Richmonders are overwhelmingly rejecting the reckless proposal of the Viramontes Five to dismantle Design Review in Richmond. All comments are copied below. The only dissent came from two developers who favor less community review of projects. Names have been removed to protect privacy.

• As a citizen and taxpayer, I think an independent Design Review Board is necessary.  Many developers and their employees have no vested interest in this community.  This is evidenced by Toll Brothers calling their development "Marina Bay" instead of Richmond.  Nor would I like to see some of the bright color schemes chosen for business on 23rd street in San Pablo. I wonder how many of our well meaning administrators who would make these decisions actually live in Richmond.  Public input into the character is important. How is it possible that drastic changes in the processing of many building projects in Richmond are being considered when there has been no general public notification that this is happening? I'm sure I speak for many residents when I ask: 1.What problems in the design review and planning commission processes have called for  his reorganization?       2.  Are there less draconian ways to correct these problems? 3.  How can someone whose interest and expertise is in design be asked to make decisions involving the technical material required by planning decisions, and how can someone whose expertise is with the technical material, laws, codes etc. required for making planning decisions deal with design questions? These are just the first of many questions about the proposals being considered.  I would ask the Council to set a well-publicized hearing on the subject (with members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board present) .  If changes need to be made lets do it right.
• "DITTO" Rosemary Corbin!  It is appalling that the council totally ignores its constituency. Shame on you!
• Here's an article from CC Times that might help support your position. Another aspect that we learned about the hard way, were some speculation houses on Pacific Ave in Point Richmond that were started, but apparently without enough funding to finish the projects. So they have been sitting up there for years without anything happening. The lesson would seem to be that projects shouldn't be approved unless there is a guarantee of enough funds to complete construction ... article below ... there were some pictures that I couldn't include if you want to look up the original
• As a resident of the Richmond Annex I ask that there be PUBLIC INPUT before you proceed with melding DRB and the Planning Commission.  The RANC has strongly held views as to the right of Annex residents to have input in approving plans to build in the area.       I agree with former Mayor Rosemary Corbin that Ms. Viramontes plan to meld the two entities is a "dumb idea!"  Viramontes is usually rational, but in this instance she goes against the will of the people
• This is a totally dumb idea. Richmond does not have a good history of non-partisan activity and REDUCING the number of people involved with decisions is the WRONG WAY AROUND.
• Former mayor Rosemary Corbin wrote: A dumb idea. Indeed!  We need more design review in Richmond, not less.  We already have too many people doing end runs around the Neighborhood Council review process and too many projects getting superficial review at the City level ... even when there is strong negative input from the neighbors.  With a merged board, this can only get worse.
• I agree with Former Mayor Corbin that this merger of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board is a dumb idea. The functions of these two bodies are distinctly different and require members with different expertise. Members of the Design Review Board can have a positive impact on the quality of neighborhood projects because they have knowledge of the neighborhoods and have design experience. In addition,  the Design Review Board is an important point of contact for residents of the City to give input on projects in their neighborhood. Well designed environments have a positive effect on the lives of their inhabitants, and I want the City that I call home to be a place that values such an environment. Please reconsider this ordinance.
• I sent _______’s message to the Council by way of CityCouncil@intres.com, informing them 200+ members (ok I fibbed a little bit) of the North & East Yahoo Group got the message, and altho we don't have the developers money, WE VOTE!
• Hello to All, As Councilman Butt has stated "Richmond City Council" does not listen to the people very often do they?
• Count me in - Maybe we can get Tom Butt to give the eulogy :- In Hi Everyone: As you know I'm a member of the about to be dissolved DRB (Picture the witch melting in the Wizard of Oz).  This is a terrible idea for many reasons. 1) Homeowners with small projects will not continue to get the same high  level of input from a very skilled board. 2) The move to combine he boards is pro-development and ignores > implementing high design standards for homeowners. 3) It will make life difficult for both board members and for the  planning department staff who will have to handle many projects on their  own without the benefit of designers' input.  They are planners, not  designers and they are not happy. 4) This is a loose-loose situation.  Personally, I don't care if I > continue to serve on the board--I can think of other volunteer > opportunities to contribute to the city that would be more fun but this is a move in the wrong direction.  We're thinking of having a funeral at an upcoming DRB meeting.  Maybe we'll inform the public (just kidding).
• Honorable Council members, Neighbors and Friends:
  
  Certainly this should not be the last word on the subject. But as Tom suggests, we do get beaten down sometimes.
  Of course many of us care a great deal about it or we would pack up and move. Smaller ineffective "government" is worse than complex oversight. But I guess we'll just have to see how this pans out and be prepared for the worse.
  
