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