COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

November 28, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

December 13, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None Required

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Department Recommendations for implementing Phase Two of the Planning and Building Task Force Report; and follow up on Phase One Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION

1.

Accept the Report on Phase Two: Public Service Improvement Plan; and follow up recommendations from the Division Organizational Study.

2.

Authorize the Division to implement the recommendations in the Report including meeting and conferring with affected employee organizations.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goal(s): (20) Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. (21) County employees understand, support and integrate the County vision and goals into their delivery of services. (22) County and local governments effectively communicate, collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2005, the Planning and Building Task Force issued a report addressing concerns about the Planning and Building Division of the San Mateo County Environmental Services Agency. The Task Force included members of the community at-large as well as representatives of the Board of Supervisors and staff from the Division

The Task Force divided its recommendations into three phases with a timeline attached. The first phase, Internal Improvement Plan, was presented to the Board of Supervisors (Board) on September 20, 2005. The second phase, Public Service Improvement Plan, is to be presented to the Board by December 31, 2005. The third phase, Work Plan for Comprehensive Update of Regulatory codes, is to be presented to the Board by March 30, 2206.

DISCUSSION

This report is the Planning and Building Division’s response to the second phase of the Task Force’s report and presents a Public Service Improvement Plan and follow up recommendations authorized in Phase One.

The Task Force identified seven recommendations it believed must be included in Phase Two (pages 16 – 18 of the Task Force Report). These recommendations are:

1.

Return to a five-day workweek;

2.

Pre-application meetings;

3.

Pre-applications checklists;

4.

Standardized review periods by outside agencies;

5.

Standardized review periods for design review bodies;

6.

Concurrent building permit plan checks for outside agencies; and

7.

No new fee increases.

The recommendations made by the Division in this report correspond to and are cross-referenced with the recommendations in the Task Force Report.

Task Force Recommendation: Return to a five-day workweek.

The Task Force indicated that applicants and the general public often need to discuss issues/concerns about an application with staff. It is difficult for this dialog to occur and the public is at a disadvantage when the second floor is only open four days a week (page 16 of Task Force Report).

Division Response:

The Division recommends returning to a five-day workweek and opening the second floor Monday through Friday. Hours at the public counter would also be adjusted to provide service Monday through Friday. Elevators and heating/cooling systems can be operated independently for the second floor and would not require the entire building at 455 County Center to be open on Fridays. Flexible work schedules would be retained for the Division with the intent to provide service to the public from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Division recommends that the Board authorize the Division to meet with the affected employee organizations to coordinate implementation of these working hours and accompanying flexible schedules. The Division estimates that the second floor could be opened five days a week in February 2006.

Task Force Recommendation: Use pre-application meetings including estimated timelines for application review.

The Task Force indicated that although pre-application meetings are currently possible, their availability is limited to one morning a week and the meetings are not advertised or widely known about (page 16 of the Task Force Report). The Task Force recommended using time lines in conjunction with pre-application meetings so that applicants and members of the public would have increased early contact with planners about possible issues/concerns and more certainty about the timing of specific aspects of an application review process.

Division Response:

The Division recommends augmenting the existing pre-application meeting process in three significant ways. The first augmentation would be to advertise the availability of pre-application meetings through use of the Division website, handouts, verbal explanation at the counter, and in all written application submittal materials. The second augmentation would be to increase the opportunities for pre-application meetings by allotting two hours per week per planner for pre-application meetings. With the existing staffing levels in current planning, the total number of possible pre-application meetings per week would increase from four (one morning per week at one hour each per pre-application meeting) to 22 (10 planners x 2 hours per week at one hour each per pre-application meeting). Each planner would designate two one-hour time slots for pre-application meetings per week. These meetings would be staggered throughout the week so that applicants would have a choice of times. Planners I and II would handle pre-application meetings for easier applications such as tree removal permits and home improvement exceptions and Planner III’s and Senior Planners would handle pre-application meetings for more complex projects such as Coastal Development Permits and rezoning requests. Electronic calendars with these pre-designated times would be available to staff at the public counter so that these pre-application meetings could be scheduled easily and efficiently as requests are made. If staffing levels increase in current planning, as recommended later in this report, the number of possible pre-application meetings would increase correspondingly. If staffing levels do not increase the number of hours each current planner spends with the public, either at the public counter or in pre-application meetings, will increase from 35% to 40% a week and the timelines for processing applications will increase rather than decrease.