  And many of us do agree with the former mayor, but probably wouldn't use the word "dumb." Why can't we be civil in a small city with as many big and small problems as we have here?
  
  The quality of projects I've seen so far in many Richmond developments leads me to believe this idea is a very bad idea. So I'd like to see a smaller but separate panel that not only includes a few planning commissioners, but other expertise as well, and just an ordinary citizen. A five-member Board, including two planning commissioners meeting jointly as Design Review Board when required works in some places.
  
  Unless the Planning Department has gained some kind of sage, genius wisdom not shown so far we could be headed for big trouble.

We would urge you to carefully compare and consider the composition of the newly merged review process.
Consider Boston, MA and Carlsbad, CA:

Boston

Boston Civic Design Commission (BCDC) is unique in that it establishes a development review process that allows the city's bureaucracy to work actively with developers not only to minimize the environmental impacts of proposed projects, but also to produce designs that will reinforce the city's urban form. As the development climate in the city begins to rebound, this is an opportune time to familiarize project proponents with the city's development review process and the BCDC's role in that process. The BCDC's purpose, as stated in Article 28 of the Boston Zoning Code, is to provide a forum for the general public and the professional design community to participate in the shaping of the city's physical form and natural environment. Although the Commission has provided a forum for discussion of urban design issues, its primary function has been as design advisors, both to the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and to project proponents. We believe that projects reviewed by the Commission have been improved by this review process and, more importantly, their impact on the streets and squares, the public domain of Boston, has been made more positive. As individual designers focus their attention on specific projects for their clients, it is our role to think of the city as a whole. Most proponents who have come before us agree that this broader perspective is helpful to achieving their project's goals. This report will focus on explaining the BCDC role in Boston's design review process and identifying the issues addressed in Commission reviews during the past seven years. We believe that by clarifying the BCDC process and further defining our objectives and concerns, the public involvement can be more straightforward and productive, thereby improving that review process. http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/BCDC/Design_review.asp

Carlsbad

Five members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The composition shall be: Two Planning Commissioners; Two Representatives of the Village Redevelopment Area - one of which is a Village Property Owner and the other a Village Business Owner; and, One general member with experience in one or more of the following areas: development, construction, real estate, planning, or architecture. Members must be residents of Carlsbad and normally serve four-year terms. The Community Development Director, Planning Director, Housing and Redevelopment Director and the City Attorney are ex-officio members of the Board.

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/chall/chdesign.html

While Richmond is certainly no Boston, and perhaps we don't aspire to emulate Carlsbad, there is a reason you don't just let often overworked staffers ruin peoples' dreams on quality home ownership. There is so much at stake.

·         Unless we have a lot more Tom Butts keeping an eye on things, we would like better scrutiny. Richmond City Council Members: As an art conservator working with bay area cities (Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco), I often deal with design review boards where public art proposals are scrutinized for site suitability, appropriateness of materials, maintenance plans, etc.  Never have I encountered the two bodies collapsed as Richmond has apparently accomplished. Who will sit on this new creation?  Where is the oversight?  Checks and balances?  I have seen design reviews save cities a lot of money by raising vital questions their planning commissions had missed, and this only in the realm of public art.  What about the major projects where missteps could lead to another 2004? Has Richmond learned nothing from past debacles?  I am truly disgusted.

