City of Sacramento
Personnel and Public Employees Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-00947 10/7/2025
Discussion Concerning the Number of Seats and Voting Requirements for the Planning and Design Commission (M25-006)
File ID: 2025-00947
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Provide review and comment concerning the number of seats on the Planning and Design Commission and voting requirements.
Contact: Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner, (916) 808-7110, [email protected], Community Development Department
Presenter: Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner, (916) 808-7110, [email protected], Community Development Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Background
3-Size of Planning Commissions in Other California Cities 4-Commissioner Comments (April 10, 2025)
5-eComment Report, Planning and Design Commission (April 10, 2025) 6-Presentation
Issue Detail: As part of its 2024 Annual Report, the Planning and Design Commission (Commission) recommended the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee consider the following actions:
1. Reduce the number of seats on the Commission from 13 to 11 seats, in order to improve the operational efficiency of the Commission while still maintaining diversity and citywide representation.
2. Change the number of affirmative votes required to pass a motion. Title 2.60.045 of the Sacramento City Code currently requires seven affirmative votes to pass a motion. If the number of seats on the Commission is reduced to 11 seats, an affirmative vote of six members would represent a majority of the Commission seats.
File ID: 2025-00947 10/7/2025
The Commission discussed the issue in detail at its April 10,2025 meeting. A summary of the commissioner comments is attached to this report as Attachment 4.
Policy Considerations: So that advisory bodies may effectively incorporate their important role, voice, and work to provide thoughtful community recommendations to the City Council on a consistent basis, the P&PE Committee shall facilitate the process for advisory bodies to communicate their accomplishments, projects, priorities, and recommendations to the city council.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations: This report is an administrative activity that does not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment. Therefore, this action is exempt from environmental review per the CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).
Sustainability: Not applicable.
Commission/Committee Action: On November 14, 2024, the Planning and Design Commission passed a motion forwarding the commission’s 2024 Annual Report to the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee for consideration and approval.
On February 4, 2025, the Annual Report was presented to the Personnel & Public Employees (P&PE) committee; the committee recommended the Annual Report be moved forward to City Council. Committee member comments are discussed in the Background section of this report.
On February 25, 2025, the City Council received and filed the Annual Report. The item was on the consent calendar and there was no discussion at this hearing.
On April 10, 2025, the Planning and Design Commission discussed the commission’s number of seats and the number of affirmative votes required to pass a motion. The Commission member comments are summarized in Attachment 4.
Rationale for Recommendation: The Planning and Design Commission requested the opportunity to discuss the number of seats and method of counting affirmative votes as part of the 2024 Annual Report process. As the Commission does not have the authority to initiate an amendment to Title 2 of the City Code, its comments and questions are being transmitted to the P&PE Committee for further consideration.
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
Background
The Planning and Design Commission is an advisory body appointed by the City Council that is responsible for directing the short and long-term development of the City through maintenance and implementation of the City’s general plan, specific plans, rules and regulations.
Powers and Duties of the Sacramento Planning and Design Commission A. The Planning and Design Commission has the necessary powers and duties to carry out the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65000 et seq.), subject to the provisions of the City code, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Title 17 relating to subdivisions;
2. Planning and Development Code relating to zoning and design review;
3. Recommend to the city council policies and programs in support of the urban design program established under the Planning and Development Code, including, but not limited to, urban design policies appropriate for inclusion in the general plan and other regulatory plans and programs of the city;
4. Evaluate and submit comments and recommendations on proposed plans, public and private development projects, and environmental reviews that are not subject to review under Chapter 17.808 and that may affect the physical development of and urban design in the city, in coordination with the review and action by the city council, or other public agencies on the plan, project or environmental review.
B. Annually, report to the city council on the activities of the commission.
Commission History
When the City’s Planning Commission was created in 1972, it was composed of nine (9) members, appointed by the Mayor and collectively approved by the City Council (Ordinance 3098).
