48 criterion C. They're 14:26:50 early example of composite bridges because 14:26:52 they mix timber and concrete 14:26:54 elements in order to get the 14:26:56 most bang for their buck essentially. 14:26:58 Because if you mix 14:27:00 timber and concrete you get something that's 14:27:02 affordable but it also provides a lot 14:27:05 more strength than a regular 14:27:10 timber structure. The most 14:27:12 famous bridge engineer in Oregon, he was 14:27:14 a big component of this early type of 14:27:16 bridge. He didn't design these 14:27:18 ones specifically but he did 14:27:21 recommend a timber composite 14:27:22 design for these. I think that's it 14:27:25 for those. Thank you, next. For the 14:27:27 mitigation 14:27:29 we're going to recommend historic 14:27:31 American engineering record or 14:27:34 HAER for short documentation. 14:27:36 HAER documentation is a step above 14:27:38 the state level document nation in that 14:27:40 you still have to provide physical 14:27:43 descriptions and historical narrative. But there is 14:27:45 usually, you usually have to do 14:27:47 measured drawings either historic or 14:27:49 modern measured 14:27:51 drawings with the documentation in addition to large 14:27:54 format of photography, 14:27:56 filmed photography, 14:27:59 not 14:28:02 digital 14:28:04 photography, this documentation is submitted be I 14:28:06 the parks service 14:28:08 and submitted to the library of Congress. Because 14:28:10 of that it's at 14:28:13 the higher level. 14:28:17 TriMet is committed to doing some sort 14:28:19 of interpretive signage to 14:28:21 kind of walk through the history especially of the 14:28:23 viaducts because there's really interesting history 14:28:25 there of the layers 14:28:27 of the railroad trestles being 14:28:29 there before Barbur 14:28:31 Boulevard was constructed. You may have seen 14:28:34 it on more recent bridges 14:28:36 where they can do like the date stamp of the 14:28:39 older bridge versus the newer bridge so 14:28:41 you know something there had come 14:28:43 before it. I don't know if you want to expand 14:28:45 on that a little bit, 14:28:47 Dave, or if I captured that correctly. >> 14:28:49 There's a couple of opportunities either below 14:28:51 or on top of the bridge for people going 14:28:53 through there. It will be a 14:28:55 widely expanded bridge with light rail in the 14:28:57 middle, two lanes, ample bike 14:29:00 lanes and sidewalks which isn't there today. 14:29:02 So I think 14:29:04 there's an opportunity to see more 14:29:06 of that design and think more about how you tie 14:29:08 it back into the historical 14:29:10 aspect of 14:29:12 these two crossings. >> I 14:29:14 do need to ask, how many 14:29:16 resources do you have to walk us 14:29:18 through, Andrea? I just want 14:29:20 to be cognizant that 14:29:22 we have 14:29:25 time to take some testimony. >> Just three more 14:29:27 it looks like. >> Oh great, 14:29:29 okay. Carry on. >> 14:29:31 We'll go through quickly. >> This is the hard 14:29:33 one. >> A lot of 14:29:35 great information. >> I think 14:29:37 we can start breezing through 14:29:39 them. So congregation 14:29:42 Ahavat h Achim 14:29:45 synagogue. I think most people know this 14:29:48 one, it's a distinctive 14:29:52 building. It's the home 14:29:56 of Portland's first congregation 14:29:58 and it was the second building that housed 14:30:01 the congregation because 14:30:03 they tried to move their first building when they were being 14:30:05 displaced. So this ties 14:30:07 into deeper south Portland history than just 14:30:09 this building in the 1960s. And we're 14:30:12 recommending that it's eligible under 14:30:14 criterion A and C so for associations with 14:30:16 patterns of development in the neighborhood and 14:30:18 for its architectural significance that 14:30:21 it meets special 14:30:23 criteria for properties of religious significant that 14:30:27 they have to meet in order to be eligible 14:30:29 for a listing on the national 14:30:31 register. Then Dave, did you want to talk 14:30:33 a little about the design constraints of 14:30:35 this location? >> Yeah, I do. I'm 14:30:37 pulling up Google earth and this is the 14:30:39 spot that we're talking 14:30:42 about. We're putting an inclined 14:30:45 elevator 14:30:47 up to here. The other connection 14:30:49 that we're building 14:30:52 is making sure people can 14:30:56 safely get across to the 14:30:58 bridge that gets you across to south 14:31:01 waterfront. It's a key station 14:31:03 location. While I've got 14:31:07 Google Earth up one of the 14:31:09 things we spent a lot of time on the orange 14:31:11 line doing is how we bring light rail, 14:31:13 streetcar, three bus lines and a whole 14:31:15 bunch of bicycle pedestrians through here. And 14:31:17 this activity that we spent trying to make sure 14:31:19 this worked safely was a very 14:31:22 key and a paramount element of the orange line. 14:31:24 In fact we observed it for a while and 14:31:27 it wasn't working right. We had to 14:31:29 switch where the blue paint was and where the 14:31:31 pedestrians were to avoid people 14:31:33 getting hurt. It's really about 14:31:36 safety. So let me go back to the 14:31:41 powerpoint here. 14:31:43 So I would say that the next thing that we've 14:31:46 learned is moving the station further either 14:31:48 north or to the south is 14:31:52 really 14:31:56 precluded because 14:31:58 of the historic 14:32:01 landmark. It really wants to be 14:32:05 in this location 14:32:07 and this station does a couple of different 14:32:09 things. It has 14:32:11 people walking 14:32:14 to the Gibbs street over to the 14:32:16 inclined elevator. We have busses that are 14:32:18 coming in, two bus lines that come 14:32:20 in. People offload here 14:32:23 and comes this way. We have trains coming 14:32:25 here, training coming here, 14:32:27 busses coming here. This is a very 14:32:32 complicated intersection to get right for 14:32:33 pedestrians, for bicyclists, 14:32:35 and for our passengers who may run 14:32:38 across the street to catch a train which 14:32:40 we have seen before. So we spent 14:32:42 a lot of time working at the safety of this 14:32:44 intersection here and coming 14:32:46 to the determination that it actually needs to be 14:32:48 here. Right now we've looked at 14:32:51 minimizing the travel lanes, the 14:32:54 sidewalks, the bike, we've squeezed 14:32:56 everything we can here and feel almost 14:32:59 uncomfortable about how much we've squeezed on 14:33:01 here. This station is 14:33:03 a key station. I've just 14:33:05 talked about the key to the 14:33:08 south waterfront and 14:33:11 OHSU. Metro does forecasting 14:33:14 for ridership so 14:33:16 trains come through downtown and 14:33:18 serve the station. And trains that 14:33:23 go all the way down serve it as well. We have 14:33:26 two bus lines that will drop people off here. We 14:33:28 expect this to be by far the busiest 14:33:30 station along this new 14:33:32 alignment as forecasted 14:33:34 for 13,800 trips that either get on or get 14:33:36 off here at the 14:33:39 station. And over 10,000 of them 14:33:41 are going up. So it's 14:33:43 a very, very busy station so we've got to 14:33:45 take this very seriously. So what we've done is 14:33:48 we focus a lot of time on 14:33:50 trying to understand what are the 14:33:53 desired lines for pedestrians. How do 14:33:55 they get through 14:33:57 here. We know that 14:34:00 perpendicular to a 14:34:02 crossing or not making it 14:34:04 a small space is really important. We 14:34:06 imagine there could be up to 90 people 14:34:08 waiting for an intersection through here 14:34:10 or light change through here. So you 14:34:12 need to have the ample room for 14:34:14 people to safely be done 14:34:16 here. Some of the things we've recognized 14:34:19 is 14:34:21 this is the right place for the connection right across here that 14:34:24 connects you to the station this way and the 14:34:26 station to the south. It wants to be here and one of the 14:34:28 things we recognize we have to do 14:34:30 ADA's so we have an 14:34:32 ADA ramp that comes up here that really 14:34:35 squeezes our ability and really impacts where 14:34:37 the footprint of this building is. 14:34:39 And even still this doesn't 14:34:41 give us enough room to actually work through here. 14:34:43 Normally we've got a 15-foot 14:34:45 sidewalk. We're down to six 14:34:48 feet seven inches or so through here. So 14:34:50 there's not a lot of room en if 14:34:52 you get rid of the planner strips through 14:34:55 here. That's one of the things that you 14:34:57 can take a look at the section down 14:35:00 here how we look at squeezing the 14:35:02 section on both sides of the roadway in order 14:35:04 to accomplish getting all of this right 14:35:06 of way, all of this 14:35:08 physical elements into the 14:35:10 same area. What happens if 14:35:12 you move the 14:35:14 crossing further down, you have those desire 14:35:16 lines. And it's something that we thought about, we 14:35:18 looked at. But it doesn't 14:35:20 necessarily work much better. I think some of the things 14:35:23 that we're worried about is angled crossing 14:35:25 to a station when either 14:35:27 people want to go through here. 14:35:29 So we think lining them up 14:35:32 and getting the direct access is 14:35:34 better. Obviously going across train 14:35:36 tracks at an angle is worse for 14:35:38 bicyclists and 14:35:40 people with wheelchair devices. We've also 14:35:42 just come to the conclusion that 14:35:44 this really doesn't leave us enough 14:35:47 room for the congregations of people 14:35:49 coming through here. And that really 14:35:51 impacts this. Nothing to be said about 14:35:53 sub text or crime prevention 14:35:55 through environmental design, you want to have 14:35:57 clear lines coming through here. So all of 14:35:59 this has taken us to the conclusion 14:36:01 that I think that we 14:36:03 at this point believe that at this 15% 14:36:05 level of engineering and 14:36:07 heading towards 30% that the clear sidewalk and 14:36:10 landing zone at the top of the 14:36:12 ADA is really important. The 14:36:14 safety of 14:36:16 queueing around this area is very 14:36:18 important. And the most direct route 14:36:22 and pedestrians take the 14:36:24 most direct route is one that is with 14:36:27 an alignment here that lines things 14:36:29 up. As we've also looked at other 14:36:32 regulations that other 14:36:34 crossing standards, we've come to the conclusion 14:36:36 that this is probably the best 14:36:38 location for that crossing which leads us to 14:36:40 get into 14:36:43 the building. So 14:36:45 we believe 14:36:47 prioritizing people over nonoccupied 14:36:50 buildings, right now it's a 14:36:52 nonoccupied 14:36:54 building is an important element. We're 14:36:56 calling this an adverse impact where we're moving 14:36:58 the building. So I want to 14:37:01 talk about the mitigation. 14:37:03 Andrea, do you want to touch base on the mitigation for 14:37:05 this? >> Yeah. So the 14:37:07 proposed 14:37:09 mitigation as things stand 14:37:11 right now would be historic American buildings 14:37:15 survey which is similar so I won't 14:37:17 walk through that again. 14:37:19 Then doing some sort of 14:37:21 interpretive display not only to the 14:37:27 synagogue but to Jewish 14:37:29 history. This could be a real educational opportunity at 14:37:31 that site where it's going to be a very high 14:37:34 trafficked location. And 14:37:36 TriMet would work 14:37:38 with the Oregon Jewish museum and center 14:37:40 for holocaust education to develop whatever is 14:37:42 put in 14:37:44 there. Then the 14:37:46 Jewish Shelter Home is 14:37:48 listed on the national register of historic places. 14:37:50 I believe it was listed in the early 14:37:53 1980s. It was 14:37:55 constructed in 1902 as a 14:37:57 private residence this was 14:37:59 condition 14:38:02 -- converted 14:38:04 to help Jewish children 14:38:06 in the south Portland area who were 14:38:10 often orphaned. 14:38:12 Under criterion B for its association 14:38:14 with several people in the 14:38:16 Meyer family. 14:38:18 And it's also likely eligible under 14:38:21 criterion C for its architectural 14:38:23 significance as well. The project might end up 14:38:25 touching the isolation hospital 14:38:27 that you see on the right there. 