Portland design commissioners are girding for battle as they begin to confront a push to suspend the city’s mandatory design review process for two years.

The procedure is advancing quickly, and city staff anticipate the City Council will consider legislation to suspend design review as soon as December.

The Portland Planning Commission will weigh a suspension of design review on Aug. 25 as a prelude to council action. Design commissioners said Thursday they plan to write letters and perhaps testify in person at that meeting.

The time has come for design commissioners to make their case, said Tim Heron, a senior city planner who works with the Design Commission.

“So, it’s go time,” he said after laying out the calendar during a brief Design Commission work session on Thursday.

Two bureau directors, Eric Engstrom of Planning and Sustainability and Eric Kutch of Permitting and Development, sent councilors Angelita Morillo and Eric Zimmerman a letter May 7 outlining a potential two-year suspension of design review. That was prompted by councilors ordering a report on design review this past December.

Design review has attracted criticism for adding delays and expense while elected officials — including Gov. Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson — have made housing production a priority, to little effect. Other cities, including Seattle, have suspended design review.

Policy efforts have shown little progress to date. In 2025, the city of Portland approved only 22 new construction permits for multifamily projects.

The proposed suspension would affect only mandatory design review. Developers still could opt in if they prefer design review to a standards-based approval process.

Several Permitting and Development staffers who work on design review would be reassigned and integrated into a Planning and Sustainability project team, according to the directors’ memo. The directors also requested additional funding for the staffing during the two-year period to make up for reduced design review revenue.

The two bureaus, prompted by the December directive from the City Council, published a joint report on design review in April. The 119-page report painted a picture of a broad economic pullback. “… Development activity has steadily declined and, in 2025, experienced an even more precipitous decline. This multiyear decline has not been limited to projects in the Design and Historic Resource Overlay Zones but has been reflected citywide for almost all types of housing and commercial development.”

Design review proponents say the process benefits projects, often making buildings better and giving the public a voice.

“Design review is a time when the public is able to come provide testimony,” Design Commission Chairwoman Chandra Robinson said in February. “It’s the time when they’re able to get their voices on the record, and I think it’s an important part of the process that they’re able to share their thoughts on proposals in their neighborhood.”

They also say design review unfairly takes flack when national and regional macroeconomic conditions — interest rates, development cycles, construction costs — matter far more. The April joint bureau report also cast blame on larger factors.

“Development within the city remains at historic lows due to various factors including high interest rates, high apartment vacancy combined with stagnating rents and an aversion by institutional capital to investing in Portland due to real and perceived safety, taxation, regulation and market factors,” the report states.

On Thursday, Robinson said she would draft a letter to the City Council, either on behalf of the Design Commission or individually.

Commissioner Joe Swank said the Design Commission may want to write a different type of letter than one with typical dry, technical language, as it’s fighting for its life.

“I agree with a different approach,” he said.

The Historic Landmarks Commission is also expected to weigh in with its own concerns.

Design commissioners are expected to consider their response during an Aug. 6 meeting before transmitting it to the Planning Commission and City Council.

The post Fight over Portland design review process looms appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Portland Planning Commission on Tuesday agreed to recommend the Portland City Council approve proposed code changes that would pause some requirements for building additions and alterations until Jan. 1, 2029. The would include changes to Title 11, Title 33, Title 17 and Title 24.

The suspensions would align with the ‘s temporary regulatory suspensions for residential development.

During Tuesday’s meeting, the city’s permit improvement project manager, Mieke Keenan, said the city needs to address its code barriers to improve permitting, as regulations for the built environment often overlap or conflict. These obstacles can lead to unexpected costs or permitting delays.

The Code Alignment Project was launched in November 2024 with the goal of creating city code consistency. The project team consists of both policy and implementation staff from transportation, water, environmental services, permitting & development, urban forestry, and housing bureaus. The team focused on outcomes affecting small businesses and small projects.

Title 33 is related to site upgrades. City code section 33.258.070 requires that building addition and alteration projects with a value greater than $356,300 must upgrade certain elements of their sites as needed to comply with minimum landscaping, tree planting, on-site pedestrian pathway connections, short and long-term bicycle parking, screening, and paving of parking and storage areas, the project’s website states.

These requirements were previously suspended for projects that included residential use until Jan. 1, 2029. The Code Alignment Project proposal would extend that same suspension to all addition and alteration projects. New construction would continue to be required to meet current zoning code rules.

Title 11 is related to street tree planting. Currently, street trees must be planted for all development projects (new construction, additions, and alterations) when the value of a project is at least $25,000 and there is available space within the right of way to plant additional street trees.

The Code Alignment Project proposal would suspend the street tree planting requirements tied to building additions and other alterations to the building or site. Planting street trees would still be required for new construction and when street improvements are built. The proposal would also remove the tree plan application submittal requirement when trees would not be planted or otherwise be impacted by a proposed building alteration.

Title 17 is related to street improvements. Currently, they’re required for all developments with a value greater than 35 percent of the assessed improvement value for the site. The Code Alignment Project proposal would suspend requirements for some street improvements.

