Developer's idea for permitting hassle: Don't bother

This fellow probably thinks he has to get a permit.

On a recent project last month in Southeast Portland, Wally Remmers & Co., masterminds behind the oversize building on Northeast Fremont, didn't even get a permit to start their excavation work. Who can blame them? After their flawed, noncompliant project on Northeast Fremont was given the nod, and then vigorous defense by the city, why would they do the legwork or pay the fees to do what they want? These folks are starting to own the town.

Just don't tell all the rubes wandering the first floor of the Building of Development Services who think they have to dot i's and cross t's—and pay fees— to build their projects.

The adjacent property owner to Remmers's project on Northeast Fremont gave access to build the project, so long as neighboring tenants' parking was protected.

Who needs to keep promises?

Beaumont Pillage Apartments lives up to the name

Not worth windows: Brutalist, oversize, and
out-of-scale, Wally Remmers's project
goes after the charm of Beaumont Village.

Despite the snow and cold, neighbors came out last weekend for a State of the Neighborhood confab to talk about improving local development. The neighbors who participated represented a wide range of generations and professions; all this expertise and experience brings plenty of skill and enthusiasm to the task of proactively protecting Beaumont-Wilshire and building a better future. I particularly enjoyed hearing one longtime resident talk about the days—only some years ago—when City Council really was an extension of neighborhood activism. People worked together for the same cause of making Portland a great place to live.

Somewhere between the strategizing and the killer salmon skewers hot off the barbecue, we also raised a chunk of money for BWNRG's legal bill for taking neighbors' appeal of Wally Remmers's 4-story 50-unit project on Northeast Fremont to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Thank you to all who showed up and to all who have supported us in the past and still do (click here to donate online).

Meanwhile, we continue to take the story of Remmers's non-code compliant building, and the city's defense of it (at taxpayers' expense), to other neighborhood associations in Northeast. East-siders all have an interest in a functioning Fremont Street, and with no safety or traffic measures promised to mitigate the building's impacts, the thoroughfare will become even more congested and unsafe.

After some weeks of waiting, we finally have a meeting scheduled with Commissioner Fritz and Bureau of Development Services staff—looking forward to it. These folks are instrumental in the course correction.

On Saturday, Feb. 15, filmmakers Greg Baartz-Bowman and George Wolters unveil the movie that chronicles this rogue wave of development. You can watch the trailer here; for the whole thing, trek to the Milwaukie Masonic Lodge and get an eyeful of what's been going down across the city, and what neighbors are doing to counter it. Who knows, maybe you'll even get a glimpse of Wally's World with the faux windows and BWNRG activists.

See you at the movies!

Developer makes mistakes; city determines neighbors should suffer the consequences

That's just one of the headlines that could have been written recently in this continuing development debacle. When the state Land Use Board of Appeals made its ruling last month requiring specific changes to Wally Remmers's 4-story 50-unit project on Northeast Fremont between 44th and 45th avenues, some characterized the required changes as "minor," even "trivial." If that were true, why is the developer unable to make them? The plans, now in their third revision, still show a non-code conforming drywell and a wheelchair ramp that further demonstrate the building is too big to meet code. Trim nearly 4 feet off the northern edge of the building, however, and everything fits.

Cheap, fast & out-of code: Wally Remmers goes too big in Beaumont-Wilshire.

Before LUBA: The trellis and wheelchair ramp both extend too deeply into the setback meant to protect residential properties to the north.

After LUBA: Revised plans show a shortened trellis above a wheelchair ramp that, because of the beyond-maximum building footprint, reaches too far into the setback, per code. 

A detail of the revised plans shows a shortened trellis that complies with code—and the now partially uncovered, and noncompliant, wheelchair ramp jutting too far into the setback. 

Putting aside the question of competence and integrity on the part of city staff who thought no one would notice their late pardon of some of the developer's noncompliance, why can't the developer use the people working for him to apply their creativity and smarts to fixing problems, rather than trying to shove them under the rug? What would LUBA think of this evasion of justice?

Beaumont-Wilshire neighbors did nothing to deserve an out-of-code project unless you count creating a decent place to live and do business. Already neighborhood residents are bracing for the traffic, parking, and other expected burdens of a building that's out of scale and bringing unmitigated impacts to a congested east-side thoroughfare. Shame on Wally Remmers for taking a choice opportunity and burdening everyone else with the results of his poor business strategy. If you continue to build in the face of serious challenges, it's a gamble that you sometimes can lose.

The building now stands as a monument to one developer's hubris and the city's inability to show leadership in confronting that unbridled greed. How much longer can Portland afford to continue defending a noncompliant project; where are the benefits to anyone except the developer who most likely takes his profits out of town?

Noted journalist, activist, and well-loved former Gov. Tom McCall died a little more than 31 years ago, and he'd probably roll in his grave at the situation developing around Portland's east side for months now. It recalls words he said in 1982 (substitute "Portland" for "Oregon" and "out-of-code monster buildings" for the "stinking smokestack"):

"I'm simply saying that Oregon is demure and lovely and it ought to play a little hard to get. And I think you'll all be just as sick as I am if you find it is nothing but a hungry hussy, throwing herself at every stinking smokestack that's offered."

You could start with a chain saw

Is this where developer Wally Remmers gets everything he wants? To appropriate another law-dodger Ms. Helmsley, Is code conformance only for the little people?

