· The Planning Department"s Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit projects are often not completed by their target completion dates. Delays in project completion ranging from five months to more than three years were found for at least ten projects. The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit carries some projects forward from year to year, such as revision of General Plan elements, and submits new deferred target completion dates in its subsequent annual Work Programs. For ongoing projects, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit does not always dedicate sufficient resources to accomplish the activities outlined in the Work Program

· Several factors lie behind the Planning Department"s inability to consistently complete its long range planning projects. Long range planning priorities can change during the course of the year, causing the Department to set aside or delay projects with longer timelines for new projects with shorter timelines

· In other instances, the Planning Department proposes long range planning projects in the annual Work Program but then does not have sufficient resources to complete all projects as the Work Program is not balanced with budgeted resources.

· The Department"s Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit does not consistently develop formal work plans and timelines for all of its long range planning projects.

· The Planning Commission has not directed the Planning Department to complete and present draft policies, such as the Land Use and the Preservation Elements. Because the Planning Commission does not call for draft policies to be scheduled on the Commission"s agenda for public hearing, longer term planning projects are set aside for more short term projects. Although priorities are often determined by the immediacy of a project, draft General Plan elements that underpin the long range planning process remain unfinished.

· The Director of Planning and the Chief of Citywide Policy and Analysis need to work with the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the community to define long range planning priorities for each coming year, including identifying and maintaining sufficient resources to achieve long range planning goals.

The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit is responsible for developing and maintaining the General Plan, which is one of the Planning Department"s principal activities. To support its General Plan work, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit collects and analyzes demographic, land use, and other data, and develops policy recommendations for the long term growth of San Francisco. Additionally, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit formulates area plans based on the General Plan to serve as guidelines for growth and development in San Francisco, develops planning policies and standards for planning in San Francisco neighborhoods, and coordinates housing, transportation, and land use planning policies with other agencies.

The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit presents its plan of work for the coming year to the Planning Commission in the annual Planning Department Work Program. The Work Program spells out the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit"s projects and activities, the target date for completing each project, and the funds needed to accomplish the project or activity. In some instances, planning projects and activities are ongoing and do not have a target completion date.

The projects of the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit are often not completed by their target completion date. The Citywide Policy and Analysis unit carries some projects forward from year to year, such as revision of General Plan elements, and submits a new target completion date in the annual Work Program. For ongoing projects, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit does not always dedicate sufficient resources to accomplish the activities outlined in the Work Program.

Unlike current planning work performed by the Neighborhood Planning Unit, in which the volume of development project applications drives the workload, long range planning priorities and workload are more discretionary. Planning and implementing long range planning projects could be a smooth process but in the San Francisco Planning Department the long range planning process is often interrupted. Proposed projects are often set aside for new, immediate projects. As a result, proposed projects presented by the Planning Department to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in the annual Work Program are often not completed, and other projects are substituted. The impact is that policy recommendations underpinning the planning process are not always formulated and adopted. For example, the Citywide Policy and Analysis unit has either not completed or the Planning Commission has not scheduled for a public hearing several draft new elements to the General Plan, such as the Land Use Element and the Preservation Element. These elements, when completed and adopted, would provide the policy basis not only for long range planning but for approving individual projects. Additionally, the Planning Department has not consistently met its obligation to work with or provide services to other government agencies, as outlined in the Department"s Work Plan.

Several factors lie behind the Planning Department"s inability to consistently complete its long range planning projects. Long range planning priorities can change during the course of the year, causing the Department to set aside or delay projects with longer timelines for new projects with shorter timelines. For example, the Planning Department interrupted their work on the draft Residence Element in FY 2001-02 to prepare a report on inclusionary housing to present to the Planning Commission, delaying the completion of the draft Residence Element to several months beyond its deadline of December 31, 2001.

In other instances, the Planning Department proposes long range planning projects in the annual Work Program but then does not have sufficient resources to complete the project. In reviewing the Planning Department"s Work Programs over the past five years, the Department includes more staff hours for long range planning projects in the Work Program than available staff planners to accomplish the projects. For example, the Planning Department proposed $2,918,000 in the FY 2000-2001 Citywide Policy and Analysis Work Program, equivalent to approximately 21 full time equivalent positions (FTEs)¹ but the actual number of staff planners performing long range planning tasks that year equaled approximately 15 FTEs².

