Planning Board — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-03-24
Time: 16:30

PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
 Joseph Zamboni, Chair
 Kelsey Robertson, Vice Chair
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 4:30 PM Austin Smith
Room 24 (Basement Level of City Hall) Beverly Uhlenhake
 David Silk
and Zoom Eric Din
 Nicholas Messina




The Planning Board will conduct this meeting in a hybrid format via Zoom pursuant to the Remote Meeting
Policy adopted by the Planning Board. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best
meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available
in the Agenda Center following the meeting. For more information on how to use zoom, please go
here: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/18148b5d-f26e-472f-8d2c-245db97e5c27. For public comment
via Zoom, you will need to use the “raise your hand” feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit
*9. You will be un-muted by the host when it is time for public comment. Please note that the placement of
items on this agenda are subject to change – please check the agenda center prior to the meeting for the item
start time.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/84555512465
Phone one-tap:
+13052241968,,84555512465# US
+13092053325,,84555512465# US

Join via audio:
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
Webinar ID: 845 5551 2465
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kck2QQRsUx

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email planningboard@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions
must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Planning Board meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the

 1
agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your
comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).


AGENDA:

PUBLIC HEARING - 4:30 PM
1. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
2. COMMUNICATION AND REPORTS
3. REPORT OF ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10, 2026
 Workshop
 Text Amendments to Article 3 (Definitions) and Article 6 (Uses); Messina, Robertson, Smith,
 Uhlenhake and Zamboni present. Din recused and Silk absent.
4. REPORTS OF DECISIONS AT THE MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10, 2026
 i. There were no public hearing items on the agenda to report on.
5. NEW BUSINESS
 i. Text Amendment to Article 3 (Definitions) and Article 6 (Uses); City of Portland,
 Applicant. The Planning Board will hold a hybrid public hearing to consider proposed text
 amendments to Article 3 (Definitions) and Article 6 (Uses) of the Land Use Code. The
 proposed amendments would modify the definition of Theaters and Performance Halls in
 Article 3 and establish supplemental use standards in Article 6, including a minimum distance
 requirement between Large Theaters and Performance Halls within the B-3 and WCZ zoning
 districts.




 2

PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
 Joseph Zamboni, Chair
 Kelsey Robertson, Vice Chair
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 4:30 PM Austin Smith
Room 24 (Basement Level of City Hall) Beverly Uhlenhake
 David Silk
and Zoom Eric Din
 Nicholas Messina




The Planning Board will conduct this meeting in a hybrid format via Zoom pursuant to the Remote Meeting
Policy adopted by the Planning Board. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best
meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available
in the Agenda Center following the meeting. For more information on how to use zoom, please go
here: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/18148b5d-f26e-472f-8d2c-245db97e5c27. For public comment
via Zoom, you will need to use the “raise your hand” feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit
*9. You will be un-muted by the host when it is time for public comment. Please note that the placement of
items on this agenda are subject to change – please check the agenda center prior to the meeting for the item
start time.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/84555512465
Phone one-tap:
+13052241968,,84555512465# US
+13092053325,,84555512465# US

Join via audio:
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
Webinar ID: 845 5551 2465
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kck2QQRsUx

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email planningboard@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions
must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Planning Board meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the

 1

 Page 1
agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your
comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).


AGENDA:

PUBLIC HEARING - 4:30 PM
1. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
2. COMMUNICATION AND REPORTS
3. REPORT OF ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10, 2026
 Workshop
 Text Amendments to Article 3 (Definitions) and Article 6 (Uses); Messina, Robertson, Smith,
 Uhlenhake and Zamboni present. Din recused and Silk absent.
4. REPORTS OF DECISIONS AT THE MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10, 2026
 i. There were no public hearing items on the agenda to report on.
5. NEW BUSINESS
 i. Text Amendment to Article 3 (Definitions) and Article 6 (Uses); City of Portland,
 Applicant. The Planning Board will hold a hybrid public hearing to consider proposed text
 amendments to Article 3 (Definitions) and Article 6 (Uses) of the Land Use Code. The
 proposed amendments would modify the definition of Theaters and Performance Halls in
 Article 3 and establish supplemental use standards in Article 6, including a minimum distance
 requirement between Large Theaters and Performance Halls within the B-3 and WCZ zoning
 districts.




 2

 Page 2
Planning Board Report
Planning & Urban Development Department


 Land Use Code Text Amendments – Entertainment Buffer
 City of Portland, Applicant

 Submitted to: Portland Planning Board Prepared by:
 Public Hearing Date: March 24, 2026 Kevin Kraft, Director
 Date Prepared: March 18, 2026 Matt Grooms, Deputy Director

I. INTRODUCTION
At the upcoming March 24 Planning Board public hearing, the Planning Board will be asked to make a
recommendation to the City Council on a proposed text amendment to Articles 3 (Definitions) and 6
(Uses) of the Land Use Code (Attachment A), referred by the Housing & Economic Development
Committee (HEDC). The amendment would establish a minimum 750-foot buffer requirement between
large theaters and performance halls.

The Planning Board’s role is to review the proposed amendments for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and to provide a recommendation to the City Council to adopt, adopt with recommended
amendments, or reject the amendments. This recommendation must be supported by findings of fact and
an assessment of whether the proposal aligns with City policy and advances the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the final authority to review and adopt any proposed changes to
the Land Use Code.

A legal advertisement for this public hearing was published in the Portland Press Herald on March 12, 2026
and March 13, 2026.

II. PRIOR PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
The Planning Board held a workshop open to the public on March 10, 2026. The meeting was conducted in
a hybrid format, allowing both in-person and virtual public comment. The Planning Board’s packet
materials, including staff memo, associated attachments, and a video recording of the meeting are available
on the City’s Agenda Center.

10 members of the public provided verbal public comments on the proposed text amendments with one
written comment submitted by Top of the Old Port. All commenters expressed opposition to the
proposed text amendments.

At the Planning Board Workshop, Board members raised the following questions:

 1. Has the City had any history with establishing retroactive zoning?
The City has a history of using moratoriums to study and implement zoning changes.

In 2017, the City Council enacted a 180-day moratorium in the former R-6 zone on Munjoy Hill to address a
surge in demolitions and concerns about the scale and design of new development. This led to the creation
of the Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, which was later repealed in 2022 following
adoption of the Munjoy Hill Historic District.



 1

 Page 3
In December 2018, the City Council enacted a six-month moratorium on non-marine development in the
Waterfront Central Zone (WCZ) to address concerns from the fishing community and others about recent
proposals. This led to zoning revisions that restricted non-marine uses and strengthened performance
standards for access, operations, and management.

In November 2016, the City Council enacted a 90-day moratorium on development of parcels abutting
public land in District I on the peninsula, in response to concerns about impacts from development on the
views from Fort Sumner Park. This led to the creation of the Fort Sumner Park Overlay, adopted in
February 2017 and applied retroactively.

 2. What was the rationale for establishing the 750-foot buffer distance and the 1,000-person
 capacity threshold, and was there any data-driven analysis used to determine those figures?
The sponsor’s letter to the HEDC Committee regarding the proposed text amendments is included as
Attachment C.

 3. Can the City provide any additional background or information on how the 100-foot buffer
 was established for the existing entertainment license spacing requirement adopted in 2007?
The 100-foot dispersal requirement originated in the original Old Port Overlay Zone. As part of the 2007
Downtown Entertainment Overlay process, the Mayor’s Old Port Nightlife Task Force issued a report with
numerous recommendations to improve public safety and enforcement in the Old Port. These included
enhanced police presence, better management of bar patrons, physical improvements to support conduct
control, occupancy limits, and strengthened business practices. The 100-foot dispersal standard was
ultimately retained in the 2007 amendments, which established the current entertainment buffer. Its
purpose was to prevent the concentration of bars and entertainment venues with music or dancing that
had contributed to public safety issues in the Old Port. At the time, a 100-foot separation was determined
to provide sufficient dispersal to achieve this objective.

In 2007, the Planning Board voted (5–0, with Lowry and Silk absent) to find that the proposed zoning
amendments to create the Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zone were not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and did not recommend their adoption to the City Council (Attachment G).

 4. Can the City provide clarification on how the distance between primary entrances is
 measured?
The existing 100-foot entertainment buffer is measured along public ways (following streets and sidewalks)
from the main entrance of each establishment. The only exception is Wharf Street; since it is closed to
vehicle traffic and has no crosswalks, the Permitting & Inspections Department measures the buffer in a
straight line from the main entrance of each establishment.

 5. Why does the buffer apply only to theaters and performance halls and not to arenas?
 Additionally, how are arenas defined or distinguished from performance halls. For example,
 how is Cross Insurance Arena classified?
Cross Insurance Arena, owned by Cumberland County, is currently classified as a civic center. Following
internal discussions with the City’s Zoning Administrator, it was determined that, because the arena hosts a
variety of events, including sporting events, shows, concerts, and live performances, which is in alignment
with the definition for theaters and performance halls, the proposed buffer would apply. Maps illustrating
the existing buffer, as well as the proposed 250-foot and 750-foot buffers, have been updated and are
included in Attachments E and F.


 2

 Page 4
 6. How do other communities manage these types of venues in their downtowns, and can the
 City provide additional case studies on strategies used in entertainment districts to encourage
 theaters to locate in close proximity?
Brooklyn Cultural District. The core centers on a four-block area shaped by a coordinated effort among
government officials and local arts organizations to revive Brooklyn’s cultural and entertainment sector,
using the arts as an anchor to encourage reinvestment.

Arts and culture have long been central to Downtown Brooklyn, building on the area’s rich institutional
history. The City and State have invested more than $100 million to support world-class cultural venues,
public spaces, and streetscape improvements. These institutions reflect a wide range of artistic and cultural
expression, including the Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM), BAM Harvey Theater, BAM Fisher, and the
BRIC Arts Media Center, as well as the Irondale Center, Theatre for a New Audience, and ISSUE Project
Room. Larger venues include the 19,000-seat Barclays Center and the recently reopened historic Brooklyn
Paramount (approximately 2,600–3,000 seats), which was renovated and reopened in 2024.

A summary of Chicago’s downtown theater district has been included in Attachment B.

III. BACKGROUND
In response to community concerns raised during review of a Major Site Plan application for a proposed
3,300-capacity Portland Music Hall at 244 Cumberland Avenue, the City Council voted 6–3 on August 11,
2025 (Councilors Ali, Phillips, and Mayor Dion opposed) to enact a 180-day moratorium on theaters and
performance halls with capacities exceeding 2,000. The moratorium was made retroactive to applications
received on or after December 1, 2024 (Order 9-25/26). On February 23, 2026, the City Council voted to
extend the moratorium.

In response to the moratorium, on November 18, 2025, the Housing & Economic Development Committee
(HEDC) reviewed and discussed a proposed text amendment to the Land Use Code, introduced by
Councilor Pelletier and Councilor Ali. The amendment proposed to eliminate the existing 100-foot buffer
for businesses holding an entertainment license and replace it with a 750-foot buffer for large
entertainment businesses, which the amendment defined as venues with seating capacities of 1,000 or
more within the B-3 and Waterfront Central zones.

On February 3, 2026, the HEDC reviewed and discussed a refined text amendment co-sponsored by
Councilors Pelletier and Ali. The amendment would modify the existing Theater or Performance Hall use by
creating two categories: Theater or Performance Hall (Small) and Theater or Performance Hall (Large). It
would also prohibit Large Theaters or Performance Halls from being located within 750 feet of another
Large Theater or Performance Hall within the B-3 and Waterfront Central zones.

During deliberations on the proposal, HEDC members Phillips, Sykes, and Michniewicz expressed general
opposition to the proposed 750-foot buffer. Councilor Michniewicz suggested considering a 250-foot
buffer due to concerns that entrances to large venues located near one another could create conflicts for
pedestrians when multiple venues are emptying at the same time and recommended that a 250-foot buffer
be considered. Ultimately, the committee voted 4-0 to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning
Board for review and a recommendation to City Council.

Adoption of Entertainment Sector Benefits for Large Venues


 3

 Page 5
Since the enactment of the moratorium in August 2025, the HEDC reviewed a separate proposal on
October 21, 2025, to amend Chapter 4 of the City Code (Amusements) by establishing an Entertainment
Sector Benefits Agreement requirement for large venues. On November 18, 2025, the HEDC voted 4–0 to
recommend City Council approval of the amendment. On January 5, 2026, the City Council voted 8-0
(Councilor Ali absent) to pass Order 107-25/26, creating a new Large Capacity Entertainment License for
venues with capacities of 2,000 or more, and requiring licensees to enter into an Entertainment Sector
Benefits Agreement, providing financial or in-kind contributions equal to 1.0%–2.0% of the base ticket price
to support Portland’s local entertainment ecosystem. This ordinance became effective on February 5,
2026.

Existing 100-foot Entertainment License Buffer
In April 2007, the City Council, guided by the Mayor’s Old Port Task Force and the Public Safety Committee,
adopted the Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zone. This ordinance regulates the location and density of
establishments with liquor licenses that also permit entertainment, requiring new establishments to be
located at least 100 feet from similar establishments. The Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zone
amended and superseded an earlier Old Port Overlay Zone, which capped the number of liqueur licenses in
the Old Port district. The purpose of both overlay zones has been to limit and disperse the negative
impacts of late-night rowdiness on downtown streets. This 100-foot dispersal requirement is codified in
Section 6.8.4 of the Land Use Code and is applicable to businesses with entertainment and liquor licenses in
the B-3 and Waterfront Central Zones and remains in effect.

IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
As outlined in Councilor Pelletier’s January 30, 2026 memo to the HEDC Committee (Attachment C), the
goal of the proposed amendments is to address concerns regarding the spacing of large entertainment
venues in downtown Portland. Establishing a buffer is intended to mitigate traffic impacts associated with
patrons arriving at and departing from multiple venues simultaneously.

The proposed amendments (Attachment A), would modify the existing Theater or Performance Hall use by
creating two use categories, Theater or Performance Hall (Small) and Theater or Performance Hall (Large),
that would be defined in Article 3 Definitions:

 • Theater or Performance Hall (Small): An establishment with a total occupancy of fewer than
 1,000 persons devoted to showing motion pictures or hosting dramatic, musical, or live
 performances.

 • Theater or Performance Hall (Large): An establishment with a total occupancy of 1,000 or more
 persons devoted to showing motion pictures or hosting dramatic, musical, or live performances.

Theaters and Performance Halls would continue to be permitted in the B-3 and Waterfront Central Zones
(WCZ), as outlined in Table 6-C. However, Large Theaters and Performance Halls would be subject to
supplemental use standards in Section 6.4.42, which would prohibit such venues from locating within 750
feet of the primary entrance(s) of another Large Theater or Performance Hall as measured along public
ways (following streets and sidewalks).

Under this approach, the 750-foot buffer would apply only between Large Theaters and Performance Halls.
It would not restrict proximity between small theaters and performance halls.



 4

 Page 6
250 Foot Buffer Proposal
During the February 3, 2026 HEDC meeting, Councilor Michniewicz requested that staff explore a 250-foot
buffer. The intent of establishing a 250-foot separation would be to address concerns about two primary
entrances being located in close proximity and to mitigate impacts associated with pedestrians and patrons
exiting venues and entering the sidewalk/street network simultaneously.

IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICY, & DATA ANALYSIS
The following section provides an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan and related policy guidance,
regulatory standards, and best practices in land use planning, along with data on parking conditions, the
economic activity of the arts and cultural sector, and regulations from other cities, all of which inform the
Board’s consideration and recommendation on the Theater and Performance Hall Buffer amendments.

Policy and Regulatory Background
Portland’s adopted comprehensive policy framework, including Portland’s Comprehensive Plan, Portland’s
Plan 2030, One Climate Future, the Downtown Vision Plan, and the Portland Peninsula Transit Study, works
in concert with established regulatory tools such as the Land Use Code, Site Plan Ordinance, Traffic
Movement Permit (TMP) requirements, and impact fees that are intended to regulate and manage land use,
transportation, site access, and parking impacts of individual development proposals. Together, these
policies and regulations provide sufficient oversight to evaluate individual proposals on a case-by case basis
while supporting the advancing City’s long-standing policy goals and objectives.

Over the past decade, City policymakers have deliberately pursued policies that reflect a modern, 21st-
century approach to growth and sustainability. Long-range transportation planning has focused on creating
a more integrated, multimodal network through public transit enhancements, sidewalk and streetscape
improvements, bikeway planning, and targeted investments in the underlying street network. At the same
time, the City has worked to ensure that its land use framework is closely aligned with transportation planning.
The consistent direction of City policymaking over several decades demonstrates a shared commitment to
guiding Portland’s growth in a sustainable manner, prioritizing a transportation system that serves all users,
not solely automobiles and single-occupancy vehicles, and ensuring density, mixed-use development, and key
destinations are aligned with the public transit network. This commitment is increasingly reflected in
Portland’s built environment today.

In 1991 the City adopted the Downtown Vision Plan. As Maine’s largest city and Northern New England’s
primary urban center, Portland’s Downtown serves as a vital hub for commerce, culture, and civic life. In
regards to transportation planning, the Downtown Vision Plan emphasized the need to reduce reliance on
single-occupancy vehicles and minimize on-site parking. It advocated for a more pedestrian-oriented
downtown, supported by transit, shuttle lots, carpools, biking, and walking. While acknowledging that
reversing decades of car-centric development would take time, the plan called for a transitional approach,
warning that continued auto-dependence could result in increased congestion, pollution, and diminished
urban livability. Key transportation strategies outlined in the plan included limiting private on-site parking,
encouraging employer participation in transit programs, and enhancing the role of public transit within a
walkable, vibrant downtown core. This early policy direction laid the foundation for the City’s ongoing efforts
to create a more sustainable, accessible, and multimodal transportation system, and to support land use
regulation that encourages a shift away from car-centric development. Selected excerpts include:

 “To maintain and enhance the Downtown’s prominence as the regional center for



 5

 Page 7
 commerce, human services, historic resources, and culture and the arts.”

 “To manage traffic and parking to diminish and decentralize the concentration of private
 automobiles in the heart of the Downtown through a creative combination of on-street, on-
 site, central garage, and peripheral parking , and alternative transportation mode solutions.”

 “Perimeter Growth Areas: Provide and guide opportunities for commercial and residential
 growth on the perimeter of the central Downtown area which support and enhance the
 entire Downtown.”

 “Revitalize Congress Street, Portland’s Main Street, by establishing and promoting the
 Congress Street Cultural Corridor with additional cultural facilities and related retail uses.”

The Role of Arts and Culture in the Downtown (pages 33 – 34)

 “Popular entertainment arts” are promoted as a component of a Downtown arts
 and culture industry. “Music clubs” are specifically listed as components of this
 industry.

 “Support the cultural community by retaining and expanding performance and
 exhibition space, housing, studio space, and office/support space for artists,
 institutions, and organizations.”

 “Promote the Downtown as the local, statewide and northern New England
 center for arts and culture.”

In 2009, the City approved the Portland Peninsula Transit Study, a study intended to advance transportation
strategies supporting the livability and sustainability of the Portland Peninsula, recognized as one of the most
vibrant and walkable small urban areas in the nation and the heart of the region. Building on prior policy
direction, the study emphasized the need to integrate land use, infrastructure, and transportation planning
to strengthen walking, biking, and transit options. The study acknowledged that while investments in
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure are critical, meaningful reductions in single-occupancy vehicle
trips would also require addressing the financial incentives and convenience that favor driving. It highlighted
that many cities have chosen to accept some loss in auto-oriented conveniences in order to improve safety,
reduce emissions, and prioritize multimodal transportation. The plan reinforced the City’s long-standing
commitment to sustainable transportation and again set forth goals including reducing single-occupancy
vehicle trips, shifting away from auto-oriented infrastructure toward support for alternative modes, and
managing, rather than expanding, the existing parking supply.

Key policy recommendations included:
 ● Traffic Policy:
 ○ Shift from an auto-oriented infrastructure to promotion of other modes;
 ○ Shift investment strategy from support for new lanes of asphalt to transit;
 ○ No longer designing streets solely to accommodate peak-hour traffic;
 ○ Accepting traffic delays as normal in an urban environment
 ● Transit Policy:



 6

 Page 8
 ○ Encourage development of transit to reduce the growth of traffic to and within the
 peninsula;
 ○ Provide convenient, frequent, attractive, reliable, and safe transit options;
 ○ Invest in transit over new vehicular travel lanes of asphalt
 ● Parking Policy:
 ○ Encourage new initiatives to decrease the growth of traffic volumes;
 ○ Manage the parking supply rather than continue to expand it;
 ○ Use parking impact fees to support transit;
 ○ Develop shared parking
 ● Pedestrian & Bike Policy:
 ○ Encourage walking and biking, along with transit “share the street”

In 2017, the City adopted Portland’s Plan 2030, the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Portland. As a
foundational policy document, it establishes the framework that guides zoning, the Land Use Code, and other
adopted regulations. The Plan outlines goals and strategies aimed at reducing reliance on automobiles
through compact, walkable, and multimodal development, strategically managed parking, and reinforcement
of the city center. It also recognizes Downtown Portland as the region’s cultural, civic, and economic hub, a
role reflected today by the presence of numerous successful current and former venues, including the State
Theatre, Merrill Auditorium, Cross Insurance Arena, Blue, Portland House of Music, and Port City Music Hall
(now closed).

Its transportation and land use policies emphasize that by managing growth in automobile traffic, the City
can expand transportation choices and foster a more accessible and sustainable urban environment.
Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan’s economic policy framework acknowledges that Portland hosts an
increasingly diverse economy, including the financial and service sectors, a thriving local food scene, a port
engaged in international trade, a regional healthcare hub, and a flourishing arts and culture community. The
Plan outlines the following goals relevant when considering the proposed amendments:
 • Promote an economic climate that increases job opportunities and overall economic well-being
 (State Goal).
 • Create economic prosperity by growing Portland’s tax and employment base (Local Goal).
 • Value innovation and creativity as cornerstones of the local economy and central to Portland’s
 uniqueness and diversity (Local Goal).
 • Support sustainable growth in educational, medical, and cultural institutions (Local Goal).
 • Target areas for job growth by ensuring new employment can be accommodated in priority growth
 areas across the city and by evaluating zoning and infrastructure conditions in downtown,
 neighborhood nodes, and along transit corridors to support employment and housing growth.
 • Emphasize arts and culture by leveraging them as defining elements of Portland’s quality of place,
 supporting cultural institutions and arts spaces, and ensuring access to arts and culture for all
 residents.

The Plan’s, Future Land Use Framework further emphasizes areas most critical to the City’s continued growth
and highlights the goal to “Reinforce the Center.” The Plan affirms that Downtown Portland remains central
to the region’s arts and cultural, economic, and civic vitality and embraces the principle that downtown
should continue to serve as a primary locus of activity for the broader region. Downtown is therefore
identified as a priority growth node for continued enhancement and investment.


 7

 Page 9
Portland’s Plan 2030 laid the foundation for further studies and policy development, including One Climate
Future, approved in 2021. One Climate Future continued to move the City toward the goal of sustainable
growth. This adopted policy document included specific goals and strategies to support implementation of
the higher-level direction in Portland’s Plan 2030. These goals and strategies again focused on mode shift,
aiming to decrease private vehicle use and focused on expanding public transportation systems, biking
accessibility, complete streets, and transit-oriented development (TOD) in an effort to make it easier to travel
between destinations without a car and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A key action item identified in One Climate Future was to shift away from policies that promote increased
parking demand and supply, and instead advance strategies that strengthen multimodal transportation
options. To achieve this, the plan called for eliminating parking minimums in commercial areas and along
designated transit corridors, and for establishing parking maximums. This was accomplished in 2024 through
ReCode, when parking minimums were eliminated citywide and replaced with parking maximums.
Furthermore, by encouraging lower-density, car-oriented development, excessive parking also undermines
public transit efficiency and creates streetscapes that discourage walking and biking. This reinforces car
dependency, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and perpetuates demand for more parking, directly
conflicting with the goals of One Climate Future.

In recent years, the City and region have continued to advance their multimodal transportation goals. In 2023,
the Gorham-Westbrook-Portland Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study was completed to assess the feasibility
and potential benefits of a rapid transit connection linking the three communities. The study identified a
preferred alignment, running along Main Street, Brighton Avenue, and Congress Street through downtown
Portland, as the most direct and effective corridor. This route would connect major destinations, including
USM Gorham, Gorham Village, Downtown Westbrook, Rock Row, USM Portland, Maine Medical Center,
Downtown Portland, and the Eastern Waterfront, with high-frequency bus service at both the local and
regional levels.

On April 14, 2025, the City Council adopted the Greater Portland Council of Governments’ (GPCOG) Regional
Vision Zero Action Plan. By doing so, the City formally endorsed the initiative’s core objective: eliminating
all traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by 2045. The GPCOG Vision Zero plan emphasizes reducing
reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and promoting greater use of public transit as a critical step toward
safer, more equitable mobility. Directly aligned with advancing Vision Zero, the City Council in 2025 adopted
an update to the City’s 2012 Complete Streets Policy to ensure it continues to reflect the community’s vision
for a safer, more multimodal city that serves all users, regardless of age or ability.

Parking Capacity & Utilization
In 2017 the City commissioned a study covering much of the downtown and nearby waterfront areas, which
found that there are enough parking spaces to accommodate roughly one space for every four residents of
Portland. The study showed that peak utilization typically occurs on weekday afternoons in the summer,
when businesses and offices are open, with demand tapering off by early afternoon and continuing into the
evening. More recent studies and analyses have yielded similar findings.

Parking Study for Downtown, the Old Port, and the Eastern Waterfront (2017)
In 2017, the City commissioned a parking study covering the downtown, central waterfront, eastern
waterfront, and a ¼-mile buffer surrounding these areas (Attachment D). The primary objectives were to
collect data on parking supply and demand during both weekdays and weekends and to identify any areas of


 8

 Page 10
deficiency.




Figure 1: 2017 Parking Study – Study Area Map

The study identified a total supply of nearly 16,000 parking spaces (on-street, surface lot, structured parking)
within the study area, or roughly one space for every four residents of the City of Portland (~25% of Portland’s
entire population). Of these, over 11,000 spaces were located within the core downtown area. The analysis
found that peak parking demand occurs on weekday afternoons during the summer, when office and
businesses are open and visitors are abundant, and demand exceeds the system’s effective capacity 1, though
not its total capacity (Figure 2). On these peak weekdays, utilization begins to decline starting around 2:30
PM and continues to remain low, below the system’s effective capacity, into the evening hours. In contrast,
weekend peak demand during the summer season was significantly lower in general, reaching only 71% of
effective capacity (Figure 3).

The study documented a strong preference for on-street parking, which was at or above effective capacity
during weekday and Saturday evenings, despite the fact that substantial capacity remained in nearby surface
lots and parking garages during those same periods. The study also highlighted that individual streets varied,
and some high-demand streets, such as Commercial Street, Middle Street, and Exchange Street, exhibited
higher occupancy rates than the overall sample within the study area.

The 2017 study also included a land-use-based analysis of parking demand. Using ITE parking generation
factors, which are based on generalized national data and are often characterized as conservative in urban


1
  Effective Capacity: The effective capacity is a concept in parking analysis that refers to the occupancy level at which
parking users begin to have difficulty finding open spaces and vehicle circulation to access parking begins to exhibit
signs of congestion including queuing. The effective capacity is also thought of as the threshold when a parking
supply begins to be perceived by users to be full.



 9

 Page 11
contexts, the study concluded that evening and weekend events at a sold-out Cross Insurance Arena, with a
seating capacity of approximately 6,700, appeared to be adequately supported by existing parking in
Downtown Portland. The study indicated approximately 5,000 spaces would be available during the peak
period of a sold-out weekday event (Figure 4) and approximately 2,000 spaces would be available during the
peak period of a sold-out Saturday event (Figure 5).

Rather than recommending the construction of additional parking facilities, the study concluded that the City
should focus on more efficient management of the existing supply. Recommendations included encouraging
greater use of underutilized surface lots and structured parking facilities, particularly during peak demand
periods.




Figure 2: 2017 Parking Study – Estimated Peak Season Weekday Parking Demand by Time of Day




 10

 Page 12
Figure 3: 2017 Parking Study – Estimated Peak Season Saturday Parking Demand by Time of Day




Figure 4: 2017 Parking Study – Weekday Peak Demand by Land-Use




 11

 Page 13
Figure 5: 2017 Parking Study – Saturday Peak Demand by Land-Use

Current parking occupancy data
As of today, parking capacity in the area remains similar to past levels. The City of Portland Parking Division
conducted a parking lot occupancy assessment of parking lots and garages open to the general public within
both a ¼ mile of the proposed Live Nation Portland Music Hall, and ½ mile of the proposed venue on a
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in May of 2025. Each lot was counted at least twice, and in some cases, up to
four times, over the three-day period with all counts occurring after 5:00 PM.

The results showed that of the approximately 2,700 parking spaces within a ¼-mile radius of the proposed
Live Nation Portland Music Hall, the average utilization rate between 5:30 PM and 8:00 PM was 19% (Table 1).
For parking spaces located between ¼ and ½ mile from the venue, utilization after 5:00 PM averaged 18%
(Table 2). These findings suggest that roughly 80% of the parking supply remained available during those
times, indicating sufficient existing capacity to support the proposed venue and other uses. These findings
are consistent with the 2017 study and reflect a broader trend of reduced parking demand, particularly during
evening hours. With utilization below 20% and available capacity at approximately 80%, these numbers
indicate that parking capacity remains within the existing supply, aligning with the recommendations of both
the 2009 Portland Peninsula Study and the 2017 study, which advised the City to focus on managing the
existing parking supply rather than expanding it.

Table 1
Off-Street Parking Utilization: 0 to 1/4 Mile Occupancy (5:30 PM-8:00 PM)(May 2025)

Total Spaces Available Spaces % Utilized % Available

3,380 2,715 19.66% 80.4%




 12

 Page 14
Table 2
Off-Street Parking Utilization: 1/4 to 1/2 Mile Occupancy (5:30 PM-8:00 PM)(May 2025)

Total Spaces Available Spaces % Utilized % Available

2,969 2,412 18.75% 81.25%

February 2026 – Parking Observations
More recently, on Friday, February 27, 2026, the University of Maine men’s hockey team played
Northeastern University at Cross Insurance Arena, with an official attendance of 5,621. That same evening,
the State Theatre hosted a sold-out concert by Pigeons Playing Ping Pong.

According to the City of Portland Parking Division, the Elm Street parking garage was approximately 10%
occupied in the early evening, while the Spring Street garage was about 80% occupied, with some spaces
reserved in advance for an event. Data from the Top of the Old Port parking lot indicated that after 6:00
p.m., the lot was approximately 80% vacant, noting that there were no performances at Merrill Auditorium
that night.

Portland Music Hall Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) Parking Analysis

Given that the proposed music venue includes no on-site parking, in accordance with zoning requirements,
the project’s Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) included an analysis of existing parking to understand trip
distribution within the surrounding area. The applicant provided a map of available off-street parking facilities,
including garages and lots, identifying the total number of spaces within four-tenths of a mile of the site
(Figure 6). These facilities were documented in the March 2025 City of Portland Parking Division’s Annual
Parking Survey. Based on distance to the venue, current hours of operation, and capacity, the applicant
identified five lots and garages as the most likely parking destinations for music hall patrons (Figure 7). Those
five facilities alone account for approximately 2,800 total parking spaces.

Additionally, as part of the Portland Music Hall Major Site Plan Application, the applicant’s Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Plan highlights the venue’s central Downtown location and centers its
strategies on access to and from the site on modal split and vehicle occupancy. The TDM materials estimate
a total of 1,385 one-way vehicle trips, including both attendees and employees. The projected mode share is
82% vehicles, 2% transit, and 16% walking or biking. The applicant’s TDM submission also sets a target to
reduce personal vehicle use by 10%, aiming for a modal split of 72% vehicles instead of 82%, which would
further decrease parking demand. In summary, when comparing the estimated parking demand to the
effective parking capacity downtown, there is sufficient parking available to accommodate demand, even
under the more conservative 82% vehicle mode share.




 13

 Page 15
Figure 6: Garages and Lots Within 4/10 Mile of Proposed Portland Music Hall (outlined in black) – Traffic
Movement Permit (April 21, 2025), Source: Sebago Technics




Figure 7: Traffic Movement Permit – Portland Music Hall (April 21, 2025) Nearby Parking Facilities, Source:
Sebago Technics

Creative Economy (Theaters & Performance Halls Downtown)
As outlined in Creative Portland’s Local Economy Report for FY2025 (July 1, 2024–June 30, 2025), sustaining
the arts community and promoting Portland’s cultural life are central economic development priorities.
Portland is home to more than 150 arts and cultural organizations that contribute significantly to the City’s
vibrancy and creative identity. The report emphasizes that the arts function as a key economic driver,
powering the creative economy and playing an important role in workforce recruitment and retention.

These findings are reinforced by the October 2023 Arts & Economic Prosperity study, which concluded that
Portland’s nonprofit arts and culture industry generated $86 million in economic activity in 2022. This



 14

 Page 16
included $58.2 million in spending by nonprofit arts and cultural organizations and $27.8 million in event-
related spending by audiences. Collectively, this activity supported 1,872 jobs and generated $20.7 million in
local, state, and federal government revenue.

Within Portland, many venues operate on the peninsula, defined as east of I-295. The B-3 zone, which
encompasses downtown and the Arts District, is home to many of the City’s theaters and performance halls
with varying capacities. Existing zoning regulations permit theater and performance hall uses by right, a
framework that has allowed Portland’s creative economy to grow organically. This flexibility has supported
the continued evolution of Portland’s arts and culture sector and fostered a diverse and dynamic venue
landscape (Table 3). Furthermore, many of these venues operate without dedicated on-site parking,
loading areas, or designated on-site tour bus parking.

When on-street space or street closure is needed for buses or tour buses, venue operators apply for a
Street Occupancy Permit, which is reviewed and issued by the Department of Public Works (DPW). For
larger events, whether sporting events or performances at theaters and other venues, venue operators are
responsible for securing and funding any required police details to support with crowd control and
management. Requests are submitted through the Police Department’s website, which facilitates the
coordination of services such as traffic control and pedestrian crossings before and after events.

Table 3 Venues

 Venue Name Address Capacity (Approximate) Zone On-Site Parking
 Merrill Auditorium 20 Myrtle Street 1,900 B-3 No
 State Theatre 609 Congress Street 1,870 B-3 No
 Aura 121 Center Street 1,100 B-3 No
 Port City Music Hall (Closed) 504 Congress Street 400 B-3 No
 Portland House of Music 25 Temple Street 300 B-3 No
 Portland Stage 25A Forest Avenue 300 B-3 No
 One Longfellow Square 181 State Street 200 B-3 No
 Geno’s Rock Club 625 Congress Street 190 B-3 No
 SPACE Gallery 543-538 Congress 130 B-3 No
 Street
 Blue 650 Congress Street 110 B-3 No
 The Apohadion Theater 107 Hanover Street 50 B-3 No
 Thompson’s Point (Seasonal) 207 Thompson’s Point 6,000 B-5 Yes
 Road
 Live at Madrid’s 144 Fore Street 800 B-6 No
 Sun Tiki 375 Forest Avenue 220 B-2b No
 Mayo Street Arts 10 Mayo Street 110 B-2b No

From a professional sports perspective, Portland was named the #1 Minor League Sports Market in the
country in 2024 by Sports Business Journal. The city is home to several teams that draw visitors from
Portland and across the region and beyond. The Portland Sea Dogs, the Double-A affiliate of the Boston
Red Sox, welcomed 366,442 fans during the 2025 season, including 25 sold-out games. The Maine Celtics,
the NBA G League affiliate of the Boston Celtics, recorded total regular-season attendance of 54,052 during
the 2024–2025 season. The Maine Mariners, affiliated with the Boston Bruins (NHL), averaged 4,521 fans per
game over the same period. In 2025, the Maine Hearts of Pine launched their inaugural United Soccer
League (USL) season, drawing sold-out crowds at Fitzpatrick Stadium. The team set a USL single-game



 15

 Page 17
attendance record of 6,440 and averaged 5,811 fans across 14 home matches. Additionally, for the 2026
season, the Hearts of Pine have sold out both season tickets and single-game tickets for all home games.

Table 4 – Sporting Venues
 Stadium/Arena Name Address Capacity (Approximate) Zone
 Cross Insurance Arena 1 Civic Center Square 6,000 – 9,500 B-3
 Hadlock Field 271 Hadlock Field 6,868 OS-R
 Fitzpatrick Stadium 140 Deering Avenue 6,000 OS-R
 Portland Expo 239 Park Avenue 3,000 OS-R
 Troubh Ice Arena 225 Park Avenue 650 OS-R

National Case Studies
To inform discussion of potential amendments related to theaters and performance halls, staff reviewed a
range of jurisdictions to understand how other communities regulate and permit theaters, live
performance venues, and similar assembly uses. The selected jurisdictions reflect a mix of regional
comparators and cities with active cultural and entertainment environments, including nearby New England
communities, mid-sized cities with vibrant downtowns, and larger cities with established entertainment
economies and more complex development and urban street patterns.

 • Regional and Comparable New England Cities: Worcester, MA; Burlington, VT; Portsmouth, NH;
 Providence, RI.
 • Mid-Sized Cities with Active Downtown Cultural Scenes: Cleveland, OH; Buffalo, NY; Asheville,
 NC; Provo, UT; Madison, WI; Greenville, SC.
 • Larger Cities with Established Entertainment Economies: New York, NY; Austin, TX; Boston, MA;
 Portland, OR; Nashville, TN; Seattle, WA

A summary of this review is provided in Attachment B.

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
During the February 3, 2026, HEDC committee meeting, public testimony opposing the proposal raised
concerns about singling out a specific project, noted that the proposed music hall complies with all zoning
requirements without requesting any variances, and emphasized the importance of supporting downtown
economic development and the role of such venues in maintaining a vibrant downtown, while suggesting
that a buffer would not be appropriate. Testimony in support of establishing a buffer focused on parking
and life-safety concerns, including emergency access and site circulation.

During the March 10, 2026 Planning Board workshop, ten members of the public provided verbal
comments on the proposed text amendments, and one written comment was submitted by Top of the Old
Port. All commenters expressed opposition to the proposed amendments.

In general, those in opposition raised concerns about the proposal and the retroactive nature of the
moratorium, suggesting it targets a specific project. Others noted that Portland already has multiple
venues, including Cross Insurance Arena, that have operated successfully in the downtown. Several
commenters emphasized the importance of supporting downtown vitality and economic development,
particularly at a time when a number of downtown businesses have closed. Other commenters pointed out
that theaters and performance halls are often concentrated in close proximity in entertainment districts,
and that Portland’s downtown has historically been home to multiple theaters and performance venues.



 16

 Page 18
These commenters suggested that the proposed amendment should not be pursued. Additionally, a
commenter expressed that the existing 100-foot buffer was originally established to address incidents
related to late-night bar crowds, particularly in the Old Port around Wharf Street, and was not intended to
apply to large, ticketed, seated venues.

VI. PROPOSED MOTION
On the basis of material provided in the staff report dated March 18, 2026, as well as public testimony and
other information provided during the Planning Board’s workshop on March 10, 2026 and at the March 24,
2026, public hearing, the Planning Board finds that the proposed text amendments to Article 3 and Article
6 of the land use code [are / are not] consistent with the City of Portland’s comprehensive plan and
therefore [recommends / does not recommend] adoption of said text amendments to Article 3 and
Article 6 of the land use code to the City Council.

VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Attachment A – Proposed Redlined Text Amendments
B. Attachment B – National Case Studies
C. Attachment C – Councilor Pelletier HEDC Memo
D. Attachment D – Portland Parking Study Sept 2017
E. Attachment E – 750 Buffer Map
F. Attachment F – Venue Buffer Map (100’, 250’, 750’)
G. Attachment G – 2007 Planning Board Recommendation




 17

 Page 19
 Attachment A

Draft
 DEFINITIONS




 3 DEFINITIONS regulations that does not vary significantly from this
 amount.
 Adjacent grade (within the floodplain). For the
 purposes of calculating floor elevation in areas of After-hours entertainment license. Any of the
 special flood hazard, the natural elevation of the music, dancing, and special entertainment licenses
 ground surface prior to the construction next to the required or authorized by Chapter 4, Article III of
 proposed wall of a structure. the City of Portland Code of Ordinances.


 Adult business establishment. Any business, Agriculture. Land and associated structures used
 including but not limited to any bookstore, for the growing of crops and raising of
 newsstand, novelty store, nightclub, bar, cabaret, domesticated animals to provide food and other
 amusement arcade, or theater, which: products for sale, personal consumption, donation,
 A. Keeps for public patronage or permits or allows and/or educational purposes. Agriculture includes
 the operation of any adult amusement device single-family dwellings and any additional dwellings
 as defined in Chapter 4 of the City of Portland that are accessory to the principal use of
 Code of Ordinances; or agriculture. Agriculture also includes farmstands
 B. Customarily, meaning more often than an used to sell crops grown on the premises.
 average of one calendar week during any
 calendar month of operation, exhibits motion Airport. Land, water, or any human-made object or
 pictures or displays any other visual facility located thereon, which is used or intended
 representation described or advertised as being to be used for landing and takeoff of aircraft, and
 “X rated” or “for adults only,” or which any appurtenant areas that are used or intended to
 customarily excludes persons from any portion be used for airport buildings or other airport
 of the premises by reason of immaturity of age facilities or rights-of-way, together with all airport
 by the use of such, or similar, phrases; or buildings and facilities located thereon. Airports
 C. Is adjudged to be in violation of 17 M.R.S. §§ may include airport administration, terminals,
 2911, 2912. carrier operations, concessions, reservations and
 ticket sales, freight, repair and storage, fueling
 Affordable housing. Housing for which the services, flying schools, car rental operations, and
 percentage of income a household is charged in other associated uses.
 rent and other housing expenses (including utilities
 such as electric, heat, water, sewer, and/or trash Airport restricted access areas. Runways,
 that the household pays separately from rent) or taxiways, and other areas of an airport accessible to
 must pay in ownership cost (including but not aircraft, whether access is restricted by the Federal
 limited to mortgage payments, condominium/HOA Aviation Administration or not.
 fees, mortgage insurance, other insurance, and real
 estate taxes), does not exceed 30% of a household’s Alley. Any way designed primarily for vehicular and
 income, or other amount established in City pedestrian or utility access to the back or side of



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 3-1


 Page 20
DEFINITIONS




Temporary outdoor sales. Temporary uses, which
may include temporary structures where goods are Tree. A woody perennial plant with a well-defined
sold, such as but not limited to arts and crafts fairs, trunk(s) at least two inches in diameter at four and
flea markets, rummage sales, consignment auctions, one half feet above the ground, with a more or less
and holiday sales such as Christmas tree lots and definite crown, and reaching a height of at least 10
pumpkin sales lots. Temporary outdoor sales does feet at maturity.
not include garage/yard sales, or outdoor sales Tree, feature mature. A tree that meets at least
related to a retail goods establishment where such one of the following criteria:
goods are part of the establishment’s regular items A. Any tree that is on the Register of Big Trees
offered for purchase. promulgated by the Maine Department of
 Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry (the “Big
Temporary outdoor storage container. Tree List”)
Temporary self-storage containers, delivered to a B. Certain trees 24” in diameter or greater
residence or business for the purpose of storing (diameter at breast height or DBH) as identified
items, and subsequently picked up and stored at an by the City Arborist
off-site location until scheduled for retrieval. C. Ornamental trees 12” in diameter or greater
 (diameter at breast height or DBH) as identified
Tenant. Any occupant in lawful possession of a by the City Arborist
rental unit, whether by lease, sublease, or otherwise. D. Rare tree specimen to include either a tree
 species classified as rare or endangered at
Theater or performance hall (small). Any either the state or federal level, and/or stands
establishment with a total occupancy of fewer than of native trees that are rare or threatened as
1,000 persons, devoted to showing motion pictures, identified by the City Arborist.
or for dramatic, musical, or live performances.
 Tree, hazard. A tree with a structural defect,
Theater or performance hall (large). Any combination of defects, or disease resulting in a
establishment with a total occupancy of 1,000 or structural defect that under the normal range of
more persons, devoted to showing motion pictures, environmental conditions at the site exhibits a high
or for dramatic, musical, or live performances. probability of failure and loss of a major structural
 component of the tree in a manner that will strike a
Tidal waters. All waters affected by tidal action target. A normal range of environmental conditions
during the highest annual tide. does not include meteorological anomalies, such as,
 but not limited to: hurricanes; hurricane-force
Transient guest. A person who occupies a facility winds; tornados; microbursts; or significant ice
offering accommodations on an overnight basis for storm events. Hazard trees also include those trees
compensation and whose actual occupancy is that pose a serious and imminent risk to bank
limited to no more than 15 days out of any 60‑day stability. A target is the area where personal injury
period. or property damage could occur if the tree or a



3-24 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 21
 USE STANDARDS




6 USE STANDARDS column the tables. In the case of conflict of
 required standards (i.e., a cross reference is
6.1 APPLICABILITY missing from the table, the numbering of
6.1.1. In general standards has changed but not updated in the
A. The use of buildings, structures, private Table, etc.), the use standards in Section 6.4
 property, and City-owned property are control.
 governed by this article, except when
 superseded by other applicable laws or 6.2.2 Unlisted uses
 ordinances. It is the intent that, when in doubt, A. Uses not expressly listed as permitted or
 this article should be interpreted to conditional in Tables 6-A to 6-G are prohibited
 accommodate the goals of the City’s as principal uses except that a use may be
 Comprehensive Plan and other plans. permitted subject to meeting the following
B. All uses shall comply with any applicable federal performance-based standards:
 and state requirements, and any additional 1. The proposed use is consistent with the
 applicable federal, state, county, and/or city purposes of the zone.
 ordinances. 2. The proposed use is closely related to a
C. All uses shall comply with any supplemental use permitted or conditional use in terms of
 standards in Section 6.4 as applicable. Use character, scale, and external impacts.
 standards address specific impacts, design or 3. The buildings and structures associated
 siting standards, and/or additional regulations with the proposed use are designed and
 outside of this Code. operated so that it will prevent undue
 adverse environmental impacts, substantial
6.2 DETERMINATION OF USE diminution of the value or utility of
6.2.1 Use tables neighboring structures, or significant
A. Tables 6-A to 6-G shall determine if a use is hazards to the health or safety of
 permitted (⏺), conditional (◐), or not neighboring residents by controlling noise
 permitted ( ) as a principal use within a zone. levels, emissions, traffic, lighting, odor, and
 Where a use is listed as both permitted and any other potential negative impacts.
 conditional (⏺/◐), determination shall be B. The review authority shall determine whether
 based on the nature of such use as described in the uses not listed as permitted or conditional
 the use standards of Section 6.4. Unless uses meet the above standards. If it is
 otherwise noted, where a use is listed in terms determined that the use does not meet the
 of square footage, square footage figures shall above criteria, it shall not be permitted.
 correspond to the total square footage of the C. The review authority may impose reasonable
 use as indicated. conditions of approval on the proposed use to
B. Certain uses within Tables 6-A to 6-G shall meet ensure that it is similar in character and impact
 required use standards listed in Section 6.4. A to a permitted or conditional use.
 reference is provided in the “Use Standards”



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-1


 Page 22
USE STANDARDS




6.2.3 Multiple uses 6.2.5 Uses in zones not listed
A. A lot may contain more than one principal use, A. Use permissions for certain zones within this
 providing each use is allowed within the zone. Code are not included in Tables 6-A to 6-G, but
 Each principal use shall be permitted are addressed separately as follows:
 separately. In certain cases, uses are defined in 1. Use permissions for overlay zones are
 Article 3 to include accessory uses that provide found in Article 8.
 necessary support or are functionally 2. Use permissions for the India Street Form-
 integrated into the principal use. Based Code (IS-FBC) zone are found in
B. Notwithstanding the above, and unless Article 9.
 otherwise specifically permitted by this Code, 3. Use permissions for the waterfront zones
 lots containing a single family, two-family, are found in Article 10.
 three-family, or four-family dwelling may
 contain more than one principal use only so 6.3 CHANGE OF USE
 long as the total number of dwelling units on A change of use from one use in Tables 6-A to 6-G
 the lot does not exceed four, or three on the to another is governed by the requirements of the
 islands, not including accessory dwelling units. new use. The use of any part of any building,
 structure, or property shall not be changed to any
6.2.4 Uses operated in an enclosed structure other use, whether principal or accessory and
A. In all mixed-use, office, and industrial zones, whether alterations in the building, structure, or
 uses shall be operated within a completely property are involved or not, until a permit and
 enclosed structure, except for those certificate of occupancy authorizing such change of
 customarily operated in open air. use has first been secured from the Building
B. In the mixed-use zones, open air activities shall Authority in accordance with Chapter 6 of the City
 be those licensed by the City. of Portland Code of Ordinances.




