Consider the appeal by Walter Weyler on behalf of the Downtown Neighborhood Association against the Design Commission's decision to approve the proposed RiverPlace Central City Master Plan for an 8-acre site in the University/ South Downtown Subdistrict of the Central City Plan District (LU 21-053731 CCMS)

DATE May 26, 2022 RE: City Council hearing appeal of LU 21-053731 CCMS – RiverPlace Central City Master Plan The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary and brief description of the land use review that will be presented to you in the public hearing on May 26, 2022 at 2 PM, time certain. Site Address: 150 S MONTGOMERY ST BDS Representatives: Grace Jeffreys, City Planner – Design Review Land Use Review Requested : Type III Central City Master Plan Review (CCMS) for the proposed RiverPlace Central City Master Plan for an 8-acre site in the University/ South Downtown Subdistrict of the Central City Plan District. The Central City Master Plan will establish the framework for future development proposals within the Master Plan boundary (South Harbor Way/ South Harbor Trail, South Montgomery Street, South River Drive and South River Parkway). The site will ultimately be home to approximately three (3) million square feet of new commercial, employment, and residential development, as well as approximately 70,000 square feet of new open space. A Central City Master Plan Review is required because this site was identified in Map 510-19 of the Portland Zoning Code as requiring a Central City Master Plan Review prior to development of the site. Design Commission Decision: The Design Commission found that the applicable approval criteria had been met, with added Conditions of approval. Appeal: The Design Commission decision of approval has been appealed by Walter Weyler on behalf of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), based on their position that the findings do not correctly address some of the approval criteria. Key Elements of Proposal: Process: The application was submitted on June 3, 2021, and was determined to be complete on August 9, 2021. The first hearing was held October 7, 2021 (59 days from the completeness date) per the applicant’s request. This hearing was continued to October 21, 2021 to provide adequate time to review extensive public testimony and commission deliberation. The September 27, 2021 Staff Report did not yet recommended approval. At the hearing, staff presented the Staff Report, the applicant presented the proposal, and the Design Commission listened to public testimony. There was substantial public interest and participation, and 41 written comments in opposition of the project were received. The Commission deliberated and noted approvability concerns with the massing, Open Area design, connections, activation and infrastructure. A return hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2021. On November 8, 2021, the applicant requested the return date to be changed to January 20, 2022. The second hearing was held on January 20, 2022. The January 13, 2022 Revised Staff Report again did not yet recommended approval due to remaining outstanding issues. At the hearing, the applicant presented revisions since the last hearing. These included the addition of a 60-foot-wide break in the massing of Block 1 and added setbacks/ step-backs at Blocks 2-5 in response to the Open Areas. Revisions also included refinements to design and phased delivery of the Open Areas, increased connectivity through Block 1, more activation on street frontages, and continued progress on the infrastructure. There was again public interest and participation, and a further five (5) written comments in opposition of the project were received. The Commission again deliberated, and in addition to staff concerns about adequate and timely infrastructure, drawing inconsistencies, shadow studies, and Open Area percentages, the Commission noted approvability concerns with massing, the treatment of Harbor Way and the phased design and delivery of the Open Areas. A return hearing was scheduled for February 10, 2022. The third hearing was held on February 10, 2022. The February 5, 2022 Revised Staff Report recommended approval with conditions. At the hearing, the applicant presented revisions since the last hearing. In response to comments heard, revisions included further progress on the infrastructure, the resolution of drawing inconsistencies, clarification of the shadow studies and massing revisions in response to the shadow studies, clarification on Open Area percentages, further development of the treatment of Harbor Way, and a revised proposal for the phased design and delivery of the Open Areas. There was again public interest and participation, and a further three (3) written comments in opposition of the project were received. During the public testimony, a request was made by the DNA to keep the record open to provide time to respond to new evidence. The Commission again deliberated, granted the request to hold the record open, and then set the following deadlines: Deadline for New Evidence to be submitted: 9:00 am February 18, 2022 Deadline for Response to New Evidence to be submitted: 9:00 am February 25, 2022 Deadline for Applicant Final Argument to be submitted: 9:00 am March 2, 2022. The fourth hearing was held on March 3, 2022. Prior to the record closing on February 25, 2022, one additional written comment from the DNA in opposition of the project was received. The March 1, 2022 Revised Staff Report recommended approval with conditions. At the hearing, the Commission requested staff to include additional findings related to B Street, as discussed at previous hearings. These findings were added to the Design Commission Approval Criteria Matrix (attached as a Supplemental Document). The Commission then voted 5 to 0 in support of the proposal with conditions. Appeal. A-H summarize the appeal points raised by the DNA. BDS staff response follows each appeal issue. A. Zoning Code Sections 33.510.255 H1 - Goals and policies of Central City 2035 as well as the University Subdistrict Policies. The appellant states the decision does not directly address the goals and policies of Central City 2035. BDS response: Section 33.510.255 H.1 states that “ The Central City Master Plan is consistent with applicable subdistrict goals and policies of the Central City 2035 Plan”. Because this code citation specifically states that this approval criteria are the subdistrict goals and policies of CC2035, findings were not provided for the