A member of Portland's Historic Landmarks Commission did not recuse herself from a discussion about an affordable housing development proposed across the street from her Northwest Portland home.

Instead, Commissioner Wendy Chung -- who, like all of the landmarks commissioners, serves in a volunteer capacity -- argued to shrink the development proposed at 1727 N.W. Hoyt St., which she said was out of scale with the immediate neighborhood.

Chung, a neighborhood activist who was appointed to the commission in 2016 by then-Mayor Charlie Hales, appears to have met her legal obligation by twice disclosing a potential conflict of interest.

She's also taken a harder stance on the size of the project than her fellow commissioners. And underlining the awkward position Chung has put herself in is the fact that her husband, Tony Schwartz, testified against the project at a hearing where Chung was sitting as a commissioner.

In an interview, Chung said it wasn't clear what effect development on the site could have on the value of her condominium and that her input was consistent with positions she's previously taken on the commission.

The Historic Landmarks Commission, and a sibling board, the city Design Commission, wield a great deal of influence in the design and size of buildings in certain parts of the city. In this case, the landmarks commission gets to weigh in because the proposal is in the Alphabet Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

On the site near Chung's home, Northwest Housing Alternatives has proposed to build an affordable housing development aimed at seniors and low-wage workers. The plan would preserve the historic Buck-Prager Building on the site, which was built in 1918 as the Women's Hospital of Portland and is recognized as a contributing structure to the larger historic district.

Input from the entirety of the Historic Landmarks Commission has led the architects of the Northwest Housing Alternatives project to reduce its size from six to 5 stories, reducing the number of affordable units by 16, to 149.

That change satisfied two commissioners -- including Commissioner Matthew Roman, an architect who leases an office on an adjacent block -- while two more said they still had concerns about the development's proposed scale. Chung went further, saying the proportion of the development was incompatible with nearby historic structures.

State conflict-of-interest rules require officials to recuse themselves from decisions from which they would derive financial benefit or be harmed. But if the financial impact is uncertain, they're required only to disclose the conflict. Chung said she had consulted with city attorneys over the issue, and that their advice had led her to the opinion that she had no conflict.

In response to a complaint filed by Portland attorney Alan Kessler, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission found the latter applied in this case, and that Chung had met her legal obligation by disclosing the potential conflict.

But it's also not uncommon for officials to recuse themselves from a decision merely to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, for example, recused himself from a decision on raising the building heights on a downtown site earlier this month because his family's real estate company owns property nearby and had opposed the changes.

Kessler, a housing activist who's not representing a party in the case, said the landmarks commission has frequently sought to override the city's zoning allowances by reigning in the size of new developments.

"To see the HLC doing their protectionist, NIMBY thing on a 100 percent affordable project is kind of the perfect storm," said Kessler, referring to an acronym for "not in my backyard." "And then there was such a clear conflict in one of the commissioners."

Chung said she had originally planned to recuse herself from the case, but ultimately decided not to at the urging of fellow commissioners. She said her recusal could lead developers to try and sway outcomes by sidelining certain commissioners.

"I took an oath to apply to approval criteria the way the code is written," Chung said. "I don't want any applicant or member of the public to think they can sway the outcome of an individual land-use case by raising issues that are irrelevant to the approval criteria."

As a neighborhood association official, Chung had previously weighed in on development on the site. She advocated against demolishing the Buck-Prager building, and the Northwest District Association, in which Chung had served as a board member until she was appointed to the landmarks commission, also advocated to reduce the density allowed on the site.

Chung said disqualifying an official from participating in a decision based on previous activism could have a chilling effect on public involvement. She said she believed she was appointed based on her efforts as a historic preservation activist, as well as her experience as a lawyer, on a board mostly populated by architects and other building industry professionals.

The proceeding was a design advice hearing, where the commissioners don't take an up-or-down vote on a building's design. Instead, they offer feedback in an effort to avoid costly redesigns later on.

Chung said she hadn't decided whether to recuse herself from a future vote.

-- Elliot Njus

enjus@oregonian.com

503-294-5034

@enjus