HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2013 SS1 Organizational Assessment of the Community Development Department(ITT6flTt flSS0(1flTfS? I[(
N
■ FOLSOM (SACRAMENTO) MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ■
■ i
ORGANIZATIONAL,
ASSESSMENT OF THE
C ommuNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS
Owspo, GA
April 2, 2013
COUNCIL i EE -TING: 1 lea /
ITEM NO.. ■ •
r 2250 East Bidwell Street Suite 100 ■ Folsom CA 95630 ■� 1�
(916) 458 -5100 ■ Fax: (916) 983 -2090 OUT[ OSSWI ifs, LAC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan .......................................... ............................... 1
Organization of this Report .......................................................... ............................... 2
Advice to the Reader: How Best to Handle Peer Review ........... ............................... 2
The Story and the Good News ..................................................... ............................... 2
Five Important Contextual Themes .............................................. ............................... 3
Theme One: The Community Knows San Luis Obispo is a Very Special
Place.................................................................... ............................... 4
Theme Two: Push -Pull Exists Between Community Preservation and
Economic Development ...................................... ............................... 4
Theme Three: Push -Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement and Efficient
Development Permit Review Processing ............ ............................... 5
Theme Four: The Organization is Respected, Dedicated, and Collegial, Yet
Professionally Isolated ........................................ ............................... 5
Theme Five: If You Can't Be Predictable, Communicate ! ............................ 6
Ten Strategic Recommendations .................................................. ............................... 6
Other Recommendations .............................................................. ............................... 7
Overview of Strategic Action Plan ............................................... ............................... 7
SectionI— Introduction ............................................................................... ............................... 25
1.1 Study Scope and Objectives .......................................... ............................... 25
1.2 Work Conducted ........................................................... ............................... 25
1.3 Citygate's Approach and Assessment Factors .............. ............................... 27
1.4 The Key to Success: There's a Role for Everyone ....... ............................... 28
1.4.1 Elected Officials ................................................ ............................... 28
1.4.2 Customers and Stakeholders ............................. ............................... 29
1.4.3 City Manager's Office ...................................... ............................... 29
1.4.4 Community Development Staff ........................ ............................... 29
1.4.5 Key Staff in Other City Program Areas: Public Works, Utilities,
Fire, Economic Development, and Information Technology .......... 30
' T
Table of Contents page i
Section II —City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situation ......................... ............................... 31
2.1 The Story and the Good News ...................................... ............................... 31
2.2 Five Important Contextual Themes .............................. ...............................
31
2.2.1
Theme One: The Community Knows San Luis Obispo is a Very
Applicants Large and Small .......................................... ...............................
35
SpecialPlace ..................................................... ...............................
31
2.2.2
Theme Two: Push -Pull Exists Between Community Preservation and
3.2.2 Customer Survey ............................................... ...............................
Economic Development .................................... ...............................
32
2.2.3
Theme Three: Push -Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement and
3.3.1 Focus Group Meeting ...................................... ...............................
Efficient Development Permit Review Processing ..........................
32
2.2.4
Theme Four: The Organization is Respected, Dedicated, and
3.4.1 Resident Survey ................................................ ...............................
Collegial, Yet Professionally Isolated ............... ...............................
33
2.2.5
Theme Five: If You Can't Be Predictable, Communicate! ..............
33
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department.... 35
3.1
Elected Officials ............................................................ ...............................
35
3.2
Applicants Large and Small .......................................... ...............................
35
3.2.1 Focus Group Meeting ....................................... ...............................
35
3.2.2 Customer Survey ............................................... ...............................
36
3.3
Interested Parties and Stakeholders .............................. ...............................
41
3.3.1 Focus Group Meeting ...................................... ...............................
41
3.4
Residents ....................................................................... ...............................
42
3.4.1 Resident Survey ................................................ ...............................
42
3.5
City's Employees .......................................................... ...............................
44
3.5.1 Employee Survey .............................................. ...............................
44
3.6
Comparing Customer and Employee Survey Responses .............................
52
3.6.1 Comparing Customer /Employee Development Review Results .....
53
3.6.2 Comparing Customer /Employee Long -Range Planning Results.....
54
3.6.3 Comparing Customer /Employee Building and Safety Results........
55
3.6.4 Comparing Customer /Employee Public Works Engineering
Results............................................................... ...............................
56
SectionIV— Department Organizational Structure ................................. ............................... 57
4.1 Administration .............................................................. ............................... 57
4.2 Long -Range Planning ................................................... ............................... 57
Table of Contents page H
4.3 Development Review .................................................... ............................... 57
4.4 Building and Safety ....................................................... ............................... 57
SectionV —Ten Strategic Recommendations ............................................ ............................... 61
Strategic Recommendation #1: Develop an Award- Winning Community Outreach
Program...................................................................................... ............................... 61
Strategic Recommendation #2: Establish Cycle -Time Standards: Synchronize;
Widely Publicize; Measure; and Report Out .............................. ............................... 62
Strategic Recommendation #3: Develop an Annual Work Program with the City
Council that is Dynamic and Interactive .................................... ............................... 64
Strategic Recommendation #4: Increase Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Credibility of
the Development Review Team ................................................. ............................... 66
Strategic Recommendation #5: Institute an Award - Winning "Unanticipated Service"
Program for Customers of All Types ......................................... ............................... 71
Strategic Recommendation #6: Increase Professional Training, Cross - Training, and
Co- Management to Promote Excellence and Organizational Nimbleness ............... 72
Strategic Recommendation #7: Establish a "Continual Improvement Group" ......... 75
Strategic Recommendation #8: Move the Public Works Engineering Development
Review Program into the Community Development Department to Align Service
Goals........................................................................................... ............................... 76
Strategic Recommendation #9: Make Full Use of Technology to Enhance the
Customer Experience ........ ......................................................... ............................... 81
Strategic Recommendation #10: Develop a Solution for the Cyclical Nature of
Development.............................................................................. ............................... 82
SectionVI —Other Recommendations ....................................................... ............................... 87
6.1 Front Counter ................................................................ ............................... 87
6.2 Building and Safety ....................................................... ............................... 88
6.3 Code Enforcement ........................................................ ............................... 90
6.4 Good of the Order ......................................................... ............................... 91
6.5 Policy Setters ................................................................ ............................... 91
SectionVII — Review of Literature Sources .............................................. ............................... 93
7.1 Articles ............................................................................ .............................93
7.2 Books ............................................................................ ............................... 93
7.2.1 General Public Agency Management ............... ............................... 94
Table of Contents page iii
7.2.2 Management ........................................................ .............................94
7.2.3 Fiction ............................................................... ............................... 94
Appendices
Appendix A San Luis Obispo Customer Survey Analysis
Appendix B San Luis Obispo Employee Survey Analysis
Appendix C San Luis Obispo Resident Survey Analysis
fjTable of Contents page iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
This Executive Summary highlights the results of Citygate Associates, LLC's organizational
assessment of the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. Citygate
conducted the fieldwork for this study between November 2012 and February 2013.
The goal of the assessment was to provide an independent, objective, rigorously analytical third
party analysis of the policies, procedures, management and operations of the Community
Development Department, as it now exists, and to design a constructive, forward - looking, and
creative strategic action plan for improvement, as needed. As part of the study Citygate reviewed
and analyzed the current organizational structure and service delivery of the Community
Development Department as well as, to the extent necessary, the associated land development
services provided by other departments of the City.