6-2 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 23
 USE STANDARDS




TABLE 6-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES
 Use
 RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6 Standards
 Single-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Two-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Three-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Four-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Multi-family dwellings ◐ ⏺ ◐ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.12


Residential
 Townhouse dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.13
 Group homes ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.17
 Lodging houses ◐ ◐ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.21
 Child care centers + small child care facilities ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.9
 Elementary, middle, and secondary schools ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐
 Governmental uses ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Places of assembly ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.30


Institutional
 Post-secondary schools ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.31
 Residential care facilities (small) ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐
 6.4.35
 Residential care facilities (large) ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐
 Bed and breakfasts ⏺/◐ ⏺/◐ ⏺/◐ 6.4.7
 Hostels ⏺/◐ ⏺/◐ ⏺/◐ 6.4.18

Comm.
 Market gardens ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.25
 Neighborhood nonresidential reuse ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.26
 Cemeteries ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Parks and open spaces ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
Other
 Solar energy systems (minor) 6.4.38
 Utility substations ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.39
Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-3


 Page 24
USE STANDARDS




 TABLE 6-B: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN ISLAND ZONES
 Use
 IR-1 IR-2 I-B Standards
 Single-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Two-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Three-family dwellings ⏺
 Four-family dwellings ⏺


  Residential
 Multi-family dwellings ◐ 6.4.12
 Live/work dwellings ⏺
 Lodging houses ◐ ⏺ 6.4.21
 Child care centers + small child care facilities ◐ ◐ ⏺ 6.4.9
 Cultural facilities ⏺


  Institutional
 Elementary, middle, and secondary schools ◐ ◐ ◐
 Governmental uses ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Places of assembly ◐ ◐ ⏺ 6.4.30
 Auto service stations ◐ 6.4.5
 Bed and breakfasts ⏺ 6.4.7
 General offices ⏺
 6.4.15
 General services ⏺
 Greenhouses/nurseries (retail) ◐ 6.4.16
 Hotels ◐ 6.4.19




  Commercial / Service
 Market gardens ◐ ◐ ⏺ 6.4.25
 Neighborhood nonresidential reuse ◐ ◐ 6.4.26
 Restaurants ⏺ 6.4.34
 Retail ⏺ 6.4.36
 Specialty food service ⏺
 Agriculture ⏺ 6.4.3
 Boathouses and storehouses for fishing equipment ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Campgrounds ◐ 6.4.8
 Cemeteries ◐ ◐
 Low-impact industrial ⏺
 Marinas ⏺
 Parks and open spaces ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Solar energy systems (minor) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.38
 Studios for artists and craftspeople ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 ◐ ◐ ◐
  Other
 Utility substations 6.4.39
 Wharves, piers, docks, and landing ramps ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards




6-4 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 25
 USE STANDARDS




 TABLE 6-C: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN MIXED-USE ZONES
 Use
 B-1 B-2 B-2b B-31 B-4 B-5 B-6 Standards
 Two-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Three-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Four-family dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Townhouse dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.13
 ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺

Residential
 Multi-family dwellings 6.4.12
 Live/work dwellings ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Lodging houses ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.21
 Child care centers + small child care facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.9
 Clinics ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Cultural facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Elementary, middle, and secondary schools ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Emergency shelters ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.14
 Governmental uses ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Places of assembly ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.30


Institutional
 Post-secondary schools ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.31
 Residential care facilities (small) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 6.4.35
 Residential care facilities (large) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Adult business establishments ⏺ 6.4.2
 Auto, boat, and related dealerships ◐ ⏺
 6.4.5
 Auto service stations ◐ ◐ ⏺
 Bars ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.6
 Bed and breakfasts ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.7, 6.4.10
 Exhibition, meeting, and convention halls ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ◐
 Funeral homes ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 General offices ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 6.4.15, 6.4.10
 General services ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Greenhouses/nurseries (retail) ◐ ◐ ◐
 Hostels ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.18, 6.4.10




Commercial / Service
 Hotels ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.19
 Intermodal transportation facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Marijuana retail stores ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.23
 Market gardens ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.25, 6.4.10
 Recreation and amusement centers ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-5


 Page 26
USE STANDARDS




 TABLE 6-C (CONT.): PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN MIXED-USE ZONES
 Use
 B-1 B-2 B-2b B-31 B-4 B-5 B-6 Standards
 Registered marijuana dispensaries ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.23
 Restaurants ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.34, 6.4.10
 Retail ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.36, 6.4.10




Commercial/Service
 Small-scale marijuana caregivers ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.23
 Specialty food service ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.10
 Theaters and performance halls (small) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Theaters and performance halls (large) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.42
 Veterinary services ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Animal-related services ⏺
 Communication studios ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Dairies ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.11
 Impound lots ⏺ 6.4.20
 Laboratory and research facilities ◐ ◐ ◐ ⏺ ◐ ◐
 Low-impact industrial ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.22
 Marijuana manufacturing facilities ⏺
 6.4.23
 Marijuana testing facilities ⏺
 Printing and publishing ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.32
 Self-storage facilities ⏺ 6.4.37

Industrial
 Studios for artists and craftspeople ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Warehousing and distribution facilities ⏺ 6.4.40
 Marine uses ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.24
 Off-street parking ⏺/◐ ⏺ ◐ 6.4.27
 Parks and open spaces ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Social service centers ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐
 Solar energy systems (minor) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 6.4.38
 Solar energy systems (major) ◐
 Utility substations ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
Other
 6.4.39
 Wind energy systems (minor) ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.41
Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards
1 Uses within the B-3 zone may be subject to the standards of the Pedestrian Activities District (PAD) Overlay found in Section

8.5 of this Code.




6-6 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 27
 USE STANDARDS




TABLE 6-D: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ZONES
 TOD-1 TOD-2 Use Standards
 Townhouse dwellings ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.13
 ⏺ ⏺

 Residential
 Multi-family dwellings 6.4.12
 Live/work dwellings ⏺ ⏺
 Lodging houses ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.21
 Child care centers + small child care facilities ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.9
 Clinics ⏺ ⏺
 Cultural facilities ⏺ ⏺
 Elementary, middle, and secondary schools ⏺ ⏺
 Governmental uses ⏺ ⏺
 Places of assembly ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.30


 Institutional
 Post-secondary schools ⏺ 6.4.31
 Residential care facilities (small) ⏺ ⏺
 6.4.35
 Residential care facilities (large) ⏺ ⏺
 Bars ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.6
 Exhibition, meeting, and convention halls ⏺
 General offices ⏺ ⏺
 General services ⏺ ⏺
 Hostels ⏺ 6.4.18
 Hotels ⏺
 Intermodal transportation facilities ⏺ ⏺
 Recreation and amusement centers ⏺
 Restaurants ⏺ ⏺




 Commercial / Service
 Retail ⏺ ⏺
 Specialty food service ⏺ ⏺
 Theaters and performance halls (small) ⏺ ⏺
 Theaters and performance halls (large) ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.42
 Veterinary services ⏺ ⏺
 Communication studios ⏺ ⏺

Industrial
 Low impact industrial ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.22
 Studios for artists and craftspeople ⏺ ⏺
 Parks and open spaces ⏺ ⏺
 ⏺ ⏺
 Other
 Solar energy systems (minor) 6.4.38
 Utility substations ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.39




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-7


 Page 28
USE STANDARDS




 TOD-1 TOD-2 Use Standards
 Wind energy systems (minor) ◐ ◐ 6.4.41
Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards

 TABLE 6-E: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN OFFICE ZONES
 O Use Standards
 Child care centers + small child care facilities ⏺ 6.4.9
 Inst.
 Governmental uses ⏺
 General offices ⏺
 Com
 Office parks ⏺ 6.4.28
 Laboratory and research facilities ⏺
 Ind.
 Printing and publishing ⏺ 6.4.32
 Parks and open space ⏺
 Solar energy systems (minor) ⏺ 6.4.38

 Other
 Utility substations
 Wind energy systems (minor) ◐ 6.4.41
Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards




6-8 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 29
 USE STANDARDS




TABLE 6-F: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN INDUSTRIAL & AIRPORT ZONES
 Use
 I-L/I-Lb I-M/I-Mb I-H A-B1 Standards
 Live/work dwellings ⏺
 Airports ⏺


Institutional
 Child care centers + small child care facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.9
 Emergency shelters ◐ ◐ ◐ 6.4.14
 Places of assembly ⏺ 6.4.30
 Bars ⏺ 6.4.6
 General offices ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.15
 General services ⏺
 Hotels ⏺
 Intermodal transportation facilities ⏺ ⏺
 Market gardens ⏺ 6.4.25




Commercial / Service
 Recreation and amusement centers ⏺ ⏺
 Restaurants ⏺
 Self-storage facilities ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.37
 Specialty food service ⏺ ⏺
 Veterinary services ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Animal-related services ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.4
 Auto service stations ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.5
 Construction & engineering services ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Dairies ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Food & seafood processing, packing, and distribution ⏺ ⏺
 High-impact industrial uses ⏺
 Impound lots ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.20
 Laboratory and research facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Low-impact industrial ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.22
 Lumber yards ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Marijuana cultivation facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Marijuana manufacturing facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.23

Industrial
 Marijuana testing facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Printing and publishing ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-9


 Page 30
USE STANDARDS




 TABLE 6-F (CONT.): PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN INDUSTRIAL & AIRPORT ZONES
 Use
 I-L/I-Lb I-M/I-Mb I-H A-B1 Standards
 Recycling facilities ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.33
 Solid waste disposal facilities ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.33

 Industrial
 Studios for artists and craftspeople ⏺ ⏺
 Warehousing and distribution facilities ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.40
 Off-street parking ⏺
 Social service centers ◐ ◐ ◐
 Solar energy systems (minor) ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 6.4.38
 Solar energy systems (major) ⏺ ⏺ ◐
 Telecommunication towers (ground-mounted) ⏺ ⏺
 Utility substations ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.39
 Wind energy systems (minor) ◐ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 Other 6.4.41
 Wind energy systems (major) ⏺ ⏺ ◐
 Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards
 1 Permitted uses on lots within airport restricted access areas shall be limited to those which do not require or encourage access

 or visits by the public and which provide technical administrative or other support to airport operations.




6-10 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 31
 USE STANDARDS




 TABLE 6-G: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN OPEN SPACE ZONES
 OS-R1 OS-P Use Standards
 Cemeteries ⏺
 Cultural facilities ◐
 Marinas ⏺
 Parks and open space ⏺ ⏺ 6.4.29
 Solar energy systems (minor) ◐
 6.4.38, 6.5.6
 Solar energy systems (major) ◐
 Stadiums ◐ 6.5.6
 Utility substations ⏺/◐ 6.4.39, 6.5.6
 Wharves, piers, docks, and landing ramps ⏺ ◐
 Wind energy systems (minor) ◐ 6.4.41, 6.5.6
 Key: ⏺ = permitted | ◐ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ⏺/◐ = permitted or conditional per use standards
 1 Accessory uses within structures of 2,500 SF or more shall be treated as a conditional use under subsection 6.5.6.




6.4 SUPPLEMENTAL USE STANDARDS paved width shall be measured from
These standards shall apply to the following uses as the edge of the pavement, excluding
indicated in Tables 6-A to 6-G, whether permitted sidewalks.
or conditional. Where a use is allowed as b. The lot has frontage on an accepted
conditional, these standards apply in addition to the or continued street on an island in
general conditional use standards in Section 6.5. Casco Bay that meets a minimum
 width of 16 feet, measured from the
6.4.1 In general edge of the pavement, or from the
A. Street access. Unless specifically excepted edge of the built surface if unpaved.
 under Section 7.4, a building or structure may c. The required minimum width may be
 only be constructed on or moved onto a lot, or reduced, or the requirement waived
 a dwelling unit added to a lot, if one of the on the islands only, if the Fire Chief
 following conditions is met. These standards and the Public Works Director or their
 apply to all buildings and structures unless designee(s) jointly determine that
 specifically exempted by this section. meeting the minimum width is
 1. Existing, accepted streets. impracticable and the City’s ability to
 a. The lot has frontage on a paved and provide services will not be
 accepted City street with a minimum unreasonably impaired by a reduction
 width of 10 feet on a one-way street in width.
 and 20 feet on a two-way street, 2. Streets to be improved in connection with
 measured from curb to curb. In the development. The owner or developer of a
 absence of a curb, the minimum clear lot that is not located on an existing,



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-11


 Page 32
USE STANDARDS




 accepted (or in the case of the islands, claim for damages that may result
 continued) street that meets the minimum from acceptance.
 criteria established above shall improve the 3. Exceptions. On lots with an existing,
 street in accordance with the following. inhabited structure or structures on an
 a. The street, between the lot and the unaccepted City street, the following
 nearest existing, accepted City street buildings and structures are exempt from
 and including the frontage of the lot the requirements of this subsection.
 itself, shall be improved to meet the a. Accessory buildings not intended for
 standards adopted elsewhere in this habitation.
 Code, including those adopted by the b. The addition of one accessory
 Public Works Authority and the dwelling unit within an existing single-
 Planning Authority. In the case of a family dwelling.
 corner lot, this shall apply to the
 frontage of the lot from which access 6.4.2 Adult business establishments
 is taken. A. Adult business establishments shall be located
 b. The street may be improved to an at least 1,000 feet from any other adult
 alternative standard if the Fire Chief business establishment, and at least 500 feet
 and the Public Works Director or their from any residential zone, as measured in a
 designee(s) jointly determine that: straight line from the nearest point of the lot
 line on the lot which the use is proposed to the
 nearest point of the lot line on the lot where
 the other use or zone is located, without regard
 to intervening structures or objects.
 B. No sexually explicit materials, entertainment, or
 activity shall be visible from the exterior of the
 premises.


 6.4.3 Agriculture
 A. No animals shall be kept on any lot less than
 three acres or closer than 100 feet to any
 street or lot line, except domesticated chickens
 c. The owner or developer shall take all as regulated in Chapter 5 of the City of Portland
 necessary steps under Chapter 25, Code of Ordinances.
 Article III, of the City Code to dedicate B. Raising of domesticated animals as a
 the improved portion of the street to component of any agricultural use shall not
 the City for acceptance. This shall create any odor, noise, health, or safety
 include provision of a waiver of any hazards, or other nuisance to neighboring
 properties.



6-12 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 33
 USE STANDARDS




C. Raising of pigs or reptiles is not permitted. E. Car washes shall be designed to avoid the
 tracking of residual waters into the street.
6.4.4 Animal-related services
A. In the B-4, I-L and I-Lb zones, animal-related 6.4.6 Bars
 services may not include kennel or boarding A. In the B-6 zone, no bars located east of
 facilities. Waterville Street shall be permitted within 50
B. No animal-related service may include outdoor feet of Fore Street.
 kennel facilities.
C. Any exterior training and exercise areas shall be 6.4.7 Bed and breakfasts
 located in a side or rear yard only, and shall be A. Bed and breakfasts in the RN-4, RN-5, and RN-6
 completely fenced. zones are allowed only as conversions of
D. Exterior training and exercise areas are not residential structures existing as of 3/3/1997.
 permitted within 200 feet of a residential zone. Such uses are a permitted use if they contain
 four or fewer guest rooms, and a conditional
6.4.5 Automobile, boat, and related dealerships use if they contain five to nine guest rooms.
 and auto service stations B. In the RN-4, RN-5, and RN-6 zones, the
A. In the B-2b zone, auto service stations shall only minimum lot area for bed and breakfasts shall
 be permitted as an expansion of an auto service be 2,000 square feet for the first three guest
 station in existence as of 11/15/1999. rooms and 500 square feet for each additional
B. Signs shall not adversely affect visibility at guest room.
 intersections or access drives. Signs shall be C. In the I-B zone, bed and breakfasts are
 constructed, installed, and maintained so as to permitted on Peaks Island only. The minimum
 ensure the safety of the public, and shall lot area for bed and breakfasts shall be 5,000
 advertise only services or goods available on square feet for the first three guest rooms and
 the premises. 5,000 square feet for each additional guest
C. No ingress and egress driveways shall be room. When not served by public water and
 located within 30 feet from an intersection. No sewer, a bed and breakfast in the I-B zone shall
 entrance or exit for vehicles shall be in such require 10,000 square feet of lot area per guest
 proximity to a playground, school, church, room.
 other place of public assembly, or any
 residential zone that the nearness poses a 6.4.8 Campgrounds
 threat or potential danger to the safety of the A. Campgrounds shall not include recreational
 public. vehicles.
D. A landscaped buffer, no less than five feet wide, B. No tent shall be located within 75 feet of the
 shall be located along street frontages perimeter of site.
 (excluding driveways). The buffer shall consist C. The land area of the campground shall not be
 of a variety of plantings in accordance with the less than the equivalent of 5,000 square feet of
 City of Portland Technical Manual.



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-13


 Page 34
USE STANDARDS




 land area per tent site exclusive of the roadway 6.4.12 Dwellings, multi-family
 network. A. Use limitations
 1. In the RN-1 and RN-3 zones, multi-family
6.4.9 Child care centers and small child care dwellings are allowed only as conversions
 facilities of existing nonresidential structures.
A. Outdoor play areas shall be screened and 2. In the I-B zone, multi-family dwellings are
 buffered from surrounding residences with allowed only as conversions of existing
 landscaping and/or fencing. residential or nonresidential structures.
B. Solid waste shall be stored in covered B. Conversion standards
 containers. Such containers shall be screened 1. No multi-family conversion is allowed in an
 on all sides. existing structure with less than 1,500
C. For child care centers in residential and island square feet of habitable floor area.
 residential zones, the following additional 2. Any new off-street parking provided for
 standards apply: multi-family conversion of existing
 1. Outdoor play areas shall be located in the residential structures shall be located to
 side or rear yards only, and shall be the side or rear of the structure.
 screened from adjacent properties by a
 fence or wall at least 48 inches in height. 6.4.13 Dwellings, townhouse
 2. The minimum lot area shall be 10,000 A. For townhouse dwellings, interior side setback
 square feet. requirements do not apply to the interior side
 yard where the party wall for the structure is
6.4.10 Commercial and service uses in the B-1 located. Such requirements only apply to end
 zone units without an attached party wall.
A. Commercial and service uses in the B-1 zone B. There shall be a minimum separation of 15 feet
 shall be permitted provided that such uses between exterior sidewalls of townhouse
 generate less than 100 peak hour vehicle trips buildings. Where the front or rear wall of a
 per 2,000 square feet of floor area and less townhouse faces the front or rear wall of
 than 100 peak hour vehicle trips in total. another townhouse, the minimum required
B. No beverage container redemption centers separation between such buildings shall be 30
 shall be permitted. feet. Driveways and parking areas may be
 located within this minimum separation area.
6.4.11 Dairies
In the B-2 and B-2b zones, dairies are permitted only 6.4.14 Emergency shelters
if an expansion of an existing dairy. A. In the B-3 zone, no emergency shelters shall be
 permitted north of Oxford Street.
 B. The facility shall provide adequate space for
 conducting security searches and other
 assessments.



6-14 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 35
 USE STANDARDS




C. The facility shall be designed with a centralized services to larger organizations such as
 shelter operations office on each level educational institutions, social service agencies,
 providing sightlines to sleeping areas. or business headquarters.
D. A management plan adequately outlining the
 following areas shall be provided: management 6.4.16 Greenhouses/nurseries (retail)
 responsibilities; process for resolving In the I-B zone, the indoor display of retail goods
 neighborhood concerns; staffing; access and point of sale area shall be limited to a maximum
 restrictions; on-site surveillance; safety of 1,000 square feet.
 measures; controls for resident behavior and
 noise levels; and monitoring reports. 6.4.17 Group homes
E. Adequate access to and from fixed route A. Group homes shall be subject to the minimum
 transit service shall be provided. The facility lot area requirements for nonresidential uses.
 shall be within a ¼ mile of fixed route transit B. A group home shall not be located within 500
 service, or shall be within ½ mile of fixed route feet of another, as measured along street lines
 transit service and provide adequate indoor to the respective property lines.
 space to permit all shelter guests day shelter, as C. The Board of Appeals or Planning Board may
 well as implement strategies to help residents impose conditions upon a conditional use
 utilize transit. permit concerning the creation or operation of
F. The facility shall provide on-site services to a group home including but not limited to the
 support residents, such as case management, following: site and building maintenance;
 life skills training, counseling, employment and lighting, fencing, and other appropriate security
 educational services, housing assistance, or measures; screening and buffering of parking
 other programs. areas; compatibility of any additions or
G. Suitable laundry, kitchen, pantry, bicycle alterations with the existing residential
 storage, and secure storage facilities for shelter structure; and compatibility of new structures
 stayers shall be provided on-site. with the architectural character of the
H. An outdoor area for guest use shall be provided surrounding area.
 on-site with adequate screening to protect
 privacy of guests. 6.4.18 Hostels
 A. An operations plan shall be submitted
6.4.15 General offices and general services demonstrating that:
A. General office and general service uses in the 1. No unaccompanied minors under the age
 I-B and B-1 zones are limited to a maximum of of 18 shall be permitted in the facility.
 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. 2. The length of stay for transient guests shall
B. General office uses in the I-L and I-Lb zones not exceed 15 days within any 60-day
 shall be limited to those involving minimal period.
 public visitation and minimal direct service to B. In the RN-4, RN-5, and RN-6 zones, hostels are
 the general public, primarily to provide support permitted if for no more than 10 overnight



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-15


 Page 36
USE STANDARDS




 transient guests, and conditional if for between D. Lodging houses shall provide a minimum of
 11 and 20 overnight transient guests. No more 200 square feet of combined rooming unit and
 than 20 overnight transient guests shall be common area per rooming unit.
 permitted. E. Lodging houses, except for lodging houses
C. In the B-1 zone, no more than 20 overnight located in the IR-2 and I-B zones, shall contain
 transient guests shall be permitted. common areas for use by residents, including a
 kitchen. A kitchen need not be available as a
6.4.19 Hotels part of the common areas where all meals are
A. Hotels in the I-B zone are limited to a maximum provided on a daily basis.
 of 50 guest rooms. F. In the IR-2 and I-B zones, lodging houses are
B. The minimum gross floor area for hotels in the allowed with no more than nine rooming units.
 I-B zone shall be 5,000 square feet for the first When not served by public water and sewer,
 three guest rooms and 5,000 square feet for lodging houses shall require 10,000 square feet
 each additional guest room. When not served of lot area per rooming unit.
 by public water and sewer, a hotel in the I-B
 zone shall require 10,000 square feet of lot 6.4.22 Low-impact industrial
 area per guest room. A. Low-impact industrial in the B-1, B-2b, B-3, and
C. Hotels in the B-6 zone are limited to a B-6 zones is limited to a maximum of 10,000
 maximum of 150 guest rooms. square feet in gross floor area.
 B. In the B-6 zone, no brew pubs or
6.4.20 Impound lots microbreweries east of Waterville Street shall
Impound lots shall be at least 300 feet from any be permitted within 50 feet of Fore Street.
residential zone or lawfully conforming residential C. When a low-impact industrial use is located in
use. any mixed-use zone, the following standards
 apply:
6.4.21 Lodging houses 1. All circulation and maneuvering, including
A. In the RN-3 and RN-4 zones, lodging houses are loading, unloading, and turnaround areas,
 allowed only as conversions of existing two- must be located on site. No maneuvering,
 family, three-family, four-family, or multi-family loading, or unloading may happen in the
 residential structures, provided that the lodging right-of-way.
 house shall not be located within 500 ft. of 2. Truck loading, unloading, and access shall
 another as measured along street lines. be located in the rear or interior side yard
B. Lodging houses shall be subject to the where possible.
 minimum lot area requirements for 3. Shared infrastructure shall be utilized to
 nonresidential uses. the extent practicable, including but not
C. Individual rooming units in a lodging house shall limited to service alleys, parking areas,
 be a minimum of 70 square feet in area. stormwater treatment, public
 transportation facilities, and driveways.



6-16 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 37
 USE STANDARDS




6.4.23 Marijuana-related uses D. Marijuana cultivation facilities shall be limited to
A. The following standards apply to the following less than 2,000 square feet of plant canopy in
 marijuana-related uses: the I-L/I-Lb zone and less than 7,000 square
 1. Marijuana cultivation facilities. feet of plant canopy in the I-M/I-Mb zone.
 2. Marijuana manufacturing facilities. E. For purposes of this ordinance, any approval
 3. Marijuana retail stores. issued for a marijuana cultivation facility,
 4. Marijuana testing facilities. marijuana manufacturing facility, or marijuana
 5. Small-scale marijuana caregivers. testing facility operated pursuant to 22 M.R.S. §
 6. Registered dispensaries. 2421 et seq. shall be deemed to constitute
B. Location criteria approval for the same corresponding marijuana
 1. No marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana cultivating, manufacturing, or testing facility use
 manufacturing facility, marijuana testing operating under 28 M.R.S. § 101 et seq.
 facility, small-scale marijuana caregiver, Notwithstanding the above, no marijuana
 marijuana store, or registered dispensary cultivation facility, marijuana manufacturing
 may be located within 500 feet of a pre- facility, or marijuana testing facility may operate
 existing public school, private school, or a without the applicable state and City license.
 public preschool program, as defined by
 20-A M.R.S. § 1. Distance shall be measured 6.4.24 Marine uses
 in a straight line from the nearest point of A. In the B-5 zone, marine uses shall include
 the lot line on the lot which the use is marine products wholesaling and retailing;
 proposed to the nearest point of the lot harbor and marine supplies and services;
 line on the lot where the public school, marine repair services and machine shops;
 private school, or public preschool shipbuilding and facilities for the construction,
 program is located, without regard to maintenance, and repair of vessels; marine
 intervening structures or objects. museums and aquariums; boat repair yards;
 2. No marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana boat storage; and seafood processing, packing,
 manufacturing facility, or marijuana testing and distribution for human consumption.
 facility may be located within 300 feet of B. In the B-6 zone, marine uses shall include
 any residential zone. Distance shall be marine products wholesaling and retailing;
 measured in a straight line from the harbor and marine supplies and services; and
 nearest point of the lot line on the lot underground marine fuel storage provided that
 which the use is proposed to the nearest such storage shall be used solely for the
 point of the lot line on the lot where the purpose of fueling vessels.
 residential zone is located, without regard
 to intervening structures or objects. 6.4.25 Market gardens
C. Marijuana retail stores and registered Market gardens may be located outdoors or fully
 dispensaries may not exceed a maximum gross enclosed within a permanent building, subject to the
 floor area of 2,000 square feet. following:



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-17


 Page 38
USE STANDARDS




A. Outdoor market gardens are limited to the nonresidential in their original construction
 cultivation of herbs, fruits, flowers, or and/or current principal use as of the effective
 vegetables, including the cultivation and tillage date of this Code.
 of soil and the production, cultivation, growing, B. The following nonresidential uses are permitted
 and harvesting of any agricultural, floricultural, within a neighborhood nonresidential reuse.
 or horticultural commodity. The initial conditional use approval for the
B. The keeping of livestock, chickens or other neighborhood nonresidential reuse may specify
 poultry, and apiaries are prohibited. one or more uses under the list below. A
C. Greenhouses, including high tunnels/hoop- modification of the conditional use approval is
 houses, cold-frames, and similar structures, are required for a change to any of the uses below
 permitted to extend the growing season. which were not specified in the initial or
D. Accessory structures, including but not limited subsequent conditional use approval.
 to a shed or utility building necessary for the 1. General offices <5,000 square feet
 use’s operation may be allowed for the storage 2. General services <5,000 square feet
 of tools and materials. All accessory structures 3. Restaurants
 shall be located a minimum of five feet from 4. Retail <5,000 square feet
 any lot line. 5. Specialty food service
E. Farmstands are permitted, and are limited to 6. Studios for artists and craftspeople
 sales of items grown at the site. Farmstands C. No off-street parking is required for a
 shall be removed during the time of the year neighborhood nonresidential reuse.
 when the use is not in operation. Only one D. Drive-through facilities are prohibited for any
 farmstand is permitted per market garden. neighborhood nonresidential reuse.
F. When located in a fully enclosed permanent E. Neighborhood nonresidential reuses shall
 building, market gardens may include all of the comply with the performance standards of the
 forms of cultivation and production allowed for B-1 zone.
 outdoor market gardens, as well as
 hydroponics, aquaponics, myco-culture, and 6.4.27 Off-street parking
 other similar indoor crop-production A. In the B-3 zone, structured parking is a
 techniques. permitted use. Surface parking within the B-3
G. Market gardens within a fully enclosed zone shall be allowed as a conditional use.
 permanent building may include an area within B. Surface parking in the B-3 and B-6 zones is
 the building for sales of items grown at the site. subject to the following standards:
 Such sales area may occupy no more than 15% 1. Surface parking lots shall be laid out in a
 of the floor area devoted to the principal use. manner conducive to development of
 future buildings, and/or structured parking
6.4.26 Neighborhood nonresidential reuse on site.
A. Neighborhood nonresidential reuse is only 2. All surface parking areas, including parking
 allowed within existing structures that are aisles, shall be located a minimum of 35



6-18 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 39
 USE STANDARDS




 feet from any street. This 35-foot setback the structure of the garage shall be
 shall not apply to access drives oriented designed to accommodate such
 perpendicularly to a street. spaces in the future as follows:
C. In the B-3, B-5, and B-6 zones, structured
 parking is subject to the following standards:
 1. Parking structures shall incorporate
 ground-floor retail space or other non-
 parking and active use space along all
 street frontages. Such retail or active
 space shall maintain a minimum depth of
 30 feet from all street-facing façades of
 the structure.
 2. The Planning Board may waive the
 requirement for ground-floor retail or
 other non-parking and active use space
 upon demonstration that the project
 meets at least one of the following criteria:
 a. The applicant demonstrates that
 steepness of grade or the character of
 the adjacent street does not support
 retail or other non-parking and active
 use space.
 b. The ground floor of the garage is set
 back a minimum of 35 feet from the
 street right-of-way, and its design
 does not serve as an impediment for
 the development of space between 3. In cases where the Planning Board
 the structure and the right-of-way for waives the requirement for ground-
 retail or other non-parking and active floor retail or other non-parking and
 use in the future. Any such space active use space, garages shall be
 located between the structure and the designed to enhance the pedestrian
 right-of-way shall not be used for experience and disguise the parking
 surface parking. use to the greatest extent possible.
 c. The applicant demonstrates, to the Use of traditional storefront design
 satisfaction of the Planning Board, concepts and traditional building
 that market support for ground floor materials is encouraged.
 retail or other non-parking active uses
 does not currently exist. In such cases,



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-19


 Page 40
USE STANDARDS




6.4.28 Office parks 10. A description of any proposed private
A. Office parks shall have a minimum gross area of development restrictions.
 three acres of contiguous land, and may be 11. Delineation of the subdivision of land, if
 developed with multiple buildings on a single proposed as a coordinated development
 lot under common ownership, or as a on multiple parcels.
 coordinated development on multiple parcels 12. Any other information necessary and
 under unified control or management. sufficient to ensure compliance with the
B. Office park development proposals shall standards in this subsection.
 include a master plan of the office park, which C. Office parks shall include a landscape program
 shall include the following: that meets the following standards.
 1. The location of the building(s) on the site. 1. All land areas not covered by structures,
 2. The location of infrastructure on the site. parking areas, or circulation facilities shall
 3. The location of all common areas and be landscaped and maintained.
 landscape buffers. 2. To soften the visual impact of large
 4. Identification of traffic circulation patterns, expanses of pavement in parking lots,
 traffic controls, and parking areas, vegetation shall be planted or retained in
 including demonstration that additional islands or planting strips where required by
 traffic generated by the project itself can the site plan or subdivision ordinance.
 be reasonably accommodated on existing 3. Landscape buffers shall be provided to
 public streets. screen areas abutting a residential zone or
 5. Identification of internal sidewalks, use, and to screen parking lots and
 illustrating the manner in which the driveways from public view. The buffer
 developer will provide this amenity to take shall be of a dense and continuous nature
 advantage of the topography and natural and shall incorporate trees, shrubs,
 features of the site. fencing, berms, and related elements
 6. Building elevation drawings which indicate deemed necessary.
 architectural style, exterior finishes and D. Office parks shall consider and be sensitive to
 color, building height and scale, and the need to preserve natural features on site.
 location and scale of window and door Natural features include, but are not limited to
 openings. Samples of exterior building existing vegetation, floodplains, rock
 materials shall also be submitted. outcroppings, surface water bodies, drainage
 7. The location and style of lighting to be swales and courses, and wetlands.
 used in the development. E. All light fixtures shall be hooded or shielded so
 8. Identification and description of all that the light shines downward.
 proposed signage.
 9. A description of phasing and timing of the 6.4.29 Parks and open spaces
 development. In the OS-P zone, parks and open spaces shall be
 limited to passive recreational use, including but not



6-20 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 41
 USE STANDARDS




limited to trails and paths for pedestrians and feet in gross floor area, unless an expansion of a
bicyclists, and areas for fishing, hiking, wildlife printing and publishing establishment greater than
management and conservation activities. Essential 10,000 square feet and in existence as of 4/4/1988.
services shall also be permitted.
 6.4.33 Recycling and solid waste disposal
6.4.30 Places of assembly facilities
A. In all RN zones, construction of a new principal Within the I-M/I-Mb zone, recycling and solid waste
 building as a place of assembly is permitted disposal facilities are permitted within an enclosed
 only on lots with frontage on collector or structure only.
 arterial roads. Places of assembly are allowed
 on streets of any classification as adaptive 6.4.34 Restaurants
 reuse of existing structures that are A. In the B-1 zone, restaurants are limited to a
 nonresidential in their original construction maximum of 2,000 square feet in gross floor
 and/or current use as of the effective date of area, shall not operate between the hours of 11
 this Code. p.m. and 6 a.m., and shall not accept deliveries
B. Places of assembly in the B-1, I-L, and I-Lb zones or services between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7
 are limited to 10,000 square feet or less in a.m. Food service and consumption shall be the
 gross floor area. primary function.
 B. In the B-6 zone, restaurants located east of
6.4.31 Post-secondary schools Waterville Street within 50 feet of Fore Street
A. In any residential zone, expansion of existing shall be limited in hours of operation to
 post-secondary schools onto land other than between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. each day, and food
 the lot(s) on which the principal use is located service and consumption shall be the primary
 shall be subject to a determination that the function of the restaurant.
 proposed use cannot be reasonably
 accommodated on the existing lot(s) through 6.4.35 Residential care facilities
 more efficient utilization of land or buildings, In the residential zones, large residential care
 and will not cause significant physical facilities shall require a minimum lot area of 20,000
 encroachment into established residential square feet.
 areas.
B. In any residential zone, a new post-secondary 6.4.36 Retail
 school or expansion of an existing post- A. In the I-B zone, retail uses are limited to a
 secondary school shall not cause displacement maximum of 10,000 square feet in gross floor
 or conversion of existing residential uses. area.
 B. In the B-1 zone, retail uses are limited to a
6.4.32 Printing and publishing maximum of 5,000 square feet in gross floor
Printing and publishing in the B-3, B-5, B-6, and O area, and shall not operate between the hours
zones is limited to a maximum of 10,000 square of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., and shall not accept



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-21


 Page 42
USE STANDARDS




 deliveries or services between the hours of 10 shall be planted and spaced sufficiently to
 p.m. and 7 a.m. form a continuous linear hedgerow at
C. Retail in the B-3 and B-5 zones shall not include plant maturity; plantings shall be placed
 wholesale or bulk purchase sales of lumber and inside the fence oriented toward the
 construction supplies, truck rental interior of the lot.
 establishments, sales, rental, and repair of
 heavy equipment, or wholesale establishments, 6.4.38 Solar energy systems (major and minor)
 including establishments where membership is A. In general
 required. 1. All solar energy systems shall meet the
 technical, safety, and maintenance
6.4.37 Self-storage facilities standards in the City of Portland Technical
A. Storage units shall not be used for residential Manual.
 occupancy or business. 2. Solar energy systems shall minimize
B. Plumbing connections shall not be permitted in impacts resulting from construction and
 self-storage units. maintenance of the solar energy system,
C. The following additional standards apply to self- including lighting, security measures,
 storage facilities with units accessed directly traffic, and grid connections.
 from the outdoors: 3. Solar panel placement shall minimize or
 1. Outdoor self-storage facilities shall be negate any solar glare impacting nearby
 oriented so that storage unit access doors properties or roadways, without unduly
 do not face the public right-of-way. impacting the functionality or efficiency of
 2. Outdoor self-storage facilities are allowed the solar energy system.
 to include an area for storage of B. Ground-mounted solar energy systems
 recreational vehicles. Storage areas for 1. Ground-mounted solar energy systems are
 recreational vehicles shall be located in the only permitted in the B-4, I-L, I-Lb, I-M, I-
 rear yard. Mb, I-H, and A-B zones.
 3. No storage of recreational vehicles is 2. Ground-mounted solar energy systems
 allowed within 25 feet of any rear lot line. shall be located away from and screened
 No storage of recreational vehicles is from public ways and nearby
 allowed within 30 feet of any interior side residential/institutional uses to the extent
 lot line. No storage of recreational vehicles possible and shall be designed to minimize
 is allowed within 50 feet of any front or impacts on significant scenic views.
 corner side lot line. 3. Layout and fencing for ground-mounted
 4. If storage areas for recreational vehicles systems shall be integrated with existing
 are provided, they shall be screened along landscape and minimize removal of
 interior side and rear lot lines with a solid vegetation to the extent possible.
 fence or wall, a minimum of six feet and a 4. Minor ground-mounted solar energy
 maximum of seven feet in height. Shrubs systems shall be located a minimum 50



6-22 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 43
 USE STANDARDS




 feet from all RN zones, and the B-1 and B- every one foot of solar energy system
 2/B-2b zones. height.
 5. Major ground-mounted solar energy b. In B-4 and industrial zones, flat roof-
 systems shall be located at least 75 feet mounted systems are not subject to
 from all RN zones, and the B-1 and B-2/B-2b limitations on height, or to a required
 zones. setback.
 6. The absolute height of any ground- c. In all other zones, solar energy
 mounted solar energy system shall be no systems mounted on flat roofs are
 more than 20 feet above the ground as limited to a height of 8 feet above the
 measured from the base of the support. surface of the roof upon which they
 7. The following components of a ground- are mounted, and shall be set back
 mounted solar energy system shall be from the edge of the roof one foot for
 counted as impervious in the calculation of every one foot of solar energy system
 landscaped open space ratio: height.
 a. Foundation systems, typically 2. Solar energy systems mounted on pitched
 consisting of driven piles, monopoles, roofs shall meet the following standards:
 or helical screws with or without small a. Solar energy systems on pitched roofs
 concrete collars or weighted ballast. shall be mounted with a maximum
 b. All mechanical equipment of the solar distance of one foot between the
 energy system, including maximum surface of the roof to the highest
 horizontal extents of any concrete pad point of the system.
 or any pad mounted structure for b. Solar energy systems on pitched roofs
 batteries, switchboard, transformers, shall be installed parallel to the roof
 or storage cells. surface on which they are mounted.
 c. Paved access roads servicing the solar c. Solar energy systems on pitched roofs
 energy system. may not extend higher than the
C. Roof-mounted solar energy systems highest point of the roof surface upon
 1. Roof-mounted solar energy systems are which they are mounted.
 not included in the calculation of maximum
 structure height. 6.4.39 Utility substations
 Solar energy systems mounted on flat A. Utility substations shall be as small in size as
 roofs shall meet the following standards: practicable, and shall be set back a minimum of
 a. In residential zones, solar energy 35 feet from any right-of-way, not including
 systems mounted on flat roofs are limited-access roads.
 limited to a height of 5 feet above the B. Substations shall be suitably screened and
 surface of the roof upon which they landscaped so as to ensure compatibility with
 are mounted, and shall be set back the surrounding neighborhood. The remainder
 from the edge of the roof one foot for of the lot not occupied by the utility substation



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-23


 Page 44
USE STANDARDS




 and its related access shall be designed and structure or underground. Above ground
 designated for future development. on-site connections near substations or to
C. In the OS-R zone, sewage pumping and the electric grid shall be allowed.
 treatment facilities shall be permitted. Water 4. Wind energy systems shall be designed to
 pumping stations shall be treated as a avoid electromagnetic interference with
 conditional use and subject to the additional the transmission or reception of radio,
 standards of subsection 6.5.6. telephone, television, microwave,
 navigational, or similar signals to
6.4.40 Warehousing and distribution facilities neighboring areas.
A. Warehousing and distribution facilities in the I- B. Setbacks
 L and I-Lb zones are limited to a maximum of 1. Minor ground-mounted wind energy
 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. systems shall be set back from all property
B. No outdoor storage is permitted as a boundaries and street right-of-way lines by
 component of warehousing and distribution in a distance equal to or greater than 1.1
 the B-4 and I-L/I-lb zones, except for boat times the total height of the system,
 storage. measured from the base of the system to
 the top of the system at maximum vertical
6.4.41 Wind energy systems (major and minor) rotation. The setback distance shall be
A. General measured to the center of the wind
 1. All wind energy generation equipment shall generator base.
 be approved under a certification program 2. Major ground-mounted wind energy
 approved by the U.S. Department of systems shall be set back from all property
 Energy. boundaries and street right-of-way lines by
 2. Wind energy systems, including a distance equal to or greater than 1.5
 foundations and support structures, times the total height of the system,
 electrical connections, control equipment, measured from the base of the system to
 and associated site improvements shall be the top of the system at maximum vertical
 designed, engineered, and installed to rotation. The setback distance shall be
 comply with all applicable local, state, and measured to the center of the wind
 federal construction and electrical generator base.
 regulations and Federal Aviation C. Height
 Administration regulations. Applicable 1. Ground-mounted wind energy systems are
 state and local approvals shall be obtained limited to a maximum height of 65 feet in
 prior to installation of any wind energy the B-2/B-2b, B-5, and B-6 zones.
 system. 2. All moving components of a ground-
 3. All on-site electrical wiring associated with mounted wind energy system shall be a
 the proposed wind energy system shall be minimum of 12 feet from ground level or
 located within the tower/pole/supporting accessible surface.



