Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Department pauses adoption of outreach principles after commissioners ask for clearer language
Summary
San Francisco Planning Department staff presented a public outreach and engagement program that includes six guiding principles and $15,000 in seed funding; commissioners praised the framework but asked staff to clarify language, explicitly reference the Planning Commission, and add commitments on language access and public education. The commission continued the item to Aug. 9 for revisions.
Joanna Lynn Saingen, the Planning Department—s Communications Manager, and planner Claudia Flores asked the San Francisco Planning Commission to endorse a new public outreach and engagement program and a set of six guiding principles intended to broaden participation and improve departmental transparency. The proposal draws on a baseline assessment of staff and community feedback, training funded in part by a $15,000 grant from the Friends of City Planning and technical assistance from the Davenport Institute, and an internal "public outreach and engagement team" (POET) to implement training and guidance for planners.
Commission staff framed the proposal around four goals: (1) broaden engagement to underrepresented residents and businesses; (2) build more collaborative working relationships with the public; (3) adopt adaptive outreach tools and training; and (4) increase public knowledge of the department—s mission. The six principles presented were: inclusive, transparent, understandable, respectful, meaningful, and accountable. Staff described proposed deliverables including a legislative digest for the upcoming Housing Trust Fund package and a step‑by‑step public outreach guide for project teams.
Why it matters: Commissioners and community members repeatedly told staff they welcome a stronger outreach program but said the draft materials and the proposed resolution do not yet make the department—s commitments concrete. Commissioner Ron Miguel and others asked for clearer definitions (for example, who counts as a "stakeholder"), more explicit attention to language access, and a stronger statement of Planning Commission involvement. Several commissioners said the memo and resolution read "top down" compared with the bottom‑up feedback staff reported in the assessment.
During discussion commissioners asked staff to: define terms such as "stakeholder" and "effective community members," add explicit language about language access and public education, and provide clearer implementation steps and accountability measures in the resolution. Director Ram and staff agreed to incorporate the commission—s edits and return with a revised resolution and supporting language. The commission voted to continue the item to the Aug. 9 meeting with the public hearing remaining open so staff can respond to the requested changes.
The next step is a staff revision of the resolution to reflect the commission—s concerns and the inclusion of clearer commitments as to how the department will operationalize the principles (timelines, language services, and educational outreach). The commission requested an informational follow‑up presentation after revisions are made; the continuance prevents formal adoption at this meeting.
Sources: Presentation and discussion led by Joanna Lynn Saingen and Claudia Flores; commissioner remarks; continuance motion and unanimous vote to continue to Aug. 9. No factual claims beyond the presentation and recorded motions were added.
