Healthy Development Measurement Toolkit

Benchmark #1: Did the planning process ensure adequate opportunities for the community to comment on development plans through a number of meetings that: 1) were open to the public, 2) had time specifically allocated for public dialogue related to the project, and 3) were fair and transparent in the amount of time each constituent was allowed to speak?

AND

Benchmark #2: If the project triggered an EIR process, were 4 or more of the following outreach activities conducted to engage the public? e.g., town hall meeting, charette, promotion of social citizenship, consensus conference, mailings to affected communities, community surveys, development of community advisory board and/or citizen planning committee, planning workshops, focus groups, public hearings, open houses, panel discussions, neighborhood meetings, small in-home meetings, planning fairs, and referendum.

Regulatory Minimum: San Francisco Administrative Code, Appendix 47: Sunshine Ordinance of 1999 requires that each policy body shall adopt a rule providing that each person wishing to speak on an item before the body at a regular or special meeting shall be permitted to be heard once for up to three minutes. Time limits shall be applied uniformly to members of the public wishing to testify. Every agenda for special meetings at which action is proposed to be taken on an item shall provide an opportunity for each member of the public to directly address the body concerning that item prior to action thereupon.

Benchmark: Was there appropriate language AND cultural translation and interpretation services available for the demographics of the affected community? e.g., translated/interpreted for youth, low literacy, non-hearing, or non-English-speaking populations

Regulatory Minimum: San Francisco Administrative Code, Appendix 47: Sunshine Ordinance of 1999 requires that any public notice that is mailed, posted or published by a City department, board, agency or commission to residents… shall be brief, concise and written in plain, easily understood English. The Board of Supervisors shall seek to provide translators at each of its regular meetings and all meetings of its committees for each language requested, including sign language, provided that a request for translation services is communicated at least 48 hours before the meeting.

Benchmark: Was information about the proposed project, policy, or plan (including proposed timeline, request for qualifications or request for proposals, existing general or specific plans, environmental impact reports, transcripts of meetings and hearings, letters documenting financial and other transactions  related to property and documentation of publicity) made publicly available in an easily located and navigable website, AND in hard copy at the city planning office, local library, and other public locations?

Regulatory Minimum: San Francisco Administrative Code, Appendix 47: Sunshine Ordinance of 1999 requires that the agenda for any regular meeting shall specify the time and location and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.

Regulatory Minimum: San Francisco City Charter, Article XVI: Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 16.112 establishes city requirements for the publication of and full public access to public documents, except for those subject to confidentiality. Notices shall be published in a timely manner before and public hearing and include a general description of the hearing. Notice shall be given and public hearings held for a number of specified activities outline in Section 16.112.

Benchmark: Were the communities potentially affected (geographically, economically, politically or culturally) by the proposed project targeted for outreach (if needed in the appropriate language) in at least 5 of the following 8 locations? e.g., local newspapers, local public library and City Hall, local radio stations, community television public announcements, local churches, local community or recreational facilities, local schools, local clinics.

Benchmark: Did the planning process incorporate at least 6 of the following 10 methods to promote community participation in meetings?

• vary meeting time and location
• provide childcare
• provide food
• provide transportation to/from the meeting for low income families, seniors and persons with disabilities
• provide simultaneous language interpretation
• conduct educational outreach to encourage public participation
• hire local community liaisons to help outreach to community
• be fair and transparent about who gets to speak and for how long
• publicly recognize each comment made by community members
• meet in a wheelchair-accessible location

Benchmark #1: Did decision-makers provide written explanation of why or why not each public comment was included or not included in the final policy, project or plan?

AND

Benchmark #2: If the project is commercial greater than 50,000 square feet or residential greater than 50 units, were representatives of four or more city agencies (such as departments of parks and recreation, transportation, schools, public health, public works, mayor's office, housing, etc) present at community meetings to hear community concerns voiced in the planning process?

Benchmark: Did project developers create and implement ongoing communication methods to share project status updates and solicit additional input into the planning and construction process through 3 or more of the following: email trees, newsletters, press releases, project update presentations, web pages, email chat rooms, distributed minutes of meetings, photo journals, or teleconferences?

Benchmark: Was there a community benefits agreement, impact fee or other legally binding financial contribution created by which the existing community will receive financial or infrastructure benefits from new development as compensation for increased demand for services/on infrastructure?