Correction appended.

Like a car parked persistently at the curb, no-parking apartments in Portland aren't going anywhere soon.

After two hours of testimony, much of it from neighbors rankled by recent apartment projects that don't include off-street car parking, members of the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission said Tuesday a temporary moratorium on such projects is off the table.

No final decisions were made at Tuesday's forum, and the commission didn't vote on any proposed policies, but commissioners showed little support for a new minimum parking requirement.

The commission may, however, consider tweaks to the city's policies that would give neighbors more say -- or at least more warning -- when such projects are proposed.

The forum was a response to neighbors concerns over at least two dozen apartment complexes, ranging in size from 15 units to more than 80, proposed or built recently without off-street parking.

More

The developments are ostensibly geared toward renters who use public transit and bicycles rather than cars to get around, and they're in line with the city's goal of increased density and lower carbon emissions.

But

-- four with parking and four without -- found most residents owned cars regardless of whether their building provided parking, including many who use alternative transportation for their daily commute. Two-thirds of car owners kept their cars parked on the street.

That has homeowners like Richard Lishner, who lives near an 81-unit building under construction on Southeast Division Street, worried about an influx of new residents and the automobiles they might bring along.

"I believe in density. I believe in sustainability," Lishner, an architect, told the commission. "The problem is you have to give us a chance. We can become Brooklyn over the next generation, but not over the next three years."

The

, represented by co-chair Allen Field, proposed a minimum parking requirement for some apartment buildings, as well as incentives for developers to attract more car-free tenants.

Land-use and transportation activists, however, argued that requiring parking would make housing more expensive to build and less affordable to rent while encouraging more use of cars.

Aaron Brown -- a resident of the Boise neighborhood,

and one of few renters to testify -- said requiring parking would limit housing options.

"As a poor twenty-something who doesn't own a car and probably never will, let alone a house, I'm not quite sure why I'm required to live in a building that has a rent that is more expensive because it was forced to build parking," Brown said. "Why shouldn't we allow larger (developments) and cheaper units ... that allow more people to live in their existing neighborhood?"

Portland has seen a sudden surge in new apartment projects, the product of growing demand and rising rents that leave developers confident they'll profit from new construction.

Parking has become a uniting issue for upset neighbors. However, speakers also lamented the scale, look and perceived poor quality of some developments.

Most commissioners spoke in support of the no-minimum-parking requirement that have been in place in parts of the city since the 1980s, and which has expanded since to include all commercial zones and areas within 500 feet of frequent public transit service.

The Planning and Sustainability Bureau says temporary moratorium on no-parking development, requested by some speakers, is likely prohibited by state law.

But commissioners suggested there may be room for more input from neighborhood groups on nearby development proposals. Chief Planner Joe Zehnder said bureau staff would look into options to present to the commission.

"We've heard some good ideas for minor adjustments to the code and process," said Commissioner Don Hanson. "That should be our focus."

–

The article reflects a correction: The Richmond Neighborhood Association, represented by co-chair Allen Field, proposed a minimum parking requirement for some apartment buildings, but no temporary moratorium. An article in Saturday's Community News section mischaracterized the resolution, and Field's title was incorrect.