Audit Report on the Design Commission’s Controls over the Design Review Process

We performed an audit on the Design Commission’s (Commission) controls over the design review process to ensure that the process is completed in an efficient manner and to determine whether cost-benefit considerations are formally considered in the design process.

The Commission is responsible for approving permanent works of art, architecture, and landscape architecture proposed on or over City-owned property. Projects include construction, renovation, or restoration of buildings, such as museums and libraries; creation or rehabilitation of parks and playgrounds; installation of lighting and other streetscape elements; and design, installation, and conservation of artwork.

Audit Findings and Conclusions

The audit found that the Commission does not have adequate controls over the design review process to ensure that the process is completed in an efficient manner. The Commission has not established formal procedures governing the design review process and has not established goals to assess the efficiency and timeliness of the design review process. In addition, the Commission does not formally factor in cost-benefit considerations when requesting design changes.

The audit also found that the Commission held all the required public hearings within the audit scope and posted the agendas, submission guidelines, and presentation guidelines on the Commission’s website. Our analysis of the project files indicated that the Commission staff performs a thorough review of the submission documents and sends follow-up questions to agencies in a timely manner.

Audit Recommendations

Based on our findings, we make five recommendations, including that the Commission should:

• Develop and use formalized written procedures for its design review process.
• Develop efficiency and timeliness measures for the design review process and establish performance targets to be met.
• Document the discussions with submitting agencies regarding cost changes to projects due to design modifications requested by the Commission. The final outcome of those discussions should also be documented.

Agency Response

In their response, Commission officials disagreed with the audit’s findings and recommendations stating that ‘the Design Commission will maintain its current procedures with respect to the design review process.’ Unfortunately, in addition to presenting some legitimate differences of opinion concerning our conclusions, the Commission’s response includes numerous misrepresentations.

From its response, it appears that the Commission either does not understand or is attempting to obfuscate the audit’s findings. Contrary to the Commission’s claims, we do not suggest that the Commission be a project or budget manager for other City agencies nor do we fault the Commission for not monitoring project development at the agencies. We are aware that the Commission has no control over when or how agencies submit projects for approval. However, for that area which is under the Commission’s control—specifically, the actual design review and approval process—we contend that the Commission should develop formalized procedures and establish performance goals to help ensure that the process is carried out in a consistent, efficient, and timely manner. Additionally, we do not suggest that the Commission perform cost-benefit analyses on projects that are submitted by agencies. That responsibility clearly falls on the agencies themselves. However, we do believe that the Commission should take the costs and benefits of design changes into consideration for those changes that are requested by the Commission.

After carefully reviewing the Commission’s arguments, we found them to be without merit.