No, this is not yet April Fool’s Day. I didn’t make this up.

 

On February 20, 2007, the Richmond City Council adopted five policy directives related to the review of construction projects in the City of Richmond, including merging the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.

 

1.      Complete Design Review Guidelines for Central Richmond by March 31, 2007, and provide a schedule and budget for completion of Design Review Guidelines for other areas of Richmond.

2.      Provide a staff recommendation for Administrative Design Review of small projects and any budget requirements.

3.      Merge the Design Review Board and Planning Commission into a nine-member single body by July 1, 2007.

4.      Provide a stipend of $50 per meeting (maximum $200/month) for members of the merged Design Review/Planning Commission.

5.      Include funding for training members of the new Design Review/Planning Commission in the 2007/2008 budget.

 

The item was placed on the agenda by Councilmember Viramontes and Vice-Mayor Bates without any previous discussion, publicity or notice, other than an agenda description that read: “Discuss and recommend amendments to ordinances regulating Planning and Design Review governing policy, staff administrative review process and authorize a stipend to commissioners.” There was no mention in the agenda item of a proposed merger of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, and it caught the public completely by surprise. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Design Review Board was consulted.

 

All of the directions except number 3 were supported unanimously by the City Council.

 

The recommendation to merge the Design Review Board and Planning Commission did not receive a unanimous vote, but it did pass with a majority. The proposed merger generated substantial debate because it represented a radical departure from current practice. The stated motivation by Councilmember Viramontes was to correct unspecified flaws in the current entitlement process that result in unacceptable delays for project applicants.

 

While I have both acknowledged and vigorously criticized for a long time delays in processing entitlements and permits in Richmond, I felt it was premature to craft a solution without understanding the cause.

 

Last year, the city manager engaged Zucker Systems to analyze the operation and service levels in the Building and Planning Services Department and recommend changes that will improve customer service and efficiency. The report was released to staff on December 5, 2006, but held back from the City Council, despite repeated requests, until February 24, 2007.

 

It is understandable why the city manager did not want to release it because of the bleak picture it provided of a department almost unbelievably dysfunctional. Although the report made 127 recommendations for improvements, it was not so much critical of individuals as it was of practices, lack of training, insufficient staffing and a culture that has evolved over many years without the leadership and experience necessary to organize a modern service organization.

 

In an optimistic mode, the report described Planning Director Richard Mitchell as “…visionary and has the ability to bring people together.” Mitchell reports that he has already been making changes in the organization based on the report and that staff training is increasing, and processing times have been reduced.

 

The report also made recommendations for several additional positions, which will require additional funding. Since Planning and Building are intended to be self-funded from fees, such improvements would not affect the general fund but would require increased fees for processing applications. Zucker emphasized a point that is abundantly clear to the building industry, that the cost of delays in applications is far more expensive than any modest increase in processing fees. Time is money, and getting applicants through the system as efficiently as possible is the most cost-effective thing the City can do.

 

For those of us (architects) who have used the services of Planning and Building for years or who have listened to complaints from other who do, few of the 127 recommendations are surprising. In fact, three of the five recommendations proposed by Council member Viramontes (see above) are included in the 127 recommendations of Zucker Systems.

 

Nowhere in the report, however, was there a recommendation for merging the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. For Zucker Systems, there were at least 124 other, higher priority, ways to improve the Planning and Building Regulations operation to provide better and faster service.

 

Viramontes’ proposal for merging the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission is strangely “retro.” In the 1970s, the city of Richmond had no design review process, but in response to repeated complaints about blocking views with new homes, a zoning overlay district called “controlled development” was implemented for Point Richmond only. Under this process, the Planning Commission started doing design reviews of projects in Point Richmond.

 

Within a few years a couple of things happened. Other neighborhoods in Richmond felt shortchanged because they didn’t have controlled development overlays. Also, the Planning Commission was not particularly happy serving as an arbiter of building design. So, in the 1980s, design review was extended to the rest of Richmond, and, in order not to overload the Planning Commission, the Public Development Review Board (PDRB) was formed and took over design review. The PDRB was required to have at least some of its members experienced in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, planning, and construction.

 

In the 1990s, design review was once again reorganized with the PDRB morphing into what is now the Design Review Board. Administrative review of small projects by staff was implemented to reduce processing time for typically non-controversial items.  As the number of projects and applications increased, however, the Design Review Board became busier than the Planning Commission, meeting regularly two evenings a month, while the Planning Commission was reduced to one evening a month.

 

Now, the City Council wants to go back to what we were doing in the 1970s, assigning a combination Planning Commission and Design Review Board with not only conditional use permits, subdivisions, lot line adjustments, EIR certifications, general plan and zoning changes and variances, but also design review. To handle the workload of both bodies, the new commission/board may have to meet three times a month, which may also dissuade some good people from serving.

 

One interesting thing about this is that if the merger actually happens, Mayor McLaughlin will have the authority to appoint all nine members of the new organization, an unanticipated outcome that may dampen the advocates’ fervor.