• Alex Despain

The Kerns Neighborhood Association appears to be seriously considering a formal fight against the proposed construction of a building at NE Couch and 20th. That building will contain four floors and 50 units and, like a bunch of apartments that have popped up over Portland lately, has no planned on-site parking.

That, unurprisingly, isn't sitting well with neighbors of the proposed development, which was first reported by the Mercury. Like folks in Richmond and Beaumont-Wilshire, neighbors worry on-street parking will become non-existent and say the building is out of step with the rest of the neighborhood.

Beaverton Developer Dennis Sackhoff applied for a building permit for the project last month. It is the last proposed project in the city to take advantage of laws that allowed even large developments within certain zoning designations to forego on-site parking. The policies went out of effect May 9, after a city council vote last month.

"I'm gonna look out my window and see balconies out there," Kerns resident Marti Heard said at a neighborhood association meeting this evening. "This is going to destroy the livability of this hub."

More-colorful were comments by area resident Jeremy Ginzberg, whose hat—black, emblazoned with the words "Good guys wear white hats"—I admired. Ginzberg described a large parking-free development near the Hollywood Theater as a "Stalinist monstrosity"

He called Sackhoff—who's behind similar buildings all over town—a "repulsive human being," and said the proposed project is "nauseating."

As is often the case in these debates, many folks in the room championed the idea of urban density, but argued the building coming to the neighborhood would only hurt the city.

It was not a particularly kind room to be in if you were David Mullens, a representative for Sackhoff's company invited to the meeting to explain the project. After a half hour or so, he seemed to grow tired of the epithets being hurled his way.

Regardless of neighbor's opinions, Mullens' company can move forward as it pleases. Portland zoning laws allow the project to proceed without public scrutiny, and this realization led the neighborhood association to discuss their options.

Looming large is a LUBA appeal, a last-ditch protestation which earlier this year stalled a large Sackhoff project in Richmond, but ultimately caused little change. Neighbors also considered lodging an objection with Portland's Bureau of Development Services, which will vet the permit application in coming weeks.

"Sounds like we have to work fast," said Angela Kirkman, the neighborhood association's chair.

• Dirk VanderHart

Speculation developers might overwhelm the city with a flurry of apartment-free parking proposals in the run-up to Portland's new parking minimums did not come to pass.

Today marks the end of Portland's progressive parking policy for large developments—something many decry as a step back for the city. As of noon, when the Bureau of Development Services stopped taking permit applications, only two proposals for large parking-free buildings had emerged since council passed the legislation last month.

The first, widely anticipated, was a resubmitted application for the building on SE Division and 37th that's sparked much of the contention over the issue. That application has since been approved and the building—loathed by some neighbors—is back under construction after a months-long stoppage.

The second—also proposed by Beaverton developer Dennis Sackhoff—will potentially rise four-stories near the intersection of NE Couch and 20th.

Amid the clamor over the 81-unit Division Street project, representatives for Sackhoff indicated they'd learned a lesson from the process, and would be more open with residents about future projects. As of last week, though, no one in Sackhoff's organization had reached out to the Kerns Neighborhood Association about the Couch project, which is slated for 50 units with no parking.

Members of the association said they were in the process of reaching out to Sackhoff project manager David Mullens, to see if he'd speak at the group's meeting next week.

UPDATE, 5:25 pm: According to Angela Kirkman, chair of the Kerns Neighborhood Association, Mullens has agreed to speak with the group about the project on Wednesday.

" Not sure that they will change any plans, but I suggest having a clear list of concerns/requests prepared," Kirkman said in an e-mail to the Mercury. "Also, I know that construction can be quite disruptive so I want to be sure to find out plans for closing traffic lanes, managing contractors, etc."

• Brett Superstar

During his short tenure atop City Hall, Mayor Charlie Hales has made it a point to keep out of the squabbling over the Columbia River Crossing—a marked change from his predecessor. Turns out Hales, unlike many others, is relatively dispassionate about what would be the largest infrastructure project in the state's history. He just wants a decision.

In Hales' first-ever State of the City address Friday, he used a question about the future of West Hayden Island to take a swipe at the $3.4 billion proposal's prolonged planning. The CRC is currently being debated by lawmakers in Olympia, who are deciding whether to match Oregon's allotment of $450 million.

"If they don’t, it’s time to say 'enough,'" Hales said. "We’re sorry."