With additional staffing, timelines could also be developed providing estimates for each of the tasks involved in an application review. A sample of such a timeline for a typical Planning Commission item is attached (Attachment A). Once the Division is fully staffed, as recommended later in this report, the timelines would be achievable. It is important to note when reviewing the attached sample timeline that the Planning Commission hearing date will be estimated from the date an application is determined to be complete. Realistic time estimates cannot be given for applications that are not complete because the County does not control when an applicant will provide the information needed to make the application complete. The sample schedule estimates that a typical Planning Commission application requiring a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be processed within three and a half months if the application is complete either at time of submittal or during the first 30 days after submittal. If additional positions cannot be added, the timeframes could not be met and the current problem will continue.

Task Force Recommendation: Use pre-application checklists for all agencies involved in the project review.

The Task Force recommended that use of a pre-application checklist would be a simple way to provide applicants with exact information that may be required to move a project through the review process and that checklists for all agencies involved in the review process should be used (page 17 of the Task Force Report).

Division Response:

The Division has existing application checklists for all planning and building application types. The Division is committed to coordinating with outside agencies to obtain similar checklists for those agencies. This coordination will require cooperation from many outside agencies and a list of those agencies is attached (Attachment B). A status report will be provided to the Board in March 2006.

Task Force Recommendation: Standardize the review period by outside agencies.

The Task Force indicates that outside agencies do not have set times by which they are required to finish a review of pending applications (page 18 of the Task Force Report). The Task Force states that 45 days should be a sufficient amount of time for an outside agency to submit comments to the Division on an application.

Division Response:

For outside agency comments to be truly useful, the comments should be submitted well within 30 days of the application submittal date. The California Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to determine whether or not an application is complete within 30 days of it being submitted. If outside agency comments are submitted to the County within that 30-day period the comments can be used to help determine whether or not the application is complete. Waiting 45 days for comments from outside agencies does not provide adequate support for County staff to make an accurate determination about application completeness. Therefore, the Division is committed to coordinating with outside agencies to obtain comments within 23 days of the date the application is submitted (Attachment A). This schedule allows two days from the day the application is submitted to route the plans to all reviewing parties and 21 days (three weeks) for review comments to be submitted back to the County. The schedule also allows four days for the comments to be compiled and brought to the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting and then five days for the letter to be prepared informing an applicant about whether or not an application is complete.

If an outside agency does not submit comments in a timely manner, the application may be determined to be complete without the outside agency’s comment. It should be noted however that taking action on an application that has not been reviewed or commented upon by some outside agencies, such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, could result in a late comment from the agency that would necessitate a change in the applicant’s project. The County Planning and Building Division staff, particularly the Permit Coordinator, will make every effort to obtain comments from outside agencies in a timely manner. If however this cannot be accomplished the applicant will be notified and will be given the choice of continuing on in the permit process or waiting for the outside agency to respond. Delays in the process created by outside agencies will be documented in the Division’s permit tracking system.

Task Force Recommendation: Standardize Review Period for Design Review Bodies.

The Task Force Report indicates that 45 days should be sufficient for a Design Review Committee to make a recommendation to Planning staff (page 18 of the Task Force Report). Although the Report does not indicate when this 45-day period would commence, it appears from the context of the report that it would commence on the date the Design Review Committee first considers an application.

Division Response:

It typically takes 60 days for an application to be scheduled for a Design Review Committee hearing. As with the applications discussed above, the first 30 days of that 60-day period are used to determine whether or not the application is complete. If it is complete, the next 30 days are used to conduct a zoning plan check, an evaluation of the project for compliance with design standards, advertising the meeting date in the local newspaper, mailing legally required notices and compiling and distributing packets to the Committee members. As noted in the Task Force Report, once an application is heard at a Design Review Committee meeting, there is no limit on the number of times the application can be continued or the number of days the committee has to make a recommendation to Planning staff.

The Division concurs with the need for a timeframe for recommendations from the Design Review Committees to the staff. The Division recommends that once a project is heard by a Design Review Committee the first time, the Committee would have a maximum of 45 days to make a recommendation to staff. This would allow the Design Review Committee to continue the item once or possibly twice if a special meeting is held. If agreement cannot be reached within the 45-day period, the Design Review Committee would be required to make a recommendation to staff and the staff decision could then be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors if needed.

Task Force Recommendation: Make all outside review of projects concurrent.

