Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "design commission"

City considers consolidating Planning, Design Commissions

2011-11-19T03:39:41Z

In an effort to create greater efficiency and cut costs by more than $25,000 per year, the city will soon consolidate its Planning Commission and Design Commission into one planning/design oversight board.

Members of the Planning Commission heard the latest update Thursday on progress toward consolidating the two commissions. Members did not take any action on the report.

The City Council started looking at the city’s organizational structure in April 2010 after consultants from Management Partners Inc. suggested that city operations could be more efficient – and general fund money could be saved – if some boards and commissions were either eliminated or consolidated.

Two of the bodies that appeared to be ripe for consolidation were the Planning and Design commissions, according to Greg Bitter, principal planner for the city.

While the Planning Commission is in place to review the zoning, parking, site location and other planning-related aspects of proposed projects in the city, the Design Commission reviews the more technical structural, design and aesthetic aspects.

Some members of the commissions have said that consolidating the two bodies would dilute the individual strengths of each commission and valuable facets of review would be lost – but staff feels that can be avoided if the consolidation is handled right.

“The cost savings is expected to be at least $25,000 per year,” Bitter said Thursday, “just from the savings of setup, administration and staff time that two regular meetings require as opposed to one.”

Beyond that, Bitter said there are cost savings from staff time associated with a variety of projects that each commission undertakes each year.

Because the costs vary from project to project, Bitter said he could not give an estimate of the potential savings, other than to say it would be “above and beyond the meetings savings.”

City staff evaluated the workload, staffing and function of both commissions for the period of January 2007 – when the Design Commission became a standalone body – through September 2011.

According to a staff report, the Design Commission workload has dropped since 2007 with only three projects heard in 2010 and only five heard so far in 2011.

Compared to an average of 15 per year between 2007 and 2009 – that’s a 66 percent drop in workload.

Also, because items are often heard at both the Design and Planning commissions, Bitter said there is an overlap that can be reduced by merging both commissions.

Michael Notestine, a member of the Planning Commission since 1987, said Thursday that he supports the idea of bringing the two commissions together, but he sees potential for unintended consequences.

“Right now it makes sense (to consolidate) because business is so slow,” Notestine said, “but what happens when the economy turns? There may be enough activity to warrant separating again. How much trouble will that be?”

Planning Commissioner William Wong said Thursday he is concerned that the functional integrity of each commission might be affected by a combination.

“The work of each commission is different, and the philosophy of each is a little different,” Wong said. “If they were to combine it, you’d have to figure out how to make sure (the new commission) retained the technical expertise of the design aspect and still have the community emphasis of the planning aspect.”

According to Notestine, the ultimate success of a newly formed Planning/Design Commission will depend largely on its composition.

“If there is a formula for a certain number of technical positions on the new commission, then that diminishes the number of public positions,” Notestine said. “As it stands now, planning is oriented toward community needs. We listen to the public, and we learn from the public.”

The current Planning Commission consists of 11 members: eight appointed by City Council members, one appointed by the mayor and two appointed by the Personnel and Public Employees Committee.

The new commission is proposed to have a total of 13 members, which includes nine members selected by council members and four members with specific expertise selected by the Personnel and Public Employees committee.

City staff stated in their report that they felt concerns regarding consolidation could be resolved in the way the ordinance is drafted.

Planning Commission chairman Joe Yee said Wednesday he has complete confidence in city staff’s ability to prepare an adequate ordinance to resolve any issues.

“When you get down to the details (of the city code),” Yee said, “it’s good to have people who have been working with the system and see the pluses and minuses in all of it.”

Once the new commission is formed, it will take on the combined workload of both previous commissions already in progress, along with any new projects.

After the City Attorney’s Office writes the necessary amendments to the city code, a draft ordinance will go to the Law and Legislation Committee for approval and then to the City Council.

Bitter said an ordinance could be at the City Council in January or February.

Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

City: Controversial plan for commissions not final

2009-04-18T02:58:50Z

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?”

Discussions postponed on plan to unite two commissions

2009-04-16T04:06:53Z

Two city commissions have postponed discussions on a controversial plan to combine the city’s planning and design commissions. The Development Oversight Commission (DOC) canceled the discussion it had scheduled for today’s meeting on its proposal to join the two commissions.

