Richmond has more than two dozen commissions, made up of appointed residents who make recommendations to the city council on everything from trees to housing to mosquitos. Their purpose is to bring subject matter expertise that elected officials may not always have and keep local decisions from becoming too politicized.
Perhaps no city commission is more important than planning, which, together with the Planning Division, studies land-use proposals, major subdivisions and land-use permits. The commission receives recommendations from city planners then votes on projects, which if appealed, are decided by the city council. Their meetings are where the blueprints of developers’ projects are first made public and where residents can give their input about the look, feel and quality of new construction, whether homes, businesses, community spaces or some combination of all three.
But in recent years the Richmond Planning Commission‘s activity has slowed to a crawl. Last year, it held only two meetings, and only four out of seven commission seats were filled.
“The planning commission should be meeting like 20 times a year, but is basically a non-functioning body right now,” said Andrew Butt, a Richmond architect and a former planning commissioner. “It’s like we’re missing this basic necessity that is a baseline for the city to be functioning smoothly.”
The mayor is typically responsible for recruiting commissioners, volunteers whose appointments are approved by the council. Martinez, who is running for reelection in the June primary, did not return several calls and emails from Richmondside seeking comment.
While some commissioners say a lack of quorum has led to cancelled meetings, Avery Stark, head of the city’s planning department, said that isn’t the problem. In recent years, a series of new laws aimed at boosting housing development have made it possible for projects to be approved at the staff level, eliminating the need for discretionary review by the commission. In addition, there has been a slowdown in applications for market-rate residential projects and non-residential development activity, which means fewer commission hearings.
“In Richmond, we are still seeing movement — especially on 100% affordable projects and those utilizing tools like density bonus — but market-rate projects are more sensitive right now to financing costs, construction pricing, and risk,” Stark said in an email to Richmondside.
On top of that, the planning department has had a number of staff leave for other jobs or retire. The department, which normally has between eight and 10 staff members, currently has three vacancies for significant roles: principal planner, planning technician, and assistant planner.
Planning commissioners tell city council to step up recruitment efforts
Several planning commissioners interviewed for this story say they’re concerned about the vacancies and its impact on projects, but they were unsure about what is being done to recruit new commissioners.
“It’s certainly been a problem,” said commissioner Jonathan Harrison, who was appointed in January 2021. “If you don’t have enough people, you can’t take the vote. We’ve had two or three meetings where there were only two commissioners and staff called commissioners but they weren’t available. So the meetings had to be cancelled.”
Commissioner Alexander Golovets, appointed in 2024, did not reply to a message left for him.
In February, commission chair Bruce Brubaker made a plea to city council members to redouble their efforts to attract and appoint new commissioners.
“We’re having difficulty forming a quorum and it’s making it harder to make decisions,” he told the council. Council member Jamelia Brown, the liaison to the planning commission, did not return multiple calls and an email from Richmondside.
Brubaker told Richmondside that in some cases the shortage of commissioners could be slowing down land use decisions.
“Serving on the planning commission is a big responsibility with a lot of reports to review,” Brubaker said, especially given increasingly complex issues because of new state legislation around development. “It’s intimidating and people don’t feel like they have expertise, but the city does a good job explaining and making it clear what the issues are in their reports.”
In February, a new planning commissioner, Shahzaib Shahid, an engineering student at San Francisco State University and an Iron Triangle resident, was appointed, bringing the total number of commissioners to five. He wasn’t recruited by the mayor but found out about the opportunity after doing his own research on how to get involved with the city he has called home for the past 18 years.
“My overall goal is to develop the city as much as possible and change people’s perspective of Richmond as a place of violence,” Shahid said, adding that he is getting up to speed and reviewing the city’s General Plan, which guides land use.
Former planning director says housing developers snubbing Richmond
Former planning director Richard Mitchell, who retired in 2018 but has continued to follow Richmond issues, echoed Starks’ comments, telling Richmondside that the reduced number of meetings reflects the market, not the commission or the mayor.
Mitchell is more concerned about the lack of high quality developers bringing high density projects to Richmond despite a number of “incredible” potential sites for development, such as Terminal 1 and other waterfront sites, the Macdonald corridor and around the Richmond BART station.
“The developers are shrugging their shoulders and stepping over the chance to develop in Richmond,” Mitchell said. “Instead, all the city is being presented with is the lowest quality, ugly little single family houses. It’s hard to say that it doesn’t have something to do with perception, race and class.”
Economic Development Director Nannette Beacham did not reply to Richmondside’ request for comment.
Mitchell, meanwhile, lamented the loss of California’s redevelopment agencies more than a decade ago because they previously allowed Richmond to partner with developers to revitalize struggling areas. Under the program, the city’s redevelopment agency was able to borrow against future tax revenue, using that money as gap funding to get underutilized sites built.
“We have to be more realistic about what it’s going to cost to do development and have some sort of public subsidy to get those buildings up,” Mitchell said, adding that the state should look at bringing redevelopment back in some form. “We need a new financial model to help us build new housing.”
While planners wait for market conditions to change, Brubaker and Harrison encourage Richmond residents to consider joining the commission.
“It’s not about the technical issues but about quality of life issues that are at stake,” said Harrison, a former mayor of Redlands. “We’re trying to bring a community perspective.”
When Karina reached out to me for this story—prompted by posts I had made—we discussed many of these issues in depth. Unfortunately, only part of that conversation made it into the article, and what I believe is the most important context was left out.
The Planning Commission doesn’t just review proposed projects—it is one of the City’s primary tools for implementing land use policy and exercising its police powers. It plays a critical role not only in shaping development, but in enforcing zoning regulations and addressing nuisance or non-conforming uses. That includes holding hearings and potentially revoking Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for problematic businesses—something especially relevant given the proliferation of uses like smoke shops. With Richmond’s already limited code enforcement capacity, the absence of a functioning Planning Commission removes one of the few meaningful public processes for addressing these issues.
This is why the Commission’s inactivity is so serious.
It’s not just about vacancies or canceled meetings—it’s about the erosion of a core function of city government:
The Commission implements zoning laws through CUPs, variances, and subdivisions. Without it, the City struggles to carry out its own General Plan.
It helps protect public health and safety by conditioning or revoking permits for nuisance uses.
Its absence shifts decision-making to City Council—where decisions become more political, less technical, and where there often isn’t the bandwidth or subject-matter focus.
And when it doesn’t meet, the public loses a structured, transparent forum to weigh in on land use decisions.
I also find it telling that several key figures—including the Mayor’s Office and the City Council liaison to the Planning Commission—did not respond to inquiries for this article. That silence reflects a broader dysfunction.
What we’re seeing here is not an isolated issue, but a symptom of deeper problems within both the elected leadership and the administrative structure of the City.
Richmond needs a fully staffed, active Planning Commission that meets regularly and does the work our city depends on.