Discretionary Review Reform, Part 2
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.
In the slow process that is our city government, each successive meeting is a series of the Supervisors asking the Planning Department for more information, then asking for more at the next meeting. Planning has done it’s best to present their case for reforming DR. Director John Rahaim reiterated the 5 benefits he sees coming out of this reform: Better Design, Consistent Design, Clarity and Transparency in the Planning Process, Improved Design Standards, and a Planning Commission focused on policy instead of individual projects. They’re simply trying to do what we always ask of Bureaucracies - become more efficient by getting rid of waste and excess. Planners saddled by frivolous DRs are not able to actually do their job, and instead have to referee spats between neighbors.
The big new was proposed amendments by Supervisor Mar. Some were no big deal, such as codifying the 2 year sunset of the trial reform, and improving the design standards (nee guidelines). He also wanted to have a written policy for the Planning Commission to call a project up by the vote of 2 commissioners. The biggest waves had to deal with Neighborhood Associations. Mr. Mar’s first proposed amendment was to always allow Neighborhood Groups the right to DR a project. Typically this is not a problem, because associations have a history of working with architects and planners. Many issues arose when Supervisor Mar asked for an additional 60 day period for Neighborhood Groups to finalize a DR, after the 30 initial period. Everyone was so confused at first that it required the Deputy City Attorney to step in and clarify – Neighborhood Groups were to be given 90 days, instead of the 30 they’ve dealt with for the past dozens of years.
Much discussion was had on both sides, with the typical talking points raised by everyone. Architects, consultants, neighborhood groups and owners all spoke their piece. Some were wildly off topic, and others mentioned by everyone at the podium. You can hardly blame the Supervisors for working on their anti-smoking legislation instead. After public comment was done, the commission (surprise!) asked for more information from the Planning Department, but I do feel like we’re getting closer. Supervisor Maxwell made several comments which to me signal that she understands many of the more issues at play. Hopefully once Mar’s amendments get addressed, we can get some actual work done, and help the Planning Department approve some projects!
Proxy War at 555 Washington
As many of you know by now, last Thursday February 11th, the Planning Commission and Rec and Parks held a joint hearing on the proposal for 555 Washington St. Instead of a simple proposal for a residential tower, it has become a proxy war between the forces of growth and the preservationists. Both sides were out in force at the meeting, and have been encouraging all of their constituents to share their opinions. That’s the problem – the process is no longer in the hands of trained professionals, and has become a shouting match instead.
Almost all of the discussion at the meeting centered around a few key points, and few of them related solely to this address. Construction workers want jobs. Urban Designers like the density and location. Architects admire the form. Opponents worry about zoning exemptions, shading and views. These are all city-wide and regional concerns. NIMBYs fear that if this is allowed through, it will make precedent for more and larger towers. Of course the developers know that it will never be easy, and the fights continue to be elongated with each attempt. In case you were wondering why it’s expensive to live here, this would be a good place to investigate.
The real issue is the identity of San Francisco. I can’t say that I know more than others, living here only 5 years myself, but even in that short period we’ve made huge changes. Eastern Neighborhoods have been rezoned, Muni LRT extended to Bayview, and Rincon Hill has been dotted with ever taller towers. Faced with this uphill battle against progress, it seems that the forces of NIMBY-ism have decided to become ever more loud and obnoxious. A single voice has stalled the Bike Plan. Typical renovations and additions are stuck in Discretionary Review. Supervisors propose rewriting Prop-K to make shading on parks even more forbidden.
This all makes us trained professionals feel like our jobs are on every ballot. I understand that members of the government are responsible to the people, but I don’t believe that every policy should be fought over. There comes a time when expedience and necessity dictate otherwise. Recently, many of my office’s projects have been sent through many rounds of Planning Department reviews, ultimately changing the building beyond all recognition. Happily this seems to be changing, as everyone has begun to notice that nothing is being built any more. Before the developers go John Galt on us, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Discretionary Review reform is working through the Board of Supervisors, the BOS has dropped the ballot initiative, and the Bike Plan’s EIR is certified.
But again, where does this leave us? I have to admire the tenacity and determination of the NIMBYs, but I can only wish that their efforts were put to better use. Architects, Engineers, Planners, et cetera, all work very hard to make the absolute best of any given project. We are all licensed by the State of California to do our jobs to the utmost. If someone misrepresents one of their projects, we can lose our licenses. The public opinion has its place, but it doesn’t need to be inserted into each and every building. Instead they should focus on city-wide policies to truly shape the philosophy of growth.
A New Jobs Proposal
What if there were something would create or save thousands of jobs in San Francisco and California, yet save money, energy, and people’s lives? Inevitably every proposal along these lines has some crazy caveat, but not here. The only catch would be finding a politician with enough gusto to actually get it done. I’m sure any proposal here would inevitably be torn to shreds, but I’m an optimist.
Here’s the plan: Required retrofitting of all older buildings for energy use and seismic safety. But wait, you say, what about the money? Why would anyone waste time and energy on this? What’s to save? What benefit would this be?
The money part is actually the easiest to answer, at least for energy audits. Many simple measures can be done to cheaply save heat and electricity from flying out the window. Some legislation is beginning to require energy audits at sale of a house, but this needs to be done now. Just look to Berkeley, where solar installations are paid for by the city, and the cost (far less than the money saved) is added to property tax. Money for seismic retrofits would be harder to control, but I’m sure some insurance savings would go a long ways to motivating people.
Beyond the fiscal motivation, there are also more noble concerns: Saving the planet. Less money going to OPEC. Cleaner Air. Fresher water. Saving historic buildings. Saving lives. Each of these should be enough to consider your options as a building owner, but the combination is almost irresistible.
Lastly, there is the job factor. While the ARRA (Stimulus Bill) went to great lengths to provide funding for new jobs in large infrastructure projects, the little guys were ignored. Of course I’m biased in this, being an architect, but small scale construction is one of the last things to come back online after an economic rebound. Even though there are plenty of new houses in the ex-urbs, the 100 year old houses in San Francisco simply aren’t safe or efficient. A stimulus plan on this note would help employ design professionals (architects, engineers, surveyors, and interior designers), manufacturers, and construction workers. Huge segments of the economy could be rehabbed from the top-down.
I’m sure everyone who feels under-employed is asking for government help right now, but that’s not the whole story. This project would create jobs while aiding safety and energy savings. We would actually make things, instead of simply moving money around, and you can easily see the results in lower monthly payments. Of course these would all be local jobs too, with local benefits. And one can hope that we would end up with a better looking and functioning city at the end of it.