Even when the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit allocates hours to a project, the project may not be completed or scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. For example, in FY 2000-2001, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit spent 2,093 staff hours on drafting permanent Industrial Protection Zone zoning controls and produced a draft report, but the draft report was never scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. In another example, from FY 1999-2000 until FY 2001-2002, the Department allocated approximately1,218 hours per year, equivalent to 0.73 FTE, to draft the Land Use Element but has not yet completed the draft. Because the Planning Commission has not called for completion of the Land Use Element, completing the Land Use Element has become a low priority project for the Department.

Resources allocated for long range planning

Over the past several years, the Department has allocated a smaller portion of staff and resources to the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit for long range planning projects than to the Neighborhood Planning Unit for current planning functions. The Planning Department proposed allocating from 21 to 27 percent of its resources to long range planning in its annual Work Program from FY 1997-1998 through FY 2001-2002, compared to 43 to 47 percent for current planning. The Exhibit below shows the portion of resources allocated to all divisions of the Department in the annual Work Programs from FY 1997-98 to FY 2001-02.

Exhibit 5.1
Percentage of the Planning Department Budget
Allocated to Long Range Planning in the Annual Work Program

Source: Planning Department Work Programs

¹ Work Program data includes both Citywide Policy and Analysis and Special Projects. Special Projects include Planning Code amendments or policy projects initiated by the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor, policy formation for special development projects (such as the Municipal Railway hotel development at Mission and Steuart Streets), and large area planning projects (including Mission Bay, Transbay Area, Treasure Island, Bayview-Hunters Point, and the Hunters Point Shipyard).

The Planning Department began to increase resources to the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit in FY 1999-2000 to implement the Better Neighborhoods program (discussed below). In the same year, funding was reduced for Special Projects and was deleted entirely in the FY 2001-2002 budget. In FY 2001-2002, the Department transferred funds formerly included in Special Projects to the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit. Overall, the resources for long range planning projects, including planning staff, have increased over the past five years, as shown in Exhibit 5.2.

Exhibit 5.2
Actual Planning Staff Allocated to Long Range Planning Projects
From FY 1997-1998 through FY 2001-2002

¹ Projected through June 30, 2002, based on actual hours from July 1, 2001 through February 21, 2002.
Source: Planning Department Time Accounting System

Because the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit is rarely staffed at its full authorized level during the course of the year, staff time allocated to long range planning projects is less than the actual amount of staff planners included in the budget. The Planning Department received five new staff planners for the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit in FY 1999-2000, when the Board of Supervisors approved the Better Neighborhoods program. From FY 1999-2000 through FY 2001-2002, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit Work Program budget called for approximately 21 full time planner staff, although the actual number of staff ranged from 13.72 to 16.31 FTEs, as shown in Exhibit 5.2. In fall 2001, the Planning Department assigned an additional five vacant planner positions to the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit to work with community organizations in developing community plans, as discussed in Section 3. In January 2002, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit had 25 staff planners, including interns. However, this translates to only 16.3 FTEs projected for the full year because all staff have not been on board all year. The Chief of the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit expects full staffing of 26 planners in FY 2002-2003, and anticipates sufficient staff resources to complete the long range planning projects outlined in the FY 2002-2003 Work Program.

Long Range Planning Work Flow

The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit"s annual Work Programs contain both planning projects with target completion dates and projects that are ongoing. As shown in Exhibit 5.3, the Planning Department has not reached many of its target dates for completing long range projects.

Exhibit 5.3
Citywide Policy and Analysis Projects
Expected and Actual Completion Dates

Source: Planning Department Work Programs

In addition to the discrete projects noted above, Citywide Policy and Analysis work consists of ongoing projects, including analyzing and presenting demographic, land use, housing and economic data, coordinating housing and transportation policy with other local government agencies, and coordinating planning projects in Redevelopment Areas with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. As shown in Exhibit 5.4, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit allocated approximately 20 to 30 percent of staff planner hours to data analysis, reviewing major planning projects and preparing Planning Code text amendments and drafts on specific planning projects. Almost one-third of staff planner hours in FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 were allocated to the Better Neighborhoods program. The portion of hours allocated for long range planning projects with other government agencies has decreased from approximately 20 percent in FY 1999-2000 to less than 10 percent in FY 2001-2002.

Exhibit 5.4
Percent of Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit Staff Hours Allocated to Long Range Planning Projects and Activities ³

Source: Planning Department Time Accounting System

Citywide Policy and Analysis Time Management

Some components of the Citywide Policy and Analysis Work Program, such as drafting the Land Use Element, have internally developed timelines and other components, such as adopting the Residence Element, have timelines imposed by the State. The Citywide Policy and Analysis unit gives priority to projects with external timelines, but does not always meet these timelines. For example, the California Government Code required San Francisco to complete the Residence Element by December 31, 2001, but the Department is not likely to complete the Residence Element before spring or early summer 2002.

