The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is insisting that cities and counties file annual general plan progress and implementation reports, but many local planners are questioning the mandate. Some planning directors do not want such reports to become political fodder because they have the potential to reflect badly on a local jurisdiction. Others say preparing an annual report is a bureaucratic exercise that takes time away from more worthwhile planning. The California County Planning Directors Association has appointed a committee to meet with OPR to talk about making the process more meaningful. Last October, OPR sent letters to every city and county requesting that they file an annual report "on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation." Government Code §65400(b) requires such reports be prepared for city councils and boards of supervisors and sent to OPR every year by July 1, according to the letter, which was signed by OPR Director Loretta Lynch. "This is important to OPR because we are supposed to be the statewide planning agency," OPR Senior Planner Terry Roberts explained recently. "We see a lot of trends in the state and we need to see how the local general plans are dealing with these trends." Only a handful of jurisdictions were filing the annual reports with OPR, she said. Planners from about 90% of California cities and counties responded to the October letter, but not necessarily in the fashion OPR wanted. Planners either said they were unaware of the mandate, did not have the time or resources to prepare a report, or requested a standard form that OPR is supposed to make available. In the end, only about 200 of 445 jurisdictions (charter cities are exempt) filed progress reports. So OPR undertook a telephone survey early this year to learn more about why local planners were not preparing the annual reports, and inquired about the status of general plans themselves. Letters, which some people viewed as threatening, followed the survey. "We were just trying to set the record straight," Roberts said. The letters, dated February 29, were attached to a seven-page memorandum explaining the purpose behind annual reports, how the state uses the reports, and guidance for preparing reports. The letters followed a rather tense meeting between OPR staff members — but not the OPR director — and local planning directors, who complained about a lack of technical assistance or funding from the state. Tim Beals, who heads the county planning directors group, said the process should not be only a paperwork exercise to satisfy a state mandate, and he worried the reports eventually might be used against county planners. Alex Hinds, Marin County Community Development Agency director, said the planning directors have had only preliminary discussions with OPR. "I think it's a good exercise to do a general plan status report," he said. Marin County has prepared a comprehensive general plan status report as it gets ready to begin an update of its six-year-old general plan, he said. A meaningful report evaluates the general plan and show how the plan is really used, Hinds said. However, the annual nature of the requirement is a problem, and some jurisdictions just go through the motions, Hinds said. He and others said local planners get too busy with other responsibilities to worry about filing a report with the state. "Why would they [OPR] care and what difference would it make for us?" said Denis Cook, Yuba City community development director. "We'd rather focus our efforts on what needs to be done for the community." The City of Escondido was one of the jurisdictions that has prepared annual reports for the City Council and Planning Commission but has not forwarded the reports to OPR, said Jonathan Brindle, assistant planning director. The report is a good management tool and it lets decision-makers follow what is happening. However, the city uses other tools to track land-use and projects. "It's a burden to prepare a report every year," Brindle conceded. In the City of Chico, which adopted a new general plan in 1994, annual progress reports have become something that the community expects, said Senior Planner Tom Hayes. "We found them pretty easy to do, particularly after the first one. We got a method set up. We use GIS. And it just becomes almost like filling in the blanks," Hayes said. The city's general plan annual reports include a matrix with all 350 implementation measures. The city did a five-year review in 1999 that includes the matrix, an extensive discussion of current planning issues in the city, and an update on implementation projects. "Although this is a little time consuming, it provides a good tool for developing and monitoring our work program, particularly as we develop the annual planning budget," Hayes said. The reports are particularly helpful for tracking land capacity and availability, he added. Also this year, OPR sent letters to 77 cities and eight counties noting that they had not comprehensively updated their general plans it at least 10 years and had indicated they had no intention of updating plans in the immediate future. Why not, OPR asked. "We're not the general plan policemen here, but we have a right to ask these questions and get an honest answer," Roberts said. "It wasn't as if all of a sudden this has become a priority for OPR." Yuba City's Cook suggested OPR might want to back off a little. Yuba City has not completed a general plan overhaul since 1989 but will probably commence an update in a year or two. He said the 11-year-old general plan continues to serve the city well, especially as the city has kept related implementation measures, ordinances and fees up to date. ----- Exactly who is in charge of OPR these days appears to be getting clearer. Loretta Lynch, whom Gov. Davis named as OPR director in March 1999, was appointed to the Public Utilities Commission in December. At about the same time, Davis named Steven Nissen, a special assistant to the governor for innovation in government, as "acting staff director" at OPR. But Lynch, a lawyer with little land-use experience, did not resign from OPR after her PUC appointment and correspondence continued to go out under her signature. However, on April 18, Davis named Nissen as the acting director of OPR, and Nissen began moving into the executive's office. Nissen was executive director of the California State Bar from 1997 to 1999, and previously was executive director of Public Counsel, a large pro bono law office. Contacts: Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, (916) 322-2318. Tim Beals, Sierra County Planning Department, (530) 289-3251. Alex Hinds, Marin County Community Development Agency, (415) 499-6269. Tom Hayes, Chico Community Development Department, (530) 895-4853. Jonathan Brindle, Escondido Planning Division, (760) 839-4543. Denis Cook, Yuba City Community Development Department, (530) 822-4700.