· The Planning Department has only recently engaged community organizations in policy and long range planning. Although the Department created the Neighborhood Planning Unit and organized current planning functions into neighborhood teams in FY 1997-1998, the neighborhood teams have not worked regularly with neighborhood organizations. Prior to FY 1999-2000, the long range planning process was not structured to promote community involvement in the planning effort. In FY 1999-2000 the Department implemented a comprehensive neighborhood planning program, the Better Neighborhoods program at the initiation of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR), which incorporates community input into the planning process. The Department has recently implemented a community planning process in the five eastern neighborhoods of the City to develop new permanent zoning controls in those neighborhoods.

· Planning Commission meetings are not generally structured to discuss policy matters and engage the community in the decision making process. The Planning Commission considers individual planning projects far more often than broader Citywide policy matters. Community members can speak to specific projects or during the public comment period now scheduled for the end of each meeting, but the Commission does not regularly schedule public hearings on policy or planning issues, and therefore, does not provide an ongoing forum for community input on policy and planning.

· An alternative to San Francisco"s approach to community planning would be to establish ongoing community planning committees. The cities of San Jose, Portland, Oregon and San Diego County, for example, have formed regional planning groups to advise their legislative bodies, planning directors, and planning commissions on long range planning policies.

Although the Department has referenced neighborhood outreach or community concerns in each of its work programs from FY 1997-1998 through FY 2001-2002, the Department has not consistently reached out to community organizations or incorporated community input into the planning process. Community members have generally been able to comment on specific projects at Planning Commission meetings but have not had a formal forum to participate in the planning process. Planning Code changes in 1996 and 2000 require the Planning Department to notify nearby residents of certain permit applications, such as residential building permits in R-zoned (residential zoned) districts and building or change of use permits in Neighborhood Commercial Districts.¹ Neighborhood organizations can request that the Department also provide notification to them for these types of permits. The notification procedure allows community members to speak to individual projects but does not give them a larger voice in planning their communities.

In FY 1997-1998 the Department created the Neighborhood Planning Unit and organized current planning functions into neighborhood teams, intending to integrate policy development with implementation at the neighborhood level.² According to Department staff, although neighborhood teams better understand their districts and neighborhood groups develop relationships with the team leader, the neighborhood teams have not worked regularly with neighborhood organizations.

Prior to FY 1999-2000, the long range planning process was not structured to promote community involvement in the planning effort. The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit is responsible for long range planning, including maintaining and updating the General Plan, program planning, and area planning. In FY 1997-1998 and FY 1998-1999, long range planning activities consisted primarily of updating the General Plan and compiling and analyzing data. The Department also budgeted funds for planning special projects, which included Mission Bay, Hunters Point, Transbay Area, and Treasure Island projects. In FY 1999-2000 the Department implemented a comprehensive neighborhood planning program, the Better Neighborhoods program discussed below, which incorporates community input into the planning process.

Planning Commission meetings are not generally structured to discuss policy and engage the community in the decision making process. The Planning Commission considers individual planning projects far more often than policy matters. A survey of Planning Commission minutes from January 11, 2001 through October 4, 2001, shows that only three percent of the agenda items were resolutions, ordinances, or policy discussions. Community members can speak to specific projects or during the public comment period, but the Commission does not regularly schedule public hearings on policy or planning issues, and therefore, does not provide an ongoing forum for community input on policy and planning. In October of 2000, the Planning Commission adopted new rules, scheduling the public comment period for the end of the Commission meeting rather than earlier in the meeting, which had been the prior practice.

Community Outreach and Long Range Planning

Better Neighborhoods

In FY 1999-2000, the Board of Supervisors provided $1,260,317 to the Planning Department to fund the Better Neighborhoods Program, including six new staff positions. The Better Neighborhoods Program is a comprehensive planning process for three neighborhoods, which includes economic analysis, housing development, transportation coordination, urban design, and community involvement. The three neighborhoods are Market-Octavia, Balboa Park, and the Central Waterfront. From FY 1999-2000 through FY 2000-2001, the Board of Supervisors provided $3,620,294 to fund the Better Neighborhoods Program, of which $2,500,000 was for consultant services.