The Task Force indicates that much of the review done by outside agencies and the Design Review Committees is done sequentially and that a significant amount of time is lost while one agency waits to receive plans from another agency when it would be more efficient to have each outside (and internal) reviewer receive its own copy of the plans so that no time is lost between reviews (page 18 of the Task Force Report).

Division Response:

The Division agrees that it is a more efficient use of time to have concurrent rather than sequential plan reviews for Planning and Building applications. There are two important elements to note with concurrent review. The first is that the applicant will be required to submit additional plan sets and that can add cost for the applicant, especially for large projects that have complicated sets of plans. This cost however may well be offset by the time saved with more efficient reviews. The second element relates to concurrent review for Building rather than Planning and has to do with the considerable coordination that occurs prior to the Building plan check being completed. The Division recommends that the Building plan check occur after other internal and external reviews are complete so that all notes, conditions and revised plans can be accurately transferred to the approved set of plans for the Building Division, applicant and job site.

The Division is committed to proactively obtaining comments from outside agencies and reviewers for Planning applications as noted above and shown in Attachment A. In addition, the new Permit Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating with outside agencies regarding Building permit applications to help ensure that comments are received in a timely manner.

Task Force Recommendation: No new fee increases.

The Task Force indicates on page 6 of its report that fees have risen 116% since 2001 while service provision has not improved at a correspondingly high rate. The Task Force recommends that no further fee increases be approved at this time.

Division Response:

The Division concurs with the Task Force concern about additional fee increases. The Division is evaluating the possibility of becoming cost recovery within the next three years and will present a status report to the Board in June 2006. The fee increases in the past few years have resulted in increased budget reserves, which the Division is recommending be partially spent on system improvements and physical upgrades for the public and staff alike.

Additional recommendations from the Task Force:

The Task Force made seven additional recommendations that it believes would be beneficial and should be considered in a Public Service Improvement Plan but are not absolutely mandatory (pages 19 and 20 of the Task Force Report). These recommendations include:

1.

Better use of the Division website;

2.

Better internal tracking of projects;

3.

System to handle complaints;

4.

Review of counter system;

5.

Training/Planning seminars;

6.

Fast track system for specific types of permits; and

7.

Single contact person for duration of project.

Division Response:

The Division agrees with these recommendations and is in the process of hiring a Permit Coordinator to improve the internal tracking of building permits, and a Senior Planner to improve the internal tracking and supervision of planning applications. While there isn’t one contact person for both the planning and building review processes there is one point of contact during the planning process (the Project Planner) and one primary point of contact during the building permit review (the Permit Coordinator). It is difficult to assign one contact person for both processes since the expertise needed to address issues during these reviews is very different.

The review of the counter system is taking place concurrently with the remodel of the second floor, discussed in more detail below, and will include an integrated one-stop counter where customers sit in one seat at the counter and the needed staff will come to them rather than the customer moving from one part of the counter to another to receive information from different divisions or departments.

Improvements to the Division website will occur on an on-going basis with the first of those in late December to include the expanded availability of pre-application meetings. Changes to the website will continue as review processes and systems are modified.

A system of fast-tracking permits at the counter will be further evaluated as the San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance and other codes are updated as part of the Division’s response to Phase III of the Task Force Report.

A formal system for receiving and responding to complaints about any of the Division’s responsibilities has not yet been developed but people dissatisfied with the service they receive can call the Director of Community Development and she will ensure that the concern is addressed in a timely manner. A more formal system will be developed by March 2006.

Follow up on Phase One Recommendations.

Three recommendations from Phase One required follow up action by Division staff and further decisions by the Board. Those three recommendations included:

1.

Completion of a Division-wide organizational study;

2.

Progress report on a plan to remodel the second floor; and

3.

Development of an in-house training program for staff.

Division-wide Organizational Study:

In Phase One the Division indicated the need to conduct a more detailed analysis to accurately determine the need for additional staff. As part of that study the Board and County Manager requested that the Division analyze similar organizations and how the workload, population served and geographic areas compare to San Mateo County. Division staff contacted six other agencies: Marin County; City of Palo Alto; Santa Cruz County; Ventura County; Sonoma County; and Santa Barbara County. Although no agency was exactly comparable, Marin County was the most similar in terms of geographic area, population in the unincorporated area, types of issues (coastal/non-coastal and rural/urban), numbers of permits issued and Division responsibilities. The other four counties were larger in geographic area, population, numbers of permits, and Division responsibilities and Palo Alto was smaller in geographic area.