The Citywide Policy and Analysis unit assigns long range planning projects and activities over the course of the year, determining which projects need to be accomplished by certain dates. Because the work program contains more projects than available staff to complete the project, each staff planner is assigned to more than one project or activity. The unit has a staffing matrix, outlining the major task areas and the staff assigned to each area. Each of the four unit managers keeps a weekly task list for the staff planners in his or her work group. Each Friday, the unit managers identify the tasks for each staff planner for the next week. The Chief of the Citywide Policy and Analysis unit meets weekly with all staff planners. The four unit managers are also scheduled to meet weekly with the Chief, although these meetings do not always occur.

Additionally, individual projects may have task lists and associated timelines. For example, Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit staff planners prepared a task list and time line to draft the Residence Element. The planners identified the various components of drafting the Residence Element and a timeline for completing each component.

While these tools are a reasonable approach to project time management, workflow on specific projects is often interrupted. Staff planners preparing the Residence Element draft were reassigned to prepare a report on inclusionary housing policy. When this occurred, the Residence Element timelines were revised to show the interruption in workflow, and the Chief of the Citywide Policy and Analysis unit revised the staffing matrix to show the revised staff assignments.

Some projects do not have work plans. For example, no work plan or timelines for drafting the Land Use Element have been written, and no formal work plan for the community planning process to draft five community plans has been developed. For the community plans, the Department has set general timelines to complete the plans within six to eight months and has a basic structure and concept of what the plans should accomplish. The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit postponed preparing a program for moving forward in the community planning process until the five community workshops were completed.

Updating and Revising General Plan Elements

The California Government Code requires that the Residence Element be updated regularly, but does not set time frames for updating other elements. The Planning Department revises and updates other General Plan elements as needed. As noted above, under California Government Code, the Residence Element was due on December 31, 2001, but the Department does not expect to complete the draft Residence element prior to spring or summer 2002.

The Department has included funds in its annual Work Program for the last three fiscal years to draft an Urban Design Element but has not allocated planning staff hours to drafting the element. Consultants have conducted some preliminary background studies and analysis of the downtown area. In the FY 2002-2003 work program, the Department has proposed $300,000 for drafting the Urban Design Element, to be completed in December 2003.

The Department has included funds to draft a Land Use Element in the annual work program for the past four fiscal years. During this period, the Department has allotted approximately 1,218 hours per year, equivalent to 0.73 FTE, to drafting the Land Use Element⁴. Although the California Government Code requires that the General Plan contain a Land Use Element, it does not restrict how the local government incorporates land use into the General Plan. Currently, the San Francisco General Plan contains land use references within its other elements but does not contain a separate Land Use Element. Initially, the Department compiled a compendium of land use references within the General Plan and is now writing a more comprehensive land use policy in a Land Use Element. The Planning Commission has not called for the completion of the Land Use Element, which has become a lower priority project for the Department. The Citywide Policy and Analysis unit considers the Land Use Element, which underpins long range planning for City neighborhoods, a priority for the unit. The Department has included funds in the FY 2002-2003 work program for drafting the Land Use Element, with a new expected completion date of June 2003.

The General Plan does not currently contain a Preservation Element, nor does the California Government Code require this element. However given the importance of historical and landmark buildings in San Francisco, inclusion of this element in the General Plan seems like a necessity. Drafting a Preservation Element has been a long term project within the Department although the Citywide Policy and Analysis unit does not include funds for drafting the Preservation Element in its annual Work Program.⁵ Over the past five years, the Citywide Policy and Analysis unit has allotted approximately 270 hours per year, equivalent to 0.15 FTE, to drafting the Preservation Element. The Department presented a draft Preservation Element to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board in June and October 2000, conducted public workshops in September and August 2000, and posted the draft Preservation Element on the Department"s web site. The Planning Commission has not yet called for a Commission hearing of the draft Preservation Element.

Better Neighborhoods

The Board of Supervisors appropriated $1,260,317 to the Better Neighborhoods program in FY 1999-2000 for a comprehensive planning effort in three San Francisco neighborhoods, including five new planner positions. Total Better Neighborhoods funding for FY 1999-2000 through FY 2001-2002 is $3,620,294. Of the $3,620,294 allocated to the Better Neighborhoods program, $2,962,000 is allocated for contractual services, including public outreach, transportation planning, urban design, environmental planning, and other related services.