The Planning Department received a federal grant in FY 1999-2000 as seed money for a neighborhood plan. At that time, Planning Department staff approached San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) about developing comprehensive neighborhood plans. SPUR, in conjunction with other community-based organizations, formed the Housing Action Coalition (HAC), a housing advocacy organization, which lobbied the Mayor and Planning Director for a neighborhood planning program. Initial funding was for two neighborhood plans, Market-Octavia and Central Waterfront, to be completed in 2002. A third neighborhood plan, Balboa Park, was initially funded with the federal seed grant, with an additional $300,000 included in a May 2001 supplemental appropriation to the Department"s budget. Although funds for a fourth neighborhood were included in the FY 2001-2002 budget, the Department eliminated plans for the fourth neighborhood in order to achieve required budget reductions.

One purpose of the Better Neighborhoods program was to change the community"s perception that the Planning Department was not responsive to residents. Initially the Planning Department used an outside consultant, rather than Department staff, for community outreach. The Planning Department selected O"Rorke Public Relations in April 2000 for a one-year $250,000 contract to assist the Department in conducting public outreach for the Better Neighborhoods program.

The Department conducted public workshops, organized by Department staff, in each of the three neighborhoods, beginning in May 2000. The first set of workshops in the three neighborhoods was intended to develop the idea of a neighborhood and of what makes a great neighborhood. The second set of workshops in summer 2000 summarized community input from the first workshop and explained Planning Department ideas and possible recommendations. The third set of workshops in winter 2001 provided more specific Planning Department ideas and recommendations and included input from transportation, environmental, economic, and urban design consultants hired by the Department for the Better Neighborhoods program. The fourth set of workshops in autumn 2001 presented preliminary neighborhood plans and explained how the plans" conclusions were reached. In addition to the workshops, Planning Department staff conducted walking tours, and attended neighborhood group meetings, either at the group"s request or at the initiation of the Planning Department.

The Better Neighborhoods program has not developed a clear mechanism for incorporating community input into the final draft plan. The program solicits feedback from break-out groups at the workshops, comments on planning maps, and written responses submitted at the workshops. Written responses are ranked, but the program does not have a systematic approach to ranking responses. Better Neighborhoods program staff are preparing a draft plan, which will be presented in spring 2002 during a final round of community workshops.

Maintaining and Updating the General Plan

The Department has not consistently incorporated community input when writing new or revising existing General Plan elements. The California Government Code requires that the local governments prepare, periodically review, and revise as necessary, their General Plans. Under California Code, San Francisco is required to periodically revise the Residence Element and to set forth a five-year program to address housing needs. The State periodically identifies housing needs for the San Francisco Bay Area and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocates the housing need among local governments. The local government must complete its Residence Element revisions and submit these revisions to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. ABAG has drafted a Residence Element revision work plan for local governments, consisting of three parts: data analysis, coordination with other local government agencies, and community participation. Under the ABAG plan, community participation consists of ongoing community involvement activities. The Planning Department"s timeline for revising the Residence Element includes community review of the draft element at Planning Commission meetings, providing materials to mailing lists and on the Department"s web site, and meetings with neighborhood organizations.

Outreach to community organizations has been only a small part of the Residence Element revision process. The Planning Department presented information on the Residence Element to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and SPUR in 2001, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2001. The Planning Department also made Residence Element presentations to two neighborhood organizations at the request of the organizations, and included Residence Element updates in some Better Neighborhoods and community plan meetings. The Planning Department"s Time Accounting System shows only 33.5 hours allocated to "Residence Element - public involvement" in 2001.

