Yesterday the Land Use and Economic Development Committee of the Board of Supervisors had a hearing about reforming the Discretionary Review process. The Planning Department has proposed several different revisions to the protocol in an effort to make everything more efficient. Mainly, the revisions would require a more thorough early notification, but would give the department power to reject frivolous challenges. This was not the first hearing in this process, nor will it be the last, but I wanted to provide some first person perspective on the proposal.
Anyone who works in the design field in San Francisco is all too familiar with the headaches caused by the DR process. After negotiations with the department, the plans get sent to the neighbors, and the struggle starts anew. In a worst case scenario, someone believes that the plans are illegitimate, and demands a review by the Planning Commission. Well, demand is a little strong – for $300 you can cause any project to be delayed by months, costing the project sponsor thousands. It is this power that forces negotiation, even when the Design Standards are met. Supervisor Maxwell several times cited this as the power to ‘kill’ a project. The idea that an uninformed public should be able to override professional planners, architects and designers stings the brain, but there it is. I think this was the main sticking point in not immediately passing the legislation.
The new version of the rules will still allow the public to bring the decision in front of a public board, however. Any DR that is negated by planning may still be brought before the Board of Appeals. The power to kill a project still remains valid, but yes, slightly lessened. Because nobody should be able to kill a valid project that meets all the criteria.
The most important part of the reform has already been accomplished through administrative changes. Pre-application notices are now required for all projects, and the information has been standardized. Any applicable party will have the initial contact, and be able influence the design in it’s early stages. This will prevent the type of blackmail we’ve seen when the project hangs on one ornery neighbor. These pre-app changes are long past due, but welcomed nevertheless. The problem is that now we’re doing too much. A Residential Design Team has also been added to look at all projects for uniform application of the Design Standards, thereby increasing the consistency of the review. The extended pre-application, along with the unlimited DR privileges will put too much strain on the planning staff. That is why we must pass these reforms to the DR process as well – they’re complimentary in placing the review earlier in the process.
At the meeting many of the speakers were of this mind. Design professionals and homeowners spoke about the intense pressure they’ve felt from one unhappy neighbor. Neighborhood groups often spoke that the earlier they knew about a project, the less likely they were to DR a project. Only one person spoke passionately about keeping the DRs ‘as-is’, and that was a lawyer who profits from DR clients. Most everyone knows the process is broken and overburdened. The effort to push forward the neighborhood notification is an effort to please everyone from the beginning. We all like to work with happy neighbors. And who knows, maybe we’ll end up with better buildings as a result.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Discretionary Review Reform, Part 2 : San Francisco Transit Oriented Design on 02.23.2010
[...] Yesterday I again spent an afternoon with the Land Use & Economic Development Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. While I would love to report that the goal of Discretionary Review Reform has been achieved, it once again has been tabled for further discussion. What follows is a quick summary of what has changed in the past few months since I last wrote. [...]