·         Councilmembers, please explain why you voted to merge the DRB and Planning Commission.  My N&E neighbors and I are utterly perplexed and dismayed.  So what if builders claim the process is too slow and cumbersome?  Having an independent, citizen review board protects us, the people who live this city, from rampant and careless development! I serve on the Planning and Zoning subcommittee of the N&E Council.  We see many projects that, if approved per the planner's recommendations, would replace much of our older and charismatic housing stock with faceless stucco McMansions that are completely out of character and scale for their surroundings.  It's thanks to advisory committees such as ours, backed by the authority and experience of our fellow citizens on the DRB, that this has not yet happened! My profession is architecture.  Every project requires some form of entitlements process which we are required to research and account for when creating project schedules and budgets.  We don't complain about it too much - it's all part of the job and just needs to be quantified.  And you want to change the process just so some company can make a quick buck, and leave us to deal with the long term effects of a poorly planned project?!  Some cities are notorious for the hurdles required for approvals, but Richmond is not one of them. I urge you to reconsider your hasty and perhaps ill-informed decision. I look forward to hearing from you,

·         We agree with former Mayor Corbin: Keep the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission separate!!!!!! When are we (YOU!!) going to stop giving Richmond away to outsiders!!

·         I hope EVERYONE sends an email to CityCouncil@intres.com today. Former Mayor Corbin's statement says it all and it's critical that we let our council know how we feel.   C'mon folks, show Tom Butt we still have some fighting spirit left!

·         Dear councilmembers  this merging is a really bad idea. We need more quality input into development not less. No other quality city is downsizing their design reviews. Please reverse this dumb decision.

Dear Richmond City Councilors,

·         I am a 17-year resident of Richmond and concur with the opinions expressed by former mayor Rosemary Corbin and Councilor Tom Butt. Please reconsider the decision to combine the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. An independent design review board is crucial for our City.

·         City Council - Please reconsider and repeal this ordinance. Do not diminish the potential of Richmond's development by adopting this policy. Thank you for your consideration,

·         I am in favor of keeping the design review board, or at very least, postponing any decision of this type until further research and community input is solicited.

·         I own property in Richmond but live in El Cerrito and am on the planning commission for El Cerrito.  I think it is a bad idea to mix design review and planning into the same commission.  My experience on Planning Commission is that design review individuals have a totally different perspective than planning commission.  I think it is good that the two are separated as I as a planning commissioner have no training in design review and appreciate the expertise that they provide.  The one thing we do not require, however, is that single family homes go through design review.  We do have a RAD policy that creates an envelope in which any new home or addition must fit and if it is outside the prescribed envelope, it goes to the planning commission. 

·         Richmond City Council Members, I implore you to reconsider the dangerous and potentially disastrous path which the majority of you appear to be prepared to lead this city with the planned consolidation of the Richmond Design Review Board and Planning Commission.  I’m sure that my being Tom’s son will no doubt cause most of you to suspect that I am biased towards his views and insights on this issue, and pay little heed to my input.  I hope this is not the case.

My bias, if any, comes rather from the fact that I am an architect, born and raised in Richmond, California, and a Planning Commissioner for the City of El Cerrito.  While I can understand the frustration that has at times been expressed with regard to the many hurdles required to get through the development process within this city, to act to combine these two extremely important bodies would cause far, far more problems and have the potential to negatively affect the very fabric of Richmond for decades to come.

There are so many reasons why this is  horrible idea, but I will list a few that come to mind.

The planning commission and DRB are both extremely important components in a municipal system of checks and balances that is designed to make sure that the PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT are ensured a quality and level of development that is at least on par with the expectations of this community.  Each of these two bodies has a unique and entirely different purpose and role to play with regard to review of proposed development.

In my experience planning staff generally lacks the time, experience, and expertise to review projects to the level of scrutiny and thoroughness that is provided by a body of citizens with diverse backgrounds and local insight into this community.  Not to mention they expect to be paid for it.  Last time I checked, we had just come out of a major budget fiasco, where city staff at all levels were laid off en mass.  What would happen if our good times fell victim to such a cash crunch in the future, and there wasn’t adequate staffing to keep the projects moving through.  Developers would certainly not be happy about that.

What kind of message do you think it sends to the people of this city when you not only eliminate a group of people who volunteer to serve this city, but also eliminate a very important part of the development process that allows the public an opportunity to have input on projects planned for their city, neighborhoods, and communities.  It’s a horrible message to send.