14:38:29 The isolation hospital was constructed as a 14:38:31 separate building around 14:38:33 1920 in order to have a separate 14:38:36 location where sick children could be held until 14:38:38 they got better. I think it was 14:38:40 used commercially at several points 14:38:42 in time after, let's see the 14:38:44 building was only the 14:38:47 Jewish Shelter 14:38:49 Home 14:38:55 , it was totally redone in the 1980 14:38:58 and is it was attached even though 14:39:00 they were constructed separately. I know 14:39:03 the project is doing everything they can in trying to get 14:39:05 a variance so that they don't have to 14:39:07 touch that isolation 14:39:09 hospital. But it does depend 14:39:11 on what's allowable as far as the sidewalk length at 14:39:14 that area. If that deviation cannot be 14:39:16 obtained, then what remains of the 14:39:18 house after the removal 14:39:20 of the isolation hospital would be 14:39:22 restored back to its original 14:39:24 condition according to the secretary 14:39:29 standards. Then 14:39:31 the South Portland 14:39:34 Historic District, 14:39:36 I won't go into too much district 14:39:38 because I know we're short on 14:39:41 time. It's very large. There's going 14:39:43 to be six buildings that 14:39:45 contribute to the eligibility of the historic 14:39:47 district which is listed, if I 14:39:49 didn't mention that before that will need to be fully 14:39:51 removed and acquired for the 14:39:53 project. There are going to be several other 14:39:56 locations as well where there's going to be 14:39:58 minor touches of an individual 14:40:00 contributing or noncontributing resource 14:40:02 within the 14:40:04 district. But 14:40:07 because of the 14:40:09 overall affect on the historic district which is 14:40:11 the resource or property we have to 14:40:14 assess the affect on, 14:40:16 the cumulative affect of the removal 14:40:18 of those buildings and everything else 14:40:20 happening, environmental, and all of the other 14:40:22 little takes we're saying that it's going 14:40:24 to be an 14:40:29 adverse effect to the 14:40:31 district. Both of them 14:40:34 were constructed in the late 14:40:36 1800's. The house on the left 14:40:38 was constructed in 1894. The one 14:40:40 on the right was constructed in 14:40:42 14:40:44 1880. Next, Dave. Then these 14:40:47 four are secondary 14:40:49 contributing. They were all constructed in the 14:40:51 early 20th century. And 14:40:53 the one on the lower right 14:40:55 has been extensively 14:40:57 modified. We found it easier 14:41:00 to continue calling it contributive even though it no 14:41:02 longer reflects its 14:41:04 historic appearance. 14:41:06 For proposed mitigation 14:41:08 strategies for the district, 14:41:11 TriMet is going to off each 14:41:13 building to people who would like to 14:41:15 relocate it. They're going to offer the 14:41:17 building at no cost for somebody to 14:41:19 relocate. And if somebody doesn't want to take it and 14:41:21 relocate it, of course 14:41:24 they would be offered up for 14:41:26 salvage. And we found through 14:41:28 surveying for the project that the nomination 14:41:30 was done in 14:41:33 1998. It's now 2020 and a lot of things 14:41:36 have changed within the district. 14:41:38 We think it would be a great idea to 14:41:40 not only invite the public but the city and 14:41:42 lots of other people if survey 14:41:44 information was provided for the entire district and that the nomination 14:41:46 be revised and 14:41:48 updated. So we're working to actually do an 14:41:51 update to the nomination and get that 14:41:53 through to the keeper of the national 14:41:55 register. Then I think that brings us 14:41:57 to our last property 14:41:59 which is 14:42:03 Terwilliger Parkway which is pretty 14:42:06 complicated as the project goes 14:42:08 as other people have 14:42:12 alluded to. I know there's 14:42:14 been efforts ongoing to try 14:42:16 to put together a national register of historic 14:42:18 places forum to try to 14:42:20 get this listed. For this project we're 14:42:23 recommending that it's eligible under criterion 14:42:25 A and criterion C connected 14:42:28 with a lot 14:42:31 of different 14:42:33 thematic, different themes of 14:42:35 history in Portland's 14:42:37 history including city beautiful and basically the development 14:42:39 of the parks system in 14:42:42 Portland. So as far as the 14:42:45 project's effect on this we're assuming 14:42:47 that an adverse effect is going to 14:42:50 occur but we're still in conversation to 14:42:52 see what that level of effect can 14:42:54 be. And still 14:42:57 working on the design. The 14:42:59 folks at Tri 14:43:03 Met are still working on the design and trying 14:43:06 to minimize the 14:43:08 effect. Only impacting it 14:43:11 at one crossing point essentially, but is what's 14:43:13 happening at that one crossing point an 14:43:15 adverse effect or not. Still trying to figure 14:43:17 that out but for right 14:43:19 now we're considering that worst case 14:43:22 scenario. Dave, do you want to pipe 14:43:24 in about the design? >> I 14:43:26 gave a briefing on 14:43:29 May 20th. >> Okay so they're in the 14:43:31 know. So 14:43:33 essentially more interpretation especially at the point of where the project is 14:43:36 going to be, that way it can really emphasize 14:43:38 the history of that place and 14:43:40 take advantage of the new 14:43:42 development opportunity in order to really tell people about the 14:43:44 history of the parkway, 14:43:46 the history of city beautiful 14:43:48 movement in 14:43:50 Portland, of the Olmstead 14:43:52 brothers and really an opportunity 14:43:54 to provide educational opportunity 14:43:58 right there at the park. And then 14:44:00 again still working to minimize the 14:44:02 impact of the design on the 14:44:06 historical property. >> I think we've got these 14:44:08 last two slides and then we'll be 14:44:10 hopefully out of your hair until questions. So we have a 14:44:12 number of groups that we looked 14:44:15 to engage with so restore Oregon, 14:44:17 Oregon historical society, 14:44:20 DocoMoMo, the 14:44:23 congregation which you've already had 14:44:25 lots of contact with and 14:44:28 South Portland neighborhood. So looking at 14:44:30 the mitigation strategies we 14:44:32 proposed. So where are we with the 14:44:35 project, we're essentially somewhere right about here 14:44:37 in the middle of 2020. We have a vote, a 14:44:39 regional vote in November 14:44:41 and if that 14:44:44 goes well we'll move forward. 14:44:46 Land use in 14:44:49 2021-2022 as we move forward. It's not until 14:44:52 a number of years until 14:44:54 we really start construction. I wanted to give you a 14:44:56 flavor of where we are. We're still 14:44:58 putting together the environmental work and document 14:45:01 that we've 14:45:03 got so far. So that is the presentation 14:45:05 that we have today. We 14:45:07 want to thank you. It probably took 14:45:09 longer than you wanted. But I appreciate the 14:45:11 opportunity to give you a 14:45:13 briefing on this important information. 14:45:15 We're here for questions if you have 14:45:17 them. >> What was that? >> We're 14:45:20 here if you've 14:45:24 got questions or however you want -- >> Okay. Thank you so 14:45:26 much. That's a lot 14:45:31 of information. And I think, 14:45:33 commissioners, it might make sense for us 14:45:35 to hold questions until 14:45:38 after we hear testimony 14:45:41 just because I think testimony might 14:45:43 raise other questions 14:45:46 for us 14:45:48 of the team and 14:45:51 so I'm going to ask Laura 14:45:53 to go ahead and call testifiers 14:45:55 for us and, 14:46:00 Laura, how many do you have? >> 14:46:02 I'm sort of filling 14:46:04 in as the lead clerk today. >> 14:46:06 Excuse me for calling you Laura 14:46:08 then. >> You're fine. We had four people sign up. 14:46:11 It appears only two of them are here. So 14:46:13 you want me to promote both of them 14:46:16 now? >> Okay. And 14:46:18 for any testifiers if you would go ahead 14:46:20 and state your name and mailing 14:46:23 address and then go ahead and 14:46:25 provide us not more than I'm going 14:46:28 to say two minutes perhaps 14:46:33 as a time 14:46:36 limit. 14:46:41 Go 14:46:43 ahead. >> Why don't we 14:46:45 start with 14:46:49 Renee. >> 14:46:51 14:46:54 Great. >> Hi. I'm sorry. They were fooling 14:46:56 with my computer and it blocked out some 14:46:58 of the audio so I didn't 14:47:00 hear the instructions for 14:47:02 us? >> If you could just state your mailing 14:47:06 address and then go ahead and try to keep your testimony 14:47:08 to about two minutes. 14:47:11 Thanks. >> Thank you. My name is 14:47:13 Renee Ferrera, my mailing address 14:47:16 is 14:47:20 2211 southwest Park 14:47:22 Place apartment 1001 in 14:47:24 Portland. 14:47:28 I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 14:47:30 I wanted to just give you 14:47:33 a little bit of history about 14:47:36 the TriMet 14:47:39 acquisition of our property because I don't know if you were aware of 14:47:42 all of this 14:47:45 information 14:47:47 already. But back 14:47:49 before the 14:47:51 light rail project 14:47:54 started or at least that we were aware it 14:47:56 started, the congregation had reached a decision 14:47:58 that we needed to move 14:48:00 to a different location. Our 14:48:02 congregation is orthodox, most 14:48:06 of the people are 14:48:08 unable to ride a car, and 14:48:11 our current location with the 14:48:13 Jewish community being in the 14:48:15 Hillsdale area really did not 14:48:19 facilitate that. Plus our building was 14:48:21 ageing, it had some significant maintenance 14:48:24 requirements and it's not 14:48:26 handicap accessible, the 14:48:29 restrooms are below 14:48:31 ground at the sanctuary 14:48:33 is on grade and the restrooms are below 14:48:36 ground. We looked into finding 14:48:38 a way to put an elevator 14:48:40 in there and we're told that the way that the 14:48:42 building is configured it was almost 14:48:46 impossible to do. So 14:48:49 as our congregants aged knowing 14:48:51 that they had to walk down a curved stairway 14:48:53 to get to the restrooms was 14:48:55 becoming more difficult for 14:48:58 us also. We hired both an 14:49:00 architect and a 14:49:04 Realtor to sell 14:49:06 the property our 14:49:08 architect developed some plans that could be 14:49:11 used by 14:49:13 our 14:49:15 realtor to market the property and we went 14:49:17 through an early assistance process with the 14:49:19 city of Portland to 14:49:21 make sure that there were no 14:49:23 impediments to development of 14:49:25 that property which would include the removal 14:49:28 of that 14:49:30 building. We were already 14:49:33 in talks with the 14:49:35 developer, or with a 14:49:37 developer. We had one offer and 14:49:40 we're considering others 14:49:43 when TriMet 14:49:45 contacted us and told us that we 14:49:47 were, told 14:49:49 us about 14:49:52 their project. 14:49:54 At that point our 14:49:57 offers went away and we 14:50:00 started talking with 14:50:05 TriMet and we asked them to do 14:50:09 an 14:50:11 early assistance, excuse me, an 14:50:14 early purchase of our property so that we could continue 14:50:16 to move forward with our 14:50:20 plans to move. We have moved 14:50:23 to a building in 14:50:26 Hillsdale for our 14:50:28 sanctuary. We're actually trying to lease back the 14:50:30 building on 14:50:33 Barbur to us until construction so we can 14:50:35 continue to use the social hall 14:50:40 and commercial kitchen. And 14:50:45 we have removed some of our 14:50:47 significant artifacts to the new 14:50:50 location. We're planning to remove the 14:50:53 remainder when we are able to develop the 14:50:55 new location with the social 14:50:57 hall and kitchen which we're in the process of 14:51:00 working on 14:51:02 now. And at this point we have no 14:51:04 objections to the 14:51:07 removal of that 14:51:09 building. The 14:51:11 congregation doesn't. We consider our 14:51:14 congregation to be a community and a community 14:51:16 is where the people are not where 14:51:18 the buildings 14:51:22 are. I know 14:51:24 that the building 14:51:26 is quite striking but it's not our 14:51:28 building anymore in reality and so 14:51:31 we have no objections to removal 14:51:34 of that building. Our 14:51:36 relationship with 14:51:38 TriMet has been wonderful. They have been 14:51:40 great partners in this whole thing and I just 14:51:42 wanted to share that perspective with 14:51:44 you. >> Okay. Thank you very 14:51:46 much, Renee. May I have 14:51:50 the next testifier? >> That would 14:51:53 be us. 14:51:55 Roger North and. >> 14:51:57 Jennifer Kimura. >> 14:51:59 Our best mailing address is 14:52:03 P.O. box 14:52:05 318, 14:52:08 97034. >> 14:52:11 Thank you. We're the owners 14:52:13 of the Jewish Shelter Home. 14:52:15 Although we've been aware of this whole project 14:52:17 we were not aware of the 14:52:20 impact to the property itself. So imagine our surprise 14:52:22 when we started to look at it 14:52:24 just this past weekend and went 14:52:26 oh wow, we were looking at 14:52:29 the draft 14:52:31 EIS and 14:52:34 noticed that on one of the drawings that our house 14:52:37 is not even 14:52:39 there on the drawings. Our neighbors 14:52:41 have outlines of 14:52:44 their property so we were concerned about 14:52:46 exactly 14:52:48 what is proposed for this, I mean you were 14:52:51 talking about worst case 14:52:56 scenario in terms of removing 14:53:00 a building or the property. We're hoping that 14:53:02 you 14:53:04 can keep it in tact because it really 14:53:06 is 14:53:08 a wonderful property one of the last 14:53:10 14:53:12 remaining evidences of 14:53:14 the 14:53:19 Jewish culture 14:53:22 there. >> We have not been approached 14:53:26 or contacted by anybody during this 14:53:28 whole process. So just coming 14:53:30 across this over the weekend was the 14:53:32 first time we became aware of how 14:53:34 far advanced this whole process 14:53:39 seems to be and it just seems odd 14:53:41 that it 14:53:44 could have got so 14:53:46 far without any 14:53:48 notification to us. >> Particularly since 14:53:51 we're one of the three historic 14:53:53 places that were identified in the draft 14:53:55 EIS. 14:53:57 And then in 14:53:59 subsequent meeting minutes we're clearly on the 14:54:01 agenda so it really was to our 14:54:04 surprise. >> So from a project 14:54:07 standpoint, can I 14:54:09 say we apologize. 