Portland council tentatively denies appeals, upholds Lloyd Center master plan with revised conditions

Portland City Council tentatively denied appeals to the Lloyd Center Central City master plan on July 9, voting to uphold the design commission’s approval with revised conditions and a technical amendment to a public‑works condition.

The decision, moved by Councilor Ryan and seconded by Councilor Novick, came after hours of testimony from residents and appellants urging preservation of the Lloyd Center’s ice rink and community spaces, and extensive legal and planning discussion about what the council may lawfully require in a master plan. The tentative vote to deny the appeals passed on a roll call of 10 ayes and two absent; staff will return with final findings and any revised conditions for adoption at a later meeting.

Why it matters: appellants argued the master plan fails to protect long‑standing community amenities such as the Veterans Memorial Coliseum ice rink and indoor walking circuits; the applicant and staff said the city’s land‑use criteria for a central city master plan do not allow council to compel an owner to retain a particular business or facility and that requiring an ice rink could trigger a takings claim. That legal boundary shaped councilors’ debate and narrowed the remedies the council said it could impose.

The record before council included a detailed staff presentation, design commission findings and testimony from the applicant’s legal counsel, Christy White, who told council, “the design commission…found that development in the Lloyd Centre master plan area is likely to be of higher intensity” but that the guidelines are intentionally non‑prescriptive at the master‑plan level. City Attorney Lauren advised that any condition council attaches must be directly tied to an approval criterion and survive likely judicial review.

Councilors spent much of their deliberations weighing two competing facts: (1) the master plan would require roughly 20% on‑site open area, a new block grid and ground‑floor activation intended to create year‑round public uses; and (2) the council’s limited land‑use authority at this quasi‑judicial hearing, which prevents it from forcing a private owner to operate a particular facility.

Several councilors pressed staff to draft a workable, legally defensible condition that would secure more year‑round activation of public spaces beyond the 20% open‑space requirement, but legal staff cautioned that anything framed to require a specific facility (for example an ice rink) would likely prompt litigation under takings law. Councilor Pertelgini said she was ‘‘trying to ensure the plan meets community‑building requirements beyond simply reserving 20% open space’’ and asked staff to return with options.

The motion that passed tentatively (upheld design commission decision with revised findings and a technical edit to condition 8.c) requires staff to produce revised findings and the amended condition text for a final vote at a later date. Council President Dunphy set a return date for adoption of findings and the final vote.

What happens next: staff will draft revised findings and any technical edits to conditions (including the public‑works amendment discussed in the hearing) and return to the council for final adoption. The council’s tentative denial means the applicant’s master plan remains approved pending those final findings, but opponents may pursue available judicial appeals in the land‑use process.

Attributions: Quotes and attributions above come from council deliberations and the applicant’s counsel during the July 9 council hearing. The council’s tentative roll call and scheduling of a future adoption date were recorded on the meeting record.