The state Land Use Board of Appeals specifically ruled in its remand of Wally Remmers's permit for his 4-story 50-unit project on Northeast Fremont that the "city will need to require that the drywell be relocated" so that its location conforms with code.

Technical documents related to Remmers's appeal for that drywell indicate that the "drywell was installed 6'-1" from the new building foundation instead of the required 10'." However, if the building envelope was trimmed back nearly 4 feet, it would bring the location of the current drywell into compliance. It also would reduce the scale of the building and give building residents and abutting neighbors open space and breathing room, which will become especially important in the city's headlong quest for density.

Neighbors long suspected the project was too big for its site; still you see people stopping in front of it to scratch their heads as incredulity spreads across their faces ("How was this allowed?" they sometimes ask outright.) Let's embrace this chance to make the building smaller, reduce its various impacts, and literally fit just a bit better into the neighborhood.

Either way, the LUBA ruling must be satisfied, right? Secret meetings and special treatment for certain developers isn't how a well-run city works. Notice how these facts are glossed over in the official word from the city. City code would have given us a smaller building, and neighbors would see a decrease in the expected unmitigated, outsize impacts of the development, from parking to traffic safety and emergency response, important for a swath of east-side Portlanders.

Let the folks at right know how you feel about exceptions made for a developer exploiting the very neighborhood in which he chose to invest. Ask them why Northeast Portlanders suddenly have to pay an unfair price for one guy who didn't—and still won't—follow the rules.

Santa was so good to Wally "Oops, I Built My Building Too Big" Remmers

For developer Wally Remmers, the biggest Christmas present came a day late but oh was it grand: on Dec. 26 his appeal for the non-code conforming location of the drywell was quietly approved by city staff. This, after the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) said to find another place for it in its remand of the project's permit.

What's the point of LUBA if all city staff have to do is hold a private hearing among themselves and agree that even if the drywell isn't located correctly, in the end it just doesn't matter. And wouldn't that appeal have to have been made when the original application was filed, not this many months later? Luckily for city staff it was a "closed to the public" hearing, so they didn't have to share with interested neighbors—who have spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to pursue LUBA's evaluation—why they thought the drywell could stand as is. It paid for developer Wally Remmers to build as soon as possible (meanwhile doing everything in his power to delay the LUBA process), then appeal later. Especially if those appeals are so handily approved. (It looks, too, that the city staff were so fired up to give Remmers the go-ahead that they privately tried to approve his appeal twice.)

Why is the location of the drywell a concern? Simply, Remmers built a building 2 feet too big, and we taxpayers are paying to support, even defend, that mistake. 

Stay tuned for the next episode of As Wally World Turns.

It's not a loss. It's not a win. It's a remand.

That means Wally Remmers, developer of the controversial 4-story, 50-unit building on Northeast Fremont, has to fix things. Such as where to put his drywall where it won't run afoul of building and property line setbacks. These are a few of the things that the state Land Use Board of Appeals agrees with us were wrong in the permitting of the development.

The drywell is important because it acts as flood control—especially important given the flow that will come off the maximum-size roof—and new projects such as this can no longer hook up to city lines, to help avoid polluting overflows into the Willamette River. The drywell also is important because it rains here. 

By the way, if there's this much trouble with features readily seen on the plans or above ground, how about everything you can't see? Better cross fingers for the tenants.

The good news is that the city has a chance to look at the project again and revise the permit. It took hundreds of hours of work, thousands of dollars in legal bills, and a trip to Salem to have neighbors' concerns addressed. The outcome of all this, however, is an improved development for everyone, one that even handles its own runoff safely.

Our successful legal challenge representing another chapter in the citywide movement Neighbors for Responsible Growth, the Beaumont-Wilshire activists are proud of our part in the struggle, and glad to have an impartial state board agree with us on some errors in the project. May another positive outcome of the case be that the city and neighbors start working together to add density in a way that benefits neighborhoods, making better investments for all. 

After all, this LUBA stuff is expensive. (Speaking of, have you donated yet?) 

Decision time nears

"Does this wall make my building look big?"

Three weeks ago Beaumont-Wilshire Neighbors for Responsible Growth traveled to Salem to make our case against Wally Rammers's 4-story, 50-unit building on Northeast Fremont. The countdown clock ticks as we anticipate hearing any hour now how the members of the state Land Use Board of Appeals ruled on our four assignments of error with the permit (briefly, they had to do with whether the city's requirement of parking for buildings of this size applies, the non-code conforming placement of the drywell, the shortcutting of process in defining the site, and the project's various structures set within required setbacks or too close to adjacent lot lines).

The gist of all the particulars is that Remmers built a building too big for the site, and got a lot of city staffers to rubber-stamp it. Regardless of how LUBA rules, hopefully this shameful chapter of Portland's development history receives no sequel. After all, the city can't afford any more bad will. The developer shouldn't get any more special treatment, especially given what this project has cost us all in terms of effort, expense, and good faith. And the members of Beaumont-Wilshire Neighbors for Responsible Growth can hardly afford the legal appeal we made just trying to right this mess at the state level.

Speaking of support, have you—dear readers—donated to the cause? If we had a buck for every one of the 6,500 visits to this blog, we could pay the rest of our legal bills. You can contribute online, drop a check to BWNRG at the Fremont branch of Umpqua Bank, or send it to our awesome pro bono accountant WP Price, 4300 NE Fremont, #250, Portland, OR 97213.

Thank you for the support.