City staff and a Sacramento commission that addresses development issues have slowed the advancement of a contentious plan to combine the planning and design commissions.

Following public controversy over the proposal, a city staffer’s Friday update on the proposal indicates that it is now more open-ended and less detailed than the version outlined earlier this week by a member of the Development Oversight Commission (DOC), which suggests possible actions on development issues to the City Council.

Emilie Schell, a program analyst for the city’s Development Services Department, said Friday that the proposal is “still very much in the planning stages at this time.”

A public outreach effort is a current priority for the DOC, Schell said.

“At this time, the Development Oversight Commission is conducting thorough outreach to all interested parties to solicit further comments and feedback,” Schell said. “This will help towards developing a comprehensive proposal for a streamlined and efficient process for the Planning and Design Commissions.”

Schell indicated that the proposal may undergo changes from the version explained earlier this week by DOC member Brian Holloway.

Holloway said Tuesday that the DOC is proposing a nine-member combined planning and design commission. Four or five members on the commission would be design professionals, while public representatives would fill the remaining seats, Holloway said.

But Schell emphasized Friday that the joint planning and design commission proposal does not contain firm details.

Planned public hearings addressing the proposal have been postponed “until a more finalized draft is developed,” Schell said.

Sacramento Planning Commissioner Panama Bartholomy, who would be affected by the proposal to link the two commissions, had a favorable reaction to Schell’s Friday statements.

“I am happy to hear that we will have more time to examine opportunities to make the City’s development oversight more responsive to community and applicant needs,” he said.

Bartholomy noted that members of the public have attended city meetings and raised many issues about development oversight. He said that applicants “have ideas on how to improve the oversight as well.”

In an April 15 comment on The Sacramento Press, Bartholomy criticized the cost savings analysis for the proposal, writing that it “does not stand up to even slight scrutiny.”

Meanwhile, William Burg, a local historian and vocal critic of the proposal, said the existing structure of the commissions is “already streamlined and efficient.”

He criticized the DOC’s argument that the proposal would be cost effective. “If the primary reason for this change is to save money, why is so much staff time and effort being spent on this plan, and why is a permanent change to the city’s planning process being proposed as a response to a temporary budget crisis?”