6-24 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 45
 USE STANDARDS




D. Siting and placement marked with visible, reflective, colored
 1. No wind energy system shall be located objects, such as flags, reflectors, or tape,
 within 250 feet of any significant wildlife which shall be placed on the anchor points
 habitat, as defined by the Maine of guy wires and along the guy wires up to
 Department of Environmental a height of ten feet from the ground.
 Protection/Maine Department of Inland 5. Ground-mounted wind energy systems
 Fisheries and Wildlife under provisions of shall be located away from and screened
 the Natural Resources Protection Act (38 from public ways and nearby
 M.R.S. § 480 et seq.) including wildlife residential/institutional uses to the extent
 habitat for species appearing on the official possible and shall be designed to minimize
 state and federal list of endangered or impacts on significant scenic views.
 threatened animal species. E. Illumination and signs
 2. For all major and minor wind energy 1. No part of the system may be illuminated,
 systems, or any system over 100kW, except as required by the Federal Aviation
 evidence shall be provided that the Administration (FAA) or other authorities
 Environmental Coordinator of the Maine for safety and security purposes. Where
 Department of Inland Fisheries and lighting is required, it shall be at the lowest
 Wildlife and the Maine Natural Area intensity allowable with fixtures shielded
 Program have been notified of the and directed to minimize glare and visibility
 location, height, and design of the from the ground.
 proposed wind energy system at least 2. There shall be no signs, advertisements,
 three weeks prior to any final flags, or decorative items on a wind energy
 determination under this subsection. Any system or any associated facilities, except
 comments received therefrom shall be for the manufacturer’s/installer’s/owner’s
 addressed to the satisfaction of these state identification (not exceeding one square
 authorities prior to any final determination feet in size), appropriate warning signs, or
 under this provision. lights if required by the FAA.
 3. The support structure (e.g. tower, pole)
 for ground-mounted wind generating 6.4.42 Theaters and Performance Halls (large) in
 systems shall not be climbable for a the B-3 and WCZ zones
 minimum height of 12 feet above the A. A large theater and performance hall may not
 surrounding ground level. All ground- be located within 750 feet of another large
 mounted electrical and control equipment theater and performance hall, as measured
 shall be labeled and secured to prevent along or across public ways from the main
 unauthorized access. entrance of each. The main entrance is defined
 4. The use of guy wires is discouraged. If as one or more public entrances intended to
 required, they shall be located away from provide primary access for patrons to areas
 pedestrian routes/access points and designed for public use, such as lobbies,



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-25


 Page 46
USE STANDARDS




 vestibules, concourses, seating areas, or similar application fee, as established from time to
 spaces. This definition does not include time by the City Council to cover administrative
 secondary entrances used primarily for staff, costs and costs of a hearing, shall accompany
 production, limited public or ADA access, or each application. The application shall be in
 performers. such form and shall contain such information
B. Any large theater and performance hall located and documentation as shall be prescribed from
 in the B-3 or WCZ zones on or before time to time by the review authority.
 December 1, 2024 shall not be required to C. Public hearing. A public hearing shall be set,
 comply with this dispersal requirement. If advertised, and conducted by the review
 located within 750 feet of another large theater authority in accordance with Article 2 of this
 and performance hall, such business shall be Land Use Code.
 considered a lawfully nonconforming use D. Action. Within 30 days following the close of
 subject to the standards of Article 4 of this the public hearing, the review authority shall
 Code. render its decision, in a manner and form
C. Where two or more large theater and specified by Article 2 of this chapter, approving
 performance halls operate on one site, and the conditional use, approving the conditional
 where each entity requires or has a separate use subject to conditions as specified in
 business license, or displays in a manner visible Subsection 6.5.3, or denying it. The failure of
 from public property separate business the review authority to act within 30 days shall
 trademarks, logos, service marks, or other be deemed an approval of the conditional use,
 mutually identifying names or symbols, each unless such time period is mutually extended in
 entity shall be counted as a separate large writing by the applicant and the review
 theater and performance hall for the purposes authority. Within five days of such decision or
 of this section. the expiration of such period, the Building
 Authority or Planning Authority shall mail
6.5 CONDITIONAL USES notice of such decision or failure to act to the
6.5.1 Conditional use review procedure applicant and, if a conditional use is authorized,
A. Review authority. The Zoning Board of list therein any and all conditions imposed by
 Appeals shall review all conditional use the review authority.
 applications, with the exception that the
 Planning Board shall review all conditional use 6.5.2 General conditional use standards
 applications associated with projects that are The review authority shall, after review of the
 otherwise before the Planning Board. application, approve a conditional use upon a
B. Application. Applications for conditional use finding that the proposed conditional use, at the
 review shall be submitted to the Building size and intensity contemplated at the proposed
 Authority for all Zoning Board of Appeals location, will not have substantially greater negative
 reviews and the Planning Authority for all impacts than would normally occur from
 Planning Board reviews. A nonrefundable surrounding uses or other allowable uses in the



6-26 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 47
 USE STANDARDS




same zone. The review authority shall find that this The approval of a conditional use shall not authorize
standard is satisfied if it finds that: the establishment or extension of any use nor the
A. The volume and type of vehicle traffic to be development, construction, reconstruction,
 generated, hours of operation, expanse of alteration, or moving of any building or structure,
 pavement, and the number of parking spaces but shall merely authorize the preparation, filing.
 required are not substantially greater than and processing of applications for any permits or
 would normally occur at surrounding uses or approvals which may be required by the City of
 other allowable uses in the same zone. Portland Code of Ordinances, including but not
B. The proposed use will not create unsanitary or limited to a building permit, a certificate of
 harmful conditions by reason of noise, glare, occupancy, subdivision approval, and site plan
 dust, sewage disposal, emissions to the air, approval.
 odor, lighting, or litter.
C. The design and operation of the proposed use, 6.5.5 Limitations on conditional use approvals
 including but not limited to landscaping, No conditional use approval shall be valid for a
 screening, signs, loading, deliveries, trash or period longer than three years from the date of
 waste generation, arrangement of structures, approval, unless the conditional use has
 and materials storage will not have a commenced or a building permit is issued and
 substantially greater effect/impact on construction has begun within that period and is
 surrounding properties than those associated thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
 with surrounding uses or other allowable uses provided, however, that one or more extensions of
 in the zone. said time may be granted if the facts constituting
D. The proposed use will meet any additional zone the basis of the decision have not materially
 or use-specific standards identified in Tables 6- changed and the two year period is not exceeded
 A to 6-G and Section 6.4. thereby. A conditional use approval shall be deemed
 to authorize only the particular use for which it was
6.5.3 Conditions on conditional use approvals issued and such approval shall automatically expire
The review authority may impose such reasonable and cease to be of any force or effect if such use
conditions upon the premises benefited by a shall for any reason be discontinued for a period of
conditional use as may be necessary to prevent or 12 consecutive months or more.
minimize adverse effects therefrom upon other
property in the neighborhood. Such conditions shall 6.5.6 Supplemental standards for certain
be expressly set forth in the resolution authorizing conditional uses in the OS-R zone
the conditional use. Violation of such conditions In addition to general conditional use standards and
shall be a violation of this article. supplemental use standards, the following standards
 shall apply to stadiums, solar energy systems, water
6.5.4 Effect of issuance of a conditional use pumping stations, wind energy systems, and
 approval accessory uses within structures of 2,500 square
 feet or more within the OS-R zone:



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-27


 Page 48
USE STANDARDS




A. The use shall be in conformity with or satisfy a C. No accessory use or uses not within a building
 deficiency identified in a federal, state, regional, shall occupy more than a combined total of
 or City recreation and open space plan, 25% of the unbuilt lot area, with the exception
 including but not limited to the state of off-street parking or as otherwise provided
 Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, as in Subsection 6.6.2.
 such plans may from time to time be created or
 revised. 6.6.2 Standards for specific accessory uses
B. Buildings and structures shall not obstruct A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
 significant scenic views presently enjoyed by 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall be
 nearby residents, passersby, or users of the site. permitted on all lawfully conforming and
C. Indoor recreation or nonrecreational uses in nonconforming lots with legal residential
 the OS-R zone shall serve a significant public uses.
 purpose that cannot reasonably be 2. ADUs shall be permitted as new detached
 accommodated outside of the OS-R zone. accessory structures, building additions, or
 within existing lawfully conforming or
6.6 ACCESSORY USES nonconforming structures. However, the
6.6.1 In general addition of an ADU may in no way increase
A. Accessory uses shall be permitted in the degree of nonconformity of any
 conjunction with permitted or conditional structure unless otherwise permitted
 principal uses. Accessory uses shall be: under this subsection.
 1. Customarily found in association with the 3. Up to two ADUs shall be permitted per
 principal use. qualifying property.
 2. Generally consistent with the impacts of 4. Under circumstances where an existing
 the principal use. nonconforming structure is converted to
 3. Secondary in nature, clearly incidental and an ADU, the design of the ADU shall take
 subordinate to the principal use in terms into consideration to the extent
 of area and function. practicable the privacy of adjacent
 4. Located on the same lot as the principal properties.
 use unless otherwise permitted. 5. An ADU shall be limited to a gross floor
 5. Consistent with the intent of the zone. area of 2/3 of the gross floor area of the
B. No accessory use or uses within a building shall largest principal unit on the lot. The
 occupy more than a combined total of 25% of aggregate square footage of detached
 the floor area of the principal building, with the ADUs on a lot shall not exceed the gross
 exception of required off-street parking, unless floor area of the principal structure.
 otherwise provided in Subsection 6.6.2 below. 6. ADUs shall be exempt from maximum lot
 In the case of multi-tenant buildings, this coverage and minimum lot area per
 standard shall apply separately to each leased dwelling unit requirements.
 portion of the principal building.



6-28 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 49
 USE STANDARDS




 7. Detached ADUs shall be limited to a stacking lanes, menu/order boards,
 maximum height of 18 feet, unless trash receptacles, and service
 constructed above a garage, in which case windows shall be located to the side
 the height of the structure shall be limited or rear of the principal building where
 to 25 feet. practicable, except where such
 8. In residential zones, detached ADUs, placement will be detrimental to an
 regardless of size, shall be subject to side adjacent residential zone or use, and
 and rear setbacks for detached accessory shall be located a minimum of 40 feet
 structures less than 250 square feet, as from any adjoining property in a
 established in Article 7. residential zone. This distance shall be
 9. Detached ADUs shall not be permitted measured from the outermost edge of
 between a principal structure and a front the outside drive-through feature to
 lot line. such property line. In addition, drive-
B. Antennas, discs, transmitting and receiving through features shall be located a
 equipment. Building-mounted antennas, discs, minimum of 25 feet from a right-of-
 and other transmitting and receiving way.
 equipment shall be: b. The site shall have adequate stacking
 1. No taller than 15 feet above the highest capacity for vehicles waiting to use
 structural steel of the building roof. these service features without
 2. Setback no less than 15 feet from the impeding vehicular circulation or
 building perimeter. creating hazards to vehicular
 3. Integrated into the architecture of the circulation on adjoining streets.
 building in placement, form, color, and c. Any speakers, intercom systems, or
 material so as to screen or camouflage other audible means of
 such equipment from public view. communication shall not play pre-
C. Drive-throughs recorded messages. Any speakers,
 1. Drive-throughs shall be permitted as an intercom systems, audible signals,
 accessory use in the B-4 zone. computer prompts, or other noises
 2. Drive-throughs shall be permitted as generated by drive-through services
 conditional accessory uses in the B-2 zone or fixtures shall not exceed 55 dB or
 only if a drive-through was located on the shall be undetectable above the
 site as of the effective date of this Code. ambient noise level as measured by a
 3. In all other zones, drive-throughs shall be noise meter at the property line.
 prohibited. d. Site and vehicular light sources shall
 4. Drive-throughs shall be subject to the not unreasonably spill over or be
 following review standards: directed onto adjacent residential
 a. All components of a drive-through, properties and shall otherwise
 including, but not limited to, signs, conform to the lighting standards set



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-29


 Page 50
USE STANDARDS




 forth in the City of Portland Technical 1. A home occupation shall be incidental to
 Manual. the residential use of a dwelling, and shall
 e. Where automobiles may queue, not change the essential residential
 waiting for drive-through services, character of the dwelling.
 their impacts shall be substantially 2. No interior or exterior alterations that are
 mitigated to protect adjacent inconsistent with the residential use and
 residential properties from headlight character of the building shall be
 glare, exhaust fumes, and noise. As permitted. With the exception of a
 deemed necessary by the review permitted sign, there shall be no evidence
 authority, mitigation measures shall visible from the exterior of the premises
 consist of installation of solid fencing that the property is used in any way other
 with landscaping along any residential than as a dwelling. No display of products
 property line which is exposed to the shall be visible from the exterior of the
 drive-through or the enclosure of the premises.
 drive-through fixtures and lanes so as 3. Exterior signs shall be limited to one non-
 to buffer abutting residential illuminated sign not exceeding a total area
 properties and to further contain all of two square feet. Such sign must be
 associated impacts. affixed to the building, and may not project
 f. Drive-through lanes shall be designed more than one foot from the façade of the
 and placed to minimize crossing building.
 principal pedestrian access-ways or 4. The home occupation and all related
 otherwise impeding pedestrian access. activity, including any storage, equipment,
 and display of products shall be conducted
 entirely within a principal building or
 accessory structure. This does not apply to
 the home occupation of licensed family
 childcare provider, which may include
 outdoor space needed to meet state
 licensing requirements.
 5. No toxic, explosive, flammable,
 combustible, corrosive, etiologic,
 radioactive, biohazardous, or other
FIGURE 6-A: DRIVE-THROUGH SITING restricted materials shall be used or stored
D. Heliports. A heliport shall be designed and as a component of a home occupation.
 constructed in accordance with all federal and 6. No home occupation shall include
 state regulations. dispensing of medication from the
E. Home occupations dwelling.




6-30 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 51
 USE STANDARDS




7. The home occupation shall not produce exempt from its provisions. Remote work
 any perceptible noise, vibration, heat, is also not considered a home occupation,
 smoke, odor, electrical interference, dust and is exempt from these provisions.
 or other particulate matter, or other F. Makers’ markets in the IL-b zone. Makers’
 nuisance effects in excess of that normally markets, including periodic or seasonal sale of
 associated with residential use. handcrafted and limited production products
8. A home occupation shall be limited to for final consumption, which may include
 residents of the dwelling and no more than prepared or raw foods, shall be permitted as an
 two nonresident employees on the accessory use in the IL-b zone, provided that:
 premises. 1. Such sales are located within a lawfully
9. The home occupation shall not create conforming principal permitted use.
 vehicular or pedestrian traffic in greater 2. Such sales occupy an area no larger than
 volumes than average for a residential 45% of the floor area devoted to the
 neighborhood. The home occupation and principal use.
 any related activity shall not create any 3. Such sales by any single vendor or group
 traffic hazards or nuisances in public of vendors shall occur for no more than a
 rights-of-way. total of 28 hours a week collectively.
10. Any clients or business-related visitors shall 4. Such products are produced or permitted
 be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 to be produced in the IL/IL-b zone.
 p.m. 5. Such products are sold by the producer of
11. The storage of semi-trucks, trailers, or the product or their designee.
 heavy equipment such as construction or G. Tasting rooms in industrial zones. Tasting
 landscaping equipment used in a rooms shall be permitted as accessory uses on
 commercial business, is prohibited. the premises of facilities where beer, wine,
12. Repair and service of any vehicles, any type spirits, other alcoholic or non-alcoholic
 of heavy machinery, or any type of engine, beverages, or food are produced, provided
 is prohibited. Repair of small electronics or that:
 appliances is allowed. 1. Service of food in the facility is limited to
13. A family childcare provider as a home that which does not constitute a full meal.
 occupation shall not be subject to floor 2. No more than 10% of the beverage menu
 area limitations for an accessory use, but in tasting rooms accessory to beverage
 shall be limited to the care of not more production or 10% of the food menu in
 than 12 children and shall have no tasting rooms accessory to food
 nonresidential employees. production is produced or manufactured
14. Businesses with no employees, no off-site.
 customers, and no external impacts are 3. Tasting rooms shall not be subject to the
 not considered home-occupations for the limitations on the use of unbuilt lot or yard
 purposes of this subsection, and are area in Subsection 6.6.1(C).



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-31


 Page 52
USE STANDARDS




H. Solar energy generation
 1. Accessory solar energy systems shall be
 permitted in all zones except within
 cemeteries.
 2. All accessory solar energy systems are
 subject to the following conditions:
 a. All systems shall meet the technical,
 safety, and maintenance standards in
 the City of Portland Technical Manual.
 b. Solar energy systems shall minimize
 impacts resulting from construction
 and maintenance of the solar energy
 system, including lighting, security
 measures, traffic, and grid I. Wind energy generation. Ground-mounted
 connections. and roof-mounted accessory wind energy
 c. Solar panel placement shall minimize systems shall be permitted as accessory uses
 or negate any solar glare impacting within all zones. Accessory wind energy systems
 nearby properties or roadways, are subject to the following standards:
 without unduly impacting the 1. Accessory wind energy systems shall
 functionality or efficiency of the solar comply with all general use standards for
 energy system. wind energy systems as stated under
 d. Ground-mounted accessory solar Subsection 6.4.41.A of this article.
 energy systems shall be located in side 2. Properties shall be limited to one ground-
 or rear yards only, and shall be subject mounted accessory wind energy system
 to all dimensional standards for and two roof-mounted accessory wind
 detached accessory structures within energy systems.
 Article 7 unless otherwise specified. 3. The maximum height of a ground-mounted
 e. Building-mounted or roof-mounted accessory wind energy system is 25 feet in
 accessory solar energy systems are all RN zones, the B-1 zone, and all island
 not included in the calculation of zones. In all other zones, the maximum
 maximum structure height, but must height shall be the maximum height
 meet the following standards: allowed within the zone or 45 feet,
 whichever is less.
 4. The maximum height of any roof-mounted
 accessory wind energy system is 15 feet
 above the height of such structure. Roof-
 mounted systems are not included in the
 calculation of maximum structure height.



6-32 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 53
 USE STANDARDS




 5. Roof-mounted accessory wind energy elsewhere in the City of Portland Code of
 systems shall be set back from any edge of Ordinances. All temporary uses require a temporary
 the building upon which they are mounted use permit unless specifically cited as exempt. A
 by a distance equal to or greater than the temporary use permit may be issued for additional
 total height of the system, measured from temporary uses not specifically listed per
 the roof surface at the point of attachment Subsection 6.7.2(G) below. Temporary uses do not
 to the top of the system at maximum require additional parking unless specifically cited in
 vertical rotation. The setback distance shall the temporary use standards or stipulated as a
 be measured to the center of the wind condition of approval.
 generator base.
 6. Ground-mounted accessory wind energy 6.7.2 Standards for specific temporary uses
 systems shall be setback from property A. Farmstands
 lines by a distance equal to or greater than 1. A farmstand for the sale of food or non-
 1.1 times the total height of the system, food crops grown only on the premises is
 measured from the base of the system to permitted, and shall be exempt from
 the top of the system at maximum vertical temporary use permit requirements.
 rotation. The setback distance shall be 2. In the island zones, such stand may include
 measured to the center of the wind the sale of agricultural products produced
 generator base. on the premises or the sale of fish or
 7. Ground-mounted accessory wind energy shellfish caught by the occupant of the
 systems shall be located within the rear premises.
 yard only and shall be sited to maximize 3. Acceptable stands are a portable table or
 existing vegetative or other screening from cart, and cannot exceed an area of 200
 nearby residential buildings and public square feet.
 ways. The location shall minimize changes 4. Farmstands are permitted for no more
 to existing topography and natural than 180 days per calendar year, and shall
 vegetation which would result from be removed when not in use.
 construction or maintenance of the 5. Farmstands must be set back from all
 system. public rights-of-way a distance of no less
 than five feet.

6.7 TEMPORARY USES B. Garage/yard sales
6.7.1 In general 1. A garage/yard sale is permitted as a
Temporary uses may be permitted as determined temporary use on residential property, and
by the Planning Authority or Building Authority. shall be exempt from temporary use
Temporary uses on private property shall comply permit requirements.
with the standards of this section, as well as 2. Garage/yard sales are limited to no more
regulations pertaining to temporary uses contained than six days per calendar year.



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-33


 Page 54
USE STANDARDS




C. Real estate project sales offices or model lot contains a fence or other barrier that
 units prohibits entry onto the lot.
 1. A real estate sales office/model unit(s) is E. Temporary outdoor sales
 allowed for a residential development. 1. Temporary outdoor sales in residential
 2. No real estate sales office/model unit(s) zones are limited to those events
 may be located in a manufactured home or conducted by and located on the premises
 off-site. of a place of assembly, an elementary,
 3. The temporary use permit shall be valid for middle, or secondary school, or a post-
 the life of the residential development secondary school, and shall be exempt
 project. The real estate sales office must from temporary use permit requirements.
 be removed and/or closed within 30 days 2. Time limits shall be as follows:
 after the sale or rental of the last unit a. Time limitations apply to the lot, not
 within the development. The model unit(s) the operator of the use.
 must be closed within 30 days after the b. Temporary outdoor sales events in
 sale or rental of the last unit of the residential zones are limited to three
 development. events per calendar year, with a
 4. All activities conducted within real estate maximum of either three consecutive
 sales office/model unit(s) must be directly days, or two consecutive weekends. A
 related to the construction and sale of minimum of 30 days between events
 properties within the particular is required.
 development. Use as a general office of c. Temporary outdoor sales events in
 operation of any firm is prohibited. nonresidential zones are limited to
D. Temporary contractor’s yards four events per calendar year, with a
 1. A temporary contractor’s yard is allowed maximum duration of five days per
 incidental to a construction project. event, and a minimum of 30 days
 2. The temporary use permit shall be valid for between events.
 the life of the project, to be verified by d. Temporary outdoor sales events for
 open permits. seasonal sales, such as Christmas trees
 3. The temporary contractor’s yard shall be or pumpkins, are limited to four
 removed within 30 days of the completion events per calendar year, with a
 of construction, and the premises shall be maximum of 30 days per event and a
 restored to their pre-construction state. minimum of 30 days between events.
 4. Temporary contractor’s yards shall be e. Temporary outdoor sales events in
 screened on all sides by a fence a minimum any nonresidential zone must be
 of six feet in height to a maximum of eight located a minimum of 125 feet from a
 feet in height. Fencing shall not be residential zone.
 required on shared lot lines if the abutting F. Temporary outdoor storage containers




6-34 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 55
 USE STANDARDS




 The use of an outdoor storage container is preserved to the greatest possible extent
 limited to a maximum of 90 days per calendar consistent with the uses of the property.
 year, and shall be exempt from temporary use C. Loading areas shall be screened and parking
 permit requirements. areas shall be screened and landscaped so as to
G. Additional temporary uses. In addition to the avoid a large continuous expanse of paved area.
 temporary uses listed above, a temporary use D. Buildings and structures shall be sited to avoid
 permit may be issued by the Planning Authority obstructing significant scenic views presently
 or Building Authority for other temporary uses enjoyed by nearby residents, passersby, and
 that are substantially similar to a temporary use users of the site.
 listed above. A permit may be issued if the E. Storage of commodities and equipment shall
 Planning Authority determines that such use is be completely enclosed within buildings or
 compatible with the surrounding land uses and provided with screening by a fence, wall, or
 proper care has been taken to address landscaping.
 potential impacts to surrounding land uses. The F. The outer perimeter of playfields, play lots, and
 time limit of such temporary use will be other active recreational areas shall be
 determined and approved as part of the screened, or shall be located a reasonable
 temporary use permit. distance from any residential use.

6.8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6.8.2 Discharges
All uses shall comply with the performance No discharge shall be permitted at any point into
standards established in this section, unless any any private sewage disposal system, or stream, or
federal, state, or local law, ordinance, or regulation into the ground, of any materials in such a way or of
establishes a more restrictive standard, in which such nature or temperature as to contaminate any
case the more restrictive standard shall apply. water supply, or otherwise cause the emission of
 dangerous or objectionable elements, except in
6.8.1 Development in the OS-R and OS-P zones accordance with standards approved by the Public
All development in the OS-R and OS-P zones shall Health Authority or by the Public Works Authority.
comply with the following development standards: No discharge into harbor water areas shall be
A. All ground areas not used for parking, loading, permitted, unless permitted by the Maine
 vehicular, or pedestrian areas and not left in Department of Environmental Protection under a
 their natural state shall be suitably landscaped waste discharge license and as approved by the
 and designed with quality materials that are Department of Public Works in accordance with
 consistent with adopted City policy or master Chapter 24 of the City of Portland Code of
 plans, and which provide a comfortable, Ordinances. All private sewage disposal or private
 durable, accessible, readily maintainable, and wastewater treatment facilities shall comply with
 aesthetically pleasing environment. the provisions of Chapter 24.
B. Natural features, such as mature trees and
 natural surface drainageways, shall be 6.8.3 Electromagnetic interference



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-35


 Page 56
USE STANDARDS




 landscaped. Rear yards, side yards, and the
 TABLE 6-H: NOISE STANDARDS
 perimeter of any parking area for greater than
 Daytime/Evening Night
 15 vehicles shall be landscaped if visible from a
 Zone (7 a.m.-9 p.m.) (9 p.m.-7 a.m.)
 right-of-way, public open space, or residential
 I-B 60 dBA 55 dBA zone.
 O 60 dBA 60 dBA
 B-1 55 dBA 55 dBA 6.8.6 Noise
 B-2/B-2b 60 dBA 55 dBA A. No use shall be operated so as to generate
 B-3 60 dBA 55 dBA recurring noises that are unreasonably loud,
 B-4 65 dBA 60 dBA cause injury, or create a nuisance to any person
 B-5, B-6 60 dBA 50 dBA of ordinary sensitivities.
 I-L/I-Lb 60 dBA 50 dBA B. The maximum permissible sound level of any
 I-M/I-Mb 70 dBA 55 dBA continuous, regular, or frequent source of
 I-H 75 dBA 55 dBA
 sound produced by an activity shall be as
 shown in Table 6-H.
 A-B 60 dBA 60 dBA
 C. Sound shall be measured as follows:
In any industrial zone, there shall be no
 1. For noise generated by a use in the I-L/I-Lb,
electromagnetic interference that adversely affects
 I-M/I-Mb, and I-H zones, sound shall be
the operation of any equipment other than that
 measured at or within the boundaries of
belonging to the creator of such interference.
 the nearest residential zone.
 2. For noise generated by a use in the B-1, B-
6.8.4 Exterior lighting
 2/B-2b, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, I-B, O, and A-B
All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed
 zones, sound shall be measured at lot
with full cut-off fixtures to direct illumination onto
 boundaries.
the site and to prevent illumination from such
 D. Sound levels shall be measured with a sound
fixtures on neighboring properties in accordance
 level meter with a frequency weighting network
with the City of Portland Technical Manual.
 manufactured according to standards
 prescribed by the American National Standards
6.8.5 Landscaping and screening
 Institute (ANSI) or its successor body.
A. In all mixed-use zones, the I-B zone, TOD zones,
 E. Wind energy systems. Where the underlying
 the O zone, and the A-B zone outside of
 zone is residential and does not specify sound
 restricted access areas, sites shall be
 requirements, or where the system will be
 landscaped to screen parking and accessory
 within 100 feet of a residential zone, sound
 site elements, including storage and solid waste
 generated by the wind energy system shall not
 receptacles, from the right-of-way, public open
 exceed 45 decibels on the A scale between the
 space, or abutting residential zones.
 hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and 50
B. In the I-H zone, where a front yard abuts an
 decibels on the A scale between 7:00 a.m. and
 arterial or a major collector street, it shall be
 9:00 p.m., as measured at the nearest property



6-36 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 57
 USE STANDARDS




 line in accordance with this provision and odors of such intensity and character as to be
 technical standards set out in the City of detrimental to the public health and welfare occur
 Portland Technical Manual. Audible sound in an area within two separate 24-hour periods. The
 levels of wind energy systems shall include 10 confirmed complaints must originate from 10
 sounds generated in all conditions including different households in a residential zone, or from
 low and high winds (furling, yawing, and flutter) 10 different individuals in a commercial or industrial
 and power outages (freewheeling). zone.
F. Exemptions
 1. Noises created by construction and 6.8.8 Exterior stairways
 maintenance activities between 7:00 a.m. Exterior stairs may be permitted, so long as such
 and 9:00 p.m. are exempt from the stairways shall have minimal visual impact upon the
 maximum permissible sound levels set building and are located in the rear or side yard.
 forth in Table 6-H.
 2. The following uses and activities shall also 6.8.9 Outdoor storage
 be exempt from the requirements of Table Outdoor storage shall comply with the
 6-H: requirements of Table 6-I.
 a. The noises of safety signals, warning
 devices, emergency pressure relief 6.8.10 Smoke and dust
 valves, and any other emergency Visible emissions from a direct or fugitive emission
 devices. source may not exceed an opacity of 20% for more
 b. Traffic noise on public roads or noise than 2.5 minutes in any half-hour period. All visible
 created by aircraft and railroads. emissions must comply with the standards of the
 c. Noise created by refuse and solid Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
 waste collection.
 d. Emergency construction or repair
 work by public utilities, at any hour. 6.8.11 Storage and repair of vehicles
 e. Noise created by any recreational A. In all residential zones, all island zones, and the
 activities which are permitted by law B-3 zone, only one unregistered motor vehicle
 and for which a license or permit has may be stored outside, for a period not
 been granted by the City, including but exceeding 30 days.
 not limited to concerts, parades, In all other mixed-use zones, storage of
 sporting events, and fireworks unregistered motor vehicles for more than 10
 displays. days, and outdoor storage of used automobile
 tires shall be prohibited.
6.8.7 Odor B. No partially dismantled, wrecked, or junked
It shall be a violation of this article to create an odor vehicles shall be stored outdoors. This
nuisance. An odor nuisance shall be considered to provision does not apply to vehicles
exist when 10 confirmed complaints relating to undergoing repair.



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-37


 Page 58
USE STANDARDS




C. All vehicle repair facilities shall be screened receptacles shall be within designated,
 along interior side and rear lot lines by a screened areas. In industrial zones and the B-4
 landscaped buffer or solid fence a minimum of zone, outdoor storage of refuse, debris, or
 five feet in height. previously used materials awaiting reuse shall
 either be in an appropriate container or located
6.8.12 Waste disposal within a designated, screened area.
A. All solid waste disposal, including materials B. Containers or receptacles shall not leak or
 which might cause fumes or dust, or constitute otherwise permit liquids or solids to escape
 a fire hazard if stored outdoors, shall be only in from the container or be transferred beyond
 fully enclosed, covered containers or lot boundaries by natural causes or forces.
 receptacles. In all nonresidential zones except Areas attracting large numbers of insects or
 for the industrial zones, such containers or vermin are prohibited.




6-38 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 59
 USE STANDARDS




TABLE 6-I: OUTDOOR STORAGE STANDARDS
 B-2/ I-L/ I-M/
 B-1 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 I-B O A-B I-H
 B-2b I-Lb I-Mb
 There shall be no outdoor storage except
for fully enclosed receptacles for solid waste ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 disposal.

 All outdoor storage must be located a
 minimum of 20 feet from any lot line.
 However, when abutting a residential zone,
 ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 all outdoor storage must be located a
minimum of 100 feet from a lot line abutting
 such zone.

 Outdoor storage areas must be designed
 and maintained so as to prevent the
  accumulation of debris and standing water
 that can attract insects and vermin. All
 outdoor storage areas shall employ
 ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 measures to prevent displacement of
 materials and windblown dust or
particulates, including the use of windbreaks,
  tarps, or other coverings to protect stored
 materials from the elements.

 No outdoor storage shall be permitted in
 the front setback, except for storage for
  plant and tree nurseries or lumber yards if
 listed as a permitted use. All such storage
 located in the front setback shall consist of ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 live plant materials or lumber products. No
 aggregate materials, machinery, or other
 materials or products shall be stored in the
 front setback.

 All outdoor storage shall be suitably
 screened from the public way and abutting
 properties by a landscaped buffer or solid
  fence at least five feet in height. This does ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 not apply to storage of materials allowed in
 the front setback for plant and tree
 nurseries or lumber yards.

 Exterior lighting of outdoor storage areas
 shall not exceed that which is required for
 ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ ⏺
 security purposes and shall meet the
 standards of Subsection 6.8.4.




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-39


 Page 60
USE STANDARDS




C. Where food processing is permitted, all food entrances of each. The main entrance is
 processing waste shall be stored within a defined as one or more public entrances
 completely enclosed structure. If not intended to provide primary access for patrons
 refrigerated, such waste shall be removed from to areas designed for public use, such as
 the site in an enclosed container within 48 lobbies, vestibules, concourses, seating areas,
 hours of its generation. All enclosed and or similar spaces. This definition does not
 exterior food processing waste storage areas include secondary entrances used primarily for
 shall be cleaned and sanitized on a regular staff, production, limited public or ADA access,
 basis. or performers. This dispersal requirement shall
 not apply to entertainment businesses that do
6.8.13 Vibration not allow amplified entertainment.
A. In any mixed-use zone and the O zone, D. Any entertainment business located in the B-3
 vibration inherently and recurrently generated or WCZ zones on or before 3, 2006 shall not be
 shall be imperceptible without instruments at required to comply with this dispersal
 lot boundaries. This shall not apply to vibration requirement. If located within 100 feet of
 resulting from activities aboard a vessel or from another entertainment business, such business
 railroad vehicle activities, or from activities on a shall be considered a lawfully nonconforming
 pile-supported pier. use subject to the standards of Article 4 of this
B. In all industrial zones, any use creating Code. Any such business shall continue to be
 earthshaking vibrations, with the exception of considered an entertainment business for the
 airports, shall be controlled in such a manner as purpose of administering this dispersal
 to prevent transmission beyond lot lines of requirement for a new or relocating
 vibrations causing a displacement of .003 or entertainment business in the B-3 and WCZ
 greater on one inch, as measured by a zones.
 vibrograph or similar instrument at the E. Where two or more entertainment businesses
 property boundaries. operate on one site, and where each business
 entity requires or has a separate business
6.8.14 Entertainment businesses in the B-3 and license, or displays in a manner visible from
 WCZ zones public property separate business trademarks,
C. In the B-3 and WCZ zones, a business with an logos, service marks, or other mutually
 entertainment license as required or authorized identifying names or symbols, each business
 by Chapter 4, Section 4-51(a) of the City of entity shall be counted as a separate
 Portland Code of Ordinance shall be entertainment business for the purposes of this
 considered an entertainment business for the section.
 purposes of this section., and may not be F. Following a hearing held pursuant to Chapter
 located within 100 feet of another 15, Section 15-10 of the City of Portland Code of
 entertainment business, as measured along or Ordinances, the Building Authority may impose
 across public ways from the main entrance or conditions on the food service license of any



6-40 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 61
 USE STANDARDS




entertainment business in the B-3 and WCZ
zones that operates between 1:00 a.m. and
4:00 a.m. to maintain or improve public safety.
Such conditions may be imposed following a
written recommendation from the Portland
Police Department that such conditions are
necessary. The Building Authority’s decision
may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant
to Chapter 15, Section 15-9 of the City of
Portland Code of Ordinances. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the Building
Authority’s authority in Chapter 15 to deny,
suspend, or revoke any license pursuant to the
standards and process in that chapter.




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-41


 Page 62
Planning Board Memo
Planning & Urban Development Department
RE: Performance Hall Regulations - Case Studies Addendum



I. OVERVIEW
To inform discussion of potential amendments related to performance venue regulation, staff reviewed a
range of peer jurisdictions to understand how other communities permit and regulate theaters, live
performance venues, and similar assembly uses.

This review is based on outreach to peer planners and a review of relevant zoning and regulatory
frameworks, providing both ordinance-level context and insight into how performance venues are
regulated in practice.

II. SELECTION OF PEER COMMUNITIES
Peer communities were selected to reflect a mix of regional comparators and cities with active cultural and
entertainment environments, including nearby New England municipalities, mid-sized cities with vibrant
downtowns, and larger cities with established entertainment economies or strong live music identities. This
range was intended to provide a balanced perspective across different governance scales and mobility
contexts, including cities with robust public transportation systems as well as more auto-oriented
communities, with some peers offering direct comparability to Portland and others illustrating how
performance venues are regulated in larger or more specialized cultural settings.

III. CASE STUDIES
The jurisdiction names below are hyperlinked to each community’s publicly available zoning or land
development ordinance for reference.

A. Regional and Comparable New England Cities

1. Worcester, MA
 Worcester regulates theaters and performance venues primarily through broad zoning permissions,
 with limited use-specific standards embedded in the zoning code. Theaters and concert halls are
 generally allowed in non-residential districts, including downtown, and the City does not impose
 spacing requirements or venue-specific overlays.

 Many of Worcester’s larger venues are located in historic or publicly supported facilities, and zoning
 has historically played a limited role in shaping their location. Downtown districts containing venues do
 not require off-street parking, and logistical considerations such as loading, crowd management, and
 traffic circulation are typically addressed through site design, transportation planning, and event
 coordination rather than zoning regulations.

 As residential development has increased downtown, the city has begun to face more concerns about
 noise, parking demand, and crowd activity, but these issues are not currently addressed through
 targeted zoning tools.




 Page 63
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026



2. Burlington, VT
 Burlington regulates performance venues through a combination of zoning permissions and
 discretionary review, with performing arts centers subject to conditional use review in certain districts,
 which allows the city to evaluate potential impacts, such as traffic, noise, and neighborhood
 compatibility, on a case-by-case basis.

 Peer outreach also highlighted recent regulatory changes in specific districts. For example, a prior size
 limitation on performing arts centers in a mixed industrial district was recently removed in connection
 with the potential relocation of a major regional venue. Planner input also noted that venue operations
 in some locations may be influenced by Vermont’s Act 250 permitting process, which can impose
 event-related conditions at the state level.

3. Portsmouth, NH
 Portsmouth regulates performance venues through zoning standards that differentiate between indoor
 and outdoor facilities. Performance facilities are generally permitted by right in mixed-use and
 downtown districts, with indoor venues required to maintain a minimum distance of 200 feet from any
 residential or mixed-residential district, and outdoor venues required to maintain a minimum distance
 of 500 feet. Additionally, indoor facilities are limited to operating hours of 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM, while
 outdoor facilities may operate between 4:00 PM and 11:00 PM.

 It was noted that downtown venues typically do not require off-street parking and that relatively few
 ongoing operational conflicts have been reported related to venue activity.

4. Providence, RI
 Providence regulates theaters and performance venues through a combination of zoning permissions
 and cultural policy initiatives centered in its downtown. Based on a review of their local ordinances,
 performance venues are located primarily within the downtown district, which has long functioned as
 the city’s primary arts and entertainment hub.

 Zoning allows performance venues within downtown mixed-use districts, with discretionary review
 applied in some cases, depending on scale and context. The city has historically supported clustering of
 venues through broader policy initiatives, including public investment in historic theaters and incentives
 intended to reinforce downtown as a cultural destination.

 Providence’s regulatory framework extends beyond zoning. In addition to land use controls, the city has
 explored operational and policy tools related to venue activity, including discussions of ticket
 surcharges for larger venues and continued public investment in arts and entertainment infrastructure.

B. Mid-Sized Cities with Active Downtown Cultural Scenes

1. Cleveland, OH
 Cleveland regulates theaters and performance venues through zoning permissions in downtown and
 commercial districts. Based on a review of the City’s ordinances, performance venues are permitted in
 a range of commercial and downtown districts, including areas that contain established cultural
 destinations such as Playhouse Square.



 2


 Page 64
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026



 The City also applies an Entertainment Overlay District in select areas. The overlay supplements the
 underlying zoning districts by allowing a defined set of entertainment and nightlife uses, including
 theaters, nightclubs, and similar venues, within designated areas intended to accommodate
 concentrated entertainment activity. The overlay also includes provisions governing the concentration
 of adult entertainment uses within these districts.

2. Madison, WI
 Madison has a diverse range of performing arts venues. These include newer large performing arts halls
 (three theaters of varying sizes, with the largest at approximately 2,200 seats) located directly across
 from a historic 1,800-seat theater, as well as a separate 2,500-seat venue. The city also includes a
 historic 1,000-seat theater near a former church converted into a 700-person standing-room music
 hall in a neighborhood commercial district.

 In addition to performing arts venues, Madison is home to major sporting facilities, including the
 approximately 17,000-seat Kohl Center, which hosts University of Wisconsin hockey and basketball
 games as well as major concerts and events, and Camp Randall Stadium, an approximately 76,000-seat
 outdoor stadium that hosts University of Wisconsin football games and large-scale concerts.

 Theaters, assembly halls, and concert halls are permitted uses in multiple downtown zoning districts.
 The City does not impose density or spacing requirements for these venues. Site access, circulation,
 and loading are addressed through the site plan review process.

3. Buffalo, NY
 Buffalo regulates entertainment uses through a combination of base zoning permissions and a targeted
 downtown overlay. Based on a review of the City’s ordinance, the underlying zoning districts establish
 where entertainment uses such as theaters, performance venues, and similar assembly uses are
 permitted.

 The City also applies the Downtown Entertainment Review Overlay (N-DER) in portions of downtown
 with concentrated nightlife activity. Within the overlay area, the underlying zoning permissions remain
 in effect; however, certain late-night entertainment activities may be subject to additional review and
 permitting requirements. These provisions are intended to address potential operational and public
 safety considerations associated with higher-intensity nightlife activity, including events where alcohol
 is served, and large crowds may be present. As structured, the overlay functions as a targeted layer
 applied on top of the underlying zoning districts within designated downtown areas.

4. Asheville, NC
 Asheville regulates performance venues through a combination of zoning permissions and operational
 regulations. Peer input indicates that performance venues are permitted in higher-intensity commercial
 districts, including the central business district, and the zoning ordinance does not include spacing
 requirements between venues.

 Much of the regulatory framework identified through peer outreach is operational rather than zoning-
 based. Asheville’s noise ordinance plays a significant role in managing venue impacts, with larger or
 louder venues requiring a sound exceedance permit that establishes limits on decibel levels, hours of
 operation, and the number of permitted events.


 3


 Page 65
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026



5. Provo, UT
 Provo regulates theaters and performance venues through its base zoning framework rather than
 through a dedicated entertainment overlay or venue-spacing standard.

 Under Provo’s zoning code (Title 14), land uses are organized by defined categories and permitted
 within specific zoning districts through district use tables. Theaters and similar assembly-oriented uses
 are regulated through those use tables, which establish where the use is permitted outright and where
 additional land use review may be required.

 In addition to determining where such uses may locate, zoning establishes applicable development
 standards, including building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and off-street parking requirements tied to
 use category. Where discretionary review is required, the City may evaluate compatibility
 considerations such as traffic circulation and impacts on surrounding properties. The code does not
 establish venue-to-venue spacing requirements between entertainment uses. Operational matters,
 including occupancy limits and alcohol service, are governed outside zoning through building and
 licensing regulations.

6. Greenville, SC
 Based on peer input, Greenville recently adopted an Entertainment District Overlay focused on a four-
 block area of downtown where a high concentration of bars and nightclubs had developed. The
 Planning Commission recommended approval of the overlay in November 2025, and City Council
 approved it at the end of the year. The overlay applies within a defined geographic area and
 supplements the underlying zoning regulations in that portion of downtown in response to the
 concentration of late-night uses.

 In addition to zoning, Greenville utilizes a cross-departmental review body currently referred to as the
 Technical Advisory Committee, which is being renamed the Staff Technical Advisory Team (STAT). This
 team includes representatives from police, fire, building codes, planning, parks and recreation, and
 business licensing. The team reviews late-night, indoor, and outdoor entertainment uses and evaluates
 business plans and operational logistics such as hours of operation, loading and unloading, staffing
 plans, security plans, and the relationship between food and alcohol service. This process functions as
 an operational review mechanism separate from base zoning permissions.

 With respect to large-scale venues, including the Bon Secours Wellness Arena and a proposed outdoor
 amphitheater in the downtown area, the City has considered engaging third-party acoustic engineering
 review to evaluate noise levels and identify mitigation strategies.

C. Larger Cities with Established Entertainment Economies

1. New York City, NY
 New York City regulates performance venues primarily through zoning permissions that vary by district
 and use category. Based on peer outreach, the Zoning Resolution generally does not include spacing
 requirements between venues, meaning that if a use is permitted in a zoning district, it may locate near
 similar uses.

 Theaters are broadly permitted as-of-right in many commercial and manufacturing districts. The zoning
 framework distinguishes between traditional theaters and larger assembly uses, with larger venues

 4


 Page 66
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026



 more likely to require additional review or special permits depending on scale. New York City also
 employs specialized zoning tools in the Theater Subdistrict, such as restricting the demolition of
 theaters and provides floor area bonuses for new theater space. Parking requirements vary by district
 density, with no parking required in higher-density areas and capacity-based ratios applied in lower-
 density districts.

2. Austin, TX
 Austin regulates theaters and performance venues through zoning permissions and targeted incentive
 programs. Based upon a review of the City’s ordinances, the zoning code distinguishes between
 theaters and performance venues and allows these uses in central districts, including downtown.

 Austin also incorporates live music into its development bonus framework. Through density bonus
 programs, projects may receive additional development capacity in exchange for incorporating and
 maintaining live music venues. These programs include requirements related to long-term operation,
 soundproofing, and continued use of the space as a live music venue.

3. Boston, MA
 Boston regulates theaters and performance venues through district-based zoning permissions
 supplemented by project-level review and licensing requirements. Based upon a review of the City’s
 ordinances, entertainment and cultural uses are permitted or conditionally allowed in certain mixed-use
 and commercial districts, with larger venues subject to additional development review depending on
 scale.

