A better development review process

I recently spent months trying to influence the county's permit process for a project in my neighborhood, to little avail.

But I did get an inside look at the county's development review process and how it works (or, more accurately, doesn't work). I spent most of my career managing similar processes for a metropolitan Bay area county and am very familiar with how this work is done elsewhere.

So I've sent the county commission a dozen ideas for improving things. The question is, does the county commission really want a better process?

From my point of view, the fundamental problem is that Douglas County seems to view its citizens who participate in this process as adversaries rather than as a constructive source of ideas about what would be best for our future, while at the same time the county seems to act as an advocate for development interests.

The net effect is little critical thinking about what gets built. Generally, we just approve what is submitted, often ignoring our plan and regulations in the process. Meaning our future is being determined by the individual decisions of builders and developers, with little thought to the overall community that will result.

A proper development review process would reverse that by forcing decision-makers to critically evaluate development against the plans and regulations we've adopted.

So here are some ideas.

1. A can-do attitude. A common response here is "we can't do that." The emphasis is on rejecting ideas and often using some legal mumbo-jumbo to do that. Instead we should be open to the better way and follow it.

2. Pre-application public meetings. We should do as other communities have done and require prospective applicants to hold a public meeting prior to submitting an application. This would open communication early and signal that the community is just as important as the applicant.

3. Free the staff. We have excellent planners here who want to serve the community as well as applicants, but their work seems constrained by those above. We need to take better advantage of the idealism and creativity staff could bring to their work. It's telling that managers who want to do seem to have been forced out of the organization.

4. Organizational development. It's the rare public agency that can't benefit from some OD work where the entire hierarchy gets on the same page with regard to mission, customer expectations, professional and legal standards, systems needed to ensure good service, current strengths and weaknesses and strategies for improvement.

5. A solution-oriented approach. The county should identify all of the problems posed by a project and solve them in the best interests of the overall community, rather than simply defending what is proposed. In my experience, most land use conflicts can be greatly reduced by better design, something rarely required here.

6. Explicit attention to findings. Findings are the rules we set to keep decisions honest. Taken seriously they force us to deal with the facts of the project in relation to the standards we've set. A greater emphasis on required findings could reverse the impression that the county doesn't follow its plans and regulations.

7. Strengthened legal capabilities. There is a strong impression in the community that Douglas County is easily intimidated by legal challenges to its work and that it acquiesces unnecessarily to the demands of those who might sue. Jim Slade's recent column spoke directly to this. if he's right, we're in big trouble. We need attorneys who can win in court or we're powerless to control our future.

8. Staff reports on the Internet. One indication of the openness of a process is the ease of obtaining information about it. The county has the master plan and zoning regulations on-line, why not staff reports?

9. Clear public hearing rules. A well run hearing creates confidence in the decision being made. It all begins with fair rules evenly applied. Too often the rules are set at the hearing or not at all. Imagine preparing a 15-minute presentation and then being told you have five. And having no rules sets the stage for unfair treatment, with the chair deciding on the fly who gets heard and who gets cut off.

The county should set and communicate public hearing rules well in advance and those should vary depending on the anticipated amount of public participation. Those rules must be fair and balanced, giving both sides of a matter an equal opportunity to present their cases.

10. Balanced and honest rebuttals. It's hard to imagine a court that would allow one side of a case a rebuttal and not the other. Yet that happens here all the time. If one side gets to rebut, so should the other, and time should be equal.

This would keep rebuttals honest too. If only one side has the opportunity of rebuttal they can say pretty much anything knowing that it likely won't be challenged. And they get to have the last word. But if the party with the burden of proof (usually the applicant) knows his final words are subject to challenge, he will be more cautious.

11. Welcome, don't fear, information. There is a perception that the county rejects or ignores information that doesn't support its preconceived notions. We should always welcome additional information and be prepared to reevaluate our notions. That's what good governance is all about: using the best information available to figure out what will work best.

12. Make effective use of continuances. A well-timed and well-framed continuance is a powerful tool, assuming the goal is balanced decision making. If the message is that both sides have a point but significant problems remain, and the matter could go either way, you can motivate both parties to compromise in ways they've been unwilling to consider before. Instead, we seem to have a hearing, pay some lip service to community concerns and then approve the application as submitted.

Those are my suggestions for a better development review process. What are yours?

Terry Burnes is a retired California planner and Gardnerville resident.