Asked about the remark after the speech, Hales said he's purposely refrained from weighing in on the bridge, but that he'd like it to "stop lurking."

"My earnest desire is that this thing gets decided," he said.

The waffling in Washington has been a hot topic in Oregon, with the Oregonian unleashing a chiding at Olympia today. Earlier this month, a leaked video showed Washington Republicans posing hard questions to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about the project. Up to $1.2 billion in federal funds may hinge on whether the state approves its piece of the project.

"If you shuffle and mumble with Ray LaHood, he's going to walk away," Hales said today. "He means what he says and says what he means."

The mayor hasn't always been reticent to speak on the CRC. It was an inevitable topic of last year's mayoral race, during which Hales said he likes the project's light rail component, but would favor design changes.

While fresh plans for a 50-unit, parking free apartment building in Kerns are just being revealed, Beaumont-Wilshire residents are attempting to derail an almost-identical project.

Bolstered by a partially-successful initiative in the Richmond neighborhood, the group Beaumont-Wilshire Neighbors for Responsible Growth earlier this month signaled it will appeal the city's permitting of a four-story, 50-unit project without off-street parking at 4425 NE Fremont.

The city now has 21 days from the April 11 filing of the notice to submit a record of the permitting process, says Kelly Burgess, who works at the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The body handles appeals of local land use decisions in the state.

"Once we receive that, that sort starts the wheels turning," Burgess said.

It's unclear from the notice [PDF] on what grounds the group is disputing the permit. The matter is being handled by Ty K. Wyman, the Portland attorney who represented the group Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth in its fight against an 81-unit development at SE Division and 37th. That effort resulted in LUBA reversing the city's approval of a permit. Developers of the project have since reapplied.

Such decisions are rare, but if LUBA were to reverse the city's decision on the Fremont apartment building, a fresh permit application could run afoul of the city's new parking requirements, slated to go into effect May 10.

Neither a representative for the Beaumont-Wilshire group nor Wyman have responded to requests for comment.

• The stalled development at SE Division and 37th has been the centerpiece of a debate over apartment parking.

The era of the parking-free apartment building isn't dead yet.

Taking advantage of doomed zoning policy before its May demise, Beaverton developer Dennis Sackhoff last week applied to build a 50-unit apartment building at NE Couch and 20th Ave., the Mercury has learned. Planned on-site parking spaces for the project? Zero.

The proposal will likely reignite a debate that's flourished in the city over the last year. Sackhoff has been at the center of that controversy, with his planned 81-unit building on SE Division and 37th Ave. drawing the bulk of neighbors' ire.

But while Sackhoff was required to apprise neighbors of his plans on that project before filing for permits, the development at 1924 NE Couch requires no such communication. So has Sackhoff made residents aware of their potential new neighbors?

"Not yet, but we plan to," David Mullens, a project manager with SK Hoff Construction, tells the Mercury. "We're way early on this one. We just wanted to get in for a permit."

Representatives from the Kerns Neighborhood Association weren't immediately reachable for comment.

The timing is important, here. Earlier this month, city council approved parking minimums that critics say hamper Portland's legacy as a leader in smart growth. Those laws require parking on a sliding scale for buildings greater than 30 units, but don't go into effect until May 10. Any permit applications filed in the meantime aren't subject to the rules.

The site that would house the building is currently occupied by the Spunky Monkey House of Coffee, which will be removed if the project is approved.

"It was obviously well under way prior to the rules changing," Mullens said. "That's the last one without parking."

UPDATE, 5 p.m.: Brendon Haggerty, a co-chair of the Kerns Neighborhood Association expects news of the project will be met with dismay.

"We have (a parking-free apartment building) that's coming close to being constructed now at 30th and Burnside," Haggerty said. "That sparked quite a bit of controversy last summer and into the fall."

While Haggerty has been supportive of parking-free development, he thinks a majority of the neighborhood association's board will be concerned about the project.

But he noted: "I don't think we would have the reaction you're seeing on Division."

The trees and paths of St. Francis Park are about to give way to Portland's inexorable push toward density.

If all goes as planned, the unassuming private-public space that's sat on SE Stark Street between 11th and 12th Avenues for more than three decades may soon play host to nearly 150 apartments with ground floor storefronts—that standard of Portland infill.

"The reality is most of the time the park is empty," says Valerie Chapman, a pastoral administrator for St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church, which owns, and abuts, the park. "Its day has come and gone."