 Boston does not include spacing requirements between venues in zoning. Instead, venue activity is
 addressed through a combination of zoning permissions, project-level review, and separate licensing
 and noise regulations. Major venues are concentrated in areas such as the Theater District, where
 multiple performance spaces are located within a compact downtown setting.

4. Portland, OR
 Portland regulates theaters and performance venues through its use-category framework in Title 33 of
 the Planning and Zoning Code. The code does not define “music halls” or “concert venues” as
 standalone uses, but instead classifies entertainment uses within broader categories.

 Under Chapter 33.920, theaters are classified as part of the Retail Sales and Service use category. Larger
 facilities drawing substantial event attendance are categorized as Major Event Entertainment, which
 includes uses such as stadiums, arenas, coliseums, auditoriums, exhibition and meeting areas, and
 fairgrounds. This classification determines how the use is treated for zoning purposes.

 Whether a performance venue is permitted depends on the underlying zoning district. Title 33 use
 tables establish where these uses are allowed outright and where conditional use review is required.
 Zoning also regulates development standards applicable to such uses, including building height,
 setbacks, and off-street parking requirements where applicable.

 Portland does not impose minimum spacing requirements between entertainment venues. Operational
 aspects of venue activity, including sound levels, hours of operation, occupancy, and alcohol service,
 are regulated outside the zoning code through separate noise, building, and licensing frameworks.


 5


 Page 67
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026



5. Nashville, TN
 Nashville regulates theaters and related entertainment uses through its zoning district framework,
 which assigns specific uses to zoning districts and establishes development standards applicable to
 those uses. In the Metro Zoning District Land Use Table, “Theater” is listed under “Recreation and
 Entertainment Uses,” and the table identifies the zoning districts in which that use is permitted. Outside
 downtown, the underlying zoning designation determines whether a theater is permitted outright or is
 subject to additional land-use review.

 Zoning also regulates physical development standards applicable to theater uses. These standards
 include requirements related to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and off-street parking. Parking
 requirements are tied to use category and are typically calculated based on the nature or scale of the
 use. In areas governed by the Downtown Code, parking standards may be reduced or structured
 differently than in conventional zoning districts.

 Within the downtown area, theaters and other entertainment uses are regulated under a separately
 adopted Downtown Code rather than the standard zoning district land use table. The Downtown Code
 establishes district-specific standards that govern building form, site design, and development intensity
 in the central business district.

 Where a theater requires discretionary land-use approval in a particular zoning district, the review
 process allows the City to evaluate site-specific impacts, such as traffic circulation and compatibility
 with surrounding uses, and to impose conditions where appropriate. However, Nashville’s zoning code
 does not establish minimum spacing requirements between performance venues. Operational aspects
 of venue activity, including sound levels, hours of operation, alcohol service, and crowd management,
 are generally regulated through separate building, licensing, and public safety frameworks rather than
 through zoning separation requirements.

6. Seattle, WA
 Seattle regulates theaters and performance venues through defined use categories within its Land Use
 Code and through development standards applicable within specific zoning districts.

 The City’s zoning framework distinguishes among several theater- and assembly-related uses under the
 broader category of “Theaters and spectator sports facilities.” Subcategories include motion picture
 theaters, performing arts theaters, lecture and meeting halls, and spectator sports facilities. These
 defined use types are incorporated into the zoning code and are treated as distinct land use categories
 for regulatory purposes.

 Whether a theater or performance venue is permitted depends on the underlying zoning district. In
 commercial and downtown zones, theater and spectator-related uses are generally permitted, subject
 to the development standards applicable to the district. In other zones, discretionary review may be
 required depending on the classification of the use and the zoning designation.

 Seattle’s zoning code regulates several physical and site-related aspects of theater development. These
 include building height, bulk, setbacks, and floor area limitations based on the applicable zone. The
 code also establishes use-specific off-street parking requirements for certain theater and assembly
 categories, with parking ratios tied to the type of use. In higher-density urban centers and downtown
 districts, parking requirements may be reduced or modified.

 6


 Page 68
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026




 Where discretionary land use review is required, the City may evaluate site-specific impacts such as
 traffic circulation, pedestrian access, and compatibility with surrounding uses and may impose
 conditions as part of the approval process. However, Seattle’s zoning code does not establish minimum
 spacing requirements between entertainment venues.

 Operational aspects of performance venues, including sound levels, hours of operation, and alcohol
 service, are regulated outside the Land Use Code through separate municipal noise regulations,
 building and fire codes, and state licensing requirements.

D. Cities with Established Theater Districts

1. Chicago, IL
 Chicago regulates theaters and performance venues through its base zoning framework, where these
 uses are classified within the City’s land use categories and permitted in a range of commercial and
 downtown zoning districts. Under the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, theaters and similar performance
 venues are generally categorized within the broader “entertainment and spectator” use group. The
 zoning code establishes where these uses are permitted through district use tables and regulates
 associated development standards such as building height, bulk, setbacks, and parking requirements
 depending on the underlying zoning district.

 Within Chicago’s central business district, including the Downtown Core (DC) and Downtown Mixed-
 Use (DX) zoning districts, which encompass much of the Loop, theaters and performance venues are
 broadly permitted and are treated as compatible with the high-intensity commercial and cultural
 activity characteristic of the downtown core. Similar to many of the peer jurisdictions reviewed,
 Chicago’s zoning code does not establish minimum separation distances between theaters or
 performance venues. Instead, the ordinance primarily regulates where the use may be located and the
 development standards that apply to buildings and sites.

 Chicago’s zoning framework also reflects the urban context of the downtown theater district with
 respect to parking. Within the Downtown Core (DC) district, off-street parking is not required for
 theaters or entertainment venues. Within the Downtown Mixed-Use (DX) district, the ordinance
 establishes minimum parking requirements only for theaters or performance halls with a capacity of
 1,000 seats or more, at a ratio of one space per twenty seats.

 Chicago’s historic theater district developed in the downtown Loop, particularly along Randolph Street
 and nearby portions of State Street, where multiple theaters were constructed within a relatively
 compact area during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Planning and economic
 development analyses prepared for the City of Chicago describe this portion of the Loop as a
 longstanding concentration of theater and performing arts venues that continues to function as the
 city’s primary theater district.

 Several major theaters remain clustered within a compact portion of the Loop today. For example, the
 Chicago Theatre, the James M. Nederlander Theatre, the Cadillac Palace Theatre, and the CIBC Theatre
 are all located within roughly two to three blocks of one another along or near Randolph Street
 between State and Wells Streets. The Chicago Theatre and the Nederlander Theatre are located less
 than approximately 500 feet apart, while the Cadillac Palace Theatre and the CIBC Theatre are located

 7


 Page 69
Planning Board Workshop – Performance Hall Regulations Case Study March 10, 2026



 within approximately one block of each other. Collectively, these four venues contain nearly 10,000
 seats and are located within approximately 1,200 to 1,500 feet of one another, or roughly a three- to
 four-minute walk.

 Across the broader Loop theater district, venues collectively contain approximately 34,500 seats within
 a relatively small portion of downtown. Despite the scale of these facilities and their proximity,
 Chicago’s zoning code does not require off-street parking for theaters in the Downtown Core district,
 where many of these venues are located.

 According to the Chicago Loop Alliance’s Arts in the Loop: Economic Impact Study, the concentration
 of theaters in the Loop contributes to evening activity in the central business district and supports
 nearby restaurants, hotels, and other businesses associated with the performing arts. The study also
 highlights the role of transit access and walkability in supporting the theater district, noting that
 Chicago’s downtown transit system converges in the Loop and allows audiences from across the
 metropolitan region to access multiple venues within a walkable area. As described in the study, these
 conditions have supported the development of the Loop theater district as a dense cluster of venues
 within the downtown core rather than as isolated facilities dispersed throughout the city.

IV. OBSERVATIONS
Across the peer communities reviewed, performance venues are typically permitted within downtown,
commercial, or mixed-use zoning districts and are generally treated as compatible with higher-intensity
urban environments. In both mid-sized and larger cities, theaters and performance halls are regulated
primarily through use classification and district-based permissions that determine where such uses may
locate and whether discretionary land use review is required.

None of the jurisdictions reviewed rely on citywide minimum spacing requirements between performance
venues as a zoning mechanism. Instead, communities regulate entertainment uses through zoning-based
development standards, discretionary review in certain districts, targeted overlay provisions in areas
experiencing concentrated nightlife activity, and operational regulations addressing noise, occupancy,
alcohol service, and event management.

In larger cities with established entertainment economies, zoning frameworks distinguish among different
types of assembly and entertainment uses and regulate them through district standards and, in some cases,
downtown-specific zoning codes. In these jurisdictions, venue clustering in central areas is generally
managed through development standards and operational regulation rather than through spatial separation
between entertainment uses.

One peer community, Portsmouth, NH, applies compatibility standards that include buffers between
certain performance facilities and residential zoning districts. This approach differs from venue-to-venue
spacing and instead focuses on separation between entertainment uses and nearby residential areas.




 8


 Page 70
 Mayor and Council Offices
 Wesley Pelletier
 City Councilor
 January 30, 2026




HEDC Agenda Item #2: Review and recommendation of proposed Amendments to
Chapter 14 Land Use Code regarding the Buffer Zone for Large Performance Halls with
occupancy of 1,000 or more persons.

HEDC Meeting on February 3, 2026


This amendment to the land use code is intended to address widespread constituent concerns
regarding the spacing of large entertainment venues in our downtown area. This amendment
increases the buffer zone on the peninsula (zones B-3 and WCZ) for large entertainment venues–
defined as those with a capacity of over 1000 people – to 750 feet. In doing so, the hope is to
mitigate traffic snarls that are bound to arise from thousands of people arriving to and leaving
from multiple venues at the same time.

As Portland’s density increases, the choices we make today will be felt for generations to come,
and I believe that we as leaders must proactively ensure that we are using the power given to us
by our constituents to ensure that we are building a city that makes sense.



Sincerely,




Wes Pelletier
City Council
City of Portland, Maine




 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101 | o: 207-756-8241 | council@portlandmaine.gov

 Page 71
 City of Portland Parking Study
 for Downtown, The Old Port, and
 The Eastern Waterfront

 Final Report September 2017




infrastructure




 Page 72
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



Contents
A. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Existing Supply and Demand Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 15
 B.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
 B.2 The Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
 B.3 Employment .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
 B.4 Population ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
 B.5 Work Commute Travel Mode ............................................................................................................................... 21
 B.6 Auto Ownership .................................................................................................................................................... 23
C. Existing Parking Information Technology ..................................................................................................................... 24
D. Existing Parking Supply ................................................................................................................................................. 25
 D.1 Structured Parking Supply Inventory .................................................................................................................... 25
 D.2 Structured Parking Monthly Supply and Pricing ................................................................................................... 27
 D.3 Surface Lot Parking ............................................................................................................................................... 29
 D.4 Surface Lot Monthly Supply and Pricing ............................................................................................................... 33
 D.5 On-Street Parking Supply ...................................................................................................................................... 35
 D.6 Total Study Area Parking Supply ........................................................................................................................... 37
 D.7 Time of Day Variation in Parking Supply ............................................................................................................... 41
E. Observed Parking Occupancy ....................................................................................................................................... 42
 E.1 Observed Surface Lot Occupancy ......................................................................................................................... 43
 E.2 Observed Structured Parking Occupancy ............................................................................................................. 47
 E.3 On-Street Parking: Overall Occupancy.................................................................................................................. 52
 E.4 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Street............................................................................................................... 54
 E.4.1 Commercial St from Maple St to India St ...................................................................................................... 54
 E.4.2 Exchange St from Congress St to Fore St ...................................................................................................... 55
 E.4.3 Middle St from Union St to Franklin St ......................................................................................................... 56
 E.4.4 Spring St from High St to Union St ................................................................................................................ 57
 E.4.5 Casco St between Cumberland Ave and Congress St ................................................................................... 58
 E.5 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Block-Face ....................................................................................................... 59
 E.5.1 Thursday 2-Hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face .......................................................................... 59
 E.5.2 Saturday 2-hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face ........................................................................... 66
 E.6 On-Street Parking Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones .................................................................. 72
F. Summary of Observed Parking Results ......................................................................................................................... 75
G. Seasonal Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 79


Fort Hill Infrastructure Contents
 Page 73
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 G.1 Recurring Regional Demand ................................................................................................................................. 79
 G.2 Seasonal Variation in Island Resident and Island Visitor Parking ......................................................................... 84
 G.3 Summer Day Visitor Parking Demand Adjustment ............................................................................................... 88
 G.4 Summer Overnight Visitor Parking Demand ......................................................................................................... 90
 G.5 Adjusted Seasonal Demand .................................................................................................................................. 92
H. Land Use-Based Analysis of Parking Demand ............................................................................................................... 94
I. Existing Conditions Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 97
J. Projected Future Parking Supply and Demand ............................................................................................................. 99
 J.1 Projected Ferry Passenger Parking Demand ....................................................................................................... 100
 J.2 Tourism Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 101
 J.3 Land-Use Development Scenarios Parking Analysis ........................................................................................... 102
 J.3.1 Approved but Unoccupied Land Use Developments ...................................................................................... 103
 J.3.2 Assumed Future Land Use Developments Likely to Occur ............................................................................. 104
 J.3.3 Development Scenario Summaries ................................................................................................................. 105
 J.3.4 Population Analysis of Development Scenarios.............................................................................................. 107
 J.3.5 Employment Analysis of Development Scenarios........................................................................................... 108
 J.3.6 Projection of Future Parking Demand............................................................................................................. 110
 J.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 121
K. Strategy Recommendations and Development .......................................................................................................... 123
 K.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 123
 K.2 Recommended Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 124
 K.2.1 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation Association ........................................................... 124
 K.2.2 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to Address Specific Parking Challenges ....................... 125
 K.2.3 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Programs..................................................................................... 125
 K.2.4 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand Areas ............................................................... 125
 K.2.5 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide ...................................................................................... 126
 K.2.6 Improve Parking Management and Technology ......................................................................................... 126
 K.2.7 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations ......................................................................................... 127
 K.2.8 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses Permits .................................................................. 127
 K.2.9 Increase Car Sharing Use............................................................................................................................. 127
 K.2.10 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study ................ 128
 K.2.11 Additional Transit Recommendations......................................................................................................... 128
 K.2.12 Bicycle Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 128
 K.2.13 Convert Unrestricted Parking...................................................................................................................... 129
 K.2.14 Marketing and Advertising.......................................................................................................................... 129


Fort Hill Infrastructure Contents
 Page 74
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 K.2.15 Additional Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 129
 K.2.16 Construct Additional Structured Public Use Parking Supply ....................................................................... 129
L. Implementation and Funding...................................................................................................................................... 130
 L.1 Local Funding Suggestions .................................................................................................................................. 130
 L.2 State Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 130
 L.3 Federal Funding................................................................................................................................................... 130
 L.3.1 Formula Grant Programs................................................................................................................................. 130
 L.3.2 Competitive Grant Programs .......................................................................................................................... 131
 L.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 132
M. Appendix A: Structured and Surface Lot Parking Inventory with Numbered Maps ................................................... 131
N. Appendix B: On-Street Parking Observed Data Maps and Charts .............................................................................. 138




Fort Hill Infrastructure Contents
 Page 75
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


A. Executive Summary

Currently in the City of Portland, challenges associated with parking are among the most pressing and frequent issues
brought to the City by constituents. This study quantifies the present state of parking supply and demand in a study area
consisting of Downtown, the Old Port, the Central Waterfront, and the Eastern Waterfront. With continued
development expected in the next 10 years, the study also projects future parking supply and demand given approved
and likely development. The study area is show in Figure A1 below outlined in green, a one quarter mile buffer around
the study area is outlined in red.




 Figure A1: The Project Study Area

The study addresses five tasks: Task 1) Existing Supply and Demand analysis, Task 2) Projected Future Parking Supply and
Demand, Task 3) Strategy Recommendations, and Task 4) Implementation and Funding. Each task is described here with
a summary of the key results.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 1 of 179
 Page 76
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Task 1: Existing Supply and Demand Analysis

An inventory of on-street, surface lot, and structured parking supply within the study area was created. The results are
shown in Table A1. The total parking capacity in the study area is 15,669 spaces. This represents the maximum available
parking capacity mid-day on a weekday. Because some off-street parking operators close during the evenings, overnight,
and on weekends; the maximum parking capacity does vary, reaching a low of approximately 12,300 overnight on
weekends. A detailed account of the pattern of supply variation by time of day and weekday versus weekend can be
found in Chapter D.

 Table A1: Study Area Parking Supply Inventory Results
 Downtown/Old Port Central Waterfront Eastern Study Area 1/4 mi
 Waterfront (1-7) Buffer
 Area
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Total On-Street 577 553 337 367 131 94 192 2,251 N/A
 Total Surface Lot Spaces 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 257
 Total Garage Spaces 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050


 Total Capacity 3,272 3,651 1,846 2,273 1,548 1,044 2,035 15,669 1,307
 Effective Capacity 2,916 3,258 1,645 2,027 1,387 935 1,822 13,990 1,176


In Table A1, the effective parking capacity, 13,990 spaces, is defined as the total of 90 percent of the structured and off-
street parking supply and 85 percent of the on-street parking supply. The effective capacity is a concept in parking
analysis that refers to the occupancy level at which parking users begin to have difficulty finding open spaces and vehicle
circulation to access parking begins to exhibit signs of congestion including queuing. The effective capacity is also
thought of as the threshold when a parking supply begins to be perceived by users to be full. If a parking supply reaches
total capacity, vehicles must queue or continue circling until occupied space is vacated.

Table A1 also shows that outside of the defined study area boundary within a one quarter mile buffer area, there is up
to an additional 1,176 spaces in effective parking capacity found in surface lots and structured parking that offer general
use public parking and may be used by travelers destined for the study area. The supply outside of the study area is
shared with land use outside of the study area. The parking demand generated by land use outside of the study area was
not calculated during this study, therefore the exact amount of unoccupied parking available within the quarter mile
buffer area for use by travelers to the study area is not known. It is estimated however, that several hundred spaces are
needed in the quarter mile buffer area to meet the demand of employee monthly parking within the study area. More
detail on the estimated supply and demand for monthly parking is presented in Chapter D.

Task 1 included an estimation of current parking demand. An observed parking occupancy survey was conducted on one
Thursday and one Saturday in December 2016. A sample of structured, surface lot, and on-street parking facilities were
observed through manual data collection and voluntary reporting by structured parking operators. Because the
observations were made during Winter, the observed parking occupancy results were adjusted for the peak Summer
season using supplementary data on seasonal variation in ferry passenger demand and data on seasonal tourism from
the Maine Office of Tourism.

Combining the observed occupancy results of the parking survey and adjusting for additional peak season demand using
supplementary data, the peak season weekday parking demand by time of day is shown below in Figure A2. The peak
occurs at 12pm when parking demand reaches 14,280 vehicles. The estimated peak weekday demand at 12pm is 290
vehicles above the effective parking capacity of the study area at that time.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 2 of 179
 Page 77
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 16,500 15,669
 15,129
 15,000
 13,990 13,970 14,280 14,120 14,060
 13,450
 13,500 12,790 13,150
 11,440
 12,000 12,020


 10,500 10,210

 9,080

Vehicles
 9,000 8,460
 7,630
 7,500


 6,000


 4,500


 3,000


 1,500


 -
 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm

 Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots
 On-Street Day Visitor Adjustment Ferry Demand Adjustment
 Overnight Visitor Adjustment Effective Capacity Adjusted Total



 Figure A2: Estimated Peak Season Weekday Parking Demand by Time of Day

The estimated peak season Saturday parking demand result is shown below in Figure A3. The peak hour for parking
demand occurs at 2pm when an estimated 9,320 vehicles park in the study area. The estimated peak Saturday demand
at 2pm is approximately 3,840 vehicles below the effective parking capacity of the study area of 13,160 at that time.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 3 of 179
 Page 78
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 16,500

 14,750
 15,000 14,150
 13,820
 13,500 13,164
 12,624
 12,329

 12,000


 10,500
 9,320 9,020
 8,850 8,620 8,640 8,740 8,780 8,870

Vehicles
 9,000 8,240
 7,410 7,830

 7,500


 6,000


 4,500


 3,000


 1,500


 -
 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm


 Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots
 On-Street Day Visitor Adjusted Ferry Demand
 Overnight Visitor Adjusted Effective Capacity Adjusted Total
 Total Capacity




 Figure A3: Estimated Peak Season Saturday Parking Demand by Time of Day

The results of the on-street parking occupancy survey individually show that during the weekday evening and on
Saturday after 1pm, on-street parking is likely at or over effective capacity in the study area. Effective capacity for on-
street parking is defined here as 85 percent of on-street spaces occupied. The implications of this finding are that at
times when there is parking availability in surface lots and structured parking, such as weekday evenings and on
Saturday, on-street parking is highly occupied and difficult for users to find. Findings on Portland’s on-street and off-
street parking pricing relative to peer cities are included in Chapter D.

Figures A4 and A5 show the observed Thursday and Saturday on-street parking occupancies for the overall on-street
survey sample. The Thursday results show an overall occupancy above 85 percent at 7pm only, however individual
streets varied and some high demand streets such as Commercial St, Middle St, and Exchange St exhibited higher
occupancy rates than the overall sample. A detailed account of the on-street parking occupancy survey results by street
and block face appears in Chapter E of this report.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 4 of 179
 Page 79
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 100.0%
 87.1%
 90.0% 80.3% 82.4% 84.3%84.0%
 79.2% 78.6%
 74.8% 75.7%
 80.0% 71.9% 73.2%




 Parking Spaces Ocupied
 70.0% 63.9%

 60.0%54.5%
 50.0%
 40.0%
 30.0%
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm

 On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full


 Figure A4: Thursday Overall On-Street Parking Occupancy



 100.0% 92.9% 94.1% 97.5%
 88.1%
 90.0% 84.3% 83.6% 84.9% 87.4%
 75.5%




 Parking Spaces Occupied
 80.0% 69.0%
 70.0%
 60.0%
 58.9%
 50.0%
 40.0%
 30.0%
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm

 On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full


 Figure A5: Saturday Overall On-Street Parking Occupancy

A second method was used to estimate overall parking demand in the study area based on Land-Use. Parking generation
factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) were used to create
estimates of weekday and weekend parking demand based on land-use data provided by the City’s tax assessor. The
results are shown in Figures A6 and A7 below. Weekday results show a peak parking demand at 2pm of 14,470 vehicles,
which is 480 vehicles more than the effective capacity at that time. Weekend results show two peaks, a recurring
parking demand peak between 12pm and 1pm of 9,390 vehicles, and an evening peak which would occur during a sold
out arena event of 10,350 vehicles.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 5 of 179
 Page 80
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 17,000
 16,000 15,669
 15,129
 15,000 13,990 13,876 13,893 14,471 13,993 14,461
 14,000 13,504 13,463

 13,000 12,712 12,90212,004
 13,136
 12,000
 11,659
 11,000
 10,000 10,019



 Parked Vehicles
 9,000 8,423
 7,180 7,772
 8,000
 7,000 6,931
 6,000 3,592 4,584
 5,000 3,832
 4,000
 3,000
 2,000
 1,000
 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Office/Industrial Residential Other Services
 Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers
 Total Capacity Effective Capcity Total Estimated


 Figure A6: Land-Use Generated Parking Demand Estimate for a Weekday




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 6 of 179
 Page 81
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 16,000

 15,000 14,752
 13,824 14,152
 13,824
 14,000 13,426 13,426
 12,645 13,164 12,665
 12,624
 13,000 12,329
 11,971
 12,329
 12,000 11,286
 11,971
 11,000 11,268 10,353

 10,000 9,390 9,339 9,071




 Parked Vehicles
 9,266
 9,000

 8,000 7,184
 7,000

 6,000 4,967
 5,000

 4,000

 3,000

 2,000

 1,000

 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Office/Industrial Residential Other Services
 Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers
 Total Capacity Effective Capacity Total Estimate


 Figure A7: Land-Use Generated Parking Demand Estimate for a Weekend Day



A summary of the overall parking supply and demand findings are presented in Tables A2 and A3. The conclusion is that
at present, during the peak summer season on weekdays in the afternoon, parking demand in the study area is likely
between 290 and 480 vehicles beyond the effective parking capacity of supply within the study area. On Saturday’s
during the peak season, parking demand is well below effective capacity overall, yet on-street parking is over capacity
after 1pm as was shown in Figure A5.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 7 of 179
 Page 82
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table A2: Weekday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary

 Weekday Peak
 Demand Estimation Method Peak Full Effectively  Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
 Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 at Peak Level Effectively Needed
 Full

 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 12pm 15,670 13,990 11,540 2,450 1,680 4,130 -
 2016
 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 2016 + Peak Season 12pm 15,670 13,990 14,280 -290 1,390 1,390 290
 Adjustments
 ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated
 Demand (50th percentile 2pm 15,670 13,990 14,470 -480 1,200 1,200 480
 factors)




 Table A3: Saturday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary

 Saturday Peak
 Demand Estimation Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
 Method Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 at Peak Level Effectively Needed
 Full
 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 2pm 14,750 13,160 6,190 6,970 1,590 8,560 -
 2016
 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 2016 + Peak Season 2pm 14,750 13,160 9,320 3,840 1,590 5,430 -
 Adjustments

 ITE/ULI Land-Use
 Calculated Demand (50th 12pm 14,750 13,160 9,390 3,770 1,590 5,360 -
 percentile factors)

 ITE/ULI Land-Use
 Calculated Demand (50th
 8pm 13,820 12,330 10,350 1,980 1,490 3,470 -
 percentile factors) with
 8pm Arena Event




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 8 of 179
 Page 83
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Task 2: Projected Future Parking Demand

Future parking supply and demand 10 years from now is projected considering ferry passenger growth, tourism trends
to the Casco Bay Region, and three land use development scenarios that include newly build parking supply. Detailed
information on the methodology and development projects included in the projections appear in Chapter J. Figure A8 is
a map of included development projects in the analysis.




 Figure A8: Future Development Projects Included in the 10-year Future Parking Demand Analysis

The parking projections were created by adding the projected land use development to existing land use and applying
the same land-use based parking generation methodology as the existing conditions analysis. Three development
scenarios were considered, a full build-out, a scenario including all approved projects plus 75 percent of likely projects,
and a scenario including all approved projects plus 50 percent of likely projects. For the scaled down scenarios, newly
built parking was scaled down along with expected development. The population and employment implications of the
three scenarios in comparison to Portland’s comprehensive plan are discussed in Chapter J.

Tables A4 and A5 summarize the projected parking supply and demand of the future scenarios. On weekdays during the
peak season, the full build-out scenario is projected to result in parking demand that is 940 vehicles more than the
projected effective parking capacity of the study area. The approved plus 75 percent of likely projects scenario is
expected to result in parking demand that is 900 vehicles more than projected effective capacity, and the approved plus
50 percent of likely projects scenario is expected to result in a parking demand that is 840 vehicles more than projected


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 9 of 179
 Page 84
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

effective parking capacity. On Saturdays during the peak season, all development scenarios are projected to result in
parking demand that is still below the effective parking capacity of the study area.



 Table A4: Weekday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year
 Future Scenarios

 Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
  Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 Area at Level Effectively Needed
 Peak Full

 Existing + 2pm 18,870 16,870 17,810 -940 1,060 1,060 940
 Full Build-
 Out
 Existing + 2pm 18,100 16,170 17,070 -900 1,030 1,030 900
 (Approved +
 75% Likely)
 Existing + 2pm 17,330 15,480 16,320 -840 1,010 1,010 840
 (Approved +
 50% Likely)




  Table A5: Saturday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year
 Future Scenarios

 Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
  Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 Area at Level Effectively Needed
 Peak Full

 Existing + 8pm 17,020 15,320 13,360 1,960 1,700 3,660 -
 Full Build-
 Out
 Existing + 8pm 16,250 14,510 12,830 1,680 1,740 3,420 -
 (Approved +
 75% Likely)
 Existing + 8pm 15,480 13,820 12,310 1,510 1,660 3,170 -
 (Approved +
 50% Likely)


Figures A9 and A10 show the future parking demand projections graphically.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 10 of 179
 Page 85
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 21,000
 18,870
 19,000 17,810 18,100
 17,070 17,330
 16,870
 17,000 16,170 16,320
 15,480
 15,000

 Vehicles 13,000

 11,000

 9,000

 7,000

 5,000
 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50%
 Likely) Likely)
 Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 2pm Weekday Demand


 Figure A9: Weekday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year
 Future Scenarios


 21,000

 19,000
 17,020
 17,000 16,250
 15,210 15,480
 15,000 14,510
 13,820

 Vehicles
 13,360
 12,830
 13,000 12,310

 11,000

 9,000

 7,000

 5,000
 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50%
 Likely) Likely)

 Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 8pm Satuday Demand


Figure A10: Saturday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year
 Future Scenarios



Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 11 of 179
 Page 86
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Based on the results of the future parking supply and demand projections, we recommend a planning goal of reducing
parking demand the study area by a range of 700-750 vehicles within a 10-year period. Parking demand should be
managed to be at or just under the weekday peak hour effective capacity of parking supply inside of the study area,
which is projected to be in a range between approximately 15,480 to 16,870 parking spaces depending on the future
development scenario.

Table A6 summarizes the derivation of the recommended parking demand reduction.

 Table A6: Recommended 10-year Parking Demand Reduction

 Scenario Study Area Peak Season Parking Demand
 Deficit Relative to Effective Capacity (in
 vehicles during the peak hour)
 Weekday Saturday
  Existing Condition Observed + Adjusted 290 0
  Existing Condition Land-Used Based 480 0
  Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods 190 0

  #1 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Full Build-Out 940 0
  #2 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 75%
  Likely Development 900 0
  #3 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 50%
  Likely Development 840 0

  #1- (Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 750 0
  #2- (Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 710 0
  #3- (Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 650 0


  Recommended Planning Range Goal for 10- year Parking Demand
  Reduction 700-750 0




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 12 of 179
 Page 87
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Task 3: Strategy Recommendations & Task 4 Implementation and Funding

Reducing demand for parking does not mean reducing trips to the study area. A set of recommendations were
developed to use technology, emerging mobility on demand services, and enhancement of transit and bicycle
infrastructure to reduce reliance on the personal vehicle for transportation to the study area. The recommendations
also aim to provide options for better management of the City’s existing parking resources, as well as an enhanced user
experience. The specific parking challenges of employers, island residents, and low-wage earners are addressed in the
recommendations and explained in greater detail in Chapter K.

Local, state, and federal funding assistance for the parking demand reduction and management recommendations are
detailed in Chapter J. New sources of local funding include membership dues to a new transportation association, a
development impact fee, and a special purpose parking meter rate increase on high demand streets to fund targeted
programs. State funding was not found to be a likely source of funding with the exception of a possible contribution
toward a local match to leverage federal funding. Federal funding assistance is possible for a number of the
recommendations, and a discussion is included in Chapter J on relevant federal formula grants and competitive grants
for which the City of Portland or another eligible agency in the study area could create a proposal.

Table A7 lists the parking demand reduction and management recommendations along with a suggested timeframe of
implementation and suggested funding sources.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 13 of 179
 Page 88
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Table A7: Strategy Recommendations and Suggested Funding Sources



 Strategy Recommendations Suggested Suggested Funding Sources
 Implementation
 Timeframe
 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation 1-2 years Private membership dues, Federal
 Association Formula Grant, City Funds
 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to 1-3 years User fees, City Funds, Development
 Address Specific Parking Challenges for Constituents Impact Fee, Special Purpose Meter
 (employers, island residents, low-wage earners) Rate Increase, Federal Formula or
 Competitive Grant
 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Programs 1-2 years City Funds
 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand 1-2 years City Funds
 Areas
 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide 2 years City Funds
 Improve Parking Management and Technology 1 year -ongoing City Funds, Federal Formula or
 Competitive Grant
 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations 1 year City Funds
 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses 1 year City Funds
 Permits
 Increase Car Sharing Use 1 year -ongoing City Funds, Federal Formula or
 Competitive Grant
 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from 1-5 years City Funds, Development Impact Fee,
 the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study Federal Formula or Competitive
 Grant
 Additional Transit Recommendations 1-5 years City Funds, Development Impact Fee,
 Federal Formula or Competitive
 Grant
 Bicycle Infrastructure 1 year -ongoing City Funds, Development Impact Fee,
 Federal Formula or Competitive
 Grant
 Convert Unrestricted Parking 3-5 years City Funds
 Marketing and Advertising 1 year-ongoing City Funds, Private/nonprofit
 funds/partnerships
 Additional Data Collection 2 years-ongoing City Funds, Private Donations,
 Federal Formula Grant
 Construct New Structured Parking. Consider Requireing a Depending on Private Financing
 Repurposeable Design development,
 3-7 years




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 14 of 179
 Page 89
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

B. Existing Supply and Demand Analysis
B.1 Introduction
As Task 1 of The City of Portland Parking Study for the Eastern Waterfront & Old Port, Fort Hill Infrastructure conducted
an existing conditions analysis. Task 1 objectives included:

  Inventorying the existing parking supply within the study area,
  Collecting parking occupancy data on one weekday and one weekend day during the winter,
  Adjusting the collected parking data to represent the peak season,
  Conducting interviews with parking stakeholders,
  Identifying key parking issues related to employees of the study area, island residents, visitors, and study area
 residents,
  Identify subareas within the study area that may be experiencing more parking challenges than others.

B.2 The Study Area
The study area included what is generally considered Downtown Portland south of Cumberland Avenue encompassing
some of the Arts District, all of the Old Port, the Waterfront (referred to here as the Central Waterfront), and the
Eastern Waterfront. Figure 1 below shows the study area boundary. A one quarter mile buffer area boundary is shown
outside of the study area.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 15 of 179
 Page 90
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 1: The Study Area Boundary and Subareas

To allow for a more localized analysis in some sections of this report, the study area was divided into 7 subarea zones.
Table 1 describes the streets demarcating the subarea zones.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 16 of 179
 Page 91
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 1: Description of Subarea Zones

 Zone Location Area Dividing Streets Within the Study Area
 (acres)
 Downtown/
 1 63.7 North of Spring St, West of Preble St, West of Center St.
 Old Port
 Downtown/
 2 49.8 North of Spring St/Middle St, East of Center St, East of Preble St.
 Old Port
 Downtown/
 3 32.7 South of Spring St, West of Union St, North of Commercial St.
 Old Port
 Downtown/ South of Spring St/Middle St, East of Union St, North of Commercial St., West of
 4 30.3
 Old Port Franklin St.
 Central
 5 58.5 South of Commercial St, Hobson's Wharf to Long Wharf.
 Waterfront
 Central
 6 40.5 South of Commercial St, Long Wharf to Maine State Pier.
 Waterfront
 Eastern
 7 52.6 East of Franklin St, Bounded by Fore St and part of Middle St to the North.
 Waterfront
 Total 328.1



B.3 Employment
Employment growth in the Portland region and study area is considered here briefly to give a sense of the economic
climate in which this parking study occurred. Between 2002 and 2014, a period that included The Great Recession of
2007 to 2009, employment growth was modest in the study area with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.7%
annually. During this 12-year period, employment growth in the study area slightly outpaced the City of Portland the
Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)1. Between 2010 and 2014, post-recession, employment grew in the study
area at a faster CAGR of 2.2%. The rate of employment growth in the study area was, however, lower than the national
employment growth rate during the same period as shown in Table 2. The Peninsula refers to the area south east of I-
295.

 Table 2: Recent Employment Growth in the Study Area and Regionally

 Study Area Peninsula Jobs City of Portland Portland-South U.S. Jobs
 Jobs Jobs Portland-Biddeford
 MSA Jobs
 2002 15,721 33,987 63,912 235,145 114,115,409
 2010 15,594 34,689 65,645 240,494 123,344,995
 2014 17,149 36,607 67,648 247,487 135,035,443
 Change '02-'14 9.1% 7.7% 5.8% 5.2% 18.3%
 CAGR '02-'14 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 1.4%
 CAGR '10-'14 2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 1.3% 4.3%
 Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau.




1
 The Portland, ME MSA includes Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York Counties

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 17 of 179
 Page 92
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

The employment distribution among the subarea zones is shown in Table 3. Subarea Zone 4, in the Old Port, contains
the most jobs, over 25% of the total study area employment, and has the highest employment density of the subarea
zones at 144 jobs per acre. The subarea zones on the Central and Eastern Waterfronts currently contain fewer jobs,
however as a subsequent chapter will show, the Waterfront zones are expected to see significant employment growth in
the next 10 years.
 Table 3: Subarea Zone Employment

 Location Zone Area Primary Non- All Jobs Percentage Employment
 (acres) Jobs Primary 2014 of All Jobs Density
 2014 Jobs 2014 2014 Jobs/Acre
 Downtown/ Old Port 1 63.7 3,722 349 4,071 23.7% 63.9
 Downtown/ Old Port 2 49.8 3,764 219 3,983 23.2% 80.0
 Downtown/ Old Port 3 32.7 2,045 91 2,136 12.5% 65.3
 Downtown/ Old Port 4 30.3 4,088 274 4,362 25.4% 144.0
 Central Waterfront 5 58.5 750 38 788 4.6% 13.5
 Central Waterfront 6 40.5 948 89 1,037 6.0% 25.6
 Eastern Waterfront 7 52.6 740 32 772 4.5% 14.7
 Study Area 328.1 16,057 1,092 17,149 100.0% 52.3
  Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau. Non-Primary Jobs are jobs for which there is
  more than one worker.

A majority of workers employed in the study area, 70%, do not live within the city limits of the City of Portland. Just
under 2% of study area workers currently live within the study area boundary. Figure 2 shows the home origins of
workers in the study area as of 2014.

 2.2% Sagadahoc County

39.8% Within Cumberland 12.0% York County
County and outside of the 12.0% On the Peninsula
 City of Portland but outside of the…




 30.0% The City of Portland




 16.2% Within the City but
 outside of the Peninsula




 1.9% Within the Study…


 3.0% Androscoggin 12.9% Beyond the Portland-South Portland- Lewiston CSA (outside
 County the 4 counties shown)

 Figure 2: Study Area Worker Home Origins in 2014

 Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 18 of 179
 Page 93
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

In Table 4, the home zip codes of study area workers who live within the City of Portland give a sense that Portland City
residents who work within the study area are distributed roughly evenly among the City’s zip codes, with the exception
of zip codes covering the islands.

 Table 4: Study Area Workers from City of Portland Zip Codes

 Home Origin of Worker Study Area Jobs Percent of All Study Area Jobs
 04101 Downtown-East End-Bayside (includes study area) 1,970 12%
 04102 West End-Stroudwater 1,400 9%
 04103 North Deering-Deering Center 1,709 11%
 04108 Peaks Island 61 <0.1%
 04109 Great Diamond, Little Diamond Island 5 <0.1%
 Source: 2014 Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. U.S. Census Bureau.



Of the workers who live outside of the City of Portland, Table 5 shows the top ten zip codes from which workers
commute. Any mobility solution for commuting workers to the study area should take into consideration where more
workers tend to begin their commute.

 Table 5: The Top Ten Zip Codes of Study Area Workers Outside of the City of Portland

 Home Origin of Worker Study Area Percent of All
 Jobs Study Area Jobs
 04106 South Portland 1,347 8%
 04092 Westbrook Area 686 4%
 04074 Scarborough Area 674 4%
 04105 Falmouth Area 547 3%
 04107 Cape Elizabeth Area 525 3%
 04062 Windham Area 440 3%
 04038 Gorham Area 424 2%
 04072 Saco Area 411 2%
 04096 Yarmouth Area 328 2%
 04021 Cumberland Center Area 317 2%
 Source: 2014 Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. U.S.
 Census Bureau.

Figure 3 maps the zip codes shown in Table 5. The zip code boundaries are populated with dots representing workers to
give a visual sense of relative worker density, although the dots are distributed evenly in each zip code boundary and not
to actual worker home locations. South Portland, Zip Code 04106, and Westbrook, Zip Code 04092, stand out as
particularly important commuter markets for the study area located outside of the City of Portland due to their
relatively high density of study area worker homes.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 19 of 179
 Page 94
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 3: Study Area Workers by Zip Code Outside the City of Portland

B.4 Population
As shown in Table 6 , according to the 2015 American Community Survey 5-year sample, Census Tract 3 in Cumberland
County, which has a boundary that closely matches the study area, has a total resident population of 2,600. Since 2000,
the total population in the study area has decreased, evidently due to a significant drop in the population living in group
quarters, which includes group homes, institutions, shelters, etc. However, the number of occupied households in the
study area and the population living in occupied households has remained relatively constant in the last 15 years, as
shown in Table 7. In contrast, the Portland MSA gained population at a rate of nearly 7 percent during the same period.

 Table 6: Total Population in the Study Area and Regionally

 Year Study Peninsula City of Portland Portland-South Portland-
 Area Biddeford MSA
 2000 3,125 23,168 64,249 487,568
 2015 2,589 23,248 66,490 520,893
 Change '00-'15 -17% 0.3% 3.5% 6.8%
 Sources: 2000 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 20 of 179
 Page 95
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Table 7: Study Area Population in Occupied Households

 Year Occupied Population in
 Households Occupied
 Households
 2000 1,709 2,434
 2015 1,729 2,441
 Change '00-'15 1.2% 0.3%
 Sources: 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.

The resident population within the study area is shown in Table 8. It shows that existing population within the study
area is heavily concentrated in Subarea Zone 1 with approximately 63% of the population. Subarea Zones 5, 6, and 7,
along the Central and Eastern Waterfronts currently have the fewest residents, however a subsequent chapter will show
that these zones are expected to see significant residential development in the near future.

 Table 8: Subarea Zone Population

 Location Zone Area Pop% HH %
 (acres)
 Downtown/Old Port 1 63.7 63% 61%
 Downtown/Old Port 2 49.8 8% 9%
 Downtown/Old Port 3 32.7 10% 9%
 Downtown/Old Port 4 30.3 8% 8%
 Central Waterfront 5 58.5 4% 5%
 Central Waterfront 6 40.5 0% 0%
 Eastern Waterfront 7 52.6 7% 8%
 Study Area 328.1 100% 100%
 Sources: 2010 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. Census Block Level Data.




B.5 Work Commute Travel Mode
To get a sense of commuting trends in the Portland region, journey to work data from the 2000 census and 2015 ACS 5-
year estimate were compared. The data describes how workers who live in a defined area commute to work collectively
to all jobs. It is not possible to exclusively isolate how those who work in the study area commute, as that information
would need to be extracted from a regional travel demand model or collected through a travel survey.

The data shows significantly lower shares of drive alone commuting for workers who live in the study area or on the
Peninsula as compared to the City and MSA. The share of workers who walk to work is very high in the study area at 43
percent in 2015, implying that those who live in the study area tend to work within a walkable distance from home.

Table 9 summarizes regional commuting trends between 2000 and 2015, the key insights are:

  The share of commuters who drive alone decreased in the region, and residents of the study area
 shifted away from driving alone more than the region with nearly a 9 percent decrease;


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 21 of 179
 Page 96
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

  Carpooling decreased everywhere except with residents of the study area where the carpool mode to
 work rose by nearly 7 percent;
  Transit commute mode share appears to have decreased slightly for residents who live in the urban core
 of the Portland region, yet the region saw a very small 0.1% increase in transit ridership suggesting that
 commuters living outside of the City of Portland have accounted for the small regional net gain in transit
 commute share;
  Bicycle commute mode share increased on the Peninsula at just over 1 percent, yet residents of the
 study area appeared to be commuting by bicycle less in 2015 compared to 2000;
  Walk mode share increased everywhere with impressive gains of nearly 9 percent on the Peninsula and
 nearly 12 percent for residents of the study area;
  The share of workers who worked from home increased everywhere except for the study area, which
 saw a nearly 4 percent drop in the share of home workers.


 Table 9: Commute Mode Share Trends by Home Origin

 Commuter Home Origin Drive Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Work from Home
 Alone & Other
 Portland-South Portland- 78.3% 9.3% 1.1% 0.6% 3.9% 7.0%
 Biddeford MSA
 2015 City of Portland 67.4% 8.6% 3.1% 1.6% 12.2% 7.3%
 On the Peninsula 49.2% 6.9% 4.7% 2.8% 28.6% 7.9%
 Within the Study Area 40.6% 10.2% 3.5% 0% 42.5% 3.2%
 Commuter Home Origin Drive Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Work from Home
 Alone & Other
 Portland-South Portland- 79.8% 10.2% 1.0% 0.3% 3.7% 5.0%
 Biddeford MSA
 2000 City of Portland 70.7% 10.8% 3.9% 1.1% 8.9% 4.5%
 On the Peninsula 56.8% 11.8% 5.0% 1.7% 19.7% 4.9%
 Within the Study Area 49.4% 3.9% 8.5% 0.5% 30.8% 6.9%
 Commuter Home Origin Drive Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Work from Home
 Alone & Other
 Portland-South Portland- -1.5% -0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.9%
 Biddeford MSA
 Change '00-'15 City of Portland -3.3% -2.2% -0.8% 0.5% 3.3% 2.8%
 On the Peninsula -7.6% -4.8% -0.4% 1.1% 8.9% 2.9%
 Within the Study Area -8.8% 6.3% -5.0% -0.5% 11.7% -3.7%
Sources: 2000 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 22 of 179
 Page 97
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

B.6 Auto Ownership
Auto ownership trends between 2000 and 2015 in the Portland MSA looked more or less like the nation as a whole, with
growth in the number of vehicles available per occupied household of 3.3 percent in the Portland MSA versus 3.9
percent nationally. The City of Portland had higher growth in auto ownership than national and region rates with an
increase of 4.4 percent.