The city’s Design Commission had also scheduled a Wednesday discussion on the DOC's proposal. The Design Commission postponed the discussion to a later date.

The Sacramento Press will update readers on this issue as it learns more information about the city’s current plans.

Development Commission updates controversial proposal for city planning

2009-04-15T04:55:03Z

A commission that advises the Sacramento City Council on development issues has updated a controversial proposal to unite the city’s planning and design commissions into one body.

Brian Holloway, a member of the Development Oversight Commission (DOC), said Tuesday that the DOC is proposing a combined planning and design commission with nine members.

Of that nine-member group, four or five members would be design professionals, Holloway said. Representatives of the public would serve in the remaining positions on the commission.

He pointed out that the proposal would join the two commissions, saying the design commission would not be dismantled.

Asked why the commission wants to unite the two commissions, Holloway said: “First of all, there would be significant cost savings in doing that.”

Combining the two commissions would also streamline the current process for the public, according to Holloway. Right now, members of the public ask the design commission to look at land use, which is the planning commission’s role, he said. And residents also ask the planning commission to look at design issues.

Both commissions thought that creating a unified planning and design commission would be a good idea, Holloway said.

The DOC is meeting Wednesday, April 15, at 300 Richards Boulevard in the second floor training room. Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting, which starts at 5:30 p.m.

Holloway said the DOC created its current proposal after listening to public input.

The DOC will probably decide at its April 15 meeting to suggest its current proposal to the city, according to Holloway.

At the April 15 meeting, the DOC will also weigh in on a city development process known as the “early notification process.” In that process, the public is informed in advance of development projects that have been proposed to the city, Holloway explained.

But community members are telling the DOC that the early notification process isn’t working, he said. The DOC is likely going to suggest that the city improve the process, he noted.

The DOC earlier proposed a united design and planning commission with seven members, Holloway said. In that previous plan, two or three people on the commission would have been design professionals, according to Holloway.

The earlier plan had come under fire from the Midtown Neighborhood Association (MNA), which was formerly called the Winn Park/Capitol Avenue Neighborhood Association.

Local historian and MNA member William Burg had claimed in a March 25 post on The Sacramento Press that the DOC had suggested that five members from the development industry sit on a seven-member board. Burg has been raising concerns about the public's ability to participate in a joined planning and design commission.

The DOC is not comprised of city staffers. It consists of members from the development industry and the general public. The City Council receives suggestions from the DOC.

The public can make suggestions to the DOC by e-mailing DOC@cityofsacramento.org or calling 916-808-5908.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

DOC Urges Deregulation of Planning and Design

2009-03-25T16:54:36Z

Sacramento's Development Oversight Commission is proceeding with its plan to merge the Planning Commission and Design Commission into a single body. Despite the overwhelmingly negative response from the current Planning and Design Commission members and the general public, the latest version of the DOC's proposal includes even less citizen input: instead of a seven-member board with two developer representatives and five members of the general public, the new proposal recommends five developer representatives and two members of the general public, in addition to the greatly reduced number of public meetings.

From a historian's perspective, the consolidation of these bodies into a single, smaller group has an interesting parallel with California history. In 1879, California lawmakers held a constituional convention to revise California's constitution and reflect the changes to the state since the original 1849 constitution's writing. One issue they hoped to address was the influence of the Central Pacific Railroad, whose power dominated state politics from the time of its completion a decade earlier.

The 1879 rewrite of the California Constitution included the creation of a three-member Railroad Commission, to deal with railroad issues. The original intent was to create an independent body to review railroad law, and remove it from the political influences of the State Senate, many of whose members were elected because of Central Pacific's money and influence. Central Pacific welcomed the creation of the new Railroad Commission: instead of having to bribe half of the state senate, they now only had to bribe two of the three members of the Railroad Commission to ensure decisions in their favor.

From Panama Bartholomy, Planning Commission member:

"The City Development Services Department and the Development Oversight Commission have posted a schedule (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/customer-service/CommunityAnnouncements.cfm ) of the community meetings where they have and will be presenting the DOC’s proposal to eliminate the Design Review Commission, move most planning decisions to the staff level out of the public forum and reconstitute the Planning Commission with a 75% developer membership.