The Board of Supervisors approved initial funding for the Better Neighborhoods program in July 1999. The initial hiring of in-house staff was delayed, and in FY 1999-2000, the Department allocated approximately 3.75 FTEs to Better Neighborhoods, or 1.25 fewer positions than the five positions approved in the budget.⁶ In FY 2000-2001, the Department allocated approximately five planner positions to Better Neighborhoods, and in FY 2001-2002 the Department will have allocated six planner positions to Better Neighborhoods.⁷

In the early stages, the Department did not develop a formal work plan or timelines for Better Neighborhoods, although the Department had a general idea about total program costs and time frame, and expected to implement the program in approximately two years. During the start-up phase for the Better Neighborhoods program, staff working with the program developed a general approach to the program, including integrating the community and working with other agencies. Planning Department staff moved the program forward, although a formal work plan and timelines were not developed. The first public workshops and other outreach efforts were begun in Spring and Summer 2000. The Department contracted for consultant services, including transportation analysis, urban design, and economic and real estate analysis, in Fall 2000. The Department expects to complete the initial draft Better Neighborhoods plan for the three Better Neighborhoods in Spring 2002. The Department has included $300,000 in the FY 2002-2003 Work Program to complete Better Neighborhoods program implementation for the three neighborhoods by December 2002.

Working with other agencies

The Planning Department provides services to other departments and agencies, including the Port, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) in developing long range planning policies and programs. The Planning Department has a Master Services Agreement with SFRA for FY 2000-2001 through FY 2002-2003 to provide long range planning and land use policy services in Redevelopment areas. Under the Master Services Agreement, the Planning Department is to assist in long-range community planning efforts and prepare General Plan and Planning Code amendments in Redevelopment areas overlapping the Central Waterfront and Market-Octavia Better Neighborhoods. The Planning Department is also responsible for preparing General Plan and Planning Code amendments for the Transbay, Hunters Point Shipyard, Yerba Buena Center, and Mission Bay Redevelopment areas under the Master Service Agreement. In FY 2000-2001, the first year of the three year Agreement, the Planning Department included only $195,000 in the annual Work Program for Master Service Agreement projects, although the average annual cost for the service in the Agreement was $460,000.⁸ In FY 2000-2001, the Department allotted approximately 2.09 positions to Redevelopment work⁹, or 1.36 fewer positions than the 3.45 positions estimated in the Master Service Agreement.¹⁰

Generally, Planning Department staff provide fewer services to other City agencies than are allocated in the Department"s annual Work Programs. As noted in the table below, in FY 1999-2000 and FY 2000-2001, the estimated Department expenditures for services to other agencies is less than the allocation included in the annual Work Program.

Interviews with Planning Department staff and staff from other agencies indicate that the working relationship between the Planning Department and other agencies is uneven. In some cases, the working relationship was described as "good", such as the interaction between the Port and the Planning Department on the Central Waterfront. In defining day to day priorities, Planning Department staff state that working with other agencies can be lower priority than other long range planning tasks.

Exhibit 5.5
Work Program vs. Expenditures for Services to Other Departments¹¹

Conclusion

Long range planning projects are not completed for a variety of reasons. Some projects are not completed because the annual Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit"s Work Program requires more staff than is actually allocated to the Unit. Consequently, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit not only assigns fewer staff to a project than the project requires, but also assigns staff to work on more than one project. Staff time is not concentrated on one project but pulled between projects, contributing to projects not being completed on time. With this approach completing projects by the deadlines in the Work Program becomes impossible.

Other factors also contribute to incomplete long range planning projects. The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit does not consistently develop formal work plans and timelines for long range planning projects. Neither the Better Neighborhoods Program nor the community planning process began with formal work plans, although each project had general concepts of the program tasks and time frame. Projects that are lower priority for the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit, such as drafting the Land Use Element, do not have work plans with timelines other than the target completion dates included in the annual Work Program. The target completion dates are moved forward in each year"s Work Program if the project has not been completed. The Land Use Element had four separate target completion dates in four annual Work Programs, with an initial target completion date of September 1998 and a most recent target completion date of December 2001. Because the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit does not enforce project timelines, projects can drag on without completion. The Land Use Element draft has gone through several iterations without a completed product to be presented to the Planning Commission. Planning Department management needs to increase its oversight of the long range planning process, including reviewing the work product at different stages of the process and monitoring timelines throughout the process.

