625-2021

Report

Consider proposal of 340 NW Glisan for Demolition Review and Adjustment Review approval, and Bureau of Development staff recommendation for denial, for a contributing building, the Old Blanchet House at 340 NW Glisan Street in the New Chinatown/ Japantown National Register Historic District (LU 21-029602 DM AD)

Findings Adopted

Staff Report and Recommendation to Portland City Council

CASE FILE:             LU 21-029602 DM AD – Blanchet House Historic Resource Demolition Review and Adjustment Request
Pre App:               PC # 19-227692
REVIEW BY:           Portland City Council
WHEN: June 30, 2021 at 2:00pm
Remote Access: Portland City Council Agenda

Current Council Agenda | The City of Portland, Oregon (portlandoregon.gov)

Due to the City’s Emergency Response to COVID19, this land use hearing will be limited to remote participation via Zoom. Please refer to the instructions included with this notice to observe and participate remotely.

To provide testimony City Council by 2:00pm Wednesday June 30, 2021, please refer to the City Council link above.

Bureau of Development Services Staff: Tim Heron, 503-823-7726, Tim.Heron@portlandoegon.gov

GENERAL INFORMATION

Representative: Gary Golla, Sera Architects, garyg@seradesign.com
338 NW 5th Ave
Portland, OR 97029

Applicant: 340 NW Glisan LLC
310 NW Glisan St
Portland, OR 97209

Scott Kerman, Blanchet House Of Hospitality
310 NW Glisan St
Portland OR 97029

Site Address:              340 NW GLISAN ST
Legal Description:    BLOCK 25 W 1/2 OF LOT 7, COUCHS ADD
Tax Account No.:      R180201770
State ID No.:              1N1E34CA 00800
Quarter Section:      3029

Neighborhood:          Old Town Community Association, contact Brian Harvey at planning@pdxoldtown.org
Business District:      Downtown Retail Council, contact at lfrisch@portlandalliance.com & Old Town Community Association, contact at chair@PDXoldtown.org
District Coalition:     Neighbors West/Northwest, contact Mark Sieber at 503-823-4212.
Plan District:             Central City - Old Town/Chinatown
Zoning: CXd, Central Commercial with design overlay
Case Type:                  DM – Demolition Review; AD – Adjustment Review

Procedure:
Type IV, following a public advisory meeting before the Historic Landmarks Commission there will be a hearing before City Council. The Historic Landmarks Commission may offer comments or suggestions, in the form of a letter or testimony, to City Council. City Council makes the final decision on this matter.

Proposal:
The applicant, 340 NW Glisan LLC, which is wholly owned by Blanchet House of Hospitality (“Blanchet House”), seeks approval to demolish the vacant Blanchet House, a Contributing Resource in the New Chinatown/Japantown National Register Historic District. The Blanchet House operation previously relocated to a new building at 310 NW Glisan and the subject property has been vacant for the past 8 years.

Additionally, the applicant seeks an Adjustment from PCC 33.445.330.A.2.c which provides that a demolition permit cannot be issued until a permit for a new building on the site has been issued that replaces the historic resource if demolition is approved. The applicant requests to waive this requirement through the Adjustment Review request.

Type IV Demolition Review is required in order to obtain approval for demolition of contributing resources in historic districts. The Type II Adjustment Review is required to waive the new building permit requirement. Both Reviews will be processed at the same time as part of the Type IV Demolition Review process.

Approval Criteria

In order to be approved, this proposal must comply with the approval criteria of Title 33, Portland Zoning Code. The applicable approval criteria are:

33.846.070 Demolition Review
- 33.846.080.C.1. Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use of the site
33.805 Adjustment Review
- Request to waive 33.445.330.A.2.c which requires a new building to replace the demolished building if the Demolition Review is approved.

ANALYSIS

Site and Vicinity: The subject site lies within the Portland New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on November 21, 1989. The district documentation was prepared by John Southgate on behalf of the Portland Development Commission. The nomination was vetted by the State Historic Preservation Office, reviewed, and forwarded by the governor-appointed State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, and accepted by the Keeper of the National Register

The National Register defines a Historic District as “"a geographically definable area, urban or rural, possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. In addition, historic districts consist of contributing and non-contributing properties. Historic districts possess a concentration, linkage or continuity of the other four types of properties. Objects, structures, buildings and sites within a historic district are usually thematically linked by architectural style or designer, date of development, distinctive urban plan, and/or historic associations."

Located on the west side of the Willamette River, the district lies in an older commercial, industrial, and transportation center, between NW Glisan and W Burnside, streets that connect respectively to the Steel and Burnside Bridges. NW Fourth Avenue forms the spine of the district. The Portland Skidmore-Old Town Historic District (Old Town), listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Dec 6, 1975 and as a National Historic Landmark on May 5, 1977, overlaps the southeastern corner of the district. The shared area is the eastern half of the blocks bounded by Burnside, Third, Davis, and Fourth, plus the southeastern quarter of the block bounded by Davis, Third, Everett, and Fourth.

The New Chinatown/ Japantown Historic District is a ten-block area bounded by W Burnside Street to the south, NW Fifth Avenue to the west, NW Glisan to the north, and NW Third Avenue to the east. The majority of buildings within the district are used commercially or industrially, however, some buildings also contain residential units. At the time of the district’s nomination to the National Register, there were 45 buildings, two features and five vacant properties within the district. There are buildings by notable Portland architects within the district which date from the historic period, 1880-1943. There are 14 buildings dating from the first period of significance (l880-1909), 15 buildings dating from the second period (l910-1943), 9 historic non-contributing buildings, 4 compatible noncontributing buildings, 3 non-compatible non-contributing buildings, and 5 vacant lots. There are two features [not building structures] within the district, the Simon Building facade, dating from the primary period, and the Chinatown Gateway, constructed after the historic period. The district is significant under criterion A for its historical associations and American History, and C for its design and construction. The district’s areas of significance noted in the National Register nomination are Asian Ethnic Heritage, Industry, Commerce and Architecture. It is the only historic district in Portland significant for its association with ethnic history.

According to the National Register nomination “The Chinatown Historic District is nationally significant under Criterion A for its history as the largest and most intact Chinatown in Oregon. It is locally significant as the largest remaining and most viable example of the Chinese ethnic community in Portland. As the City of Portland developed into a major seaport and railroad center, the use of this area changed from residential to commercial and industrial. Chinatown was the major Chinese immigration center in the state and represents the Chinese who lived and worked in the area. The Chinatown Historic District portrays the traditional nature of Chinese social, political, cultural, and economic organizations. The majority of the buildings in the district were designed and built by some of Portland’s best architects and builders of the period 1880-1943. The last date marks the year that Chinese were allowed to become naturalized citizens and granted the right to vote and legally own land in the United States.”

Located at the northern gateway to the district, the three-story Blanchet House was originally built as a hotel (c. 1905) and known as the Yamaguchi Hotel. It has Asian American significance, as well as being designated contributing for architecture in the National Register Nomination. Specifically, from the National Register Nomination:

Description; The building faces north on NW Glisan Street and west on NW Fourth Avenue. It is a square, three story, brick building with a flat roof with a castellated parapet. The brick on the upper two stories has been covered with stucco. Segmental arched one over one and six over six double hung wood sash windows with stone sills punctuate the upper two floors. A horizontal brick belt course separates the first and second stories. On the north elevation four pilasters divide the first story storefronts into three bays. Each storefront consists of large transom windows, fixed pane windows and a wooden bulkhead. The main entrance is located on the northwest comer of the building. An arched entrance door is also located on the west elevation. A wrought iron fire escape, added in 1949, is on the north side of the west facade and extends vertically from the second to the third floors. The building has a brick foundation and is in good condition.

