BLOG: Staff Response to Questions about Views and Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines

By Sam Adams

I received this email in follow up to a question posed last night at the tram town hall. Following the email are the replies I received from staff. Sam

From: wseditor@aol.com [mailto:wseditor@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:23 AM
To: samadams@ci.portland.or.us
Subject: Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines

Commissioner Adams,

You were right the first time last night at the tram town hall when you stated that the tram violates the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines for protecting scenic views. The public views of downtown Portland - including the ones from the scenic pull out just south of Campus Drive - will now have utility lines strung through them. All views from Terwilliger Parkway are public; it's a scenic parkway. The guidelines sought to protect those views from the effects of over development. No one would willing put utility lines in a scenic view, so why is the city violating its own design guidelines?

The city's casual disregard for the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines is an affront to the neighborhoods and to those of us who appreciate Terwilliger Parkway. In 1983, the Terwilliger Guidelines were created as the Portland's first design zone, and now the city is throwing that out for a silly aerial tram that serves a very slim minority of the public. Once the tram is finished, it will always be a symbol of the city's disregard for those guidelines.

Cognitive dissonance is one word for it, but I also call it talking out of two sides of your mouth at the same time. You can't have a wonder feature like Terwilliger Parkway unless you are willing to protect and preserve it.

So, why is the city not enforcing the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines?

Walt Amacher
SWHRL Traffic Committee

Bureau of Development Review Staff Response:

There was extensive discussion about the Terwilliger Parkway Design Guidelines during the Marquam Hill Plan process as well as discussion of a follow up project to update the Terwilliger Parkway Plan that the neighborhoods advocated against doing, in part because we had secured a commitment from OHSU to fund a portion since Parks, Planning, and PDOT didn't have enough resources to proceed on the time line we thought made sense.
The simple answer to the Terwilliger Design guidelines chapter is that the only aspects of the tram within that district are the lines that hover above. These lines over the Terwilliger Corridor do not constitute "development" within that district, and are not subject to review against that criteria.

As for below the Parkway: As part of the adoption of the Marquam Hill Plan, a BDS interpretation was accepted by Council that a suspended cable transportation system is a Basic Utility use, and that this type of system be added to list of such uses in the Zoning Code. One result of this was that a tram facility in an Open Space zone would not be subject to Conditional Use Review. The other result applied to that are below the Terwilliger Design District - all associated actual development is within the right of way, and Basic Utilities within the right of way are not subject to land use review of any kind.

That said, the tram team has come numerous times before the Portland Design Commission for advice, both for the primary elements not subject to review, and associated elements subject to formal review (principally, the tram's connection to the building above, and related facilities that welcome the public to the tram from the Homestead side of the building).

And as a final footnote - the Terwilliger Guidelines and associated thresholds are among the most archaic and problematic of all those in place (i.e.: the legendary Enhance the Romance of Terwilliger guideline, and a threshold that only projects visible from the Parkway be subject to review).

Bureau of Planning Staff Response:

As for the Terwilliger Corridor Parkway Design Guidelines, the findings for the Marquam Hill Plan contain a long section regarding Terwilliger Parkway (see page 226 of the Plan: Policy 2.24, Terwilliger Parkway Corridor Plan). The findings most relevant state:

d) Goal B calls for the maintenance of unobstructed views from Terwilliger Boulevard and Trail. City Council considered the potential visual obstruction of the views from Terwilliger that could be affected by a potential suspended cable transportation system and concluded that these impacts could be reduced to an intermittent intrusion that adds to the mix of urban and natural elements of the vista. In addition, the Council finds that the primary view shed being protected in the Terwilliger Plan is horizontal to and below the level of Terwilliger Boulevard. The Council also finds that views can be protected from obstruction by selecting a suspended cable transportation system than would travel well above this level.

In short, the key word to focus on here is probably "obstruction," as development is not required to be invisible from Terwilliger but it should not obstruct views from the Parkway. It is a fact that the Tram will be visible from Terwilliger, as is South Waterfront, the Central City, the CTLH neighborhood, and many other urban features such as utility lines.

It should also be noted that the Terwilliger Design Guidelines tend to focus on structural development immediately within the Parkway and these guidelines were created to address threats from extensive residential development once proposed along the Parkway in the early 1980s. At one time in the early phases of conceptual tram designs, I recall there was an option that included an upper tram tower that would have been in the Parkway just east of the trail at the intersection of SW Terwilliger and SW Campus Drive. I assume this design concept was rejected in part to address scenic impacts within the Parkway.

I have attached a link to the findings for the Marquam Hill Plan . A review of the Terwilliger Findings on pages 226 through 232 demonstrate the various reasons the adopted version of the Marquam Hill Plan and Tram were found to have positive rather than negative impacts on Terwilliger Parkway over other options considered during the planning effort.

Marquam Hill Plan: http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?&a=58712&c=34248

Sam Adams's recent posts | Print this page

Posted Wed, 03/15/2006 - 6:30pm.

[[ Categories: Tram | Transportation ]]

re: BLOG: Staff Response to Questions about Views and Terwillig

Submitted by Jack Bog on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 8:19pm.

the Terwilliger Guidelines and associated thresholds are among the most archaic and problematic of all those in place (i.e. - the legendary Enhance the Romance of Terwilliger guideline, and a threshold that only projects visible from the Parkway be subject to review).

What arrogance. Shame on all of you.

Thanks for shaking up City Hall, Sam. It's a brand new day!

» reply

re: BLOG: Staff Response to Questions about Views and Terwillig

Submitted by Mmmarvel on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 5:14am.

Sam -
As I've stated before, and as the mayor stated (with absolutely NO qualifications) the tram WILL be built. Remember, a question isn't really a question, if you know the answer too. So the question of "Will we build the tram" isn't really a question now is it?