"Despite posting the schedule and location of the meetings there is no time given for any of the upcoming meetings so any resident or neighborhood group would not know when to attend the meeting, negating any benefit of having the schedule online.

"It also now appears that the DOC’s original January 6 proposal has changed to even more heavily favor developer interests over neighborhoods. In their original proposal (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/documents/DOC_letter.PDF) the DOC proposed a new Planning Commission to be made up “of seven members, with at least two of the seven required to have professional experience in architecture, landscape architecture and/or urban planning.” The City handout presented by Bill Thomas, Director of Development Services, at the February 23 Neighborhood Alliance Group (NAG) meeting (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/documents/SUMMARY-CHART.pdf) proposed a Planning Commission of seven members, with five-representatives from the development community and only two of the general public. Sometime between January 5 and February 23 the City and DOC decided that the original proposal did not limit the general public’s involvement enough and decided that all development decisions in the city should be made by either the development community themselves or by city staff with orders to “Get the customers to success”.

"The City has now set April 30 as the date that the City Council will have a workshop on this issue. There they will decide on whether or not to continue to pursue this proposal.

"Community leaders that value the two-year old Design Review Commission’s role in ensuring the protection of neighborhood identity need to contact their City Councilmember before this meeting to express their views on the DOC’s proposal.

"Those that value a citizen oversight Planning Commission over a developer dominated rubber stamp Planning Commission need to attend each of the public meetings in the newly posted schedule (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/customer-service/CommunityAnnouncements.cfm) and ask the DOC and City why staff feel the public should no longer have a role in planning decisions that affect their neighborhoods.

"To keep up on these meetings and all activities related to this proposal feel free to join the Neighborhood Efficiency, Accountability and Transparency (NEAT) Coalition at its Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69072329545).

"Here is the schedule of the next meetings where the proposal will be shared with select community members:

Curtis Park Community Meeting
March 25, 2009

Oak Park Neighborhood Association (Oak Park Community Center)
April 02, 2009

South Area Community Outreach Meeting (Pannell Community Center)
April 06, 2009

North Area Community Outreach Meeting (South Natomas Community Center)
April 13, 2009

City Council Workshop
April 30, 2009"

Nag, nag, nag

2009-03-17T06:26:33Z

Monday evening, a group of business owners, politicians and concerned citizens gathered at the Hart Senior Center for the March meeting of the Sacramento Neighborhood Advisory Group.

The Neighborhood Advisory Group is a monthly meeting for residents of Sacramento's Area 1 to discuss issues pertinent to residents and business owners in the area. It is a partnership between neighborhood leaders and the city's Neighborhood Services Department.

Monday’s meeting began with a brief speech from Mayor Kevin Johnson, followed by a question-and-answer period. Light on specifics, Johnson's speech focused on the idea of Sacramento as a city of neighborhoods, Johnson's commitment to making Sacramento a "world-class destination city," and his assertion that his administration would be responsive, transparent and accessible to citizens. Johnson committed himself to maintaining each neighborhood's distinct and unique character, saying that Sacramento's diversity was "a strength."

In the Q&A session following his speech, Johnson was asked about the centralization of homeless services in the Alkalai Flats neighborhoods, and the problems that it causes. He admitted that "there's a general consensus that there is an overconcentration of our homeless population in one area," and called for a regional approach to tackle the problem. Johnson also discussed the need to develop Sacramento's riverfront areas, mentioning the Railyards and Cal Expo as well, calling them "two of the biggest in-fill projects that could be developed anywhere in the country," and a tremendous opportunity for sustainable growth. He concluded the Q&A by calling for increased volunteerism among Sacramento citizens, encouraging them to use handsonsacto.org to coordinate their work.

Following Mayor Johnson, Lt. Mike Bray of the Sacramento Police Department presented the Area 1 Police Department activity report. He reported that the incidence of robberies had fallen by 10%. Bray announced "some great arrests" of several minors who had stolen cell phones, backpacks and laptops in the Downtown area, as well as the identification of a suspect in five burglaries also in the Downtown area. Bray urged residents to lock their doors and windows to "harden the target" against potential criminality.