general goals and polices of CC2035. Please refer to the attached Matrix for the complete findings for criteria H.1 and H.2. B. Zoning Code Sections 33.510.255 H1 - University Subdistrict Policies. The appellant states that the decision failed to specifically address numerous University Subdistrict Policies which address the required creation of a vibrant and diverse neighborhood. Their position is that a connected or activated neighborhood does not necessarily mean that it is diverse. Of special concern to them is the failure to: encourage residential redevelopment with mixed use and mixed income residential, commercial, retail and hospitality to support PSU growth as required by Policy 1.UD-3; ensure housing diversity by requiring multi-family housing supportive of families and students as required by Policy 2.UD-4; ensure adequate transportation as required by Policy 3.UD-1 (the only evidence presented at hearing was that the Portland streetcar does not have even the current capacity to enhance multimodal access to PSU); and ensure a broad mix of residential, commercial, recreational and boating opportunities which embrace the RiverPlace character as required by Policy 5.UD-3. BDS response: A CCMS proposal is for a framework for future development on a site, rather than for actual development. As noted in Section 33.510.255.A., the purpose statement includes a CCMS review will “result in an urban design framework and layout for the site as a whole, allowing subsequent reviews for individual buildings and other development… ” Therefore, the findings focused on the overall framework of the proposal, such as the additional connections that will be provided through the site and the new open areas, and how both of these will be activated through the added “active use” requirements. While a CCMS can establish standards to ensure activation of the open areas and the streets, it does not approve actual uses, such as residential, commercial, retail and hospitality; these elements will be part of future development proposals. Again, please refer to the attached Matrix for the complete findings for criteria H.1 and H.2. C. Zoning Code Section 33.510.255 H1 subdistrict policy approval criteria: The appellant states that the decision failed to present evidence that this development complies with additional subdistrict policy approval criteria, including: that it creates a “vibrant and diverse neighborhood” with respect to non-residential elements as required in Policy UD-1; that it increases “tourism, retail and entertainment” as required by Policy 1.UD-2; that the development establishes “complete neighborhoods” as required by Policy 2.UD-1; that it supports a cohesive development, connected to PSU community with successful neighborhood-oriented retail and commercial areas as required by Policy 2.UD-2; and that evening and weekend activity is encouraged by development of active uses in evenings, such as galleries, retail and performance spaces as required by Policy 2.UD-3. The Design Commission failed to require retail, entertainment or other active uses to the degree necessary to supplement the Phase I uses, which are nearly entirely residential. The result will place a greater demand for vehicles and/or alternative transportation modes to reach the grocery store, the gym, restaurants, and other necessary services. BDS response: As noted above, a CCMS proposal is for a framework for future development on this site, rather than for the actual development. Therefore, as noted above, the findings focused on the overall framework of the proposal, such as the additional connections that will be provided through the site and the new open areas, and how both of these will be activated through the added “active use” requirements. While a CCMS can establish standards to ensure activation of the open areas and the streets, it does not approve actual uses, such as retail and entertainment; these elements will be part of future development proposals. Again, please refer to the attached Matrix for the complete findings for criteria H.1 and H.2. D. Zoning Code Section 33.510.255 H2 – The appellant states that the decision failed to find actual evidence that this development, especially when each phase must stand alone, will ensure: that Block 1 and Block 2 respect the Portland block structure of 200 feet as required by Guideline A3. the “use of unifying elements” required by Guideline A4, so that this development blends into the surrounding neighborhood and that it “compliment the context of existing buildings” in proportion and scale. Phase 1 is clearly inappropriate in context to existing buildings if the rest of the project never materializes, as there is no guarantee within this approval. that the development will “enhance” and “embellish” the existing area by reflecting and building on the existing area’s character as required by Guideline A5; and that the development will “ensure pedestrian protection” as required by Guideline B2. This criterion is not proven especially in Block 1 given that garage access is directly onto a major pedestrian and bicycle route on Montgomery Street which is also especially designated for ADA access. BDS response: Findings for Guideline A3 - Respect the Portland Block Structures , were provided for Blocks 1 and 2 under Criteria H.2. (Please refer to the attached Matrix for the complete findings for A.3 under Criteria H.2). They note: Overall, the proposal introduces a new public street grid with a block grid similar to the city’s traditional 200-foot block pattern with 60 feet wide streets. The site currently doesn’t have public streets or a block grid, and the new street grid will enable visual and physical access to and through the site between the Harbor Drive Trail and the Willamette River Greenway. At Block 1, a 60-feet wide break in the massing envelope of Block 1 has been added to provide both visual and physical connections between the Harbor Drive Trail and A Street, and from downtown to the west towards the river. Block 2 is larger than a typical block, to provide room for a potentially larger floor plate that can accommodate larger and more intense uses of a potential regional destination. As mitigation for a larger block, a 60-foot-wide view corridor at a podium height of 75 feet is proposed to ensure tower separation of taller buildings on the block and offer visual permeability with the alignment of the north-south Pedestrian Accessway leading to the new park. Given the size of the block, the Commission noted that it