From: James Gardner

Sent: Thu Sep 17 13:25:22 2020

To: Council Clerk – Testimony

Subject: Subject: Additional Testimony on Alamo Manhattan Blocks, LU 20-102914

Importance: Normal

Dear Mayor Wheeler & Commissioners Fritz, Hardesty, Eudaly, Ryan:

South Portland Neighborhood Association (SPNA) appreciates your careful consideration of the appeal of the Design Commission decision on this project. Nearby residents and an SPNA Board member testified about the community’s significant opposition to the design of this 4-block development. We thank you for being attentive listeners and perceptive questioners of everyone’s testimony.

My purpose today is to correct a serious misrepresentation made by Alamo Manhattan at the hearing. Their presentation stressed that the neighborhood association (SPNA) is not an official party to the appeal and implied that this means SPNA does not oppose the design of the project. That is absolutely not the case, and clearly seems an attempt by Alamo Manhattan to mislead Council.

Make no mistake: SPNA strongly opposes several aspects of this project’s design. At Design Commission hearings and in several written comments on the project, SPNA made it crystal clear that we believe the design violates the South Waterfront and Willamette Greenway Design Guidelines.

We especially object to the buildings on blocks 41 and 44 being sited so close to, virtually touching, the 100’ setback from the Greenway. The visual encroachment of such nearby private entrances, and the abrupt 4-story building façade, jeopardize the public’s enjoyment of the full greenway setback area. We also continue to feel that the towers on those two blocks have an excessive east-west length, creating a slab-like building wall inconsistent with the intent of the South Waterfront guidelines. Further details of these and several other objections to the project’s design were articulated to the Design Commission in our letter of November 29, 2019 and our written testimony on June 11, 2020. Excerpts of these communications are at the end of this message.

SPNA did not initiate the current appeal because of the inherent subjectivity of some of the design guidelines that apply to the project. Frankly, past City Council members have been largely unwilling to take a fresh look and exercise their own judgment about subjective design issues. We’ve always believed this to be the basic reason for having a “de novo” appeal process but in our experience over the years, that has not happened very often. In retrospect, speaking personally, I now regret not urging SPNA to file the official appeal in the case before you. I should have had more faith in your willingness to act as independent decision-makers.

To repeat: SPNA believes this project’s design is detrimental to our South Waterfront community and to the Willamette Greenway. The fact that SPNA is not officially part of the appeal before you does not indicate a change in that position. We urge you to disregard Alamo Manhattan’s attempt to imply that we support or are even vaguely neutral about the design of their project.

Please contact me if you or your staff have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jim Gardner

Chair, SPNA Land Use Committee

2930 SW 2^nd Ave

Portland, OR 97201

503-2272-096

SPNA Letter to Design Commission, 11/29/19

• * The riverside buildings on Blocks 41 and 44 are much too close to the edge of the 100’ Greenway setback, at some places actually touching that line and approaching too closely where there are residential entrances with some minimal setbacks. This is inconsistent with the relationship to the Greenway that the Commission's precedent has required of recent projects and existing buildings to the north.

• * The east-west dimensions of both towers are simply too long, resulting in a wide slab-sided appearance that blocks desired diagonal view lines and ignores the “point tower” aspirations of the guidelines.

When establishing development standards and guidelines for high-rises in South Waterfront, the vision promoted by Design Commission, city staff, and the development community was for Vancouver-like "point towers” that leave plenty of room between them for public views. Toward this end the guidelines specifically limit towers’ north-south widths and require that towers must rise from lower podiums to provide openness for air and light as well as views. However, the desired views are not only those straight down the streets, but to some extent along diagonal lines through the district.

SPNA Testimony to Design Commission, 6/11/20

South Portland Neighborhood Association (SPNA) continues to feel the tower structures on blocks 41 and 44 remain too large in the east-west direction.

On blocks 41 and 44, both buildings' footprints are simply too close to the greenway setback and present facades which rise far too abruptly. The designs are out of character with precedent to the north along the greenway, where buildings have additional setback from the greenway edge and present facades designed with step-back levels. Alamo Manhattan has steadfastly refused the simple solution to this visual encroachment, that of simply moving the footprints back a few feet. The addition of some balconies and recesses has only slightly mitigated this visual impact. Some of the residential entry pads actually touch the greenway line, which in practice will make the area adjoining those units appear to be private space although technically public. All along the eastern edges of the buildings, concrete retaining walls and landscaping within the greenway serve to blur the distinction between what is public versus private, but always in the direction of making supposed public space read as private.

This same conceptual problem occurs at the supposedly public open area at the foot of Abernethy St. It is a great improvement to have the corners of both buildings "erode" where they face the greenway. But the developers are compensated for this additional public space -- it is not a gift from Alamo Manhattan. The project gets additional FAR (and more height within the 150' line) in exchange for providing this additional public space. Given that fact, this area should have a design that fully integrates it into the rest of the greenway space. The landscape design (planters, berms, hedges, etc.) should not make this area seem separate or distinct from the greenway. The design should clearly signal that this area is truly an extension of the greenway. The proposed pavers and sharp rectilinear edges of the space make it look more like just a plaza that belongs to the building. I urge the Commission not to accept the proposed design for this area and to require changes to achieve a more organic and naturalistic design. Perhaps the greenway design could bend the bicycle path westward to pass nearer this area. Understanding that Abernethy St. will be a main public greenway access point, that actual junction can happen within this new public space, not to its east. It's all about perception - calling an area "public" does the public little good unless the design creates a clear perception that it is indeed open for public use. The same principle applies to the small area adjacent to the "maker" space at the southeast corner of block 44. As one Commissioner noted today, although supposedly public, that space will seem private.