Significance: Original permits, plans, and title records have not been found for this building. It was built about 1905 as a hotel with ground floor businesses. The 1908 Sanborn map shows the building as containing a saloon and a store on the first floor. Mr. S. Yamaguchi managed the hotel, which was commonly referred to as the Yamaguchi Hotel until 1931 when it was sold and became the Hotel New Meyer. Yamaguchi's wife worked as a mid-wife in the Asian community. The Hotel New Meyer (1932-1944) occupied the upper floors of the building while the ground floor housed the Old Ship Zion Seamen's Mission (1934-1940), subsequently followed by the Lighthouse Mission in 1943.

In 1933, Alice Palmer bought and sold the building to William Hause. Hause controlled the property until 1939 when it was purchased by Harold Wolf who sold it 5 years later in 1944 to the Keystone Hotel and Investment Company.

The building is considered to be contributing in the district because of its association with the Asian Ethnic community during the primary and secondary periods of significance. Although no alteration permits have been found for exterior changes, including stuccoing, the building retains its basic integrity from the primary period of significance.

Zoning: Central Commercial zone. The Central Commercial (CX) zone is intended to provide for commercial and mixed-use development within Portland's most urban and intense areas, specifically, the Central City and the Gateway Regional Center. A broad range of uses are allowed to reflect Portland's role as a commercial, cultural, residential, and governmental center. Development is intended to be very intense with high building coverage, large buildings, and buildings placed close together. Development is intended to be pedestrian‐oriented with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. The Design overlay zone is applied to this zone.

Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone is intended to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the special characteristics of historic resources. This protects certain historic resources in the region and preserves significant parts of the region’s heritage. The regulations implement Portland's Comprehensive Plan policies that address historic preservation. These policies recognize the role historic resources have in promoting the education and enjoyment of those living in and visiting the region. The regulations foster pride among the region’s citizens in their city and its heritage. Historic preservation beautifies the city, promotes the city’s economic health, and helps to preserve and enhance the value of historic properties.

Land Use History: City records indicate several applications for the site have been submitted:

EA 18-223284 PC - Removal of the three-story building currently occupying the parcel at 340 NW Glisan Street based on existing conditions and barriers to reasonable economic use of the site. Potential small-scale replacement structure options to be discussed as well. This is a contributing structure in Historic New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District.
LU 18-236784 DM – Removal of the three-story building currently occupying the parcel at 340 NW Glisan Street based on existing conditions and barriers to reasonable economic use of the site. Concept for potential small-scale replacement structure/site option included for evaluation. CASE WITHDRAWN.
EA 19-143543 PC – Pre-Application Conference for Blanchet House Demolition Review.
EA 19-227692 PC - A Pre-Application Conference to discuss demolition of a three-story building currently occupying the parcel at 340 NW Glisan Street. The building is a contributing structure in the Oldtown/Chinatown Historic District.
EA 19-242563 DA – Design Advice Request to Demolish the three-story building currently occupying the property, based on the Approval Criteria as stated in zoning code section 33.846.080.C.1 "Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use of the site". Contributing Resource. CASE WITHDRAWN.
LU 20-109426 DM AD – Blanchet House Demolition Review and Adjustment. CASE WITHDRAWN.

Agency Review: A “Request for Response” was mailed May 25, 2021. The following Bureaus have responded with no issues or concerns:

Bureau of Environmental Services, Exhibit E1.
Bureau of Transportation Engineering and Development Review, Exhibit E2.
Water Bureau, Exhibit E3.
Site Development Review Section of Bureau of Development Services, Exhibit E4.
Life Safety Review Section of Bureau of Development Services, Exhibit E5.
Fire Bureau, Exhibit E6.

Neighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on May 25, 2021. No written responses have been received at the time this report was published.

ZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA

The applicant has requested two reviews in this Land Use application that have two separate approval criteria: 1) Historic Resource Demolition Review, 33.445 &33.846, and 2) Adjustment Review, 33.805.

(1) HISTORIC RESOURCE DEMOLITION REVIEW [33.445 & 33.846]
Chapter 33.445, Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and
Chapter 33.846, Historic Reviews

33.445.010 Purpose of the Historic Resource Overlay Zone
This chapter protects certain historic resources in the region and preserves significant parts of the region’s heritage. The regulations implement Portland's Comprehensive Plan policies that address historic preservation. These policies recognize the role historic resources have in promoting the education and enjoyment of those living in and visiting the region. The regulations foster pride among the region’s citizens in their city and its heritage. Historic preservation beautifies the city, promotes the city’s economic health, and helps to preserve and enhance the value of historic properties.

33.445.030 Types of Historic Resource Designations and Map Symbols
C. Historic District. This type of resource is a collection of individual resources that is of historical or cultural significance at the local, state, or national level. Information supporting a specific district’s designation is found in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory, its National Register nomination, or the local evaluation done in support of the district’s designation.

33.445.330 Demolition of Historic Resources in a Historic District
Demolition of other historic resources within a Historic District requires demolition review to ensure their historic value is considered. The review period also ensures that there is an opportunity for the community to fully consider alternatives to demolition.

33.846.010 Purpose
This chapter provides procedures and establishes the approval criteria for all historic reviews. The approval criteria protect the region’s historic resources and preserve significant parts of the region’s heritage. The reviews recognize and protect the region’s historic and architectural resources, ensuring that changes to a designated historic resource preserve historic and architectural values and provide incentives for historic preservation.

33.846.080 Demolition Review

A. Purpose. Demolition review protects resources that have been individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places and those that have been classified as contributing in the analysis done in support of a Historic District’s creation. It also protects Historic Landmarks and Conservation Landmarks that have taken advantage of an incentive for historic preservation and historic resources that have a preservation agreement. Demolition review recognizes that historic resources are irreplaceable assets that preserve our heritage, beautify the city, enhance civic identity, and promote economic vitality.

B. Review procedure. Demolition reviews are processed through a Type IV procedure.

C. Approval criteria. Proposals to demolish a historic resource will be approved if the review body finds that one of the following approval criteria is met:

Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use of the site; or
Demolition of the resource has been evaluated against and, on balance, has been found supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. The evaluation may consider factors such as:

a. The merits of demolition;
b. The merits of development that could replace the demolished resource, either as specifically proposed for the site or as allowed under the existing zoning;
c. The effect demolition of the resources would have on the area’s desired character;
d. The effect that redevelopment on the site would have on the area’s desired character;
e. The merits of preserving the resource, taking into consideration the purposes described in Subsection A; and
f. Any proposed mitigation for the demolition.

Findings: The site is designated a contributing resource with a National Register Historic District. Therefore, demolition of the existing building requires Demolition Review approval.

The applicant has chosen to address Approval Criterion 1: Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use of the site.

Findings: In order to meet this approval criteria, the applicant should demonstrate that if a historic structure is proposed for demolition, it could not otherwise be restored, and all possible options have been explored.