For the drafting of two other General Plan elements, Land Use and Preservation, the Department has not articulated a clear process for community input. Drafting a Preservation Element has been a long-term process. The Department presented a draft Preservation Element to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) on June 21, 2000 and was instructed by the LPAB to go back and conduct community workshops to provide for community participation in drafting the element. After the Department conducted two workshops in August and September, the Department presented the draft Preservation Element at a LPAB hearing on October 4, 2000, posted the draft on the web site, and submitted a draft for review to a preservation expert. The Department has not yet received or pursued further responses to the draft Preservation Element. The Department also has a draft Land Use Element that was compiled from other elements of the General Plan but has not yet determined the next steps in completing and presenting the draft. The Department did not involve community organizations in drafting the Land Use Element and has not yet decided how to include community organizations in completing the draft Land Use Element.

Community Plans

As discussed in Section 3, under pressure from community organizations and from the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Department developed a proposal in FY 2001-2002 for a community planning process on the eastern side of San Francisco. Prior to the community plans, neighborhood organizations had few avenues within the Planning Department or before the Planning Commission for formulating policies on industrial land zoning, live/work developments and related issues. In one instance, a community-based organization, the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MADC), developed interim zoning controls and introduced these proposed controls to the Board of Supervisors without Planning Department participation.

Alternative Community Planning Models

San Francisco fails to engage the community in the planning process in several ways.

· The Planning Department"s Work Program does not consistently incorporate community participation in the planning process.

· The Planning Department does not have a formal, ongoing structure to include community organizations in the planning process.

· The Planning Commission does not provide a consistent and ongoing forum for community members to discuss planning policy.

Including Community Input in the Work Plan

The Planning Department develops plans and produces reports that would be enhanced by greater community participation. Not only neighborhood plans but General Plan revisions and other policy issues could reasonably solicit community participation. Participants in the planning process should include community-based organizations, groups with special focus (such as organizations for the elderly or disabled), business groups, property owners, and neighbors. The Planning Department does not have a consistent point in the planning process to include community participation. The Better Neighborhoods program and the Community Plans are set up to involve community members in early stages of the planning process. Other projects, such as General Plan revisions, have not determined when to solicit public input.

In their approach to neighborhood planning, the City of Portland Bureau of Planning, recommends setting up a steering committee of interested parties, including not only neighbors, community organizations and property owners, but representatives from local businesses and institutions, to be a core group for each neighborhood plan. Neighborhood plans are designed to update Portland"s Comprehensive Plan (General Plan) Map, addressing topics such as land use, housing, open space, transportation, public safety, urban design, and historic preservation. They suggest appointing one person on the steering committee to be a contact person and coordinator. This is a somewhat more formal structure than currently exists for the Better Neighborhoods program and Community Plans in San Francisco.

The City of Portland also establishes citizen advisory committees to advise planners on citizen involvement in revising General Plan elements.³ Establishing formal advisory committees early in the planning process would assure more consistent community input.

Implementing an Ongoing Community Participation Structure

An alternative to steering committees for neighborhood plans and citizen advisory committees for General Plan revisions would be ongoing representative planning committees. An example of this approach is the County of San Diego, which has formed regional community planning committees to advise the Board of Supervisors, Director of Planning, and the Planning Commission, and other appropriate boards and commissions on planning, land use, and discretionary projects. In San Diego County, community planning committee members are elected within the regions they represent. If such an approach were replicated in San Francisco, community planning committee members could either be elected within each Board of Supervisors" district or appointed by the Supervisor for that district.

San Diego County has also established a countywide steering committee, made up of one member from each community planning committee, and an interest committee, with representatives from professional architect and planning associations, building and private land use interests, and environmental organizations. The steering and interest committees also serve as advisory bodies in the planning process.

Under the San Diego model, Planning Department staff prepare draft goals and policies for consideration by the community planning committees. The planning committees then review and revise the staff-prepared goals and policies with staff assistance and approve a draft set of goals and policies for publication. Draft goals and policies are publicized in the community and the community planning committees conduct open community meetings to discuss the draft. Final draft goals and policies are approved by a majority of the planning committee members. Based on the approved draft goals and policies, Planning Department staff prepare a preliminary plan and present the plan in public meetings. Based on input in the meetings, Planning Department staff may revise the preliminary plan, which is then approved by the community planning committee. In instances where Planning Department staff and the community planning committees disagree on the proposed plan, both proposals are presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

The community planning committees are an integral part of San Diego County"s processes for comprehensive revision and update of their General Plan. This model could be adapted to meet San Francisco"s planning effort to implement specific community plans and revise individual General Plan elements.