The urban core of Portland had slower rate of growth in vehicles per household during the 15-year period. Household
vehicle ownership rates on The Peninsula grew by a rate of 2.6 percent during the period while the study area grew at a
rather marginal rate of 1.1 percent. In 2015, Peninsula residents owned vehicles at a rate of 0.97 per household. Within
the study area, the rate was 0.7 vehicles per household, well below the national average of 1.76 vehicles per household
and the regional Portland average of 1.79 vehicles per household. It is interesting to note that while auto ownership
levels rose, commuting to work by single occupancy vehicle appears to have decreased in the Portland region over the
same timeframe. Table 10 shows the regional auto ownership trends normalized by occupied households.



 Table 10: Auto Ownership 2000-2015

 Home Location Vehicles Occupied Veh/HH
 Households
 2015 Total U.S. 205,767,452 116,926,305 1.76
 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford MSA 383,798 214,667 1.79
 City of Portland 40,495 30,119 1.34
 On the Peninsula 11,611 11,917 0.97
 Within the Study Area 1,206 1,729 0.70
 Home Location Vehicles Occupied Veh/HH
 Households
 2000 Total U.S. 178,344,236 105,480,101 1.69
 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford MSA 340,344 196,669 1.73
 City of Portland 38,283 29,715 1.29
 On the Peninsula 11,468 12,073 0.95
 Within the Study Area 1,179 1,709 0.69
 Home Location Vehicles Occupied Veh/HH
 Households
 Change '00-'15 Total U.S. 13.3% 9.8% 3.9%
 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford MSA 12.8% 9.2% 3.3%
 City of Portland 5.8% 1.4% 4.4%
 On the Peninsula 1.2% -1.3% 2.6%
 Within the Study Area 2.3% 1.2% 1.1%
Sources: 2000 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 23 of 179
 Page 98
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

C. Existing Parking Information Technology
Many cities are making detailed parking data available to users in real time. It is encouraging that the following
smartphone apps are either already available in Portland, or will soon be:

  Expected in the Fall of 2017, the new City of Portland Parking app that will allow for payment of on-street
 parking using a smartphone for the first time. Users will get updates on the app including alerts for expiring time
 and will have the opportunity to add more time up to the allowable limit. The app will be functional using both
 multi-space kiosk and traditional coin operated metered spaces. If over time the app can be enhanced to
 provide on-street occupancy and wayfinding to open on-street spaces, it could be helpful for Portland to dispel
 negative perceptions about parking availability. The new app along with the City’s new electronic enforcement
 technology should help the city better manage on-street parking supply.

  The Passport Parking app is used by the largest surface lot operator in the study area, Unified Parking Partners.
 The Passport app already informs users where to find surface lot space on a map of Portland, allows for price
 comparison, hourly or multi-hour parking purchasing, and the app interfaces seamlessly with Google Maps for
 wayfinding. The interface could be improved by displaying price information earlier in the transaction process to
 quicken price comparing and including information on real-time lot occupancy.

  Spare Spott is a parking app operating in Portland that allows commercial parking operators or commercial
 property owners to sell transient parking at underperforming locations that may have low visibility or are
 grouped in small numbers in “spare” locations. The app markets itself as a way for operators who do not have
 their own app to connect with customers and sell underperforming spaces. The app splits profit with the owner.
 Hourly prices are displayed on a map of Portland prominently, making price shopping easy upon fist opening the
 app. The company may raise or lower hourly rates based on demand every six months.

  ParkMe and Parkopedia are global parking apps and websites that began as mostly informational but are
 evolving into full service parking apps as more operators share real-time information and partner with them to
 allow reservations. Substantial information on parking facility operating hours, prices, and facility size, and
 wayfinding is currently available for Downtown Portland using both apps. A limited number of parking operators
 currently allow the purchasing of parking using the apps. ParkMe also provides real-time occupancy at
 structured parking facilities, and in some markets, such as Washington, DC, the coverage of occupancy data at
 downtown garages is impressive. Currently, just one floor of the One City Center Garage in Portland appears to
 provide real-time occupancy information to the ParkMe app. With more parking operator partnerships, these
 apps could become excellent tools for prospective parking users.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 24 of 179
 Page 99
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

D. Existing Parking Supply
D.1 Structured Parking Supply Inventory
Structured parking garages were inventoried in the study area using existing City parking survey data, supplemental
aerial imagery, and information from City staff. The parking structures shown below in Figure 4 are categorized as either:

Public Use- Daily general purpose public parking use including monthly and transient users. Blocks of passes may be held
by employers and or hotels/business for customers. Allocation of space to monthly pass holders and transient users is
typically managed in real time with the help of software.

Private Commercial- Parking reserved for the employees and customers of commercial tenants in attached or nearby
buildings.

Private Residential- Parking reserved exclusively for residents of attached or nearby buildings.

Private with Limited Public Use- Parking reserved for private tenants of attached or nearby buildings with some
allowance for general use public parking either through monthly parking passes or limited transient hours typically
during off-peak periods.


 Figure 4: Structured Parking




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 25 of 179
 Page 100
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



An inventory of the number of parking structures by subarea zone and primary use is shown in Table 11. The land area
consumed by structured parking is included. Where a parking structure fit within the structural footprint of a
commercial or residential structure, the land area was not counted. This exception does not include parking structures
with ground floor retail. Two public use garages within the quarter mile buffer area surrounding the study area are also
included.


 Table 11: Structured Parking Inventory: Quantity and Area

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi
 Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer
 Total Area+

  Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  Public Use 3 4 1 2 0 1 1 12 2
  Private with Limited Public Use 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 N/A
  Private Use 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 8 N/A
  Total Parking Structures 4 5 2 4 1 3 2 21 2


  Structured Parking Area (acres)* 2.6 2.8 0.9 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.9 9.5 2.0
  Subarea Zone Land Area (acres) 63.7 49.8 32.7 30.3 58.5 40.5 52.6 328.1 N/A
  Structured Parking pct Land
  Area 4.1% 5.6% 2.6% 5.3% 0.0% 1.8% 1.7% 2.9% N/A

 *The areas of parking structures built beneath a commercial or residential building are not included.
 + Structured parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included the Chestnut St garage and the Public Market garage.


Structured parking capacities are summarized in Table 11. The Downtown/Old Port contains the most structured parking
in the study area, with Subarea Zones 1 and 2 containing just over half of the structured parking. Total structured
parking capacity totals 7,013 spaces with 87% percent of total spaces (6,113) located in garages operated for public use.
There are an additional 1,050 structured parking spaces outside of the study area north of Cumberland Avenue within
the quarter mile buffer area. Effective capacity is defined as 90 percent of total capacity, which is the maximum
occupancy level attained before users have high difficulty locating spaces and queuing begins to occur in and around the
facility.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 26 of 179
 Page 101
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 12: Structured Parking Inventory: Spaces

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi
 Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer
 Area+
 Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Public Use 1560 1946 285 1184 0 418 720 6,113 1050
 Private with Limited Public Use 0 0 195 0 0 0 0 195 N/A
 Private Commercial 0 73 0 284 0 20 0 377 N/A
 Private Residential 37 0 0 0 150 30 111 328 N/A
 Total Capacity 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050
 Effective Capacity (90%) 1,437 1,817 432 1,321 135 421 748 6,312 945
+ Structured parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included the Chestnut St garage and the Public Market garage.



D.2 Structured Parking Monthly Supply and Pricing
The exact number of monthly spaces sold at privately operated garages is considered confidential information and was
not shared by operators for this study. The amount of monthly parking offered is sometimes set by lending terms.
Parking operators set their rate structures and parking mix (monthly vs. transient) to maximize revenue. Transient
parking users pay a higher daily rate but can be a less reliable source of revenue. Many structured parking operators use
software to optimize the parking mix offered. The amount of monthly parking available to employees in the study area is
among the most important parking issues Portland is facing, as employers have voiced frustration over the scarcity of
monthly parking for new employees.

Table 13 shows what the quantity of monthly structured parking would likely be under a range of reasonable
assumptions for different types of structured parking.

For the public use structures, a low range of 65 percent and a high range of 85 percent of total capacity for daytime
monthly parking was assumed, including an oversell rate of 10 percent. Oversell rates are possible because of the daily
probability of monthly parker absenteeism, vacation, and time differences in worker shifts. Reserved parking is not
typical in Portland except for in private commercial and residential garages. Monthly supply in private commercial
garages was estimated as the total capacity since these structures are primarily built to accommodate the employees of
attached structures.

Garages primarily for hotel patron use were estimated at 15 percent to 20 percent monthly. Although residential parking
structures do not typically contract out monthly parking for nearby employees, an estimated 12 percent of structured
residential spaces are counted towards monthly parking capacity because it is unlikely that residents who both live and
work within the study area would pay to re-park their vehicles at their place of employment. The 12 percent estimate is
derived from dividing the number of primary job holders who both live and work in the study area, 3002 by the adult
population of the study area, 2,4313.




2
 Source: 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the latest year available.
3
 Source: 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. 18 years and over population of Census
Tract 3 in Cumberland County Maine.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 27 of 179
 Page 102
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Table 13: Structured Parking Pricing and Estimate of Monthly Structured Parking

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study Area 1/4 mi
 Waterfront Waterfront (1-7) Buffer
 Area+
 Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Total Capacity 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050
 Effective Capacity
 1,437 1,817 432 1,321 135 421 748 6,312 945
 (Spaces)
 Estimate of Monthly 1,020- 1,460- 1,130- 18-
 70-100 320-410 530-690 4,650-5,960 680-880
 Spaces 1,460 1,890 1,390 20

 Monthly Percentage of 70%- 72- 15-
 77-95% 12% 68-88% 64-83% 66-85% 71-93%
 Total Spaces (Estimate) 91% 94% 20%



 Average Monthly Price $120 $126 $120 $160 N/A $155 $155 $134 $120
 Average Daily $25 $30 $16 $45 N/A $40 $50 $32 $35
 Average Hourly Price $2.60 $3.10 $1.75 $5.50 N/A $5.00 $5.00 $3.60 $3.00
+ Structured parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included the Chestnut St garage and the Public Market garage.


Also in Table 13 are average monthly, daily, and hourly parking prices for structured parking. The average prices in each
zone were weighted by garage size. The highest average parking rates are found in Subarea Zone 4 in the Old Port,
Subarea Zone 6 near the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, and Subarea Zone 7 the Eastern Waterfront.

To put the average structured parking prices into context, Table 14 was made to show how average prices from the
study area compared to other cities in New England. As a quick way to aggregate price data from other cities, the online
parking information from site Parkopedia.com was used to retrieve parking prices from the 5 closest parking structures
to City Hall in each of the respective cities. The averages shown are weighted by structure size where possible and
reflect weekday prices.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 28 of 179
 Page 103
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Table 14: Comparing Structured Parking Cost in New England Cities

 City Monthly City Daily City Hourly
 1 Boston, MA $502 1 Boston, MA $39 1 Boston, MA $25.58
 2 Providence, RI $211 2 Portland, ME $32 2 Providence, RI $8.00
 3 Hartford, CT $202 3 Portsmouth, NH $25 3 Hartford, CT $4.00
 4 New Haven, CT $159 4 Hartford, CT $22 4 New Haven, CT $3.89
 5 Portsmouth, NH $135 5 Providence, RI $19 5 Portland, ME $3.60
 6 Portland, ME $134 6 New Haven, CT $17 6 Bridgeport, CT $3.25
 7 Worcester, MA $121 7 Stamford, CT $14 7 Worcester, MA $3.18
 8 Burlington, VT $96 8 Bridgeport, CT $14 8 Stamford, CT $3.00
 9 Manchester, NH $93 9 Springfield, MA $13 9 Manchester, NH $2.26
 10 Springfield, MA $93 10 Manchester, NH $11 10 Portsmouth, NH $1.25
 11 Bridgeport, CT $89 11 Worcester, MA $11 11 Springfield, MA $1.23
 12 Stamford, CT $89 12 Burlington, VT $10 12 Burlington, VT $1.11
 Source: City of Portland, ME Parking Survey 2017, Parkopedia.com accessed in June 2017.

Portland appears to be middle of the pack compared to other New England cities by monthly and hourly prices for
structured parking. Daily structured parking prices, however, show that Portland is second only to Boston in average
price.

In some markets, garages offer evenings-only monthly parking at reduced rates, however the practice does not appear
to be widespread in the Portland. One garage in Subarea Zone 4 advertises monthly evenings-only parking at a cost of
$85.

D.3 Surface Lot Parking
Surface parking lots were inventoried in the study area using existing City parking survey data, supplemental aerial
imagery, and information from City staff. The surface lots in Figure 5 are categorized by their primary use as either:

Public Use- General purpose public parking use. Payment structure may either be by monthly permit, daily, hourly or
some combination thereof. Public use lots may be publicly or privately owned.

Private with Limited Public Use- Private lots primarily for employee or customer parking that offer limited general-
purpose public use either through the sale of a limited number of permits for weekdays or off-peak transient access.

Private Commercial- Parking intended for use by the customers of nearby commercial land use, possibly with limited
employee parking mixed in.

Private Residential- Parking reserved exclusively for residents of nearby buildings.

Private Employer- Parking reserved for employee or industrial parking use.

Private Shared/Other- Parking that serves a mix of nearby land uses including residential, commercial, and or
civic/ecclesiastical/institutional use. General public parking is not allowed.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 29 of 179
 Page 104
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Figure 5: Surface Lot Parking




Figure 5 also includes a small number of surface parking lots located outside of the study area that are known to offer
general purpose public parking. There are many more private surface lots within the quarter mile buffer area, but most
serve businesses and residences outside of the study area.

Table 15 summarizes the quantity of surface lots in each category by subarea and includes the percentage of land
occupied by surface parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 30 of 179
 Page 105
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Table 15: Surface Lot Parking Inventory: Quantity and Area

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi
 Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer
 Area+

 Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Public Use Lots 5 4 5 2 3 2 3 24 3
 Private Lots with Lim. Public Use 4 2 2 1 2 1 2 14 2
 Private Lots 14 5 8 5 10 3 7 52 N/A
 Total Surface Lots 23 11 15 8 15 6 12 90 N/A

 Public Use Lot Area (acres) 1.8 6.3 6.7 1.8 3.5 0.2 1.6 21.9 1.78
 Private with Lim. Public Use Lot Area
 (acres) 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.6 2.7 0.4 7.7 0.3
 Private Lot Area (acres) 5.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 9.0 1.3 6.3 26.5 N/A
 Total Surface Lot Area (acres) 11.7 8.5 8.9 3.3 14.0 6.8 8.7 61.9 N/A
 Subarea Zone Area (acres) 63.7 49.8 32.7 30.3 58.5 40.5 52.6 328.1 N/A
 Surface Lot Parking Pct Land Area 18.4% 17.0% 27.2% 11.0% 23.9% 16.7% 16.6% 18.9% N/A
+ Surface lot parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included Maria’s Ristorante, Angelo’s Acre, 52 Danforth St, 62 India St, and 59 Middle
St.

Surface parking land area totaled 18.9 percent in the study area. When combined with the land area of structured
parking, which was 2.9 percent (as shown in Table 11), the total land area allocated to parking in the study area
becomes 21.8 percent. To put the percent of land area devoted to parking in the study area into perspective, Table 16
shows central business district land area allocated to off-street parking from past studies of other cities. The study area,
which is a close proxy for Portland’s CBD, is among other CBDs known to have a high percent of land area allocated to
surface parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 31 of 179
 Page 106
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 Table 16: Comparing CBD Land Area Allocated to Parking

 City Year Percent of CBD Land Area Devoted to Parking
 4
 Los Angeles, CA 1960 24%
 Portland, ME 2017 22%
 5
 Silver Springs, MD 2010 22%
 6
 Hartford, CT 2000 18%
 3
 Dallas, TX 1961 18%
 New Haven, CT 20005 16%
 5
 Berkeley, CA 2000 6%
 5
 Cambridge, MA 2000 3%


The capacity of surface lots is summarized in Table 17. Surface lot parking supply within the study area totals 6,405
spaces with 43 percent of total spaces (2,785) designated for public use. There are an additional 316 spaces outside of
the study area identified as offering public parking. Effective capacity is shown as 90 percent of total capacity, which is
the maximum occupancy level attained (5,765 spaces) before users have high difficulty locating spaces and queuing
begins to occur in and around the facility.


 Table 17: Surface Lot Parking Inventory: Spaces

 Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi
 Downtown/Old Port Buffer Area+
 Waterfront Waterfront Area

 Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Public Use Lots 208 889 672 254 520 32 210 2,785 271
 Private with Lim. Public
 Use Lots 175 67 163 32 125 317 56 935 45
 Private Employer Lots 136 65 74 35 361 - 282 953 N/A
 Private Commercial Lots 261 6 114 90 261 133 464 1,329 N/A
 Private Other/Mixed Lots 188 15 - - - - - 203 N/A
 Private Residential Lots 130 37 6 27 - - - 200 N/A
 Total Capacity 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 316
 Effective Capacity 988 971 926 394 1,140 434 911 5,765 284
+ Surface lot parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included Maria’s Ristorante, Angelo’s Acre, 52 Danforth St, 62 India St, and 59 Middle
St.




4
  Manville, Michael; Shoup, Donald. "Parking, People, and Cities". Journal of Urban Planning and Development. American Society of
Civil Engineers. December 2005.
5
  Johnson, Matt, "Parking Takes Up Space", Greater Greater Washington. July 23, 2010. <https://ggwash.org/view/5939/parking-
takes-up-space>
6
  McCahil, Chris et. Al. "Visualizing Urban Parking Supply Ratios". Congress for New Urbanisim 22nd Annual Meeting, Buffalo, NY
June 4-7, 2014.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 32 of 179
 Page 107
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

D.4 Surface Lot Monthly Supply and Pricing
An estimate of monthly surface lot parking supply (available during the daytime) was made using the following
assumptions. Public use lots that advertise as monthly parking only during weekday working hours are known. Public use
lots that offer a mix of monthly, daily, and hourly parking where the number of monthly parking spaces sold was
unknown were assumed to offer a range between 65 percent and 85 monthly with an oversell rate of 10%.

Private employer lots were considered to be 100% monthly. Private commercial lots are primarily for customers,
however 25% was counted as monthly to account for limited parking for business owners and employees who may have
close parking privileges. Similarly, a 25% assumption was also made for shared/other parking lots. Private residential
parking lots were counted as 12% monthly parking, based on the percent of adult study area residents who also work in
the study area and would be unlikely to repark their vehicle at work.

Table 18 shows the estimated range of monthly parking by subarea zone. Also in Table 18 are surface lot weighted price
averages. Price averages were weighted by lot size. A separate average was calculated for weekend prices because some
private lots offer public daily and hourly parking on weekends only. The average daily weekend rate was slightly lower,
$21 compared to $23, on weekdays. The average weekend hourly rate was slightly higher at $3.75, compared to $3.25
on weekdays. Additionally, a limited number of lots offer a flat evening rate after 6pm at an average of $5.


 Table 18: Surface Lot Parking Pricing and Estimate of Monthly Parking


 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study
 Waterfront Waterfront Area 1/4 mi
 (subareas Buffer
 1-7) Area+

 Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Total Capacity (Spaces) 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 257
 Effective Capacity
 988 971 926 394 1,140 434 911 5,765 231
 (Spaces)
 Estimate of Monthly 540- 750- 750- 270- 920- 370-
 600-650 4200-4800 110-160
 (Spaces) 580 940 890 330 1030 380
 49- 70- 73- 62- 77-
 73-81% 59-64% 66-75% 43-62%
 Estimate of Monthly (Pct) 53% 87% 86% 75% 79%


 Avg Monthly Price $95 $108 $120 $135 $119 $140 $116 $118 $81
 Avg Weekday Daily (if
 offered) N/A $17 $36 N/A $10 $40 $10 $23 $6
 Avg Weekday Hourly $3.75 $2.75 $3.75 $6.25 $3.00 $6.00 $5.00 $3.25 $4
 Avg. Evening Flat Rate
 after 6pm (if offered) N/A N/A $5.00 $6.00 $5.00 N/A N/A $5.00 N/A


 Avg Weekend Daily (if
 offered) N/A $19 $36 N/A $8 $40 $10 $21 $6
 Avg Weekend Hourly $4.00 $2.50 $4.25 $4.25 $4.00 $6.00 $5.00 $3.75 $4
+ Surface lot parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included Maria’s Ristorante, Angelo’s Acre, 52 Danforth St, 62 India St, and 59 Middle
St.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 33 of 179
 Page 108
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



Comparing the study area surface lot prices to other cities in New England shows that the monthly and hourly surface lot
prices fall near the middle of the pack in New England, but the daily surface lot price of $21 ranks third behind Boston
and Portsmouth, NH. Table 19 contains a surface lot price comparison. The data from other cities was collected by
averaging prices at up to 5 of the nearest surface lots to each respective city hall using the parking information site
Parkopedia.com and supplemental information from individual city websites.


 Table 19: Comparing Surface Lot Parking Cost in New England Cities

 City Monthly City Daily City Hourly
 1 Boston, MA $332 1 Boston, MA $34 1 Boston, MA $15.00
 2 Providence, RI $188 2 Portsmouth, NH $25 2 Providence, RI $8.00
 3 New Haven, CT $135 3 Portland, ME $21 3 Hartford, CT $4.70
 4 Portland, ME $118 4 New Haven, CT $19 4 New Haven, CT $4.51
 5 Hartford, CT $117 5 Burlington, VT $16 5 Portland, ME $3.25
 6 Stamford, CT $75 6 Providence, RI $16 6 Burlington, VT $1.80
 7 Manchester, NH $60 7 Hartford, CT $12 7 Springfield, MA $1.38
 8 Springfield, MA $60 8 Stamford, CT $10 8 Portsmouth, NH* $1.00
 9 Burlington, VT $55 9 Bridgeport, CT $10 9 Worcester, MA $0.90
 10 Portsmouth, NH N/A 10 Worcester, MA $8 10 Manchester, NH $0.61
 Worcester, MA N/A 11 Springfield, MA $6 Stamford, CT N/A
 Bridgeport, CT N/A 12 Manchester, NH $6 Bridgeport, CT N/A
 *Surface lots in Portsmouth, NH priced at $1 per hour have a 2 to 4-hour time limit.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 34 of 179
 Page 109
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

D.5 On-Street Parking Supply
Using recent City survey data for on-street parking supply in the study area and supplemental counts using available
street level images, the total on-street supply for the study area is summarized in Table 20.



 Table 20: On-Street Parking Supply Summary

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study Area Percent of Total
 Waterfront Waterfront (subareas 1-7) On-Street Supply

 Regulation Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Percent
 2 Hour Meter 366 381 179 293 115 88 63 or (48)* 1,470 66%
 2 Hour Zone 10 7 13 2 0 0 76 108 5%
 1 Hour Zone 106 22 27 8 0 0 2 165 7%
 30min Zone 3 34 2 4 0 1 0 44 2%
 15min Zone 9 12 21 12 2 3 12 71 3%
 5min Zone 12 11 1 1 0 0 0 25 1%
 VLZ 24 27 29 33 3 1 0 117 5%
 Motor Cycle 10 13 3 9 9 0 0 44 2%
 Disabled 22 17 2 4 2 1 1 49 2%
 Special Permit 8 14 0 0 0 0 0 22 1%
 Unrestricted 6 7 60 0 0 0 53 126 6%
 Taxi 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.1%
 School Restricted 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.4%
 Total 577 553 337 367 131 94 192 2,251 100%

 Bus Zone 5 0 0 1 3 1 0 10
*(15 meters on the Eastern Waterfront are taken out of service during cruise ship visits and fall events, 48 spaces are
included in the total).

Portland charges $1.25 per hour for on-street parking, a rate comparable to other medium to large New England cities.
As Table 21 shows, where other cities have raised rates higher than a $1.25 per hour, they have also typically introduced
some type of price variability by location with higher rates in higher demand areas.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 35 of 179
 Page 110
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 21: On- Street Parking Pricing in New England Cities

  City Hourly Price Exceptions Metered Payment Meter
 Time Methods Hours
 Limits
  Boston, MA $1.25 A pilot test in the Back-Bay Neighborhood is testing 2hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am-
 rates of $3.75 for all meters; A pilot test in the ParkBoson app 8pm
 Seaport District is testing demand based pricing
 where hourly meter rates are adjusted bi-monthly
 from $1 to $2.50. The adjustments are made in
 $0.50 increments up or down using an 80%
 occupancy by block-face threshold.



  Portsmouth, NH Varies Hourly prices range from $1.50 to $2.00 15 min, 3hr, Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 9am
 and 4hr Passport app, to 8pm, Sun
 EasyPark device 12pm to 8pm

  New Haven, CT Varies Hourly prices range from $0.75 to $1.50 15min, Coin, Credit Mon-Sat 8am-
 30min, 1hr, Parkmobile app 9pm
 2hr, 5hr, and
 no time limit
 meters
  Providence, RI $1.25 2hr, 3hr,4hr, Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am-
 and 10 hr Passport app 9pm

  Portland, ME $1.25 2hr Coin, Credit, new Mon-Sat 9am-
 parking app 6pm
  Hartford, CT $1.00 2hrs Coin, Credit, Mon-Fri 8am-
 Prepaid Downtown 6pm
 Gift Card
  Worcester, MA $1.00 1hr, 2hr Coin, Credit Mon-Sat 8am-
 8pm
  Bridgeport, CT* $1 2hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am-
 MobileNow app 6pm

  Stamford, CT $1 Not available Coin, Parkmobile Mon-Sat 8am-
 app 7pm

  Burlington, VT Varies Hourly rates $1 for most spaces and $0.40 for the 15min, 30 Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am-
 10hr spaces min, 1hr, 3hr, Parkmobile app 10pm
 10hr
  Manchester, NH $0.75 Downtown on-street permit $55 per month, 2hr, 10hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Fri 8am-
 commercial use $20 per day on-street permits EasyPark device 8pm, Sat
 10am-8pm
  Springfield, MA $0.50 2hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am-
 Prepaid card, 6pm
 Passport app
  *Bridgeport, CT has recently installed new ‘smart’ parking meters that include sensors and cameras for automated ticketing by
  mail. Results have been mixed.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 36 of 179
 Page 111
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

D.6 Total Study Area Parking Supply
Combining the structured, surface lot, and on-street parking supply in the study area gives the total parking capacity
shown in Table 22. The study area capacity comes out to 15,669 spaces with an effective capacity of 13,990 spaces
which is the state at which all structures and surface lots are both 90% full and on-street parking is 85% occupied. The
total estimate of monthly parking comes out to a likely range of between 8,730 and 10,750 monthly spaces, which is 65
percent to 80 percent of the total off-street supply in the study area.



 Table 22: Total Study Area Parking Supply

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi
 Waterfront Water Area (1-7) Buffer
 front Area
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Total On-Street 577 553 337 367 131 94 192 2,251 N/A

 Total Surface Lot Spaces 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 257

 Total Garage Spaces 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050


 Total Capacity 3,272 3,651 1,846 2,273 1,548 1,044 2,035 15,669 1,307

 Effective Capacity 2,916 3,258 1,645 2,027 1,387 935 1,822 13,990 1,176


 Estimated Monthly 1,020- 1,460- 70- 1,130- 320- 530- 4,650- 750-
 20
 Structured 1,460 1,890 100 1,390 410 690 5,960 980

 Estimated Monthly 750- 920- 370- 600- 4,200- 110-
 540-580 750-940 270-330
 Surface Lot 890 1030 380 650 4800 160

 Total Off-Street 1560- 2210- 820- 1400- 920- 690- 1130- 8,730- 860-
 Estimated Monthly 2040 2830 990 1720 1030 800 1340 10,750 1140

 Total Estimated Monthly 54- 65- 73- 66-
 Percent of Off-Street 58-76% 71-91% 73-90% 61-73% 65-80%
 66% 73% 84% 87%
 Parking


In the sections that follow, observed parking occupancy and a land-use based parking analysis estimates overall parking
demand in the study area. However, neither of these methods could isolate monthly parking demand from transient
demand. A quick approximation of monthly demand from employees in the study area is made using a combination of
the employment from Table 3, the commuter mode share data from Table 9, and the estimated supply of monthly
parking in Table 22.

The results in Table 23 place the demand for monthly employee parking in the study area about 320 spaces above the
high range estimate for monthly parking supply in the study area. After including the estimated monthly parking supply
in the quarter mile buffer area as available to study area workers, the total monthly supply within walking distance to
the study area is about 800 greater than the demand. The monthly parking demand from employees who work outside


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 37 of 179
 Page 112
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

of the study area but within the quarter mile buffer area was not calculated, however these employees surely take up
some of the monthly supply in the buffer area, although it is more common for employers outside of the study area to
provide on-site parking. This approximation is not precise enough to produce a definitive number of additional monthly
supply needed. There are also island residents who also purchase monthly parking at and near the ferry terminal.
Overall monthly parking demand per day is probably within a couple of hundred of the total monthly supply within a
walkable distance of the study area. Unrestricted on-street parking in the study area and in adjacent neighborhoods is
also likely being used by full-time workers given the tight market for monthly parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 38 of 179
 Page 113
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 23: An Approximation of Monthly Parking Demand per Day from Study Area Employees

 Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Study
 Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer Area +
 (1-7) Area Buffer
 Area

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Primary Employees7 3,722 3,764 2,045 4,088 750 948 740 16,057
 Subtract Study Area (70) (70) (38) (76) (14) (18) (14) (300)
 Resident Employees
 (1.9%)6
 Subtract Avg (108) (109) (59) (119) (22) (27) (21) (466)
 Employee
 Absenteeism Rate
 (2.9%)8
 Subtract Avg (231) (233) (127) (253) (47) (59) (46) (996)
 Employee Vacation
 Rate (6.2%)9
 Estimated 3,314 3,351 1,821 3,640 668 844 659 14,296
 Commuting
 Employees

 City of Portland Drive 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1%
 Alone Mode Share10
 City of Portland 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3%
 Carpool Mode Share9

 Estimated Drive 2,422 2,450 1,331 2,661 488 617 482 10,450
 Alone Vehicles11
 Estimated Carpool 143 145 79 157 29 36 28 617
 Vehicles10
 Estimated Total
 Monthly Vehicle 2,570 2,590 1,410 2,820 520 650 510 11,070
 Parking Demand

 Total Estimated 1,560- 2,210- 1,400- 920- 690- 8,730- 860- 9,590-
 Monthly Parking 2,040 2,830 820-990 1,720 1,030 800 1,130-1,340 10,750 1,140 11,890
 Spaces




7
  Primary Employees are defined as working at jobs which are filled by only one worker. Source: 2014 Longitudinal Household
Employer Dynamics data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
8
  Absence rate from work for all occupations. Not including vacation. Source: 2016 Current Population Survey from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
9
  Data from Project Time Off research on the vacation habits of American workers. American workers were found to have taken 16.2
vacation days on average. https://www.projecttimeoff.com/research/state-american-vacation-2016. With 261 work days in 2016,
the percentage of vacation days taken represent 6.2% of work days.
10
 The drive-alone and carpool mode shares from the City of Portland are used as an approximation in the absence of specific mode
share data for all commuters to the study area. Rates are adjusted here after excluding the share of workers who reported working
from home. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.
11
 Carpool vehicles were estimated using the reported rates of 2-person, 3-person, and 4-person or more carpool users. It is assumed
that the carpool vehicle parks within the study area or buffer area. 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 39 of 179
 Page 114
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Based on Table 23,
Figure 6 shows which subarea zones likely generate more monthly parking demand than the high estimate of monthly
parking supply in each zone. Subarea Zones 1, 3, and 4 have more employee demand for monthly parking than available
supply in those zones respectively. Employees of these zones are likely parking in adjacent zones with available monthly
parking where available.

 3,200
 2,830 2,820
 2,700 2,570 2,590

 2,200 2,040
 1,720
 1,700 1,410 1,340
 1,140
 1,200 990 1,030
 800
 650
 700 520 510

 200

 (300)




 Est. Demand for Employee Monthly Parking Est. Monthly Parking Supply




 Figure 6: Monthly Parking Supply and Demand by Subarea Zone

*Monthly parking demand from land use in the ¼ mile buffer area was not calculated but consumes some of the monthly parking
supply shown here.

**Island resident monthly parking also consumes monthly supply particularly in Zones 6 and 7.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 40 of 179
 Page 115
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



D.7 Time of Day Variation in Parking Supply
Due to variation in off-street parking operating days and hours, total parking supply in the study is not constant. Figure 7
shows how total parking supply varies on a weekday, and Figure 8 shows how total parking supply varies on Saturday.


 17,000


 16,000 15,669
 15,129
 15,000 14,461

 13,990




 Parking Capacity
 14,000 13,504 13,463
 13,080 Weekday
 13,000 12,902 Total
 Weekday
 12,004
 Effective
 12,000
 11,659
 11,000


 10,000



 Time
 Figure 7: Weekday Parking Capacity by Time of Day




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 41 of 179
 Page 116
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 16,000



 15,000 14,752

 14,152
 13,824
 14,000 13,824




 Parking Capacity
 13,426 13,426
 13,164
 12,665
 13,000 12,624 Saturday
 12,645 12,329 Total
 12,329
 11,971 11,971 Saturday
 12,000 Effective
 11,286
 11,268

 11,000



 10,000


 Time
 Figure 8: Saturday Parking Capacity by Time of Day12




E. Observed Parking Occupancy

Parking occupancy data was collected at a sample of garages, surface lots, and on-street sites simultaneously on
Thursday, December 1st, 2016 and Saturday, December 3rd, 2016.

The weather on the Thursday sample date was 36 degrees and had a light drizzle of rain until 9am before overcast skies
stabilized. The Saturday sample had a temperature of 40 degrees with intermittent clouds and sun. The choice of early
December for collecting the data was more of a project timeline necessity than a first choice, but as shown in the
seasonal factors section, the sample days appear to have had higher than average, but not annual peak demand.
December is near the annual low in visitors to Portland from outside of the region. This issue is addressed in the
seasonal factors section where the observed parking occupancy is adjusted for the peak season.

The occupancy data presented in this section shows the amount of vacant space observed without adjustment for how
the vacant space is managed. Almost all of the structured parking operators in the study area manage their facilities with
software to maximize the amount of vacant space that may be sold to transient demand at a certain time of day. Surface
lots in Portland tend to be operated more manually. For surface lots that are managed in a way that does not allow for
optimal resale of vacant space to transient users, there may be fewer available spaces for resale than observed


12
  The large decrease in parking between 3pm and 5pm on Saturday resulted from The One City Center Garage closing at 4pm and
the Cumberland County Courthouse garage closing at 5pm when this parking capacity analysis was completed. However, the
operating hours of Th One City Center garage (600 spaces) has since changed to 24 hours a day and 7 days per week.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 42 of 179
 Page 117
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

occupancy would suggest. As shown in Table 23, the daily average rate of absenteeism and vacation use for American
workers is about 10%. Additionally, some monthly parking users may leave during the day for appointments etc. As a
result, operators might oversell their target share of monthly parking based on their experience with the daily use rates
of monthly parking. We have not factored up the observed occupancy rates to address monthly parking user vacancy,
because making efficient use of that vacancy can be maximized with optimal parking management, and it is important to
know the observed amount of vacant space so that the efficiency of parking supply management might be known in
cases where parking is said to be unavailable but vacant spaces exist.

E.1 Observed Surface Lot Occupancy




  (Figure 5 from Section D.3 repeated here for reference)

As described in the section on garage and surface lot supply, there are 90 surface lots containing 6,405 spaces in the
study area. On two data collection days, the surface lot occupancy data was manually collected by a team of observers
every two hours. The Thursday count intervals began at 8am and concluded with a final count interval at 8pm. On
Saturday, the counting began at 10am and concluded at 8pm. Between 60 and 77 lots were captured in the sample
depending on the hour, and the coverage was well distributed across the study area.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 43 of 179
 Page 118
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Off-street parking is considered effectively full when it reaches 90 percent occupancy because that is the occupancy
level beyond which the facility is perceived as full by users. The short-term rise and fall of occupancy level due to
turnover needs a 10 percent reserve capacity to prevent intermittent queuing in and around the facility.

For the study area on Thursday, a single peak was observed during the middle of the day. The peak average surface lot
occupancy of 72 percent was observed at 12pm, and the observation at 2pm of 70 percent was nearly as high.
Occupancy dropped steadily after 2pm to a low of 19 percent by 8pm.

Figure 9 shows a chart of average surface lot occupancy for the study area for the Thursday sample. As a measure of
dispersion in the sample of surface lots, the bars represent one standard deviation from the mean, which tended to be
about +-22 percent.

 100.0%

 90.0%

 80.0%

 70.0%




 Percent Occupied
 60.0%

 50.0%

 40.0%

 30.0%

 20.0%

 10.0%

 0.0%
 8AM 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
 Average 46.3% 67.4% 71.5% 70.4% 59.8% 34.4% 19.2%
 Effectively Full 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

 Figure 9: Surface Lot Occupancy by Location Thursday Sample


Figure 10 shows a chart of overall average surface lot occupancy for the study area on Saturday, the peak surface lot
occupancy of 37.5 percent was observed at 2pm. A second smaller peak of 31.4 percent occurred at 8pm. The absence
of many weekday employees appears to open up ample surface lot space on Saturday. One standard deviation from the
mean tended to be about +-25%.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 44 of 179
 Page 119
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 100.0%
 90.0%
 80.0%
 70.0%




 Percent Occupied
 60.0%
 50.0%
 40.0%
 30.0%
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
 Average 19.1% 24.8% 37.5% 30.3% 29.3% 31.4%
 Effectively Full 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

 Figure 10: Surface Lot Occupancy by Location Saturday Sample



Within the study area, variation in surface lot occupancy by subarea zone is shown for the Thursday sample in Figure 11.

 Location (Zone) Spaces 8AM 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
 Downtown/Old Port (1) 1,098 51% 62% 67% 60% 52% 49% 32%
 Downtown/Old Port (2) 1,079 42% 73% 74% 75% 65% 35% 14%
 Downtown/Old Port (3) 1,029 47% 77% 81% 84% 70% 38% 20%
 Downtown/Old Port (4) 438 58% 70% 69% 72% 64% 31% 26%
 Central Waterfront (5) 1,267 44% 73% 76% 74% 64% 18% 11%
 Central Waterfront (6) 482 32% 54% 66% 69% 55% 54% 42%
 Eastern Waterfront (7) 1,012 58% 59% 61% 58% 45% 15% 12%
 Overall Time Period Avg 46% 67% 72% 70% 60% 34% 19%
 *Higher Than Average Occupancy for The Time Period


 Figure 11: Thursday Observed Surface Lot Occupancy Variation by Subarea Zone

Subarea zones that had a higher occupancy level than average by time period are highlighted in red. Subarea Zone 3 in
the Downtown/Old Port area stands out as having surface lots that are more occupied than average throughout the day,
reaching a peak of 84% occupancy at 2pm. Subarea Zone 2 had higher than average surface lot occupancy between
10am and 6pm with a high of 75% occupied at 2pm.

Figure 12 shows the Saturday occupancy results by subarea zone. Subarea Zone 6, on the central Waterfront stands out
as having higher than average surface lot occupancy throughout the day reaching a peak of 73% occupancy at 2pm.
Otherwise, occupancy is low in all subarea zones.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 45 of 179
 Page 120
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Location (Zone) Spaces 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
 Downtown/Old Port (1) 1,098 27% 39% 40% 29% 32% 35%
 Downtown/Old Port (2) 1,079 11% 17% 54% 48% 23% 36%
 Downtown/Old Port (3) 1,029 19% 20% 23% 20% 23% 24%
 Downtown/Old Port (4) 438 27% 27% 35% 42% 55% 51%
 Central Waterfront (5) 1,267 12% 16% 28% 13% 16% 16%
 Central Waterfront (6) 482 33% 54% 73% 54% 64% 64%
 Eastern Waterfront (7) 1,012 16% 17% 19% 18% 22% 16%
 Overall Time Period Avg 19% 25% 38% 30% 29% 31%
 *Higher Than Average Occupancy for The Time Period


 Figure 12: Saturday Observed Surface Lot Occupancy Variation by Subarea Zone




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 46 of 179
 Page 121
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.2 Observed Structured Parking Occupancy




  (Figure 6 repeated here for reference)

As described in the section on structured parking inventory, there are 21 parking structures containing 7,013 spaces in
the study area. Eight parking structures are for private use only, four serve office employees in attached structures,
while four are used by attached residential developments. The observed occupancy results here focused on the 13
parking structures that offered at least some public parking with a total of 6,308 spaces.

Automated entrance/exit data was requested from structured parking operators on Thursday, Dec. 1st and Saturday,
Dec. 3rd. Data was received for 9 parking structures with at least one structure in each subarea zone. Data from a 10th
structure was collected manually on-site during the data collection days.

Structured parking is considered effectively full at 90 percent occupancy. The Thursday and Saturday weighted average
occupancy data are displayed in Figure 13 and Figure 14 respectively. Average occupancy was weighted by garage size.
The standard deviation bars give a sense of the range of occupancy levels found among the different parking structures
by time period.

The Thursday results showed a single peak mid-day with a high of 72 percent between 12pm and 2pm. One standard
deviation from the mean during the peak period was about 12 percent.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 47 of 179
 Page 122
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Individual garages are not shown for commercial privacy considerations, but one garage had to be displayed separately
because it is an important outlier. The Casco Bay Garage is an ‘upside down’ garage meaning it peaks in occupancy
opposite of the usual mid-day peak. The Casco Bay Garage showed a peak occupancy of 72% between 12am and 6am.
The garage is known to have customers who live on islands in Casco Bay and commute daily to and from the island using
a parked vehicle at the garage.




 Figure 13: Thursday Observed Occupancy at Structured Parking for Public Use




A quick look at the variation within the study area of structured parking occupancy for the Thursday sample shows that
for the period between 10am and 2pm, Subarea Zone 4 and Subarea Zone 2 both in the Downtown/Old Port had higher
average occupancy than the study area, when not including the Casco Bay Garage. Table 24 shows average subarea
zone occupancies during the mid-day period ordered from highest to lowest on the observed Thursday.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 48 of 179
 Page 123
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 24: Thursday Peak Period Structured Parking Occupancy by Subarea Zone

 Subarea Zone Average
 Occupancy
 10am-2pm
 Downtown/Old Port (4) 78%
 Downtown/Old Port (2) 74%
 Downtown/Old Port (1) 69%
 Eastern Waterfront (7) 63%
 Downtown/Old Port (3) 60%
 Central Waterfront (6) 56%
 Central Waterfront (5) N/A
 Overall Average (Not
 Including Casco Bay Garage) 72%

Results from the Saturday sample showed low structured parking occupancies across the study area except for the Casco
Bay Garage as shown in Figure 14. The Casco Bay Garage had occupancies ranging between a low of 66 percent at 9am
to a high of 80 percent at 5pm. The weighted average occupancy for all other sampled parking structures peaked
between 1pm and 3pm at about 17 percent, one standard deviation from the average during the peak period was about
9 percent.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 49 of 179
 Page 124
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 14: Saturday Observed Structured Parking Occupancy



A quick look at the variation within the study area of structured parking occupancy for the Saturday sample shows that
for the period between 1pm and 3pm, the afternoon peak period, Subarea Zone 3 in the Downtown/Old Port and
Subarea Zone 7, the Eastern Waterfront, had slightly higher than average structured parking occupancy than the study
area, in addition to the Casco Bay Garage in Subarea Zone 6. Table 25 shows subarea zone occupancies during the
afternoon peak period ordered from highest to lowest on the observed Saturday.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 50 of 179
 Page 125
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 25: Saturday Peak Period Structured Parking Occupancy by Subarea Zone

 Subarea Zone Average Occupancy
 1am-3pm
 Central Waterfront (6) 72%
 Downtown/Old Port (3) 30%
 Eastern Waterfront (7) 23%
 Downtown/Old Port (2) 16%
 Downtown/Old Port (1) 15%
 Downtown/Old Port (4) 11%
 Central Waterfront (5) N/A
 Overall Average (Not Including
 Casco Bay Garage) 17%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 51 of 179
 Page 126
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.3 On-Street Parking: Overall Occupancy
On-street parking data was collected on the sample dates (Thursday Dec. 1st and Saturday Dec. 3rd) from selected streets
in the study area including: Commercial St, Spring St, Middle St, Exchange St and Casco St. Observations were made at
one-hour intervals beginning at 8am and ending after 8pm. An observer walked along each side of the street and
recorded the last 3 digits of parked vehicle license plates allowing for analysis of both occupancy, duration, and
turnover. Metering in the 2-hour zones was in effect between 9am and 6pm on Thursday and Saturday. The total
number of 2-hour metered spaces sampled was 477 representing about one third of the 1,485 two-hour metered spaces
in the study area. Figure 15 shows the on-street sample coverage area.




 Figure 15: The On-Street Parking Sample


The focus in this section is on occupancy in the 2-hour metered zones. On-Street parking is considered effectively full at
85% capacity. Beyond this level, users have difficulty finding parking on the street and either give up or circle the block
repeatedly leading to user frustration, increased traffic, and the perception that there is no parking.

Study area wide, the Thursday results show a pattern of rising occupancy in the morning to about 80 percent by noon.
Between noon and 3pm, occupancy moved between 75-80 percent. After 3pm, occupancy began to climb and reached a
peak of 87 percent at 7pm before trending down to 77 percent by 8pm. The 7pm observation interval was the only one

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 52 of 179
 Page 127
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

on Thursday to show that the aggregate on-street sample was effectively full, though as subsequent sections show,
variation existed block to block. Figure 16 shows the percent of 2-hour metered spaces occupied between 8am and 8pm
for the study area sample on Thursday.

