91ÊÓƵ

Portland city commissioners noticed Thursday when a shot was fired across their bow.

After an hours-long public hearing about whether to impose minimum parking requirements for apartment projects in the city, commissioners decided not to take emergency action to apply code amendments to a highly contested project on Southeast Division Street. That clears the way for the developer, Dennis Sackhoff, to apply for a new building permit for the project, which was halted in late February following a decision by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.

Thursday’s meeting drew many of the same people who spoke weeks ago at a Planning and Sustainability Commission hearing. Then Jordan Ramis attorney Timothy Ramis spoke on behalf of Sackhoff.

“Today I have two legal issues to bring to your attention,” Ramis said to commissioners. “The first relates to the suggestion you have heard that you should adopt an ordinance that is immediately implemented. The risk that you run in doing that is you may create the exact opposite result.”

The fly in the ointment, Ramis said, is a state law, adopted in 1998, that requires the city to issue written notice to property owners before enacting legislation that could change the permissible use of their property. Ramis said the city had not done so, and issued a letter to commissioners outlining the financial repercussions it could potentially face.

“By conducting a hearing without complying with the requirements of the law, the city may take action which will preclude completion of the project as originally permitted and financed,” Ramis wrote in the letter. “This will create substantial costs due to delay, increased construction costs and expenses of redesign.”

The changes approved by the Planning and Sustainability Commission, as well as six ensuing amendments, were presented Thursday by Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Director Susan Anderson and Chief Planner Joseph Zehnder.

The most notable amendment was introduced by Commissioner Nick Fish. Instead of imposing one parking space for every four units for apartment projects with more than 40, it would implement a tiered schedule. One parking space would be required for: every five units for apartment projects with 31 to 40 units; every four units for apartment projects with 41 to 50 units; and every three units for apartment projects with 51 units or more.

Both sides of the issue were represented at the meeting. Alan Durning, the executive director of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based environmental advocacy group, said that he felt like he had arrived in an alternate universe.

“This trip is a little bit like I’ve arrived in some nightmare alternative reality version of Portland,” he said. “I am deeply disheartened to hear this debate today about backing away from Portland’s leadership position of letting the market manage supply and demand for parking.”

Many people disagreed with those sentiments. Terry Parker, a Portland resident, said the amendments did not go far enough.

“It’s a watered down … approach that just puts lipstick on a pig,” he said.

A handful of builders and developers were present as well. Eli Spevak of Orange Splot LLC, a small infill development company, said that development requires a large amount of personal equity, and changing the rules for a project in the middle of construction – as with Sackhoff’s project on Southeast Division Street – would give him pause about conducting business in Portland.

Sam Rodriguez, the managing director of Mill Creek Residential Trust’s Oregon office, which has several large multifamily projects on tap in Portland (all with parking), echoed those sentiments. He added that his company spends between $1 million and $1.5 million in planning before it even applies for a permit. Rodriguez said he was not there to either support or oppose the parking amendments. For him, the rules were not the issue – it was being able to count on them.

“It seems to me that developers like clear rules and, most importantly, like those rules to be applied fairly,” he said. “Changing rules midstream is catastrophic for development, and I think it would actually send the wrong message as to whether the city is a city where people should come and engage in development … Real estate development is a very risky business, and it shouldn’t be made riskier by not knowing what the rules are.”

During the meeting, the subject of a permitting program for parking was widely discussed, as were the cumulative impacts of numerous projects in an area without parking. Those topics likely will be discussed as the city’s Comprehensive Plan is updated.

In the end, the commission did not have unanimous support for an emergency ordinance.

“I do want to say that I am not supporting attaching emergency clauses now, or next week, to any of this,” Commissioner Dan Saltzman said. “Everybody has to live by the same standard.”

Because commissioners chose not to take emergency action, the parking amendments will require one more reading before commissioners can vote. Commissioners motioned for several of the new amendments, including Fish’s tiered system, being included with the changes. The next hearing will be Wednesday at 2 p.m.