Title 24 is related to seismic evaluation reports. Currently, the requirement applies to additions and alterations with a project value greater than $362,000. The Code Alignment Project proposal would suspend the requirement for some older buildings.

During the hearing, three people offered testimony. One expressed concern about a proposed reduction in bike parking, while others asked for amendments related to public roads and changes to floor area ratio (FAR) standards.

A senior planner with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, Morgan Tracy, said that although the current Code Alignment Project proposal applies only to new projects, a change is anticipated so that it would also apply to projects currently in the permitting process.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council adopt the Code Alignment Project proposed draft, amend Title 33, and recommend the Urban Forestry Commission support an amendment of Title 11. A city council hearing date has not been scheduled yet.

The post Portland code pause proposed for building upgrades appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A controversial proposal to modify zoning codes to address Portland‘s housing crisis has triggered a surge of public opinion. More than 200 testimonies were received at the city’s Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, with more than 20 individuals providing in-person and virtual testimonies.

The proposed housing production strategy, a key component of the Housing Regulatory Relief Project, includes a temporary five-year suspension of various zoning codes and development standards identified in a Bureau of Development Services (BDS) survey as the top obstacles to housing production. These changes encompass suspending requirements for ground-floor active use, eliminating eco-roof and bird-safe glazing standards, and reducing bike parking requirements.

The housing production strategy aims to address the urgent need for housing in a city requiring approximately 120,560 new housing units over the next two decades. This need is driven by Portland’s growth, vacancy rates, historical underproduction of housing units, and the demand for homes for the homeless.

Sandra Wood, the principal planner at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, said that for housing to be constructed in the present environment, development costs must decrease or rents must increase, likely requiring a combination of both. While the city cannot control the high interest rates causing financing challenges nationwide, the housing relief strategy aims to reduce costs by streamlining permitting approval timelines and simplifying code requirements.

“We understand that this is a piece of the puzzle,” Wood said. “Not the full puzzle, but it is a piece nonetheless.”

Public comments were predominantly in favor of easing housing production, with support from community members and building industry professionals. However, a substantial portion of the public opposed the proposed changes related to bike parking, eco-roofs, bird-safe glazing, ground-floor active use, height requirements and the suspension of elements in the design review and neighborhood contact process.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Portland Design Commissioner Chandra Robinson, speaking on behalf of the commission, expressed concern about the short timeframe for reviewing and studying the proposed changes, describing it as “short-sighted” and “irresponsible.” These changes are set to be presented to the Portland City Council during the Dec. 20 meeting. Robinson said that although the changes are temporary, their effects will be long-lasting, as buildings are designed to last for 50 years or more. She argued that removing ground-floor active use requirements would reduce the presence of eyes on the street, potentially leading to increased crime and vandalism. Robinson urged the Planning Commission to delay approval of the proposed changes to allow more time for public comments, saying that “It’s only going to benefit the city, and not have it continue down a downward spiral.”

In a letter to the Planning Commission, signed by all commissioners except Commissioner Sam Rodriguez, alternative proposals were put forward.

Chair of the Portland Landmark Commission, Andrew Smith, said that any near-term changes to regulations should focus on removing barriers and streamlining processes rather than introducing physical changes that “we will live with and likely regret for the next 50 or more years.”

Several members of the building industry expressed support for the housing relief proposal. Sarah Zahn, director of development for Security Properties, said that the challenges posed by high interest rates is making financing for projects scarce and challenging. While each proposed code change may constitute a small portion of project costs individually, their cumulative impact is significant.

Doug Burges, director of development at Greystar, said that these challenges are felt with a recently approved 381-unit tower project in the Pearl District. That, he said, “can’t be financed in today’s environment,” adding that a slight budget relief could go a long way in assisting the project, which also includes 31 units of inclusionary housing.

The proposed amendments to reduce bike parking from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1 for developments in and near downtown, and from 1.1 spaces per unit to 0.7 for those farther out, faced significant opposition from the public. However, members of the building industry noted that they consistently observe that more than half of bike parking rooms remain unused. Ernesto Fonseca, CEO of Hacienda CDC, shared that in a recent project, approximately eight additional studio units could have been constructed if bike parking requirements were reduced. Gus Baum, director of development at Security Properties, said that roughly 770 bike stalls were required for a development along Sandy Boulevard, equivalent to approximately 15,000 square feet of space.

“Far in excess of what will be used for any current or future resident,” Baum added.

In a cost study of the proposed changes, it was estimated that a bike room for a typical 64-unit multifamily development (approximately 1,950 square feet) would cost $509,000, equivalent to about 2.6 percent of the construction costs, or $7,953 per unit.

Following the extensive public comments, commissioners requested the addition of an extra day of hearings to allow for further deliberation on proposed amendments to the current proposal. Chair Commissioner Mary O’Meara indicated her lack of support for eliminating the eco-roof and bird-safe glazing requirements, which received the most public opposition. She said she does not see how removing these requirements would contribute to easing housing production. Additionally, an amendment could be considered to restrict the temporary removal of ground-floor active use requirements to affordable housing developments, where it has been a development obstacle.

The next Planning Commission hearing has been scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on Nov. 7.

The post Proposed zoning code changes ignite public debate appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.