14:54:11 We know we sent out 14:54:14 notices to residents, 14:54:16 tenants, and owners. If we missed 14:54:18 you, we 14:54:21 apologize. I'd be glad to have one 14:54:23 of our community representatives meet with you 14:54:26 and sit down with you and identify where 14:54:28 we are, 14:54:30 what the process is, and what 14:54:32 opportunities there are for you. 14:54:35 That's offline from the 14:54:37 landmarks. I'd like to make 14:54:39 sure I've got your phone 14:54:41 number. I've got to 14:54:43 figure out how we have communications that are safe and 14:54:47 security. >> Maybe email? >> We did provide 14:54:49 an email and a phone number to Hillary 14:54:52 earlier this afternoon so she has 14:54:54 that. >> I'll forward that. Thank you very much for taking 14:54:57 care of 14:54:59 that oversight 14:55:01 obviously. >> And we should 14:55:03 add that the isolation hospital 14:55:05 part of the building does 14:55:07 include in that footprint does include 14:55:10 components of the 14:55:12 rest of the house itself. 14:55:14 So it's not 14:55:17 a completely separate piece 14:55:20 of structure that could just 14:55:22 be vaporized and leave the 14:55:24 rest of the house behind. >> Yeah. >> 14:55:27 And just by reference it's 14:55:30 figure 14:55:35 5.71 on the design 14:55:37 report that just shows our property completely 14:55:39 absent. So that's our first concern was 14:55:42 well, the footprint doesn't 14:55:44 even show up. The whole thing is 14:55:46 just going. >> Trust me, we've been thinking 14:55:48 about your house 14:55:50 for a long time. >> And one 14:55:52 thing that would be really 14:55:54 useful is that your blow up there 14:55:56 of the Hamilton station, the 14:56:00 dotted line on this drawing 14:56:03 ends just before the property although 14:56:05 it looks like there's components 14:56:07 of the Hamilton 14:56:09 station that will go beyond where the drawing 14:56:11 shows. It would be really 14:56:14 useful if that could be 14:56:16 expanded to get at least 14:56:20 past where our property and the other properties 14:56:22 in the block to the north go 14:56:24 to. >> I'm afraid I have to 14:56:26 jump in and I'm glad that you 14:56:28 can all connect here offline 14:56:30 and you absolutely should 14:56:32 do that. But just to 14:56:34 keep things going here, are 14:56:36 there any other folks who do 14:56:39 wish to testify 14:56:41 today? >> Can I just 14:56:45 ask Dave one other 14:56:47 question? Would you put in your 14:56:49 timeline where the whole 14:56:51 acquisition process stands in that 14:56:54 timeline? >> Great. Thank you. Thank you so much for 14:57:00 testifying. Anybody else? 14:57:04 Okay. At this point then I would like 14:57:06 to open it up for 14:57:11 commissioners to ask 14:57:14 questions of the project 14:57:16 team. >> This is Commissioner 14:57:20 Spears, I'll take a stab at this 14:57:22 first. The question is what happens, I saw 14:57:24 some of the mitigation things that happened with some 14:57:27 of the buildings. What happens 14:57:29 to them from a financial standpoint 14:57:32 for those adversely effected buildings, so the motel 14:57:34 if we take that out, how 14:57:36 is that, what happens to that owner 14:57:41 financially to 14:57:47 recoup those losses? What happens from that 14:57:49 point? >> As a federal 14:57:51 project we're required to use a uniform 14:57:53 relocation act which is really predicated on you owning 14:57:55 a castle and you protecting your 14:57:57 castle. So the first things that 14:57:59 we do is we would meet with a property 14:58:02 owner, we would talk about where the project is. 14:58:04 We would assign someone as a 14:58:07 representative to that person. We would seek 14:58:09 an appraisal. They could potentially seek 14:58:11 an appraisal, we look to 14:58:13 get to an agreement on price of the value 14:58:16 of the property. There are some relocation, 14:58:18 there are things that are eligible for 14:58:20 relocation of moving people and moving their 14:58:22 equipment. So 14:58:24 it's all described in the uniform relocation 14:58:26 act that we follow to a T. 14:58:29 We do use eminent domain 14:58:31 so if we have to we go to court but that's our 14:58:33 last resort that we want to do 14:58:35 that. We look to negotiate 14:58:37 an agreeable settlement with the property 14:58:39 owner. We've done that for a number of 14:58:42 different places on every project that 14:58:44 we've dealt with. 14:58:47 We recognize we're asking for on agent of change 14:58:49 and we're looking to disrupt people's lives. 14:58:52 We're trying to address it that way. 14:58:53 So the financial 14:58:56 mitigation, the mitigation for the historic 14:58:58 impacts is really an agreement that we 14:59:00 need between the federal 14:59:02 transit administration and the state historic preservation 14:59:04 office and what we'll be seeking is do 14:59:06 we have it right, do we have the right 14:59:10 mitigation strategies for highlighting the historic 14:59:12 impacts that we have on properties 14:59:16 or resources. >> Thank 14:59:18 you. I have a second question, 14:59:20 this is my last one. With the 14:59:24 viaducts that are there in the Oregon bridge 14:59:26 -- >> I believe so, yeah. 14:59:28 I think he's just out 14:59:31 -- >> Has there been any conversation about looking to 14:59:33 repurpose those bridges? I think of stuff 14:59:36 like the 14:59:38 highline, I think of in 14:59:40 Sweden where they are are you purposing 14:59:42 bridges and to know parks that are 14:59:44 accessible for the public, a way to connect 14:59:46 bike lines through where the train goes one 14:59:48 way and the bikes go the 14:59:51 other. So is there any conversation on how to 14:59:53 preserve those, I know there were some integrity 14:59:56 issues on some of 14:59:58 those bridges. >> 15:00:01 Yeah, Commissioner Spears, 15:00:03 when we first started this we tried 15:00:05 to avoid the 15:00:07 bridge 15:00:11 all together and leave that alone. 15:00:14 When we talked to the state and the city of Portland 15:00:16 and we talked to others they were like these 15:00:18 are engineeringly obsolete, they are physically 15:00:21 obsolete because they don't have bicycle, 15:00:26 pedestrian, and ample auto and 15:00:28 transit. Why don't you go fix it once and 15:00:30 for all. The transit agency 15:00:32 is fixing a whole lot of stuff. That 15:00:34 being said it's going to be difficult because it's an 15:00:37 environmental zone area. We're trying to minimize 15:00:39 the impact on the environmental zone by rebuilding 15:00:41 a bridge. So really the 15:00:44 difficulty there's not 15:00:46 an opportunity for the high 15:00:48 line or the underline that 15:00:50 other people have said because we're trying to 15:00:52 occupy the same space and minimize 15:00:54 our impact on other natural 15:00:59 resources. >> Thank 15:01:04 you. >> Other questions? >> This is commissioner 15:01:06 Foty, I had a quick question. 15:01:08 I wanted to confirm that the 15:01:10 mitigation strategies, were 15:01:13 those recommended by you? How did you 15:01:15 come to that agreement just 15:01:19 out of curiosity? >> I'll 15:01:21 start while Dave finds the mute 15:01:23 button. So far they're an internal discussion 15:01:25 at this point. Ultimately those don't yet have all of the input 15:01:28 from 15:01:31 FTA and 15:01:34 SHIPO. Ultimately FTA 15:01:37 and SHIPO 15:01:39 to agree so the 106 15:01:42 consultation process will gather input from 15:01:46 parties like yourself. And they will then consult with 15:01:48 FTA. And it's on the two 15:01:50 of them to come to an agreement. 15:01:52 They tend to like to agree. I can't 15:01:56 speak to what the Oregon SHIPO will 15:01:58 do with the impact. >> I think it's 15:02:00 also built on past practices of 15:02:03 what we've done and other projects have 15:02:05 done. So there's no 15:02:07 original font. I think for the most part there's 15:02:09 a lot of going back and saying how 15:02:11 was it handled here, how was 15:02:13 it 15:02:15 handled here. Let's propose that as 15:02:18 a way of mitigation 15:02:20 strategies. >> The other question for 15:02:22 me was is that something you'd 15:02:24 want input from us, feedback on 15:02:26 those mitigation 15:02:30 strategies? >> Yes. >> Thank 15:02:34 you. >> That would be important. >> That's all I have 15:02:36 for now. Thank you. >> 15:02:39 Okay. Any other questions at this point from 15:02:41 commissioners and then I think I'm 15:02:43 going to close. 15:02:45 Great, I see you, 15:02:48 Commissioner 15:02:50 Mahoney. After we finish around questions I'd 15:02:52 like to keep our discussion pretty pointed 15:02:54 as to the mitigation. We are 15:02:57 running unfortunately a little 15:03:03 past time already. So just 15:03:05 consider that. And go ahead with 15:03:07 your question. >> I think this is for Andrea. 15:03:10 It's just a detail question about 15:03:12 the section 106 and the time period that you're 15:03:14 looking at. 15:03:16 You mentioned 45 years to give 15:03:19 that five year kind 15:03:21 of cushion. But is 15:03:23 that prescribed by section 106 15:03:26 or is that something that was 15:03:28 decided by this project 15:03:30 team? >> It's not prescribed. Usually you're just 15:03:32 looking for things that are 15:03:35 listed or have the potential to be listed 15:03:37 in the national register. And 15:03:39 those things are typically 50 years in age or 15:03:41 older. However we do kind 15:03:43 of see best 15:03:45 practice in Oregon to do 45 years of age or older. 15:03:47 Just so you're canvassing and casting a 15:03:49 little bit wider of a net to make sure 15:03:51 that there are things from recent past that are going 15:03:54 to meet that 50 year threshold 15:03:56 within the next few years that you're not 15:03:58 overlooking them now and that they 15:04:00 might become a 15:04:03 problem if the project begins 15:04:05 construction in 2023 15:04:07 if there's something that's 50 years old and technically 15:04:09 eligible for listing at that time, we 15:04:12 wouldn't want to let that one thing fall 15:04:14 through the cracks. And usually if 15:04:16 we look at things that are 45 years 15:04:18 and older, we can catch things that 15:04:20 we would think when they hit 50 15:04:22 years old that they would 15:04:24 be historically 15:04:26 significant. I'll actually cut myself short, I know we're 15:04:28 short on time. I hope that answers your 15:04:30 question. >> One question that came up for me 15:04:33 and there may be no answer to this, 15:04:35 but it's just what if there's a 15:04:38 resource out there that's 40, 15:04:41 you know and then maybe 15:04:44 it's an important cultural resource and 15:04:47 then it's lost. >> When we're out 15:04:50 surveying we always keep an eye 15:04:52 out for things. Because we 15:04:54 usually have information that will point us towards things based 15:04:56 on tax assessor records for 15:04:58 50 years or 45 years 15:05:00 in age or older however 15:05:02 there's lot offense things that weren't captured in those records 15:05:05 so we have to keep our eyes open for 15:05:07 small scale features like maybe pieces of 15:05:09 art, fountains, even things 15:05:11 like the bridges aren't going 15:05:13 to show up in tax assessor records 15:05:15 as being historic. So we have to walk the entire 15:05:17 area and keep an eye out. And if there is something that 15:05:20 catches our eye that's less than 50 years old 15:05:22 we definitely document it and take 15:05:24 notes. If we thought it would meet the criteria 15:05:26 for listing we would include it even 15:05:29 though it's outside of our 15:05:31 methodology. >> There was a 45 15:05:33 day public comment period in the draft 15:05:36 EIS. Commission commented on the draft 15:05:39 EIS and the project that is the 15:05:41 big 15:05:44 opportunity for people to flag 15:05:46 resources that they feel like 15:05:48 have been missed. And in addition to 15:05:50 15:05:53 SHIPO, ours has looked 15:05:55 at the process, we've been engaging 15:05:57 them since 2017 and letting them know 15:05:59 our process and we've received 15:06:01 several letters saying they 15:06:06 agree with the process. 