Marin County encompasses 588 square miles, provides planning and building services to approximately 69,275 people and processes approximately 3,050 building permits and 650 planning applications per year. The Marin County Community Development Agency also provides support to five advisory or decision-making bodies, including the Board of Supervisors. The Marin County Development Agency has 52 employees.

The City of Palo Alto encompasses 25 square miles, provides planning and building services to approximately 60,000 people and processes approximately 3,085 building permits and 438 planning applications per year. The City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment provides support to five advisory or decision-making bodies, including the City Council. The Department has 46 employees in Planning, Building and Code Enforcement activities.

San Mateo County encompasses 530 square miles, provides planning and building services to approximately 64,500 people and processes approximately 2,400 building permits and 450 planning applications per year. In addition, the Planning and Building Division provides support to seven advisory or decision-making bodies, including the Board of Supervisors. The Division currently has 48 employees (two of which were approved as part of the Division’s Phase One response in September 2005 and are being filled during November and December).

Results of the Organizational Study and Recommendations:

The results of the Organizational study indicate that the Division needs additional staff to adequately handle its responsibilities and workload, including support to advisory boards and committees. The Division recommends six additional positions: three in the Current Planning Section (two at the Planner level and one at a Senior/Supervisory level); two in the Building Section (one Plan Checker and retention of one Office Specialist); and one Special Projects/C/CAG position. These additional positions would increase the total number of employees in the Division from 48 to 54. A sample Organizational Chart is attached (see Attachment C).

The Division also recommends creating a Deputy Director position to oversee the current planning and building functions. This position would allow an upgrade of one of the existing management positions in the Division and would not add to the overall number of staff in the Division. The change is recommended to more accurately reflect the level of responsibility required to manage the development review and permit issuance functions.

The Division is also recommending moving the Code Enforcement function from Development Review Services to Long Range Planning Services. This results in better balance between the two sections and begins to connect policy-planning functions with the on-going implementation of those policies. In addition, money would be allocated to Long Range Planning Services to hire consultants as needed to assist with specific projects.

The Division is further recommending the creation of a Special Projects Consultant position that would report to the Director of the Division and would be assigned C/CAG and special assignments. This position would be partially funded by C/CAG.

These organizational changes would address many of the Task Force’s concerns as discussed throughout its report. Adding two Planners to the Current Planning Section would result in an average project workload of about 35 projects. Adding a Senior position to the Current Planning Section would enable the Senior Planners to carry a project load comprised of the more difficult cases and would provide professional advancement opportunities. Adding a permanent Plan Checker to the Building Section would reduce the length of time it takes to process building permits and retaining the Office Specialist ensures that the support function can be accomplished efficiently. Adding money for consultants to the Long Range Planning Section will enable the 28 projects on its work program to be accomplished in a timely manner and creating a C/CAG/Special Projects Position better serves C/CAG and creates an opportunity for professional advancement within Long Range Planning. Creating a Deputy Director position acknowledges the degree of responsibility expected of the manager of the planning and building permit issuance functions.

Floor Remodel:

The study of the second floor remodel is underway and as indicated in Phase One, the final layout and cost estimates will be based on the outcome of Phase Two. It is important to consider the efficiency of the Division during the remodel so space is being sought to temporarily relocate the entire Division while the remodel takes place. Relocation costs will be factored into the total cost estimates provided to the Board in March 2006.

Training Program:

The in-house training program is underway and the schedule is attached for the Board’s information (Attachment D).

FISCAL IMPACT

Total Phase Two costs = $860,657.50 ($783,527.50 annually from the General Fund for six new positions and opening the second floor five days a week and 77,130 from the Division’s reserves for consultants in Long Range Planning and one-time costs for opening the second floor on Friday).

Specific Cost Allocation:

Cost of operating elevators and heating/cooling on second floor only = $63,673.50 annually plus $2,130, one time cost (Attachment E)

One Senior Planner = $131,768

Two Planner III’s = $208,674

Retention of Office Specialist in building = $63,000

One permanent Plan Checker = $ 145,657

Reclassify one existing management position to Deputy Director = $13,000 annually

One C/CAG/Special Projects Consultant position = $157,755

Money for Consultants in Long Range Planning = $75,000

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Timeline and Examples

B.

List of Outside Agencies

C.

Sample Organization Chart

D.

In-house Training Program

E.

Memo to Lisa Grote from Neil Cullen

cc:

Task Force Members

Other Interested Parties

LCG:kdr Lcgp1370_wkru.doc