The applicant provides the following approach to address this approval criteria:

The code does not define the term “reasonable economic use”. Under PCC 33.700.070.D.1, terms used in the code have their dictionary meaning unless they are specifically defined in PCC 33.910. Because there is no code definition, the dictionary definition controls our interpretation. Webster’s Dictionary does not contain a definition of the term “reasonable economic use” but does define the operative terms individually.

Reasonable-“not extreme or excessive, being in accordance with reason.” Economic-“of, relating to, or based on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.” Viewed together, the term “economic” relates to whether the site can be used for the production, distribution and consumption of goods and the term “reasonable” requires that the economics of putting the site to that use are not extreme or excessive, but rather in accordance with reason.

The former Blanchet House site cannot be put to any reasonable economic use as these terms are defined. The KPFF Report, attached as Exhibit A1, details the level of repair that would be required to return the building to a habitable and leasable condition.

Cost to Return to Habitable Condition
Blanchet House engaged Fortis Construction to evaluate the KPFF Report and the condition of this 7,500 square foot building and produce a cost of repair. The cost of repair is found on the table at page 4 of the Johnson Economic Study included in Exhibit A1. The cost of repair is estimated at $10.7 million or $1,318 per gross square foot. The Johnson Economic Report then evaluated the highest and best use of the building under the allowed zoning to determine if the return on investment would render the repair and rehabilitation of this building viable. The unequivocal conclusion is that the renovation costs based on conservative pro-forma would be almost $8.2 million past the point of economic feasibility.

Staff acknowledges the applicant’s reports regarding the KPFF structural analysis and the Johnson Economics analysis that detail challenges cited to redevelop the site. BDS will not be able to provide its own analysis to confirm the validity of the analysis.

Regardless, Staff feels this analysis is too narrow, does not consider “all reasonable economic use.”

The existing condition of Blanchet House was deemed “good” in 1989.

The existing building was built c. 1905 on a small 50’ x 50’ parcel and contains a 7,500 square foot unreinforced masonry building. The applicant has provided a detailed analysis of the existing conditions of the Blanchet House [Exhibit A.1]. The applicant-provided structural report highlights several deficiencies in the building:

The exterior masonry is severely degraded with visible cracking, considerable amounts of missing mortar, extremely soft mortar caused by high levels of moisture.
Numerous bricks have been dislodged from the exterior walls and have fallen into the sidewalk and parking lot. As a result, the façade and parapet are a danger to any occupants and pedestrians during a seismic event or a typical day.
The building is prone to collapse during an earthquake or wind event. Portions of the parapet have already collapsed inward onto the roof.
Water damage is excessive in the building well above the percentage that is needed for structural capacity.
The building has been tagged with a large red “U” sign on the Glisan Street façade by Portland Fire and Rescue, marking it as hazardous for emergency personnel. The City has also “yellow-tagged” the building and placed a “restricted access order”, but declined to issue a dangerous building demolition permit.

Staff has confirmed with BDS Structural Engineers, that while the building is designated an unsafe building, this designation does not equate to dangerous or unusable, rather the building is repairable.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, testimony provided by Brian Emerick [Exhibit F6], a former Landmarks Commission Chair, Architect, and experienced in the restoration of similarly unreinforced masonry buildings, refuted the $1,300/SF cost to restore the Blanchet House with a similar proposal a few blocks away, the Overland Warehouse at 209 NW 4^th Avenue, at a value of $150/SF.

Additional testimony by Landmarks Commissioner Andrew Smith, an Historical Architect, also experienced in restoration of unreinforced masonry building, offered a detailed critique of a similarly scaled restoration project at the corner of NE Couch and NE Grand, the KEX Building. His testimony provided a similar contradiction of the $1,300/SF cost per square foot to restore a poor condition URM building.

Furthermore, testimony [Exhibit F8] provided by former Landmarks Commissioners present for the 2010 Demolition Review process for the Kiernan Building, where the New Blanchet House aka The Riley House now stands noted:

Shortly after the Kiernan demolition was approved, the Landmarks Commissioners were invited to tour the Yamaguchi Hotel. Many of us did so and what we saw was an entirely habitable structure providing free meals and beds to as many as the building could safely accommodate. Not one of the Commissioners opined that the building was beyond repair and as professional architects and developers of historic properties, we were certainly qualified to know. In fact, some noted that comparably-sized buildings in the City were in far worse shape that had recently been restored such as Fire Station No. 7 on SE Stark.

While the property owner has installed fencing around the building to provide a safety perimeter, staff notes that the Blanchet House was listed as the owner of the building in 1989 and the building was noted as “in good condition” at that time. Therefore, any deterioration of the building that has occurred has happened under the stewardship of the current owner now seeking demolition. Understanding the non-profit mission of the Blanchet House of Hospitality is not for redevelopment of existing buildings, since the completion of the New Blanchet House of Hospitality, the old Blanchet House of Hospitality should have been made available for sale.

Property up for sale to one entity – Prosper Portland.

Staff does not believe that Demolition Review Approval Criterion #1 can be proven to be met as the building could be brought back into service by the owner or sold to a second party who could elect to bring it back into service. The application states that:

Property has not been listed for sale in the last 4 years. However, the applicant granted PDC (now Prosper Portland) an option to purchase the building for one dollar ($1.00). PDC requested three extensions to the option to purchase which were provided at no cost. PDC declined to exercise the option. We now understand that Prosper Portland may be interested in the land once the building is removed.

The fact the property has not been listed on an open market for consideration, effectively hindered the opportunity for sale to a potentially limitless list of possible buyers. The approval criteria specifically cite: “Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use of the site.”

Furthermore, as highlighted in oral and written testimony provided by Carrie Righter, former Landmarks Commissioner, and signed by Commissioners present at the 2010 Kiernan Building demolition review [Exhibit F8]:

If the applicant lacked interest in maintaining the Yamaguchi Hotel, it was incumbent on them to sell, lease or otherwise transfer these obligations onto someone who would be, be it the PDC [Prosper Portland] or a historic preservation minded buyer.

The property should have the potential to be considered by many more buyers than Prosper Portland. Until that opportunity has been applied, the approval criteria cannot be shown to be met.

Potential redevelopment options through FAR transfers and/ or additions to adjacent vacant properties.

In addition, because the site is a contributing resource in a historic district located in the Central City Plan District, it is eligible to sell any unused FAR plus an additional 3:1 FAR, provided that the building is seismically upgraded or signs an agreement to seismically upgrade the building within 10 years. Staff notes that the site area (including the New Blanchet House, “Riley House”, which is also-owned by the Blanchet House) is 12,000 square feet with a 9:1 FAR and 37,550 square feet of floor area used by the existing buildings, leaving 5.87 + 3:1 = 8.87:1 FAR (70,450sf + 36,000sf = 106,450sf) available for transfer, the sale of which could help fund a seismic upgrade of this existing historic building.

Additionally, the “area’s desired character” is preservation of the existing New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District to the greatest degree possible. Demolition of an existing contributing resource in a district where contributing resources are critical to the continued designation of the district is ill-advised. While compatible development is desired to replace the existing surface parking lot that surrounds the site per the Key Development RFP [Exhibit G.9], other recent development such as the one as NW 15th and Glisan (Modera Glisan by Millcreek Development) and 1727 NW Hoyt (by NW Housing Alternatives) demonstrate that it is possible to incorporate the rehabilitation of an existing unreinforced masonry building into a new development scheme. Other rehabilitations of modestly scaled buildings, such as the KEX Hotel which was recently profiled at the Historic Landmarks Commission’s State of Preservation report to City Council, included a seismic upgrade without leveraging adjacent supportive new development. For many rehabilitation projects, a savvy combination of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits facilitate reuse of historic properties. These examples show that rehabilitation of is possible.