So St. Francis is in the process of selling the land to Catholic Charities, which hopes to install a massive development that would feature 144 apartment units—some of them affordable housing— and eight townhouses according to interviews and documents filed with the city. The land, according to the city records, is worth over $1 million.

"It’s a tremendous opportunity for the neighborhood, for the park itself, for what is now considered by many as a blight," said Pietro Ferrari, Catholic Charities' executive director, said last week. "Unfortunately, it just experienced deterioration."

The park at one time played host to kids who attended a school on the property. That shuttered in 1987, and with the schoolchildren went the park's energy, Chapman said.

"They didn’t keep coming down here any more," she said. "There weren’t more children to replace them."

In the intervening years, the park became more associated as a hangout for the homeless, who made daily trips to the St. Francis Dining Hall. Problems escalated to the point the city forced the park closed for a six-month period in 2003.

Crime doesn't appear to be a factor today. Police records show just two police reports filed from incidents at the park since 2010. Twenty-two reports originated there in 2002.

But the church needs money for upkeep, Chapman said.

"I love this park," she said. "It's never felt dangerous to me.

Not much has been said lately about the Lloyd District's upcoming "superblock," the mammoth mixed-use development announced by former Mayor Sam Adams in his 2012 State of the City address.

But there are fresh signs the project's moving forward. Portland's Bureau of Development Services yesterday posted a public notice [PDF] of the development on its website, with a formal hearing before the Portland Design Commission set for May 23.

The proposal calls for three new apartment towers, ranging from five to 17 stories, in the block bordered by NE Multnomah and Holladay streets and 7th and 9th avenues. Developers plan to break the large existing block, which also houses, the Lloyd 700 building, into four smaller parcels. They envision shops on the ground floors of each of the buildings, with a grocery store potentially anchoring one.

The project's current iteration is smaller than developers first envisioned. Initial reports on the project announced 780 residential units. The city's public notice now mentions "over 600 apartment units."

Portland firm GBD Architects is handling design of the project for San Diego-based developer American Assets Trust.

And, yes, there will be parking. City documents call for "1,200 below grade parking stalls."

The chambers of Portland's city council were sleepy today, as commissioners formally enacted the most-controversial legislation it's grappled with in recent months.

In an expected 3-1 vote (Commissioner Steve Novick was absent), council established parking minimums for new apartment or condo buildings of 31 units or more. In doing so, the city rolled back decades of zoning changes that have made Portland a national leader in smart growth policy. Advocates of those policies say the requirements won't substantially help the parking issue, and that the city should be looking toward permitting to manage parking.

The subdued tone of the meeting was a stark contrast from the heated hearings that have marked the debate. Council's first consideration of the matters last week drew a packed house and lasted nearly six hours.

"While I don’t think the package before us is perfect, I do believe it’s thoughtful and balanced and has a clear rationale," said Commissioner Nick Fish, who convinced his colleagues to agree to more-stringent requirements than were initially put forward by the city's Planning and Sustainability Commission.

Mayor Charlie Hales, who last week said of the changes he was "sure we haven't gotten it right," changed his tune today, saying of the exact same legislation: "I think this particular set of code adjustments is the right set of moves to make now to respond to changes that are urgent in the community and respond to some market forces that are more robust than some of us expected."

Commissioner Dan Saltzman, the sole "no" vote, said he wasn't comfortable with Fish's more-strict requirements, and that he's concerned the policies could "move portland backwards as effects its climate action plan.”

The new regulations kick in in 30 days. In the mean time, developers will be free to apply to build parking-free buildings under current law.

• Dirk VanderHart

As the Mercury reported earlier this week, Portland fire officials have been fretting over the stalled apartment structure at SE Division and 37th Avenue, fearing it might attract the attention of vandals or squatters.

It looks like those fears were founded.

As first reported by Willamette Week, Portland police arrested three trespassers at the site early this morning. Among what police say were the group's drunken escapades: setting fire to a blueprint and spraying fire extinguishers around the structure.

Officers responded to a call of trespassing around 1:30 this morning, according to Portland Police Lt. Mike Marshman.

"We get out there and they're not even trying to be quiet," he said. "They're all 20-somethings and they're all drunk."

Police at the time had no reason to suspect a fire, Marshman said, and told the alleged trespassers to scale the fence surrounding the nascent building to face arrest.