A key purpose in the design of a general performance analysis, such as this engagement, is to
ensure that sufficient flexibility is provided to the consultant and the City to pursue issues that are
most rewarding, while functioning within an agreed -upon contract budget. To accomplish this
objective, the early analytical efforts were designed for the consultant to establish a familiarity with
the Community Development Department's overall planning and development review permitting
processes, and the systems and procedures that support it, and to "scan" for issues that are material
to the study in its early stages. This was done to make sure that the study was outcome - driven. As
a result of these early analytical efforts and our discussions with the leadership team, Citygate was
able to focus its time and attention on the issues we identified in the Department and the actual
issues identified by the City's employees, customers and stakeholders during our one -on -one
interviews, focus groups, and our on -line surveys.
During the course of this study Citygate received input from Community Development
Department customers of various types, applicants, business community stakeholders, non-
applicant neighborhood stakeholders, the City Council, City Manager, Department Heads,
division managers, supervisors, and frontline professional and support staff. This input helped
define the additional goals and priorities that we would consider in analyzing potential
alternatives for improvement.
We also had access to extensive public records and documents throughout the course of the
study.
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan
Page 1J
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Section I Introduction
Section II City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situation
Section III What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development
Department
Section IV Department Organizational Structure
Section V Ten Strategic Recommendations
Section VI Other Recommendations
Section VII Review of Literature Sources
ADVICE TO THE READER: HOW BEST TO HANDLE PEER REVIEW
From time to time throughout the report, we speak clearly and to the point without pulling any
punches. It is not our intent to offend anyone. However, we believe that our client is best served
by frankness. The characteristics of the City's Community Development Department, and more
importantly the overall development review permitting process and the Department's
relationships with its stakeholders, have evolved over an extended period of time as a result of
many factors. The process has both good and bad characteristics, none of which are the fault of
any one person. This also applies to non - Community Development departments and programs
that touch applications moving through the development review permitting process, such as
Public Works Engineering Development Review, Utilities, Transportation, and the Fire
Department.
To the extent improvements need to be made, it is due to process problems, as opposed to
personnel problems. The attitudes and philosophies of the Department's employees are among
the best that we have encountered in our twenty years of conducting such studies. The
Community Development Department staff involved in the development review permitting
process is, more often than not, working very hard and in a conscientious manner to do what is in
the best interest of the City of San Luis Obispo. Their affection for the City and community is
deep and abiding. Many of them labor under difficult circumstances, due to time pressures, the
complex regulatory environment, and the high level of community involvement and
expectations.
THE STORY AND THE GOOD NEWS
San Luis Obispo's situation with its Community Development Department is fundamentally
good. Relative to many of the agencies Citygate has assisted in recent years, the organization as a
whole is very dedicated, very talented, honest, professional, and competent.
WA Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 2
The Department is in a good position to modernize, adapt to a shifting set of priorities, and to
make service delivery changes that will increase efficiency, effectiveness, and customer
satisfaction in all stakeholder categories.
The City Council and the community, as a whole, believe that the City has a well- intended,
talented, and dedicated Community Development staff.
The customers of the City's Community Development Department are like a collage. In the
collage there are: permit applicants; residents and members of the general public; complainants;
property owners being investigated for code violations; and small businesses wishing to make
improvements to their facilities. In addition, there are the Architectural Review, Cultural
Heritage, and Planning Commission advisory bodies and other groups wishing to protect and
enhance the fabric of the community; homeowners wishing to make improvements and
neighbors wishing to protect their views and rights.
The City Council has been approached and heard stories about the difficulties of the City's
development review permitting process. All of this presents a challenge for the Department and
its staff, but in Citygate's view, it is a challenge that can be met.
The Department is in a good position to make positive organizational changes that will place it
among the top "best practice" agencies in California. These are the indicators:
1. To its credit, the Community Development Department has successfully instituted
many customer service best practices that are now in use. The Department can
build on these successes.
2. The City Council is likely to support departures from the status quo if they are
well thought out and implementable, even if done in phases over time.
3. The City is now in a better position to afford change; reserves are adequate to
handle one -time investments that might be necessary to improve efficiency and
effectiveness.
4. To his credit, the Community Development Director is already taking the
initiative to make needed changes that he has developed or we have suggested,
within his existing authority.
5. Several of the best practice recommendations made in this study already exist in
the Department; they simply need to be more formalized and applied more
vigorously.
FIVE IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL THEMES
In order to best understand the Community Development Department's current challenges and
opportunities it is important for the reader to consider the contextual themes that have been
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan
page 3
identified during the course of our organizational assessment. These five contextual themes
underlie and affect everything the Department does day in and day out. They include the
following:
Theme One: The Community Knows San Luis Obispo is a Very Special Place
San Luis Obispo is arguably one of the most livable, unique, and beautiful cities in California. It
enjoys nearly perfect weather, a varied growing season, a university, and a lovely downtown. It
is a few minutes away from the beach, but not so close that it's foggy all the time!
Everybody who lives here knows it is a special place. The early Spanish settlers knew it.
Families that have been in the County for generations know it. Students that go to college at Cal
Poly know it. Many stay. If they leave, they often come back. Newcomers know it. Residents in
the neighborhoods know it. Business owners know it.
Throughout our interviews we witnessed this strong sense of place. Preservation of the City as a
special place is a value shared by everyone we met.
Theme Two: Push -Pull Exists Between Community Preservation and Economic
Development
During our interviews we noted strong objections to urban sprawl. We often heard "we don't
want to become like L.A."
Many of the City's stakeholders, activists and non - activists alike, value the architectural and
cultural heritage of San Luis Obispo. This value is embodied by the City Council establishing
robust Architectural Review and Cultural Heritage advisory bodies.
We also heard repeatedly that the City and its stakeholders have a desire to maintain and improve
the business environment. We often heard during our interviews that the City needs and wants
"head of household" jobs.
These two values— community preservation and economic development —exist in support of one
another and in opposition of one another, all at the same time. San Luis Obispo's architectural
and cultural assets add great economic value to the business community. At the same time,
preservation of these assets, with all the rules, regulations, and additional costs, create a burden
on the business community and a burden on investors.
This push -pull makes for a difficult and challenging work environment for the Community
Development Department and its staff. It is easy to get "policy whiplash;" thus, it is in the
interest of City leadership and community stakeholders to recognize the push -pull, discuss it,
respect it, and support the Department as it wrestles with this challenge. In turn, staff's obligation
is to be fair, objective, and balanced in all that they do, to recognize and embrace the diversity of
the Department's customer base, and to deliver responsive, transparent service to all.
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 4
Theme Three: Push -Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement and Efficient
Development Permit Review Processing
The City Council and the community together place a high value on citizen involvement. This is
not uncommon in university towns, particularly those that have distinct neighborhoods and deep
historical roots, as does San Luis Obispo.
The high level of citizen involvement leads to rich collaborations and high development
standards, all of which benefits the community. However, the high level of citizen input makes
for a development permit review process that can often be slow and complicated.
We heard vocal complaints from stakeholders that staff was too applicant - oriented and that staff
did not give enough deference to neighborhood groups, residents, and the advisory bodies during
the review process.
On the other hand, we heard repeatedly from the business and development community that the
development permit review process was overly complicated and too deferential to parties that
were not vested financially. However, we should note that there was a general consensus that
high development standards, albeit burdensome, protected their business investments over the
long term.
