Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "development oversight commission"

Development Oversight Commission to disband

2010-12-08T04:40:04Z

A city commission composed mostly of members of the construction sector is disbanding Dec. 31. However, a report by city staff said the Development Oversight Commission, which made recommendations to the City Council on the city’s work with the building industry, may morph into a group that explores economic development goals.

The Development Oversight Commission (DOC) will dissolve because the ordinance that formed it gave it a Dec. 31 expiration date, according to the city report. The City Council decided to set up the commission in 2000.

Darryl Chinn, a DOC member and local architect, said the current DOC members may participate in a future economic development commission.

Top city staffers in the economic development, public works, utilities and development departments are brainstorming a strategy for a citywide economic development program, Chinn said.

“The idea would be that the DOC reinvent itself to be a part of that movement,” Chinn said.

He added that a new economic development commission could possibly include experts in the fields of law, finance and banking, in addition to the construction sector professionals currently in dominating the DOC.

City Economic Development Department spokesman Maurice Chaney also said more professionals may be added to the group.

“We will be conducting outreach to our stakeholders for a possible new commission,” he said. “This may include an expansion of the group to include more disciplines.”

Chaney said the City Council would need to approve the new commission in order for it to go into effect.

In response to a question from The Sacramento Press, Chin said the disbanding of the DOC was unrelated to the troubles in the development department, which include an audit that found the city did not charge developers more than $2.3 million in fees.

Read the report on the commission here.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Part 2: Interim city manager answers neighbors' questions

2010-04-14T04:11:23Z

Interim City Manager Gus Vina responded to questions from six neighborhood activists in an April 9 interview with The Sacramento Press. The following are Vina’s responses to questions from three neighborhood activists. Read Vina’s responses to questions from three other involved citizens in an April 12 story at The Sacramento Press.

Question from Sacramento resident Dale Kooyman:
(Ray Kerridge) felt residents did not know what was best for their quality of life when it came to communicating with city staff, historic preservation, streets, sidewalks, traffic, transportation, planning projects and related early notification, neighborhood-serving businesses, fiscal matters, entertainment and alcohol venues ... A prior city manager (Bill Edgar) stated as his management philosophy that a city is a collection of many residential and business neighborhoods, and a city is as healthy and strong as its unhealthiest and weakest residential or business neighborhood. Therefore he promoted engaging both when making decisions that affect these neighborhoods ...

Which of those two philosophies most closely reflect your management philosophy? If the former, what good has come of such a divisive philosophy?

If the latter, what role(s) do you see neighborhoods (business and residential) playing in your management approach, and how would you engage them, including staff working cooperatively with both?

Interim City Manager Gus Vina:
I would like to talk about Gus’ philosophy, rather than Ray's or Bill’s. And I think it’s probably a combination of both.

Who’s our community? (That is) the question. Our community is our residents, our visitors and our businesses. And, I do absolutely believe that we all have to work together.

And, the city (staff’s) role is to facilitate the vision that council sets out for us. And a lot of that vision is in the general plan ... And part of that facilitation is to make sure we understand who the stakeholders are and engage them.

Rarely will you get everybody to agree to everything. You’ve already failed if that’s the goal. So, the goal is good communication, great outreach, get people to participate and then decisions need to be made ... But I think we can do really well for our businesses and our neighborhoods when you have that kind of engagement, good communication and early communication — so they’re not finding out about it when the shovel goes in the ground and we’re already building something.

Question from Sacramento resident Michael Boyd:
The city could be working with neighborhood groups to facilitate discussions of the types of businesses needed in each neighborhood. Block by block. We should have a clear vision of what our areas should look like.

Another very easy tool to implement is a system of early notification. I know we have some semblance of one, but it is not nearly as effective as it should be. Residents should know what is being proposed as soon as it is proposed. Neighborhood associations should be the first stop for developers for true consultations, not presentations.

Do you agree, and if so, what, specifically, will you (do to) engage residents, businesses and developers to a truly consultative process?

GV:
I do believe that working with our neighborhoods is important. I believe we do a pretty good job of that. We have a Neighborhood Services Department (that) is very active in our neighborhoods. And we try our best to bring issues, concerns (and) the things that are being proposed in the city out to the neighborhoods as quickly as we can.

So, I’ll do my best to look for opportunities where we work with neighborhoods to understand better ... the business development that they think would be beneficial to that area.

I have several goals that I have committed to as interim city manager ... and the first one is to get a balanced budget in place. And so right now, that’s my most immediate focus, and it has a lot of priority. When I’m done with that, which should be in July, I plan to dive into our economic development strategies and make sure that I understand and can help lead the economic development process. Because that’s going to be the key to fixing our budget -- more so than just, "Where are we going to cut programs?" So, I’ll keep these thoughts in mind. And we should keep our neighborhoods in mind as we look at land-use opportunities and try to develop the city.