Lastly, in testimony provided at the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, Restore Oregon representatives offered their services and deep experience in restoration efforts to assist the Blanchet House in considering alternative to demolition.

Conclusion

Section 33.800.060 of the Portland Zoning Code states: “The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the approval criteria are met. The burden is not on the City or other parties to show that the criteria have not been met.”

Staff does not believe the burden of proof has been met by the applicant because alternatives to demolition have not been explored, specifically placing the property on the open market to see if any potential buyers exist. Such an action could result in a buyer who is willing to pay $1 (or more) for the site, thus relieving the owner of their obligations to maintain the site. The decision to approve or not approve a demolition of a culturally-significant site within a culturally significant historic district should not be based solely on the financial abilities of who owns the building at the time of the demolition request, as any other party may have the means and the will to preserve this historic building.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings, noting that additional alternatives and opportunities exist. The Commission highlighted testimony referencing the KEX Hotel restoration, the Overland Warehouse Restoration [Exhibit F6] and Restore Oregon [Exhibit F5] offering additional assistance in exploring development and preservation alternatives to demolition.

Therefore, based on the current building condition having fallen into disrepair from “good” to “unsafe”, and the missed opportunity for public sale and a broader consideration for any number of potential buyers to explore alternatives to demolition, Staff does not recommend demolition review approval.

(2) Adjustment Request (33.805)

33.805.010 Purpose

The regulations of the zoning code are designed to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations apply city-wide, but because of the city's diversity, some sites are difficult to develop in compliance with the regulations. The adjustment review process provides a mechanism by which the regulations in the zoning code may be modified if the proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations. Adjustments may also be used when strict application of the zoning code's regulations would preclude all use of a site. Adjustment reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purposes of the code, while allowing the zoning code to continue to provide certainty and rapid processing for land use applications.

33.805.040 Approval Criteria

The approval criteria for signs are stated in Title 32. All other adjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that either approval criteria A. through F. or approval criteria G. through I., below, have been met.

The following adjustment is requested:

The applicant also seeks an adjustment from PCC 33.445.330.A.2.c which provides that a demolition permit cannot be issued until a permit for a new building on the site has been issued.

The full text of the standard is below, underlined text for emphasis:

PCC 33.445.330.A. Demolition review.

1. When demolition review is required. Unless exempted by Subsection B, below, demolition of a historic resource in a Historic District is subject to demolition review if:

a. It is a structure that is identified as contributing to the historic significance of a Historic District; or
b. There is a covenant with the City that requires the owner to obtain City approval before demolishing or relocating the historic resource.

2. Issuance of a demolition permit after demolition review. If the review body for demolition review approves demolition of the resource, a permit for demolition will not be issued until the following are met:

a. The decision in the demolition review is final;
b. At least 120 days have passed since the date the Director of the Bureau of Development Services determined that the application was complete; and
c. A permit for a new building on the site has been issued. The demolition and building permits may be issued simultaneously.

The applicant requests that Adjustment from this standard [PCC 33.445.330.A.2.c] to demolish the building and not provide a replacement building as otherwise required by this Code section.

The approval criteria under PCC 33.805.040 for an Adjustment A.-F. or G.-I. [both are addressed] as follows:

A. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified;

Findings: The applicant asserts that the timing of the building permit issuance for new development is at issue, and it does not apply to the merits of the demolition itself which is addressed above. Furthermore, the applicant states:

Leaving the building in place for further demise does not contribute to the region’s heritage or the character of the area. In fact, the building’s condition detrimentally impacts the character of the area and will be highly inconsistent with the goals the City has for the remainder of the block which will be developed with new buildings that do not reflect the demised status of this limited corner of the lot.

When reviewing for demolition of a contributing building in a historic district, the applicant must take into consideration that the subject site is also a part of a greater historic district, and the impact to the whole district must be taken into consideration. The number of eligible and contributing historic buildings in the New Chinatown/ Japantown Historic District decreases from south to north; the number of vacant lots decreases as well. The northern portion of the District already has gaps in its historic street frontage with vacant lots and non-contributing buildings and is therefore already a challenged end of the district with the existing historic buildings in place.

Because the applicant requests the city to waive the normal complete application requirements and have the demolition application considered with the outcome possibly being a vacant lot rather than any replacement to an existing building, regulations within the Central City Plan District chapter (33.510) such as minimum FARs, required building lines, and many other development standards could not be met because a vacant lot would not meet the Central City Plan District development standards.

Staff concerns with the applicant’s rationale are stated above in the response to the demolition review criteria above, notable that at the time of the building’s nomination in 1989, and under ownership by the Blanchet House of Hospitality, the building was deemed in “good” condition. To cite the state of disrepair of being a reason to demolish a contributing building in a Historic District does not meet the Purpose Statement for this standard.

In order to meet this approval criteria, should demolition of the resource be approved, the resulting development should demonstrate, at a minimum, that the new structure can contribute and enhance the district in the absence of the demolished resource. The Purpose of the regulation – to provide a replacement building should demolition review be approved – are found in three sections of the Portland Zoning Code.

33.445.010 Purpose [of Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone]

This chapter protects certain historic resources in the region and preserves significant parts of the region’s heritage. The regulations implement Portland's Comprehensive Plan policies that address historic preservation. These policies recognize the role historic resources have in promoting the education and enjoyment of those living in and visiting the region. The regulations foster pride among the region’s citizens in their city and its heritage. Historic preservation beautifies the city, promotes the city’s economic health, and helps to preserve and enhance the value of historic properties.

33.846.010 Purpose [of Historic Resource Review]

This chapter provides procedures and establishes the approval criteria for all historic resource reviews. The approval criteria protect the region’s historic resources and preserve significant parts of the region’s heritage. The reviews recognize and protect the region’s historic and architectural resources, ensuring that changes to a designated historic resource preserve historic and architectural values and provide incentives for historic preservation.

33.846.080.A Purpose [of Demolition Review]

Demolition review protects resources that have been individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or are identified as contributing to the historic significance of a Historic District. It also protects Historic Landmarks and Conservation Landmarks that have taken advantage of an incentive for historic preservation and historic resources that have a preservation agreement. Demolition review recognizes that historic resources are irreplaceable assets that preserve our heritage, beautify the city, enhance civic identity, and promote economic vitality.

The previous Type 4 Demolition Review requested by the Blanchet House of Hospitality on the site of the Kiernan Building/Dirty Duck Tavern, a historic resource in the National Register Historic District, was demolished and replaced by a new building, the Riley House, to further the Blanchet House of Hospitality’s mission as well as provide a building of value to the Historic District that was approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission.

With regard, to the Historic Resource Inventory concerns raised by the applicant, the Blanchet House was designated as a contributing resource in the New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District in 1989. However, the applicant’s application highlights that 5 years earlier in 1984, the building was listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory as “unranked” which is the lowest ranking for an HRI listing, and further states “For reasons that do not seem to be supported in the record of the nomination, the District nomination designates the former Blanchet House as a “contributing resource” in the historic district, thus necessitating this demolition review.”