15:06:08 We've extended the year of construction 15:06:10 to make sure we capture thing as part of 15:06:12 their job as well. >> And then I just 15:06:14 have a quick comment about, 15:06:16 I'm kind of excited about the idea of 15:06:19 a survey of the 15:06:21 South Portland Historic District. And I 15:06:23 am serving on the 15:06:25 advisory group as the design 15:06:28 guidelines are being put together. So 15:06:31 the timing of that update for that 15:06:34 survey of that area could be pretty 15:06:36 critical potentially 15:06:38 to that effort. So 15:06:41 has there been discussion with bureau of planning and 15:06:43 sustainability on 15:06:46 that 15:06:48 at 15:06:50 all? >> You commit to it if you move forward 15:06:52 with a project. So this would 15:06:55 become what's included in our record a 15:06:57 decision for the national 15:07:00 environmental policy act through the 15:07:03 memorandum 15:07:05 agreement. If the project moves forward we're committed 15:07:07 to it. If the project doesn't move forward 15:07:09 we are impacting the resources 15:07:11 and therefore there wouldn't be a need to 15:07:13 mitigate and update the findings of the 15:07:15 district. >> It sounds like even if it does 15:07:17 go forward it's going to be quite a few years 15:07:19 probably before that gets done? >> 15:07:21 Yeah. >> Okay. Thank 15:07:27 you. Sorry. >> I think I 15:07:30 had one very 15:07:32 brief question and this is I think mostly 15:07:35 for Andrea but anyone on the 15:07:38 project team really. But wondering 15:07:40 if you put together formal 15:07:43 avoidance alternatives for the 15:07:46 properties determined to have an 15:07:50 adverse effect especially those 15:07:52 that have served a major effect 15:07:54 like being 15:07:58 removed. >> Yeah so 15:08:00 if something becomes an adverse impact from 15:08:03 a historic standpoint it kicks it over 15:08:05 to the aforementioned 15:08:07 4f and that's where they 15:08:10 avoidance. So if you remember that 15:08:12 I showed a couple of graphics that 15:08:14 showed these angles and showed that all of the 15:08:16 other resources that 15:08:18 could be impacted as a result of shifting 15:08:20 the station we collectively as a 15:08:22 team have gone through those, what can 15:08:24 we 15:08:27 do to avoid this park or 15:08:29 trees, so we've been doing 15:08:31 a lot of that and 15:08:33 that's been 15:08:37 documented. >> Okay. >> This is Commissioner 15:08:40 Roman. I had 15:08:45 one quick question about how you set out some 15:08:47 design principles for how all of the stations and 15:08:49 some of the amenities might be designed in 15:08:52 context. Is there some 15:08:56 opportunity for 15:08:58 individualized neighborhood feeling based on the history 15:09:00 that you've done, or will the end result be 15:09:03 sort of just the same 15:09:05 station design at every 15:09:08 place along the line? Is there sort of an 15:09:10 analysis of how 15:09:12 we can make the new work kind of 15:09:15 play off the history of the place 15:09:17 and it's a corridor, it's 15:09:19 been a corridor but it seems like there's a 15:09:21 lot of opportunities for 15:09:23 roadside motels. Is there an 15:09:26 opportunity to have 15:09:29 some of that kind of, I'm not sure 15:09:31 the word I'm looking for. But sort of 15:09:33 design elements to speak to 15:09:35 those history 15:09:37 elements? >> Commissioner 15:09:39 Roman, I think that's a great idea and it's something that we 15:09:42 do historically on our 15:09:45 projects, no pun 15:09:47 intended, excuse me. If you 15:09:49 look at our yellow line you will see we 15:09:51 affected the communities we went through through the artwork 15:09:53 at our stations. You 15:09:55 go up to the expo facility you can see 15:09:57 tags of luggages that 15:09:59 an artist had reflect 15:10:01 that Japanese were held there before 15:10:03 they were moved 15:10:05 out into eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. 15:10:08 So we tried to use cultural 15:10:11 resources to reflect the history of the 15:10:16 community we were going through. 15:10:20 On the orange line 15:10:22 at Westmoreland park pond we provided information 15:10:24 that reflects 15:10:26 that neighborhood and the ownership through 15:10:29 that. So we do that with all of our 15:10:31 projects, we try and understand those places that 15:10:33 we're going through and trying to 15:10:36 reflect it in the design of the station or some elements that 15:10:38 come from that. And I think 15:10:40 that this project could be noted for 15:10:42 that. >> And that comes after you've kind of 15:10:44 gotten the go ahead for the 15:10:47 basic 15:10:49 orientation of everything but 15:10:53 basically getting your -- >> Each of our 15:10:55 stations have elements of consistency and 15:10:57 they're all going to have a shelter, they're 15:10:59 all going to have a 15:11:04 place where you check 15:11:07 your, eye your ticket, all of those 15:11:09 elements. But there have to be places where we can 15:11:11 play off of it whether it's a wind 15:11:13 screen or 15:11:18 something else. >> 15:11:20 Thank 15:11:22 you. >> Okay. Any last 15:11:24 questions, commissioners, or shall we 15:11:26 start some quick discussion about mitigation 15:11:28 strategies as 15:11:32 proposed? Okay. I'm going to go ahead 15:11:34 and close the discussion then to everyone 15:11:39 except commissioners and I'd 15:11:41 really appreciate just 15:11:44 a quick thought or two from 15:11:46 you about 15:11:48 mitigation that is proposed and any 15:11:50 other pieces of 15:11:52 this project that come to your 15:11:54 mind. Chris, did you 15:11:57 need to say 15:12:00 something? Okay, 15:12:02 thanks. So I'll go ahead and 15:12:07 start. And I do definitely 15:12:10 appreciate the 15:12:13 proposal that we put 15:12:15 on HAER. That's 15:12:18 a really intensive 15:12:20 and very useful reference 15:12:22 and I think that's definitely 15:12:25 more than one step beyond the 15:12:27 Oregon documentation standards and 15:12:33 I think they deserve 15:12:35 that. I could see some of these 15:12:38 properties 15:12:42 potentially being 15:12:45 listed as mitigation for 15:12:47 other things happening along this route. 15:12:53 For instance you showed us this 15:12:56 Rasmussen Village that looks 15:12:58 like an interesting 15:13:00 piece. But there could be other ones that 15:13:02 potentially you go ahead and do the work 15:13:04 to put 15:13:06 something on the national register other than have it remain just 15:13:12 sort of 15:13:15 eligible. I'm definitely 15:13:18 concerned about 15:13:20 the congregation 15:13:25 , not having seen your full 15:13:27 avoidance alternatives, I don't know 15:13:29 whether you actually looked at doing some repurposing of 15:13:31 that 15:13:34 building. And I think for me 15:13:39 that would be in 15:13:41 keeping with the 15:13:43 ideals of this project really sort of trying 15:13:45 to keep that as a building 15:13:48 or as a structure in and of itself 15:13:50 rather than sort 15:13:53 of going all the way to it's going 15:13:55 to be 15:13:59 removed. We're going to do 15:14:03 documentation of it. Yes there needs to be an 15:14:05 interpretive display, et cetera. 15:14:07 But having especially read 15:14:09 all of the letters that we did receive about 15:14:12 that building, and knowing 15:14:14 as a long time resident of 15:14:16 Portland myself, it's 15:14:18 such 15:14:20 visually distinctive building, 15:14:25 and really does play a part in the culture 15:14:27 of Portland. And 15:14:31 I just think 15:14:33 as part of the representative government of 15:14:35 Portland that had such a 15:14:37 big part to do with 15:14:39 decimating south Portland and the urban 15:14:43 renewal that went before us, that sort of 15:14:46 Jewish piece of history has primarily been 15:14:48 erased. So 15:14:51 I think we have a larger responsibility 15:14:55 here. And so I would 15:14:57 really, I would really like the building 15:15:00 be 15:15:02 repurposed and kept on 15:15:04 site. Perhaps secondarily 15:15:08 moved if that's possible. 15:15:10 The Jewish Shelter 15:15:13 Home, I do think it's 15:15:15 very worrisome to hear somebody who 15:15:17 owns the property not having been 15:15:19 consulted or heard about 15:15:22 this project at all. I 15:15:24 mean trying to 15:15:26 avoid taking that back hospital 15:15:28 piece down 15:15:30 at all is obviously a 15:15:32 primary concern, but 15:15:34 I do think that those conversations really need 15:15:37 to happen quickly. 15:15:40 That's all I have for now. 15:15:46 Other 15:15:49 commissioners? >> This is Commissioner 15:15:51 Spears. I agree. I agree 15:15:54 with Commissioner 15:15:55 Minor, Chair 15:15:58 Minor, same thing. I would love to 15:16:00 see what the alternatives were 15:16:04 to not impact the congregation 15:16:06 synagogue. How would we repurpose it, what options 15:16:08 are there, those are the things that I guess I'm not 15:16:11 seeing. I'm more seeing 15:16:13 what is being moved towards not so much what are all 15:16:15 of the things we looked at in between. And 15:16:17 I would love to be able to take a look at those and 15:16:19 see if there is a way we can maintain 15:16:22 some of this without having to just 15:16:25 demolish which is something I think we try to steer 15:16:27 away from a lot when 15:16:29 it comes to our historic properties and 15:16:31 culture situations. So I'm just kind of 15:16:34 echoing what Chair Minor already 15:16:36 said. I agree with some of the same 15:16:38 things. There's just 15:16:41 pieces I'm missing. Some steps 15:16:43 we weren't a part of and I would love to 15:16:46 see all of those steps too and 15:16:48 those other alternatives 15:16:50 that were 15:16:54 put in place. >> 15:16:57 I also support Commissioner Minor's 15:17:00 comments. 15:17:03 And I also want to show support about 15:17:05 the two properties that have been shown to be 15:17:09 demolished for the park and ride. 15:17:11 I feel like it's such a 15:17:13 nonsustainable process to 15:17:16 demolish two 15:17:18 historical properties for a park and ride if 15:17:20 there are some options we can look at 15:17:23 and understand the process that 15:17:25 they went 15:17:32 through. 15:17:35 Why are we doing that as part of 15:17:37 this 15:17:40 sustainable process? So I would like to have 15:17:42 more understanding on how 15:17:44 this is moving forward and where we can jump 15:17:47 in and help make it even better. 15:17:49 I support the project, I support the 15:17:51 alignment, we talked about it. But 15:17:54 I want to hear more about other 15:17:56 things like Commissioner Spears 15:18:00 alluded to. What are the positions 15:18:03 behind it 15:18:05 and how we can help you guys and give 15:18:07 you a better 15:18:10 guidance on what's coming 15:18:13 out of it. >> This is 15:18:15 Commissioner Foty, I'll be quick. 15:18:17 I concur with my 15:18:21 fellow commissioners on what's been said 15:18:24 specifically about the temple and 15:18:26 really pushing hard to keep it or find 15:18:28 ways to integrate it. 15:18:30 It's exciting. I would say 15:18:32 Barbur Boulevard is 15:18:34 pretty dead right now. It's not an exciting place to 15:18:36 be. So it's exciting this project is happening and 15:18:38 we're bringing in light rail. 15:18:40 We need that for future, we need to 15:18:42 encourage and develop public transit. 15:18:44 But it would be nice to do it in a way 15:18:46 that keeps as much of the Portland 15:18:49 character and levels of history as much as 15:18:51 possible because then it just becomes sort 15:18:55 of another bland integration or sort of 15:18:57 a bland update to our city when we have an 15:18:59 opportunity to make something really exciting and just 15:19:02 a little bit more complex. As far as the 15:19:04 mitigation strategies go I also 15:19:07 concur with 15:19:09 Commissioner Minor, that would be exciting to 15:19:11 update the national register nomination. I 15:19:14 guess a super quick question to 15:19:16 you, Commissioner Minor, 15:19:18 as far as updating a national register 15:19:20 nomination versus 15:19:22 updating our local inventory or 15:19:25 historical resources inventory, are we 15:19:27 prioritizing one or the other, is it the 15:19:30 safest to do the national register 15:19:34 nomination updates whenever possible? That's all I 15:19:37 have. >> I know we did come out and 15:19:39 support making sure that all 15:19:40 of that information got sucked 15:19:42 into our city database. 