Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Venue Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council refers proposed moratorium on large-capacity theaters to Sustainability and Transportation committee after debate on timing and retroactivity
Summary
After prolonged debate over retroactivity, parking and public-safety impacts, the Portland City Council removed Order 1652425—an ordinance proposing a 180-day moratorium on theater/performance-hall projects over 2,000 capacity—from immediate consideration and referred it to the Sustainability & Transportation Committee for further vetting.
The Portland City Council on April 28 removed from immediate consideration its proposed 180-day moratorium on theater and performance-hall projects with capacities exceeding 2,000 and referred the measure to the Sustainability and Transportation (S&T) Committee for further review.
Councilor David Grant moved to postpone the moratorium to May 19, saying the questions raised were “complex and important” and deserved more time for analysis. Grant told colleagues that while engagement has been high, “the moratorium is the wrong instrument to use to buy that time at this moment.”
After legal and scheduling discussion, the motion to postpone was amended. Councilor Grama made a friendly amendment to refer the order to the S&T Committee “to return as reasonably practicable,” with Councilor Phillips seconding the referral. The amended motion passed on roll call, with Councilor Pelletier recorded as the lone no vote; the remainder of the council voted in favor.
Why it matters: sponsors of the moratorium, Order 1652425, said it was intended to buy time to evaluate the traffic, parking, pedestrian safety and law-enforcement impacts of a potential large-capacity venue that would draw thousands of visitors multiple times per year. Opponents cautioned that the moratorium as drafted included retroactive language and could be legally vulnerable; corporation counsel advised that retroactive land-use moratoria have been upheld in case law when language is clear, but that retroactivity increases litigation risk.
Committee work and timeline: staff said the S&T Committee meets May 14 and June 11; the planning board has meetings on May 13 and May 27. Assistant City Manager Greg Jordan told councilors that S&T could meet May 14 to begin review but that a full council discussion would likely occur in June. The planning board and council can reach different conclusions; if the planning board proceeds before the council, the council retains authority to act and could later adopt a moratorium or other measures.
Council directions: the referral asks S&T to vet parking, traffic, pedestrian safety and law-enforcement needs and to report back; the body also directed staff to coordinate with planning staff and the planning board timeline. Corporation counsel recommended careful drafting of any retroactive language and warned proponents a legal challenge was likely if retroactivity remained.
Ending: Order 1652425 was not enacted at this meeting. The S&T Committee was tasked to analyze the questions raised and return findings to the full council as reasonably practicable; councilors set expectations for expedited committee work while acknowledging scheduling constraints.