Staff acknowledges the 1984 “unranked” status in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. However, the argument against the building’s historic integrity based on the 1984 HRI status prior to the 1989 National Register Nomination is moot. The controlling document for this Historic District is the National Register Nomination, which supersedes the City’s Historic Resources Inventory and have minimal regulatory power. Demolition review is required for Contributing Resources in National Register historic districts.

Finally, the applicant does correctly highlight that the property was under the 9-year management of the hotel by Mr. Yamaguchi, and then the hotel was in successive ownership of Frank Schlegel, Walter Green, Alice Palmer, William House, Harold Wolf, Keystone Hotel and Investment Company and lastly Blanchet House of Hospitality. It is also true that Mrs. Yamaguchi was the midwife for the local Japanese community and thus ushered many members of this community into the world.

The purpose statement for the Historic Resource Overlay and the Historic Resource Review and Demolition Review process does not just highlight architecture, but heritage. What happens within our historic buildings is important, and even more so, is their cultural history. As stated in the Historic Landmarks Commission 2020 State of the City Report [Exhibit G.11], presented at Council early this year on April 29, 2021:

In order to build a positive future for this City, this community needs to have a more complete understanding of this land’s full history so that we can adequately honor this place, it’s people and the multitude of their stories, and build a legacy of which we can be proud. In this sense, historic preservation is not just an endeavor of luxury; it is a public responsibility. The recent designations of Darcelle XV and the Billy Webb Elks Lodge demonstrate how the preservation on of these important spaces demand a sense of respect from the broader community and enhance the sense of dignity and pride to those who see their stories represented in these spaces and see themselves in the continuum of a community’s significant history.

However, with regard to cultural integrity and regional heritage, the applicant’s application goes on to state:

The nomination states that a Mr. Yamaguchi managed the hotel, but the hotel was in successive ownership of Frank Schlegel, Walter Green, Alice Palmer, William House, Harold Wolf, Keystone Hotel and Investment Company and lastly Blanchet House of Hospitality. The City’s building permits and records indicate that there was no historic use or ownership of the property that was associated with the Chinese or Japanese culture but for the 9-year management of the hotel by Mr. Yamaguchi. This is not to say that the building did not play some role in the cultural history of the District based on its proximity to other more culturally centered uses; but the records make clear that the hotel use and ownership did not make this building historically significant in the district from a cultural perspective.

Staff disagrees with downplaying the cultural significance of the building’s ownership with the Yamaguchis. Citing the National Register Nomination under its “Significance” section for the Blanchet House at 340 NW Glisan Street, and highlighting the Asian community:

Mr. S. Yamaguchi managed the hotel, which was commonly referred to as the Yamaguchi Hotel until 1931 when it was sold and became the Hotel New Meyer. Yamaguchi's wife worked as a mid-wife in the Asian community.

The Blanchet House is specifically cited as having historic significance by virtue of its tenure under the ownership by Mr. Yamaguchi, and perhaps more importantly, by Mr. Yamaguchi’s wife who worked as a mid-wife in the Asian community.

The Blanchet House was considered in “good” condition in 1989. Now, by the applicant’s own reports and under their stewardship, the building has fallen into a great state of disrepair. It is alarming that this specific criterion is being chosen to request demolition review approval as it specifically highlights the building state of disrepair, by neglect, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for historic buildings not just in the New Chinatown/ Japantown Historic District, but across the City’s inventory of older structures.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings, noting that not providing an alternative to demolition, were it to be approved, is simply antithetical to the Purpose of Historic Resource Review, the Demolition Review process, and to Historic Preservation policies in the City of Portland. Deferring mitigation for the loss of an irreplaceable asset to a National Register Historic District to an undetermined future date, potentially tied to the Block 25 Key Development Proposal [Exhibit G9], was not supportable.

Given the Purpose of the Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone, the Purpose of Historic Review, and the Purpose of Demolition Review, the cultural heritage and likely many in the Asian community that could have been served by the Yamaguchis, this criterion is not met.

B. If in a residential, CI1, or IR zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area, or if in an OS, C, E, I, or CI2 zone, the proposal will be consistent with the classifications of the adjacent streets and the desired character of the area; and

Findings: The proposal is in the CX zone. The CX zone describes the character of the area as one of the “most urban and intense areas” and a broad range of uses are allowed to reflect Portland’s role as a commercial, cultural, residential, and governmental center. Development is intended to be very intense with high building coverage, large buildings, and buildings placed close together with a pedestrian emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape.

The adjacent streets are NW Glisan St. and NW 4th Ave. Those two streets have the following classifications:

Street Name	Traffic	Transit	Bicycle	Pedestrian	Freight
NW Glisan St.	Traffic Access	Major Transit Priority	Local Service	Major City Wallkway	Local Service
NW 4th Ave.	Local Service	Local Service	City Bikeway	Major City Wallkway	Local Service

The classification most at issue with the subject review is the Pedestrian Classification of Major City Walkway. The Transportation System Plan describes the overall purpose of “Major City Walkway” as follows:

Major City Walkways are intended to provide safe, convenient, and attractive pedestrian access along major streets and trails with a high level of pedestrian activity supported by current and planned land uses. These include Civic and Neighborhood Corridors, Civic and Neighborhood Main Streets, frequent transit lines, high-demand off-street trails, and streets in areas with a high density of pedestrian-oriented uses.

Additionally, the site is within a Pedestrian District, which the Transportation System Plan defines as follows:

Pedestrian Districts are intended to give priority to pedestrian access in areas where high levels of pedestrian activity exist or are planned, including the Central City, Gateway Regional Center, town centers, neighborhood centers, and transit station areas.

Both of these classifications work together to try to produce a safe and attractive environment for walking; both specifically refer to high levels of pedestrian activity.

The applicant states:

Issuance of a demolition permit prior to a new building permit is consistent with this desired character. Removal of the building now will allow the applicant to restore the pedestrian emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape.

It is however, as noted in Findings above, the building was listed in “good” condition in 1989 when the Historic District was created when under the same ownership. That the building has fallen into disrepair is the result of deferred maintenance. The resulting effect has had impacts on the adjacent street rights-of-way sidewalks, and resulted in sidewalk closures.

The opposite corner of the same block at 310 NW Glisan Street, the Kiernan Building/Dirty Duck Tavern was a Historic Contributing Building in the Chinatown Historic District that had fallen into disrepair due to lack of maintenance, but was approved for demolition by City Council based on the community focused vision of the Blanchet House of Hospitality, and that the site be “repaired” with a new building approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission, which is where the New Riley House now sits, furthering the mission of the Blanchet House of Hospitality.

Based in part on the Old Town/ Chinatown Development Plan [Exhibit. G.5], as adopted by City Council in 1999, and envisioned for 2019-2024 [Exhibit G.8], the development of most of Block 25 was noted as the highest priority and worthy of immediate action. The Key Development [Exhibit G.9] presumes control of the full ¾ block development – including the 50’ x 50’ Blanchet House site at 340 NW Glisan Street.

While the Key Development intends to include cultural programming and design on the balance of the block with a new urban development, the same result could occur on this corner of that same block with cultural or social programming in a mixed-use building addition to a restored Blanchet House at 340 NW Glisan Street. This redevelopment, combined with the Zoning Code requirements for Active Ground Floor Active Uses, Ground Floor Windows, and application of the New Chinatown/ Japantown Design Guidelines for New Construction, would add to the desired character for the CX Zone, the associated Street Classifications, and the desired character of the area while preserving an integral part of this City’s Japanese-American heritage. Demolition and removal of this building does not meet these goals.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings.