15:19:46 And I still think that's very important. 15:19:48 So I 15:19:50 personally don't necessarily 15:19:54 see one as coming on a 15:19:56 higher priority than 15:19:58 another. I think they're both important 15:20:00 and the team could propose 15:20:02 either one or both. Thanks. >> 15:20:05 That's it. Thank you. >> 15:20:07 This is Commissioner 15:20:11 Roman. I'll echo what's been said so 15:20:13 far. But add the one thing about this synagogue 15:20:15 when I looked at some of the drawings and the 15:20:17 letters and it's just sticking ever so 15:20:19 slightly in the way. It's not like 15:20:21 the whole building. It 15:20:24 made me wonder whether an 15:20:26 interesting remodel where you just clipped 15:20:28 the building somehow and 15:20:32 created a new entrance that was 15:20:35 towards the rail line anyway and repurposed the 15:20:37 building, I don't know, would that be the 15:20:39 end of the world? It's 15:20:41 a tricky design problem and then it's a round 15:20:43 building. But it doesn't have any windows or 15:20:45 doors on that side so it's kind of 15:20:48 like well could you just slice a piece 15:20:50 off and add an entrance and then leave 15:20:53 the building. I don't know if my 15:20:55 fellow commissioners think about that. But it 15:20:57 seemed a shame to tear the whole thing down 15:20:59 when it was just slightly 15:21:01 in the way. That's all I have to add. >> 15:21:06 I agree with that. >> 15:21:08 Yeah, I'll concur with 15:21:10 that as well. I think the mitigation 15:21:13 strategies that have been put 15:21:16 on the table are substantive 15:21:18 and 15:21:20 they would certainly provide mitigation. So I applaud the 15:21:22 project team for that. But 15:21:24 the synagogue 15:21:26 building, it's 15:21:29 a tough one to just get 15:21:31 there that this is going to be gone without 15:21:34 really understanding more about how the 15:21:36 plan 15:21:40 got to that 15:21:42 point. >> This is Commissioner 15:21:45 Mahoney. I agree with everything that's 15:21:48 been said. And also 15:21:51 appreciate the suggestion about keeping at least 15:21:54 some of that synagogue 15:21:57 building kind of as a 15:22:00 remnant, as a way to 15:22:03 help tell the story of, if they'd 15:22:05 already been pushed out by urban 15:22:07 15:22:09 renewal and now it's essentially 15:22:12 getting pushed out again and I think 15:22:14 that 15:22:17 could be a powerful story for how minorities 15:22:19 have been 15:22:21 treated in 15:22:24 Portland. 15:22:26 That's 15:22:29 all. >> 15:22:36 I think that's, I think for 15:22:38 now that's some good feedback from 15:22:40 us. Can we, I 15:22:42 guess can we ask the project 15:22:46 team perhaps to share your, the 15:22:47 alternatives that you did look 15:22:52 at specifically on the 15:22:54 synagogue. Is that something that 15:22:57 could be shared with 15:23:00 us just even 15:23:03 offline. We're all 15:23:07 definitely interested in looking 15:23:09 for ways to maintain that 15:23:11 at least as a building, as a 15:23:17 structure in 15:23:20 place. >> Can I respond? >> Yeah. 15:23:22 Sorry. I didn't make that very clear, 15:23:25 did I? >> I wasn't sure 15:23:27 if I was allowed to give in to the 15:23:29 conversation. I heard what the commission 15:23:32 said. There's concern about the, 15:23:34 and we are too, 15:23:36 recognize that we're not 15:23:38 out taking out historic 15:23:41 buildings. It's really about safety so we've 15:23:44 done a lot of work shopping 15:23:46 on this as 15:23:48 a building 15:23:50 and its space and occupying 15:23:52 space. There's a wall there that goes 15:23:54 down to the basement. 15:23:56 We haven't done as much about reuse. That's 15:23:58 fair, I think that's a fair criticism of 15:24:01 it. We worry about viewing things and how 15:24:03 people walk between the incline elevator and 15:24:05 hiding that. So there are 15:24:08 some other issues that are associated with 15:24:10 that. But I hear what you're looking 15:24:12 for is give us a little more of a feel 15:24:14 and I gave you about five slides 15:24:16 of that of why we haven't come up with 15:24:18 a result yet. But 15:24:21 I think we can provide a synopsis of some of the 15:24:23 workshops we did on this. I think the reuse 15:24:25 is something we need to look at a little bit more. 15:24:27 But fundamentally I think 15:24:29 we're also concerned about prime 15:24:32 prevention or environmental design 15:24:34 being able to have those clean lines of sight to the 15:24:36 elevator and to the station and 15:24:39 such. Having the building occupied there doesn't 15:24:41 provide as much and the queueing there, 15:24:43 sorry, I'm going into my 15:24:46 thing again. Yes, 15:24:48 I think we can get you some additional 15:24:50 information on the workshoping we did and 15:24:52 I think we can probably get that to 15:24:56 Hillary and sent 15:24:58 15:25:00 back. >> Dave, 15:25:02 when, if the commission were to write a 15:25:04 letter summarizing their 15:25:06 comments today, when would you need that 15:25:08 by? >> I think you've got 3 or 4 weeks. 15:25:11 Chris, you're still here what would you say? 15:25:13 Today is the 15:25:16 22nd of June. Our thought is that 15:25:18 we're publishing the environmental 15:25:20 impact statement probably late September. 15:25:22 So there's a little bit of time. So we 15:25:24 also have engagement with some other 15:25:27 parties that we talked about that are going 15:25:29 to start happening from here 15:25:31 out. So Chris, when do you think 15:25:33 a letter would be? >> I think if we receive it by 15:25:35 mid-July, there's no 15:25:37 problem. >> Okay. >> And 15:25:39 you can address it 15:25:41 to 15:25:45 TriMet, metro, 15:25:47 I wouldn't worry about 15:25:49 it. >> 15:25:51 Does somebody want to 15:25:54 maybe take 15:25:57 up that 15:26:03 task? >> It sounds like you've got some 15:26:05 materials coming in particularly about the 15:26:07 synagogue and other things to 15:26:10 consider. So again we'll go ahead and use 15:26:12 that until 15:26:15 mid-July 15:26:20 timeframe. >> 15:26:24 Great. Okay. At this point 15:26:26 we are running a little behind 15:26:29 schedule. So I'd like to propose 15:26:31 just a five minute break 15:26:33 before our next item, 15:26:38 commissioners. So 15:26:41 if we 15:26:43 reconvene at 15:26:46 3:32, that sounds 15:26:49 crazy, 15:26:51 then it will give the next presenter a little 15:26:53 time to set up and we can all stand 15:26:55 up and take a 15:26:58 break. So I'm going to mute myself and 15:27:00 turn off my camera and 15:27:02 see you all in 15:27:04 five minutes. Thanks for your 15:27:06 presentation. >> Thank you for your time and 15:27:08 volunteering for this great endeavor. We do 15:27:11 appreciate it. Thank you. 15:27:54 . Hi, Julian. 15:28:00 I mean 15:28:03 JulieANNE! 15:28:15 15:28:16 Hey, thanks for taking over! 15:32:51 >> I would like to go he'd and start 15:32:53 reading into the record information 15:32:55 about procedures since the next 15:32:57 item is a type 15:32:59 III land use case. 15:33:14 Historic Landmarks Commission hearing procedure 15:33:16 for a type III. 15:33:18 First staff will show slides of the site 15:33:20 and surrounding area and 15:33:22 present a report which will include 15:33:25 the applicant's proposal, identify the 15:33:27 applicable approval 15:33:29 criteria, and include information on letters received 15:33:32 on the request. 15:33:34 Applicant will then present their report. 15:33:37 Finally, staff will show slides 15:33:39 presenting issues or topics of discussion 15:33:42 noted in the staff report, 15:33:44 findings, and a recommendation on the request 15:33:46 based on the applicable approval 15:33:48 criteria. After 15:33:50 that, public testimony will be 15:33:52 received, first in favor of and then in 15:33:55 opposition to the proposal. And the 15:33:57 applicant will then be given an 15:33:59 opportunity to rebutt the testimony of the 15:34:02 opponents. Finally, public testimony 15:34:04 will be closed. If any 15:34:06 party requests an opportunity to 15:34:08 submit additional evidence, the record will 15:34:10 be held open seven days to allow time 15:34:12 to submit additional evidence. The 15:34:14 record will be held open an 15:34:16 additional seven days to allow parties 15:34:19 to submit evidence responding to the new evidence. 15:34:22 After the record is closed to all other 15:34:24 parties, the applicant will have an additional 15:34:26 seven days to submit 15:34:29 final written arguments without additional evidence. 15:34:32 After the record is closed to all 15:34:34 parties, commission members will discuss and 15:34:36 vote on the request. In the case 15:34:39 of a tie vote on any motion, 15:34:41 that motion will fail. 15:34:43 If the commission's decision 15:34:45 amends or overturns the bureau of 15:34:47 development services' staff report, the 15:34:50 adoption of new or revised findings 15:34:52 will be required. At the time of its 15:34:54 decision, the commission will announce when 15:34:56 the revised findings will be 15:34:58 considered. No additional testimony 15:35:00 will be taken but interested parties may attend. 15:35:08 And I also 15:35:10 need to read procedure here. 15:35:12 Public testimony can only be address the 15:35:14 applicable approval criteria 15:35:16 are or other criteria in the 15:35:18 comprehensive plan or land use 15:35:20 regulations which the person believes apply 15:35:22 to the decision. The 15:35:24 applicable approval criteria are set forth in the 15:35:27 Portland zoning code and 15:35:29 are more specifically identified in the staff 15:35:31 report. The staff will identify the applicable 15:35:33 criteria as part of the staff report. 15:35:36 Prior to the close of this 15:35:39 hearing, any par pant may request an 15:35:41 opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. 15:35:43 If such a request is made the 15:35:45 commission will either grant the 15:35:47 continuance or hold the record open to 15:35:49 provide an opportunity to submit 15:35:52 additional evidence and an opportunity to 15:35:54 respond to that new evidence. 15:35:56 Failure to raise an issue 15:35:58 accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient 15:36:00 to afford the commission and 15:36:02 the parties an opportunity to respond 15:36:04 to the issue precludes appeal to 15:36:06 the land use board of appeals 15:36:08 or LUBA based on that 15:36:11 issue. Failure of the applicant 15:36:13 to raise constitutional or other 15:36:15 related issues relating to conditions of 15:36:17 approval with sufficient specificity to give the 15:36:20 commission an opportunity to respond 15:36:22 to the issues precludes an action for 15:36:24 damages in circuit court under 15:36:26 ORS 19 15:36:30 7.796. The addition on this case 15:36:32 is final unless appealed to city council within 15:36:34 14 days of the decision. If the decision is not 15:36:36 appealed it must be recorded 15:36:38 with the 15:36:40 Multnomah County Recorder. Specific instructions will be provided with the 15:36:42 notice of the commission's action. 15:36:45 This hearing is recorded and 15:36:47 all speakers need to give their name and 15:36:49 mailing address before speaking. 15:36:54 OK. 15:36:57 First I should ask commissioners if 15:36:59 anybody has any ex 15:37:02 parte contact or conflict of interest to 15:37:04 declare. 15:37:06 I see a lot of heads shaking. 15:37:09 Then I am going to hand 15:37:11 it over to 15:37:14 staff, Hillary Adam 15:37:16 to begin the presentation. 15:37:19 >> Sorry. Nice. 15:37:23 I apologize if you hear any squeaking. 15:37:27 This is my friend's dog. 15:37:29 So I just wanted 15:37:31 to note that we are running about 45 15:37:34 minutes behind in case 15:37:36 anybody has just joined us 15:37:38 and is waiting for the next item. And I 15:37:40 would also note 15:37:42 that this proposed site -- I'm 15:37:44 going to share my screen now. 15:37:52 The project that we are going to discuss is on 15:37:54 the same site as 15:37:56 a project that you reviewed two weeks 15:37:58 ago and that you will see again on 15:38:00 July 13th. So 15:38:03 there are some information about 15:38:05 that project in probably 15:38:08 these two presentation 15:38:11 s. We will 15:38:13 get going 15:38:15 . This is for 15:38:17 LU 20-136009 HH, Troy 15:38:20 Laundry addition at 2025 15:38:22 S.E. Pine. I am going to go 15:38:24 over some contextual information and 15:38:26 some background information 15:38:28 about what you have seen so far, what I 15:38:30 have seen so far. The applicant will 15:38:32 do their presentation and then we 15:38:34 will just go over 15:38:36 some approvability items that I 15:38:38 noted in the staff report which basically address 15:38:41 some of the proposed 15:38:43 conditions of approval. And we will get 15:38:45 to the staff recommendation. 