Theme Four: The Organization is Respected, Dedicated, and Collegial, Yet
Professionally Isolated
The community and its varied stakeholders generally respect the talents and dedication of the
individual staff members within the Community Development Department. Our survey data also
supports this conclusion. Staff's dedication to the City was observed throughout our assessment.
The working environment is friendly, upbeat, positive, and collegial. It is a happy workforce,
overall.
Nonetheless, we also observed several indicators that the Department has fallen behind in certain
core areas of work as a result, we believe, of its geographical and professional isolation. This
phenomenon was visible in the areas of technology (website, smart- phones, social media,
customer surveying), outreach, cross - training, co- managing, and financial management.
We know that talent and professional commitment is present in the organization. It is critical to
the long -term success of the Department that it institutionalizes efforts to harvest "best practices"
from its respective professions. Thus, we have made recommendations that will move the
Department in this direction by establishing Professional Development Plans, ongoing training,
and a Continual Improvement Program. We believe that, if given the opportunity, staff will
thrive and stay ahead in their respective fields of professional endeavor.
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 5 *„
Theme Five: If You Can't Be Predictable, Communicate!
Everybody would be happy if the City could devise a development permit review processing
system that was fast, cheap, transparent, responsive to neighborhood input, AND predictable.
Improvements to the existing system can and should be made, as witnessed by our numerous
suggestions and recommendations.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding these efforts, the system will remain unpredictable to one degree or
another. This is due to the push -pull as we described and because the inherent nature of planning
and building affords great latitude in exercising judgment on projects. This intrinsic problem
presents risk and concerns for all stakeholders, regardless of their priorities.
The best remedy for this reality is for staff to communicate, and then communicate some more,
including with applicants and non - applicants alike. Advances in technology and social media
make this easier currently, and will continue to do so. Keeping the channels of collaboration and
mutual respect alive and well maintained is an ever - growing community expectation, and thus
needs to be a central organizational value of the Department.
TEN STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section Citygate identifies and briefly discusses the Ten (10) Strategic Recommendations
formulated during the course of this study. All of these Strategic Recommendations are
important to understanding what needs to be done to continue reshaping the organization, to
build upon its current successes, and to make real organizational improvements that will be
visible and meaningful.
Put another way, if the City implements all of the other recommendations presented later in this
report but does not faithfully implement the following Ten Strategic Recommendations, we
would not expect much in the way of success.
These Ten Strategic Recommendations are as follows:
1. Develop an Award - Winning Community Outreach Program
2. Establish Cycle -Time Standards: Synchronize; Widely Publicize; Measure;
and Report Out
3. Develop an Annual Work Program with the City Council that is Dynamic
and Interactive
4. Increase Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Credibility of the Development
Review Team
5. Institute an Award - Winning "Unanticipated Service" Program for
Customers of All Types
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 6
6. Increase Professional Training, Cross - Training, and Co- Management to
Promote Excellence and Organizational Nimbleness
7. Establish a "Continual Improvement Group"
8. Move the Public Works Engineering Development Review Program into the
Community Development Department to Align Service Goals
9. Make Full Use of Technology to Enhance the Customer Experience
10. Develop a Solution for the Cyclical Nature of Development.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the Ten Strategic Recommendations listed above, this assessment includes more
recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community Development
Department. These recommendations are wide reaching in their scope and are designed to
support the Strategic Recommendations within the realities of the contextual themes described
above. These additional recommendations address the following:
1. Front Counter Operations and Staffing
2. Building and Safety Improvements
3. Code Enforcement Improvements
4. Good of the Order: Department -Wide Improvements
5. Things Policy Setters Can Do to Improve the Department's Effectiveness.
OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
A listing of our recommendations and a blueprint for their implementation are presented in the
Strategic Action Plan. This Plan contains:
1. The priority of each recommendation
2. The suggested implementation time frame
3. The anticipated benefits of each recommendation
4. The responsible parties.
The legend at the bottom of each page of the Strategic Action Plan defines the level of each
priority indicated by the letters "A" through "D." It is important to note that priorities have been
established independent of the suggested timeframe. For example, a recommendation may have
the highest priority (indicated by the letter "A ") but may require an estimated six months to
implement. Conversely, a recommendation with the letter "C" priority, which indicates that the
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 7
recommendation is not critical but will improve operations, may have a two month timeframe,
since the estimated implementation effort would not require an extended period of time.
It is also important to note that an "A" priority, which indicates that the recommendation is
deemed "mandatory or critical," should not be interpreted to mean that the recommendation is
"mandated" by a statute or regulation — it is simply an "urgent" recommendation of the highest
priority.
The timeframes indicated in the Strategic Action Plan do not necessarily mean the anticipated
completion dates for the implementation of each recommendation.
1. n'"
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 8
z
z
0
LU
79
0.0
-0 'o -00
r.
IT, 0
Z
CF)
(D
0)
m
c
m
9L
C
0
.2
Cd
0
0
0 0
u
u
u lz
0
1�4
IX
4)
5�
-8
'o
>,
�o
ta
bi) cd
0
rA
U4
cc
:�I!
2�
tj
N
0
IS
z
4
Z5
�i
t9
z
Cluj
u
to
0
4-
4. ;t4
Q
Ir
U
.4
—N
,It.
PC
Q-t
cu
'0
Cd
0
40�
0
CZS
0
En
IgC's
.-4
W
0
En
4j
r
0
u
u
w
79
0.0
-0 'o -00
r.
IT, 0
Z
CF)
(D
0)
m
c
m
9L
C
0
.2
�1
M
b
y 'c
o'
a .d
U N
O O
0 0 0
n °b
�P
o�3,a
b °�•v
U
N
V
a QaaUA
0
rn
m
CL
CL
c
Q
a�
N
U A
U A
A
A
A
• o 0
0
U a
0
V
a
0
o
o
• �,
a�i
�, a�i
a�
a�
U U
A
U U A
U A
A A
A
A
o
a�
0...i
C
G ate.+
'�
.r
'�
fd •i+ U
l�l
D
3
0.
on
°'V
a
``"
S
,
c
0
° 0 U5 ^rs
'a v°i
J
a�
En
a�
40.
-d
o
x
It c
W
°
.d
°
o
00 .
W
0
o
o
o ai i
a�
o
W
o
tA
o
o
�„
y
M\M
W
y
2
Q
• �� Q
Q
Q
y
2
Q
Q
W
s
s
E ti
a
cd
W
N3
Go 0
3
a°
c° U
'd
ea 0
o
ea y :n �
y
ea W
y
k-4'
b
b
c
41)
0
Cd
v
3
oA
u
a0�
co 0
c.
°
° �
o
09
�
4)
a � E
0
A
u
4
u
:9�,
w
o
a►;
�1
M
b
y 'c
o'
a .d
U N
O O
0 0 0
n °b
�P
o�3,a
b °�•v
U
N
V
a QaaUA
0
rn
m
CL
CL
c
Q
a�
N
lwmi
ILMI
b
0 0 �
0 0 0
0 � Y
N L. Urr
z o�•�o
Wf�.V]zR:
.a ¢oaUA
r
a�
rn
m
c
is
a
C
Q
a
�
'en
on
0
0 a
0
c..
>
a
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
(D
� 0
AAv�
o
bb
O
Cd
En
W
o
O
'
c
3
c
°
a°
id
o
p°
o
Y
a>
v a>
CA
c� 44
O
O
15
rA
o
,r
o
°' ty
O a�i
°
O
O
v
Q
p
R
a
°
5.1
.��
o¢
o
b
o
3;
o
3
o
3
o
3
o
a�
0
0
is
v
u¢
o R
Q
Q
en
En
TA
m
0
0
00
00
• �� ¢
Q
Q
A7
P�1
as
O
gal
Cl
bo
�.
