2018-06-07 · 44 comments · 25 / 17
Kristy Wong · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Kevin Burke · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
DR
Lisa Fromer · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Collaborative
Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Evictions
Kathleen Courtney · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Adversarial relationship
Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Housing
Seas Kignan · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
136(c)(2s) predictable timeline
Ron Miguel · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Jeremy Schaub · spoken · 2018-06-07 · neutral
Separate processes
Norma Guzman · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Concern re: PCA004633 (June 7 CPC calendar)Dear Commissioners, We are writing to express our opposition to many of the proposed Planning Code Amendments included in PCA004633, proposed for your consideration on the June 7 Planning Commission calendar. These changes go far beyond the stated goals of streamlining the process for affordable housing approvals, and would weaken notification protections that affect the ability of the public to play an active role… Dear Commissioners, We are writing to express our opposition to many of the proposed Planning Code Amendments included in PCA004633, proposed for your consideration on the June 7 Planning Commission calendar. These changes go far beyond the stated goals of streamlining the process for affordable housing approvals, and would weaken notification protections that affect the ability of the public to play an active role in determining the fate of their own communities. We are asking that PCA004633 be sent back to Planning Staff until these problems can be addressed. Speeding up the approvals process for 100% affordable housing projects is a crucial step, and we support all of the proposed changes that would affect projects truly containing 100% affordable housing. (We are assuming, of course, that there is no watering down of restrictions on the quality of the housing construction in the guise of streamlining the process.) There are many laudable proposed changes in PCA004633, such as the addition of tenants to those who must receive notices, and the elimination of cumbersome requirements to include facsimiles of project plans. However, PCA004633 also includes changes that would affect various kinds of projects which are not affordable housing. Furthermore, PCA004633 was put on the agenda with no affirmative outreach to any organizations that might be affected by these proposed changes, including but not limited to Local 2. Even a quick read of PCA004633 reveals some problematic changes, such as the loosening of approval and notification requirements for projects seeking exceptions for dwelling unit exposure and usable open space requirements. To the extent that these changes would apply to <U+201C>all projects located in C-3 districts,<U+201D> this would represent a step backwards. Many of our members live in SRO hotels and other tiny units, and they can attest to how their quality of life is impacted when developers attempt to reduce the already inadequate light and air and open space available. Also problematic is the proposal of adding <U+201C>non-visible rooftop appurtenances<U+201D> to the list of projects no longer requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness; we are currently watching a possibly unpermitted rooftop appurtenance spring up very near our office, yet this appurtenance is, by some criteria, <U+201C>non-visible.<U+201D> As stated, these proposed amendments were drafted and agendized without consultation or outreach, and bundles in some very problematic changes together with some very helpful ones. We urge you to send this back to Staff for an excision of these changes. If that is not possible, then PCA004633 must be disapproved, and that would be a loss for the City and its ability to support the building of affordable housing. Sincerely, -- Cynthia Gmez Research Analyst UNITE/HERE, Local 2 209 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 [email removed] [phone removed], ext. 763show more Oppose: Mayor<U+2019>s Process Improvements Ordinance, 2018-004633PCASan Francisco Planning Commission San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Commissioners: I urge you to reject 2018-004633PCA, Mayor<U+2019>s Process Improvements Ordinance (Item 11 on the June 7 Calendar) as written. There are 3 items of concern: 1) Reducing all public notice periods to 20 days. That means that for many hearings Neighborhood association… San Francisco Planning Commission San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Commissioners: I urge you to reject 2018-004633PCA, Mayor<U+2019>s Process Improvements Ordinance (Item 11 on the June 7 Calendar) as written. There are 3 items of concern: 1) Reducing all public notice periods to 20 days. That means that for many hearings Neighborhood associations, which tend to meet on a monthly basis, would not necessarily be able to meet between notice and hearing. In several cases I have helped neighbors attempt to resolve conflicts, and so know from personal experience how difficult and time-consuming it is for people to understand the issues, the process and what options are. Neighbors seeking support would find it difficult to engage with the local association or other advisors in a timely manner. In addition to suppressing constructive (as opposed to legally compliant) notice, this risks increasing DR filings in contentious cases. Public notice is intended to inform the public, not serve the convenience of Planning Staff or project sponsors. REQUEST: Amend to set all public notice to 30 days if a common notice period is required. 