In 2006, the City Council created the Design Commission and assigned appropriate responsibilities to the Commission, the Design Director, and to design review staff. The Design Commission consisted of seven (7) members; five (5) of the seats were reserved for members with specific licensed professional qualifications, and two (2) at- large seats with an expressed preference for training or experience in urban planning or real estate development/financing.
In 2009, the Planning Commission was increased from nine (9) to 11 members. The nomination procedure was changed so that one member is recommended for appointment by each member of City Council, including the Mayor, and two at-large members nominated by P&PE (Ord. 2009-045, M09-033). At the time, the City Council stated that the purpose of these changes was to ensure broad representation of the City’s many diverse neighborhoods.
In 2012, the Design Commission and Planning Commission were merged into a single “Planning and Design Commission”. The membership was increased to 13 members, including two additional P&PE appointments, which remains the current composition of the Commission. Qualifications were added to three of the P&PE seats, requiring nominees to be a licensed land use professional (architect, landscape architect, contractor, or engineer). The purpose of the commission consolidation and addition of licensing requirements was to streamline the development review process by reducing the number of public hearings required to approve a project while maintaining the expertise of both commissions.
Current Commission Composition
Currently, the 13-member Commission includes four individuals recommended for appointment by the Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE) and nine individuals recommended by each Councilmember and the Mayor (Title 2.60.040).
Aside from being a resident of the city, each of the members must have “an expressed interest, training, or experience in master planning; land use or land use policy; housing policy; large scale construction; urban planning; urban design; or mid- and high-rise urban, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use projects.”
Additionally, P&PE appointees must meet the following criteria:
a. One must have demonstrated interest, training, or experience in master planning; land use or land use policy; housing policy; large scale construction; urban planning; urban design; or mid- and high- rise urban, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use projects. (Seat J)
b. Three must: (i) have demonstrated interest in urban design, landscape or architectural design, or physical development of the city; and (ii) be qualified by training or professional experience and demonstrated leadership in any of the following categories: a licensed architect; a licensed LEED (or equivalent) architect; a licensed landscape architect; a licensed contractor; or a licensed engineer. (Seats K, L, M)
Method of Voting
Per Title 2.60.045, the commission shall act only by motion. An affirmative vote of seven (7) members present and qualified to vote is necessary to pass any motion.
P&PE Committee Member Comments, February 4, 2025
Planning staff brought the Commission’s 2024 Annual Report to the P&PE Committee on February 4, 2025, as part of the routine Annual Report process. The Committee members offered the following general comments and questions regarding the recommendation:
1. The Committee members were receptive to having a discussion at a future P&PE meeting about the number of Planning and Design Commission seats, to determine what makes sense.
2. There was a question about why the Commission seats should be reduced. Why did the Commission make this recommendation?
3. There was interest in knowing the standard Planning Commission size in California.
4. Committee member comments did not suggest support for changing the method of counting the number of affirmative votes necessary to pass a motion. The current method requires an affirmative vote of the majority of seats (7), not a majority of the members present at the meeting.
Size of Planning Commissions in Other California Cities
Staff conducted a survey of other California cities. Findings and observations include:
1. Of the 20 largest jurisdictions by population, a five, seven, or nine-member commission is typical. Only Sacramento has a 13-member commission. The next closest commission of a comparable size is the City of San Jose with 11 members.
2. Sacramento is the only city identified to have a “Planning and Design Commission,” with specific duties to make recommendations to Council regarding policies and programs in support of the urban design program.
3. Staff was not able to identify another city planning commission with similar land use professional licensing requirements.
Staff also sent out a request for information about Commission size to the League of California Cities, Housing, Community & Economic Development listserv.
Approximately 30 cities responded, with populations between 3,100 and 200,000 residents. The majority of cities have five (5) or seven (7) seats on their Planning Commission. A few have nine (9) members; only City of San Jose has 11 members and City of Sacramento has 13 members.