C
w
cd
0
i•i
vi
Ci
�c
4,
o
4Q.,
o
p�
�,
C Q
p�
O
C
O.�
•�
b •a
O q
C
O U
Ott,
N
v
0
0
>'
��
40.
v :9
lo
wO
cc
0
2
sow
�.
xo
0
aw
a�Q
a�
awe
a�
0
0
c0
lwmi
ILMI
b
0 0 �
0 0 0
0 � Y
N L. Urr
z o�•�o
Wf�.V]zR:
.a ¢oaUA
r
a�
rn
m
c
is
a
C
Q
N
IN
b
� o �
•Y
O p O
E
U .-y
El IU V
q cE
IFy�- 0 � U
%i U O 0 U
04 Za
a QGGUA
N
N
I
a
C
Q
v
.Im
A
ca
�
a
a�
a�
• U �
U �
� A
� e
A A
A A
U A
U A
a!
W
y
bb
Cd
a o
0
El
0
k
O
E
O
s
^d O
C vii
G•
�.
N
3 •�
�
3 ,�, ,� �
a3i
O
3 �
� o
.� .d
o o
�
o
a
° o
a
E
S
� �
W
>,
VIK
Z
b
Z
O.
.
c
o
W
r-
V
bb
o
h
$
$
b
r
8
.En
N
IN
b
� o �
•Y
O p O
E
U .-y
El IU V
q cE
IFy�- 0 � U
%i U O 0 U
04 Za
a QGGUA
N
N
I
a
C
Q
v
.Im
A
ca
IN
b
Q.
raj O aU.,
O O �
•.j o b
U
N 25 U N
W U O + U
a ¢cou
M
a�
rn
m
c
A
a
c
cn
a°i '�
N
� •�
a°i �
a°i �
� C
O '�
5
.r
o
•
� Y
U N �
� y
� y
[tf
� y
•
is
cRq� F:
CC F:
is �
�
o
O ^o
V
UAd
UAInd
u d
u d
UAd
W
^'
o
tkiN
LAI
6
0 0
� � 3
�
� � °>
� g
N
O
� .� �
Cl
c a. ca o
a°i
�
3 •°� �
� �
°
�
5ou
�
aUi
ca
`
o
o b b
°'
c
3
0
3 o .'
c U
3 O °
3 c°
3.
qu
13
9aIbA
�
Z
Q
y
O
V
• .. Ow
d
d
d
as
as
2
o
y
a�
id y
•�
a�
N
O
4.
O
Cd
40
bp
q
�c0
au
aub
aQ
09
a w°
IN
b
Q.
raj O aU.,
O O �
•.j o b
U
N 25 U N
W U O + U
a ¢cou
M
a�
rn
m
c
A
a
c
cn
i
4 o
U
O
•
Q
A �
�
� A
•
0
U
� U
4.
U A
u A
U
A A
V ou
e°a
id
�fi
N
Y
•°
� U
�
�
� � '�
b
w
U
�
v
0 3
one
U
o
°
4+ a�i
tD
a 5
°
O
�1 = v
>
O.
ry 4 O
A
°
N
'o �
> ,� � �
3
�
0
> r�i � � y U
a°i
a°i
q
a3 b a
-d o �
cd a
&n
-d
Cd
a, :01 o eu
.b ° 3
Ew
lu
3
o c0
CO)
V
W
o
•�
0 0
cu
ou c
J
j
.�
a�i a3i
o
y �
� ,r
C 0
a
0 0
o
o°
Z
o tu
q
Cd
0, U
m
eEn o
b
0 �
is
4.
O
u
�a
a s
aa
w "d 6
aw�H
b
.y
b
O O
b ��b
0
U
0 0 U
W N O O N
9V)Zo4
a dPGUA
N
m
m
CL
a
c
Q
B
i •
i
b
c
5�j O w
U N
G � y
0 0 0
0
.d orb
bq v
W U O +•+ U
W. ¢Cqu
LO
a�
rn
co
CL
l0
IL
C
V
Q
V
W
0 0 0
0
0
W>
O
l a
'
U
W
U A A A
U
A
A
Oiy
�
�
•:�
y U
' O �
Y
O
fd
N
,VJj
O
•�i••�y
•�
O
A
•� ►+
o
CO
.0
V1
U
y
y
bn
A
a
b
•o
yy
w
as
a
y
bb
0
O
cd
Z
EA
W
N
a?
0
o
ai
°OO
a
O y>
-
W
^o
o
3
bbn
Q
- 0
O
v
o
3
o
3
o
�
�
bo
3
0 y
W
co c
aoi
p.
2
2
c
H Q a 3
W
is
M a
o
0
0 o
w°
'
W
N
W
Q
Z
- Z
W
2
t9
O
Q
o
44)
O
•
LL.
m
(-
ri N A3
O
'C
N
a
C a0i
W
j
14
b y «,
r.
A
b
aWi
a
cv
'o o
W?
o
U
N"
a
It
e'3
Q
e
���
'
b
O
P:waA
0
ci
w
a�
i •
i
b
c
5�j O w
U N
G � y
0 0 0
0
.d orb
bq v
W U O +•+ U
W. ¢Cqu
LO
a�
rn
co
CL
l0
IL
C
V
Q
V
rye
M
.d
w
Q
C
raj O b�.
U N
O O
O p O
b
W U O 0 U
04 V�] Z 04
a QCGUA
(O
m
CL
c
eo
a
c
v
O
O
O
O
U
>
>
>
>
O
Aa
A
A
Aaa
bA
U A
u A
U
A
U
N
�
�' �, �
ate.+
• �
��'"
U
U U
a� >
O
to O
3
O
w
O
v
w w
>
o
y U y
'� c0
y
N
42 ^O y O.
d
w
c
a� vt++ co
cd v
U ^y
N >
N
y
> N M
U U
�
•�
y U Q �
. •�
U
-0 3
U
ld
> U cd
O G
N
O
O
O U
y
w
a) O
N N
W
� .
p
u
i4) �
oU p
'O Q
m
b a� O v
'O b
O
b
a�
a�
ti O
34°
3,2 a
3 2
3
00
3
w �
o
(D
O :3
N
N
N
N
'"
U
•2
F.
5
N
40.
L#4)
N
Y
c
o
=Id
3
c
ri p
'>
a�i
sn.
t;: 4°
ON
o
o •`� v
o
o
o
°
a¢i
A
R
"C
p
O
R O O
' C
C
G N
Y
C w
N
�
0.
G
c�C 'Cf
0
cd
a
s
a
m
�Y
o
rye
M
.d
w
Q
C
raj O b�.
U N
O O
O p O
b
W U O 0 U
04 V�] Z 04
a QCGUA
(O
m
CL
c
eo
a
c
v
'O
.n d.
O w
O O
O O O
b
El
a b
O O 3 p
z�
W U O Y U
c4�za:
.W.l Qmum
N
CL
I
C
to
a
O
v
V
w
F
•U
UU"
O
O
O
w
U
U
Q
Q
U
.b
q O
O
N
o
In.
¢
4� O
o ¢
Y
v
A
,a o
o
�"
"d
4, y
.:•�
N
W
" U
O o
o
V
o
a"
t!
aqi
y
ti
3'G
O
Y 7 cqd
o�.,
a.