Lastly, I think it goes without saying that this move reeks of the worst kind of politics and political power maneuvering, and I think that it would be real shame to let something like that get in the way of the long term benefits and prosperity of this city and the people who live here and who voted to put each of you in office.  You certainly owe it to them to think this through and do what you know in your heart to be the right thing.  Then again, Richmond has had politicians in office for the last hundred plus years who have done all they could to make sure that big business and developers have gotten exactly what they wanted, while we remain one of the most crime-ridden, soot-infested, poverty-stricken places in the country.  Please think about the people who live and work in this community.

·         Dear Council members: As a professional engineer and project manager, working for both developers and local Cities, dismantling the design review board is a disaster for the quality of development product, and therefore the quality of life, in the City of Richmond.   Development and redevelopment has a huge impact on the lives of the people who live with it. To eliminate their opportunity to have projects peer-reviewed by professionals & citizens representing their interests is irresponsible at best. It also does a disservice to the developer who will suffer in their marketing efforts without public buy-in.  Please reconsider and retain your design review committee.

·         I agree with Rosemary Corbin, Tom Butt and Mayor McLaughlin, This is indeed a dumb idea.   When the guidelines are finalized, please keep me posted. Why is it that citizens often feel that the Council supports developers and never the people of Richmond? We simply feel that you don't have the citizens' best interests in mind when you are voting on many issues.

·         It is tragic that Richmond has to endure a somewhat non-benevolent dictatorship to cater to the bizarre whims of an individual member. Am I surprised?  No.  I have given up going to council meetings to have to endure and listen in utter frustration to the nonsense that spews forth unchecked.  The Planning department has demonstrated some fairly bizarre approvals and disapprovals.  Can we really leave such important decisions up to individual planners?  I Think not. Does this council understand that both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Boards are unpaid positions?  Do they really believe that these over-burdened, volunteering, dedicated citizens will continue to put in the necessary and  appropriate effort into design decisions if their work load doubles?  I hardly think so.  The council may have to settle for less than competency if they push out these dedicated unpaid citizens.  But competency has never been a challenge for the City Council as the last ten years have so clearly demonstrated.

·         I think it is imperative to retain Design Review. Design Review plays a very significant role in the Permit Process.   To consolidate the two groups, Design Review and Planning  would be a major mistake.  It may be an inconvenience to developers  to  go before two boards   but  developers  build and leave and the people of the city are stuck  for many years with their  poorly planned projects.   Please reconsider this proposal.

·         Tom: Do you think a hundred speakers would have made a difference with these ........  .............?Sadden to see that Tony Thurmond also voted with them. No surprises otherwise. Thanks for your stand.

·         Dear City Council members: I agree with former mayor Corbin. This is not a good idea. Please do not go forward and combine the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. This is a win-win for developers and a lose-lose for the people of Richmond.

·         Bad idea!  Without the public input the design review process would be a joke.

·         I agree wholeheartedly with everything Tom Butt and Rosemary Corbin state below.  Yes the public is beaten down.  Virtual acceptance of Toll Brothers lack of follow through and design flaws is another example of how most of the City Council has rolled over and played dead.  Other examples of this which immediately come to mind are tolerance of Chevron’s abuse of proper maintenance resulting in public safety issues, Chevron’s dodging of taxation, and general wastage of public resources in the form of the city paying exorbitant rents while the it remodels existing structures.  Public enterprise and boards would never tolerate such abuses, lack of efficiencies and general malaise.  The city needs a Compliance Department to keep it on its toes in the absence of a stalwart City Council. Tom, thanks for continuing to keep the public informed.

·         It's sad that Richmond lays down for whatever developers want to build here.  Lack of design review is no way to improve our city's image or reality.

·         During the past decade - on an accelerating basis  -  changes have been allowed in so-called "single family" zoned areas that have and are transforming the neighborhoods where "non-conforming" uses are the rule rather than the exception.  This trend will simply be magnified by the change proposed by Ms. Viramontes (whom I regretfully voted for) and supported by all of you other than the Mayor and Mr. Butts.  Of the supporting group, I would be most interested in hearing from Mr. Thurmond and the new council member.  Why have you supported this proposal?

