Tag Cloud
Thursday, March 11, 2010
City Closer to Eliminating Design Commission
by William Burg, published on February 21, 2009 at 10:41AM
Storyline: Central City Neighborhoods
No high resolution image exists...
Loading images
At the Planning Commission meeting on February 12, members of the Development Oversight Commission presented their proposal to eliminate the city of Sacramento's Design Commission by integrating it into the Planning Commission. This action would take most planning decisions out of the Commission's hands, assigning them to city staff, with fewer public hearings. This effort was met by surprise and disapproval by the Planning Commission, and also by the 20 or so members of the public who spoke against the effort at the meeting.
Development Oversight Commission member Brian Holloway assured people that this was only the beginning of a large-scale outreach program, that they had not yet formulated specific recommendations, and it would be many months before any action would be taken, but the letter they had sent to the Mayor regarding this action included very specific recommendations. Now, less than two weeks later, the city council is being asked to draw up a new ordinance to put these changes in place permanently. The massive outreach effort will consist of one meeting with the Area 1 Neighborhood Advisory Group, a monthly gathering of central city neighborhood associations and advocates, the day before the City Council meeting.
In brief, this change means that many projects that currently go before the Design Review Commission or Planning Commission will be approved by staff, with no board review. If people want to appeal a design decision, they have to pay a $500 fee to air their concerns before the Planning Commission. But even then, the Planning Commission will be smaller and have less power. $500 is chump change to a developer working on a multi-million dollar project, but to neighbors and small neighborhood associations, it is significant enough to give many groups pause. The change in threshold also means that many of the projects that most directly affect existing neighborhoods, like small infill projects, are the ones least likely to be heard.
The Development Oversight Commission is a think-tank of developers and contractors, paid by the city to suggest changes to the city's planning process. One member of the public at the February 12 meeting, a former Planning Commission member, suggested that eliminating the Development Oversight Commission might be a simpler cost-saving measure.
Here is the letter sent by Planning Commissioner Panama Bartholomy regarding this issue:
---------------------------
Dear neighborhood association, or neighborhood, leader:
At the February 12 Planning Commission meeting the Development Oversight Commission (DOC) members and City staff committed to an extensive public outreach effort to collect input from the community on their proposal to eliminate the Design Review Commission and "move most planning decisions to the staff level" :
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/documents/DOC_letter.PDF.
Now the City Council has on its February 24 agenda an item (#8) to direct the Council’s Law and Legislative Committee to begin work on an ordinance to implement the recommendations:
http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=74&meta_id=171047.
The DOC and City staff have not provided any analysis to show the problems in the current process that the recommendations would address, nor the benefits expected from the implementation of the recommendations. In fact last year a Sacramento Business Journal survey of developers found that the City ranked first in the region for permitting process: http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/03/31/focus1.html. If this is the case is there the need for such a hurried process? Could there be enough time for community members and neighborhood groups to engage with the DOC and City on the most efficient and effective way to oversee development in the city?
The consent calendar is reserved for items with no controversy or questions of content. At this point without any clarity on the intent, nor benefits of such a significant change to our City’s development oversight process and lacking any input from groups besides the development community this direction from Council does not meet that criteria.
Please contact your council member to ask that the direction to the Law and Legislation Committee to begin work on this item be withdrawn until our community can work with the City to craft recommendations that ensure transparency and efficiency while preserving citizen participation. Council member contact information can be found here: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/index.html.
The DOC will make their first presentation to a community group next Monday, February 23, at the regularly scheduled Area 1 Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting at the Hart Senior Center (27th & J streets). The meeting starts at 6:15, I am told the DOC presentation will begin soon after 7:30.
Here is what is known about a schedule for this issue:
February 23: DOC presentation to Area 1 NAG, Hart Senior Center (27th & J streets). The meeting starts at 6:15, I am told the DOC presentation will begin soon after 7:30.
February 24: City Council to consider providing direction to Law and Legislation Committee to begin work on ordinance on March 17, New City Hall, 2:00: http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=74&meta_id=171047.
March 2: DOC monthly meeting: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/development-oversight/2009/, location TBD
March 17: City Council Law and Legislation Committee, Committee potentially begin work on ordinance, City Hall, 12:30 pm.
Thank you all for your efforts to ensure that Sacramento continues to provide efficient services to all parts of our community.
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I'll be there.
But were these decisions influenced by nefarious motives or were they simply unwise in the long run? Would increased citizen involvement have brought clarity and wisdom to the final decision and spared the community some pain or would it have only lengthened the decision-making process with the same eventual result? The decision-making process is important and encouraging citizens to be involved is part of our democratic heritage, but isn’t the goal here an enlightened result – one that works best for the entire community in the long run?