U
O
U°
a
o 3
o
°'
`°
�;
g
'
3
b
3
Q
3 U
by
3° icy
o
VJ
a
3
a.
-o
o
Q
a.
a`°i
. IC
kn
v7
• �� OG
GU
0.1
0
.BUJ
ici
vi
o
0
....
l,
�
a
•.� -0
�
a.
0.
i
j
U
N
4.4
O
N
b0
ti
t�
F'
-
�O
N
U
o
a
.�
cb
3
t�
U
..
U'
y
q N
0
p
f"�
^'
q
O
id
^d
O
q
O
U
q �i ►,
�
it O
0
bb
•
b
75
by
y
a
a>
��. 4°
a
•+a
o
0
ti
PC
PC
N
O O
� s O
-
O
O
O
o
a O
a
a'
a
fn
V
fn
-v
aH
�.Na
aH
'O
.n d.
O w
O O
O O O
b
El
a b
O O 3 p
z�
W U O Y U
c4�za:
.W.l Qmum
N
CL
I
C
to
a
O
v
V
w
7;
b
y �
� O w
b
U y
O O
O p O
El a P •�
orbU
N N U N
a �coUA
00
a�
rn
m
CL
C
�v
a
c
Q
a
y
o
U
o
U
ti
�
"
o
U
y
V
N V
V
U
N
V
• � O
'��+
� �
O O
�
O
O
O
O
V
V
V
A
U A
Q
0. U
U A
U
U
A
u � �
N
�
to
o
w
co
3
4.
`u'
`u'
`u'
ea3i
`
`
c
cqj
0
0
a00
�oY�
Yo
�yo��
ca
0
°'
w o
w
cd
b -d
a
3 aoi
3
aai
3
aoi
Q
a
O
N
Q
2
^"
N
N
Q
J
• Q
Q
�
Q
Q
Q
��
•
Z
h
a�
w
o
� en
o
�;
W
y
b
ba
°
.0
•�
k
N
O
M
�,
CIO
2
°o 0
o.
�
r
'
°
o
W
o
° u
y
a�
S
:� �.
o
u
°'
> M
R �
�
q u •�
ab
o w °
°A
q
p
}'
w
W
g
N
a
Cwd
0
a
°�.
� '
8
' o
ci u
0 6b
O
b
�
o
o
c
a
as
s ia�
�.
°
aww
awA
awUw
7;
b
y �
� O w
b
U y
O O
O p O
El a P •�
orbU
N N U N
a �coUA
00
a�
rn
m
CL
C
�v
a
c
Q
a
y
r r I
ail,
•v
� o �
O O
O O �
b ¢'•b
Aj U i U r
f-i El
� U
W C�rnZAC
a ¢mum
CD
tm
m
C
ea
IL
c
a
N
w
•V
U
U
A
CA
U
�z
PQ
U
PQ
¢
N
u O
p
u
�
�
O
bA
ON
y
�' �
� ��
N� N V
'
• V 'b
irn•
Cr'
L: 'O ti
O
p.
c� �
�
YO � � �
�
O
�
c
3
obb�'
o
sue;
o�•Y
o
��
W
C's
J.,
Ln
9b . E
�
ryW
0
at
c
v
3
PC '
•v
v
�
s
O
a�
s,�o
aw
O
r r I
ail,
•v
� o �
O O
O O �
b ¢'•b
Aj U i U r
f-i El
� U
W C�rnZAC
a ¢mum
CD
tm
m
C
ea
IL
c
a
N
aeA ,
44
� O
O"
� O w
U N �
O O
p p O
b Q C
U
O i. •U
U O Y U
Z., 924
QWUCI
0
N
N
R
CL
c
a
as
v
78
Z
O
O
O
O
• b�A
b�U
b�A
Y
OG
f�
AU
Q
°
cd
. >y b0 tu
tu
o
CU
O
Vii
Cd N
NN
.^
V`a
p
..fir
o.
�
.2
C3
N
�•+
Q�
y .�."
y
d0
U
� y .
Cd
•�
'
o o Q
cl a,
c
c°'i
.�
r t
o
�
o y b b
ai
2
3
ed
w
w
U
Q
v
£p
v
o a
3
3 on
U Y
. =
z
to
L" cd
fd
Li
N
o
la,
=4
'O
�d 4••I%
¢I
O
• U
h
�
fV
cV
• �� Q
Q
U
U
o
w y
O.
w S"'"
tu
.y N
0.
0
V
W
GO
id
bb 0
•
fn 'b
P4
R
°D
cd
aui
o
0
o
°o
o
a aaV
a�i vs
a,u39UU
aUQ
aeA ,
44
� O
O"
� O w
U N �
O O
p p O
b Q C
U
O i. •U
U O Y U
Z., 924
QWUCI
0
N
N
R
CL
c
a
as
v
CON
C
U O w
U N �
O O
O O O
ri
U _
N FUi � N
U O Y U
P4 rA Z 04
rWd < CG U Cl
N
N
tm
I
C
lQ
a
O
Q
v
w
U
U
�
by
C."
bA
Q
Y
Q�
Q�
q
s
,d
T3
•�
� ny
Y
C�.y •'�
� 1�
N
Qi
� �
7:
cd
40•
�a�i
ate, >,
'ti ��
b
y
^O s
^�
p
q
q
ai a>i
0.
w
>
aai �`"
a�i
�., o.
.14
a
c`3
o
o
o
3 3
'C
on
b
3 �
O � v �
�
ai
b �,
"�
°
�
�
o
•o �
°
cY~i
3 �
3
Q•
poq
�
pq
•�
o a
a,
0
U
co
>
CD
00
o
00
Q
GU
CQ
u,
E
❑
td y U
A
•
•�
U O
U V
� U
�
N w
�" Sa.
..
O
y ru
o CL
° Cs
o
• � �
� � �
� aki 3
ate°..
b �
Y
°
�
a 3
�w•� �
ci
a� a�
;:w
� U >,
�
0 O
>
0 y=
q w
b°
u
xw �.
w.a
xw �.
CON
C
U O w
U N �
O O
O O O
ri
U _
N FUi � N
U O Y U
P4 rA Z 04
rWd < CG U Cl
N
N
tm
I
C
lQ
a
O
Q
v
w
Cl:
b
w
vi d.
O
O w
U u
O O
O O �
N 'E
b Ab
0
U
w U O Y U
Z Rai
04 Q PQ u a
N
N
N
tm
lC
CL
C
R
a
c
'U
'U
E
O
O
O
�
O
• �i".J'
�
s
Q
GU
¢
GU
o
on
e,
w,
a�
Cs
o iv
V
°
+�
u
y
O
n
O r.
ti
y
U
"d
O td
r" jj
>
'3
y
3
s.
O
O
a cd
y
C7
o
0
o
Q
tu
UF
U
a;
O 'y '>
OP.
A
M
" O
O
�
�
¢
p
to
Q. A
�
`i
a0i
qu
to
•
c
.0
3
;� a�
o
w
o
b
jD
S
a
s"
cdd
O
'y
YO
,A
= w
�;
¢
y
N
cd
O
b"m
co
O
O
O
O
g
b
C
oC�U
a
b
Q
vpi
o
b s ty
O
b
f°
3
°
3
W
ti
O W o
0
3
• �� Q
Q
�
Q
Qti
O
on
C
O
A
co
O
�'
'� O LL
�
a�i
•�
�
.�
�+
p
o°'
m 0 en Cd
p
V
n
N
a
Q Q. xj-
¢
fl y
C
at O .�
Cd
„
En
a
G
0
ci
aa.s
cn
9
aU s
a�
°�.�
aAo'
Cl:
b
w
vi d.