After the police report, the meeting was opened to announcements from attendees. Residents were urged to attend a City Council meeting on the subject of a proposed streetcar system to connect West Sacramento and Downtown taking place next week. City Councilman Steve Cohn weighed in on the subject, saying the current plans would serve West Sacramento far more than Sacramento, and that they should be changed to be more useful for residents of the Midtown and Downtown neighborhoods.

The staff of the Finance Department spent much of the meeting presenting an update of the budget. They projected a 50 million dollar deficit, but Councilman Cohn said that half of the deficit could be managed by obtaining labor concessions, citing the decision by the Police Officer's Association to defer a five percent raise, which Cohn said allowed the Police Department to abstain from firing any officers. He went on to say that similar measures should be applied to other departments.

Director of Finance Leyne Milstein stated that "we are in the middle of a multi-year economic downturn," and that the city's capacity to generate revenue was limited by circumstances, with sales and property taxes both in decline. She proposed a "reduction-only budget," saying that Sacramento needed to "plan for the worst," hoping for concessions from unions to alleviate budget problems. She did note that city management was taking a one-day-a-month furlough.

Concerns were raised over the city's lack of adequate reserve funds to cope with crises, to which Milstein replied, "hindsight is 20/20," and "two years ago, no one saw [the housing crisis] coming." Sacramento had set up a reserve fund of 50 million, of which 10.5 million remains. Councilman Cohn commented that Sacramento was "prepared for a stormy day, even for a stormy year... but what we were not prepared for was a stormy decade." Despite the comments of Director Milstein and Councilman Cohn, one woman present said that "we were like a bunch of drunken sailors, spending every dime we had, and we overspent."

One suggestion Cohn had to ease budget troubles was the institution of a tax on parking in garages and pay-to park lots to generate revenue from visitors to the city, including those who work downtown but live elsewhere. Councilman Cohn said a tax of 10 percent would generate 15 to 20 million dollars, and suggested that it be presented to voters as a way to offset other taxes on city residents. Response to this suggestion was generally positive from those in attendance.

The March Neighborhood Advisory Group adjourned following the suggestion of the parking tax. Meetings are held on the third Monday of every month, with the next taking place on April 20 from 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. Meetings take place at the Hart Senior Center, 915 27th Street.

Feburary 09 NAG

2009-02-24T15:27:13Z

Last Night's NAG proves to be informative and contentious.

Last night's Neighborhood Advisory Group (NAG) meeting started off with a low key police report and not much news on issue updates. The general plan goes to City Council for review on March 3rd. There will be a session of the Preservation Roundtable on March 14th,

The primary announcement was the merger of Marshall School Neighborhood Association and the adjoining New Era Park Neighborhood Association.

A presentation by Doug Huston a Program Analyst with the Solid Waste Division on E-Waste removal was the first agenda item. The city has programs to collect batteries, cfls and other florescent lights that can not go into land fills by law. They and other E-Waste material (computers and accessories and TVs etc.) Can be recycled with the neighborhood clean-up program, at the City of Sacramento Household Hazardous Waste Facility and at E-Waste drop off events. Contact 311 for more information. E-Waste along with appliances can also be recycled at commercial businesses including Appliance Distribution (916-497-0274) and Advanced Computer Recycling Inc. (916-387-9988) where free pick-up appointments can be made.

Next was three presentations by developers vying to be selected by CADA for a project at 16th an N Streets. A presentation was made to the NAG August 07 meeting on this mixed use development. The project was shelved due to the bad economy. It has been restarted. There were complaints about the bulk of the building. The developers stated that this was due to the parameters set out by CADA. For information on public comment contact CADA.

What was probably the most contentious item was a presentation by Bill Thomas, Director of Development, on the merger of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Commission. Mr. Thomas stated that this is being done as a cost saving measure. He also took the position that this was going to happen and then there would be public comment on any other changes. To view Mr. Thomas's presentation material contact Vjones@cityofsacramento.org if you are not on the NAG mailing list. Several attendees loudly if not angrily voiced their concern not only with the commission merger but with the whole process. It was described as un-democratic by several persons. The creation of three commissions, Design Review, Planning and Preservation Review was done only two years ago after more than two years of public participation. There was a compromise that created a balance between citizen, city staff and developer input. Many voiced the concern that this merger changes the balance much more in favor of developers at the expense of the citizens. Expect a strong turnout when this reaches City Council. See City Council agendas and reports at http://www.cityofsacramento.org/clerk/.