Therefore, this criterion is not met.

C. If more than one adjustment is requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; and

Findings: Only one adjustment is requested; thus, this criterion does not apply.

D. City designated scenic and historic resources are preserved; and

Findings: The applicant correctly states there are no scenic resources on the site. However, the applicant also states:

. . . while the resource, while designated as a contributing resource, has not retained its historic significance. And the adjustment is not related to the merits of removal of the historic resource; rather, the adjustment is related to the timing of the demolition permit. Thus, this criterion is largely inapplicable.

Further, the building has been altered over the years and now sits in a position of significant disrepair not reflective of an historic resource, particularly a resource that was designated on a cultural, rather than an architectural basis. Its long-term vacancy demonstrates that it is not serving any historic purpose for which it was originally designated.

Staff disagrees with both: There is cultural significance, and the building condition has deteriorated from “good” in 1989 to “unsafe” in its current condition during the applicant’s ownership of the building.

Granting the adjustment will not protect historic resources, either on the site itself or in the entire New Chinatown/Japantown historic district. The loss of the building itself represents the erasure of cultural bonds to the Portland Japanese-American community that was stripped of ownership rights, human rights, and property at the advent of the second World War when people of Japanese ancestry on the west coast were sent to internment camps.

The building does have a role as a contributing part of a historic district in educating city residents and visitors to the events of the past. The New Chinatown/ Japantown Historic District is listed on the National Register both for its architecture and for its association with Asian American Pacific Islander communities in Portland. There are no other cultural districts at all in Portland. The Old Blanchet House itself is one of very few historically recognized resources to have any cultural ties with the Japanese “Nihonmachi” community. Outside of the district, it is not clear whether there are any other historically protected places in the entire state that are tied to the Japanese cultural experience. The building itself, and its relationship to the larger cultural district, are irreplaceable.

As cited in the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting testimony provided by Restore Oregon [Exhibit F5], cultural aspects of the building’s history include Japanese-American history, women’s history, and social services history:

The significance of this building has not one, but three, important aspects:

Built around 1905, the Yamaguchi Hotel is one of only a handful of buildings still standing in the historic district that was owned and operated by Japanese Americans at a time when people of Asian heritage were ostracized and afforded limited rights, and then lost virtually everything when interned during WWII.

Second, according to the National Register of Historic Places district nomination, Mr. Yamaguchi’s wife served as the midwife for the Asian community, and is said to have delivered babies as far away as Hood River. This untold and under-appreciated chapter of Oregon’s women's history is crucial to preserve for its cultural significance.

Also according to the nomination, the hotel became the Old Ship Zion Seaman’s Mission in 1934, placing this building in the service of those in trouble and at risk. Blanchet operated in this location from the early 1960s until 2012. This social services history, too, deserves to be recognized and valued.

Additionally, the removal of another contributing resource from the New Chinatown/Japantown historic district would be the fourth loss of a contributing property in the district since its listing in 1990. For a district that was listed with only 56% contributing properties in a tight area of ten Portland blocks, the loss would mark the first time the district would have less than 50% contributing properties. This is a serious problem for several reasons. One; there must be over 50% property owner approval at the time of district creation to list the district on the National Register of Historic Places in the first place, and although noncontributing property owners may vote for a district, it is highly unusual to have such a low number of contributing properties. A number below 50% speaks to the vulnerability of the district. Incompatible alterations or the demolition of multiple resources may result in the de-listing of a district from the National Register.

Not only does the proposed demolition of the Blanchet House not protect the contributing resource, but it fails to protect the extremely vulnerable district as a whole. This point cannot be overstated; what affects this single building has the potential to negatively affect the other contributing resources, not only those who have not yet used their ability to tap into Federal or State tax incentives, but those who “played by the rules” and maintained the historic buildings on their sites.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings.

Therefore, this approval criterion is not met.

E. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical; and

Findings: The applicant states:

There are no deleterious impacts from issuing a demolition permit prior to a building permit. In fact, the only negative impacts from delaying demolition are to further risk the safety of the building and its immediate environment. Removal of the building is necessary to preserve a safe pedestrian and urban environment near and adjacent to the site as demonstrated by the KPFF Report. Delaying the demolition permit will not enhance or encourage preservation of the resource in this case.

Staff disagrees with this statement.

City Council sponsored a massive effort to create the visions for this district, and crafting the New Chinatown/ Japan Town Design Guidelines, effective October 28, 2017 [Exhibit G.6]. These new Design Guidelines recognize that the New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District is important to Portland’s past, present, and future identity. The design guidelines are intended to encourage respectful changes to the district’s built environment, create opportunities for increased use, and retain its architectural and cultural qualities. They do not envision the creation of new vacant lots, especially at the edge and at the corners of this National Register Historic District.

The Vision statement from the New Chinatown/ Japantown Design Guidelines:

The New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District Design Guidelines are designed to allow change to take place in a mindful way that brings vibrancy to the district while retaining the important architectural and cultural qualities that make it a unique historic neighborhood. The vision for the future includes a vibrant, economically healthy neighborhood, activated by tourism as well as an increase in people living, shopping, and working in the district. Historic buildings are rehabilitated and seismically upgraded. There are new buildings on formerly vacant lots and vertical additions above some of the district’s older buildings. A regular series of tall, glass-fronted storefront bays activate the pedestrian level. Most buildings have a strong projecting cornice or a parapet with design detail, and there are some higher buildings visible above four or five stories. New buildings have a traditional base level that blends well with the older buildings. Secondary materials and design insertions at both new and older buildings bring to mind a Japanese and/or Chinese design aesthetic. This aesthetic is reinforced by projecting signs, flags, and new horizontal balconies with varying metal railing designs. This vision promotes the retention of historic resources, encouragement of compatible development, the preservation of the district’s cultural significance and authenticity, and the enhancement of the pedestrian right-of-way.

In a Type IV Demolition Review, the code intends for the new development proposal to be reviewed alongside the demolition specifically because the new development IS mitigation for the demolition. Without a new development, the necessary mitigation of a vacant lot suddenly becomes an almost insurmountable issue. What would mitigate for a vacant lot in Central City? Whatever the answer is, the applicant has not endeavored to provide it.

In the first Type 4 Demolition Review by City Council, the weighing of public benefits was establishing as mitigation when considering mitigation for demolition of a Historic Resource.

The new Blanchet House of Hospitality location was made possible after the former Kiernan Building/ Dirty Duck Tavern on the site received Demolition Review Approval [the first Type IV processed] by Portland City Council, based primarily on 1) the Kiernan building’s lack of Asian Heritage, 2) the substantial public benefit the Blanchet House would provide the community in this large facility, and 3) a replacement building [now the Riley House] that would require the Historic Landmarks Commission Approval.

In most land use cases, impacts to other properties are limited to those in immediate proximity. Noise, glare, loss of sunlight; all of these are typical types of impacts considered in certain cases. In the case of a historic district such as New Chinatown/Japantown, any impacts to contributing or noncontributing resources inside the district boundary must always be considered collectively, to the whole district. The impacts depend on the undertaking; for the proposed demolition the result would not only be a vacant lot on a single property but would reduce the number of contributing properties below 50% for the district as a whole. Ultimately, one has to consider the very real possibility of the loss of the district, which would impact other contributing properties by severing their access to a package of incentives meant to protect cultural and historic resources from development pressure.