15:38:49 Some of these slides, because 15:38:51 you did see that other 15:38:53 project, two weeks ago, some of these slides 15:38:56 are probably going to look familiar. 15:38:59 Hold on. 15:39:03 If this is located in the 15:39:05 central city plan district in 15:39:07 the Central Eastside 15:39:09 sub 15:39:12 subdistrict. You can see in 15:39:15 the lower right it's a landmark 15:39:17 property for the whole block 15:39:20 . The boundary has the whole block. The 15:39:22 site we are talking about today is just 15:39:24 the southern half of the site, which 15:39:26 is occupied 15:39:28 by the Troy Laundry building. 15:39:34 So this breaks down the zoning 15:39:36 . It's zoned central employment. 15:39:40 With historic resource protection 15:39:42 overlay and a 15:39:44 design overlay floor 15:39:46 area. It's three to one base and it can get 15:39:48 up to six to one with bonuses. They are 15:39:51 proposing less than the base allows. 15:39:53 Maximum height is 50 feet. And they 15:39:55 are proposing 15:39:58 49.9. 15:40:01 These are the street 15:40:03 classifications based on 15:40:06 the transportation system 15:40:08 plan, city boulevard and 15:40:11 11th Avenue. Pretty much classified the 15:40:13 same way. Major 15:40:15 city walkways, transit, access and 15:40:17 traffic access. Then Southeast 15:40:19 11th is a major 15:40:21 truck street. The 15:40:24 approval criteria are 15:40:26 33-E 15:40:31 -4-6G,. The central city fundamental 15:40:33 design guidelines and the Central 15:40:35 Eastside design guidelines. 15:40:40 This is a bird's eye view 15:40:42 of the site within its 15:40:45 context. East Burnside is about two blocks 15:40:47 to the north. Southeast 15:40:49 12th which is the boundary to the 15:40:51 central city plan district is one 15:40:54 block east. And sandy boulevard 15:40:56 cuts across at the 15:40:58 northwest corner. 15:41:01 This is a closer view. 15:41:05 And they're are some images looking towards 15:41:07 the site. This is looking 15:41:10 south toward the Troy Laundry building through the trees. 15:41:12 Looking northwest towards 15:41:15 the Troy Laundry. Looking 15:41:17 Northeast towards the Troy just from 15:41:19 across the street. This is looking towards the 15:41:21 site across 15:41:23 from Sandy. 15:41:28 So I have had an early assistance meeting 15:41:31 with the applicant team. We have had 15:41:33 a preapplication conference, which is 15:41:35 required for a type 15:41:38 III. So as before, 15:41:40 in the DAR that combine the project to the 15:41:42 north, the six-story 15:41:44 mixed use building 15:41:46 . This is what this project 15:41:48 looked like at the DAR when you saw 15:41:50 it. And there 15:41:52 were some concerns about the 15:41:55 way it straddled this pair 15:41:57 pet here that was one of the significant issues. 15:42:05 So the proposal is 15:42:07 basically to rehabilitate 15:42:10 the existing landmark and that includes 15:42:13 rehabilitation of some, the 15:42:15 windows most of which are proposed to remain 15:42:17 if they are in good 15:42:19 condition. Full-seismic 15:42:22 upgrade, I believe, and not 77 15:42:24 parking spaces. Sorry. That's 15:42:26 left over from the last 15:42:28 hearing. And a new penthouse addition 15:42:31 at the rooftop. 15:42:33 And that would cross 15:42:35 over the parapet edge 15:42:37 of the larger building, which is 15:42:40 the older portion of the 15:42:42 building. And 15:42:45 the side car piece which was constructed 15:42:48 about nine years later. They 15:42:50 are also proposing a 15:42:52 roof terrace with 15:42:54 amenity at the top. 15:42:56 And I will turn it over to 15:42:58 the applicant. 15:43:13 >> Can you hear me? 15:43:15 Great. Gavin, I'm Alex 15:43:18 Stanford. And my mailing 15:43:20 address is 1 15:43:23 33 N. Jefferson street, fourth 15:43:25 floor, and that's Chicago, Illinois 15:43:28 , 60661. 15:43:37 All right. On behalf of my colleagues 15:43:39 at AJ capital and 15:43:41 our project team led by 15:43:44 HPA we are excited to present our 15:43:46 plan for the Troy Laundry building. We value the commission's 15:43:48 feedback when we first introduced the project 15:43:50 as Hillary mentioned back in February. 15:43:52 And have incorporated your recommendations 15:43:54 in the current design, which Andrew will 15:43:57 walk through shortly. 15:43:59 Designed by Portland native Ellis Lawrence, 15:44:01 the icon 15:44:03 ic revival style building helped 15:44:06 revolutionize laundry operations in 15:44:09 1913. Recently the building has suffered 15:44:11 from deferred maintenance is, is in 15:44:13 need of maintenance, 15:44:16 and a seismic retrofit, accessibility 15:44:19 improvements, modernization to building 15:44:21 systems. Our design team 15:44:23 has again as Hillary mentioned is currently 15:44:25 working on a separate situation for the 15:44:28 Tennessee S.E. ash development to the north. 15:44:30 And we take great responsibility 15:44:33 ensuring both projects 15:44:35 complement and add to the urban experience. Thanks again for 15:44:37 the opportunity and I will turn things over to 15:44:39 Andrew. 15:44:48 >> Thank you, Alex. Can everyone hear me? 15:44:54 Yes? >> Yes. >> 15:44:57 Great. Apologies. My name is Andrew 15:45:00 Becker. 15:45:03 My mailing address is 15:45:05 232 N. carpenter street, 15:45:07 Chicago, Illinois, 15:45:09 60607. 15:45:11 I want to second 15:45:13 Alex that we're just thankful to be 15:45:16 presenting this project here to you today as a 15:45:19 follow-up to those 15:45:21 meetings for DAR and 15:45:24 preapplication. We're super excited to be 15:45:26 working on these types's buildings and 15:45:29 especially one of Historic 15:45:31 Landmarks status. It's really 15:45:33 engrained in our 15:45:35 firm's DNA to's working with a great owner 15:45:37 here who have done success 15:45:40 ful projects with 15:45:42 before. And very lucky to be working with a great 15:45:44 local team as well. So we have 15:45:46 all of that available to us. And 15:45:48 are really putting together a nice project. 15:45:50 And I appreciated 15:45:53 commissioners' input as well as 15:45:55 Hillary's guidance here through this 15:45:58 process. I won't touch on the 15:46:00 history too much here. 15:46:02 Those are already discussed. But a 15:46:04 couple historic shots of the building here for reference. 15:46:07 We are proposing 15:46:10 the use of the existing 15:46:12 building just over 50,000 square feet 15:46:14 of existing plus a new addition 15:46:17 on the third floor. The 15:46:19 building itself will 15:46:21 be categorized under the retail 15:46:23 sales and service 15:46:26 use. The main elements, I 15:46:28 will touch on briefly 15:46:30 here, are regarding code, 15:46:33 are the seismic retrofit 15:46:35 for new construction buildings. That's 15:46:37 a significant part of 15:46:40 this project. And 15:46:42 it's something that we have worked 15:46:44 extensively with the structural engineer 15:46:46 to look at ways that 15:46:48 most reduced its 15:46:50 impact to the historic structure and the 15:46:52 visibility to occupants and pedestrians 15:46:55 surrounding. It is a necessary thing 15:46:57 with significant impact. And 15:46:59 we look to incorporate it 15:47:01 best as we can here. There's 15:47:03 also all new egress, 15:47:05 stairs, traveling through all floors 15:47:07 as well as elevators for 15:47:09 accessibility. We have also proposed 15:47:12 a lift at the main entry to 15:47:14 accommodate existing elevation change between 15:47:16 the sidewalk grade on 15:47:19 the first floor to support 15:47:21 accessibility to all occupants. In addition 15:47:23 to the fire and life safety -- I'm 15:47:26 sorry, fire sprinkler system for the 15:47:29 new building. So really 15:47:31 try to rejuvenate the building 15:47:33 for its future use here and 15:47:35 wanted to highlight those pieces. 15:47:37 In addition to 15:47:40 that 15:47:42 exterior facade scope includes minor 15:47:44 repairs as required. The building 15:47:46 is in fairly good shape in terms of 15:47:48 the brick. We are 15:47:51 anticipating to do a water 15:47:53 -base clean, repairing cracks as 15:47:56 needed, maintain 15:47:58 it and sustain 15:48:00 historic material at all costs. And 15:48:02 we don't see any need 15:48:04 to re34506 or replace 15:48:06 historic fabric at this point 15:48:08 . There are a few 15:48:10 interjections in the historic 15:48:12 facade where there was some 15:48:14 renovations likely in the 1960s that 15:48:17 were proposing 15:48:19 to 15:48:21 restore to their original design 15:48:23 intent. So the first one here is that 15:48:25 the main entry 15:48:28 on Pine Street. Going from right 15:48:30 to left is 15:48:32 the existing store front 15:48:35 windows, aluminum 15:48:37 and steel awning and some 15:48:40 incompatible windows in 15:48:43 adjacent bay. Really not in keeping 15:48:45 with the historic fabric or the wood windows 15:48:47 of the existing building. Our 15:48:49 proposal is to bring the building 15:48:52 back to its historic 15:48:54 intent. So that includes 15:48:56 reintroducing the double entry door 15:48:59 configuration so split single 15:49:01 doors. Concrete, 15:49:03 deck Rae extra active concrete 15:49:06 impediment above. And new 15:49:08 replacement windows and 15:49:10 adjacent bay to align with the historic 15:49:12 openings. 15:49:18 Two interjections in the facade are 15:49:20 in that north side car building where we have the 15:49:22 lower portion. Those again 15:49:25 are intended to return 15:49:27 the building to closer to 15:49:29 its historic context. So 15:49:31 removal of 15:49:33 noncompatible fill windows, infill 15:49:36 concrete as well as some 15:49:38 aluminum awnings on the second floor all 15:49:40 propose to be removed. And on the 15:49:42 right here you will see the 15:49:45 return of the carriage 15:49:47 door esthetic and opening up 15:49:49 that second floor window. 15:49:51 Intent here is this would still serve 15:49:53 as the service 15:49:55 entry. So these doors would be 15:49:59 overhead sectional doors to comply 15:50:01 with the loading needs of the building. 15:50:03 And moving to the east 15:50:06 facade of the building, we 15:50:08 are also similarly proposing to 15:50:10 return the carriage door esthetic in the 15:50:13 fixed condition here on the 15:50:15 east. Return the second story windows 15:50:18 to their full heights. 15:50:20 Size as well as 15:50:23 the four over four wooden 15:50:25 pattern and lastly returning 15:50:27 a window adjacent 15:50:29 to the carriage doors where it was originally 15:50:31 and has since been infilled. 15:50:34 So that's the main three interjections 15:50:36 in the historic facade. The 15:50:38 fourth being the window scope which is 15:50:41 intended to, 15:50:43 again, maintain the windows 15:50:45 which are in fair and good 15:50:48 condition. That includes removal of the 15:50:51 sashes, repair of the frames in 15:50:53 place as needed. 15:50:55 And adapting the 15:50:58 sashes for insulated glazing 15:51:00 units, if possible. And 15:51:02 where windows are unable to be 15:51:04 preserved and are in severe 15:51:07 condition we are 15:51:10 recommending replace wood windows to match 15:51:12 the historic profiles. 15:51:15 Secondary to the work 15:51:17 on the primary historic facades we 15:51:19 are presenting some revisions to 15:51:21 the rooftop addition here. Again, the intent 15:51:23 is that the historic building 15:51:26 maintain its integrity. 15:51:28 It's the prominent element of the 15:51:30 site. And that has not changed in our 15:51:33 proposal. But we have done some work here to 15:51:35 better integrate 15:51:37 the new addition. 15:51:39 We are still intending to keep 15:51:41 minimal visibility 15:51:43 from the pedestrian viewpoint. The 15:51:45 addition is set back two 15:51:48 bays on the east, west, and 15:51:50 south. Since we have presented last we have 15:51:53 shifted it to align with 15:51:55 the north property line so we can go through 15:51:57 that a little bit more 15:51:59 detail. The 15:52:01 organization of the addition shown here on the 15:52:04 third floor plan 15:52:06 includes those code required 15:52:09 elements, the egress stair, the new 15:52:12 elevators, all anchoring the north side of the addition. 