2) The public notice process (sec 333): The current proposed process requires only on-line posting for proposed legislation, and restricts radius notification to 150 ft. Both of these would require interested parties to regularly visit a web site to see if a notice is posted. This "Pull" process is significantly less likely to get timely notice to interested parties. A "Push" process is much more effective at reaching the public - this could be implemented by having an opt-in registry so people can request e-mail notification for project notices in their neighborhood, notices of proposed policy or code amendments, notices of area plans, etc. REQUEST: Amend to require that SF Planing establish an opt-in e-mail registry so that individuals can sign up to receive e-mail notice of projects as well as proposed legislation and proposed changes to Planning policies and procedures. (unfortunately, notification to Neighborhood Associations does not always result in interested residents receiving notification from the local neighborhood association, so opt-in is essential for interested individuals) (San Francisco buildingeye notifications are very cumbersome to work through - to the point of being of very limited value - because all types of notices are lumped together, and there is no effective sorting. San Francisco buildingeye notification format would not be effective at communicating hearings or other public notices0 3) Eliminating DR for 100% affordable housing: There needs to be more discussion on this, as depending on who the occupants are may require additional conditions. While the San Francisco non-profits currently serving this need are extremely responsible, the broader history of pubic/private partnerships for e.g half-way houses has shown that responsible operators are not guaranteed. Eliminating DR without establishing performance standards to address predictable problems means that neighborhoods may end up with very difficult to solve problems. REQUEST: defer action on this item until additional meetings are held to determine what performance standards are appropriate for various housing clients. (It is clear that for the vast majority of affordable housing projects no specific performance standards are needed, but for supportive housing projects and "half-way" housing clear protocols for dealing with emergent problems are needed. If these are clearly established in advance as use conditions, then waiving DR for these projects is less of an issue) Sincerely yours, Paul Wermer -- Paul Wermer 2309 California Street San Francisco, CA 94115 +1 [phone removed] [email removed]show more Opposition on the Proposed Process ImprovementsPresident Hillis and Planning Commissioners, I<U+2019>m writing on behalf of the Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association to express my concerns about the proposed Process Improvements that were presented to the Commission on May 17th. Reducing neighborhood notification time from 30 to 20 days does not improve planning for our neighborhoods. Neither do Discretionary Review staff reductions and<U+201C>… President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, I<U+2019>m writing on behalf of the Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association to express my concerns about the proposed Process Improvements that were presented to the Commission on May 17th. Reducing neighborhood notification time from 30 to 20 days does not improve planning for our neighborhoods. Neither do Discretionary Review staff reductions and<U+201C>reforms," or reducing notification packets to postcards. Over-the-counter permits for rear yard expansions that can include up to two floors and extend 12 feet into back yards gives neighbors no voice, and may lead to serial permits, since rarely are these additions done without other extensive alterations. All of these <U+201C>improvements<U+201D> significantly harm the ability of residents to become adequately informed or take appropriate action about nearby projects. In short, it takes away real community control. The recent outcry over Senate Bill 827 and its attack on local planning and zoning controls is a recent reminder that neighborhood residents are not willing to accept these undemocratic actions. The public must be heard in neighborhood projects, and engage with Planning about projects next door and policies that affect all of us citywide. Good city planning must be a two-way process. Neighborhood communities know best what projects may or may not work well to maintain good quality of life. Neighbors have a right to negotiate for better outcomes if a project next door will adversely affect them. And San Francisco residents should be able to help determine how our city changes, not just developers and speculators. Before approving any changes that limit or make public engagement more difficult, please consider how those <U+201C>improvements<U+201D> would improve the process for neighborhoods and their residents. There must be a solid justification acceptable to everyone. Sincerely, Dr. Lisa Fromer President Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association (LHNA) [email removed] [phone removed]show more Support of proposed Process Improvements by Planning StaffHello President Hillis and Members of the Planning Commission- I am writing in support of the proposed Process Improvements as introduced by the Planning staff on May 17th. Namely: - Reducing neighborhood notification periods to increase throughput - Replacing paper notifications for digital notifications - Issuing over the counter permits for smaller low-impact projects like pop-outs I think the overall object… Hello President Hillis and Members of the Planning Commission- I am writing in support of the proposed Process Improvements as introduced by the Planning staff on May 17th. Namely: - Reducing neighborhood notification periods to increase throughput - Replacing paper notifications for digital notifications - Issuing over the counter permits for smaller low-impact projects like pop-outs I think the overall objectives of reducing paper waste, review times, and time for open comment on straightforward proposals are practical and easy to implement. I respectfully request that you continue to introduce process improvements that you see necessary to improve throughput of housing production and housing stock improvements. Perhaps make it a tradition to introduce a few improvements every quarter. I believe the best way to convince people these are the _right_ changes is to move boldly, measure the effects, and report their success/failure back to the community to build trust with the community. As an aside I continue to marvel, in sadness, at how many of my fellow San Franciscans demand oversight of process changes and proposals that the commission oversees such as these. I hope that sometime in the future, say five years from now, San Francisco has reliable rules based approval processes for the majority of proposals. Thank You, Brandon Philips and Nisha George Castro / Upper Marketshow more Process Improvements Letter of Support
Dear Commissioners, Please find our coalition letter of support for the Process Improvements legislation. Best, Laura Laura Foote Clark Executive Director | Pronouns: she/her c. [phone removed] e. [email removed] Become a member of YIMBY Action now!
Mayor<U+2019>s Process Improvements Ordinance
I am in support of the Mayor<U+2019>s Process Improvements Ordinance Laura Lison 30 Chaves Ave. San Francisco,CA 94127
Sue Hestor · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Outreach
Jeff Hodges · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Tim Colen · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
James Hill · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Kanishka Karunaratne · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Proposed amendments
Patrick Donato · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Ross Levy · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Opposed
Karin Payson · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Lydia Tso · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Neil Shwartz · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Paul Barrera · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Opposed, no outreach
Christopher Roach · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Rose Wilson · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN) sees certain sections of the Mayor's Process Improvements Ordinance as concerning: • Lacked community outreach in formulating legislation – lacked public participation • Reduction of time period to respond to notifications • Reduction of notification radius • Elimination of newspaper notices • Changes to noticing disenfranchises residents • Good to add occupants t… Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN) sees certain sections of the Mayor's Process Improvements Ordinance as concerning: • Lacked community outreach in formulating legislation – lacked public participation • Reduction of time period to respond to notifications • Reduction of notification radius • Elimination of newspaper notices • Changes to noticing disenfranchises residents • Good to add occupants to noticing for transparency • Removal of Notification e.g. pop-outs into rear yards that extend into side and rear yards and up 2 stories, etc. o Serious impact to quiet enjoyment of property o Impacts from excavations & foundation installations • Notifications for Sec. 136(c) items where bases of flagpoles, underground garages, retaining walls, e.g., potential excavation and foundation impacts • Request Planning to outreach to neighborhoods for meaningful input before proceeding with legislation Look at my 5-29-2018 letter in Supplements & 4-15-2018 "Housing Now" document (future plan).show more Gus Hernandez · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Pre-application meetings
David Woo · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Opposition
Jack Burden · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Toby Levy · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Anastasia Yovonapolous · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Opposed
Carolyn Kennedy · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Opposed to 20 day 311 notice and 12
Catherine Howard · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Opposed pop-out
David Gast · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Support
Stan Hayes · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
Public involvement
Lev Weisbach · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
Disingenuous comments
Mayors process improvements
I support the Mayor's process Improvements Ordinance. I live at 479 28th St., San Francisco CA 94131. Tushar Patel
Teresa Flandricks · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose
no text recorded
Steven Buss · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support
no text recorded
Cynthia Gomez · spoken · 2018-06-07 · neutral
no text recorded