 100.0%
 87.1%
 90.0% 80.3% 82.4% 84.3% 84.0%
 79.2% 78.6%
 74.8% 75.7%
 80.0% 71.9% 73.2%
 70.0% 63.9%

 60.0%54.5%
 50.0%
 40.0%
 30.0%
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm

 On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full

 Figure 16: Overall Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy



The Saturday results show higher on-street occupancy than Thursday. Overall 2-hour metered occupancy rose steadily
to an effectively full level of 88 percent by 2pm before decreasing slightly below 85 percent through 3pm. After 3pm,
overall occupancy surpassed the effectively full level again and steadily climbed to a peak of 97.5 percent by 8pm. Figure
17 shows occupancy between 10am and 8pm for Saturday. It should be noted that the increasing occupancy trend
leading to the second peak of the day begins close to 4pm. That is the time when a vehicle may park, pay for two hours
until the metered period ends at 6pm, and then remain for the rest of the evening.

 100.0% 92.9% 94.1% 97.5%
 88.1% 87.4%
 90.0% 84.3% 83.6% 84.9%
 75.5%
 80.0% 69.0%
 70.0%58.9%
 60.0%
 50.0%
 40.0%
 30.0%
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm

 On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full

 Figure 17: Overall Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 53 of 179
 Page 128
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.4 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Street
This section shows aggregate 2-hour metered occupancy by street. Both sides of each street are combined into a single
average occupancy by observation period. It should be noted that even when a street is effectively full on average, there
may be variation among block-faces as shown in the next section.

E.4.1 Commercial St from Maple St to India St

Commercial St from Maple St to India St was beyond effectively full after 5pm on Thursday. On Saturday, this section of
Commercial St was over effectively full at 2pm and after.

 100% 92% 99% 94%
 88% 88%
 90% 84%
 80% 78%
 77% 77%
 80% 73%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 61%
 55%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 18: Commercial St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




 100% 95% 93% 93% 97% 96% 98%
 91%
 88%
 90%
 78%
 80%
 66%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 57%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 19: Commercial St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy



Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 54 of 179
 Page 129
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



E.4.2 Exchange St from Congress St to Fore St

Exchange St from Congress St to Fore St was effectively full between 12pm and 6pm on Thursday. On Saturday, this
section of Exchange St was effectively full all day except for 3-4pm.


 100% 100%
 92% 91%
 86% 88%
 90% 83% 83% 85%
 80% 82%
 76% 77%
 80% 73%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 20: Exchange St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




 100% 91% 92% 95% 95% 92% 100%
 89% 89% 91% 91%
 90% 80%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 21: Exchange St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 55 of 179
 Page 130
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.4.3 Middle St from Union St to Franklin St

On Thursday, Middle St from Union St to Franklin St was effectively full at 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 3pm and 7pm. On
Saturday, this section of Middle St was effectively full between 12pm and 3pm then again from 4pm on.


 100% 95% 93%
 86% 88% 88%
 90% 83% 82% 83% 82% 80%
 76% 75%
 80% 74%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 22: Middle St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




 100% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 100%
 88%
 90% 84% 84% 83%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 23: Middle St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 56 of 179
 Page 131
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.4.4 Spring St from High St to Union St

On Thursday, Spring St between High St and Union St was the only street sampled that was not effectively full on
average during the sample day. On Saturday, this section of Spring St did not become effectively full on average until
7pm.

 100%
 90% 80% 78% 79%
 80%
 70% 68%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 61% 63%
 59% 57%
 60% 55%
 48%
 50% 45%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20% 15%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 24: Spring St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




 100%
 88% 89%
 90% 82%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 63%
 60% 60%
 57%
 60% 52%
 50% 40%
 38% Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 18%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 25: Spring St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 57 of 179
 Page 132
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.4.5 Casco St between Cumberland Ave and Congress St

On Thursday, Casco St between Cumberland Ave and Congress St was briefly effectively full at 9am on Thursday, but
then fell well below that until 6pm when it became 100% occupied. On Saturday, Casco St was effectively full between
11am on, reaching 100% occupied at 4pm and remaining nearly that high through 8pm.


 100% 100% 100% 100%
 88%
 90%
 80% 75%
 72%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 63%
 59%
 56%
 60% 50% 53%
 47%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40% 34%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 26: Casco St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy


 100% 97% 94% 100% 100% 97% 97% 100%
 91%
 88% 88%
 90%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 63%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Figure 27: Casco St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 58 of 179
 Page 133
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.5 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Block-Face
In this section, on-street parking occupancy in 2-hour metered zones is shown by block-face.


E.5.1 Thursday 2-Hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face

Starting with Figure 28 and ending with Figure 34, Thursday parking occupancies in the 2-hour zones at 9am, 11am,
1pm, 3pm, 5pm, 7pm and 8pm are shown respectively.




 Figure 28:Thursday 9am Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 59 of 179
 Page 134
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 29: Thursday 11am Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 60 of 179
 Page 135
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 30: Thursday 1pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 61 of 179
 Page 136
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 31: Thursday 3pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 62 of 179
 Page 137
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 32: Thursday 5pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 63 of 179
 Page 138
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 33: Thursday 7pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 64 of 179
 Page 139
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 34: Thursday 8pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 65 of 179
 Page 140
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.5.2 Saturday 2-hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face

Starting with Figure 35 and ending with Figure 40, Saturday parking occupancies at 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm, 7pm and
8pm are shown respectively.




 Figure 35: Saturday 11am Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 66 of 179
 Page 141
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 36: Saturday 1pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 67 of 179
 Page 142
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 37: Saturday 3pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 68 of 179
 Page 143
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 38: Saturday 5pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 69 of 179
 Page 144
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 39: Saturday 7pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 70 of 179
 Page 145
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 40: Saturday 8pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 71 of 179
 Page 146
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

E.6 On-Street Parking Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones
Parked vehicle duration and turnover are important metrics to understand parking behavior. When on-street parking
occupancy is high, it is more desirable for parking turnover to also be high so that users have a greater chance of finding
an open space. When the observed data for this study was collected, in December of 2016, the City of Portland’s on-
street meter fee was $1 per hour for 2-hour limited zones. The hourly fee and time limit aim to facilitate parking
turnover between 9am and 6pm Monday through Saturday.

Average on-street parking duration and turnover by block face was calculated between 8am and 6pm for Thursday and
Saturday using observed partially recorded license plate data. Because the observation intervals were 1 hour apart, an
assumption had to be made about observed vehicle duration. If a vehicle was observed only once on a block-face it was
assigned a duration of 0.5 hours. A vehicle that was observed for exactly two count intervals on a block-face was
assigned a duration of 1.5 hours. Exactly 3 observations and the vehicle was assigned a duration of 2.5 hours, and so on.
The average parked vehicle duration for each block face was calculated using the formula

 ∑ ( )
 D=



Where D = average parking duration, h/veh;
 Nx = number of vehicles parked for x intervals;
 X = number of intervals parked;
 I = length of the observation interval, h;
 NT = total number of parked vehicles observed.

The average turnover rate for parked vehicles follows as the inverse of average duration. In Figure 41 and Figure 42, the
average parked vehicle durations by block-face are shown for the Thursday and Saturday samples.

The results show that on both Thursday and Saturday, the block-faces on Exchange St and Middle St had a lower parked
vehicle duration and higher turnover rate compared to Casco St and Spring St. This is a positive sign given that Exchange
and Middle St had some of the highest rates of parking occupancy.

Commercial St shows more of a range of parking durations by block-face which tended to be 1 to 2 hours closer to the
center of the Old Port on Thursday while block faces west of Cross St (north side of the street) and east of Franklin St
had an average parking duration under 1 hour. On Saturday, average durations on Commercial St tended to be higher,
between 1 and 2 hours on the north side of the street throughout.

There is one block-face on Commercial St west of Center St (south side of the street) that had unrestricted angled
parking on the observation days. The unrestricted parking was also observed in an adjacent bus loading zone to this
block-face, presumably because it was not bus tourist season. This was the location of the longest on-street parking
duration observed in the study area. On Thursday, this block-face had an average parking duration of just over 5 hours
per vehicle between 8am and 6pm which is a turnover rate of less than 0.2 vehicles per hour. On Saturday, the duration
was just over 2.5 hours per vehicle, a turnover rate of 0.4 vehicles per hour. This example illustrates how the metered
and time limited block-faces maintain a higher turnover rate compared to unrestricted and free on-street parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 72 of 179
 Page 147
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 41: Thursday Average Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones 8am-6pm




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 73 of 179
 Page 148
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 42: Saturday Average Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones 10am-6pm




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 74 of 179
 Page 149
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

F. Summary of Observed Parking Results
In this section, the observed occupancy rates from the structured, surface lot, and on-street samples are projected onto
the total parking supply in each respective category to estimate the total number of occupied spaces between 8am and
8pm. The results presented in this section have not yet been adjusted for seasonality. Table 26 summarizes the Thursday
observed occupancy rates by hour.

Figure 43 displays the projected parking occupancy in the study area based on the Thursday, December 1st
observations. Private use only structured parking is displayed as 100 percent occupied since the spaces are reserved and
are not resold to the transient public even when vacant. The effectively full level of vehicles for the study area
represents the capacity when the surface lots and structured parking are 90 percent occupied and the on-street supply
is at 85 percent occupied. The Thursday peak occurred at 12pm when an estimated 11,560 spaces were occupied leaving
about 2,450 vacant spaces below the effective capacity of 14,011 spaces.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 75 of 179
 Page 150
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 26: Thursday Observed Occupancies and Projected Total Spaces Occupied

 Private
 Surface Lots On-Street Public Use Structured
 Structured
 Projected Projected Projected
 Observation Observed Observed Observed
 Spaces Spaces Spaces Reserved
 Period Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy
 Occupied Occupied Occupied
 8am 46.3% 2,970 54.5% 1,230 60.1% 3,790 705
 9am * 3,645 63.9% 1,440 67.5% 4,260 705
 10am 67.4% 4,320 71.9% 1,620 69.5% 4,390 705
 11am * 4,450 73.2% 1,650 70.0% 4,420 705
 12pm 71.5% 4,580 79.2% 1,780 70.9% 4,470 705
 1pm * 4,545 74.8% 1,680 70.6% 4,450 705
 2pm 70.4% 4,510 80.3% 1,810 67.9% 4,290 705
 3pm * 4,170 75.7% 1,700 60.7% 3,830 705
 4pm 59.8% 3,830 82.4% 1,850 45.8% 2,890 705
 5pm * 3,020 84.3% 1,900 29.2% 1,840 705
 6pm 34.4% 2,210 84.0% 1,890 24.3% 1,530 705
 7pm * 1,720 87.1% 1,960 21.2% 1,330 705
 8pm 19.2% 1,230 78.6% 1,770 18.7% 1,180 705
 *Interpolated Estimate


 16,500 15,669
 15,129
 15,000
 13,990
 13,450
 13,500

 12,000 11,230 11,540 11,380
 11,040 11,320
 10,050 10,410
 10,500
 8,700 9,280

Vehicles
 9,000

 7,500 7,470
 6,340
 6,000 5,720
 4,890
 4,500

 3,000

 1,500

 -
 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm
 Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots
 On-Street Effective Capacity Total Observed Demand
 Total Capacity


 Figure 43: Thursday Projected Total Occupancy in the Study Area Based on the December 1st Sample


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 76 of 179
 Page 151
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Table 27 summarizes the Saturday observed occupancy rates by hour. Figure 44 displays the projected parking
occupancy in the study area based on the Saturday, December 3rd observations.

 Table 27: Saturday Observed Occupancies and Projected Total Spaces Occupied


 Private
 Surface Lots On-Street Public Use Structured
 Structured
 Projected Projected Projected
 Observation Observed Observed Observed
 Spaces Spaces Spaces Reserved
 Period Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy
 Occupied Occupied Occupied
 10am 19.1% 1,110 58.9% 1,330 19.0% 1,130 705
 11am * 1,280 69.0% 1,550 19.5% 1,160 705
 12pm 24.8% 1,450 75.5% 1,700 20.9% 1,250 705
 1pm * 1,820 84.3% 1,900 21.6% 1,290 705
 2pm 37.5% 2,190 88.1% 1,980 22.0% 1,310 705
 3pm * 1,980 83.6% 1,880 22.0% 1,320 705
 4pm 30.3% 1,760 84.9% 1,910 20.7% 1,110 705
 5pm * 1,740 87.4% 1,970 21.6% 1,090 705
 6pm 29.3% 1,710 92.9% 2,090 21.8% 1,100 705
 7pm * 1,770 94.1% 2,120 20.8% 1,050 705
 8pm 31.4% 1,830 97.5% 2,190 20.1% 1,010 705
 *Interpolated Estimate

 Figure 44: Saturday Projected Total Occupancy in the Study Area Based on the December 3rd Sample

 16,500

 15,000 14,750
 14,150
 13,820
 13,500 13,164
 12,624 12,329
 12,000

 10,500


 Vehicles
 9,000

 7,500
 6,190
 5,720 5,890 5,490 5,510 5,610 5,650 5,740
 6,000 5,110
 4,280 4,700
 4,500

 3,000

 1,500

 -
 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm
 Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots
 On-Street Effective Capacity Total Observed Demand
 Total Capacity




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 77 of 179
 Page 152
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



Projected results from the observed Saturday had a peak of approx. 6,200 parked vehicles at 2pm leaving about 7,300
vacant spaces before the effective capacity of 13,525 is reached.

Looking in more detail at the distribution of the observed vacant space, the next two figures show how many vacant
spaces remained before the effectively full level was reached in each subarea zone at the peak hour. In Figure 45, we see
that during the peak hour of 12pm on the observed weekday, Subarea Zone 1 had the highest number of vacant spaces
particularly on-street spaces and structured spaces. On-Street spaces in Subarea Zones 2 and 4 were above 85 percent
occupied during the peak hour, therefore no on-street vacancy is shown for those zones. Subarea Zone 7, the Eastern
Waterfront had the most vacancy in surface lots at the peak hour.

 750
 700
 650
 600
 550




 Vacant Parking Spaces
 500
 450
 400
 350
 300
 250
 200
 150
 100
 50
 -
 Sub Zone 1 Sub Zone 2 Sub Zone 3 Sub Zone 4 Sub Zone 5 Sub Zone 6 Sub Zone 7

 Structured Surface On Street

 Figure 45:The Number of Vacant Spaces Until Effectively Full on Thursday at 12pm by Subarea

It is likely that not all of the observed vacant spaces were available for use depending on off-street parking
management. While garages use a computer to minimize vacant space that must be held for absent monthly customers,
some surface lots that are operated more manually may hold more vacant space open for absent monthly customers,
although holding more vacant monthly spaces open than necessary is not in an operator’s best interest.

During the observed peak hour on Saturday, there were many more overall vacant spaces observed due to higher
vacancies in structured and surface lot parking. However, the peak hour on Saturday had far fewer vacant on-street
spaces before the effectively full level of 85 percent occupancy. The only subarea that had less vacancy during the
Saturday peak hour compared to the Thursday peak hour was Subarea Zone 6 surrounding the Ferry Terminal on the
Waterfront.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 78 of 179
 Page 153
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 1800
 1700
 1600
 1500
 1400
 1300




 Vacant Parking Spaces
 1200
 1100
 1000
 900
 800
 700
 600
 500
 400
 300
 200
 100
 0
 Sub Zone 1 Sub Zone 2 Sub Zone 3 Sub Zone 4 Sub Zone 5 Sub Zone 6 Sub Zone 7

 Structured Surface On Street


 Figure 46: The Number of Vacant Spaces Until Effectively Full on Saturday at 2pm by Subarea

The vacant space charts are useful to understand where additional transient parking demand during the peak season
might be accommodated within the study area.

G. Seasonal Analysis
In this section, the observed parking demand data is compared to annual parking demand curves at two sample garage
locations to determine if the sampled days in December were a good representation of recurring regional demand,
parking demand from seasonal variation in island ferry ridership is analyzed, and additional parking demand from higher
levels of day visitors and overnight visitors during the summer season is estimated using data from the Maine Office of
Tourism.


G.1 Recurring Regional Demand
Because the data collection occurred in December, it is important to look at the results in the context of parking demand
from other times during the year. Data on customer entrance and exit volumes annually is not usually disclosed by
private parking operators because the information is related to revenue. Data from the two publicly operated garages in
the study area, Elm St and Spring St, are analyzed here to put the observed results from the December sample days into
an annual context. Based on the location of the Elm St and Spring St garages, both are located in the north-west
quadrant of the study area, it is likely that annual demand patterns at these garages are better indicators of recurring
employment, retail, arena event, and restaurant related parking demand, rather than seasonal demand related to
waterfront tourism and ferry passenger activity.

Data from the year prior to this study at the Elm St and Spring St garages were obtained. Figure 47 shows the December
1st daily parking demand with other Thursday demand levels during the year at the Elm St garage. The December 1, 2016
daily demand fell at the 81st percentile of Thursdays, well above the median (50th percentile) peak demand for Thursday.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 79 of 179
 Page 154
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 500


 450


 400




 Daily Vehicle Entries
 Total Veh. Entries

 85th Percentile
 350 Thurs.
 Thurs 12/1/16
 Observation
 300
 50th percentile
 Thurs.
 250


 12/10/2015 1/14/2016 2/11/2016 3/10/2016 4/14/2016 5/12/2016 6/9/2016 7/14/2016 8/11/2016 9/8/2016
 10/13/2016 11/10/2016 12/1/2016

 Thursdays


 Figure 47: Recent Thursday Demand Variation at Elm St Garage


Thursday demand data from different seasons during the year at the Spring St Garage is shown in Figure 48. The
December 1st 2016 data at the Spring St garage placed in the 87th percentile, corroborating that the Thursday sample
date was well above average in parking demand, at least in the vicinity of the Elm St and Spring St garages.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 80 of 179
 Page 155
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 850

 800

 750 Total Veh.




 Daily Vehicle Entries
 Entries
 700 Thurs.
 Observation
 650 12/1/16
 85th
 600 Percentile
 Thurs.
 50th
 550 Percentile
 Thurs.
 500


 12/10/2015 12/17/2015 2/11/2016 2/18/2016 4/14/2016 4/21/2016 7/14/2016 7/21/2016 9/8/2016 9/15/2016 12/1/2016

 Thursdays
 Figure 48: Recent Thursday Demand Variation at Spring St Garage



The same comparisons were made between the Saturday, December 3rd observations at Elm St and Spring St using
annual Saturday data at each location. Figure 49 shows that the Elm St garage sample on December 3rd fits in near the
85th percentile of Saturday parking demand in the past year at that location. In Figure 50, however, we see that the
December 3rd data at the Spring St garage is very close to the 50th percentile Saturday demand at that location. The
observation day did not include an arena event and this is likely the reason for the observed demand at that location
placing close to the median. The highest demand on Saturdays at Spring St appears to correspond with arena events
during the year.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 81 of 179
 Page 156
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 250



 200




 Daily Vehicle Entries
 150 Total Veh. Entries

 Sat. 12/3/16
 Observation
 100 85th Percentile Sat.

 50th Percentile Sat.
 50



 0 12/3/2016
 11/19/2016
 11/12/2016
 10/8/2016
 9/17/2016
 9/10/2016
 8/20/2016
 8/13/2016
 7/16/2016
 7/9/2016
 6/18/2016
 6/11/2016
 5/21/2016
 5/14/2016
 4/16/2016
 4/9/2016
 3/19/2016
 3/12/2016
 2/20/2016
 2/13/2016
 1/16/2016
 1/9/2016
 12/19/2015
 12/12/2015
 Saturdays


 Figure 49: Recent Saturday Demand Variation at Elm St Garage



 600

 550

 500




 Daily Vehicle Entries
 450 Total Veh.
 Entries
 400

 350 85th
 Percentile
 300 Sat.
 Sat 12/3/16
 250 Observation

 200 50%
 percentile
 150 12/3/2016
 11/19/2016
 11/12/2016
 10/15/2016 Sat.
 9/17/2016
 9/10/2016
 8/20/2016
 8/13/2016
 7/16/2016
 7/9/2016
 6/18/2016
 6/11/2016
 5/21/2016
 5/14/2016
 4/16/2016
 4/9/2016
 3/19/2016
 3/12/2016
 2/20/2016
 2/13/2016
 1/16/2016
 1/9/2016
 12/19/2015
 12/12/2015
 Saturdays

 Figure 50: Recent Saturday Demand Variation at Spring St Garage




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 82 of 179
 Page 157
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



Based on the annual trends at Spring St and Elm St, we conclude that the December sample days were very likely a good
representation of average to higher than average recurring regional parking demand in the study area based on the
location of these garages.

It is interesting to note that both Elm St and Spring St garages appear to show lower demand for parking during July and
August, when a higher percentage of office workers and educators would be expected to be on vacation. It does not
appear that Elm St and Spring St attract a high volume of tourism parking during the summer. We were unable to
investigate the annual trends at other privately-operated garages because operators typically do not share annual data.
Further data collection in the summer season would be useful to determine whether other garages and lots see a
downturn in recurring employee parking during the summer and also to find out which facilities are attracting peak
season visitor parking demand.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 83 of 179
 Page 158
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

G.2 Seasonal Variation in Island Resident and Island Visitor Parking
In this section, an estimate of additional peak season parking demand in the study area associated with island ferry
passenger activity is made using passenger data from Casco Bay Lines, employment data, and assumed automobile
mode shares.

The City of Portland’s Waterfront is home to the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, which serves as a vital transportation
hub for residents of and visitors to several islands in Casco Bay including Peaks Island, Little Diamond Island, Great
Diamond Island, Cliff Island, and Long Island. The parking garage located at the ferry terminal is known to house the
vehicles of many island residents and a waitlist estimated at several years long exists for the opportunity to purchase
monthly parking there. Island residents with a residential sticker from the City may also park in designated non-metered
(but time limited) zones located on the Eastern Waterfront for days at a time, although finding an on-street space has
become more difficult for islanders as development has occurred on the Eastern Waterfront. Additionally, island
residents and visitors to the islands may purchase parking at other structured and surface lot facilities in the study area,
if and when available.

For context, according to 2015 American Community Survey estimates, the island communities served by the Casco Bay
Transit District have a year-round resident population of 1,258 people living in 589 year-round occupied households.
Year-round island residents own 744 vehicles in total. The number of year-round island households owning at least one
vehicle was 400. During the peak Summer season, the number of occupied households increases to 1,803. The ACS does
not estimate seasonal population or seasonal vehicle ownership.

Available data describing travel to and from the islands consists of Casco Bay Lines ferry passenger monthly totals, on-
board vehicle transport monthly totals, and worker flow data between the mainland and the islands for primary job
holders. Ferry passenger volume variation is highly seasonal, the summer season is much higher than the rest of the
year. Figure 51 shows the trend of average daily passenger and on-board vehicle volumes by month for the most recent
year available.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 84 of 179
 Page 159
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 4,000


 3,500


 3,000




 Quantity per Day
 2,500


 2,000


 1,500


 1,000


 500


 -
 MA NOV DEC
 JAN FEB APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
 R * *
 Avg Ferry Passengers per Day 631 646 736 957 1,306 2,134 3,391 3,365 2,036 1,325 812 750
 Avg Vehicles per Day 64 67 74 92 124 151 168 171 122 113 85 81


 Figure 51: Average Daily Ferry Passenger and Vehicle Volumes by Month

 Source: Casco Bay Lines, 2016 monthly passenger and vehicle data. *November and December data are from 2015 as 2016
 data for those months was not yet available at the time of the data request.

According to Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data from 2014, the most recent year available, the
number of workers who live on an island served by a Casco Bay Lines Ferry and hold a primary job on the mainland is
approximately 550. Additionally, the number of workers who live on the mainland but hold a primary job on one of the
islands totals approximately 100.

Subtracting the expected number of commuting workers to and from the islands from the average daily passenger totals
for a given month leaves a remainder of passengers that consists of visitors, full-time island residents making non-work
trips, and seasonal island residents (depending on the month). Table 28 shows the difference between August and
December passengers after subtracting out the expected number of recurring work commute trips.


 Table 28: Peak Season Ferry Passenger Difference

 CBL Ferry Passengers Dec Aug Difference (Aug-Dec)

 Avg. Round Trip Passengers/Day 750 3,365

 Island Resident Workers who Commute Daily to
 Work on the Mainland (Primary Jobs) -550 -550
 Mainland Residents Workers who Commute Daily
 to the Islands (Primary Jobs) -100 -100



Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 85 of 179
 Page 160
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Remaining Round Trip Passengers to/from the
 Islands per Day =100 =2,715 2,615
 Sources: Casco Bay Lines, 2016 monthly passenger and vehicle data; 2014 LEHD data, U.S. Census Bureau

To estimate the vehicle parking demand on the mainland associated with the August and December ferry passenger
demand, some assumptions need to be made about how workers and non-workers travel to and from the ferry
terminal. The following assumptions are made in the absence of more specific data on travel behavior to and from the
islands particularly for non-work trips:

  Of the approximately 550 island resident workers who commute to the mainland, employment data shows that
 approximately 100 of these workers work in the Downtown/Old Port. It is assumed that these commuters by
 and large do not drive between the ferry terminal and their work destination.
  For the remaining 450 island resident workers, a drive mode share equivalent to the City of Portland’s for work
 trips is assumed for travel between the ferry terminal and their work destination. The City’s rate in 2015 was 73
 percent drive alone, and about 9 percent carpool consisting of parties between 2 to 4 people.13
  For the approximately 100 workers who commute from the mainland to the islands, the City of Portland’s drive
 alone and carpool to work mode shares are also assumed.
  For all other passengers including visitor trips, year-round island resident non-work trips, and seasonal island
 resident trips, it is assumed that average travel party size is 2.5, which was the average travel party size for day
 visitor parties to the Portland region in 201514. A drive mode share of 82 percent is assumed based on the total
 automobile mode share of work travel in the City of Portland in 2015 in lieu of more specific data.

Applying the stated assumptions, an estimate for parking demand in the study area arising from ferry passenger activity
is presented in Table 29. The average daily number of vehicles transported round trip on-board the ferry is subtracted
from the estimated parking demand since those vehicles traveled with the passengers rather than remaining parked in
the study area.

 Table 29: Estimate of Peak Season Differential in Ferry Parking Demand

 Vehicles Dec Aug Difference (Aug-Dec)
 Parking Demand Estimate for Island Resident
 Workers Who Commute by Car from the Ferry
 Terminal (Primary Jobs) 350 350
 Parking Demand Estimate for Mainland
 Residents who Commute by Car to the Islands 80 80
 Parking Demand Estimate for Remaining
 Passengers to/from the Islands 30 890
 Total Estimated Vehicles 460 1,320
 Average Ferry Transported Vehicles per Day - 81 -171
 Estimate of Average Daily Ferry Parking
 Demand in the Study Area =379 =1,149 770




13
 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate. Work travel mode share for the City of Portland adjusted for commuting
workers only (those who did not work from home).
14
 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco
Bay. April 2016.pg 29.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 86 of 179
 Page 161
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

The net additional 770 vehicles are added to the observed demand from December as a seasonal adjustment to the
peak season for increased ferry parking demand. Because the passenger data from Casco Bay Lines does not give
weekday vs. weekend variation in passenger demand, the average of 770 additional vehicles are added to both weekday
and Saturday peak season estimates.

In addition to the Casco Bay Lines, the Eastern Waterfront hosts the international ferry to Nova Scotia that operates May
through October. Based on average daily passenger data from 2014-2016, an average daily walk-on passenger total is
25. It is estimated that parking demand related to the walk-on passengers is 10 vehicles, raising the peak adjustment for
combined ferry parking demand to 780 vehicles.

It is assumed that the impact of the additional 780 parked vehicles in the peak season would be allocated to the subarea
zone of the Ferry Terminal, Subarea Zone 6, and then to the Eastern Waterfront, Subarea Zone 7, following that to
Subarea Zones 4 in the Old Port and Subarea Zone 5 on the Central Waterfront, which are adjacent to Subarea Zone 6.

It is clear that added parking demand of approximately 780 vehicles from the increase in seasonal ferry ridership alone
could consume most of the off-street December observed vacant parking spaces shown in Figure 45 for the following
zones: Subarea Zone 6 (200-225 spaces), Subarea Zone 7 (400-425 spaces), Subarea Zone 4 (125-150 spaces), and
Subarea Zone 5(125-150 spaces) which collectively had about 850-950 vacant off-street spaces at 12pm on a December
weekday.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 87 of 179
 Page 162
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

G.3 Summer Day Visitor Parking Demand Adjustment
A seasonal adjustment is estimated to account for the additional day visitor parking demand in the study area expected
during the peak summer season. Detailed survey data commissioned by the Maine Office of Tourism are used to create
the estimate. In the surveys, a day visitor to the Portland/Casco Bay region is defined as a traveler who originated within
the state of Maine or from up to 100 miles from Maine’s borders and traveled more than 50 miles from home to reach
their destination. Day visitor trip purposes included leisure, visit friend/relative, and business. The average weekday and
weekend day visitor parking demand to the study area is estimated for both the winter and summer seasons for the
purpose of understanding the difference. The percentage of day visitors who reported visiting Peaks Island (7 percent)
was subtracted from the adjustment so as not to overlap with the seasonal ferry passenger demand adjustment.

Several assumptions were made where specific data was not available. The automobile share of day visitor parties to the
study area is estimated to be 93 percent. The automobile mode share of overnight visitors was between 81-93percent15.
It is assumed that day visitors would have less time to travel by train or airplane, and therefore would be likely to drive
at a rate closer to the high estimate for overnight visitors.

It is assumed that the volume of day visitors is on average 15 percent greater on weekend days as compared to
weekdays. This is in keeping with tourism markets where leisure travel is dominant. Table 30 summarizes the derivation
of estimated day visitor parking demand to the study area for the winter and summer seasons. The result is an
estimated additional 1,710 vehicles on a peak season weekday and an additional 1,960 vehicles on a peak season
Saturday.




15
  Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of
Tourism. March 2016. Pg. 34.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 88 of 179
 Page 163
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 30: Estimation of Seasonal Day Visitor Adjustment Factors to the Study Area

 Winter Summer Difference Variable/Equation
 (Summer-
 Winter)
 Months Dec.-April May-August
 Number of days in 2015/2016 151 123 A
 Number of weekdays 105 86 B
 Number of weekend days 46 37 C
 Estimated total seasonal day visitation in
 Maine16,17 2,609,957 15,468,062 12,858,105 D
 Day visitor primary destination was greater
 Portland/Casco Bay Region14,15 14% 11% E
 Share of day visitors to the greater
 Portland/Casco Bay region that visited the
 study area not including visitors to Peaks
 Island18 42% 42% F
 Average day visitor travel party size19 2.5 2.5 G
 Automobile mode share of day visitors,
 assumed 93% 93% H
 Estimated seasonal day visitors to the study
 area 153,465 714,624 561,159 (D*E*F)

 Daily average day visitors to the study area 1,016 5,810 4,794 (D*E*F)/A
 Daily average day visitor parking demand to
 the study area 378 2,161 1,783 (D*E*F*H)/(A*G)
 Weekday average day visitors to the study
 area (assume weekdays are 15% lower than
 weekend days) 972 5,559 4,587 (D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C)
 Weekend average day visitors the study area
 (assume weekend days are 15% higher than
 weekdays) 1,118 6,393 5,275 1.15*(D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C)
 Estimated weekday average day visitor
 parking demand in the study area 362 2,068 1,710 ((D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C))*H/G
 Estimated weekend average day visitor
 parking demand in the study area 416 2,378 1,960 1.15*((D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C))*H/G




16
  Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Summer 2016 Seasonal Topline. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of
Tourism. October 2016. pgs. 19,25.
17
 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Winter 2016 Seasonal Topline. Prepared by DPA for the Maine
Office of Tourism. June 2016. pgs. 19,25.
18
 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater
Portland & Casco Bay. April 2016. Pgs. 42. (Sum of day visitors who reported visiting either the Waterfront (27%), the
Museum of Art (10%), or the State Theater (5%).
19
  Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco
Bay. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of Tourism. April 2016. Pg. 29.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 89 of 179
 Page 164
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

G.4 Summer Overnight Visitor Parking Demand
In this section, a seasonal adjustment is estimated to account for the additional overnight visitor parking demand in the
study area expected during the peak summer season. The methodology uses a combination of published hotel
occupancy rates in Portland for 2016, seasonal variation in statewide hotel occupancy rates, and Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation factors for urban hotels. The percent of overnight visitors (7 percent)
who reported visiting Peaks Island in a survey commissioned by the Maine Office of Tourism20 was subtracted because
they are already captured in the seasonal ferry passenger parking demand adjustment.

Table 31 summarizes the derivation of the peak season overnight visitor parking demand adjustment. The result is an
additional 260 vehicles on a peak season weekday and 400 vehicles on a peak season Saturday.




20
  Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report. Prepared by DPA for the Maine
Office of Tourism. March 2016. Pg. 23.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 90 of 179
 Page 165
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 Table 31: Estimation of Seasonal Overnight Visitor Adjustment Factors to the Study Area

 Description Result Formula

 57% A
 Maine hotel occupancy annual rate 201521
 42% B
 Maine hotel occupancy winter rate22
 78% C
 Maine hotel occupancy summer rate19
 70% D
 Portland hotel occupancy annual rate 201518
 55% D-(A-B)
 Estimated Portland hotel occupancy Winter rate
 91% D+(C-A)
 Estimated Portland hotel occupancy Summer rate
 151 E
 Number of days in Dec. 2015-April 2016
 105 F
 Number of weekdays Dec. 2015-April 2016
 46 G
 Number of weekend days Dec. 2015-April 2016
 Estimated winter weekday hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 54% (55%)/((F+1.1*G)/E)
 weekdays are 10% lower)
 Estimated winter weekend hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 59% 1.1*(54%)
 weekend days are 10% higher)
 123 H
 Number of days May-August 2016
 86 I
 Number of weekdays May-August 2016
 37 J
 Number of weekend days May-August 2016
 Estimated summer weekday hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 89% (91%)/((I+1.1*J)/H)
 weekdays are 10% lower)
 Estimated summer weekend hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 97% 1.1*(89%)
 weekend days are 10% higher)
 1,393 K
 Hotel Rooms in the study area
 478 K*54%*0.64
 Winter hotel weekday parking generation23
 740 K*59%*0.9
 Winter hotel Saturday parking generation20
 Summer hotel weekday parking generation (-7% for Peaks Island
 Visitors) 20 735 (K*89%*0.64)-7%

 Summer hotel Saturday parking generation (-7% for Peaks Island
 Visitors) 20 1,137 (K*97%*0.9)-7%

 Adjustment factor for weekday overnight visitor parking 260 Wkdy summer-winter

 Adjustment factor for weekend day overnight visitor parking 400 Wkend summer-winter


21
 Maine Lodging Outlook 2016. Prepared for MEREDA by Pinnacle Advisory Group.
22
 2015 Maine Lodging Study. June 2015. Prepared by DPA for The Maine Office of Tourism. Pgs. 16.
23
 ITE Parking Generation 4th Edition. 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 0.64 vehicles/occupied room for
weekdays and 0.9 vehicles/occupied room for weekends.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 91 of 179
 Page 166
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



G.5 Adjusted Seasonal Demand
Combining the demand curves from the observed December sample in Section E with the estimated adjustments for
peak season ferry travel, peak season day visitors, and peak season overnight visitors, a new adjusted estimate of peak
season weekday parking demand is produced as shown in Figure 52. The peak season adjustments result in a parking
demand that is higher than effective capacity between 12pm and 2pm on weekdays. Peak vehicle demand is estimated
as approximately 14,300 vehicles, which is approx. 320 vehicles more than the effective capacity.



 16,500 15,669
 15,129
 15,000
 13,990 13,970 14,280 14,120 14,060
 13,450
 13,500 12,790 13,150
 11,440
 12,000 12,020


 10,500 10,210

 9,080

Vehicles
 9,000 8,460
 7,630
 7,500


 6,000


 4,500


 3,000


 1,500


 -
 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm

 Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots
 On-Street Day Visitor Adjustment Ferry Demand Adjustment
 Overnight Visitor Adjustment Effective Capacity Adjusted Total


 Figure 52: Weekday Observed Demand with Additional Summer Visitor Demand


Figure 53 shows the Saturday observed parking demand with added peak season adjustments. The peak occurs at 2pm
with approx. 9,320 vehicles parked, about 4,300 vehicles below Saturday effective capacity.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 92 of 179
 Page 167
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 16,500

 14,750
 15,000 14,150
 13,820
 13,500 13,164
 12,624
 12,329

 12,000


 10,500
 9,320 9,020
 8,850 8,620 8,640 8,740 8,780 8,870

Vehicles
 9,000 8,240
 7,410 7,830

 7,500


 6,000


 4,500


 3,000


 1,500


 -
 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm


 Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots
 On-Street Day Visitor Adjusted Ferry Demand
 Overnight Visitor Adjusted Effective Capacity Adjusted Total
 Total Capacity



 Figure 53: Weekend Observed Demand with Additional Summer Visitor Demand




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 93 of 179
 Page 168
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

H. Land Use-Based Analysis of Parking Demand
A second method to estimate parking demand in the study area is theoretical parking demand based on existing land
use development with engineering industry standard parking generation factors. Land use-based parking demand
analysis estimates how much parking a development will generate based on factors derived from averaged historical
observed parking data found in studies of similar land uses. A commonly used source of parking generation factors is
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition. Although still the engineering standard for
estimating the parking demand of new development when no applicable local parking case studies exist, the
methodology has been called into question for reliance for too few or out of date samples used to calculate the factors,
and overly conservative results leading to overdesigned parking.24 The methodology also results in only a single answer
for a parking supply, usually enough parking to satisfy a chosen peak.

To improve upon the results of land use-based parking analysis, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking 2nd Ed.
Methodology can be used together with ITE factors to distribute parking demand by time of day based on the type of
land use. Shared parking factors are also based on averaged observed land use specific parking studies. The ULI Shared
Parking methodology allows for the estimation of how adjacent or nearby land uses may or may not be able to use the
same parking supply in a complimentary way based on a distributed parking demand curve for each land use.

The steps taken to create a land-used based estimate for the Portland study area were:

  Commercial building use data by floor were obtained from the City’s Tax Assessor office at the parcel
 level.
  Additional data on residential parcels were obtained from the City’s GIS department.
  Vacancy rates of 7 percent for office, 1 percent for residential, and 2 percent for retail/restaurant were
 applied after consultation with the City Planning Department.
  The hotel occupancy level in the study area was set at 70 percent based on the 2015 average annual
 hotel occupancy for Portland25
  Assumptions had to be made about the percentage of internal capture trips in the study area for each
 land use. Internal capture is the expected share of trips that are attracted to a land use while the
 customer’s vehicle is already parked for another purpose. An example occurs when an office worker
 goes to lunch on foot while their vehicle is parked at their office and the lunch trip does not extend the
 time the vehicle would already have been parked. Internal capture trips increase with dense mixed-use
 development, much like the study area. Low rates of internal capture of 10 percent or less were
 assumed except for restaurants in the study area which were assumed to have a 50 percent internal
 capture rate.
  ITE Parking Generation rates were used to calculate a peak parking demand for each identified land use
 at the 50th and 85th annual percentile demand levels according to ITE. The 50th percentile is intended to
 represent an average day, while the 85th is regarded to be the highest peak that should be designed for
 while remaining economical.
  The results of the ITE Parking Generation calculations were next processed through a spreadsheet of
 land use specific ULI Shared Parking time-of-day factors and then a spreadsheet of internal capture
 rates.
  The resulting charts give a combined peak parking demand by time of day that also shows how the
 parking demand of individual land uses crest and fall during the day while consuming and yielding
 shared parking.


24
 Shoup, Donald C.(2003) Truth in Transportation Planning. Journal of Transportation Statistics. Vol. 6 No. 1 2003.
25
 Maine Lodging Outlook 2016. Prepared for MEREDA by Pinnacle Advisory Group.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 94 of 179
 Page 169
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


Figure 54 is the shared parking curve for the ITE generated weekday 50th percentile demand of the study area. The
results of the 50th percentile calculation had a peak at 2pm of 14,470 vehicles, 480 vehicles more than effective study
area capacity at that time. Noticeably, the 50th percentile land-used based estimate is not far off from the peak adjusted
observed estimate in the prior section which found an average peak season high of 14,300 vehicle at 12pm. This is
indicative of the reputation of ITE Parking Generation factors as over predicting parking demand.

Another point made apparent from the land-use based parking demand calculations is that Downtown Portland appears
that it would have difficulty hosting a mid-day event at Cross Insurance Arena during the summer on a weekday. The
Arena parking demand was generated using the seating capacity as an input variable. Cross arena has a seating capacity
of 6,733 and is predicted by ULI Shared Parking Factors to have a peak parking demand of 2,200 vehicles. An event using
the full seating capacity of the Arena held mid-day during the peak season could push parking demand several hundred
over the total capacity of the study area according the land-use based calculations. Evening and weekend events at the
Arena, however, appear to be well accommodated for parking.


 17,000
 16,000 15,669
 15,129
 15,000 13,990 13,876 13,893 14,471 13,993 14,461
 14,000 13,504 13,463

 13,000 12,712 12,90212,004
 13,136
 12,000
 11,659
 11,000
 10,000 10,019



 Parked Vehicles
 9,000 8,423
 7,180 7,772
 8,000
 7,000 6,931
 6,000 3,592 4,584
 5,000 3,832
 4,000
 3,000
 2,000
 1,000
 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Office/Industrial Residential Other Services
 Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers
 Total Capacity Effective Capcity Total Estimated



 Figure 54: Weekday 50th Percentile Peak Demand Land-Use Calculated

Figure 55 has the resulting shared parking curve for the ITE generated Saturday 50th percentile demand showing a peak
at 8pm of 10,350 vehicles assuming an arena event in the evening. Without an arena event, the peak occurred at 12pm
with 9,390 vehicles. Again, what is meant to be an average annual Saturday using the ITE land-use based factors turned
out very close to the observed occupancy with peak season adjustment which had a Saturday peak of 9,320 at 2pm.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 95 of 179
 Page 170
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 16,000

 15,000 14,752
 13,824 14,152
 13,824
 14,000 13,426 13,426
 12,645 13,164 12,665
 12,624
 13,000 12,329
 11,971
 12,329
 12,000 11,286
 11,971
 11,000 11,268 10,353

 10,000 9,390 9,339 9,071




  Parked Vehicles
 9,266
 9,000

 8,000 7,184
 7,000

 6,000 4,967
 5,000

 4,000

 3,000

 2,000

 1,000

 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Office/Industrial Residential Other Services
 Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers
 Total Capacity Effective Capacity Total Estimate



 Figure 55: Saturday 50th Percentile Peak Demand Land-Use Calculated

When the weekday 85th percentile demand factors from ITE were applied to the study area land use, the results came
out unreasonably high with a peak of 17,270 at 2pm, approximately 1,500 more than the total parking capacity of the
study area. Such an occurrence would leave no open parking space in the study area and would also fill the public use
spaces in the quarter mile buffer area. It is unlikely that this is a good representation of the peak season in the Portland
study area and for this reason, the ITE 85th percentile demand factors are not applied further in this study. The 50th
percentile ITE demand factors together with the ULI Shared Parking methodology appear to better approximate what
was found to be a likely peak scenario based on the observed and adjusted results.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 96 of 179
 Page 171
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

I. Existing Conditions Conclusion
In conclusion, Table 32 summarizes the following for the weekday existing conditions:

1) The results of the observed parking occupancy analysis performed in December, which was found to likely be a good
representation of recurring parking demand but lacked peak season visitor and increased ferry passenger parking
demand.

2) The observed parking occupancy analysis with calculated adjustments to account for additional peak summer season
parking demand related to higher ferry passenger ridership and higher levels of overnight and day visitors.

3)The theoretical land-use based parking demand estimated using ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed.) factors together with
ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed) factors at the 50th percentile demand, which was found to be more realistic as an
approximation of peak season demand for the study area compared to the results using 85th percentile factors.



 Weekday Peak
 Demand Estimation Method Peak Full Effectively  Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
 Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 at Peak Level Effectively Needed
 Full

 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 12pm 15,670 13,990 11,540 2,450 1,680 4,130 -
 2016
 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 2016 + Peak Season 12pm 15,670 13,990 14,280 -290 1,390 1,390 290
 Adjustments
 ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated
 Demand (50th percentile 2pm 15,670 13,990 14,470 -480 1,200 1,200 480
 factors)
 Table 32:Weekday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary


While the observed parking occupancy in December was found to be 2,450 below effective capacity, after adjusting
average daily parking demand for the peak season, we find that the study area is likely approximately 290 vehicles over
effective parking capacity during the mid-day peak hour in the peak summer season. The land-use based calculation of
parking demand using 50th percentile factors estimated that the study area is 480 vehicles over effective parking
capacity. Travelers to the Study area do have access to an additional 1,300 off-street spaces with an effective capacity of
1,170 spaces within a quarter mile of the study area. However, this additional supply is shared with demand generated
outside of the study area which was not calculated during this study.

It was found that a high-range estimate of monthly parking supply within the study area, 10,750, is below estimated
employee monthly parking demand, 11,070. Additional monthly parking supply outside of the study area, such as
parking structures north of Cumberland Ave, have some additional monthly parking shared with land-use outside of the
study area and this additional supply appears to be needed to accommodate monthly employee parking demand in the
study area. Given the tight market for monthly parking, it is likely that unrestricted parking on streets surrounding the
study area are being used by employees of the study area.