·         Your statement: “Most of the projects currently subject to Design Review are to be subject to the whims of a single Planning Department staff person. For example, virtually all single family homes will be administratively reviewed by Planning staff in the future.” is misleading.  Nothing in the current proposal eliminates the requirement of public notice of proposed projects, and administratively approved projects may be appealed to the Planning Commission.  What the current proposal does is eliminate the automatic presentation of every project to the Planning commission, meaning that the Staff and Commission may expend their resources on only those that are controversial. I am not without reservations about this proposal, but the discussion should be based on accurate facts.

·         Firstly, that’s not true.  Amazingly few items stay on the consent calendar.  Just because it’s a public meeting someone has got to say something.  Moreover, the very fact that it must be put on the Design Review Board agenda means that staff must prepare a report and prepare for a public hearing, which takes a lot of time.  If that item ends up on the consent calendar, all of that time has been wasted.  If it were true that most items stay on the consent calendar that would be an argument that automatic reference to the DRB is, in fact, a waste.

·         Good morning Madam Mayor and City Council members, Thank You Councilman Butt for your email  regarding Tuesday night's meeting on the DRB/Planning item.  I would have attended Tuesday's meeting, but had North and East business to attend to (now that I'm President, I have lots of items to attend to).  I indeed wanted to speak on the item. I can tell you all that in talking with the citizens and predicating in  discussions among various organizations and hearing and reading from some of the current Commissioners on both boards, the general feeling is negative on the merge idea.  The feeling is that projects (both residential and commercial) are going to be rammed through, with no careful thought or reasonable consideration (I believe I made this aware to you all in a previous email).  Also, they feel that proper input from the public has been completely glossed over.  There is also negative feelings on the idea of a stipend being given to the new board. People still don't know why there was such a rush to get this thing in place.  There is a feeling among folks that they have been cheated.  They are also fully aware (and you don't have to attend a Council meeting to see) that there is a voting block already developed led by Councilmember Viramontes, and includes members Marquez, Rogers, Sandhu and Lopez, with Bates as a sometimes supporter, leaving Mayor McLaughlin, Thurmond and Butt as a minority.   The voters aren't stupid or empathetic,  they're just already disappointed with the way this Council is headed. Personally, I too think this is a bad idea.  Which is why I requested Mayor McLaughlin to withdraw my name for consideration to appointment on the new board (recall that my name was one of 2 considered originally earlier this year, when this merge idea came before the Council.)   I don't want to be a part of anything where the citizens are going to be cheated or left with a feeling of having not been satisfied on projects they will be submitting.   One last thing, don't expect a great surge in attendance at Council meetings until the Council is moved back into the "real" City Hall.  (Another sentiment expressed by the citizens).  Thank you for listening.  I would be more than happy to talk with any of you on the issue further.

·         Thank you for your informative forum! I agree with Ms. Corbin's wise words....hope it's NOT too late for our Council to concur.

·         Dear Tom: I am an El Sobrante resident in unincorporated county shocked at the prospect of a change in Richmond/El Sobrante by such meager review. As a research scientist, if I tried to get funding with 1 person judging validity or permission to use animals for research with 1 person judging, it would be a national scandal...........What are people thinking?

·         Council Members I believe your idea for combing Design and Planning into one "give it away" entity is STUPID. If the idea is to give away the balance of Richmond to developers, you are on the right course. Hopefully, should this pass, the Richmond residents will respond in the next election and vote you idiots out.

·         "Sometimes, I think the public has been so beaten down by dealing with the Richmond bureaucracy and misguided politicians, they just don’t have the energy to keep fighting."    Sometimes?  

·         Dear City Council Members, I think you are being shot sighted and need to reconsider this proposal. The City of Richmond continues to give it's self away like the last girl to asked to the prom, willing to go with who ever asks her out. We are the last city on the Bay with open space and the least development and so it only natural that we are being finally asked to the dance, but we can not give our selves away without careful consideration.  As the our trustees of our cities future "ALL" proposed development needs to be reviewed and considered by as many eye as possible, and not jumped into just because we are asked. I ask that reverse this proposal to do away the Design Review Board, and merge it with the planning Commission. We need "PUBLIC REVIEW" as a part of this process for developer is longer than the would like, but there designs and plan greatly effect the quality of life in the future of our City. I agree the process can be long and arduous, and that process can stand streamlining, but not dismantling. There has to be a mid-ground, and as the LEADERS of our city it is your job to find it.