O
O w
U u
O O
O O �
N 'E
b Ab
0
U
w U O Y U
Z Rai
04 Q PQ u a
N
N
N
tm
lC
CL
C
R
a
c
r
b
o.
O O
cC p
b
b
9,0.-,g
b O A b
N 4. U Tr
G 4A U
U O + U
.W.1 QmuCA
M
N
rn
m
c
R
a
c
Q
v
.M
N
O
o
.'
do
�
A
O
O
O
Al
i o4
Q
w
m
U A
O
'°
p
N
p
O N
y
L6
U
O
.d
M 4.
y
°'
°'
.��
O w
.emu-
bo c
O
o
0.2
A
• N
y'
C
•,�.,
a ¢ . cd
O
V
^O
. O
'oO
a�a°i
a
O
C
�.
a 3 a
c o°An
ta
'❑�
to
a
A
d
.
.
p
iq
to
O 0
u
>,
O cC
O
b
a O
o a c
�
a
v
a�
•�
U
a
cd
z _
�a
O
u
O
U
b
�
"o
N p,
r�U
�
�
v'
O
O 0.
O �
a�i
�
!�
� 4.4
it
� �
-0
y
p
to
u. �
-d
b �
� �
3 �
3
3
c, •�
v
S
�
�.
U
�
W
a>i .o
.�
3
��'"
� F
M
�
c�
c
• �� Q
Q
Q
Q
¢
a�
U
E
N
b
N 'O
cd
cad
3
y
�
�
'o �
�.
•o
CD
t
O
O
N
d
r--,
N
El
N
.N
cd
aci .O
y
O
Q.
o
0
u
0
a
Rtr)
w U
0
W
gx
3,�
•o ��
vA
,o
a
A�
on
o
U w
o
0
X4°.0
o A aai
6
u
w
u
aCdi
u 0
to
a ¢
W
O
09
r
b
o.
O O
cC p
b
b
9,0.-,g
b O A b
N 4. U Tr
G 4A U
U O + U
.W.1 QmuCA
M
N
rn
m
c
R
a
c
Q
v
.M
N
Il,
b
.b,
U N �
0 0�
0 0 0
b �b
�b�
°-
o
b °�•c
U
W U O ++ U
W OGV]ZPG
0 QCCUA
N
N
rn
m
Q
C
IQ
CL
C
Q
V
.tn
a
N
>
O
►.
�
O
�+
0
¢'
A
A A
A A
U
U A
°
y o
Eli
O
0
.�
'
O O
r°i,"§
b C�
b•�,,
bA
°
LA
on
o
•�
;
a u
y O
c
3
y
C �O
� n W
"0
O
cd bb
cd p y
0�
cC O
C].
O
O
'O
N
y
N
Q-.
.a O
C
.q p
O w
^O
O
a:
o
O
s~ ...
a
p °
3
p v '�
3°
p U
3
°'
a
y
0
O
wo.
Cud
0
C0
h
y
y
y
CA
b
b
b
b
C
C
C
O
>�
00
00
00
00
�y
• u W
W
¢
P4
GG
y
NY
'O •�
SZ
N
y
c
p
>
b
•
y
O
1~'
01
w
t3
Q
C�
N
Q
td
y
`�
N PL 3
�. Q. p
N 4° N
t0
011
e4
U
y
to
bp
c
'�
a
=
P4
a�i
o.
c
a
.r
°
•o
O
C
O
•
U
al
a,
N
d -d
O—
O
v
y
bb
O p O
O
C
O Q Cd
Cy
C�'C
a
.k
vii
R �' Q
.d
CC V y
'
O
O
0
N
'�
�+
•�
61 c� 'C
40.
CtS
w
r r
x
b
v>
o
U
V
aU
a�
U
aAgu
Il,
b
.b,
U N �
0 0�
0 0 0
b �b
�b�
°-
o
b °�•c
U
W U O ++ U
W OGV]ZPG
0 QCCUA
N
N
rn
m
Q
C
IQ
CL
C
Q
V
.tn
a
N
SECTION I- INTRODUCTION
Citygate Associates, LLC is pleased to present this organizational assessment of San Luis
Obispo's Community Development Department. This introductory section will discuss the goals
of the report, the work Citygate conducted, including our approach and assessment factors, and
advise the reader on how best to handle this peer review. We will also discuss the reality and
complexity of the community setting that is uniquely San Luis Obispo. These unique community
characteristics shape the opportunities and constraints that are available to the City and the
Community Development Department as a whole.
1.1 STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the study is to provide an independent, objective, rigorously analytical third party
analysis of the policies, procedures, management and operations of the Community Development
Department, as it now exists, and to design a constructive, forward- looking, and creative
strategic plan for improvement, as needed. As part of the study Citygate reviewed and analyzed
the current organizational structure and service delivery of the Community Development
Department as well as, to the extent necessary, the associated land development services
provided by other departments of the City (e.g., the Public Works Engineering Development
Review Division, Economic Development Program, and the City Manager's Office).
As set forth in the scope of this engagement, Citygate solicited input from residents, customers,
stakeholders and employees to help define the goals and priorities that the City will consider in
analyzing potential alternatives for improvement.
A key purpose in the design of a general performance analysis, such as this engagement, is to
ensure that sufficient flexibility is provided to the consultant and the City to pursue issues that are
most rewarding, while functioning within an agreed -upon contract budget. To accomplish this
objective, the early analytical efforts were designed for the consultant to establish a familiarity with
the Community Development Department's overall planning and development review permitting
processes, and the systems and procedures that support it, and to "scan" for issues that are material
to the study in its early stages. This was done to make sure that the study was outcome - driven, as
opposed to simply being task - driven. As a result of these early analytical efforts and our
discussions with the leadership team, Citygate was able to focus its time and attention on the issues
we identified in the Department and the actual issues identified by the City's employees, customers
and stakeholders during our one -on -one interviews, focus groups, and our on -line surveys.
1.2 WORK CONDUCTED
In varying degrees, Citygate Associates examined the following:
1. Communication among staff and customers
....
Section I— Introduction page 25 i 1
2. Current and future performance measures
3. Support systems such as information technology, human resources, and
accounting
4. Management structure and effectiveness
5. Customer satisfaction
6. Allocation of employees and other resources
7. Personnel management, supervision, and reporting
8. Staffing, budgeting, and the systems by which the organization routinely
reassesses its key programs and activities
9. Workload trends
10. Physical layout of building and workspace.
The scope of Citygate's engagement included neither a financial audit nor a compliance audit.
Citygate also set a goal of providing realistic recommendations that can be implemented to help
improve the Community Development Department as well as the overall effectiveness of the
development review permitting process, while meeting the needs of the San Luis Obispo City
Council and the citizens whom they serve.
In executing this study, Citygate engaged in the following processes:
1. Conducted interviews with the City Council, City Manager, Assistant City
Manager, and Community Development Director
2. Conducted focus groups with external customers such as development applicants
and non - applicant organizations and neighborhood groups
3. Conducted a web -based survey of external customers of the Community
Development Department
4. Conducted a web -based survey of Community Development Department
employees, and employees from Public Works, Fire, and Utilities that participate
in the development permit review process.