It was found that during the peak summer season on a weekday, added parking demand related to higher ferry
passenger ridership levels alone is of an order magnitude capable of consuming much of the peak period off-street

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 97 of 179
 Page 172
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

vacant parking observed during December in zones surrounding the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal. When day and overnight
visitor parking demand is added to the weekday summer peak, a majority of whom visit the Old Port and Waterfront,
the pattern of how the vacant space observed during December fills up would appear to emanate from the Ferry
Terminal and Waterfront consuming vacant space gradually outward to Cumberland Ave.

On Saturday, it was found that off-street parking facilities were well below effective capacity. Table 33 summarizes the
Saturday existing conditions case:

 Saturday Peak
 Demand Estimation Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
 Method Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 at Peak Level Effectively Needed
 Full
 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 2pm 14,750 13,160 6,190 6,970 1,590 8,560 -
 2016
 Observed Occupancy Dec.
 2016 + Peak Season 2pm 14,750 13,160 9,320 3,840 1,590 5,430 -
 Adjustments

 ITE/ULI Land-Use
 Calculated Demand (50th 12pm 14,750 13,160 9,390 3,770 1,590 5,360 -
 percentile factors)

 ITE/ULI Land-Use
 Calculated Demand (50th
 8pm 13,820 12,330 10,350 1,980 1,490 3,470 -
 percentile factors) with
 8pm Arena Event

 Table 33: Saturday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary


On-street parking during the weekday sample was found to be below 85 percent occupied overall in the study area
except for during the evening at around 7pm. Individual streets varied however, and it was found that Commercial St
was over capacity after 4pm, Exchange St was over capacity between 11am and 6pm, Middle St was over capacity
between 11am and 3pm and then again at 7pm, and Casco St was over capacity after 6pm.

Saturday on-street parking was above 85 percent occupied overall in the study area for much of the day after 1pm which
is likely giving the perception that there is little parking to be found when in fact, off-street parking is abundant on
Saturday, though at a higher price. Commercial St was over capacity from 1pm on. Both Middle St and Exchange St were
over capacity during all sampled hours except for 3pm. Spring St was over capacity after 6pm. Casco St was over capacity
from 11am onward.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 98 of 179
 Page 173
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

J. Projected Future Parking Supply and Demand
This chapter of the report projects future parking supply and demand considering ferry passenger growth, tourism
trends to the Casco Bay Region, and three land use development scenarios that include new parking supply. Our
methodology is outlined here:

1). First, using recent historic ferry passenger and ferry vehicle transport data, we determine a daily parking demand for
ferry passengers 10 years into the future during the peak season.

2). Considering data from the Maine Office of Tourism, we determine if an additional growth factor for visitor parking
demand is needed in addition to the projected parking demand from ferry passenger growth and new land use
development.

3). Next a land use development analysis is carried out in the following steps:

a. A set of approved and likely development projects in the next 10 years were obtained from the City of Portland. Three
build-out levels, 50%, 75%, and 100% build out, are calculated to create three development scenarios. The scenarios are
compared with population growth estimates from Portland’s Comprehensive Plan and state employment growth
estimates.

b. The three development scenarios are then apportioned to the study area using the subarea zone geography
convention from the existing conditions chapter.

c. A combination of ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed) and ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed) methods are used to calculate a time
distributed daily parking demand for each scenario based on land use development.

d. An accounting of the new development generated parking demand, newly built parking, and eliminated parking due
to construction reveals whether the development scenarios are projected to be parking demand neutral, create a net
new parking supply surplus, or create a future parking supply deficit.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 99 of 179
 Page 174
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

J.1 Projected Ferry Passenger Parking Demand
Casco Bay Lines Ferry passenger ridership between the City of Portland Waterfront and the Casco Bay Islands has grown
in recent years by 12.5% between 2012 and 2016. A 10-year growth projection of ferry passenger parking demand is
calculated here continuing the recent 5-year growth trend. Table 34 shows the compound annual growth rates (CAGRs)
for annual passenger and vehicle volumes between 2012 and 2016.

 Table 34: Casco Bay Lines Passenger Growth 2012-2016

 Round-Trip Passengers 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total % Growth Compounded Annual
 2012-2016 Growth Rate
 Annual Total 491,624 492,740 492,222 547,188 552,868 12.5% 2.4%
 Round-Trip 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total % Growth Compounded Annual
 Transported Vehicles 2012-2016 Growth Rate
 Annual Total 15,413 12,978* 16,068 17,168 19,998 29.7% 5.3%
* In 2012 the car ferry was dry docked and service was subcontracted

The passenger and vehicle growth rates were then used to project peak daily passenger and vehicle totals in 2027 as
shown in Table 35. To convert ferry passenger and transported vehicle volumes to projected parking demand, the same
set of assumptions that were made as in Section G.2 of the existing conditions chapter were applied. Those assumptions
were:

  Employment data shows that approximately 18% of the island resident workers who commute to the mainland
 work in the Downtown/Old Port. It is assumed that these commuters by and large do not drive between the
 ferry terminal and their work destination.
  For the remaining island resident workers, a drive mode share equivalent to the City of Portland’s for work trips
 is assumed for travel between the ferry terminal and their work destination. The City’s rate in 2015 was 73%
 drive alone, and about 9% carpool consisting of parties between 2 to 4 people.26
  The City of Portland’s drive alone and carpool to work mode shares are also assumed for the workers who
 commute from the mainland to the islands,
  For all other passengers including visitor trips, year-round island resident non-work trips, and seasonal island
 resident trips, it is assumed that average travel party size is 2.5, which was the average travel party size for day
 visitor parties to the Portland region in 201527. A drive mode share of 82% is assumed based on the total
 automobile mode share of work travel in the City of Portland in 2015 in lieu of more specific data.


Included in the future projection is an assumed rate of growth of the number of work commuters traveling to and from
the islands. Commuter populations were increased by 8 percent in keeping with the Portland Comprehensive Plan goal
of 8 percent population growth in 10 years. The result was a projection of an additional peak season daily parking
demand of 230 vehicles for ferry passengers using Casco Bay Lines as shown in Table 35. The ferry parking projection will
be added to both weekends and weekdays.




26
  2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate. Work travel mode share for the City of Portland.
27
  Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco
Bay. April 2016.pg 29.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 100 of 179
 Page 175
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 35: Projected Additional Ferry Parking Demand in 2027

 Passengers Aug-16 Projected Aug 2027 Difference
 (2027-2016)
 Avg Round Trip Ferry Passengers/Day 3,365 4,472
 Year-round Island Resident Workers who
 Commute to Work on the Mainland (Primary
 Jobs) 550 594
 Year-Round Mainland Residents who Work
 on the Islands 100 108

 Remaining Passengers to/from the Islands 2,715 3,770 1,056
 Vehicles Aug-16 Projected Aug 2027 Difference
 (2027-2016)
 Parking Demand Estimate for Island Resident
 Workers Who Commute by Car from the
 Ferry Terminal (Primary Jobs) 350 380
 Parking Demand Estimate for Mainland
 Residents who Commute by Car to the
 Islands 80 80
 Parking Demand Estimate for Remaining
 Passengers to/from the Islands 890 1,240
 Total Estimated Vehicles 1,320 1,700
 Average Ferry Transported Vehicles per Day -171 -318
 Estimate of Ferry Parking Demand in the
 Study Area =1,149 = 1,382 230



Forecasts of passenger demand for international ferry service to Nova Scotia were unavailable. Based on average daily
passenger data from 2014-2016, an average daily walk-on passenger total of 25 will be held constant for the future
weekday and weekend projections. It is estimated that parking demand related to the walk-on passengers is 10 vehicles.

The results project a total ferry passenger parking demand of 240 additional vehicles in 2027. Ferry parking demand
peaks in the evening and during the early morning hours before 7am. During the day, parking demand dips slightly as
island residents make trips using their vehicles and visitors return to their vehicles. The time of day demand distribution
from the Casco Bay Parking Garage is used an approximation for the time of day distribution for ferry parking demand.


J.2 Tourism Considerations
The Maine Office of Tourism does not forecast visitor levels, although it does set future goals for increased visitation,
such as first-time visitation and business visitation. Recent data on 2016 from the office of tourism showed another
strong year for increased visitors in Maine. Between 2012 and 2016, visitation grew by from 28 million visitors to 35.8
million visitors, which was a 28% percent increase overall and a compound annual growth rate of 5%. However,
visitation to the Greater Portland Casco Bay Region is not necessarily growing at the same rate as the state Maine




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 101 of 179
 Page 176
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

because a lower percentage of visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination in 2016 as
compared to 201228 29 30.

Our future estimate of overnight visitor parking demand to the study area is based on the growth in hotel rooms in each
development scenario. An occupancy rate of 70%, the annual average from 2016, is applied into the future scenarios.

Similar to the existing conditions land use-based parking analysis, the future parking demand estimates are based on
land-use generated parking demand using ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed) factors at the 50th percentile demand level
together with ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed). The 50th percentile demand level factors were found to be a better
representation of Portland’s existing conditions peak season than 85th percentile factors, which produced an
unreasonably high peak too dissimilar from observed occupancy and calculated seasonal adjustment factors.

Land-use based parking generation does not delineate between resident and visitor parking demand, total demand is
based on the quantity of land-use development. The peak demand from the parking generation factors is already an
approximation of the high demand season, meaning additional demand from tourism does not need to be added unless
it is believed that tourism is increasing beyond the rate suggested by new development. New retail, restaurant, and
hotel development specified in the future projects have been sized in anticipation of tourism. Additionally, we are
accounting for growth in ferry passenger ridership in the future demand estimates, based on passenger growth since
2012, which is a way of accounting for projected island tourism growth.


J.3 Land-Use Development Scenarios Parking Analysis
Information on a set of approved and potential future projects within a 10-year time frame was obtained from the City
of Portland’s Planning Department and the Economic Development Department. Figure 56 shows the approximate
location of future projects within or very near the study area. The study area is shown divided into seven subarea zones
as defined in the existing conditions chapter for the sake of discussion. The location of the projects suggests both a
concentration of new parking demand in Subarea Zones 3 and 5, and a second concentration of new parking demand in
Subarea Zone 7, the Eastern Waterfront, that will include new demand in the eastern edge of Subarea Zone 6 at the
Maine State Pier.




28
 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2012 Calendar Year Annual Report. Prepared by DPA. Pgs. 52,77. Seventeen
percent of annual day visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination.
29
 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Winter/Spring 2016 Seasonal Topline pgs24,25. Fourteen percent of winter and
spring day visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination.
30
 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Summer 2016 Seasonal Topline pgs24,25. Eleven percent of day visitors
reported making the Portland region their primary destination.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 102 of 179
 Page 177
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront




 Figure 56: Future Development Projects: Approved and Likely

J.3.1 Approved but Unoccupied Land Use Developments

The developments in Table 36 are either under construction or now complete but were not occupied and therefore did
not generate parking demand at the time of the parking occupancy surveys in December 2016. As a result of not having
been included in the existing conditions analysis, they are included here in the future analysis.

 Table 36: Approved Development Projects

 Map Project Description
 No.
 1 158 Fore Street (AC Hotel) – 150 room hotel/4,000SF restaurant with 65 parking spaces in the Ocean Gateway Garage
 2 33 India Street - 5,964SF retail/8 residential units with 44 parking spaces used in the Ocean Gateway Garage
 3 8 Middle Street – 39,526SF Office/5,032SF Retail Units with 124 parking spaces used in the Ocean Gateway Garage
 4 121 Center Street – 8,859SF expansion of Aura entertainment venue with 60 parking spaces used in nearby existing lots
 5 101 York Street – 63 residential units/7,000SF restaurant/9,955SF retail with 211 parking spaces (95 existing surface
 parking spaces eliminated)




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 103 of 179
 Page 178
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

J.3.2 Assumed Future Land Use Developments Likely to Occur

Some of the developments anticipated in the next 10 years are expected to provide on-site parking, those developments
are grouped in Table 37. Other developments plan to provide parking by using existing spaces in a nearby lot or garage,
those developments are included in Table 38.



 Table 37: Likely Developments with On-Site Parking

 Map
 Project Description
 No.
 6 383 Commercial Street (former Rufus Deering site) – 22,691SF retail/275 residential units with 390 parking spaces
 7 209 Fore Street (Next to Hampton Inn) – 136 hotel room with 97 parking spaces
 8 3 Portland Square - 300,000SF office/30,000SF retail/35,000SF restaurant/84 residential units/145 room hotel with
 1480 parking spaces (547 existing surface spaces eliminated)
 9 58 Fore Street (Portland Company) – 123,917SF office/50,273SF retail/638 residential units/132 room
 hotel/3,800SF restaurant with 616 parking spaces
 10 Thames Street Surface Lot – 80,000SF office with 450 parking spaces (100 existing spaces eliminated)
 11 Fisherman’s Wharf – 93 room hotel/30,405SF office/7,625SF retail/5,200SF restaurant with 501 parking spaces (261
 existing surface parking spaces eliminated)
 12 Shipyard Brewery Expansion – 3,382SF retail/103 residential units with 420 parking spaces
 13 230 Commercial Street (Union and Widgery Wharf) – 18,000SF office/10,000SF mixed use with 179 parking spaces
 (208 existing surface parking spaces eliminated)
 19 Brown St Garage- 257 space parking structure for the tenants of 511 Congress St. (67 existing surface spaces
 eliminated)

 Table 38: Likely Developments without On-Site Parking

 Map Description
 No.
 14 158 Fore Street –48,000SF office /21,000SF retail/48-unit residential building
 15 Portland Fish Pier– 10,000SF marine use/20,000SF office (20 surface parking spaces eliminated)
 16 Portland Fish Pier– 20,000SF office/10,000SF light manufacturing
 17 Cotton Street – 10,000SF retail/10,000SF restaurant/20,000SF office/20,000SF residential (50 spaces eliminated)
 18 40 Commercial Street (Maine State Pier) – 20,000SF office




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 104 of 179
 Page 179
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



J.3.3 Development Scenario Summaries

Aggregating all identified development projects by land use type, the full build out scenario is summarized in Table 39.
The amount of new parking built is shown, as well as any parking eliminated from construction.

 Table 39: Summary of Approved and 10-Year Likely Future Development: Full Build-Out

 Subarea Zone
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
 Full Build-Out
 Residential Units - - 104 - 338 - 813 1,255
 Restaurant Sqft - - 45,000 - 12,200 - 7,800 65,000
 Office Sqft - - 320,000 - 88,405 20,000 291,443 719,848
 Retail Sqft - - 40,000 - 52,843 - 85,651 178,494
 Hotel Rooms - - 145 - 93 - 418 656
 Industrial Sqft - - - - 20,000 - - 20,000
 Other Sqft - 8,859 - - - - - 8,859
 - - - - - - - -
 Newly Built Parking 257 - 1,480 - 1,281 - 1,583 4,601
 Eliminated Parking 67 - 597 - 639 - 100 1,403
 Net New Parking 190 - 883 - 642 - 1,483 3,198
 Existing Parking Reserved - 60 - - - - 233 293


Two additional scenarios were created to view the results of what might happen if less development than anticipated
were to occur. As a simplified way of doing this, the likely to occur but not previously approved projects listed in Table
37 and Table 38 were reduced in total size to create a scenario described as all approved development plus 75 percent
of likely development, summarized in Table 40. Similarly, Table 41 summarizes the last scenario described as all
approved development plus 50 percent of likely development.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 105 of 179
 Page 180
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Table 40: Summary of Approved Development Plus 75 Percent of Likely 10-Year Development

 Subarea Zone
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
 Approved+ 75%
 Residential Units - - 78 - 269 - 616 963
 Restaurant Sqft - - 33,750 - 10,900 - 6,850 51,500
 Office Sqft - - 240,000 - 66,304 15,000 218,582 539,886
 Retail Sqft - - 30,000 - 42,121 - 66,987 139,108
 Hotel Rooms - - 109 - 70 - 351 530
 Industrial Sqft - - - - 15,000 - - 15,000
 Other Sqft - 8,859 - - - - - 8,859
 - - - - - - - -
 Newly Built Parking 193 - 1,110 - 1,014 - 1,187 3,504
 Removed Parking 50 - 448 - 503 - 75 1,076
 Net New Parking 143 - 662 - 511 - 1,112 2,428
 Existing Parking Reserved - 60 - - - - 233 293




 Table 41: Summary of Approved Development Plus 50 Percent of Likely 10-Year Development

 Subarea Zone
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
  Approved+ 50% Potential
  Residential Units - - 52 - 201 - 419 671
  Restaurant Sqft - - 22,500 - 9,600 - 5,900 38,000
  Office Sqft - - 160,000 - 44,203 10,000 145,722 359,924
  Retail Sqft - - 20,000 - 31,399 - 48,324 99,723
  Hotel Rooms - - 73 - 47 - 284 403
  Industrial Sqft - - - - 10,000 - - 10,000
  Other Sqft - 8,859 - - - - - 8,859
 - - - - - - - -
  Newly Built Parking 129 - 740 - 746 - 792 2,406
  Removed Parking 34 - 299 - 367 - 50 749
  Net New Parking 95 - 442 - 379 - 742 1,657

  Existing Parking Reserved - 60 - - - - 233 293




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 106 of 179
 Page 181
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

J.3.4 Population Analysis of Development Scenarios

Between 2000 and 2010, on the Peninsula, the majority of new growth occurred in the vicinity of the Parkside, East
Bayside, and India Street neighborhoods, while Downtown, the West End, and a portion of the East End, lost population.
As mentioned in section B.4 in the existing conditions chapter, the population lost Downtown between 2000 and 2015
was nearly all due to losses in the population living in group quarters while the population of residents in occupied
households grew a small amount, by 0.3 percent.

According to the City’s comprehensive plan (2017), the City has set a goal of growing from a current population of
66,681 residents (2016) to a population of 72,000 residents by the year 2027. The desired increase of 5,319 residents
represents 8 percent in total population growth and would reflect a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between
2016 and 2027 of 0.6 percent per year.

The comprehensive plan also says of the City’s goal of reaching 72,000 residents that, “This figure falls between the
medium and high growth scenarios developed based on USM's county growth model.”31 The USM county growth model
estimated a range of 2030 growth scenarios, from a high growth scenario which estimated a population of 81,000 to a
low growth scenario which estimated a population of 69,000.

The three development scenarios identified in this study consist of new residential units totaling 1,255, 963, and 671
units respectively for the Full Build-Out, the Approved Plus 75 Percent of Likely Development, and the Approved Plus 50
Percent Development scenarios.

The average household size in the study area is 1.5 residents based on the 2015 American Community Survey 5-year
estimate. The population increases resulting from each development scenario relative to the City, the Peninsula, and the
study area are summarized in Table 42.


 Table 42: 10-Year Relative Population Growth of Development Scenarios

 Development Residential Est. Pop Growth Growth Relative Growth Relative Growth Relative
 Scenario Units from Development to Study Area to Peninsula to City (66,681
 (1.5 Persons/Unit) (2,589 residents (23,248 residents residents in
 in 2015) in 2015) 2015)
 Approved + 50% 671 1,010 39% 4% 1.5%
 Approved + 75% 963 1,440 56% 6% 2.2%
 Full Build-Out 1,255 1,880 73% 8% 2.8%

The 10-year Full Build-Out scenario would result in a population growth of 1,880, which is 2.8 percent of the City’s
current population. The comprehensive plan does not say where the City’s goal of 8 percent growth would occur within
the City, however should the Full Build-Out occur, the City would need an additional 5.2 percent in population growth
relative to the present population, or 3,439 additional residents, in neighborhoods outside of the study area to reach 8
percent total growth by 2027.

Interestingly, the population growth from the Full Build-Out relative to the Peninsula is 8%. This means that if the Full
Build-Out were to occur, no further population gain on the Peninsula would be necessary for the Peninsula to have
grown in population by the same rate as the City’s overall 10-year goal.




31
 Portland’s Plan (2017) pg. 100

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 107 of 179
 Page 182
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

The Full Build-Out population growth relative to the study area, which has a current resident population of 2,589, would
be 73 percent over 10-years, about 9 times the rate of growth compared to the City’s overall target of 8 percent. This is
in keeping with trends nationally and with the City’s comprehensive plan policies related to supporting mixed use
growth of Downtown as the center of the City and region.

Between 2000 and 2015, the study area population in occupied households grew by 0.3% total. During the same period,
the City population grew by 3.5%, as was shown in Table 6 and Table 7 in the existing conditions chapter. Should the
study area experience a relative population growth of 73 percent in the next 10 years, as implied in the Full Build-Out,
while the City grows by 8 percent during the same period, it would be a significant change in the relationship between
growth in the study area vs. growth in the City overall in recent years. The same can be said of the Approved Plus 50
Percent Likely and Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenarios, though less dramatically so. The Approved Plus 50 Percent
scenario would grow the study area resident population by 39 percent in 10 years. The Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely
scenario would grow the study area by 56 percent in 10 years.


J.3.5 Employment Analysis of Development Scenarios

According to employment forecasts developed by the State of Maine, the City of Portland is expected to see a net
increase of 16,610 jobs over the 30-year period from 2010 to 2040, a 25% total increase and a compound annual growth
rate of 0.7%. In 2014, the latest estimate available, the City of Portland had 67,648 jobs32. Using the same rate of growth
rate predicted by the State of Maine, 10 years of growth would result in 73,211 jobs in Portland, an increase of 5,563
jobs which is 8.2% total employment growth.

The study area currently has 17,149 total jobs. Between 2002 and 2014 the study area employment grew by 9.1% while
during the same period employment in the City grew by 5.2%. The study area gained employment at 1.75 times the rate
of the City during the period.

The implied employment from the three development scenarios was calculated using general employee occupancy
factors for each land use. The total number of employees expected in each scenario is summarized in Table 43.




32
 2014 Longitudinal Household-Employer Dynamics. U.S. Census Bureau

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 108 of 179
 Page 183
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Table 43: 10-year Future Employment Estimated from Development Scenarios

 Development Scenario

 Approved + 50% Approved + 75% Full Build-Out

 Land Use Type

 Restaurant Sqft 38,000 51,500 65,000

 Office Sqft 359,924 539,886 719,848

 Retail Sqft 98,437 137,179 175,922

 Hotel Rooms 403 530 656

 Industrial Sqft 10,000 15,000 20,000

 Estimated Employees

 Restaurant Employees33 87 118 149

 Office Employees31 1,152 1,728 2,304

 Retail Employees31 179 249 320

 Hotel Employees34 322 424 525

 Industrial Employees35 22 33 44

 Total Employees 1,763 2,553 3,342


 Restaurant= 1 emp/435sf;
 Office= (0.8*Gross Floor Area)/250sf;
 Retail = 1emp/550sf;
 Hotel= 0.8emp/room;
 Industrial= 1emp/450sf




33
  For Restaurant, Office, and Retail: U.S. Green Building Council. LEED BD+C: New Construction V4 Appendix 2. Default
Occupancy Counts. https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-existing-buildings-commercial-interiors-core-and-shell-
schools-new-constr-3. Accessed July 20, 2017
34
  For Hotel: “Hotel Staff”. City-of-Hotels.com. http://www.city-of-hotels.com/165/hotel-staff-en.html. This article quotes the World
Tourist Organization in saying that the optimum hotel staff for a 3-star hotel is 8 employees for 10 rooms
35
  For Industrial: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Non -Residential Employment Factors.
http://www.mwcog.org/asset.aspx?id=committee-documents/Zl1aVlhe20131217082723.pdf


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 109 of 179
 Page 184
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


Table 44 compares the estimated employment from the development scenarios with existing employment totals in the
study area and City.


 Table 44: 10-year Scenario Employment Growth Relative Comparison

 Development Scenario Estimated Scenario Growth Relative to Current Growth Relative to Growth Relative to
 Employment Study Area Employment Current City State Estimate of
 Growth (10-yr) (17,149) Employment (67,648) 10-yr City
 Employment
 Growth (5,560)
 Approved + 50% 1,763 10% 3% 32%
 Approved + 75% 2,553 15% 4% 46%
 Full Build-Out 3,342 19% 5% 60%

The Full Build-Out scenario would result in a 10-year employment growth of 19 percent in the study area relative to
current employment. While this is a higher rate of employment growth than the State of Maine predicted for the City in
a 10-year period (8.2 percent), recent history does suggest that the study area has in fact tended to gain employment at
a higher rate than the City.

However, if the study area were to gain 19 percent in employment during a 10-year period when the City gained 8.2
percent, the study area’s rate of employment growth would be 2.3 times that of the City. This means that the Full Build-
Out scenario would add employment to the study area at a higher rate relative to the City’s growth rate compared to
the period between 2002 and 2014, when the study area gained employment at 1.75 times the rate of the city.

The Approved Plus 75 Percent Potential scenario represents an employment growth rate in the study area of 15 percent,
which would be 1.83 times more than a City employment gain of 8.2 percent, which is more in keeping with the recent
past in terms of how study area employment grew relative to the City.

The Approved Plus 50 Percent Potential scenario represents an employment growth rate in the study area of 10 percent,
which would be a rate 1.22 times more than a City employment gain of 8.2 percent, a slower rate of employment
growth in the study area relative to the City when compared to the period between 2002 and 2014.

J.3.6 Projection of Future Parking Demand

For the existing condition, parking demand was calculated two ways: observed demand with peak season adjustments
from tourism and ferry passenger data, and land-used based parking generation. For the 10-year demand projections,
only the land-used based method is applied with an adjustment for ferry passenger growth. Attempting to adjust
observed parking demand to the future is not typically done.

The development scenarios were apportioned to the study area using the Subarea Zones 1 through 7 geography
convention from the existing conditions analysis. A combination of ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed) factors at the 50th
percentile demand level and ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed) factors were then applied to calculate a time distributed daily
parking demand for each scenario. The 50th percentile ITE factors were found to be a more realistic approximation of the
peak season in Portland compared to ITE’s 85th percentile factors in the existing conditions analysis, therefore the 85th
percentile factors were not applied to the future scenarios.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 110 of 179
 Page 185
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

J.3.6.1 Future Weekday Results

The following section first presents the results of only the future supply and demand analysis, then the combined future
supply and demand with the existing. Figure 57 shows projected parking demand for the 10-year Full Build-Out scenario
on a weekday. Between 7am and 5pm, the projected future parking demand is greater than the effective capacity of the
net new parking supply.


 4,000
 3,800
 3,600
 3,265 3,315 3,322 3,340
 3,400 3198 3,105 3,175 3,293 3198
 3,200 3,199
 3,000 2878 2878
 2,800
 2,600 2,520 2,606 2,497
 2,400 2,385 2,019




 Parked Vehicles
 2,200
 2,037
 2,000
 1,800
 1,600
 1,400
 1,200
 1,000
 800
 600
 400
 200
 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Future Office/Industrial Future Residential
 Future Hotel/Other Services Future Restaurant/Retail
 Future Growth in Ferry Passengers Net New Parking Capacity
 Figure 57: 10-yr Full Build-Out Scenario Only: Projected Weekday Parking Demand vs. Net New Supply



The peak parking demand projected from the new development in the Full Build-Out scenario occurs at 2pm. Table 45
shows the projected demand for each subarea zone at 2pm on a weekday.

 Table 45: 10-Year Weekday Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand

 Projected Parking Projected New Total Net New Net New Net New Net New
 Demand from Demand from Projected Parking Total Effective Effective
 Development at Ferry Passengers Demand at Total Capacity- Capacity Capacity-
 2pm at 2pm 2pm Capacity Demand Demand
 Zone 1 - - - 190 190 171 171
 Zone 2 10 - 10 - (10) - (10)
 Zone 3 980 - 980 883 (100) 795 (185)
 Zone 4 - - - - - - -
 Zone 5 580 - 580 642 60 578 -
 Zone 6 40 200 240 - (240) - (240)
 Zone 7 1,530 - 1,530 1,483 (50) 1,335 (195)
  Total 3,140 200 3,340 3,198 (150) 2,878 (460)
(Parking Deficit)


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 111 of 179
 Page 186
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

Subarea Zone 1 has a surplus of 170 new parking spaces in effective capacity. The development in Subarea Zone 1 is a
parking garage intended for an adjacent tenant, which would likely open up space in other existing parking supply in
Zone 1 that could absorb most but not all of the excess future peak weekday demand from adjacent Zones 2 and 3 (195
vehicles).

A common theme in all the future scenarios is that future parking demand from the projected growth in ferry
passengers causes a net parking deficit in Subarea Zone 6, the location of the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal. There does not
appear to be leftover room to accommodate the projected growth in ferry passenger parking demand within the net
new parking supply from development. The future developments in Subarea Zone 7 alone appear to be at a deficit of
parking supply during the weekday peak of 195 spaces despite approx. 1,500 net new spaces in that zone under the Full
Build-Out scenario.

The finally tally for the Full Build-Out has a deficit of 150 in total parking supply, but a deficit of 460 if we consider that a
10 percent reserve supply of the net new parking should be maintained to keep circulation for parking functional.

As was found in the existing conditions analysis, the peak hour of the peak season weekday is likely currently over
effective capacity by 290-480 vehicles. The projected deficit from the Full Build-Out scenario could not likely be
absorbed into existing parking supply under these conditions without further diminishing the study area’s reserve
parking capacity needed to maintain a functioning parking system.

There is however, a noteworthy caveat to the future demand results related to residential parking demand. In Figure 57,
the scale of future residential development is apparent. The ITE parking generation factors predict 1.2 vehicles per unit
for mid-rise urban housing. Based on the 1,255 new housing units in the Full Build-Out scenario, and carrying forward a
1 percent vacancy rate from the existing conditions, the projection for residential parking demand is just under 1,500
vehicles. The ULI time of day curves predict that at 2pm on a weekday, 70 percent of the total residential parking
demand will be either occupied by resident vehicles or reserved and therefore not shared by other parking users.
However, if the parking supply for the new residential development is managed in a way that maximizes the possibility
of parking space re-use when residents are away, particularly during the work day, this could help lower the peak
parking demand curve.

Furthermore, our projections retained the internal capture rate for office land use at 2 percent, based on the present,
where only 2 percent of the employees in the study are also residents according to the latest available employment data
(LEHD 2014). If future residential development in the study area were to attract a higher percentage of residents who
also work in the study area, and do not use their vehicle to commute to work, this would raise the internal capture rate
for office parking demand. An internally captured office trip does not need an additional office parking space because
the resident employee leaves their vehicle at home. In this way, a single parking space would serve either a residential
purpose or an office purpose depending on the time of day. It would help lower parking demand to promote or
incentivize the occupancy of new residential development with employees (of any kind) who also work in the study area.

The results of the Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely and Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely scenarios are shown in Table 46
and Table 47 respectively. The parking demand deficit in each scenario is lower than the Full Build-Out, though not
dramatically so since newly built parking was scaled down along with development in the scenarios. The spatial parking
deficit patterns remain the same, since all developments considered likely but not yet approved were scaled down
evenly. The projected ferry parking demand was not scaled down with the development in these scenarios. In summary,
the Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario resulted in a total parking deficit of 180 spaces, but an effective parking
deficit of 410 spaces. The Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely scenario resulted in a total parking deficit of 195 spaces, but
an effective parking deficit of 365 spaces.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 112 of 179
 Page 187
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 46: 10-year Weekday Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely Parking Supply and Demand

 Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New
 Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective
 from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity-
 Development at from Ferry at 2pm Capacity Demand
 2pm Passengers
 at 2pm
 Zone 1 - - - 143 140 128 130
 Zone 2 10 - 10 0 (10) 0 (10)
 Zone 3 740 - 740 662 (80) 596 (140)
 Zone 4 - - - 0 - 0 -
 Zone 5 450 - 450 511 60 459 10
 Zone 6 30 200 230 0 (230) 0 (230)
 Zone 7 1,170 - 1,170 1112 (60) 1001 (170)
 Total 2,400 200 2,600 2,428 (180) 2,185 (410)


 Table 47: 10-year Weekday Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely Parking Supply and Demand

 Projected Parking Projected New Total Net New Net New Net New Net New
 Demand from Demand from Projected Parking Total Effective Effective
 Development at Ferry Demand at Total Capacity- Capacity Capacity-
 2pm Passengers at 2pm Capacity Demand Demand
 2pm
 Zone 1 - - - 95 95 86 90
 Zone 2 10 - 10 - (10) - (10)
 Zone 3 492 - 492 442 (50) 397 (90)
 Zone 4 - - - - - - -
 Zone 5 328 - 328 379 50 341 10
 Zone 6 21 200 221 - (220) - (220)
 Zone 7 805 - 805 742 (60) 667 (140)
 Total 1,656 200 1,856 1,657 (195) 1,491 (365)


Next, the weekday Full Build-Out scenario parking demand is combined with the existing peak season weekday parking
demand from the existing condition land-use based calculations results in Figure 58. The combined parking demand is
higher than the future effective capacity between the hours of 10am and 4pm. The projected peak occurs at 2pm when
the demand for parking totals approximately 17,800 spaces while the effective capacity is 16,700 spaces.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 113 of 179
 Page 188
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 21,000
 20,000 18,867 18,867
 19,000
 18,000 16,278 16,868 17,811 16,661
 17,000 16,382
 16,000 15,781 14,882
 15,000
 14,538
 14,000
 13,000 12,768
 12,000



 Parked Vehicles
 11,029
 11,000 10,853
 10,000
 9,000 9,316
 5,659
 8,000
 7,000
 6,000 5,143
 5,000
 4,000
 3,000
 2,000
 1,000
 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Office/Industrial Residential Other Services
 Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers
 Future Capacity Future Effective Capcity Total Estimated


 Figure 58: Weekday Peak Season Existing + 10-year Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand

To summarize, the weekday peak season and peak hour parking supply and demand of the combined future and existing
scenarios is depicted in Figure 59 which shows the total capacity, effective capacity, and peak parking demand for each
of the three 10-year future development scenarios. The results appear in tabular form in Table 48.




 21,000
 18,870
 19,000 17,810 18,100
 16,870 17,070 17,330
 17,000 16,170 16,320
 15,480


 Vehicles
 15,000
 13,000
 11,000
 9,000
 7,000
 5,000
 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50%
 Likely) Likely)

 Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level
 Peak Season 2pm Weekday Demand


 Figure 59: Weekday Peak Season and 2pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 114 of 179
 Page 189
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront



 Table 48: Weekday Peak Season 2pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios

 Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
  Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 Area at Level Effectively Needed
 Peak Full

 Existing + 2pm 18,870 16,870 17,810 -940 1,060 1,060 940
 Full Build-
 Out
 Existing + 2pm 18,100 16,170 17,070 -900 1,030 1,030 900
 (Approved +
 75% Likely)
 Existing + 2pm 17,330 15,480 16,320 -840 1,010 1,010 840
 (Approved +
 50% Likely)


The 10-year projected weekday results show that parking demand would need to be reduced by 940 to remain under
the effective capacity of parking supply within the study area in the Existing + Full Build-Out scenario. The Existing +
Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario results in a need to reduce parking demand by 900 vehicles to remain under
effective capacity. Finally, the Existing + Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely scenario results in a need to reduce parking
demand by 840 vehicles.



J.3.6.2 Future Saturday Results

Next, the projected 10-year Saturday parking demand is described. Figure 60 shows the hourly Full Build-Out scenario
net new supply and demand alone. Between 6pm and 9pm, the projected future parking demand is greater than the
effective capacity of the net new parking supply, which is approximately 2,900 spaces. Demand generated by the new
development is projected to rise to just over 3,000 at 8pm, 100 vehicles more than the net new effective capacity to be
built.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 115 of 179
 Page 190
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 4,000
 3,800
 3,600
 3,400 3198 3198
 3,200
 2,861 3,012
 3,000 2878 2,750 2878
 2,800 2,740
 2,600 2,320 2,511 2,396 2,510
 2,400
 2,200 1,968 2,011




 Parked Vehicles
 2,000 1,904
 1,800
 1,600
 1,400
 1,200
 1,000
 800
 600
 400
 200
 -
 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am
 Future Office/Industrial Future Residential
 Future Hotel/Other Services Future Restaurant/Retail
 Future Growth in Ferry Passengers Net New Parking Capacity


 Figure 60: 10-yr Full Build-Out Scenario Only: Saturday Projected Parking Demand vs. Net New Supply



Table 49 shows the 10-year projected parking demand for each subarea zone at 8pm peak hour on Saturday. The
development in Subarea Zone 2 is an evening entertainment venue and the generated demand is based on full
occupancy of the 1,000 seats. The net new parking in Subarea Zone 3 has a surplus of 395 spaces because of the lack of
office demand during the weekend evening peak. In Subarea Zone 5, the net new parking is within 20 spaces of
supplying enough parking for the evening generated parking demand in the zone. Ferry passenger parking demand is at
its peak in the evening and creates a projected deficit of 240 vehicles generated from the Ferry Terminal in Zone 6.
Subarea Zone 7 has a projected deficit of approximately 45 from hotel, retail, restaurant and residential generated
demand. While the Full Build-Out scenario creates more net new total parking spaces than demand generated on
Saturday at 8pm, there is a parking deficit of approximately 130 spaces relative to net new effective parking capacity.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 116 of 179
 Page 191
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 49: 10-Year Saturday Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand

 Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New
 Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective
 from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity-
 Development at from Ferry at 8pm Capacity Demand
 8pm Passengers
 at 8pm
 Zone 1 - - - 190 190 171 170
 Zone 2 390 - 390 - (390) - (390)
 Zone 3 400 - 400 883 480 795 395
 Zone 4 - - - - - - -
 Zone 5 600 - 600 642 40 578 (20)
 Zone 6 - 240 240 - (240) - (240)
 Zone 7 1,380 - 1,380 1,483 100 1,335 (45)
 Total 2,770 240 3,010 3,198 180 2,878 (130)


The Saturday Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario parking demand deficit is higher than the Full-Build Out because
the approved development in Subarea Zone 2 and ferry passenger parking demand are not scaled down while many of
the likely developments that include net new parking are scaled down. The Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely result is a
deficit of 300 spaces relative to net new effective capacity as shown in Table 50.

 Table 50: 10yr Saturday + 75% Likely

 Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New
 Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective
 from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity-
 Development at from Ferry at 8pm Capacity Demand
 8pm Passengers
 at 8pm
 Zone 1 - - - 143 140 128 130
 Zone 2 390 - 390 - (390) - (390)
 Zone 3 300 - 300 662 360 596 300
 Zone 4 - - - - - - -
 Zone 5 480 - 480 511 30 459 (20)
 Zone 6 - 240 240 - (240) - (240)
 Zone 7 1,080 1,080 1,112 30 1,001 (80)
 Total 2,250 240 2,490 2,428 (70) 2,185 (300)


The Approved Plus 50 percent Likely scenario has a final deficit of 460 relative to net new effective parking supply at
8pm on Saturday as shown in Table 51.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 117 of 179
 Page 192
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 51: 10yr Saturday + 50% Likely

 Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New
 Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective
 from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity-
 Development at from Ferry at 8pm Capacity Demand
 8pm Passengers
 at 8pm
 Zone 1 - - - 95 95 86 90
 Zone 2 390 - 390 - (390) - (390)
 Zone 3 200 - 200 442 240 397 200
 Zone 4 - - - - - - -
 Zone 5 360 - 360 379 20 341 (20)
 Zone 6 - 240 240 - (240) - (240)
 Zone 7 770 770 742 (30) 667 (100)
 Total 1,720 240 1,960 1,657 (305) 1,491 (460)


Although all three 10-year Saturday scenarios are projected to generate more parking demand than net effective supply,
the existing condition land-used based calculated results had more than enough surplus parking capacity to
accommodate the future Saturday demand. Figure 61 combines the Existing and Full Build-Out scenarios.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 118 of 179
 Page 193
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 21,000
 20,000
 19,000
 17,950 17,350
 18,000 17,022
 17,022 16,624
 16,624
 17,000 15,843 15,863
 16,042
 15,502
 16,000 15,207
 14,849
 15,000 15,207 14,164
 14,000 14,849
 14,146 13,365
 13,000 11,901 11,929 11,932
 12,000 12,016



 Parked Vehicles
 11,000
 9,504
 10,000
 9,000
 8,000 6,935
 7,000
 6,000
 5,000
 4,000
 3,000
 2,000
 1,000
 -


 Office/Industrial Residential Other Services
 Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers
 Future Capacity Future Effective Capacity Total Estimate



 Figure 61: Saturday Peak Season Existing + 10-year Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand


The combined existing and future Saturday peak hour results are shown as a chart in Figure 62.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 119 of 179
 Page 194
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 21,000

 19,000
 17,020
 17,000 16,250
 15,210 15,480
 15,000 14,510
 13,820

 Vehicles
 13,360
 12,830
 13,000 12,310

 11,000

 9,000

 7,000

 5,000
 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50%
 Likely) Likely)

 Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 8pm Satuday Demand


 Figure 62: Saturday Peak Season 8pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios


The 10-year combined existing and future parking projections for all scenarios find that, as was the case in the existing
condition, parking supply is higher than demand during the Saturday peak as summarized in Table 52. The future
scenarios do however result in a slight decrease in the amount of parking available until effectively full on a Saturday at
8pm. In the existing condition, the Saturday 8pm peak had 1,940 available spaces until effectively full, while the Existing
plus Full Build-Out scenario has 1,850 spaces available until effectively full. Should the existing trend of over capacity on-
street parking with simultaneous under capacity off-street parking continue, the added 10-year parking demand under
any of the future scenarios could further shape perceptions of Portland as being a difficult place to find parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 120 of 179
 Page 195
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

 Table 52: Saturday Peak Season 8pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios

 Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking
 Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand
 Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction
 Area at Level Effectively Needed
 Peak Full

 Existing + 8pm 17,020 15,320 13,360 1,960 1,700 3,660 -
 Full Build-
 Out
 Existing + 8pm 16,250 14,510 12,830 1,680 1,740 3,420 -
 (Approved +
 75% Likely)
 Existing + 8pm 15,480 13,820 12,310 1,510 1,660 3,170 -
 (Approved +
 50% Likely)




J.4 Conclusion
In the future parking demand section, we have shown the magnitude of approved and likely 10-year development in the
Portland study area. The development was shown to exhibit clustering in Subarea Zones 3 and 5 as well as separately in
Subarea Zones 6 and 7. Significant increases in study area resident population and employment are anticipated. The rate
of population and employment growth would be significantly higher in the study area as compared to rates that have
been projected for the City of Portland overall. This is not necessarily incompatible; however, it would require that the
study area add employment and especially residents at a higher relative rate than the overall growth rate of the City
compared to how the study area and City grew during the past 15 years. This is in keeping with policies of Portland’s
plan.

A 10-year growth assumption for ferry passenger demand was made by continuing the trend of the previous 5-years.
Associated parking demand from ferry passenger growth was calculated to be an additional 240 vehicles during the peak
season. The past 5-years saw a healthy growth in ridership, and continuing this trend may result in a future projection
somewhat on the high or conservative side. Nevertheless, the future scenarios did not provide enough surplus net new
parking that could absorb growing parking demand from ferry passengers.

Although tourism in Maine has been increasing robustly during the last 5-years, the data was not as clear on visitation to
the Portland region which may be relatively flat as a lower share of day visitors to the state reported the region as their
primary destination even though the total number of state visitors increased. Tourism was accounted for in the future
demand analysis as part of the ferry passenger growth trend and it is also embedded in the future land use parking
demand generation from the addition of new land use development such as restaurant, retail, and hotels which has
been scaled in anticipation of tourism.

Three future development scenarios, a full build and two scenarios that allowed for the possibility of less development,
were analyzed using a combination of ITE Parking Generation factors and ULI shared parking factors. The key results are
summarized in Table 53, the final figures have been adjusted by the difference between the land-use generated existing
conditions results and the observed and adjusted existing conditions results. This calibration was made assuming the
observed and adjusted existing conditions results were more accurate than the land-use based results and carrying the
difference forward into the future.


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 121 of 179
 Page 196
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront


 Table 53: Future Demand Analysis Adjusted Results

 Scenario Study Area Peak Season Parking Demand
 Deficit Relative to Effective Capacity (in
 vehicles during the peak hour)
 Weekday Saturday
  Existing Condition Observed + Adjusted 290 0
  Existing Condition Land-Used Based 480 0
  Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods 190 0

  #1 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Full Build-Out 940 0
  #2 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 75%
  Likely Development 900 0
  #3 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 50%
  Likely Development 840 0

  #1-(Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 750 0
  #2-(Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 710 0
  #3-(Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 650 0


  Recommended Planning Range Goal for 10- year Parking Demand
  Reduction 700-750 0

It should be recalled that an additional 1,307 spaces in structured and surface lot parking available to the public with an
effective capacity of 1,176 vehicles outside of the study area within a quarter-mile buffer. This additional parking supply
serves a combination of travelers destined for the study area and travelers destined for land use outside of the study
area. The existing parking demand for land use outside of the study area was not observed. It should not be assumed
that this additional capacity can offset the projected parking demand deficit in the study area alone. Analysis in the
existing conditions chapter showed that the quarter-mile buffer area parking supply is likely already critical to meeting
the monthly parking demand of employees in the study area.

We therefore recommend that the City of Portland plan to reduce weekday parking demand in the study area by a range
of 700-750 vehicles in a 10-year horizon. We propose a goal of managing parking demand in the study area to be at or
just under the weekday peak hour effective capacity of parking supply inside of the study area, which is projected to be
in a range between approximately 15,480 to 16,870 parking spaces depending on the future build scenario.