One of these incentives, and the most meaningful in terms of financial help, is the Federal Historic Tax Credit program. This extremely valuable program has been used in many renovation and seismic upgrade projects throughout Portland. Examples within the historic district include the Globe Hotel ($11M in qualified expenditures), the Mason-Ehrman building where PDC offices were formerly located ($11.3M in qualified expenditures), and many more. The references in the application to historic tax credits (HTCs) not being applicable to the existing building are not correct. Buildings of many scales take advantage of HTCs, and a small floor plate is not a disqualifier. An addition to the building could provide a wider range of possible uses [such as is possible through the Key Development proposal, Exhibit. G.9], and even a large addition appears supportable in the adopted New Chinatown/Japantown historic district guidelines (see GUIDELINE C2: DESIGN HORIZONTAL ADDITIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS EITHER TO APPEAR TO BE A NEW BUILDING, OR AS A VISUALLY SECONDARY VARIATION OF THE ORIGINAL].

The National Trust for Historic Preservation provides information on past use of Historic Tax Credits [HTCs] on a state-to-state basis; the information online for Oregon (for FY 2001-2020) does not include square footage or footprint size for any single building, but there are many projects and buildings smaller than the Blanchet House listed. While the added footprint to a historic building would not qualify for HTCs, the renovation to the historic building certainly could, and might make a huge difference in terms of the viability of a renovation project. Use of HTCs could be (and often are) combined with other tax credit programs such as Low-Income Housing Tax credits. Historic Tax Credits are not always useful where an owner pays no taxes, such as for a governmental or public school; but ownership can often be structured so as to allow the use of the program. If the district is de-listed, the loss of these benefits to the other contributing properties must be considered.

Another benefit that contributing properties can take advantage of is Oregon Special Assessment. Although the State of Oregon does not offer state historic tax credits like many other states do, the state does currently offer the Special Assessment, sometimes referred to as the “tax freeze.” Like HTCs, Special Assessment use depends on the owner investing in the building itself; seismically, structurally, upgrading systems, and ADA (accessibility) improvements for example. If the district is de-listed, the Special Assessment program will no longer be available for the contributing buildings in the district. The potential financial loss to other properties between HTCs and Special Assessment could even be a legal liability.

There are other incentives available to contributing properties in historic districts. Some of these are simply eligibility for grants (though typically not large); others are City use-related allowances and other opportunities. All of these would cease to be an option for other contributing properties in the district if it is de-listed.

Overall, the impacts resulting from a demolition of the building are large, and not just limited to the boundaries of the site itself. The de-listing of the historic district and the subsequent loss to other properties in the historic district of available funding and other incentives is a very real possibility which has not been addressed by the applicant. The impacts to the site itself have not been mitigated due to the request to not provide mitigation on the site.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings.

Therefore, this criterion is not met.

F. If in an environmental zone, the proposal has as few significant detrimental environmental impacts on the resource and resource values as is practicable.

Findings: The site is not in an environmental zone, so this criterion does not apply.

The applicant has applied the adjustment approval criteria of (A) through (F) in this case. In the alternative, an applicant can also choose to apply the adjustment approval criteria of (G) through (I) of PCC 33.805.040, and therefore these are also addressed here.

G. Application of the regulation in question would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site; and

Findings: The applicant states:

As stated in the Application [Exhibit A1], there is no reasonable economic use of the site with the building retained. Thus, forcing the property owner to retain the building in an unsafe condition until a building permit is issued further degrades the economic use of the site and during this delay precludes all reasonable economic use of the site.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings.

Staff disagrees and would reference the Findings above for Demolition Review.

Therefore, this criterion is not met.

H. Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the use of the site; and

Findings: The applicant states:

Granting the adjustment to the timing of the demolition permit is the minimum act necessary to allow timely and safe demolition of the building and a return to any economically viable use.

Staff disagrees, and references Findings above in response to the Adjustment Criterion D and E above in response to this criterion.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings.

Therefore, this criterion is not met.

I. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical.

Findings: The applicants states:

The only impact from this proposal is permitting the demolition of the resource before issuance of a new building permit. That requirement is presumably to discourage demolition of resources that can be preserved instead of redeveloped. That is clearly not the case here under these unique facts. This building cannot be restored or preserved and thus timing of demolition is mitigated only if we are permitted to demolish prior to any new building permit issuance.

Staff disagrees, and references Findings above in response to the Adjustment Criterion E above in response to this criterion.At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission agreed with Staff’s findings.

Therefore, this criterion is not met.

Therefore, the proposal to demolish an existing resource is not, on balance, supported by the Adjustment approval criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The Blanchet House mission is highly revered and provides an extremely valuable service to the community and has been since 1952 when it started in the Blanchet House of Hospitality at 340 NW Glisan Street. The Blanchet House’s goal is to assist residents through improved socialization space and amenities within the residential space of the New Blanchet House of Hospitality building, named the Riley House [after the longtime manager of Blanchet, Al Riley] and to create a safe and stable housing asset has been tremendous. These services are critical to creating a balanced community and effective transitional housing. A safe and healthy built environment is dependent upon housing that serves all of Portland’s citizens; at all income levels. This housing option provides the homeless population access to a transitional program that could eventually lead to permanent housing.

33.445.330 Demolition of Historic Resources in a Historic District
Demolition of other historic resources within a Historic District requires demolition review to ensure their historic value is considered. The review period also ensures that there is an opportunity for the community to fully consider alternatives to demolition.

This application for demolition review of the original Blanchet House at 340 NW Glisan Street, which distinguishes itself from the first demolition review for the Kiernan Building at 310 NW Glisan by 1) the building does have cultural association with Asian American heritage, 2) no public benefit is proposed to mitigate for the loss of the historic building, and 3) is not proposing a replacement building within the Chinatown/ Japantown Historic District.

At the June 14, 2021 Historic Landmarks Commission Public Meeting, the Commission supported Staff concerns raised in this report are also focused on the applicant’s broad-based arguments basing the demolition review approval on the existing building’s poor condition and an adjustment to not provide a replacement building should demolition be found approvable.

However, the Landmarks Commission and a number of testifiers which included member sof the preservation community and former Landmarks Commissioners and Planning Commission members, noted that the City of Portland and the preservation community need to come together and help the Blanchet House of Hospitality either preserve or find another buyer for this building.

As submitted in the application, approval for demolition of this historic resource could establish precedent for demolition of any historic resource based on long deferred maintenance, otherwise known as “demolition by neglect.” This would not only conflict with numerous historic preservation goals and policies adopted by City Council, but would fail to protect the already decreasing number of historic resources in the City, irreplaceable assets of our culture and history.

Lastly, the proposal to demolish does not support criteria that advocate the preservation and enhancement of the district’s architectural heritage and international character. Contributing historic buildings add value to the district and its ethnic heritage, which specifically addresses the desired continuation of the designation of New Chinatown/ Japantown as a Historic District.

Therefore, at this time Staff recommends Denial of the Historic Resource Demolition Review and Denial for the Adjustment request to not provide a replacement building to Portland City Council.

TENTATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION to CITY COUNCIL

Denial of the Demolition Review.

Denial of the Adjustment Review.