Neighborhoods and residents/citizens need to know that their involvement — their participation in any of these development projects — can occur in a number of ways. We have the Development Oversight Commission that looks at these plans as they’re being submitted. And those (plans) are public. We (also) have (opportunities for public comment) when the projects start coming to council ... So, certainly, what citizens can do is stay involved and come to council meetings and engage the council when those projects are being discussed.

Additionally, of course, we can make sure we’re getting out to neighborhoods — and I know the (city staff) do (that) now. The idea that we engage affected neighborhoods when we’re talking about a major project in an area: That happens today. So, it’s really nothing new for us.

Question from Sacramento resident Bill Burgua:
During the current budget crisis, Kerridge had experienced code enforcement officers laid off. Do you see the wisdom in the citizens' desire to bring in revenue while improving neighborhoods and bringing properties up to code? Will you boost code enforcement by reinstating experienced code enforcement officers that have been laid off?

GV:
Well, obviously, the challenge for us right now is our revenue. It’s at historic low levels. And we’ve been losing revenue for three years in a row now ... I don’t know that anytime soon we’re going to be able to increase code enforcement officers.

A little bit of clarity in that: The layoffs started with (the Community Development Department), not Code Enforcement ... So, (CDD employees) were laid off from CDD (and then) replaced people at Code. And then Code had to lay people off. There wasn’t a net reduction of code officers because of those layoffs. If not for CDD issues, we wouldn’t have been laying anybody off (at) Code Enforcement. That’s ... the technical piece of it.

I think the real question there is: How much do we care about blight in our neighborhoods and quality of life? I would say that it is a huge objective for us — to work with our neighborhoods to eliminate blight. Those kinds of things introduce crime, and the whole quality of life in the neighborhood goes downhill. I think code enforcement is a very important part of what we do in the city. So, besides developing the city where we have opportunities, we can’t ignore the fact that we have 500,000 people (who) already live here in some neighborhood and need to be taken care of, as well.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Vice Mayor questions plan to combine design, planning commissions

2009-05-01T06:52:16Z

Sacramento’s vice mayor questioned the Development Oversight Commission (DOC) Thursday over its plan to combine the city’s design and planning commissions.

The plan has drawn criticism from residents who say that joining the design and planning commissions would put a damper on public involvement. The DOC is an advisory group to the city’s Development Services Department.

At Thursday’s City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Lauren Hammond asked DOC members pointed questions about their plan.

She criticized the way the DOC had presented its proposal. “I don’t know if you’ve changed your recommendation completely, but do you feel better knowing that you’ve talked to some of the neighbors? Instead of it coming directly to council without ever having a hearing?” Hammond asked.

Responding to the question, DOC member Darryl Chinn noted that he was one of the commissioners who suggested that the commission meet with neighborhood groups. He said DOC met with many neighborhood associations in the central city and in outlying areas. Each part of the city has a different perspective on how the DOC is doing its job, Chinn said.

“So, with that recent knowledge that we’ve gained, we wanted to take a step back (and) share that knowledge” with the Development Services Department and the City Council, he said.

Hammond said she appreciated the DOC’s decision to take a step back in its process for the proposal.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy praised the DOC, saying it has done a “terrific job of looking at every issue on its own basis.”

DOC members appeared before City Council to discuss the commission’s annual report.

The Development Services Department won an honor last year from the Sacramento Business Journal, the annual report notes.

“Since the DOC’s inception in 2002, DSD has gone through significant organization and cultural change,” the report states. “These positive developments led to 2008’s well deserved recognition by the Sacramento Business Journal as the premier department amongst all local agencies.”

Earlier this week, the DOC addressed its controversial proposal, and its new plan to work with other commissions to brainstorm ideas for efficient city planning. Read the DOC’s April 27 letter to Mayor Kevin Johnson here.

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.

DOC Proposal: Eliminate Design Review - Oak Park Neighborhood Assoc.

2009-03-31T19:21:56Z

The Oak Park Neighborhood Association's next meeting (April 2, 5:30, Oak Park Community Center, 3425 MLK Jr. Blvd) will include a presentation by Brian Holloway and other DOC and City Staff discussing the proposal to eliminate the Design Review Commission.

We are inviting other Neighborhood Associations, groups and communities to attend as to get a good cross section of our community as a whole and to document the response. The idea is to bring this back to the city council, showing the public outcry for the entire Design Review process.

Our objective is that we get as much of the surrounding communities to show up as possible and to ensure that our response is not misrepresented by either city staff or DOC members when they return to council with their report.

The meeting will be on April 2 at 5:30 pm, Oak Park Community Center, 3425 MLK Jr. Blvd.

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.