Size of Planning Commission in Select California Cities by Population Per State of CA, Department of Finance, 1/1/2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ # City Population Number of
Commissioners
Website Link to Information About the
Commission
1 Los Angeles 3,814,318
9- City Planning
Commission 5-
Area Planning
Commissions
https://planning.lacity.gov/about/commissi
ons-boards-hearings
2 San Diego 1,385,379 7 https://www.sandiego.gov/planning- commission
3 San Jose 969,491 11
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-
government/departments-offices/planning-
building-code-enforcement/planning-
division/commissions-hearings-and-
developers-roundtable/planning-
commission
4 San Francisco 843,071 7 https://sfplanning.org/planning-commission 5 Fresno 546,971 7
https://fresno.legistar.com/DepartmentDet
ail.aspx?ID=24452&GUID=26F8DAF5-AC08-
46BE-A9E4-EC0C6DDC0F66
6 Sacramento 520,407 13
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/commu
nity-development/meetings-and-
hearings/planning-and-design-commission
7 Long Beach 458,813 7 http://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/c ommission/
8 Oakland 425,093 7 https://www.oaklandca.gov/boards-
commissions/planning-commission
9 Bakersfield 411,109 7 https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/465/Plannin g-Commission
10 Anaheim 340,160 7 https://anaheim.net/2229/Planning- Commission
11 Stockton 317,204 7 https://www.stocktonca.gov/government/b oards_commissions/index.php
12 Riverside 316,690 9 https://www.riversideca.gov/cityclerk/boar ds-commissions/planning-commission
13 Irvine 314,550 6 https://legacy.cityofirvine.org/council/com ms/planning/default.asp
14 Santa Ana 310,797 7 https://www.santa-ana.org/planning- commission/
Size of Planning Commission in Select California Cities by Population Per State of CA, Department of Finance, 1/1/2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ # City Population Number of
Commissioners
Website Link to Information About the
Commission
15 Chula Vista 278,247 7
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments
/city-clerk/boards-commissions/boards-
commissions-list/planning-commission
16 Santa Clarita 230,428 5 https://santaclarita.gov/commission- information/planning-commission/
17 Fremont 229,250 7
https://www.fremont.gov/government/dep
artments/city-clerk/boards-commissions-
committees/planning-commission
18 San Bernardino 226,541 9 http://sanbernardinocityca.iqm2.com/Citize ns/Board/1033-Planning-Commission
19 Modesto 217,862 7 http://www.modestogov.com/726/Planning- Commission
20 Fontana 214,223 5 https://www.fontana.org/850/Planning- Commission
Commissioner Comments, April 10, 2025
On April 10, 2025, the Planning and Design Commission discussed reducing the number of commission seats. The comments, concerns, and questions are summarized below.
There were no public speakers at the meeting; ten (10) eComments were received (see Attachment 5).
Arguments in favor of reducing the number of PDC seats:
1. The Planning and Design Commission considered a reduction in member numbers back in 2019-2020 as a component of planning streamlining efforts at that time.
This is a follow-up to that effort that aligns with streamline processing goals.
2. The goal of representation and diversity of opinion can be achieved in an 11 member body, or even less. It is not dependent on having 13 members. Meeting attendance is the critical issue, not the number of seats.
3. A level of expertise can be maintained in only two licensed seats as well as in four.
Having at least two licensed P&PE seats is important for the function of the Commission.
4. For various reasons, the Commission has frequently operated at less than 13 members (due to vacancies), and has still been able to get work done, effectively demonstrating that 13 seats are not necessary.
5. There is sufficient design expertise amongst Planning Division staff to give early design input to ensure quality design in projects such that substantial design comments are not necessary at the Commission level.
6. Having professionals on the Commission are important, all agree, but how many are really needed?
Arguments against reducing the number of PDC seats:
1. It is not clear how reducing the number of commission seats would actually streamline the project review process.
2. There is not a clear problem that needs to be solved. As pointed out, the Commission is able to operate with fewer members when necessary due to vacancies.
