November 21, 2016

To the Portland City Council,

This letter is to voice our concerns and opposition to the current Residential Infill Project
(RIP) proposal. Over a year ago the South Burlingame Neighborhood Association passed
a motion to support the United Neighborhoods for Reform resolution being presented to
council regarding the house demolitions. The Mayors creation of the RIP gave us hope
that our voices might be heard and slow the demolition of our modest homes. Our
members support finding mindful ways to provide additional and flexible housing, while
minimizing demolitions and respecting neighborhood character, and we understand that
you are under pressure to address the housing demands of our new citizens.
The original RIP description in the Call for advisors stated The Residential Infill Project will
address the scale, size, mass and location of new single-family construction to help protect the unique character
of Portlands treasured neighborhoods. But it will also look at smaller forms of housing (skinny houses, stacked
flats, cottages, etc.) to ensure that where they are allowed, these more affordable forms of housing reflect the
desired character of the single-dwelling zones. The current proposal does more to address the

alternate forms of housing and offers little to no protection of neighborhood character.

Some Concerns:
1.) We do not agree with using a Housing Overlay to re-zone large portions of the city
without residents having the due process provided by a proper re-zoning process.
2.) We protest the broad brush of the overlay zone being a distance buffer around
transit lines with no regard to neighborhood contexts. For example, South
Burlingame is inside the overlay because of transit on Barbur Blvd, but the access
is bisected by Interstate 5. These lines are labeled conceptual but there is very
little confidence the city staff will hear our associations recommendation of an
appropriate application of the overlay boundary.
3.) The proposal does nothing to address scale or neighborhood character. All of the
houses in our neighborhood, with exception of the recent infill houses, are much
smaller than the proposed heights and sizes.
4.) The proposal will increase demolitions of homes in our neighborhood.
5.) We are very concerned that the city appears unresponsive to our and other
neighborhoods public input.
6.) Mostly, we are concerned that our neighborhood does not have the infrastructure
and amenities to accommodate the density as proposed. We have inadequate
public transit, and barriers to walkability, hilly terrain devoid of sidewalks and
cross walks, and impassable roads such as Interstate 5.

What we do support:
1.) ADUs. We encourage the building of external and internal ADUs to provide
more housing options. The city should find ways to encourage conversions
instead of demolitions of existing affordable houses.
2.) Code that ensures scale of housing fits neighborhood context and protects solar
access and privacy. The vast majority of our neighborhood is single story or
single story with dormer, with twenty plus feet setbacks being common. The
only houses that are common to the proposed two plus story buildings with 15
foot setbacks are the new infill homes.
3.) Promote ways to save viable housing when possible.
4.) Provide clear codes that avoid inconsistent and confusing criteria such as
density or overlays.
5.) Direct density around centers consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to create
walking scale neighborhoods and encourage transit and reduce auto use.
6.) Evaluate and make changes in higher density areas to find out why existing
regulations are not working, and re-zone where appropriate.
Our highest concerns is the city is taking a one size fits all to the application of the
overlay zone. Our neighborhood, like many in the southwest, does not have many of the
amenities needed to support density. This includes basic infrastructure like sidewalks on
collectors or storm drainage. Also the proposed size of the houses is out of scale and will
overcrowd the existing homes thus destroying our unique character.
Attached to this letter is the written testimony of Loren Lutzenhiser, and his clear study
on some of the potential unintended consequences of this proposal as it stands. We feel
the city should take a moment to understand his positions and how the developers,
architects, builders, and real estate agents on the RIP SAC have a vested interest in this
proposal passing to increase their profitability. We also encourage you to review the
testimony of the RIPSAC 7, who raised legitimate concerns regarding this proposal.

Robert Lennox
South Burlingame President