Highway 5's route was influenced by development interests: Macy's would only agree to open their new store on K Street if there was a nearby freeway exit. Developers wanted I-5 running through the nonwhite neighborhoods of the "West End" in order to remove those neighborhoods from the proximity of the business district (due to FHA rules called "redlining," nonwhite neighborhoods had a negative effect on nearby property values.) There was a lot of local activism in response to the I-5 route: Southsider Gabriel Silveira ran for city council on a "stop I-5" platform, and Eleanor McClatchy of the Sacramento Bee used the media as a bully pulpit. She was influential in sparing a small portion of Sacramento's historic waterfront from the bulldozers, and today that rescued portion is Old Sacramento.
More recently, Sacramento's citizen activists made an effort to stop an expansion of Highway 50 (the so-called "HOV lanes.") The environmental document on the project claimed that a massive increase in cars on Hwy 50 due to increased lanes would have no effect on air quality or on the downtown streets that would receive the traffic. A local group raised funds for a lawsuit and temporarily stopped the measure, asking for more review to determine the project's effects. Our Governor got involved, trying to make highway projects exempt from environmental review (ironic considering highway projects like I-5 were a major reason why California created laws requiring environmental review.) In the end, just a few weeks ago, there was another compromise: Caltrans will spend $8 million on enhanced light rail service and an improved bicycle path between Folsom and downtown Sacramento, providing more transportation alternatives.
So yeah, I'd say that citizen involvement, and exposing the development process to the light of day, often has a more positive result than just letting things happen in back rooms. Making informed decisions sometimes takes longer and costs more than making uninformed decisions with no regard for their consequences, but the whole idea is to limit decisions "with nefarious motives" AND ones that are unwise in the long run. You can't stop them all--but yes, you can limit them.
I hear the word "transparency" a lot, but here it just seems to be another word for "invisibility." This change would mean that government actions would be LESS visible to the general public, as many actions that previously required public hearing would be performed by city staff, with no public input. Sure, the city's processes should be effective and cost-efficient, but those are basically buzzwords being tossed around. At the Planning Commission meeting where this was discussed, commission members asked Mr. Fuerst and Mr. Holloway to provide some factual basis for these statements, and their response was that they haven't even started looking into it, and this was just an idea they were throwing about. But the city council is being asked to draft an ordinance this Tuesday. Something about that doesn't smell right.
The current layer of citizen input provided by the Design Commission does bring more clarity and wisdom to the decision-making process: the Design Commission does not assess every project, only those in design review areas, and it specializes on design aspects. The Planning Commission looks at broader issues like land use and zoning, parking, and is citywide in effect.
You asked if citizen input helped inform better decisions, Mr. Christensen, and I gave three examples: one where a lack of input resulted in a loss for the city, and two where citizen involvement resulted in some measure of mitigation. Cutting out citizen participation may result in faster decision-making, and some cost savings, but the price of ignoring the community can be much higher to the city at large. We saw the consequences of that sort of decision-making in mid-20th century redevelopment, highway construction, and the elimination of much of our public transportation infrastructure.
Public participation means things might be less efficient, but there is more justice. Some folks would rather see more efficiency and less justice, but personally I'm not one of those folks. Are you?
My final posting on this topic includes a number of questions for you, the last of which interests me most:
Is there always tension between the public good and business interests?
Have modern businesses recognized the need to become more ethical?
Is government in cahoots with business in Sacramento?
Is it governments’ primary responsibility to protect the public from business or vice versa?
Should government officials be trusted?
If the public does not trust government officials, is that healthy for the community?
Is greed, mistrust, infighting or other larger cultural issues the real problem?
Is the mob ever enlightened?
When a decision is made by a government entity, can every constituency be heard? Be pleased?
How do you feel about “paternalistic” entities such as the church and the state?
Would public input have changed anything regarding streetcar line sails in the 40s or was ridership so low due to the advent of the automobile that rail was a zero-profit business when it was sold?
Could the city have purchased a few lines for its citizens … if they had voiced their strong desire for it?
How did other cities in the US manage to keep their rail systems?
Can we develop a model for a modern healthy city that includes details like how to design a decision-making body that approves citywide development?
And finally, why don’t you seek some public office (or lead an advocacy group) where you can really get onto the front lines and maybe solve some problems (rather than just mitigate them)?
Cheers.
In fact, it was a swift and non-contentious process a few years back under a very wise city manager who implemented the concept of "early notification." Early notification meant that at the same time a builder/developer discussed the concept of a proposed a project with Planning Staff, that staff member advised said developer to meet with affected residential and business neighbors to explain purpose and show design. Staff then gave the applicant the names of affected individuals and neighborhood/business associations.
Contrary to current city management's belief, we do have intelligent and cooperative people who live in our neighborhoods--even architects, doctors (MD & PhD), attorneys, professors, small contractors/builders etc. Residents want to see development and resulting economic benefits to the city and their neighborhoods also. Their home investments are at stake too!!!!