·         Council Members: The City of Richmond needs to have a Design Review Board and a Planning Commission. As I understand the current proposed plan, the Design Review Board would be almost non-existent.  That Board is needed for the small projects that come up for approval in the neighborhoods. The Planning Commission cannot possibly handle all the reviews in a timely manner. According to the proposed plan, some smaller modifications would not have to be approved by any Board.  That is not giving consideration to the citizens of Richmond. Please consider the options very carefully before abandoning the Design Review Board.

·         Members, Richmond City Council: I am in agreement with Ms, Corbin's view expressed below. The merging of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board is a truly dumb idea! As a retired public employee involved in project management I can attest to the need for review on projects! Without review too much mischief can and will  occur! This I can document from my own 35 years experience at UCB Facilities Management and other UCB departments. Richmond has enough problems and deserves better than this! I do hope you will reconsider your decision.

·         To City Council     I appreciate Council Member Tom Butt's Blog as it is informative and historical.  We are future residents of Marina Bay in Richmond, CA and have spent countless hours researching the area, the city of Richmond and many positive trends that are happening because of more enlightened minds and the proactive involvements of all the neighborhood councils in the area.   We are especially concerned about developments by developers who may not have Richmond's interest in mind. Thus, a check and balance system created by having 2 departments- the Design Review Board and the City Council- which afford peer review- is the ideal environment. Consolidating these 2 will not only cause these developers who have other less transparent objectives that runs contra to Richmond's own positive growth, but also overtax and overstress a downsized staff that may exercise his/her discretion at the expense of speed rather than quality, quality that affects the quality of life of residents in all neighborhoods in Richmond.   We believe that Richmond is on a very good path in way of providing a better life and environment for its residents. A lack of a monitoring system to wield projects that do not enhance this forward thinking environment that now exists in Richmond's civil servants, will take Richmond several giant steps away from its master plan: a better quality of life for all its residents

·         That's very unfortunate. In theory, projects need to be checked carefully, in order to ensure that they are beneficial to Richmond. It is very difficult to come up with a formula to ensure that projects are done correctly, the best we can do in theory is to have several stages where the projects are checked, both by groups of experts and by the public. Then mistakes can be corrected before much harm has been done.  A similar logic applies to the behavior of large corporations operating in Richmond. It is very difficult to come up with a set of rules governing their behavior to ensure their operations serve the public interest, so we need to set up a group to keep checking on the behavior of those large corporations, to correct any misbehavior that occurs. In order to cut costs for example, refineries often do inadequate maintenance of their facilities, which can lead to catastrophic failure. So an outside group needs to regularly check on refinery activities and make sure things are being done correctly. There has to be an independent responsible party, in other words, checking on things, rather than relying on the refineries to check on themselves.

·         Dear Councilmembers, I want to strongly voice my opposition to the proposal to dissolve the Design Review Board into the Planning Commission.  That the Design Review Board may be seen as an obstacle to developers is to its credit.  I am disgusted by the relationship between the Richmond political establishment and major developers, and what we need is more oversight of development not less.  While I watch some other cities in the Bay Area foster innovative and beautiful new growth, Richmond is plagued with ugly housing developments built on toxic land that displace our poorer residents.  It's outrageous to consider policies that would further "fast track" the dangerous and anti-community kinds of development that are spreading throughout Richmond.  Development should be a slow, even arduous, process.  The history of Richmond itself teaches the dangers of rapid development.
Please take a stand for the community and vote against the dissolution of the Design Review Board.

·         Is the public allowed to see the recommendations before they are acted on? Isn't it a violation of corporation/civil code to make major changes without notice and public input? It's for sure a moral obligation, I think

·         Tom, 1. For small developers, the DRB is a nightmare. 2. The public has been beaten down, along with small developers, by the whole bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with the city. It is beyond belief.

·         Dear Tom,  Mmm. It almost makes me wish I lived in Richmond. It's truly distressing.