15:52:14 And those are required to 15:52:17 properly egress and circulate through the 15:52:19 building. There are fire 15:52:21 requirements, rating requirements for those 15:52:24 enclosures, as well as some 15:52:26 private for those back of house and 15:52:28 restroom functions. Welch grouped all 15:52:30 those elements, which are 15:52:32 in need of 15:52:34 more enclosure on 15:52:36 the north side Boff the existing side car. 15:52:39 And then the south part of 15:52:42 the addition includes 15:52:45 overhead doors doors, 15:52:47 really just opening up the glass to connect the 15:52:50 occupants with outdoor roof terrace 15:52:52 and landscape area. And 15:52:54 the intent to meet the design guidelines for 15:52:57 activating rooftops and the views from 15:52:59 there will be spectacular. So we're 15:53:02 very excited about the opportunities 15:53:04 there. We have used 15:53:06 parapet line as shown in 15:53:09 elevation here to be 15:53:11 that inflection point between the two 15:53:13 needs of the addition on the left 15:53:15 or the north side is 15:53:17 the more opaque solid enclosure 15:53:20 required for those service spaces. And then 15:53:22 on the right or south 15:53:24 side, is the open glass 15:53:27 element connecting the 15:53:29 occupants with outdoors. Another 15:53:31 item of note here that we've 15:53:34 strategically worked on, when shifting this 15:53:36 addition to the north, 15:53:38 we wanted to 15:53:40 tackle the scale of the end 15:53:42 elevations over that north bay. 15:53:44 And to do so, we 15:53:47 visually broke down the scale of the addition by 15:53:50 inserting a Masonry wall at 15:53:52 the base and coinciding 15:53:55 decorative concrete banding that is in 15:53:57 alignment with the historic 15:53:59 structure. So you will see that 15:54:01 wrapping the bottom of the building here, bottom of 15:54:03 the addition here, excuse me. 15:54:05 And then that really breaks down the 15:54:08 scale of the addition 15:54:10 visually. And uses that existing 15:54:13 massing of the building to be 15:54:15 that inflection point between the two. 15:54:19 We are proposing a 15:54:22 simplified material palette for the addition on keeping 15:54:25 with the historic building 15:54:27 and respecting that. 15:54:31 So both volumes are housed under a 15:54:34 single Gable roof made of standing 15:54:36 steam patinated 15:54:38 copper roof seen here in 15:54:40 the greenish color 15:54:42 . The walls between the windows and on 15:54:44 the monitor 15:54:46 piece are ivory stucco with a smooth finish. 15:54:50 It's really kind of 15:54:52 clean, simple lines here. And then 15:54:54 again that masonry element at 15:54:56 the base on the two-side 15:54:58 elevations as well as the north 15:55:01 elevation abutting the 15:55:03 new development next door. 15:55:06 Some detailed views of 15:55:09 those materials and their quality. 15:55:11 So the 15:55:13 prepatinnated copper roof bringing 15:55:15 in that color which would be in keeping with the time period of 15:55:17 the building. Ivory 15:55:19 stucco, precast concrete and the intent is 15:55:22 to salvage brick from 15:55:24 some scope of demolition on the existing 15:55:26 building for reuse where we 15:55:28 can in high visibility areas. 15:55:32 And I'll just conclude my part of the 15:55:35 presentation with some responses to 15:55:37 the staff recommendations that we had been 15:55:39 working on Hillary with. She 15:55:41 requested some material transition details. 15:55:43 So briefly highlight 15:55:46 those here. Going right to 15:55:49 left is the jam section 15:55:52 detail. And then the intent here is 15:55:54 to show 15:55:56 at that carriage door location how we are 15:55:59 recessing the carriage door 15:56:01 back from the existing 15:56:03 face of the building and within the existing 15:56:05 opening. So 15:56:07 returning that carriage door condition 15:56:09 to its historic recess 15:56:11 there. And allowing us to have 15:56:13 an overhead operable 15:56:15 door. So these are all 15:56:17 looking down in plan 15:56:19 just for reference. In the center and left 15:56:21 are details of 15:56:24 the addition and transition from 15:56:27 the finish stucco 15:56:29 walls to the window and 15:56:31 glass elements. These 15:56:33 center one being the detail 15:56:35 at the 15:56:38 overhead openable doors and this detail on 15:56:40 the left being similar to or 15:56:43 adjacent stucco 15:56:45 to store front 15:56:47 transition, similar set back 15:56:49 between the two maintaining 15:56:52 the design esthetic throughout the addition. 15:56:57 Another item of note that Hillary brought up 15:56:59 was the extent of demo on the 15:57:02 hidden north He will vagues. So this 15:57:04 is the elevation. This is 15:57:06 the wall that separates the taller mass on the 15:57:08 south part of the site from the 15:57:10 north side car 15:57:12 . These ares views from the 15:57:14 existing light wells for reference. 15:57:19 S and they are included here for discussion 15:57:21 of this wall, 15:57:23 the extent proposed and 15:57:25 what we believe to be a 15:57:27 tetter your status to 15:57:30 the building. In 15:57:32 the distance you can see the 15:57:34 decorative cornice. That returns one entire 15:57:36 column bay. And then in 15:57:38 the nay of this wall, 15:57:41 the interior you're the detail 15:57:43 is simplified and is really 15:57:45 treated differently 15:57:47 from the primary decorative 15:57:50 cornice and coursing there. 15:57:52 So we have prepared 15:57:54 the detail here 15:57:57 , elevation for 15:57:59 reference of the 15:58:02 extensive demo on that north 15:58:04 elevation. The intent here is to 15:58:06 provide access between the 15:58:08 existing building and the new addition. 15:58:10 So you will see 15:58:12 elements in blue here 15:58:15 are demolition scope on the 15:58:17 exterior portion of the that 15:58:19 URM wall. And the elements in 15:58:21 orange are on the interior 15:58:23 and intended to 15:58:26 connect the building from both 15:58:28 sides of that interior 15:58:31 masonry wall. We have done our 15:58:33 best to organize the stairs, the elevator 15:58:35 openings with the existing window 15:58:37 openings that are being removed. 15:58:39 And wanted to 15:58:41 include this for reference in the scope 15:58:43 of that wall for discussion as needed. 15:58:47 Other two small elements was just a 15:58:49 correction in the patronne 15:58:51 the east facade. We had 15:58:53 previously submitted two over 15:58:56 two. The historic was 15:58:58 four over four and we agree with 15:59:00 Hillary's recommendation. Finally 15:59:02 is the mounting 15:59:04 of light fixtures on the 15:59:06 historic facade through mortar joints or 15:59:09 decorative concrete joints on the east 15:59:11 and west sides and fully intend to 15:59:13 do that as well. 15:59:15 So I appreciate those 15:59:17 recommendations. And that concludes my part of the presentation here. 15:59:29 >> OK. Does that 15:59:31 conclude then the team's 15:59:33 complete presentation and I can hand it back to staff? 15:59:38 Yes? OK. So, Hillary, go 15:59:40 ahead and walk us through 15:59:43 your last bit here. 15:59:53 >> All right. Can you see my screen? 15:59:56 OK. 16:00:02 So in the staff 16:00:05 report, I noticed 16:00:08 general support but some 16:00:10 areas of 16:00:12 concern, particularly I think 16:00:14 the major one 16:00:17 was 16:00:19 seeing a little bit potentially 16:00:21 too much demolition of 16:00:24 the existing north 16:00:26 wall of the Troy 16:00:29 building. The north wall in between the larger 16:00:31 mass and the 16:00:33 smaller side karmas, which is the 16:00:35 later addition. And 16:00:38 so I 16:00:40 circled those 16:00:42 here 16:00:44 . On the top drawing this is a slight 16:00:47 shifting. Second area wall, some of which 16:00:49 is interior and some of 16:00:52 which is exterior or within a light well. 16:00:55 So you can't really see it from the 16:00:57 street. But it in terms 16:01:00 of meeting the approval 16:01:02 criterion for preserving form 16:01:04 and integrity, I felt that 16:01:06 maintaining the corner of the 16:01:09 building was pretty important, especially 16:01:11 since this was an earlier 16:01:13 portion of the building on the side car. 16:01:17 So I was concerned about this 16:01:20 slight shifting 16:01:22 , especially since it's such a 16:01:25 small shift. And then 16:01:27 I noted 16:01:30 at the penthouse 16:01:33 level, 16:01:35 you know, 16:01:37 that parapet 16:01:39 wall does have 16:01:42 , it's less decorative in the center. 16:01:44 So I'm not so concerned 16:01:46 about that section. But just 16:01:49 based on this drawing it does look 16:01:51 like there are portions where, if these black 16:01:53 walls are to indicate 16:01:56 new wall, that would be 16:01:58 a new wall where an 16:02:00 existing wall already is 16:02:02 . So 16:02:04 just the potential for preserving 16:02:06 as much wall 16:02:08 as possible but allowing for 16:02:10 openings where there are passage 16:02:14 ways between 16:02:16 between the portion of the penthouse that's 16:02:18 built over the side car, and the portion 16:02:20 that's built over the larger 16:02:23 mass. So I added this condition, 16:02:25 the north wall of the primary mass of 16:02:27 the building shall remain 16:02:29 intext except where new open 16:02:31 goes are required to provide passage between 16:02:33 the existing building and the new addition and 16:02:35 at the parapet level where 16:02:37 interior space is not divided. So that would 16:02:40 be such as here and here. 16:02:47 At the mid level, 16:02:49 regarding historic materials, these 16:02:51 images on the top, with the 16:02:53 blue, green, and orange 16:02:55 are from the appendix. 16:02:58 The applicant stated that they 16:03:00 intend to preserve fair and good 16:03:02 condition windows 16:03:04 except obvious locations where they are 16:03:07 proposing some changes like 16:03:09 on that north wall. 16:03:11 Or at the 16:03:14 carriage door openings. Where those would 16:03:17 obviously be changed even 16:03:19 if they were in good condition. 16:03:21 Because the windows that they are 16:03:23 proposing to keep weren't specifically noted 16:03:25 I added this condition 16:03:27 existing historic windows in fair 16:03:29 or good condition shall be retained unless 16:03:31 other alterations in that 16:03:34 particular location require their approval. 16:03:36 If you are accepting of 16:03:38 this condition, 16:03:40 we could include these appendix 16:03:42 sheets in the 16:03:44 approved exhibits. 16:03:46 Rather than having a 16:03:48 separate exhibit saying specifically which windows are going to 16:03:50 be kept and which are going to be 16:03:53 removed. Condition E that I had written 16:03:55 was really just a drawing mistake. 16:03:57 So he believe that we can 16:03:59 delete that one. 16:04:06 At the microlevel I talked about the 16:04:09 proposed light fixtures. I don't have any concerns 16:04:11 with the fixtures that they are proposing. 16:04:13 Just because we didn't have 16:04:15 any detail drawings, I wanted to add a condition 16:04:17 that the light fixtures shall be mounted 16:04:19 to the building through 16:04:22 mortar joints and any conduit to the 16:04:24 lighting shall also be routessed 16:04:26 through the more tangible joins joints and 16:04:28 influence the 16:04:30 conkeats facades. It looks like that's what they are 16:04:33 proposing to do based on how they are 16:04:35 locating these but this condition is just to 16:04:39 ensure that damage to brick would be 16:04:41 minimized. 16:04:45 So I am recommending approval 16:04:48 with those conditions as well as 16:04:50 the standard 16:04:53 conditions and also condition H at the 16:04:54 bottom, which was requested by urban 16:04:57 forestry. You also saw that two weeks 16:05:00 ago with Tennessee 16:05:03 S.E. Ash project. Just that if any trees are 16:05:05 proposed to be removed 16:05:08 ultimately that would have to be approved 16:05:10 by urban forestry. 16:05:14 And these are the 16:05:16 options. You can accept the staff report 16:05:18 and approve the project with conditions. 16:05:21 Accept the staff report and approve the 16:05:23 project with revised, 16:05:25 additional, or deleted conditions. Or you can 16:05:27 reject the staff report and request the applicant 16:05:29 return with a revised proposal. 16:05:36 >> Great. Thank you very 16:05:38 much, Hillary. 16:05:40 Commissioners, do you have questions for 16:05:42 the applicant or for staff? 16:05:47 >> This is commissioner Roman. I have 16:05:49 a question for staff or 16:05:51 the applicant about the main awning. 16:05:54 As I was looking 16:05:56 through the photographs on the 16:05:59 AP 16:06:01 P,.25 there's 16:06:03 a historic photo. 16:06:05 And it shows the awning that's 16:06:07 there now. That awning is a 16:06:09 much earlier awning 16:06:11 than the other ones. So if you go to that 16:06:14 sheet, it says circa 1920. 16:06:16 Then you go to 16:06:18 APP 27, and 16:06:21 it's a circa 1920 without the awning. 16:06:23 That pretty much tells us 16:06:25 that that awning must have gone 16:06:27 up right then. And 16:06:29 so I don't have strong feelings about it. But I do 16:06:31 think it's a 16:06:33 100-year-old awning hung by chains which 16:06:35 gives us some kind of 16:06:37 a cool feeling. And the 16:06:40 sheet metal work on it is, it's 16:06:42 of that time when they 16:06:44 knew how to do sheet metal 16:06:46 work. I just had a question about whether 16:06:48 that had been considered. And 16:06:50 just determine because it wasn't an original 16:06:52 to the, we were going to get red of 16:06:55 it. Sorry what the 16:06:58 considering was on the main awning. 