Due Process letter

Please write to your Planning Commissioners to voice your concerns about proposed changes to the noticing process! See the sample letter below.

Email addresses for the Planning Commissioners:

richhillissf@gmail.com,  (Rich Hillis – commission president)
myrna.melgar@sfgov.org,  (Myrna Melgar – commission vice president)
planning@rodneyfong.com,  (Rodney Fong – commissioner)
Milicent.Johnson@sfgov.org,  (Milicent Johnson – commissioner)
joel.koppel@sfgov.org,  (Joel Koppel – commissioner)
kathrin.moore@sfgov.org,  (Kathrin Moore – commissioner)
dennis.richards@sfgov.org,  (Dennis Richards – commissioner)
Commissions.Secretary@sfgov.org,  (Jonas Ionin – commission secretary)

May 23, 2018


Re: Item 1. 180423 – Mayor’s Process Improvements Ordinance, introduced at the May 24 Meeting.

First, Commissioners I want to thank you for your openness and availability to the public through a proven process that allows members of the public to communicate with you as individuals and based on your interests and comments as well as ours.

We value your time and attention to details. We also understand that you are limited in your ability to satisfy many of our concerns.

Legal ordinances such as this, that reduce public information and response times do not help you or us in our efforts to arrive at better solutions, and when incrementally handed down, they feel like a thousand cuts into our rights to Due Process.

Please share our concerns and reiterate what you already mentioned in your reports on this Ordinance. The public objects to any reductions in notice and response times. We are also concerned about altering the manner of notice and cuts to public involvement in the alterations of our neighborhoods. The only change we appreciate is the addition of notice to occupants, as well as property owners. We need to keep the 300-foot limit for the notice as well.

Some pertinent comments that we heard last week, were:

Keep the 30 days to respond to the notice. Removing 10 days of public notice has no effect on the entitlement process that takes months to complete on projects that may not be built for years once they receive their entitlement. Producing entitlements is not the goal.

Production is the goal. Faster production can be more easily realized by placing a time limit on the entitled properties. This would assure faster production of the buildings once they are entitled and probably dampen the speculative aftermarket in entitlements that is escalating property values. This is the kind of legislation we need to consider.

As far as the process changes in noticing are concerned, there should be no reduction is the manner or type of information that is currently being sent out. The postcard with internet links will not work for everyone, and as some of you noted, it is very difficult to look at plans on a screen, and not all computer-users are equally adept at accessing or displaying information.

We need more transparency, not less. The process needs to remain as it is now. Changing it will only confuse people and lead to less trust in the system. The only change we like is the inclusion of occupants in addition to owners of properties within 300 feet of proposed projects.

There was also some discussion about putting larger 30 x 30” notices on the affected building with a bolder, more legible graphics. Include a site map illustrating the proposed alterations in the context of the surrounding homes.


Mari Eliza, concerned San Francisco resident