5. Conducted a web -based survey of City residents
6. Conducted interviews with all levels of the Community Development staff
7. Reviewed available documents and records relating to the management,
operation, and budgeting of the Community Development Department
Section I— Introduction page 26
8. Considered best practices in comparable agencies for applicability in San Luis
Obispo.
Throughout this process, it was our policy to review findings of the study with multiple sources
in order to validate findings used in the report. The data also was presented and discussed with
the Community Development Director and a multi - department steering committee to allow an
opportunity to provide evidence concerning aspects of the report that they felt were unclear or
needed further input.
Based on our understanding of the City's environment, Citygate Associates developed its own
mission - oriented goals to guide our efforts in conducting the engagement, as follows:
1. Citygate Associates will deploy the City's investment in this assessment to
enhance the City's development permit review process, when measured by the
criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, balance, and
transparency towards all stakeholders.
Z Citygate Associates will make recommendations to improve the Community
Development Department by maximizing its organizational performance, to the
extent possible, within a finite resource base.
3. Citygate Associates will ensure that San Luis Obispo City receives an
independent, objective, and rigorous organizational assessment, while
respecting unique local conditions and needs and encouraging constructive,
positive results.
1.3 CITYGATE'S APPROACH AND ASSESSMENT FACTORS
Citygate analyzed the goals of the City's Community Development Department and overall
philosophy. We assessed the congruence of these critical guidelines with the orientation of the
San Luis Obispo City Council. Once this important step was completed, we examined the
profile of processes to evaluate organizational structure and management systems, organizational
relationships, allocation of employees and other resources, performance variables, budgeting and
training, workload trends, communications systems, information technology, facilities and
equipment, relationships with citizens, comparability to other jurisdictions and related aspects to
determine if these were in alignment with the departments' mission and policies as they relate to
planning, development, building and safety, and code enforcement, including the new
Neighborhood Services program.
Section I— Introduction page 27
In conducting our study, we used the following assessment factors:
Citygate's Profile of Assessment Factors
1.4 THE KEY TO SUCCESS: THERE'S A ROLE FOR EVERYONE
In preparing our findings and recommendations, Citygate attempted to produce a report that can
be owned by as many of the City's employees as possible. Ownership of change is the key to
bringing about real lasting change. We believe that most people are not averse to change, they
just do not like being changed, and they do not want to be told what to do and how to do it. If it
is not their idea there may be resistance to it, lack of effort to implement it, or sometimes even a
forceful opposition to the suggested improvement.
The degree to which the recommendations in our report reflect the information and ideas
suggested by the City's employees, customers, stakeholders, elected officials, residents, and
administrative leaders will determine the extent to which lasting changes and improvements will
be made. Great things can happen for the City if everyone takes an active role in owning and
implementing the recommended solutions. There is an essential supporting participatory role for
everyone.
1.4.1 Elected Officials
Congratulations. Very few local government agencies take the time to conduct rotating, citywide
organizational assessments as a matter of course. It is smart preventative maintenance and clearly
a "best practice." Most cities wait until their affairs are so dysfunctional that they find
themselves sitting on top of a community and organizational volcano. By then, the needed
repairs can be very disruptive and costly.
Section I— Introduction page 28
Act now so that all San Luis Obispo community stakeholders and City employees know you are
willing to do what you can to support and enhance the Community Development Department in
its efforts to provide excellent service to all its varied customers. Make a commitment to fund the
Department's development permit review process and community outreach programs at a level
that will, over time, establish San Luis Obispo to a leadership position among the best -run
departments in California. Fully endorse the recommendations within this report and direct your
staff to work on implementation of the Strategic Action Plan. Support your leadership team.
Think and act strategically.
1.4.2 Customers and Stakeholders
Expect great things from the City. Expect the City to treat you like a valued customer and to
treat you with the highest respect at all times. In turn, recognize that City staff often labors under
difficult circumstances due to the controversial nature of their work and its legal framework,
which is often outside of local control. Give them your respect and, when appropriate, your
support. Be accurate, complete, and forthcoming with the details of your application submittals.
Be quick to resolve issues through the Community Development Department chain -of- command
so that successful processing can become an organizational habit. Activist stakeholders and
applicants alike are encouraged to avoid end -runs, thus weakening the process and reinforcing
dysfunctional behavior in the development permit review process. Delaying due processing of an
application should never intentionally be used as a tactic to force exactions from a private party.
1.4.3 City Manager's Office
You have taken key steps in the right direction by recognizing the need for ongoing peer review
for all departments. You are supporting key technology initiatives. It is clear that you care about
your City customers and your staff and that you are working hard under difficult circumstances
to do everything you can to make the City's development permit review process and
responsiveness to stakeholders run better. Take your talents and experience and bring them to
bear by boldly implementing the recommendations in this report.
1.4.4 Community Development Staff
Embrace and support the Strategic Action Plan included in this report and support your
department leaders as they make improvements in the City's development permit review process
and the manner in which the Department interacts with its stakeholder customers. You may or
may not see your individual recommendations in this report, and it may not contain everything
you wanted, but it will go a long way towards making the San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department among the best and most progressive in the state. Be patient, yet
diligent. Expect and insist on working in one of the best community development agencies in
California. Increase your skills and level of expertise. Be flexible and supportive. Put your
customers first in all that you do. Identify their expectations, and then exceed their expectations.
Section 1— Introduction page 29
1.4.5 Key Staff in Other City Program Areas: Public Works, Utilities, Fire,
Economic Development, and Information Technology
You have the opportunity to support positive changes for the City. It cannot happen without you.
Embrace and support the Strategic Action Plan in this report. Be flexible and supportive. For
many of you, the Community Development Department is the direct customer: put your
customers first in all that you do, identify their expectations, and then exceed their expectations.
Section I— Introduction page 30
SECTION I1 -CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S UNIQUE SITUATION
2.1 THE STORY AND THE GOOD NEWS
San Luis Obispo's situation with its Community Development Department is fundamentally
good. Relative to many of the agencies Citygate has assisted in recent years, the organization as a
whole is very dedicated, very talented, honest, professional, and competent.
The Department is in a good position to modernize, adapt to a shifting set of priorities, and to
make service delivery changes that will increase efficiency, effectiveness, and customer
satisfaction in all stakeholder categories.
The City Council and the community, as a whole, believe that the City has a well- intended,
talented, and dedicated Community Development staff.
Overall, staff is proud and grateful to be a part of the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department, and it shows. We rarely find this in cities.
2.2 FIVE IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL THEMES
In order to best understand the Community Development Department's current challenges and
opportunities it is important for the reader to understand the contextual themes that have been
identified during the course of our organizational assessment. These five contextual themes
underlie and affect everything the Department does day in and day out. They include the
following:
2.2.1 Theme One: The Community Knows San Luis Obispo is a Very Special
Place
San Luis Obispo is arguably one of the most livable, unique, and beautiful cities in California. It
enjoys nearly perfect weather, a varied growing season, a university, and a lovely downtown. It
is a few minutes away from the beach, but not so close that it's foggy all the time!
Everybody who lives here knows it is a special place. The early Spanish settlers knew it.
Families that have been in the County for generations know it. Students that go to college at Cal
Poly know it. Many stay. If they leave, they often come back. Newcomers know it. Residents in
the neighborhoods know it. Business owners know it.