Most times in one or two meetings, constructive comments were made, differences were resolved, minor modifications were made and the projects went forward. Any delays were city internal problems involving lack of coordination with other departments, lost or misplaced records, etc. etc. But you can't get this tunnel visioned arrogant city management to understand that. They choose to blame residents.
When receptive developers/builders did meet with local folks, many were amazed at the positive comments, constructive ideas and cooperation that they received--some even saved them money And the end product invariably came out better than the originally proposed.
There are several examples in the central city where this happened. I will give only one: 19th & J Streets. The developer proposed a Jack-in-the-Box drive thru. Neighbors objected saying that location deserved better--a pedestrian friendly environment with businesses catering to central city residents, friends and visitors who wished to stop by to buy, sit, talk and enjoy a sidewalk atmosphere. You can see the results.
On at least two projects, Mayor Serna asked where all the people were at the council meeting to object to the project seeking approval. He said that he had heard that the project was very controversial and expected a contentious council meeting. Staff happily reported that the mayor was right. There had been some disagreement BUT that had all been worked on in the early notification process.
All of which goes to prove that working WITH affected people produces better and less costly results than working AGAINST them, which is the mode the city and several members of the DOC are in now. Of course, it does mean that the self-perceived elite do have to converse with the common person.
Most of your questions are very philosophical in nature, and highly subjective, so I won't bore you with a point-by-point response. But I will say that, in my experience, the exchange between the general public, city government, and the business community can be contentious at times, but they certainly aren't all the time. Good relations between these interests are based on mutual trust and familiarity, and a strong sense of community and common interest. We're all just people--none are a mob, or evil moustache-twirling villains.
I'm flattered by the suggestion that I run for office; can I count on you for a contribution to my campaign?
I read a very, very good letter on this subject, sent to the Mayor, from Jon Marshack, former chair of the old Design Review & Preservation Board. For the interested, here it is:
---------------
Subject: Agenda Item 8 - Action on Development Oversight Commission Recommendations
Honorable Mayor Johnson and Members of the City Council,
Item #8 on your February 24, 2009 agenda asks that you direct the Council's Law and Legislative Committee to begin work on an ordinance to implement recent recommendations of the Development Oversight Commission. The DOC has recommended that the Design Commission be eliminated and that most planning decisions be moved to the staff level. I respectfully urge that you postpone such direction to allow the DOC's recommendations to be sufficiently analyzed and aired before all relevant stakeholders. Developing an ordinance to implement such changes is premature and is not in the best interest of our City's future.
The City recently went through a multi-year process to split the Design Review & Preservation Board into two commissions -- Design and Preservation -- and to move many decisions formerly made by the DRPB to the staff level. With considerable community and developer input, the City found an appropriate balance between streamlining the development approval process while preserving citizen and independent expert input in our City's development decision-making. The ordinance implementing those changes has been in effect for only two years. As former Co-Chair of the Boulevard Park Neighborhood Association, I provided input to numerous meetings with City staff and officials in which those changes were developed. I served as Vice Chair of the Design Review and Preservation Board during the final stages of development and approval of the ordinances that implemented those changes.
The Development Oversight Commission has now asked that you remove even more citizen and independent expert input on how our City grows by eliminating the Design Commission and moving yet more development decisions to the staff level. The Design Commission provides independent expertise focused on the quality of development projects so that our City develops in a way that benefits all of its citizens, not just short-term economic interests. The Design Commission process provides a forum for citizen input and debate on these important issues. We all have to live with the projects that are approved by our City's planning process and are eventually built. It is critical that we not rush to dismantle key safeguards of our City's future livability in order to speed up development decision-making, even in difficult economic times.
City Development Services staff have been substantially reduced by our recent budgetary crisis and more staff cuts are contemplated. Without an independent Design Commission, there is substantial likelihood that a higher proportion of project approvals would be based largely on short-term political and/or economic considerations. We need independent Design Commission expertise to provide oversight for the manner in which our City develops. Opportunities for neighborhood, community, and citizen input should not be diminished.
At a minimum, we should not rush into altering a development approval system that was so recently put in place. Perceived problems with the current system should be sufficiently analyzed and debated in public to ensure that all stakeholders are heard. It is far too soon to rush into the writing of ordinances to implement any changes now.
Jon B. Marshack, D.Env.
Splitting the Design Review/Preservation Board into two boards worked well, but it was a two-year process, separating a body into two more specifically focused boards. This proposal would combine two boards, resulting in less specialized knowledge on either subject, and thus less well-informed decisions (and fewer projects even reaching that board, being settled by staff out of public view.)
Steve, it seems like your answer to every public concern is to tell the general public to shut up and just let their betters run the city for them. Sorry, I don't find that attitude acceptable.