CITY OF Amanda Fritz, Commissioner 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 I Portland, Oregon 97204 amanda@portlandoregon.gov MEMO Date: February 5, 20-15 To: Land Use Services Division, BD UL 2 I From: Commissioner Amanda Fritz SUBJECT: Discretionary Land Use Reviews First, thank you for your service to thecommunity, and for the knowledge, skill, dedication, and ..professionalism.you bringtoyou?rwork. You are on the front lines in working with the?public, and you represent the City of Portland very well. It is clear from the recent BDS Customer Survey that most BDS customers are satis?ed or very satisfied with the service they receive from BDS. Seventy-two percent of customers surveyed were either satisfied or very satisfied with BDS services. It is especially impressive for 'a government regulatory agency to get such a favorable response. It speaks well of your hard work and customer service skills, especially given the high workload in relation to the staffing levels. Over the last several years, BDS has been assigned to the portfolio of a number of City Commissioners, from Commissioner Randy Leonard, to Commissioner Saltzman, to Mayor Hales, and most recently to me. I understand Commissioner Leonard was very clear with BDS regarding his expectations about customer service. The BDS customer survey confirms that thoSe efforts and . . .. . . . .. As we are re-building BDS and bringing in new staff, it. is a good opportunity for me to convey my philosophy and expectations regarding your work, especially as it pertains to discretionary land use reviews. - Also, it is important to recognize that we have a City Council that is different from past years. This became apparent with a couple of recent reversals on land use review cases brought before Council, so I want to explain and clarify my direction for going forward. My intent is notto interfere with your objective review of applications against the Approval Criteria.- I greatly value your work as professional, impartial planners committed to fair, even implementation of the Code. Rather, I want you to understand some principles guiding my votes when cases come before City Council. It is my hope that these principles act as guides through which you consider your recommended approval or denial of an application. #1 The bar should be high higher than it has been) for assesSing the burden of proof for discretionary land use reviews. As you and I know, there is a distinction between projects that are only subject to the clear, objective standards of the zoning code, and those going through a discretionary land use review. With the former, they get what they are allowed in the zoning code. . .they are entitled to that. With the latter, the applicant is asking for something extra, beyond what the code allows outright on the property, so they should be held to a higher standard. The bar should be higher than where it?s been in the past, to better protect what makes am particularly interested in raising the bar in the following areas: . 0 Neighborhood compatibility; 0 Environmental resource conservation (tree preservation;g streams, stormwater, etc); The carrying capacity of the lot/site itself, what it can reasonably handle, as well as the infraStructure and the context is there available on?street parking or not, are they trying to squeeze too much onto the site? etc.); and 0 Good design and quality development. I don?t support the philosophy of cramming in density at all costs. Density should not take precedence over the other factors listed above. We need a more balanced approach. #2 Customer service and getting to ?yes? are not the same thing. You do not have to ?get to yes? with every project. A no, eSpecially upfront in the process, can also be good customer service. Customer service is about delivering the message in a timely, clear, courteous manner, being knowledgeable and articulate in conveying accurate information, and being helpful with customers to identify solutions or options that may exist, collaboratively. In other words, it can be a ?no? to what the. customer is proposing, followed by a ?but if you changed x, y, and 2, that might work.? I know you do this already, all day every day. But from my perspective, we?ve drifted a bit too far toWard approval of proposals that didn?t quite reach the bar of what we should accept. Land use With the gray area of discretionary approval criteria. In particular, it can be difficult: 0 To determine what is compatible enough, or What preserves enough of the natural resources on the site, or What is a good enoughdesign, etc. - I also recognize that it is sometimes difficult to gain a common understanding among many staff administering the same discretionary approval criteria, to know where that line in the sand is, so you can: a) apply the code consistently; and b) give Customers reliable information early in the process about red flags, etc. regardless of which staff are assigned to the application. It?s ok to say ideally early in the process of working with a customer. If the customer still wants to pursue the proposal via a land use review, it?s ok to deny the proposal. They can use the land use review appeals process to make their case. I appreciate that you provide suggestions to applicants on how to improve their projects. Especially with inexperienced applicants, this is necessary and part of our public service. I also would not expect that you become the applicant?s professional consultant, either. Land use review fees are for reviewing applications, not writing them. With ever increasing workload, it may be even more necessary to set limits on the amount of time an application to succeed. Land Use Services staff also serve neighbors as customers, as well as the applicant. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain the process to concerned? community members, and to consider their input carefully. Neighbors are often more expert on site conditions than an applicant or consultant, yet many of them have never heard the term ?approval criteria? before. Neighbors can assist in ?nding the right balance between compatibility, environmental protection, carrying capacity, and other values. Your guidance to help neighbors make their case persuasively before the Hearings Officer and/or Council is important, as well as your assistance to applicants on ways to improve their proposaldeal with projects in the pipeline impacted by this re?calibration_. I understand there is a continuous stream of .land use review applications in the pipeline, with each application at various stages in the process: some have had Early Assistance Appointments or Pre?application Conferences but haven?t applied yet, and others have already submitted their land use review application, and are at various stages in that review process. . Predictability and early warning about problems is a big part of customer service, so I understand that it is problematic to suddenly raise the bar on what is needed to get a land Please take each unique case on its own, and work with the applicant on what can be done. If there are projects that you would deny under this new direction, please work with the applicant to determine if they want to withdraw the application or if they wish to proceed. It may be helpful to reference the City Council?s decisions on appeals in 2014, to acknowledge that the policy interpretation has shifted. This re-calibration may create some challenges in the short term but through this transition phase BDS staff and applicants can work through the higher expectatibn of how to administer the discretionary approval criteria, Once staff get a collective understanding of what those expectations look like in practice, the results will be appreciated by the public now and for years to come. Please continue providing excellent customer service, and to raise the bar on discretionary land use reviews, holding these projects to a higher- standard. These could impact our neighborhoods for years to come. And they can also enhance . our neighborhoods as well. The existing approval criteria in the zoning code are there for you, and they give you the tools you need. This is about how you apply them, re- calibrating where you set the bar for what it takes to meet the approval criteria. I want you to use the applicable approval criteria to hold development proposals to higher standards. I greatly value your work.