Later this morning, a staff member at nearby Victory Bar was examining the previous night's surveillance footage and noticed bright lights and what appeared to be smoke coming from the structure. Fire officials were called out to investigate, and found the charred remains of a blueprint, Marshman said.

Whatever blaze occurred was minor, though, and the lights and apparent smoke in the camera footage were actually from the alleged vandals' flashlights and the fire extinguishers.

The building's developers—who have been mired in conflict with neighbors because the 81-unit structure doesn't plan to provide on-site parking — plan to hire security for the structure beginning tonight, according to Project Manager David Mullens. He said the building was not damaged.

Marshman called the crime "totally unrelated" to the controversies that have swelled around the structure in recent days. The fire bureau is investigating the matter, and will ultimately decide what charges to seek.

The Portland Fire & Rescue Bureau has eyed the building uneasily since a ruling last month led city officials to issue a stop work order. The bureau took the rare step of creating a response plan—typically reserved for completed structures—for the site.

"If this building experiences a fire, expect it to be a fast moving and dynamic incident," the document said.

• Dirk VanderHart
• The feared fire hazard

While rhetoric flies and the city's tenuous stance on the permit of a controversial southeast apartment project congeals into seeming permanence, one agency is quietly fretting on the sidelines: the Portland Fire and Rescue Bureau.

Fire officials worry the proposed 81-unit structure — incomplete and wreathed in garish yellow on the corner of SE Division and 37th Ave — could be prone to disaster.

"That's become one of our high-priority targets," Alan Ferschweiler, president of the Portland Firefighter's Association, tells the Mercury.

The project could attract squatters while it lies dormant, officials fear, or fall prey to vandalism. And the fact it's not complete means firefighters battling a blaze could be especially vulnerable.

"There's no sheet rock to protect the firewalls," Ferschweiler said. "We've had a couple instances where buildings have gone up in the middle of construction. It's a very dangerous situation."

So the bureau has taken a rare step, Ferschweiler said. It's developed a response plan for the site — something typically saved for complete buildings.

While construction on the project is stalled, minor activity has continued. Records show the site's fire sprinklers have been scrutinized by the city in recent weeks.

But no one knows when real progress might resume. After a dust up last week, Mayor Charlie Hales said the building's developer, Dennis Sackhoff, will have to wait until April 11 to file for a new permit.

I'm waiting on an official line from the Fire Bureau. Then I'm done writing about this for a while. (I think).

UPDATE, 3:37 pm: The stalled project is at its "most vulnerable state of construction" from a firefighting standpoint, according to the response plan [PDF] the fire department created.

"If this building experiences a fire, expect it to be a fast moving and dynamic incident," the document says.

Fire officials are particularly concerned that the structure abuts other buildings on Division, said bureau Spokesman Rich Chatman. The city has allowed developers to finish installing sprinklers at the site and asked that it be secured with fencing.

"Everyone was concerned about it enough that we said, 'Let's go ahead and map this out,'" Chatman said.

• Rex Burkholder

Former Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder — who departed the body this year because of term limits — hasn't been shy in his criticisms of new parking requirements city council will take up April 4.

He testified at a meeting of the city's Planning and Sustainability Commission earlier this month — part of a minority urging caution on any new rules.

"Are we rushing into something that we may regret?" he asked.

Now, in light of the near-daily changes that have shaped the fate of a controversial development at SE Division Street and 37th Avenue, Burkholder's weighing in again.

"The new mayor, Charlie Hales, seems to be stampeded into responding to the concerns of a small, vocal group of protectionists, rather than supporting a deliberate, thoughtful approach to accommodating cars in the city," Burkholder wrote on his blog today. "Particularly troubling are comments from some Councilors and one member of the Planning and Sustainable Development Commission that “real” families can’t live in housing without off-street parking."

The debate over how the city should allow for parking with new development — and whether it should do that at all — has been building over the last year, but has reached a new fervor in the last week. After a ruling of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals stalled the 37th Avenue project last month, Portland planners said its backers would have to apply for fresh permits to move forward. The Bureau of Development Services quietly changed it's mind on that last week, allowing developers to simply amend a former application and avoid a public hearing.

Neighbors and city commissioners loudly took exception, and Hales' backed off, announcing the project would need a fresh application after all.

The timing of this process is important, since it might determine whether the 81-unit building will be subject to any new parking requirements council enacts.