Ongoing Policy Discussion at the Planning Commission

Previously, in San Francisco community members have not had access to the planning process unless speaking to a specific project on the Planning Commission calendar or speaking during public comment. Community members have not had a regular mechanism for discussing policy matters at Commission meetings. Establishing ongoing planning committees creates a structure for community input into the planning process. However, the Commission currently allots only a small portion of time to policy discussions. In some jurisdictions, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to planning policy solely and does not review individual projects. In Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, individual projects are reviewed administratively and appeals are referred to either an administrative officer or the City Council. In other jurisdictions, the Planning Commission regularly sets aside specific times or meetings for policy discussions. The San Diego County Planning Commission, which meets on Friday, schedules workshops and invites speakers in months which have a fifth Friday (about two times per year). This provides an opportunity not only for the Commissioners to learn more about planning, but for community members to participate in a more general discussion about planning issues.

Conclusion

The Planning Department has only recently actively engaged community organizations in policy and planning. Although the Department created the Neighborhood Planning Unit and organized current planning functions into neighborhood teams in FY 1997-1998, the neighborhood teams have not worked regularly with neighborhood organizations. Prior to FY 1999-2000, the long range planning process was not structured to promote community involvement in the planning effort. In FY 1999-2000 the Department implemented a comprehensive neighborhood planning program, the Better Neighborhoods program, which incorporates community input into the planning process. The Department has recently implemented a community planning process in the five eastern neighborhoods of the City to develop new permanent zoning controls in those neighborhoods.

Planning Commission meetings are not generally structured to discuss policy matters and engage the community in the decision making process. The Planning Commission considers individual planning projects far more often than policy matters. Community members can speak to specific projects or during the public comment period, but the Commission does not regularly schedule public hearings on policy or planning issues, and therefore, does not provide an ongoing forum for community input on policy and planning.

Some jurisdictions have formalized processes for community input. The City of Portland, Oregon and the County of San Diego both have created neighborhood-based planning advisory committees which have clearly defined roles in reviewing revised and new plans for their areas. In San Diego County, committee members are elected and have established procedures for working with planning department staff on new or revised plans, including presentation of alternative plans to the Board of Supervisors in instances where they do not reach agreement with staff. This type of approach in San Francisco would ensure greater community participation in the planning process.

Recommendations:

Based on the above findings, the Board of Supervisors should:

4.1 Establish advisory community planning committees in each of the eleven districts of the Board of Supervisors and appoint representatives to the community planning committee within the district; and,

4.2 Consider establishing a steering committee, comprised of one representative from each of the community planning committees, and an advisory interest committee, comprised of members of professional architecture and planning associations, building and land use groups, environmentalists, and other stakeholders in the planning process.

The Planning Commission should:

4.3 Establish regular planning policy workshops to provide an opportunity for Commissioners and community members to participate in a more general discussion about planning issues.

The Planning Department Director should:

4.4 Develop work plans that incorporate the community planning committees in developing General Plan and Planning Code proposals.

Costs and Benefits

These proposals would create an ongoing process for the community and stakeholders in the planning process to advise the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Planning Department. The proposals would also provide a forum before the Planning Commission to discuss planning policy overall.

The establishment of the community planning committees would not have a direct cost impact. Working with the community planning committees should be incorporated into the existing Planning Department budget.

¹ Planning Code Sections 311 and 312.

² FY 1998-1999 Proposed Work Program and Budget, San Francisco Planning Department, February 12, 1998.

³ "Zoning Tool Kit: the Handbook for Evaluating and Updating Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps", Bureau of Portland, Portland, Oregon, February 1997.