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.

I'm a news reporter for the Mercury. I've spent a lot of the last decade in journalism — covering tragedy and chicanery in the hills of southwest Missouri, politics in Washington, D.C., and other matters...

7 replies on “City Council Finally Passes Parking Minimums. No One Seems to Care.”

  3. The crazy thing is that someone could build a 116 bedroom 29 unit apartment building with no parking, but if someone wanted to put up a building with 31 studio apartments there would be parking required. This knee jerk reaction makes zero sense and is totally not needed as the studies the city has done show that there is no parking problem around the apartments that have been built. All this does is increase the cost of housing and sprawl in portland.

  4. Econoline:

    For there to be a real market for 4 or 5 bedroom apartment units, most of the planners and “dense” living advocates would need to give up their single family residences with yards. I don’t see that happening.

  5. Or the building could be on the inner east side and appeal to students looking for cheaper living than right next to PSU. I am just saying that while my example is extreme the wording of this law creates bizarre incentives, fails to address the issues it intends to whether you agree that they should be addressed or not, and should have been thought through better instead of just being rammed through.

  6. Econoline’s point is that parking minimums make absolutely no sense, and never will. Developers are really good at studying the issue and determining how much off-street parking their tenants will demand, then they build enough parking supply to meet that demand. Parking minimums are an example of politicians and city planners deciding they can come up with a magic formula for parking, when really it is a case by case basis best left to the market. Most neighborhoods in Portland have plenty of street parking, plus there are a lot of people who don’t have cars these days (and that number will grow). The problem is existing homeowners feel they have a right to park right in front of their houses instead of a block or two away. It’s ridiculous.

  7. What is the clear rationale Nick Fish attributes to parking minimums? In the discourse around this law that was the question supporters were least willing to answer. I heard lots of talk about what they were against: developers, hipsters, and big buildings. But I heard virtually no talk about what supporters were for, no vision of what they wanted for Portland or how this law would contribute to it. If Nick Fish thinks it’s clear maybe he could grace us with an answer. How does the city benefit from parking minimums?

Comments are closed.