Portland council gives tentative approval to demolish bungalow for You Can Do expansion

Portland City Council on an evidentiary land-use hearing voted tentatively 10-0 to grant a Type 4 demolition review for 118 Southwest Porter Street, clearing the way for the nonprofit You Can Do to demolish a contributing bungalow and expand a year‑round resource center for families affected by childhood cancer.

The council’s tentative approval followed a staff recommendation from Tanya Palia of Portland Permitting and Development (PPandD) that the proposal meets the city’s type 4 demolition criteria on an “on‑balance” basis. Palia summarized the department’s position: "I'm really pleased to be able to present this recommendation of approval to you." The Historic Landmarks Commission also wrote a supporting letter and its chair, Andrew Smith, testified that the commission unanimously recommended approval.

The decision matters to advocates and patients because the proposed addition would locate You Can Do’s ‘‘Loft’’ adjacent to Portland’s pediatric cancer care providers. Jason Hickox, chief executive officer of You Can Do, testified the site is six minutes from Doernbecher Children’s Hospital and 11 minutes from Randall Children’s Hospital and that the expansion would enable a "first‑of‑its‑kind" set of year‑round wraparound services for families impacted by childhood and adolescent cancer.

PPandD staff described the property as a bungalow built in 1908, historically named the Carl and Minnie Schmidt house, and classified as a contributing resource in the South Portland Historic District. Staff noted the building has been used as office space for about 40 years and concluded the bungalow is not architecturally unique within the district. Palia said the department evaluated the proposal against the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest Community Plan and the Corbett‑Terwilliger‑Lair Hill policy plan and advised that, under the project’s unique circumstances, "the public benefit clearly outweighs the value of preserving the specific historic resource in question."

You Can Do and project team witnesses told council they tested multiple design iterations and concluded that the program’s accessibility, adjacency to hospitals and operational layout could not be met without removing the bungalow. The applicant’s design representative said the submitted materials include multiple test fits and a 67‑page application documenting alternatives evaluated before pursuing demolition.

Dozens of supporters — parents, clinicians, volunteers and camp alumni — gave testimony in support of the expansion. Speakers described gaps in existing survivorship and family supports, the organization’s year‑round programming plans, and the need for separate clinical and caregiver spaces. Dr. Michael Schwartz, a licensed psychologist who partners with You Can Do, said a separate clinical space would improve confidentiality and clinical care. Many speakers credited You Can Do’s camp programs with giving children a sense of normalcy and argued the Loft would extend that support year‑round.

No opponents registered to speak at the hearing. The Historic Landmarks Commission also recommended two conditions consistent with staff: require approval of the replacement land‑use (Type 3) project before issuing a demolition permit, and require deconstruction (salvage and reuse) rather than conventional demolition if feasible.

Councilors asked technical questions before deliberation. Councilor Dunphy asked, "Why is deconstruction a condition? It is supposed to be the law." Lauren Zimmerman of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability answered that the city’s residential deconstruction requirement currently applies to certain residential buildings and not to commercial occupancies; she said a house converted to commercial use can fall outside that legal requirement. Zimmerman said, for houses like this one, deconstruction typically increases cost only modestly and "it's about the same to maybe 10 to 20% more than you would see for a demolition cost," and that deconstruction commonly diverts several tons of lumber and other materials to local salvage outlets.

After deliberation, Councilor Ryan moved a tentative motion to grant the demolition review with PPandD’s recommended conditions and to return a final written decision for adoption at a later meeting; the motion was seconded (second not specified on the record). The council clerk recorded a 10‑0 roll‑call in favor. The council set a time‑certain return to adopt final findings and a final vote for 9:45 a.m. on February 5.

Next steps: staff will prepare written findings and a final decision consistent with the tentative vote. The two key conditions the council instructed staff to include in the draft findings are that any demolition permit must be withheld until the replacement structure’s Type 3 historic resource review is approved (or otherwise resolved) and that the project pursue deconstruction and material salvage consistent with Chapter 17.106 and the city’s deconstruction program. The council’s vote at this hearing is tentative; a final adoption of findings and decision is scheduled for the February 5 meeting.