Attached is an article from today’s West County Times about the proposed merger of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. Also, Click here for Mike Woldemar’s resignation from the Design Review Board in a letter that has some good observations about the proposed change and recommendations for the future.

One of the things that continue to bother me about this matter is the misuse of facts and terminology by the proponents to advocate for a solution that is looking for a problem. It’s hard to develop confidence in a public policy decision that has no foundation. Based on Woldemar’s letter, it appears that none of the proponents has ever spent any significant time at the Design Review Board observing what they consider to be an unacceptable impediment to development in Richmond. Anecdotal evidence continues to be offered as fact, and the people of Richmond  should expect better.

Assuming the West County Times has its quotes accurate, here is what Councilmember Viramontes would have us believe:

"There have been projects that take years to go through both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board," said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who co-sponsored the plan. "The way it is now, you have 16 people who have to come to some kind of agreement, and that's too many people to deal with, so reduce that world to nine people."

Neither of these statements has a shred of truth. No example of a project that took years to get through both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board has been offered. And it takes only eight people agreeing to move an item through the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, not 16. That’s a factual error of 100% in a serious matter. Doesn’t that bother anyone? Most projects reviewed by the Design Review Board don’t even go to the Planning Commission, so that’s only four people who need to agree.

The merger proponents are so unfamiliar with what is now going on that they don’t even know the names of the bodies involved. How many times have you heard them refer to the “Design AND Review Board” or “Design AND Review” instead of the actual name, “Design Review.” Where did that extra “and” come from? We all stumble over things like this once in a while, myself included. But in this case, I don’t think they’ve ever gotten it right.

The merger proponents’ seem to have focused mostly on Design Review as the bogeyman, an indication that they apparently see design of Richmond’s built environment as something the public should not meddle in and the current Design review Board as a burden. This is a real disservice to the men and women of the Design Review Board who have spent thousands of volunteer hours using their valuable expertise to try and make Richmond a better place.

If you live in a gated community or a built-out subdivision and don’t have a vacant lot next door to you or across the street that has just been sold to an out of town developer who wants to build the world’s ugliest spec house with a patio looking into your master bedroom and a second story that blocks your view of the Golden Gate Bridge, I can see where Design Review would appear to be a superfluous and frivolous exercise. Or maybe that developer wants to tear down that nice California Bungalow that matches the others on your street narrow street without enough parking and replace it with a five-bedroom, three bath, two-story plywood monstrosity and a mother-in-law unit. These are some of the scenarios that caused the public to believe, as in most cities, that Design Review with public participation is a good idea.

Design Review is not the ponderous bottleneck that the merger proponents would have you believe. Take a look at the Most Recent Design Review Board Hearing Agenda. There are a total of only eight items on it. All five new items are on the consent calendar and will likely be approved without debate unless someone removes them. Under the merger proponents’ plan, I understand that they would allow appeal of an administrative Design Review action, which would be essentially the same as someone removing an item from the Design Review board consent calendar. However, it would delay the item until it could be agendized for public review – thus taking more time rather than less. Going back to the Design Review Board agenda, of the three holdover items, one was withdrawn, and two are recommended for approval. Does this look like an obstacle course for developers? I think not.

The public has been strangely quiet about this so far. I don’t know whether it’s because it hasn’t hit home or because they agree that it is an idea whose time has come.

Project panels may be merged
Richmond City Council considers uniting Planning Commission and Design Review Board
By John Geluardi
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Posted on Thu, Mar. 15, 2007

With little public discussion, the Richmond City Council has approved a plan that will significantly change the way construction projects are managed for quality, appearance and function.

The council late last month green-lighted an initial proposal to dismantle the nine-member Planning Commission and the seven-member Design Review Board. If the council approves a final draft ordinance this summer, the responsibilities of the two oversight bodies will be carried out by a new nine-member board called the Planning and Design Commission.

Supporters say the single commission will benefit developers by speeding up the process to acquire building permits. Opponents argue that a streamlined process will mean less-attractive buildings that function poorly and don't fit well into existing neighborhoods.

"There have been projects that take years to go through both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board," said Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who co-sponsored the plan. "The way it is now, you have 16 people who have to come to some kind of agreement, and that's too many people to deal with, so reduce that world to nine people."

Councilman Tom Butt, an architect who helped develop the Design Review Board in the late 1990s, said combining the two bodies is a "knee-jerk idea" that will create logjams and force commissioners to rubber-stamp midsized projects or portions of larger ones. The result will be reduced building quality, lower real estate values and a poorer quality of life, he said.

"There are policymakers on the City Council that think a house is just a place to sleep at night and a street is just for driving from here to there," Butt said. "How a community is developed affects people's mental health, their ability to function and learn. A built environment really does have a lot of impact on the quality of people's lives."

The council approved a $50-per-meeting stipend to compensate commissioners for an increase in their workload. The Planning Department is drawing up a draft ordinance that would create the new commission, and the council is expected to take a final vote on the issue in the summer.

If approved, the new commission would be gaveled to order in August, Viramontes said.

The Planning Commission and Design Review Board, whose members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council, carry out two different planning functions. Typically, proposed construction projects first go through Design Review, where they are vetted for aesthetics, functionality and neighborhood compatibility. Design Review Board members often are working architects or engineers.

Projects then go through the Planning Commission, where they are approved for conditional-use permits and zoning variances. The projects also are tweaked to conform with the city's general plan, zoning regulations and the California Building Code.

The City Council created the Design Review Board in 1999, after three years of neighborhood, committee and commission meetings.

Several planning commissioners and Design Review members were shocked at the suddenness of the council's action.

"The public was completely left out of this," Planning Commission member Virginia Finlay said. "This decision was made entirely by the City Council."

Commissioners will have to do a great deal more reading to be prepared for meetings, and the public will have less opportunity to participate in the process, Finlay said.

"I can see us meeting two or three times a month to keep up with the workload," she said. "I can tell you from experience that more and more items will be passed on consent calendar without commission discussion, and there will only be one vote, which means fewer and fewer items will be open for public discussion."

Viramontes said the commission's workload will be eased under her plan by assigning smaller projects, such as room additions, to the Planning Department staff.

"If we get this approved, the commission will be freed up of a third of their projects, and they can spend their time on things that matter," Viramontes said. "I want due diligence on every project. It is not my purpose to shut the public out."

The merger may also make it tougher for the city to attract experienced professionals such as architects and engineers to volunteer for the commission, said Planning Commission Chairwoman Vicki Winston.

"I know how much time I put in, and if there is more work, it will be difficult to find people to invest that much time on a voluntary commission," Winston said. "Especially if they already have a job."

Reach John Geluardi at 510-262-2787 or jgeluardi@cctimes.com.