16:07:08 >> Andrew, you can take that if you want. >> Thank 16:07:10 you, commissioner. We certainly did consider it. 16:07:12 We worked with Peter Meyer 16:07:14 architects, our historic consultant on the 16:07:16 project, to review its 16:07:18 status with the building as a 16:07:20 landmark. 16:07:23 We ultimately felt 16:07:25 that the intent of Eli Lawrence 16:07:27 and the original design was most 16:07:29 important to the 16:07:32 preservation of the historic nature here. 16:07:35 The addition 16:07:37 of that 16:07:39 awning 16:07:42 , it felt out of place with 16:07:44 the additional store front at that 16:07:46 location. It's also 16:07:48 quite deteriorated 16:07:50 in its existing condition. 16:07:52 It would need some substantial 16:07:55 work in order to maintain 16:07:57 that. And with it not 16:07:59 being deemed by our team as 16:08:01 a contributing element to the 16:08:03 historic facade, we elected to 16:08:06 return to the original Eli 16:08:08 Lawrence condition. >> OK. 16:08:10 Just one more follow-up real quick. You 16:08:12 mentioned that the side car was put on nine 16:08:15 years after the main building was 16:08:18 constructed? Did I hear that? I'm just 16:08:20 curious if it's possible that 16:08:22 the awning went on with 16:08:25 the side car. And again it 16:08:27 is what it is. 16:08:30 Anyway. Thank you for clarifying 16:08:35 . >> Hillary, perhaps you can 16:08:37 speak to your understanding of 16:08:39 the side car. It is our 16:08:41 belief that it's original 16:08:43 to the building. The 16:08:46 1913 news article 16:08:48 that we have indicates it 16:08:50 as well as the existing 16:08:52 drawings from the historic 16:08:54 building. >> My apologies. I 16:08:57 misheard. I'm sorry. Thank you. >> 16:08:59 Actually I believe that I read that it was 16:09:02 built that Nen 20. 16:09:11 >> Would it be appropriate 16:09:13 to share that article cover? Would 16:09:15 that be all right? >> Andrew is 16:09:18 sharing that, this 16:09:20 is 16:09:22 Peter, 16:09:24 we did specifically research whether or not 16:09:26 that side car came at a later 16:09:28 date. And our research indicated 16:09:30 that it was built at 16:09:32 the same time. So 16:09:34 some of the early photographs 16:09:37 particularly that Andrew led off with 16:09:39 is pretty close to where 16:09:42 the end of construction 16:09:45 of that building. There are streets there 16:09:47 and the side car is there. 16:09:49 >> Peter, this is commissioner 16:09:52 Roman again 16:09:55 . Did you look at that main 16:09:57 awning? Did you have any opinion about the 16:09:59 significance of the main awning? >> 16:10:02 We did as part of the full 16:10:04 assessment of the building including the windows. We took 16:10:06 a very close at it. We will 16:10:08 reiterate what Andrew said about its 16:10:10 condition. We also felt that some of the material or a majority 16:10:13 of that material that awning had been 16:10:15 replaced at one time 16:10:17 . So that they 16:10:19 address some earlier 16:10:21 issues with it and the 16:10:23 condition is such that it's 16:10:26 in pretty poor condition, commissioner 16:10:29 Roman. So it's been 16:10:31 modified to look like it did in the 16:10:33 images that you see. But it what's 16:10:35 been modified. >> OK. Thank you. 16:10:42 That's all I have right now. 16:10:50 >> Any other 16:10:52 questions from commissioners? 16:10:54 >> This is commissioner 16:10:56 Mahoney. I have a 16:10:58 question about the, if there's a 16:11:01 product for the 16:11:03 sectional carriage 16:11:05 door for the side car, I believe, 16:11:07 on the west side. 16:11:13 >> It would be a custom piece in 16:11:15 order to maintain 16:11:18 that design of the original 16:11:20 condition while also 16:11:22 building in sections, allowing it to fold up 16:11:24 in an overhead fashion. 16:11:28 >> OK. 16:11:31 >> That was my same question, too. 16:11:34 This is commissioner Foty. >> 16:11:37 I'm just a little concerned about, 16:11:39 if it's sectional overhead, 16:11:41 how that's going 16:11:43 to make the 16:11:48 mutton and divided lights appear if they have to be 16:11:50 thicker than you would expect to not be able 16:11:53 to match the 16:11:56 historic profiles. So that's 16:11:59 my, the crux of my question. 16:12:10 >> Yeah, I think the question 16:12:13 is whether or not we can 16:12:15 get a seam at this mid point and 16:12:17 just divide the door in two. 16:12:20 With the intent without projecting over the 16:12:22 property line, it's something that's our intent to 16:12:25 do. But we need to continue 16:12:27 coordination with vendors that 16:12:30 are able to provide that 16:12:32 custom overhead door. We are 16:12:35 hoping we can work with 16:12:37 the manufacturer who are 16:12:39 providing the addition, 16:12:42 the rooftop addition overhead 16:12:44 doors that 16:12:46 are operable and accommodate that in 16:12:48 design intent here. But I 16:12:50 think having this kind of 16:12:53 mid rail here approximately would be 16:12:55 a good splitting point that would be our intent. 16:12:58 >> OK. Then I have 16:13:00 another question 16:13:02 regarding the rooftop addition. 16:13:07 I think I'm looking 16:13:10 at -- sorry. I have 16:13:12 to find the page here. 16:13:18 C-17 where we start 16:13:20 seeing the exterior elevation 16:13:22 s in color. 16:13:25 And 16:13:30 the detail 16:13:33 section 16:13:35 -- sorry. I'm trying to put my thoughts 16:13:37 together here. The detail section 16:13:39 through that glassy 16:13:41 area indicates that there's a 16:13:43 copper fascia 16:13:46 and a gutter that's 16:13:49 recessed into the roof 16:13:51 . And those, 578 I correct in understanding 16:13:53 those are not shown 16:13:55 on the 16:13:57 elevations? Like there would 16:14:00 be a thicker fascia 16:14:03 piece on the 16:14:05 Gable end. Is that correct? 16:14:07 >> Yes, correct 16:14:10 . There's, on 16:14:12 the Gable, at the rake as well? >> 16:14:15 Yeah. Sorry. >> 16:14:17 Yeah, there would be a 16:14:19 copper rake aboard here as well 16:14:21 as a fascia trim required to 16:14:23 capture the side there. The 16:14:26 intent is that 16:14:28 a minimal element in really 16:14:30 keeping in the 16:14:32 simplest intent there. >> 16:14:35 So the roof will not appear as 16:14:37 thin as 16:14:39 it's being shown? 16:14:45 Correct? >> 16:14:47 It will be -- it mate 16:14:49 be slightly thicker 16:14:51 . This vantage point is maybe not the 16:14:53 best one to view it in. 16:14:56 Yes, I believe it's shown at four inches here. We 16:14:58 may have to increase that 16:15:00 if needed. I'm 16:15:02 thinking we could get away with a very 16:15:04 thin profile at the 16:15:06 stucco areas as the gas 16:15:08 location would probably need to increase in 16:15:10 size to accommodate the 16:15:12 structure for the window 16:15:14 assembly as well as the roof. 16:15:19 >> OK. And Nen my last 16:15:22 question is, 16:15:24 there isn't 16:15:26 appear to be a guardrail at the 16:15:28 edge of the 16:15:31 roof terrace. I couldn't tell exactly from the 16:15:33 plans or from the 16:15:36 rendering 16:15:38 if there's occupiable space 16:15:40 up against the parapet. But it seems that 16:15:42 if there is, that you would need 16:15:44 to add a guardrail. But 16:15:46 I couldn't tell exactly from the 16:15:48 sections. >> 16:15:51 Sure, yeah. So where there 16:15:53 is occupied space adjacent 16:15:56 to the perimeter the building, the 16:15:59 existing parapet wall would act 16:16:01 as the guardrail. We have the height to 16:16:03 accommodate that. So 16:16:05 there's no 16:16:07 addity guardrail requirement there. Thank 16:16:10 you. >> Thank you. That was all I had. 16:16:13 >> I am going to jump in with a question here. 16:16:16 Because I was kind of looking 16:16:18 are to some 16:16:20 details of the glazing 16:16:22 system that you're using 16:16:24 at the rooftop addition 16:16:27 . And I didn't see any -- I think 16:16:29 my real question -- and you just mentioned that 16:16:31 those are overhead doors. I really 16:16:33 didn't know that at all. 16:16:38 But I think what I would like to know 16:16:40 is really, are you using something that's 16:16:42 going to look exactly the 16:16:45 same on the side 16:16:48 and the front, if I may 16:16:50 use the front as being 16:16:52 I guess the -- what is that? 16:16:55 >> The south. >> The south 16:16:58 facing, yeah. And then the 16:17:00 sides being the east and 16:17:02 west. And you have glazing in 16:17:04 those. And then you kind of turn the corner. 16:17:06 And I guess what I would really like to know 16:17:08 is, are those going to look the same and 16:17:10 sit in the wall the same way? 16:17:15 >> Yes, that is the 16:17:17 intent that a cohesive look 16:17:20 for the glazing and 16:17:22 system associated with 16:17:24 it. So 16:17:26 clear glass. These 16:17:28 doors are typically aluminum in 16:17:30 nature when they are overhead. And we are 16:17:32 also trying to mitigate weight of 16:17:34 the addition. So what we are 16:17:36 proposing is a 16:17:39 kind of, it would be custom working 16:17:41 with the manufacturer 16:17:43 but would include 16:17:46 decorative angles 16:17:48 or rivets kind 16:17:50 of within those required mull I don't 16:17:52 knows to provide an additional 16:17:54 level of detail. A 16:17:56 similar would be the locations where 16:17:58 you would have a 16:18:00 profile that would carryover between the two 16:18:02 systems. So the idea is that we're working 16:18:05 with the manufacturer to 16:18:07 customize the profiles and 16:18:09 add that cohesion between the two elements. 16:18:14 Similarly, the location of 16:18:16 the system is intended to be the same. So 16:18:19 on the south facade here in the center 16:18:21 detail it's recessed eight 16:18:23 inches. And the glass is set back slightly 16:18:25 in the system as required 16:18:27 by the manufacturer 16:18:29 . And the intent is on the side 16:18:32 elevations we have 16:18:34 similar eight-inch set back and also the 16:18:37 positioning of the glass in the system. Although 16:18:39 it's a thinner system since it doesn't 16:18:42 have that operable 16:18:44 nature and require to address those loads. 16:18:49 >> Thank you. 16:18:56 >> This is commissioner 16:18:59 Foty. A super quick question in addition to 16:19:01 the one commissioner 16:19:03 Mahoney asked about. At 16:19:05 the roof it looks like the Gable shape 16:19:08 was sort of 16:19:10 using 16:19:12 the Gable decoration at 16:19:14 the Troy Laundry building. 16:19:17 Is that the creates case? Are you using the same 16:19:19 angles? It looks like it's and it's very 16:19:21 nice if it's intentional. 16:19:23 >> Yeah, we're trying 16:19:26 to mimic it -- sorry. Continue if you have more. >> 16:19:28 No. I appreciated that. And it seemed 16:19:31 to me that this 16:19:33 elevation, what is this 16:19:35 again? Is it the north elevation 16:19:37 here? It's kind of skewed with 16:19:39 the big windows. >> Down at the 16:19:41 bottom is the south. >> The south, 16:19:44 sorry. It almost looks 16:19:46 like that was sort of the rhythm 16:19:48 of it was based on the rhythm of the 16:19:51 openings of the Troy Laundry. 16:19:53 I guess I'm seeing 16:19:55 like you are trying to use 16:19:57 sort of patterns and 16:19:59 dimensions of the building in this addition, which is nice. 16:20:01 Even though it's not very visible 16:20:03 but you will see from it some angles. 16:20:05 But on the east and west 16:20:08 elevations, I don't see any -- 16:20:11 like commissioner Minor was asking, 16:20:13 it looks like the windows 16:20:15 have the same -- I kind of falls 16:20:17 apart. I don't know where that's coming from 16:20:19 except for the Gable. There's no -- it looks like maybe 16:20:21 the windows are going to match in detailing 16:20:23 but they're not going to match in proportion 16:20:25 it doesn't look like. 16:20:28 I'm trying to understand where that elevation comes from, 16:20:30 the side elevations versus this long 16:20:32 elevation which seems to work very nicely. 16:20:38 >> I think the intent 16:20:40 here was to provide as 16:20:42 much glass as possible in response to some of 16:20:44 the discussions we had 16:20:47 during the DAR about that 16:20:49 south part of the building kind of opening up 16:20:51 as much as possible to the 16:20:53 rooftop. And maybe acting 16:20:56 as that more 16:20:58 glassy conservative 16:21:01 tore inspiration picture we shared here in 16:21:03 the package. Trying to open up with 16:21:05 as much glass as possible was the 16:21:07 design intent. 16:21:16 >> OK. Thank you. 16:21:20 >> Any final questions from 16:21:22 commissioners right now? >> Can I ask one 16:21:24 follow-up on the service 16:21:27 door? >> And I don't know