Staff does not recommend approval of the proposal due to two primary areas of concern:

#1 – The applicant has not met their burden of proof that demolition would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site, and

#2 – No replacement building of equal or greater value is proposed for the site or the Historic District and therefore no public benefit has been established by the proposed demolition of this building.

The following approval criteria are not met:

33.846.070 Demolition Review:
- 33.846.080.C.1. Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use of the site
33.805.040 Adjustment Review:
- A. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified;
- B. If in an OS, C, E, I, or CI2 zone, the proposal will be consistent with the classifications of the adjacent streets and the desired character of the area;
- D. City designated scenic and historic resources are preserved;
- E. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical;
- G. Application of the regulation in question would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site;
- H. Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the use of the site; and
- I. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical.

===================================

Procedural Information. The application for this land use review was submitted on March 25, 2021 and was determined to be complete on April 24, 2021.

Zoning Code Section 33.700.080 states that Land Use Review applications are reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time the application was submitted, provided that the application is complete at the time of submittal, or complete within 180 days. Therefore this application was reviewed against the Zoning Code in effect on March 25, 2021.

ORS 227.178 states the City must issue a final decision on Land Use Review applications within 120-days of the application being deemed complete. The 120-day review period may be waived or extended at the request of the applicant. In this case, the applicant did not waive or extend the 120-day review period. Unless further extended by the applicant, the 120 days will expire on: August 22, 2021.

Some of the information contained in this report was provided by the applicant. As required by Section 33.800.060 of the Portland Zoning Code, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the approval criteria are met. The Bureau of Development Services has independently reviewed the information submitted by the applicant and has included this information only where the Bureau of Development Services has determined the information satisfactorily demonstrates compliance with the applicable approval criteria. This report is the recommendation of the Bureau of Development Services with input from other City and public agencies.

This report is not a decision. This report is a recommendation by the Bureau of Development Services to Portland City Council. The review body may adopt, modify, or reject this recommendation. Any new written testimony should be emailed to Tim Heron at Tim.Heron@portlandoregon.gov. If you cannot email comments and must mail comments via USPS mail, your comments to the Landmarks Commission can be mailed c/o the Landmarks Commission, 1900 SW Fourth Ave., Suite 5000, Portland, OR 97201 or to City Council Clerk at 1221 SW Fourth Ave, Suite 131, Portland, OR 97204.

Please note regarding USPS mail: If you choose to mail written testimony via USPS, due to the Covid-19 Emergency, USPS mail is only received a couple times a week, and testimony must be received before the close of the record. Therefore, please mail testimony well in advance of the hearing date.

If you are interested in viewing information in the file, please contact the planner listed on this decision. The planner can provide information over the phone or via email. Please note that due to COVID-19 and limited accessibility to files, only digital copies of material in the file are available for viewing. A digital copy of the Portland Zoning Code is available on the internet at https://www.portland.gov/code/33.

You will receive mailed notice of the decision if you write a letter received before the hearing or testify at the hearing, or if you are the property owner or applicant. This Staff Report will be posted on the Bureau of Development Services website. Look at Development Services (BDS) | Portland.gov. On the top of the page use the search box to find the Zoning/Land Use section, select Notices and Hearings. Land use review notices are listed by the District Coalition shown at the beginning of this document. You may review the file on this case at the Development Services Building at 1900 SW Fourth Ave., Suite 5000, Portland, OR 97201.

City Council Hearing. The City Code requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on this case and you will have the opportunity to testify. The hearing is scheduled at the date listed at the top of this report. If you wish to speak at the Council hearing, you are encouraged to submit written materials upon which your testimony will be based, to the Council Clerk at the link provided at the top of this notice.

If you have any questions contact the Bureau of Development Services representative listed in this Recommendation.

Recording the final decision.

If this Land Use Review is approved the final decision will be recorded with the Multnomah County Recorder.

The applicant, builder, or a representative does not need to record the final decision with the Multnomah County Recorder.

For further information on your recording documents please call the Bureau of Development Services Land Use Services Division at 503-823-0625.

Expiration of the approval. Recorded decisions (except Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Map Amendments) expire three years from the date of the final decision unless:

A building permit has been issued, or
The approved activity has begun, or
In situations involving only the creation of lots, the land division has been recorded.

Applying for your permits. A building permit, occupancy permit, or development permit must be obtained before carrying out this project. At the time they apply for a permit, permittees must demonstrate compliance with:

All conditions imposed here.
All applicable development standards, unless specifically exempted as part of this land use review.
All requirements of the building code.
All provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Portland, and all other applicable ordinances, provisions and regulations of the city.

The Bureau of Development Services is committed to providing equal access to information and hearings. Please notify us no less than five business days prior to the event if you need special accommodations. Call 503-823-7300 (TTY 503-823-6868).

Tim Heron
June 16, 2021

EXHIBITS

NOT ATTACHED UNLESS INDICATED

All Exhibits are linked here: https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/record/14454341

Official Record (Efiles)

Report, supplemental documents, and testimony

Impact Statement

Agenda Items

Continued

Oral and written record are closed.
Continued to July 22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Time Certain

588 Time Certain in July 21-22, 2021 Council Agenda

Continued

Motion to reject any testimony received after the record closed on June 30, 2021: Moved by Hardesty and seconded by Ryan. (Y-5)

Motion to tentatively approve application for demolition and an adjustment with the conditions as proposed: Moved by Ryan and seconded by Hardesty. Vote not called.

Written record is open until Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. for testimony related to the proposed condition. Testimony submitted that is unrelated to the condition will be rejected by Council.

Continued to July 28, 2021 at 10:15 a.m. Time Certain.

592 Time Certain in July 28-29, 2021 Council Agenda

Continued

Continued to August 18, 2021 at 9:45 a.m. Time Certain

Motion to amend proposed condition to state committee will include a representative from the Japanese American community as selected by the Japanese-American Museum of Oregon: Moved by Rubio and seconded by Hardesty. (Y-5)

Motion to amend proposed condition moved and seconded on July 22 with revised language read into record, as amended by previous motion by Rubio: Moved by Ryan and seconded by Hardesty. (Y-5)

Motion to tentatively approve application for demolition and an adjustment with the proposed condition as amended: Moved by Ryan and seconded by Hardesty. (Y-5)

Former Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty Yea
Commissioner Mingus Mapps Yea
Commissioner Carmen Rubio Yea
Commissioner Dan Ryan Yea
Mayor Ted Wheeler Yea

625 Time Certain in August 18, 2021 Council Agenda

Findings Adopted

Motion to approve demolition and adjustment and adopt the findings: Moved by Wheeler and seconded by Ryan.

Former Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty Absent
Commissioner Mingus Mapps Yea
Commissioner Carmen Rubio Yea
Commissioner Dan Ryan Yea
Mayor Ted Wheeler Yea

625-2021

Staff Report and Recommendation to Portland City Council

GENERAL INFORMATION

Approval Criteria

ANALYSIS

ZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA

(2) Adjustment Request (33.805)

33.805.040 Approval Criteria

CONCLUSIONS

TENTATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION to CITY COUNCIL

EXHIBITS

Official Record (Efiles)

Impact Statement

Agenda Items

588 Time Certain in July 21-22, 2021 Council Agenda

592 Time Certain in July 28-29, 2021 Council Agenda

625 Time Certain in August 18, 2021 Council Agenda

Introduced by

Bureau

Requested Agenda Type

Date and Time Information

General information

Follow on Social Media