3. The issue of attendance is not improved by reducing the number of commission seats.
4. There is concern about impact on the quality of the conversation had at the commission meetings.
5. Having a 13-member commission does not seem to be causing a log-jam of projects unable to be decided. The issue the commission had reaching a decision with a particular project last year was caused by the project being particularly divisive and members attendance at hearings, not the size of the commission itself.
Planning & Design Commission
Meeting Time: 04-10-25 17:30
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Planning & Design Commission 04-10-25
17:30
14 14 1 9 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Planning & Design Commission
04-10-25 17:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
1. Approval of Planning and Design Commission Minutes File ID: 2025- 00271
1 0 0 0
2. 2024 Housing Element Annual Progress Report File ID: 2025-00443 2 1 0 0
3. Discussion Concerning the Number of Seats and Voting Requirements for the Planning and Design Commission (M25-006) File ID: 2025-00762 10 0 9 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 1 0 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 3. Discussion Concerning the Number of Seats and Voting Requirements for the Planning and Design Commission (M25-006) File ID: 2025-00762
Overall Sentiment
Ruben Galvan
Location:
Submitted At: 4:04pm 04-10-25
Good Evening Everyone,
I am firmly against the proposal to reduce the number of seats in our Planning and Design Commission.This move will be a step backward for representation. Fewer seats mean fewer voices and fewer voices mean more communities out of the conversation, especially historically disenfranchised ones.
Shrinking the commission doesn't make it more efficient, It makes it less inclusive. When we limit participation in shaping our built environment, we limit the very foundation of democracy and equity in our planning process.
We should be expanding representation, not cutting it. More seats bring more lived experiences, more insight and more accountability. That's how we create plans that serve everyone.
I urge you to protect the integrity of this Commission. Keep it open. Keep it diverse. Keep it representative of the people it was designed to serve.
Thank Y ou.
Alexander Hampton
Location:
Submitted At: 3:11pm 04-10-25
My name is Alex and I have been a member of the Sacramento community for over 40 years, I am definitely, opposed to reducing the number of seats on the planning and design commission. There is no need for a change, it is great to these commissioners working together to make the right decisions. Personally, this current number of commissioners has done a great job tackling upcoming projects like housing. Less representation is never a good thing for a growing city like Sacramento. Please keep it the same, thank you.
Omar Hernandez
Location:
Submitted At: 2:06pm 04-10-25
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes concerning the number of seats and voting requirements for the Planning and Design Commission. Alterations to the commission's composition and voting procedures could significantly impact the effectiveness and fairness of our city's planning processes. It is crucial that any modifications uphold the principles of balanced representation and transparent decision-making. I urge you to reconsider these proposed changes and maintain the current structure of the Planning and Design Commission.
Neil Charles
Location:
Submitted At: 12:26pm 04-10-25
The 13-seat commission was created to make sure different neighborhoods have a voice and that experts could weigh in on city design and planning. That’s exactly what we need now more than ever. The city’s population is growing, construction is booming, and housing production is expected to ramp up given the city's appetite to build more housing in the coming years. This is the time to keep representation strong and ensure we’re getting expert advice—not to take seats away.
Having commissioners who represent all parts of the city helps guarantee that everyone’s needs are heard and considered. Without that, some neighborhoods could be left out, and that’s not what we want. Balanced planning leads to a better, fairer city for everyone.
I strongly urge the city to keep the 13 seats commissioner. Representation and expertise are key to making sure we grow in a way that benefits all of us.
Antonio Acevedo
Location:
Submitted At: 12:17pm 04-10-25
I strongly urge city leaders, and the community to carefully consider the long-term impacts of reducing the number of seats on this body. The role of the Planning Commission is critical to ensuring balanced, thoughtful, and inclusive development across our city — and that mission becomes more challenging with fewer voices at the table.
Sacramento is not the same city it was ten or even five years ago. We are growing in population, diversity, and complexity. This growth brings both opportunity and responsibility. A shrinking commission limits our ability to keep pace with the volume and geographic spread of planning issues. If anything, we need more representation from growing neighborhoods, underrepresented communities, and emerging economic sectors.
