The move to consolidate the Planning Commission and Design Review Board is in response to increasing pressure from the state to lower barriers to building new homes.
The San Rafael Planning Commission has called a special meeting to continue its discussion on plans to dissolve the city’s Design Review Board.
The proposal, which was first brought to the City Council in December, could involve merging the advisory boards as a way to streamline review of housing projects. The move is in response to increasing pressure from the state to lower barriers to building new homes.
Commissioners said at their meeting on Wednesday they want to clearly articulate what they hope the merger will mean before making a recommendation to the City Council.
“I think big picture, it’s a good move,” commissioner Samina Saude said. She said combining policy and design review could lead to better projects because “we’re having better dialogue about them.”
“But I do think that there are a lot of things that are not tied up,” which needs to happen before the commission sends it to the City Council, she said.
Commissioners agreed to settle the issue at a special meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall. More information will be posted at cityofsanrafael.org.
The proposal to merge the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission has been discussed for about five years as officials worked to speed up approval of residential construction.
Over the years, the state has increased its mandates to create housing and introduced new laws designed to get developments approved and built more quickly. One example is the Housing Crisis Act, which dictates that cities can only hold a maximum of five public meetings for housing projects that meet certain affordability thresholds set by Senate Bill 330.
However, the City Council said in December it should push off the consolidation of the advisory boards for at least a few months because the planning department was undergoing a staff overhaul.
Also, the city was, and still is, reviewing major planning projects, including the proposed Northgate mall redevelopment and plans for housing on former Dominican University property. There needed to be clear staff leadership to bring those forward, the council said.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch was just brought on as planning manager in November, and at the time, the city did not have a permanent community development director.
In February, the city announced that Micah Hinkle, the city’s director of economic development, was promoted to director of a newly consolidated Community Development and Economic Development Department.
Kavanaugh-Lynch and Hinkle worked to bring the proposal to the Planning Commission this week.
The Design Review Board, in existence since 1977, is a five-member panel that can include one alternate member. Two members must be licensed architects or building designers. One must be a licensed landscape architect. One should have experience in urban design. The alternate could have qualifications in any of the above.
The board is responsible for reviewing project designs and making recommendations for improvements.
The Planning Commission is a seven-member panel with one commissioner from each of the city’s four districts and three at-large members. The only other requirement to participate is that members are registered voters living within city limits.
The commission’s responsibility is to make policy recommendations on projects.
The proposal would restructure the Planning Commission so that there are architect and design professionals on the panel.
The proposed composition of the panel would include four district representatives; three at-large members, including one licensed architect and one design professional; and two at-large alternate members, who must be licensed architects. The alternates would be able to provide commentary at meetings but are only eligible to vote in the absence of a regular voting member.
Commissioners agreed that it is a good time to restructure the panel now that there is clear staff leadership in the planning department.
However, commissioners said the proposal is unclear on whether there needs to be a specific number of architect and design professionals in a vote to constitute a legal voting quorum. And if not, some commissioners asked whether it mattered if there are licensed professionals on the panel.
Some commissioners also questioned the need for alternates and suggested creating a nine-member voting panel, instead of seven with two stand-ins.
Commissioners also said they would like to have a discussion about the bylaws of the panel before making any recommendation to the council.
Commission chair Jon Haveman said the panel needed time to do its homework before taking a vote.
“It doesn’t feel like we’re comfortable making a decision tonight,” Haveman said at the meeting.
