Summary of Advisory Committee & Staff input
June 7, 2007 - DRAFT
Attendees from HACC Staff: Trell Anderson, Jenelle Woodlief, Jack Bair, George
Buckman, Dick Sutter, Don Miller, Thomas Williams, Dick Gaarenstroom, Jane
Brown, Brent Hoffman, Dave Huff, Bucco Garzon, Jemila Hart, Josh Teigen, Jon
Garcia, Craig Gingerich, Gary Knepper, Debbie Greene, Toni Karter, Betty
Rautio, Lisa Herrera
Attendees from SCV, the Consulting Team: Bob Powers, Brian Sweeney, Mike
Andrews, David Wohl
Attendees from the Project Advisory Group: Erica Allison, Kenny Asher, Nancy
Walters, Steve Morrow, Mary Belefronto, Ron Rubino (Invited but unable to
attend: Lisa Rinker, Mary King, Dan Weldon, Brian Newman)
HACC’s consulting team met with the listed members of the Project Advisory Group and
HACC staff on June 7, 2007, to get their views on what principles should guide the
team’s analysis of potential redevelopment scenarios for Hillside Manor, Hillside
Gardens, Clackamas Heights, and Oregon City View Manor. The following is a
summary of the points, organized by broad theme (rather than by the order in which the
discussion proceeded) that were made by members of the committee; it does not assume
that the committee reached consensus on the issues that were discussed.
• 1-for-1 replacement of public housing units at minimum – desire expressed for
meeting future needs of expanding population
• Should keep in mind future growth of area and attendant housing needs
• Desire a diverse community with a mix of incomes
• Demand for housing should drive redevelopment (as evidenced by a ~2300-
person wait list for Public housing). Eighteen years ago, the wait time was around
3-9 months; now it is more like 3-5 years. The wait time is so long that by the
time we are able to house people, the list is narrowed down to individuals likely to
be long-term residents.
• How do we address relocation? Concerns of the residents, etc. Relocation plans
must minimize displacement and allow current residents an opportunity to return
if they choose.
• Meet the needs of residents – accessibility, services
• Concentrate services to deliver more efficiently. We are lacking crucial services.
• How to create mixed use/services for entire neighborhood? Don’t throw out the
(Hillside) idea of a high-rise – all infrastructure is there
• Maintain long-term affordability of housing
• What about assisted living? Build at Hillside Manor?
• Increased density is implied by goals of 1-for-1 replacement AND bringing a
greater mix of incomes - but need to be sensitive to public perception,
neighborhood context and traffic concerns. The perception of “cramming” more
low-income people into one site is not a good one.
• Issue is not about density, but serving more people!
• More efficient use of sites. Should look at medium density, clusters of 16-25 units
with fewer walls and roofs. This would be more cost-efficient to maintain them
than the current 1-2 unit density we have now.
• Mixed housing is going to be crucial.
• Consolidate open space and create more functional recreational opportunities and
community gardens. Community or private gardens are popular among residents.
At Hillside Manor the elderly residents manage it.
• Connectivity of streets to tie into surrounding neighborhoods and to lessen traffic
impact on major arterials. New roads aren’t being built, and residents will be
sensitive to increased traffic that results from higher density. Public transit at
OCVM and Clackamas Heights is “terrible.” Lack of transportation in Park Place
is the biggest barrier. Increasing density would require a commitment from Tri-
• Sustainable design that will improve energy efficiency, lower maintenance costs,
and improve livability.
• Resident concerns include ventilation/circulation, noise, storage space, living
space and privacy.
• Design parking to minimize asphalt and impervious surfaces, but not lose sight of
resident safety concerns (e.g., distance from parking space to the unit).
• Need to create livable spaces that meet Fair Housing Act and ADA requirements.
This is especially an issue at OCVM, which has a steep grade from its top and
• Create pride in community and sense of ownership.
• Can we turn some land, amenities over to the City as parks or recreational centers
for their ownership/operation?
• Currently, the only one-bedroom units are at Hillside Manor high rise. We don’t
have any other options and the younger people with disabilities feel very
uncomfortable living at the Manor.
• Can we do senior-only housing and find a way to house people with disabilities
• Look to the design standards like at New Columbia (HAP:
• Eliminate the public housing “enclaves” – want site to be part of the
neighborhood. A redevelopment will likely drive land/home values in the
• Transit is critical issue for Clackamas Heights & OCVM residents and Park Place
• Integrate planning with adjacent commercial services, such as Clackamas Heights
(Steve’s Market) and Hillside (Providence Hospital?)
• Improve access to social services and community amenities.
• How do we tackle the substantial homeless issue Clackamas County is facing and
address the housing wait list?
• We should house a lot more people.
Finance/HACC Fiscal Health
• HACC should be opportunistic and take advantage of market forces.
• Be open to selling portion of sites to third party developers if resources can be
generated to help build new public housing.
• Want to see affordable homeownership opportunities in the mix.
• Examine funding options with and without Federal HOPE VI grant. Explore how
to leverage other assets or resources, especially as HUD is shifting from a straight
cash grant model for subsidizing public housing to a mixed finance model.
• Be open to selling portion of scattered site portfolio to fund redevelopment and
improve efficiency of HACC operations. We can build more units to meet the
growing need using our own assets. Our scattered site portfolio tops $30 million
in value, at a conservative estimate.
• The long-term fiscal health of HACC is a key component in the redevelopment