» reply

re: BLOG: Staff Response to Questions about Views and Terwillig

Submitted by Anton Vetterlein on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 10:59am.

It is unfortunate that BDS - who is in charge of enforcing the Terwilliger Design Guidelines - doesn't even know what the Guidelines say. The guidelines refer freqently to the "Character of Terwilliger" but the word "romance" plays a minor role. There is a big difference between the two. Does BDS see Terwilliger Parkway as just a Lover's Lane? In case BDS has misplaced their copy of the Terwilliger Parkway Corridor Plan, let me quote here the full text of the notorious "Character of Terwilliger" statement:

"Terwilliger Parkway, Boulevard and Trail are unique and notably successful parts of the City which allow people to enjoy the natural beauty and setting of Portland while moving through it. There are sequential views of the City, Mt. Hood, Mt. St. Helens, the Willamette River and the wooded hills along which the Boulevard is constructed. These expansive views are contrasted by sections of the boulevard which are lush and enclosed by tall stands of deciduous trees and second growth fir. Dominant masses of native temperate forest set off park-like planting of ornamemtal shrubs and mowed lawns.
Terwilliger Boulevard was originally envisioned as a centerpeice for the development of "high class suburban and country residences." Urban devcelopment adjacent to the Parkway is sometimes hidden from the Trail and Boulevard. When visible, it often fits into the natural topography and enhanecs the aesthetic experience of the Parkway. Buildings which are set back from the boulevard, well but simply landscaped, small in scale, and designed with care tend to add romance to the drive or walk.
The careful and balanced mix of urban and natural experiences, which makes Terwilliger both unique and successful, is also reflected in the way in which it is used. At its best, Tewilliger can accommodate walkers of all ages, runners, bicyclists and picnickers, as well as moderate numbers of motorists sight-seeing or driving to nearby locations along the Boulevard's easy grades and gentle curves.
Terwilliger changes as the landscape and the City grow. The quality of its future character will depend both on the effects of nature and the care taken by the citizens of Portland."

What makes this Character of Terwilliger statement so onerous to the City and OHSU is that it clearly does not endorse the kind of expansion and development that has gone on at OHSU and the VA Medical Center over the last few decades. The traffic these institutions have created on Terwilliger is anything but "moderate" during much of the day. Anyone who stands on the Terwilliger Trail at the bottom of Campus Drive sees a chaotic jumble of downtown-scaled buildings looming over them which do not fit "into the natural topography" nor enhance "the aesthetic experience of the Parkway". Neither are they "small in scale", "set back from the Boulevard", and they certainly don't "add romance to the drive or walk" (adding window boxes with brightly colored flowers in them isn't going to help much.) Citizens such as members of Friends of Terwilliger have been very vocal about trying to protect Terwilliger Parkway but they have been largely ignored by City officials who would rather cater to OHSU desires than protect a treasured scenic resource.
The City Council granted OHSU special priveledges to utilize Terwilliger Boulevard for access when it approved the Marquam Hill Plan even though such heavy use violates the "Character of Terwilliger". The Council did throw a few meager bones to help mitigate the traffic impacts, but they didn't commit any funding as part of it so they are largely empty promises. What money and staff may have been avialable to carry out such mitigation projects are in danger of being sucked into the black hole that is the Tram project. And you wonder why citizens are skeptical when the City proposes up-dating the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines. The guidelines are badly in need of an overhaul, but recent experience showns that the City is more interested in undertaking such a process to make development easier than they are in doing it to improve Terwilliger for its own sake.

» reply

re: BLOG: Staff Response to Questions about Views and Terwillig

Submitted by Jeff Joslin, Bureau of Development Services on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 10:04am.

I am the author of the BDS statement. At the time, I thought I was providing background information to a Commissioner, not issuing a public statement. As a result, I'm afraid my last paragraph was a little flip and, may have been misunderstood.

I have spent the last decade and a half working consistently to strengthen the design review process and its associated guidelines. I have continually lobbied for stronger regulation when warranted and achievable. That was the intent here - I had a Commissioner's ear in the context of a specific conversation and made a plug.

I do not align with the comment regarding "City" motivations ("What makes this Character of Terwilliger statement so onerous to the City and OHSU is that it clearly does not endorse the kind of expansion and development that has gone on at OHSU."). I do believe in the cherishable, and protectable, qualities of Terwilliger. As a (now) long-time design regulator, I also know where the weaknesses are vis-a-vis current law.

The Terwilliger Guidelines have some remarkable environmental and poetic qualities. The guidelines document is a wonderful record of its time, which does effectively capture the intent of protecting this singular, magnificent resource. However, it's also got potential problems which will need to be addressed sooner or later.

What I'm alluding to are that aspects of the Terwilliger Guidelines, if tested, would likely be found to be constitutionally deficient and statutorily flawed. A litigationally motivated developer could test a number of these regulations in court, and achieve success having such regulation nullified. In other words, it's just not good law.

We also know much more about environmental and habitat design that could be incorporated into a more modern rendition. Not to mention the environmental conditions that have changed over time since the original regulation was established.

The recent Olmstead conference offered another reminder of the significance of this resource, and the need to fully protect and enhance it. Identifying the potential gap between the existing regulation and current knowledge and aspirations, and the ongoing desire to address that gap, was the only motivation behind that final paragraph.

I hope that clarifies, and I apologize for any confusion. Please feel free to contact me directly, if you'd like to discuss any of this more directly.

Jeff Joslin
Section Manager: Urban Design, Design Review, Landmarks Review
Bureau of Development Services, Land Use Services division
503-823-7705

» reply