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 a... William Dustin L. Littrell 2009-02-24T22:25:32Z 2009-02-24T22:25:32Z

I just learned from Helen Hewitt, District Director of Council District 5, that the item has been removed form the Consent Calendar and will be moved to the March 17th City council Hearing, with the intent to make it an open process involving the community.

Dustin L. Littrell 2009-02-24T22:25:32Z William Burg 2009-02-24T06:36:53Z 2009-02-24T06:36:53Z

It *is* a great example of the status quo wanting to protect itself, however the status quo is the development community and city government. And not even all of the development community, or all of the city government, but its worst elements: plenty of developers and city staff know how to work with communities, not against them, and seek out dialogue and exchange of ideas. Others don't want to bother with niceties like public notification or having to listen to neighbors' concerns, and those seem to be the ones behind measures like this one (and that other one.) 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.

William Burg 2009-02-24T06:36:53Z Steven Maviglio 2009-02-24T04:15:18Z 2009-02-24T04:15:18Z

I think this is a great example of the status quo protecting itself. There's no attempt here to limit citizen involvement; it's an attempt to make the system work more efficiently. Walk around downtown. Look at all the holes in the ground. Look across the river at West Sacramento. Buildings are going up. There is no "rush" whatsoever -- it's an item that's long overdue. How many hearings do we really need to have? Say your peace and let the Council make its decision.

Steven Maviglio 2009-02-24T04:15:18Z Dustin L. Littrell 2009-02-23T20:37:08Z 2009-02-23T20:37:08Z

William - Great dialogue, it sounds like we need to call are Council representative and 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? Is this the call that needs to go out to our neighbors?

Dustin L. Littrell 2009-02-23T20:37:08Z William Burg 2009-02-23T02:08:49Z 2009-02-23T02:08:49Z

Marc: I am a board member of my neighborhood association and a central city focused advocacy organization, and have held leadership roles with neighborhood groups. I have worked directly with developers, community groups, and city staff on many projects. The things I say here come from my own experience, as well as the lessons I have learned from more experienced neighborhood advocates like Dale Kooyman, and my study of urban history in general and Sacramento history in particular. 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.

William Burg 2009-02-23T02:08:49Z Dale Kooyman 2009-02-23T00:18:14Z 2009-02-23T00:18:14Z

You are absolutely right on all points, Bill. Usually developers and their minions don't want to face the fact that they are making decisions based on their profit motive in neighborhoods in which they don't live. They would scream like hell if that were happening in their own neighborhood and use their money and influence to defeat any such efforts. 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.

Dale Kooyman 2009-02-23T00:18:14Z Marc Christensen 2009-02-23T00:09:30Z 2009-02-23T00:09:30Z

Efficiency and justice are not in opposition. Both can be attained. 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.

Marc Christensen 2009-02-23T00:09:30Z Susie Shields 2009-02-22T23:41:44Z 2009-02-22T23:41:44Z

This is alarming. All one has to do is walk around midtown and see what happens with little oversight from the community. There are horrible 70's era apartment complexes mixed in with stately victorians. It is so sad to see that there wasn't some sort of design commission to regulate what went where. It is also alarming that this city has people that talk about "transparency" at every turn but try to circumvent the process of community involvement. I agree with you Mr. Burg, public participation may be less efficient, but there is more justice. I am leary about the developer interests in this town. First the mayor, now this.

Susie Shields 2009-02-22T23:41:44Z William Burg 2009-02-22T22:30:43Z 2009-02-22T22:30:43Z

Marc: Yes, I do doubt Mr. Fuerst's motives and his wisdom. He doesn't have a corner of city government, he is a member of the Development Oversight Commission, a city board consisting primarily of members of Sacramento's developer community. As such, its decisions reflect the interest of building developers, a group whose interests can often be at odds with the community at large. 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?

William Burg 2009-02-22T22:30:43Z Marc Christensen 2009-02-22T20:51:57Z 2009-02-22T20:51:57Z

Somewhere in your zeal to “relay the facts” you missed my point entirely: does an additional layer of citizen involvement bring any clarity or wisdom to the decision-making process? More specifically: The Jan 6 letter to the Mayor from Holger Fuerst, chairman of the DOC, asking to combine two commissions into one states “This assessment is based on the need to ensure that the City’s hearing processes are effective, transparent, predictable and cost efficient.” Do you doubt Mr. Fuerst’s motives or widom? If so, why? Honestly, it sounds to me like he is trying to make his corner of the city government run more efficiently.

Marc Christensen 2009-02-22T20:51:57Z William Burg 2009-02-22T18:41:13Z 2009-02-22T18:41:13Z

Marc Christensen: The removal of the streetcar lines was not a municipal decision, but a private one. Pacific Gas & Electric, Central California Traction and Sacramento Northern sold their streetcar lines to a subsidiary of National City Lines in 1943, who abandoned the remaining lines by 1947. They were a private company, not a city-owned utility. There was no opportunity for public input. National City Lines was later found guilty of conspiracy: several of their major stockholders included General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil and Phillips Petroleum. The conspiracy charges arose because they replaced the streetcar lines they purchased exclusively with General Motors buses. 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.

William Burg 2009-02-22T18:41:13Z Marc Christensen 2009-02-22T16:58:52Z 2009-02-22T16:58:52Z

Citizen awareness, activism and involvement is surely a good and commendable thing. If only we could turn back the clock and have Mr. Burg - and other diligent citizens - present at the time some key decisions were made in the capital area which in hindsight have not served us well: tearing up ALL the city street car and rail lines in the 30s and 40s and the placement of hwy 5 (where it currently is) are two mistakes that come to mind. 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?

Marc Christensen 2009-02-22T16:58:52Z Jennifer Savin 2009-02-22T15:55:03Z 2009-02-22T15:55:03Z

Wow. This is a very helpful piece of information. We'll be active in trying to sop this action.

Jennifer Savin 2009-02-22T15:55:03Z William Burg 2009-02-22T07:18:01Z 2009-02-22T07:18:01Z

If enough people contact their city councilmembers, at least it increased the chance that this issue will be discussed at the meeting instead of just being a consent calendar item. And yes, if there is significant outcry, there is a good chance this trainwreck of a plan could be avoided. I'll be there.

William Burg 2009-02-22T07:18:01Z Colleen Belcher 2009-02-21T21:48:30Z 2009-02-21T21:48:30Z

Thank you for following up on this issue, William. It does seem to be moving very quickly without much input from the community. Will you be attending the meetings next week? Do you think that there is a possibility for this decision to be stalled or slowed down? Do you think community members contacting their councilmembers will be enough to have an impact?

Colleen Belcher 2009-02-21T21:48:30Z