Rationalizing the Development Approval Process

I agree with the Portland Community Chamber’s basic principles, that the process should be: “predictable with clear guidelines, process, and timetables; grounded in an articulated vision of what is acceptable to the community; and participatory in a way that is both effective and efficient.” As the Chamber says, we should “enable relatively simple projects to move forward more quickly, surface disagreement early with clear parameters for resolution, enable significant and worthy projects to advance with predictable timelines and meaningful public input, and reduce redundancy and unnecessary costs for both the City and for applicants.”

I like the idea of placing more responsibility for the development review process in the Planning Authority, but the Chamber’s proposal goes too far in limiting public comment and Planning Board review. The public comment should still be in a formalized setting, before the Authority instead of the Board, though applicants should be encouraged to hold public meetings and required to do so for more significant proposals. This is consistent with basic administrative practice and good government, and frequent meetings with realistic agendas would prevent the delays and other process problems the Chamber identifies. I would support a presumption that the Authority would review and approve an appropriate range of lower impact applications, and that such applications would be placed on the Board’s consent agenda if no objection emerged from the public comment process. As a practical matter, objections would be infrequent. When applications are reviewed by the Planning Board, the review should be closer to what it is currently, rather than restricted to disputed facts, to allow for the possibility that affected parties needed more time to review concerns about the project after raising their initial objections. I would support allowing the authority to propose a set of agreed facts and conclusions, in consultation with the applicant and any objectors, which the Board could adopt in the absence of objection from other parties.

I support archiving Authority decisions in a transparent and accessible way, though I believe that routine approvals by the Authority should be placed on a consent agenda before the Board. The consent agenda would not have to include as comprehensive a set of materials for applications as contested items would. I would be open to considering changing the definition of “major site plan” in some zones, but particularly in residential areas and off the peninsula, I would be reluctant to do so.

I do not support a permit by rule process. I would obviously support the Authority developing procedures to determine which applications need less scrutiny, but that decision should not be left to the applicant. There are a number of code violations that would be easy to detect in application documents but difficult for code enforcement to detect afterwards. I also do not support permits by expiration. I am willing to explore alternative means of ensuring an efficient process.

There should be a reasonable and transparent schedule of impact and other fees for development, but the Authority and the Board must retain discretion to require changes, additional concessions, and so on. No schedule of regulations can address every possible situation, and often project modifications better serve the public good than “equivalent” fees. Most municipalities and virtually all cities retain this discretion.

I would support creating review criteria for contract zoning requests that come before the City Council, though discretion must remain. Such criteria are as likely to fall behind the times or fail to predict unusual situations as zoning regulations are.

I agree that development review criteria should be as clear and transparent as possible. I do not support minimizing aesthetic criteria, though they should likewise be as clear and transparent as possible. As I said above, I support the Authority developing a database of previous decisions to guide applicants.

I support full funding to the Planning Department to meet the above goals, to the extent permitted by City revenues, and competing public priorities (such as education).