The Planning Commission has also not directed the Planning Department to complete and present draft policies, such as the Land Use and the Preservation Elements. Because the Planning Commission does not call for draft policies to be scheduled on the Commission"s agenda for public hearing, longer term planning projects are set aside for more short term projects. Although priorities are often determined by the immediacy of a project, draft General Plan elements that underpin the long range planning process remain unfinished.

The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit expects to be fully staffed in FY 2002-3003 and able to perform all long range planning projects and activities in the Work Program. The Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit budget in the proposed FY 2002-2003 Work Program is $2,800,000, which is equivalent to 26 planner positions. Therefore, with better management oversight of the long range planning process, the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit should be able to accomplish its goals. To better achieve its work program goals, the Director of the Planning Department and Chief of Citywide Policy and Analysis need to work with the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the community in defining long range planning priorities for the coming year. Once the priorities are established, the Planning Department needs to identify and maintain sufficient resources to achieve its long range planning goals. Changes in the long range planning work program, including changes in resources allocated to Citywide Policy and Analysis, need to be presented to the Planning Commission for public review and discussion. The Citywide Policy and Analysis unit needs to develop well-formulated work plans for its long range planning projects and more rigorously monitor timelines. Finally, the Director of Planning needs to work closely with the Planning Commission in requesting the completion of draft planning policies, including draft General Plan elements, and scheduling public hearings for draft planning policies at the Planning Commission.

Recommendations

Based on the above findings, we recommend that the Director of the Planning Department:

5.1 Identify and maintain sufficient resources to achieve the Department"s long range planning goals and present changes in the Citywide Policy and Analysis Work Program to the Planning Commission for public review and discussion;

5.2 Develop well-formulated realistic work plans for long range planning projects and rigorously monitor work plan timelines;

5.3 Work with the Planning Commission to request the completion of and public hearings regarding draft long range planning policies before the Commission; and,

5.4 Direct the Chief of the Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit to present monthly status reports to the Director of Planning on all projects, including all hours spent compared to the number planned, milestones accomplished, and explanations for any delays.

Costs and Benefits

Our proposed recommendations would not result in increased costs to the City. These recommendations would assist the Planning Department set long range planning priorities and achieve long range planning goals, consistent with the goals of the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the community.

¹ This estimate of FTEs is based on the total Citywide Policy and Analysis budget allocation in the FY 2000-2001 Work Program, less the costs for Better Neighborhoods program consultants, divided by the Department"s estimated cost per FTE.

² Based on the Planning Department"s Time Accounting System.

³ The allocation of Citywide Policy and Analysis Unit"s staff hours for Better Neighborhoods only includes actual planning staff hours allocated to the program and does not include consultant hours. FY 2001-02 estimates are based on actual data through mid-year.

⁴ Based on the Department"s Time Accounting System.

⁵ Neighborhood Planning includes funds in the annual Work Program for "implementing the Preservation Element", which includes Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board designation of landmarks and conducting a multi-year comprehensive Citywide Survey of Cultural Resources.

⁶ The estimate of positions is based on the Department"s Time Accounting System.

⁷ The estimate of positions is based on the Department"s Time Accounting System through February 21, 2002.

⁸ The Master Service Agreement equals $1,375,000 for three years or approximately $460,000 per year. In the FY 2002-2003 proposed Work Program, Redevelopment Agency planning projects are not identified separately from other long range planning projects. The Department has included $500,000 in the Work Program for new Downtown Neighborhoods and Transit Corridor plans, which includes Redevelopment Agency areas.

⁹ Based on the Planning Department"s Time Accounting System.

¹⁰ In FY 1997-1998 and FY 1998-1999, the Planning Department spent more on long range planning projects for the Redevelopment Agency than were included in the annual Work Program. The Planning Department included $307,000 in the FY 1997-1998 Work Program for Redevelopment Agency planning projects and $218,000 in the FY 1998-1999 Work Program for Redevelopment Agency planning projects. In FY 1997-1998, the Planning Department allocated 6,025 hours to Redevelopment Agency projects, equal to $536,225 at an estimated $89 per hour, and in FY 1998-1999 the Planning Department allocated 3,649 hours to Redevelopment Agency projects, equal to $324,783 at an estimated $89 per hour.

¹¹ Estimated expenditures are based on the number of hours dedicated to projects with other agencies in the Department"s Time Accounting System.