In the following section, we offer a set of recommendations to address Portland’s critical need to manage overall
parking demand in the study area and the specific parking demands of key user groups experiencing difficulty parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 122 of 179
 Page 197
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

K. Strategy Recommendations and Development

K.1 Introduction
In Task 1, the existing conditions report determined that overall parking demand in the study area, including on-street
and off-street parking, is likely 290-480 vehicles over effective parking capacity in the midday period on weekdays during
the peak summer season. Furthermore, it was found that during weekday evenings (after 5pm) and on weekends,
parking supply in the study area is well below effective capacity overall. However, on-street parking during the evening
on weekdays (5pm-8pm) and after 1pm on Saturday is at or over effective capacity along key commercial streets in the
study area.

The most urgent existing condition parking challenges are identified as:

  There is a scarcity of monthly parking offered for employees on weekdays during the work day.
  There are limited low-cost parking options for low wage earners in the study area.
  There are limited low-cost multi-day and monthly options for island residents who have a need to park a vehicle
 on the mainland accessible from the ferry terminal.
  Visitors during the summer season compete with employees of the study area for day parking, contributing to
 off-street parking scarcity mid-day on weekdays.
  High rates of on-street parking occupancy during weekday evenings and on weekends, in many sampled
 locations above 85%, is contributing to the perception that there is no parking, when in fact ample off-street
 parking is available during these periods, but at a higher cost.
  Unrestricted parking on streets outside of the study area, but within a walkable distance, are under pressure of
 increased use by travelers to the study area seeking day parking, including employees and day visitors. This is
 particularly relevant weekdays during the peak summer season when study area parking demand is at or over
 effective capacity.

In Task 2, the future demand report, three future development scenarios were identified, consisting of approved
projects and likely projects built out to 50%, 75%, and 100% of proposed development capacity.

The main parking challenges associated with the identified future parking scenarios are:

  In the Eastern Waterfront area, Subarea Zone 7, and the area surrounding the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal,
 Subarea Zone 6, the projected demand associated with new mixed-use development combined with growth in
 ferry passenger parking demand will likely exceed net new parking supply on both peak (summer) weekdays in
 the afternoon and on weekends in the evening.

 While there is existing off-street parking capacity elsewhere in the Study Area on weekends to accommodate
 the growth in parking demand, there does not appear to be existing capacity on weekdays during the afternoon
 peak hour to accommodate the amount of parking demand that is projected to be over capacity from Subarea
 Zones 6 and 7.

  In Subarea Zone 3 located Downtown, the projected demand associated with new mixed-use development will
 slightly exceed the net new parking supply in that zone on peak season (summer) weekdays during the
 afternoon. Net new parking supply in adjacent Subarea Zone 1 will help to offset most of the projected parking
 deficit in Subarea Zone 3, but not entirely.



Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 123 of 179
 Page 198
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

The following recommended strategies are made to address overall parking demand and the specific parking demands
of key user groups including all employees, low-wage employees specifically, and island residents.

K.2 Recommended Strategies

K.2.1 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation Association

A new non-profit organization, a Transportation Management Association (TMA) being just one example, could serve as
an important entity for bringing private and public-sector interests together to address collective parking challenges and
other mobility issues affecting the study area. We recommend the role of the organization to be a facilitator of solution-
finding for members and to play an important informational role to businesses in Portland.

Commonly, transportation associations form to pool private funding for shuttle services created to solve employer
mobility challenges. We do not necessarily recommend that the association itself contract with a fixed route shuttle
service provider. Instead we recommend that the association become well-versed in existing and emerging
transportation network company (TNC) services that use customized mobility solutions for individual members or
partnered members.

The advantages of TNC solutions over traditional fixed-route private shuttles are the possibility for on-demand and
custom routing, custom smartphone apps can improve the user experience, and depending on the arrangement,
members can pay for only the rides they use.

Key issues that a new transportation association could play an important role in addressing are:

  The difficulty employers and their employees are having securing monthly parking; specifically, we recommend
 the crafting of customized TNC solutions for employee mobility that could include new park and ride lots at
 underutilized and lower cost locations outside of the study area.

  Helping to connect employers with transit mobility solutions for employees. This could range from practical
 matters such as helping to integrate the procurement of transit passes, to a larger-scale programmatic role of
 serving as a unified voice for members to dialog with regional public transit providers, Amtrak, the JetPort etc.

  Collecting metrics on mobility issues, such as parking demand, that may help members solve mobility problems
 through coordination and sharing of unused parking spaces or crafting of another policy.

  Acting as a clearinghouse for information and ideas regarding Travel Demand Management. The association
 could also provide a venue for voluntary compliance monitoring with TDM ordinances.

  Identifying parking management strategies or programs that could benefit the area collectively or strategies to
 achieve a specific initiative, for example a large-scale special event.

  Marketing mobility and parking solutions to visitors to help prevent the perception that Portland is a difficult
 place to visit because of hard to find and expensive parking.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 124 of 179
 Page 199
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

K.2.2 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to Address Specific Parking Challenges

We recommend that the City of Portland explore partnering with TNCs to create customized programs to address three
specific issues: 1) island resident parking supply; 2) the limited availability of low cost parking for low-wage earners; and
3) surges in peak season visitor parking demand.


  The City could partner with a TNC to create a customized program for island residents to improve
 mobility between the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal and a location where multi-day parking is lower cost,
 more available, and more reliable compared to the current situation of a crowded on-street resident
 parking zone. The City could explore ways to share the cost of this program with the island resident on a
 per-ride basis, a one-time annual fee, or another means. We strongly suggest keeping the existing on-
 street resident zones for island residents, and we suggest this new option as an alternative that could be
 very attractive given the right price point and convenience of use.

The Chebeague Transportation Company (CTC) currently operates a shuttle bus between a satellite parking lot on Route
1 in Cumberland and the CTC ferry terminal in Yarmouth. Our recommendation for the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal would
work similarly, but replaces a shuttle bus with on-demand TNC service utilizing a smartphone app.

  The City could partner with a TNC to create a customized program for low-wage earners who are having
 difficulty finding affordable parking options close to their employer. The City could manage membership
 to such a program by requiring applicants already meet the requirements of another existing income
 restricted program. The program would allow low-wage earners to use a coupon code or custom app to
 use TNC travel between their employer and another location such as a park and ride lot or a transit
 center during defined working hours. The City could share the cost of this program with the employee
 on a per-ride basis, a one-time annual fee, or another means.


  The City could partner with a TNC to coordinate a well-publicized option for peak season visitors to park
 remotely at an underutilized lot, perhaps a distant lot with good highway access, and use TNC services
 to ride to and from the study area, particularly those traveling to the Old Port, Waterfront, and Casco
 Bay Islands. The lot could offer day and multi-day pricing that together with the cost of the TNC ride
 could be comparable to what would be paid for off-street parking in the study area. We do not
 necessarily suggest the City play a role in cost sharing for visitor rides, but rather set the cost of parking
 in the remote lot intentionally to make the program viable.


K.2.3 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Programs

Expand island resident parking programs to include a program where island residents may remit a resident parking
permit in exchange for ridesharing subsidy or stipend to use as they see fit. This is like the suggestion above, but could
be less programmatic and may not include a designated off-site lot. The City could also explore the possibility of
allowing island residents to park in another residential zone that has surplus on-street parking and use ridesharing or
transit to reach the Ferry terminal.

K.2.4 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand Areas

One of the main findings of the study was that on-street parking is at or over capacity during weekday evenings and
during most observed hours on Saturday. One side effect of over capacity on-street parking for businesses is lower
customer turnover. Residents, employers, and their visitors may experience more difficulty finding short term on-street


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 125 of 179
 Page 200
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

parking, and a higher incidence of double parking for pickup and drop-off activities. Stakeholders will need to define
what an acceptable level of on-street parking occupancy is, we suggest 85 percent, and if it is acceptable to use meter
pricing as a mechanism of influencing turnover and on-street occupancy levels.

If higher turnover is defined as a goal, one way to increase parking turnover would be to pilot test higher on-street
parking rates and extended meter hours to 8pm in high demand areas such as Commercial St. A pilot test would mean a
short-term experiment with a known end that is followed by an assessment of the results. The goal of the pilot would
be to determine if Portland parking users respond to the price increase with higher turnover rates and whether
stakeholders decide the higher turnover rate was beneficial.

K.2.5 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide

The on-street occupancy data shows that occupancy levels rise above capacity on weekends beginning near 4pm when a
user would be able to pay for two-hours of on-street parking and leave a vehicle for the remainder of the evening. If
stakeholders decide that maintaining a two-hour turnover up until 6pm is beneficial, which it may be for some
stakeholders such as restaurants, the meters could be extended until 8pm so that cars cannot be left on the street for
the evening with a two-hour payment until 6pm. Additional outreach would be necessary before any such change could
be implemented.


K.2.6 Improve Parking Management and Technology

It is recommended that parking operators continue to utilize the latest technology in operating their parking supply
including sharing pricing, hours, and even real-time occupancy data with customers via smartphone apps. The more
customers know about where parking is available and at what price before departure or en route, the better the parking
experience and more efficient use of available space study area wide.

To address the issue of overcrowding of on-street parking during evenings and weekends while off-street parking is
underutilized, parking managers could consider offering more competitive pricing with on-street rates during the first
one or two hours of stay.

More operators might consider offering evenings only monthly passes that might attract evening shift workers who
would otherwise avoid higher priced hourly parking close to their employer.

Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) practices to better utilize existing parking supplies. One of the
challenges associated with parking in Portland is knowing where to park. There are several approaches to addressing this
problem. First, we recommend the review and implementation of any remaining initiatives identified in the 2013
Portland Peninsula Vehicular Wayfinding Plan specifically related to parking signage and wayfinding in the Old Port,
Waterfront, Arts District, and Eastern Waterfront. If recommendations in the plan are found to be out of date, we
recommend a new City led effort to study how parking wayfinding can be optimized through signage and technology.

Technology is the wayfinding of the future. Encourage maximum use of technological tools that guide the public to
available parking spaces at known prices. Smartphone apps can market and incentivize the use of existing parking by
allowing users to price compare, reserve, purchase, and way find with one tool. Such programs maximize the efficiency
of existing parking while reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 126 of 179
 Page 201
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

K.2.7 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations

Manage parking demand by reducing parking requirements for residential units in the urban core to less than 1 space
per unit, while slightly increasing parking requirements for office from one space per 400sqft to one per 300sqft. The
projected parking demand suggests that weekday mid-day parking will be over effective capacity. Increasing office
parking requirements slightly will relieve part of this demand gap. However, we do not recommend closing the new gap
entirely with new parking supply. Some of this parking supply gap should be closed through better management of
citywide parking supplies. We suggest targeting 50% of the parking supply gap to be closed through parking
requirements for land use approvals, while closing the balance through parking management strategies.

Any increased structured parking supply should be specifically designed to be repurposed as retail space, due to the
widely anticipated likelihood that structured parking demand will decrease substantially with the advent of the
autonomous vehicle. While some believe that wide adoption of autonomous vehicles is many years in the future, it is
important to note that structured parking costs are routinely amortized over 30 or more years. Based on current studies,
it is highly likely that autonomous vehicles will result in a substantial reduction in parking demand, thereby undermining
the financial models that allow for commercial parking garage developments. Many underwriters are already
questioning the validity of parking garage pro formas in dense urban environments.

K.2.8 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses Permits

As part of the city’s upcoming land use code rewrite, consider requiring additional parking data and or trip or parking
generation studies as a component of all site plan review. Requesting that developments provide parking and trip
generation information on a periodic basis will help the city calibrate its parking policies to reflect actual demand and
allow for more informed policy decisions. This data collection effort should include pricing information (if applicable) for
spaces that are sold or rented to tenants.

In addition, strengthen the policy of allowing fees-in-lieu. If the current $5,000 minimum per space program has had low
participation, the problem could be uncertainty about how the City’s Sustainable Transportation Fund will benefit
development. Contributors to the fund must understand how the funds will be used. This is critical to lenders and
investors looking to underwrite land development projects so the payment is viewed having a benefit for the project.
The City should consider more marketing or public engagement related to the annual Sustainable Transportation Fund
Appropriations Schedule. The City could use a variety of platforms to state how the Sustainable Transportation Fund is
being used, follow through on the plan, and then let constituents know via social media or other means the results of
the investment.

K.2.9 Increase Car Sharing Use

Facilitate car sharing through parking strategies. The use of U-Car and other car share opportunities can have a
significant benefit for islanders and residents of the study area if made convenient enough. Car sharing can reduce
demand for a landside car, while facilitating travel on the Peninsula for routine trips. One or more shared cars should
frequently be accessible from the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, in the parking garage or via a short trip either by foot
or using a ridesharing app.

Additionally, new peer to peer car sharing apps, e.g. Getaround or a similar company, could allow residents of the study
area to rent their personal vehicles to islanders or vice versa. A resident who lives and works in the study area may have
a vehicle that is parked at home during the work day which an islander could rent. An islander who keeps a vehicle on
the mainland but does not use it daily could rent it to residents of the study area on a short-term basis. The apps
simplify the coordination and transactions necessary to rent. The companies provide special insurance, and allow the car
owner to choose renters with favorable feedback ratings.

Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 127 of 179
 Page 202
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

K.2.10 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study

Continue to pursue the adoption of multiple strategies for single occupancy vehicle parking demand reduction through
travel demand management (TDM) in the study area as recommended in the 2008 Portland Peninsula Transit Study. The
study outlined TDM strategies, some of which have been implemented, e.g, fee-in-lieu payments as part city’s zoning
code and the creation of the Sustainable Transportation Fund. However, unimplemented strategies remain. TDM
strategies that could address the Study Area’s parking challenges include:

  Requiring new development in the study area become a member of the new transportation association and
 require the implementation of TDM ordinances such as:
 o Appointing a mobility coordinator for the development to interact with the transportation association.
 o Provide a car share space on-site.
 o Offer employees the option to purchase a pre-tax monthly transit pass.
 o Create incentives and educate employers on parking cash-out programs where employees may forgo an
 employee provided parking spot for a one-time payment.
 o The unbundling of parking and residential units so a resident is not obligated to take a parking space if
 they do not want one or own a car.

The Peninsula Transit Study also made a number of detailed transit service recommendations that have yet to be
achieved. We recommend continued pursuance of the following goals:

  Increase the peak period frequency of key Peninsula routes to 10-20 min headways
  Provide a direct link between the Portland Transportation Center and Downtown/ Waterfront. As development
 on the Eastern Waterfront progresses, service should extend there as well.
  Use signal prioritization and other techniques (e.g. queue jump lane) to help move buses through congested
 areas.

K.2.11 Additional Transit Recommendations

Additionally, we recommend the consideration of a downtown circulator route specifically meant to transport riders
between the Waterfront and Cumberland Ave in a loop. There is a need to make available parking uphill from the
Waterfront more attractive to better distribute parking demand within the study area.

The introduction of GPS enabled bus arrival tracking in Portland during 2016 is an important advancement. The City
should encourage the creation of additional smartphone apps that utilize the open-source bus location data. The City
could organize a hack-a-thon, a contest, or another incentive to spur user engagement with the new information
technology.



K.2.12 Bicycle Infrastructure

It is encouraging that the final design for the Franklin Ave reconstruction will include new bike lanes to both cross
Franklin Ave and travel along it. The eventual realization of that project should help raise the bicycle commute share to
the study area. If the City can raise the bicycle commute share during the peak summer season especially, it could play a
role in managing peak parking demand.

Additional investment in bikeways, bike lanes, bike paths, and byways to improve bicycle access from off-peninsula is
needed to raise the bicycle mode share of travel to the study area.



Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 128 of 179
 Page 203
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

The City will have the opportunity to observe the new bike sharing initiative to be launched in Portland in 2018. We
recommend the City support additional bike share infrastructure should the pilot program prove successful. Bike sharing
could be part of a mobility strategy between outlying parking areas or transit hubs and high-demand destinations.


K.2.13 Convert Unrestricted Parking

If further study shows unrestricted on-street parking within walking distance to the study area is over capacity and is
being used for longer duration parking than desired by stakeholders. Conversion of unrestricted spaces to time limited
zones or metered spaces is recommended. It is recommended that this be carried out gradually so that the effects of
parking demand on the study area can be monitored for adverse impacts should significant new parking demand be
forced into the study area. The unrestricted spaces on Commercial St west of the study area could potentially be
converted to metered spaces if a successful low-wage earner remote parking program were implemented as described
in Section K.2.2, since those spaces are intended to provide at least some no-cost parking near the study area.


K.2.14 Marketing and Advertising

The City could continue to support a marketing and advertising campaign to raise awareness and improve perception
about multi-modal access to the study area; including parking strategies, smartphone apps, and parking prices.
Campaigns should also highlight transit and bicycle commuting opportunities.


K.2.15 Additional Data Collection

We recommend periodic data collection on parking demand, particularly during the peak season since this effort
collected data during the winter season. Also recommended is data collection that would measure public knowledge
about multi-model access to the study area and willingness to pay for transportation and parking services. Establishing
baseline data on these topics will greatly help to develop performance measures for any solutions the City pursues.
Having high quality measures of effectiveness can be key to attracting state and federal funding.


K.2.16 Construct Additional Structured Public Use Parking Supply

If stakeholders decide that additional parking capacity is a necessary component to the City’s overall parking demand
management strategy. The construction of up to approximately 500 to 750 new structured parking spaces for public use
by travelers to the study area could be explored. We recommend the consideration of repurposeable parking structure
design to allow for the possibility of a change in use over the design life of the structure.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 129 of 179
 Page 204
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

L. Implementation and Funding
This section identifies potential local, state, and federal funding sources applicable to the recommendations in Chapter
K. First, a short description of potential funding sources, then Table 54 summarizes each recommendation from Chapter
K with applicable funding sources.


L.1 Local Funding Suggestions
A Development Impact Fee


The proposed fee is a transportation impact fee scaled to the size, intensity, and or land use type of new development in
the study area for funding travel demand management, workforce mobility, or parking demand management related
initiatives. This fee would be separate from the existing optional parking in-lieu of fee in the City’s Land Use Code.

A Special Purpose On-Street Parking Meter Rate Increase


The proposed meter rate increase is for high-demand locations, such as Commercial St, Exchange St, and Middle St. It is
suggested that the collected revenue be used specifically for mobility initiatives for low-wage earners and island resident
commuters having trouble parking in the high-demand areas. It is also proposed that the purpose of the meter rate
increase be clearly communicated to the public and the programs funded by the new revenue be clearly explained.


L.2 State Funding
The State of Maine collects revenue from gasoline tax and other transportation related user fees into a State Highway
Fund. State Highway Fund expenditures are primarily allocated to road and bridge improvements, supporting traffic law
enforcement, safety, and ferry passenger service operations. Funding for transit and other mobility programs is
comparatively small and has not grown significantly in recent years. It doesn’t seem probable that tax and user fee
revenue collected by the State will be a major source of funding for new mobility initiatives in the study area
surrounding Downtown Portland. However, a mobility initiative with regional appeal or one that can be replicated
elsewhere in the State should at least request a State contribution toward a local match requirement needed to
leverage federal funding assistance.


L.3 Federal Funding
There are a several federal funding programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that are applicable to the mobility recommendations in Chapter K. What follows is
a brief description of relevant federal transportation grant programs, made law under the most recent federal
transportation bill, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, which authorized federal
transportation funding through federal fiscal year 2020.


L.3.1 Formula Grant Programs

A number of federal transportation grant programs are administered jointly by the FHWA and FTA as formula programs.
This means that a formula defined during the writing of the transportation bill reauthorization is used to allocate federal


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 130 of 179
 Page 205
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

funds to states on an annual basis considering factors such as population, federal fuel taxes paid, transit revenue miles,
etc. Each grant program may use a different formula. After funding is allocated to the states, a second formula then
applies for allocating funds within each state between state departments of transportation (DOTs) and regional
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The City of Portland and other eligible agencies may then apply for federal
grants through either a regional MPO or the DOT in a competitive annual process. Eligible projects in most cases should
be included in a regional long-range plan (LRP), state implementation plan (STIP), and a regional transportation
improvement plan (TIP) where applicable. With some exceptions, the federal grant programs typically offer funding
assistance of up to 80 percent of project cost requiring a 20 percent local match at minimum. Four examples of formula
grant programs are described below.

L.3.1.1 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program

The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) is the most flexible of the federal transportation grant programs
covering a wide variety of eligible projects related to surface transportation including capital investments, planning,
design, asset management, research, and training to name a few.

L.3.1.2 Transportation Alternatives Program

The Transportation Alternatives (TA) program is a subset of the STBG program meant for projects pertaining to
alternatives to vehicular transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities on and off road including recreational
trail projects.

L.3.1.3 Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program

The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) is a grant program meant to provide assistance in funding
transportation projects that help meet or maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act. Although Maine is currently in
attainment of federal air quality standards, the State still receives a minimum apportionment of CMAQ funding for
projects that improve or maintain air quality. CMAQ funds are provided on a reimbursement basis, meaning funds are
not provided until work is completed.

L.3.1.4 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program, Section 5307

The FTA administers an Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program, also known as Section 5307. Eligible activities include
a variety of transit planning, engineering, design, capital investment, and related communications technology. Some
activities related to mobility management programs are also eligible under the program. Urbanized areas with a
population over 200,000 are usually not allowed to use Section 5307 grant funding for transit operating expenses,
however, a Special Rule exists allowing some urban areas to do so. The Portland, ME urbanized area is currently allowed
to use a limited amount of Section 5307 funds for transit operating expenses.


L.3.2 Competitive Grant Programs

There are also grant programs administered by FHWA and FTA that are allocated through competitive processes at the
federal level. Eligible applicants apply directly for the grants through one of the federal agencies and awarded funds do
not count against the formula grant funds received by the states. The grant programs typically offer funding assistance
at a maximum of 80 percent of project cost, though applicants are encouraged to apply for less to better the odds of
receiving funding. Two examples of competitive grant programs are described below.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 131 of 179
 Page 206
City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern
 Waterfront

L.3.2.1 Passenger Ferry Grant Program

The Passenger Ferry Grant Program is a competitive grant program administered by FTA for projects related to
passenger ferry systems in urbanized areas. In addition to directly supporting capital expenses related to ferry boat
service, eligible projects include enhancements to terminals and connectivity to other modes of transportation.


L.3.2.2 Mobility on Demand Sandbox Demonstration Program

The Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demonstration Program was the first program of its kind created by the FTA in
2016. The MOD program is part of a broader long-range policy visioning effort at the USDOT called Beyond Traffic.
Although the MOD program has already fully allocated its budget of $8 million in awards, future programs funding MOD
demonstrations will likely follow in years to come. The MOD program funded innovative pilot projects in communities
seeking to integrate mobility on demand services such as bike sharing, car sharing, and demand-responsive buses and
vans with traditional transit services. The integration of smart phone technology across MOD services and transit was
also a key component of many awarded programs. Eleven grants were awarded including one to The Vermont Agency of
Transportation which received $480,00 to create a statewide transit trip planner that will attempt to enable various non-
fixed route mobility services to be integrated with fixed route transit services using smartphone technology.



L.4 Conclusion
This chapter offered ideas for funding sources to support the recommendations made in Chapter K to reduce parking
demand in Downtown Portland, The Waterfront, and The Eastern Waterfront over the next ten years. In Table 54, each
recommendation from Chapter K is listed with the relevant funding sources described here in Chapter L.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 132 of 179
 Page 207
 Table 54: Suggested Funding Sources for Recommendations

 Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance
 Initiation
 Timeframe
 K.2.1 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation Association
Feasibility study 1 year Contributions from the private sector to an STBG Program has eligibility for planning projects.
 existing association or to the City to manage
 the procurement of a feasibility study.
Incorporation and startup 2 years Membership dues. Some transportation CMAQ program. The Association would need to demonstrate a
 associations also provide services for fees.mission that will result in air quality improvement.
 Transportation Management Associations, for example, are
 eligible for federal assistance under the CMAQ program with
 startup funding assistance and up to 3 years of operating
 assistance spread out over a maximum of 5 years.
 K.2.2 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to Address Specific Parking Challenges
Meet with TNC providers to 1 year N/A N/A
discuss partnership and service
Develop a custom program for 2 years City funding, user fees, development impact Park and ride lot projects are eligible under the STBG program,
island residents fee, Special purpose on-street meter rate however use of federal funds for remote parking facilities and
 increase. programs would preclude the City from collecting user fees
Develop a custom program for 2 years City funding, user fees, development impact beyond operation and maintenance of the parking lot. Park and
low-wage earners fee, Special purpose on-street meter rate Ride lot projects using federal funds must accommodate transit
 increase. service and or traditional carpool/vanpool programs.
Develop a remote park and 3 years City funding, user fees, development impact
 A future successor to the FY 2016 MOD program may provide
ride lot strategy for visitors fee.
 an opportunity for the City to create a project integrating bus
 and passenger ferry service with mobility on demand services
 using smartphone technology.

 Approved use of federal funds for programs that include
 mobility on demand services is a current and emerging topic of
 federal policy review.




 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 127 of 179
 Page 208
 Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance
 Initiation
 Timeframe
 K.2.3 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Permit Programs
 1-2 years City Funding. Funding for this N/A
 recommendation could help offset future
 loss of revenue associated with the
 additional conversion of on-street spaces to
 unmetered hourly zones.

 K.2.4 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand Areas
Design Pilot Study 1 year City Funding N/A
Implement Pilot Study 2 years City Funding N/A
 K.2.5 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide
 2 years City Funding for changes in signage, public N/A
 awareness.

 K.2.6 Improve Parking Management and Technology
 1 year -ongoing Continued private operator investment The City could apply for wayfinding project grant under the
 CMAQ program. The project would need to demonstrate air
 quality benefits from improved wayfinding, e.g., decreased
 vehicular trip lengths.

 K.2.7 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations
 1 year This recommendation could be reviewed N/A
 during the upcoming re-write of the City's
 Land Use Code, already budgeted for
 FY2018.

 K.2.8 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses Permits
 1 year This recommendation could be reviewed N/A
 during the upcoming re-write of the City's
 Land Use Code, already budgeted for
 FY2018.




 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 128 of 179
 Page 209
 Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance
 Initiation
 Timeframe



 K.2.9 Increase Car Sharing Use
 1 year-ongoing The City could review additional While federal public transportation law does not consider car
 requirements in the Land Use Code for the sharing as a form of public transportation, capital expenses
 creation of designated parking spaces for car related to the creation of parking spaces for car sharing
 sharing vehicles as part of future private programs at transit stops, transit centers, or passenger ferry
 developments. terminals may be eligible for funding through the Urbanized
 Area Formula Grants Section 5307 or the Passenger Ferry Grant
 Program.


 K.2.10 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study
Additional TDM requirements 1 year-ongoing This recommendation could be reviewed N/A
for development during the upcoming re-write of the City's
 Land Use Code, already budgeted for
 FY2018.
Transit Service Enhancements 3-5 years City funding, development impact fee STBG program, Section 5307
and Upgrades
 K.2.11 Additional Transit Recommendations
Hack-a-thon, contest, or 1 year City funding, private donations N/A
another incentive to engage
users with the invention of new
Portland area bus location
smartphone apps.
Downtown circulator bus route 3-5 years Development impact fee STBG program, Section 5307


 K.2.12 Bicycle Infrastructure
 1 year-ongoing City funding, development impact fee STBG program, TA program. Bicycle infrastructure upgrades to
 ferry terminals may be eligible under the Passenger Ferry
 Program. A successor to the 2016 MOD program may present
 Portland with an opportunity to create a program to integrate



 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 129 of 179
 Page 210
Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance
 Initiation
 Timeframe
 bike sharing and bus or passenger ferry service while
 incorporating smartphone technology.



 K.2.13 Convert Unrestricted Parking
 3-5 years City funding. N/A
 K.2.14 Marketing and Advertising
 1 year-ongoing City funding, Private/nonprofit N/A
 funds/partnerships
 K.2.15 Additional Data Collection
 2 years City funding, private donations Data collection as part of planning activities could be eligible
 under the STBG program.
 K.2.16 Construct New Structured Public Parking Supply
 Depending on Private financing N/A
 development. 3-7
 years.




 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 130 of 179
 Page 211
M. Appendix A: Structured and Surface Lot Parking Inventory with Numbered
 Maps
 Structured Parking Map with Numbered Index




Capacity count methodology: For surface lots and structed parking included in the City’s seasonal parking inventory, the
published total of spaces were used. All remaining surface lots not included in the City inventory were manually counted
using Google Earth aerial photography. For structed parking not included in the City inventory (which were typically
private use garages), estimates were made using a combination of Google Earth aerial photography and Google Street
View to determine the number of parking levels. The number of residential units associated with a private residential
garage also informed private garage estimates.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 131 of 179
 Page 212
Map Index for Structures

LOT_ID on Study Area SubArea
 Name Spaces Use Type
Map Section Zone
 1 Casco Bay Parking Garage Waterfront 418 Public Use 6
 Cumberland County Courthouse Parking
 2 OldPort 328 Public Use 2
 Garage
 3 Custom House Parking Garage OldPort 761 Public Use 4
 4 Elm St Garage OldPort 398 Public Use 2
 5 Fore St. Parking Garage OldPort 423 Public Use 4
 6 Gateway Parking Garage OldPort 655 Public Use 1
 7 Portland Harbor Hotel Garage OldPort 195 PrivateLimPub 3
 8 Ocean Gateway Garage EasternWaterfront 720 Public Use 7
 9 Spring Street Garage OldPort 565 Public Use 1
 10 One City Center Garage OldPort 600 Public Use 2
 11 Temple Street Parking Garage OldPort 620 Public Use 2
 12 Holiday Inn by the Bay OldPort 285 Public Use 3
 Morgan Stanley_Citizens Bank Parking Private
 13 OldPort 200 4
 Garage Commercial
 Eastern Private
 14 Portland House Parking Garage 111 7
 Waterfront Residential
 65 Monument Square Garage OldPort 340 Public Use 1
 Private
 105 Chandlers Wharf OldPort 150 5
 Residential
 Private
 106 Portland Pier Condos OldPort 30 6
 Residential
 Private
 109 Bangor Savings Bank Old Port 84 4
 Commercial
 Private
 110 2 Monument Way OldPort 73 2
 Commercial
 Private
 112 Oak St Lofts OldPort 37 1
 Residential
 Private
 113 Portland Pier Commercial Condos Waterfront 20 6
 Commercial
 Study Area Total 7,013


 1/4 Mi Buffer Area
 114 Public Market Garage 1/4 mi Buffer Area 600 Public Use
 115 Chestnut St Garage 1/4 mi Buffer Area 450 Public Use
 1/4 Mi Buffer Area 1,050




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 132 of 179
 Page 213
Surface Lot Parking Map with Number Index




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 133 of 179
 Page 214
Map Index for Surface Lots
 LOT_ID Study Area SubArea
 NAME Spaces Use Type
 Map Section Zone
 15 385 Congress St Lot OldPort 130 PublicUse 2
 16 66 Pearl St OldPort 44 PublicUse 2
 17 Casco St Lot OldPort 25 PublicUse 1
 Cotton & Center Parking Lot & Center
 18 OldPort 50 PublicUse 3
 St Par
 19 Portland Square Upper Visitor Lot OldPort 237 PublicUse 3
 20 J.B. Brown Parking Lot on Free St. OldPort 44 PrivateLimPub 1
 21 Middle & Pearl Parking Lot OldPort 208 PublicUse 4
 22 Midtown Parking Lot OldPort 175 PublicUse 2
 Eastern
 23 Omni Park System/Casa Parking Lot 20 PublicUse 7
 Waterfront
 24 Portland Square Lower Monthly Lot OldPort 300 PublicUse 3
 Private
 25 Regency Hotel Parking Lot OldPort 45 4
 Commercial
 26 Top of the Old Port OldPort 540 PublicUse 2
 27 68 Commercial St Waterfront 17 PublicUse 6
 28 Baxter Place Lot OldPort 100 PrivateLimPub 3
 29 14 York St Parking Lot OldPort 50 PublicUse 3
 30 52 Brown St Lot OldPort 69 PublicUse 1
 31 Hub Furniture Lot OldPort 32 PrivateLimPub 4
 32 Sheply Lot OldPort 59 PrivateLimPub 1
 Eastern
 33 Thames St Hourly Lot 75 PublicUse 7
 Waterfront
 34 Fisherman's Wharf Parking Lot Waterfront 250 PublicUse 5
 Private
 35 Free St Parking Lot OldPort 155 1
 Commercial
 Eastern Private
 36 58 Fore St Narrow Gauge RR 200 7
 Waterfront Commercial
 37 198 Newbury St OldPort 21 PrivateEmployer 2
 Eastern Private
 38 100 Fore St 142 7
 Waterfront Commercial
 Eastern
 39 144 Fore St 82 PrivateEmployer 7
 Waterfront
 Eastern Private
 40 Micucci Grocery Store 30 7
 Waterfront Commercial
 Eastern Private
 41 19-39 Commercial St 66 7
 Waterfront Commercial
 Eastern
 42 15 Franklin St 33 PrivateLimPub 7
 Waterfront
 Eastern
 43 Simba Parking 115 PublicUse 7
 Waterfront


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 134 of 179
 Page 215
 LOT_ID Study Area SubArea
 NAME Spaces Use Type
 Map Section Zone
 Eastern
 44 208 Fore St 23 PrivateLimPub 7
 Waterfront
 Eastern Private
 45 1 Commercial St 26 7
 Waterfront Commercial
 46 East Brown Cow Lot 75 Commercial St OldPort 46 PublicUse 4
 Private
 47 185 Commercial St OldPort 20 4
 Commercial
 48 Memic Lot OldPort 20 PrivateEmployer 3
 49 Portland Fish Pier Front Lot Waterfront 165 PublicUse 5
 Private
 50 Courtyard Portland Lot OldPort 22 3
 Commercial
 51 254 Commercial St Wharf Waterfront 72 PrivateEmployer 5
 52 36 Union Wharf Waterfront 60 PrivateEmployer 5
 Private
 53 2-422 Chandler's Wharf Waterfront 46 5
 Commercial
 54 DiMillo's Parking Lot (Long Wharf) Waterfront 317 PrivateLimPub 6
 Private
 55 Portland Pier Private Parking Waterfront 38 6
 Commercial
 Private
 56 Custom House Wharf Waterfront 70 6
 Commercial
 Private
 57 90 Commercial St Waterfront 25 6
 Commercial
 58 Portland Fish Pier Back Lot Waterfront 105 PublicUse 5
 Private
 59 6 Portland Fish Pier Waterfront 100 5
 Commercial
 Private
 60 99 Silver St OldPort 25 4
 Commercial
 61 11 Patton Court Lot OldPort 35 PrivateEmployer 4
 62 Cumberland Register of Probate Lot OldPort 44 PrivateEmployer 2
 63 400 Congress St OldPort 36 PrivateLimPub 2
 Private
 64 Chestnut St Lofts Lot OldPort 37 2
 Residential
 66 340 Cumberland Ave OldPort 35 PrivateEmployer 1
 67 Maine Historical Society OldPort 37 PrivateOther 1
 68 380 Cumberland Ave Lot OldPort 26 PublicUse 1
 69 Fairpoint Communications Lot OldPort 19 PrivateEmployer 1
 70 Venture (VIP) Parking Lot OldPort 48 PublicUse 1
 71 84 Oak St OldPort 35 PrivateLimPub 1
 Private
 72 Congress Square Apartments OldPort 48 1
 Residential
 73 12 Deering Place OldPort 35 PrivateOther 1
 74 645 Congress Lot OldPort 76 PrivateOther 1
 Private
 75 Lafayette Square Lot OldPort 82 1
 Residential


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 135 of 179
 Page 216
 LOT_ID Study Area SubArea
 NAME Spaces Use Type
 Map Section Zone
 76 622 Congress St OldPort 40 PublicUse 1
 77 WCSH 6 OldPort 82 PrivateEmployer 1
 78 Episcopal Church Lot OldPort 40 PrivateOther 1
 Private
 79 125 Park St OldPort 25 1
 Commercial
 Private
 80 127 Spring St OldPort 26 1
 Commercial
 Private
 81 87 Spring St OldPort 44 1
 Commercial
 82 Maine Health Lot OldPort 37 PrivateLimPub 1
 83 Holiday Inn by the Bay Lot OldPort 35 PublicUse 3
 84 17 south St OldPort 23 PrivateEmployer 3
 85 52 Center St Parking Lot OldPort 63 PrivateLimPub 3
 86 70 Center St OldPort 31 PrivateEmployer 3
 Private
 87 9 Pleasant St OldPort 22 3
 Commercial
 88 Portland Fish Pier Employee Lot Waterfront 37 PrivateEmployer 5
 Private
 89 Yosaku Restaurant Lot OldPort 30 3
 Commercial
 Private
 90 10 Pleasant St OldPort 6 3
 Residential
 Private
 91 Hobson's Pier Waterfront 25 5
 Commercial
 92 US Coast Guard Waterfront 50 PrivateEmployer 5
 93 Gulf of Maine Research Inst. Waterfront 82 PrivateEmployer 5
 Private
 94 48 Union Wharf Waterfront 90 5
 Commercial
 95 13 Widgery Wharf Waterfront 60 PrivateEmployer 5
 96 1-39 Widgery Wharf Waterfront 75 PrivateLimPub 5
 97 Portland Pier Public Parking Waterfront 15 PublicUse 6
 Private
 98 626 Congress St OldPort 11 1
 Commercial
 Private
 99 Church St Lot OldPort 6 2
 Commercial
 Eastern
 100 Thames St Permit Lot 200 PrivateEmployer 7
 Waterfront
 101 465 Congress St OldPort 15 PrivateOther 2
 102 6 Monument Sq OldPort 31 PrivateLimPub 2
 Private
 107 58 Pleasant St OldPort 40 3
 Commercial
 Private
 108 Storer Condos OldPort 27 4
 Residential
 111 254 Commercial St Waterfront 50 PrivateLimPub 5
 Total 6,405


Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 136 of 179
 Page 217
 LOT_ID Study Area SubArea
 NAME Spaces Use Type
 Map Section Zone

 Buffer Area
 1/4 mi Buffer
 116 Maria's Ristorante 25 PrivateLimPublic
 Area
 1/4 mi Buffer
 117 Angelo's Acre 65 PublicUse
 Area
 1/4 mi Buffer
 118 52 Danforth 100 PublicUse
 Area
 1/4 mi Buffer
 119 62 India St 47 PublicUse
 Area
 1/4 mi Buffer
 120 59 Middle St 20 PrivateLimPublic
 Area
 Total 257




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 137 of 179
 Page 218
N. Appendix B: On-Street Parking Observed Data Maps and Charts

 The On-Street Parking Observed Sample Coverage Locations




On-street parking supply for the street block faces designated above were counted manually in the field. Five observers
were assigned individual data collection routes. Parking occupancy was collected by recording the last three digits of
parked vehicle license plates hourly between 8am and 8pm on a Thrusday, December 1, 2017 and between 10am and
8pm on a Satruday, December 3, 2016.

Total on-street parking capacity for the remainder of the study area was counted manually using Google Street View
with edits from the City on the recently developed Eastern Waterfront.




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 138 of 179
 Page 219
 Charts of Thursday 12/01/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results



 Overall Thursday Results: Parking Occupancy on All Streets Combined

 100.0%
 87.1%
 90.0% 80.3% 82.4% 84.3% 84.0%
 79.2% 78.6%
 74.8% 75.7%
 80.0% 71.9% 73.2%




 Observed Utilization
 70.0% 63.9%

 60.0%54.5%
 50.0%
 On-Street Occupancy
 40.0%
 30.0% Effectively Full
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm




 Commercial St: Thursday Parking Occupancy



 100% 92% 99% 94%
 88% 88%
 90% 84%
 80% 78% 77%
 77%
 80% 73%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 61%
 55%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 139 of 179
 Page 220
 Exchange St: Thursday Parking Occupancy

 100% 100% 92% 91%
 85% 86% 88%
 90% 83% 80% 83% 82%
 76% 77%
 80% 73%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Middle St: Thursday Parking Occupancy

 100% 95% 93%
 86% 88% 88%
 90% 83% 82% 83% 82% 80%
 76% 74% 75%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 140 of 179
 Page 221
 Spring St: Thursday Parking Occupancy

 100%
 90% 80% 78% 79%
 80% 70% 68%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 61% 59% 63%
 55% 57%
 60%
 48%
 50% 45%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 15%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Casco St: Thursday Parking Occupancy

 100% 100% 100% 100%
 88%
 90%
 80% 75%
 72%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 63%
 59%
 56%
 60% 50% 53%
 47%
 50%
 34% Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 141 of 179
 Page 222
 Charts of Saturday 12/03/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results



 Overall Saturday Results: Parking Occupancy on All Streets Combined

 100.0% 92.9% 94.1% 97.5%
 88.1% 87.4%
 84.3% 83.6% 84.9%
 90.0%
 75.5%
 80.0% 69.0%




 Observed Utilization
 70.0%58.9%
 60.0%
 On-Street
 50.0%
 Occupancy
 40.0%
 30.0% Effectively Full
 20.0%
 10.0%
 0.0%
 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm
 Axis Title




 Commercial St: Saturday Parking Occupancy

 100% 95% 93% 91% 93% 97% 96% 98%
 88%
 90%
 78%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 66%
 70%
 57%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 142 of 179
 Page 223
 Exchange St: Saturday Parking Occupancy

 100% 91% 92% 95% 95% 92% 100%
 89% 89% 91% 91%
 90% 80%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Middle St: Saturday Parking Occupancy

 100% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 100%
 88%
 90% 84% 84% 83%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 143 of 179
 Page 224
 Spring St: Saturday Parking Occupancy

 100% 89%
 88%
 90% 82%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 63%
 60% 60%
 57%
 60% 52%
 50% 40%
 38% Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 18%
 20%
 10%
 0%




 Casco St: Saturday Parking Occupancy

 100% 97% 94% 100% 100% 97% 97% 100%
 91%
 88% 88%
 90%
 80%




 Observed Utilization
 70% 63%
 60%
 50%
 Total Observed
 40%
 Effectively Full
 30%
 20%
 10%
 0%




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 144 of 179
 Page 225
 Maps of Thursday 12/01/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results



 Thursday 8am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 145 of 179
 Page 226
 Thursday 9am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 146 of 179
 Page 227
 Thursday 10am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 147 of 179
 Page 228
 Thursday 11am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 148 of 179
 Page 229
 Thursday 12pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 149 of 179
 Page 230
 Thursday 1pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 150 of 179
 Page 231
 Thursday 2pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 151 of 179
 Page 232
 Thursday 3pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 152 of 179
 Page 233
 Thursday 4pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 153 of 179
 Page 234
 Thursday 5pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 154 of 179
 Page 235
 Thursday 6pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 155 of 179
 Page 236
 Thursday 7pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 156 of 179
 Page 237
 Thursday 8pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 157 of 179
 Page 238
 Maps of Saturday 12/01/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results




 Saturday 10am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 158 of 179
 Page 239
 Saturday 11am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 159 of 179
 Page 240
 Saturday 12pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 160 of 179
 Page 241
 Saturday 1pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 161 of 179
 Page 242
 Saturday 2pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 162 of 179
 Page 243
 Saturday 3pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 163 of 179
 Page 244
 Saturday 4pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 164 of 179
 Page 245
 Saturday 5pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 165 of 179
 Page 246
 Saturday 6pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 166 of 179
 Page 247
 Saturday 7pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 167 of 179
 Page 248
 Saturday 8pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 168 of 179
 Page 249
 Map of Observed Average Parking Turnover Between 8am and 6pm Thursday 12/01/2016




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 169 of 179
 Page 250
 Map of Observed Average Parking Turnover Between 8am and 6pm Saturday 12/03/2016




Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 170 of 179
 Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Memorandum
Department of Planning and Development
Planning Division


To: Mayor Mavodones and City Council Members

From: Alexander Jaegerman, Planning Division Director

Date: March 29, 2007

Re: Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zone



The Portland Planning Board considered the proposed Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zone at
a workshop on March 13, 2007 and held a public hearing on March 27, 2007. Based on the
material provided in Planning Report #15-07, testimony from six members of the public, a review
of applicable policies, and other information the Planning Board voted unanimously (5-0, Lowry
and Silk Absent) that the proposed zoning amendments to create the Downtown Entertainment
Overlay Zone are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Board does not recommend
their adoption to the City Council.

The Planning Board’s findings include the following points:

 1. The imposition of increased fees on businesses within an area of the City to address a
 problem caused by the concentration of bars in the Old Port could discourage and
 penalize businesses that are a positive presence in the area.
 2. The proposed ordinance encourages businesses to evade the regulations and move outside
 of the designated business district and move into adjoining mixed use districts, such as
 Bayside and the Eastern Waterfront.
 3. The proposed ordinance does not rein in institutions and fraternal organizations with
 entertainment licenses in residential zone, which may have a negative impact on
 neighborhoods.
 4. In attempting to solve a limited problem in a specific area of the City, it leaves the larger
 issues regarding liquor establishments unresolved.
 5. Increasing fees on certain businesses in a broader area appears to be more unfair than the
 current regulation and fees.


Attachments:
A. Planning Board Report #15-07, including only Attachment 24 ( map of liquor licenses on
 the Peninsula) and Attachment 25 (list of nonprofit institutions and fraternal
 organizations with a liquor license).




W:\Shared drives\PUD - Planning\3 Code and Policy\Zoning Amendments\Text\Old Port Overlay Zone\CCmemo3-
29-07.doc -1-

 Page 254