Reducing the number of commissioners risks narrowing the perspectives brought into decision-making. A smaller commission could mean fewer voices advocating for affordable housing, transit equity, environmental justice, historic preservation, or smart urban infill. Each of these issues deserves a seat at the table. The more diverse our commission is — in background, geography, and expertise — the more resilient and equitable our planning policies will be.
If Sacramento is serious about being a leader in sustainable and inclusive urban development, we must structure our institutions to reflect those values. A forward-thinking commission isn’t a streamlined, centralized one — it’s a collaborative, well-resourced one, where planning is shaped by the many, not the few.
Curtis Ferreira
Location:
Submitted At: 11:58am 04-10-25
I am opposed to item #3. I believe they should keep 13 seats. The more votes the better.
Falme Lampkins
Location:
Submitted At: 11:56am 04-10-25
Sacramento is a large city with very diverse communities that includes people from every socioeconomic class.
Reduction of planning commissioners would serve to stifle the voices of some community members. When seats from important bodies, such as the Planning Commission, are lost then we narrow the viewpoints as to what our city should look and feel like. Bad idea for the capitol city. Please reconsider and keep all thirteen seats on the commission.
Matthew Beeston
Location:
Submitted At: 11:33am 04-10-25
I am a community member and I strongly oppose reducing the number of seats. Reducing the number of seats will limit the voice of the residents and jeopardize the fairness of the process.
Matt Kelly
Location:
Submitted At: 11:11am 04-10-25
I'm opposing this and would like to ask a question. When is less representation a good thing, has it even been a good thing? I think that city council, the mayor, city staff, public officials need to ask themselves: who benefits from reducing the number of seats on the city's planning and design commission? The answer I believe would only be out of town developers who's only interest in our community is profits. How about instead of reducing the number of seats on our planning and design commission we see more representation and if nothing else we see more seats on the commission that represent working class families and historically disenfranchised groups, instead of commissioners from the development community who don't consider all those affected by the decisions they make. Thank you
Mark Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 10:24am 04-05-25
Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A Sacramento, CA, 95820, They will claim that they are too busy for you.
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Mark Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 10:24am 04-05-25
Number of Seats on the Planning
and Design Commission
Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner
October 7, 2025
Commission History
● Planning and Design
Commission was
established in 2012.
● 13 members:
○ Nine (9) recommended for
appointment by each
member of City Council
○ Four (4) recommended for
appointment by P&PE
2 2024 Commission Annual Report
Recommendations:
1. Reduce number of
seats from 13 to some
lesser number
2. Change the method of
counting votes needed
to pass a motion
Feb 2025: Annual report
presented to P&PE.
April 2025: Discussion at
Commission meeting.
3 Reducing the Number of Seats to Eleven (11)
Arguments in favor:
1. Reduction aligns with streamline process goals.
2. Diversity of representation and opinion can be
achieved with 11-members.
3. A level of design professional expertise can still be maintained with 11-seats.
4. Despite vacancies, the Commission has still been
able to operate effectively.
5. Staff has sufficient design expertise, such that
substantive design comments are less critical.
4 Arguments against:
1. It is not clear how reducing the number of seats
would actually streamline the project review
process.
2. There is not a clear problem that needs to be solved.
3. The issue of attendance is not improved by reducing
the number of commission seats.
4. Concern that fewer voices will impact the
quality/diversity of conversation had by the
Commission.
5. Recent difficulty passing a motion was not caused by the number of seats, but rather by the difficulty of
the issue and attendance.
Recommendation
1. Recommendation as to whether City Council should amend Title 2 to reduce the number of Planning and Design Commission seats from 13 seats to 11 seats.
2. If yes, Planning staff recommend amending Title 2 to reduce the number of votes required to affirmatively pass a motion be reduced to 6 votes, then representing a major it of the seats.
5 Thank you!
Stacia Cosgrove, Planning
Division
Community Development
Department
[email protected]
cityofsacramento.gov
6