The last item dealt with another issue that has raised a great deal of concern with affected neighborhoods. McKinley Village: Neighborhood Views was presented by the East Sacramento Preservation Task Force & McKinley East Sacramento Neighborhood Association. A presentation was made to NAG in 08 by the developer. That presentation did not address key concerns such as traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhoods, flood control and sewage removal problems. It became a heated exchange between attendees and the presenters at times. Last night's presentation covered much the same concerns. Requested mitigations included more access including a second tunnel at Alhambra Street, flood control gates, creation of a transportation district and an independent review of sewage distribution problems. Interested parties can attend another presentation of this information tonight, Tuesday February 24th at Theodore Judah Elementary School, 7:00pm.

A reminder that persons interested in having items on the NAG agenda can contact Janine Martindale, 916-808-8193 or jmartindale@cityofsacramento.org. Anyone can also attend the NAG Agenda Committee which meets the first Wednesday of the month, 12 noon at the Clunie Community Center, East Sacramento Room.

City Closer to Eliminating Design Commission

2009-02-21T18:41:05Z

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.

City to Eliminate Design Commission

2009-02-12T17:55:35Z

This article was forwarded to me by Panama Bartholomy, a neighborhood activist. If you have a chance, come to City Hall tonight (915 I Street, New City Hall council chambers, 5:30 PM) and tell the Planning Commission that you don't want the city to shut its citizens out of the planning and design process.

-----

On Thursday the Sacramento Planning Commission will have a public hearing on a proposal (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/documents/DOC_letter.PDF) by the Development Oversight Commission (DOC), a City-appointed group comprised almost entirely of real estate developers, architects, and business consultants, to eliminate the City's Design Review Commission and change the development approval process in the City so that City staff will make most planning and design decisions administratively, leaving no opportunity for public input.

The reasons you and members of your association should come to the hearing at City Hall on Thursday February 12th at 5:30pm to testify against this proposal:

1. This attempt to reduce citizen and citizen-commission input and oversight of development in our community has undergone no public vetting from community groups that will be affected by such a fundamental shift in our City's development.

The proposal was developed and sent directly to the Mayor with no input from the Planning or Design Review Commissions. More importantly, the proposed ordinance was not brought to any neighborhood association or other community-based organization that normally comments on development in their communities.

This is not the kind of transparency and open government practices that should be an essential part of such a fundamental change in our community's development approval process.

2. The proposal will greatly reduce opportunities for Community input

The proposal will eliminate the City's Design Review Commission and fold its responsibilities into the Planning Commission and shift “…the majority of decisions to the staff level..”. The movement of “…the majority of decisions to staff level…” will likely reduce community involvement from the development review process. Communities have a right to be able to comment on projects that will be built in their neighborhood.

Even after moving most decisions to the staff level, by eliminating the Design Review Commission the public loses one of the two opportunities they have left to comment on development projects proposed in their neighborhood. The recommendation would squeeze all public input on a project into one meeting where every issue with design or planning will have to be settled. This will almost certainly create the types of extremely long meetings that discourage public involvement and will force complex decisions that have long-term impacts on communities into unreasonably short decision-making time frames.

Reducing opportunities for citizens to be involved in projects in their neighborhoods decreases transparency, will cause more projects to be appealed to the City Council and will increase the likelihood of lawsuits to block projects. This will decrease the effectiveness of the development review process.

Please come to the Planning Commission hearing and comment on this item and let the City know that you think the public should have a role in development decisions in our City. Please distribute this email to other residents who would come to testify in support of preserving the role of the citizen in our city's development.

The recommendation can be found here: (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/documents/DOC_letter.PDF) and the meeting is at the New City Hall, 915 I Street, 1st Floor- Council Chambers, February 12, 2009 at 5:30 P.M.