• Dirk VanderHart

Facing outraged citizens and the vexation of colleagues, Mayor Charlie Hales is pulling rein on recent changes that would likely mean clear sailing for the controversial 37th Street Apartments.

The mayor sent out a press release at 5:40 pm indicating he's instructed Portland's Bureau of Development Services to stall its vetting of a revised permit for the project — an 81-unit apartment building that's drawn umbrage for its lack of on-site parking.

“The city strives for fairness and doesn’t always get it on the first shot,” Hales said in the release. “That’s why I’m taking this action.”

This is backpedaling by the mayor.

It was only on Monday, after all, that BDS Director Paul Scarlett decided to allow the developer of the project — Beaverton builder Dennis Sackhoff — to revise his permit application, a move which ran contrary to BDS' earlier position Sackhoff would have to file a brand new application (and face a public hearing).

The 37th Street Apartments were brought to a halt last month, when the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ruled the city erred issuing a permit because of a minor design matter. The building now sits on the corner of SE Division Street and 37th Avenue, partially built.

Sackhoff was ready with a revised permit on Tuesday, and only after he turned it in did BDS announce it had changed its mind. BDS had been in contact with Hales' office throughout the whole process, staffers said.

The sudden reversal set off no shortage of anger, both from the neighbors who oppose the project and city commissioners.

"If you tell people something and a few days later you learn it might not be true, I think you have an obligation to say: 'Hey we were wrong,'" said City Commissioner Steve Novick, who's been deriding Hales' treatment of the matter since Tuesday.

Novick said he'd expressed his displeasure to Hales' office, and that he received a response today — though he declined to say what it was or whether it satisfied him.

The timing of the permitting process is vitally important for Sackhoff now, as the city council prepares to discuss new mandatory parking minimums approved by the city's Planning and Sustainability Commission last week.

As the Mercury has reported, Sackhoff could be walking a fine line with this project. Depending on how his permit application is handled, the development could be left subject to any new rules council passes.

In this evening's release, Hales signaled an intent to take the matter up in council April 4. He also seemed to indicate Sackhoff would have to file for a new permit, after all, and that he'll need to wait until April 11 to do so.

"If the mayor has come out like this, it's a very powerful statement saying what BDS was doing was questionable at best from a legal standpoint," said Judah Gold-Markel, a member of the citizens' group that's fought the development. "We hope there will be more transparency. "

Backers of a controversial apartment development at SE Division Street and 37th Avenue have filed a revised permit with the city — circumventing further public scrutiny on the project and possibly eliminating risks the building could fall under new parking requirements headed to city council.

Beaverton developer Dennis Sackhoff's 37th Street Apartments have been a popular target for neighborhood activists, who fear its 81 units and zero parking spaces will result in choked streets. The project's detractors claimed a tenuous victory last month, when a ruling by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) found the project did not have a door where law required. The ruling forced the city's hand. BDS forced Sackhoff to stop work.

As the Mercury reports in today's issue, that ruling meant the development risked being left unprotected by Portland's progressive zoning laws—which allow some buildings to forego on-site parking spaces. The city's Planning and Sustainability Commission last week approved changes that would place parking mandates on larger developments—like this one— and council members have signalled they are anxious to vote on the matter.

According to a release on the Portland Bureau of Development Services website, Sackhoff's company filed a revised permit application with the city yesterday, foregoing an appeal process and skirting a fresh application, which would have required a neighborhood hearing.

If it is deemed complete by BDS, the permit will mean the project is vested in current ordinance, free from any upcoming changes to city parking policy.

Sackhoff has trepidations about those changes. He sent his lawyer to last week's commission meeting with a letter that made dire predictions for what parking requirements could mean.

"Builders need assurance that they are vested under the ordinances in effect when they applied for their permits," the letter said. "It is certainly a possibility that opponents, who are apparently unconcerned about investments based on existing policy or the goals of providing affordable housing and supporting transit, would argue that projects already in progress would be subject to this adopted ordinance."

Both Sackhoff's attorney, Michael Robinson, and Project Manager David Mullens have declined to speak with the Mercury about the development.

UPDATE, 4:05 pm: The revised permit was only made available as an option to the developer on Monday. That's when Bureau of Development Services Director Paul Scarlett reversed an earlier position that Sackhoff's company would have to submit a fresh application.

Continue reading »