will be important to provide a very activated public realm around Block 2. The Commission also encouraged future development of Block 2 to include a publicly accessible connection through this block towards South Waterfront via either an external connection or an internal passage a minimum of two stories high through the middle of the block, in line with the Pedestrian Accessway between Blocks 3 and 5. E. Zoning Code Section 33.510.255 H 6 – The appellant states that the decision failed to demonstrate “easy and safe access to transit”. The Design Commission has accepted PBOT’s conclusion that convenient transit can be located within ¼ mile walking distance of the site and no consideration was made to ADA access, and elevation gains creating barriers to safe access. BDS response: The criteria require that “The master plan demonstrates that easy and safe access will be provided to transit stations located within or immediately adjacent to the master plan boundary... ”. However, there are no transit stations located within or immediately adjacent to the master plan area, as defined by 33.910 as “ A location where light rail vehicles stop to load or unload passengers. ” The nearest transit stations are over 6 blocks away, towards the west. (Please refer to the attached Final Findings for the complete findings for Criteria H.6 F. Zoning Code Section 33.510.255 H 7 – The appellant states the masterplan does not provide open areas in Phase I which are internal and accessible to residents and distributed throughout the site, with connections to the surrounding neighborhood and which enhance visual permeability. They state that locating open areas “toward the edges of the site” is not responsive to a requirement to distribute open spaces “throughout the master plan area.” All open spaces under Policy 5.UD-5 must be “accessible, usable and engaging spaces for the community rather than remnant areas that do not fit within the envelope for development. BDS response: With the proposed new street grid and new open areas, the CCMS will greatly increase both visual as well as physical permeability throughout the 8-acre site. Under H.7, the Findings note that: “In general, rather than internalizing the required open areas within the site, these spaces have been oriented towards the edges of the site (Exhibit C.53). This siting of open areas, along with the proposed new street grid, will bring these amenities to the edges of the site and knit the new development in with the surrounding urban fabric.” Phase I, which focuses on the redevelopment of the RAC parcel only, includes two new open areas and a new right of way, A street. The new open areas include the south ramps and the mid-block steps. Both of these open areas will be publicly accessible from adjacent right-of ways, the new A Street to the east and the redeveloped Harbor Way path to the west, and are distributed through-out Phase 1. G. Zoning Code Section 33.510.255 H 8 - The appellant states there is insufficient evidence that the transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed uses in addition to the existing uses in the plan area. As to vehicular usage in this difficult geographic location which already has bottle necks, the trip caps of the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS): fails to accurately incorporate the existing and planned development in the South Waterfront area and instead relies upon a presumptive and inaccurate 1% per year growth modeling assumption, fails to provide evidence of adequate automobile and transit connectivity to the University District and the rest of the city, fails to consider real world transit capacity, availability, convenient routing, and, provides no mitigation to ameliorate the impact of this project on the central city’s transportation system. BDS response: Substantial Findings for Criteria H.8 were provided by the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). In brief overview, they noted: “The submitted TIS was prepared based on an approved scope from PBOT and includes industry acceptable references, data (collection), analyses, methodologies assumptions and conclusions. Moreover, and although necessary to address this particular evaluation factor, the TIS also includes references and analysis related to nearby and still under construction City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects - Better Naito Forever and Naito Paving Upgrades. The scoping also provided direction to the applicant’s traffic consultant with regard to the specified area intersections that PBOT identified as necessary to be studied– a process that is typical in developing a TIS and that focuses on intersections that are expected to experience the potential greatest impacts associated with a proposed project. It is not plausible (or required) to have other/all intersections in the broader City-wide transportation system studied in relation to a specific development proposal – this is not PBOT’s standard protocol for any land use consideration. The TIS includes the necessary information related to each of the identified study intersections.” H. Zoning Code Section 33.510.210 D3 - The appellant states the height standards are not addressed as promised by City Council in its Findings after the passage of Ordinance 189001. To the contrary, they state the Applicant presumes that the height opportunities established by that Ordinance are its right and has presented no evidence of meeting the above requirement. The Design Commission decision fails to address this shortcoming with respect to the height requirements. BDS response: Per Portland Zoning Code Section 33.510.255 D. “ An approved Central City Master Plan review allows additional flexibility in the following situations: 33.510.255.D.3. The bonus height limits shown on Map 510 ‐ 4 may be achieved without having to provide the bonuses or transfers required by 33.510.210.D.3;”. Alternatives Facing Council Deny the appeal and uphold the Design Commission’s decision of approval with conditions. Deny the appeal but modify the Design Commission’s decision of approval with conditions and instruct the applicant to revise the design and/or staff to revise conditions of approval and return to Council at a future date. Grant the appeal, thereby overturning the Design Commission’s decision to approve with conditions. In this case, the project would be denied. We expect Council will initially make a tentative decision and will identify a future date to return for adoption of findings and a final decision.