Late last month, Richmond neighborhood residents

with 81 units and no off-street parking. The permit, city development officials told residents, was void.

But city attorneys decided a few days later that wasn't the case, and on Tuesday the developer of the project submitted revisions to comply with the earlier land-use board ruling.

It doesn't include the car parking neighbors wanted.

Neighborhood groups say they were never told about the legal change of heart, and the timing may have cost them the chance to press the issue with the Land Use Board of Appeals

"We're all pretty shocked," said Judah Gold-Markel, a representative of Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth, which had opposed the development. "None of us knew anything about this. It seems to have been done in one of the least transparent processes that I've ever come across."

Neighbors

based on four issues, including the location of the main entrance for the residential units. The board rejected three of its complaints, but affirmed the complaint about the location of the entrance and reversed the permit.

That left an opportunity to appeal the decision on the other three complaints. But Gold-Markel said the neighborhood group didn't appeal by the deadline last week because the

said the permit was void and the developer would have to apply for a new one.

"What BDS is claiming is that they are revising a permit that doesn't exist," he said. "It's kind of amazing, and a tortured logical argument."

Mike Hayakawa, a supervising planner with the Bureau of Development Services, said the bureau wasn't required to notify the Richmond neighbors and city commissioners when the legal landscape changed. The bureau, he said, was simply evaluating the permit as required by city code.

"It's a building permit," Hayakawa said. "I think there was some expectation that there would be more participation, and it's not a participatory process for permits."

The revised plans for the project at Southeast Division Street and 37th Avenue eliminates the ground-floor retail, creating a quieter block for passersby and residents in what was becoming a more active commercial district.

Developer Dennis Sackhoff did not immediately return a phone call Wednesday for comment.

The Portland City Council has taken a keen interest in the issue of large, no-parking apartment buildings. But commissioners, told of the permit revisions for the controversial project late Tuesday, say they, too, were blindsided.

"My biggest fear is they let the clock run out on their appeal because they thought the developer had to start over," said Commissioner Nick Fish. "If I lived in the Richmond neighborhood and was negatively affected by this kind of development, I would not have much confidence in City Hall, and rightly so."

Commissioner Steve Novick said he was "baffled and rather distressed" that the Bureau of Development Services, overseen by Mayor Charlie Hales, didn't notify neighborhood groups and the City Council.

"To me, the issue today is one of transparency and process and honesty," Novick said. "Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone says something and it ceases to be true, then it becomes a lie."

Novick and Fish also said Hales' office should have notified the commissioners of the development sooner.

"It's entirely possible that I dropped the ball and didn't communicate with the commissioners," said Hales spokesman Dana Haynes, who learned of the coming permit revisions several days earlier. "I would hope that nobody in this building surprises anybody else in this building. What I'm hearing today is it looks like we did that."

Next month the council will consider whether to impose a mandatory off-street parking minimum for the largest new apartment buildings -- under the proposal, those with 40 or more units.

At least 26 apartment projects were proposed, underway or recently completed without parking, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability said in January. Of those, a dozen would have 40 units or more

The council's decision wouldn't affect permits already granted, Hayakawa said, nor would it have affected permits requested before any new rules took effect.

–