Throughout our interviews we witnessed this strong sense of place. Preservation of the City as a
special place is a value shared by everyone we met.
Section 11 —City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situation page 31
2.2.2 Theme Two: Push -Pull Exists Between Community Preservation and
Economic Development
During our interviews we noted strong objections to urban sprawl. We often heard "we don't
want to become like L.A."
Many of the City's stakeholders, activists and non - activists alike, value the architectural and
cultural heritage of San Luis Obispo. This value is embodied by the City Council establishing
robust Architectural Review and Cultural Heritage advisory bodies.
We also heard repeatedly that the City and its stakeholders have a desire to maintain and improve
the business environment. We often heard during our interviews that the City needs and wants
"head of household" jobs.
These two values —community preservation and economic development —exist in support of one
another and in opposition of one another, all at the same time. San Luis Obispo's architectural
and cultural assets add great economic value to the business community. At the same time,
preservation of these assets, with all the rules, regulations, and additional costs, create a burden
on the business community and a burden on investors.
This push -pull makes for a difficult and challenging work environment for the Community
Development Department and its staff. It is easy to get "policy whiplash;" thus, it is in the
interest of City leadership and community stakeholders to recognize the push -pull, discuss it,
respect it, and support the Department as it wrestles with this challenge. In turn, staff's obligation
is to be fair, objective, and balanced in all that they do, to recognize and embrace the diversity of
the Department's customer base, and to deliver responsive, transparent service to all.
2.2.3 Theme Three: Push -Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement and Efficient
Development Permit Review Processing
The City Council and the community together place a high value on citizen involvement. This is
not uncommon in university towns, particularly those that have distinct neighborhoods and deep
historical roots, as does San Luis Obispo.
The high level of citizen involvement leads to rich collaborations and high development
standards, all of which benefits the community. However, the high level of citizen input makes
for a development permit review process that can often be slow and complicated.
We heard vocal complaints from stakeholders that staff was too applicant- oriented and that staff
did not give enough deference to neighborhood groups, residents, and the advisory bodies during
the review process.
On the other hand, we heard repeatedly from the business and development community that the
development permit review process was overly complicated and too deferential to parties that
were not vested financially. However, we should note that there was a general consensus that
Section II —City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situation page 32
high development standards, albeit burdensome, protected their business investments over the
long term.
2.2.4 Theme Four: The Organization is Respected, Dedicated, and Collegial, Yet
Professionally Isolated
The community and its varied stakeholders generally respect the talents and dedication of the
individual staff members within the Community Development Department. Our survey data also
supports this conclusion. Staff's dedication to the City was observed throughout our assessment.
The working environment is friendly, upbeat, positive, and collegial. It is a happy workforce,
overall.
Nonetheless, we also observed several indicators that the Department has fallen behind in certain
core areas of work as a result, we believe, of its geographical and professional isolation. This
phenomenon was visible in the areas of technology (website, smart- phones, social media,
customer surveying), outreach, cross - training, co- managing, and financial management.
We know that talent and professional commitment is present in the organization. It is critical to
the long -term success of the Department that it institutionalizes efforts to harvest "best practices"
from its respective professions. Thus, we have made recommendations that will move the
Department in this direction by establishing Professional Development Plans, ongoing training,
and a Continual Improvement Program. We believe that, if given the opportunity, staff will
thrive and stay ahead in their respective fields of professional endeavor.
2.2.5 Theme Five: If You Can't Be Predictable, Communicate!
Everybody would be happy if the City could devise a development permit review processing
system that was fast, cheap, transparent, responsive to neighborhood input, AND predictable.
Improvements to the existing system can and should be made, as witnessed by our numerous
suggestions and recommendations.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding these efforts, the system will remain unpredictable to one degree or
another. This is due to the push -pull as we described and because the inherent nature of planning
and building affords great latitude in exercising judgment on projects. This intrinsic problem
presents risk and concerns for all stakeholders, regardless of their priorities.
The best remedy for this reality is for staff to communicate, and then communicate some more,
including with applicants and non - applicants alike. Advances in technology and social media
make this easier currently, and will continue to do so. Keeping the channels of collaboration and
mutual respect alive and well maintained is an ever - growing community expectation, and thus
needs to be a central organizational value of the Department.
Section II —City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situation
page 33
SECTION I II --WHAT STAKEHOLDERS SAY ABOUT THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
During the course of conducting Citygate's one -on -one interviews, focus group meetings, and
three on -line surveys we were able to get a strong sense of how various stakeholders viewed the
Community Development Department, its leadership, and staff as a whole. Relative to other
agencies we have studied and advised, the Community Development staff enjoys a healthy
measure of respect and support. That is not to say that challenges and areas for growth and
improvement do not exist; they do. However, we are of the opinion that the attitudes, skills, and
will to improve the Department's performance for the community, and the political leadership
support, are very promising.
3.1 ELECTED OFFICIALS
The City Council recognizes the talent and dedication of the staff in the Community
Development Department. They recognize that staff labors in a complex working environment
that involves cross currents between the various values and stakeholders in the community:
preservation; business; environment; cultural; architectural; development; university needs;
neighborhood needs; young adults; older adults; residents; and non - residents.
3.2 APPLICANTS LARGE AND SMALL
3.2.1 Focus Group Meeting
During the course of our study in San Luis Obispo, Citygate held a focus group meeting with
individuals who had processed development permits within the last two years. We asked the
focus group participants two simple questions:
1. How is the Community Development Department doing?
2. How can the Community Development Department improve its efficiency and
effectiveness?
After a very lively 90- minute session the participants reached a loose consensus. In order of
priority, here is what they had to say:
1. Create a "can do" customer service attitude.
2. Enforce cycle -time standards; improve predictability; use Determinate Processing
Agreements.
3. Improve the website: make forms and applications available; include FAQs;
provide samples of completed applications and forms; make it more user - friendly;
make ongoing updates to the website.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department
page 35
4. Improve interdepartmental coordination.
5. Place the most experienced planners at the front counter.
6. Establish an annual Zoning Code Amendment Process in order to clarify,
simplify, and modernize the Code, and to sunset outdated provisions; push
authority towards over - the - counter approvals.
7. Enforce a "one bite at the apple" policy (e.g., a Conditional Use Permit was
required AFTER the building permit was issued). If the project is materially
redesigned, then limit new requirements ( "bites ") to the redesign only.
8. Improve CEQA process: be more inclusive with applicant who is paying the bills;
rely more on licensed professionals' signatures.
9. Make sure during Commissioners' orientation that they clearly understand their
roles and limits.
10. Use tailor -made conditions of approval (currently 90 percent are irrelevant).
3.2.2 Customer Survey
Citygate conducted an Internet -based Customer Survey for customers of the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development Department. The survey was "open" to accept input between
December 28, 2013 and January 25, 2013. The availability of the survey was advertised via hard
copy invitation letters sent to approximately 2,000 randomly - selected applicants who have had
an application processed within the past two years. Invitation letters were also available at the
Department's front counter. In total, there were 129 completed surveys.I
The survey consisted of a number of closed -ended and yes /no questions with one concluding
open -ended question. Customers were asked to rate the divisions of Development Review,
Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Engineering, and were only asked
to rate the division(s) they had business with.
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 59 customers responded to questions about Development
Review; 12 responded to questions about Long -Range Planning; 91 responded to questions about
Building and Safety; and 40 responded to questions about Public Works Engineering. For each
of the four divisions addressed in the survey, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction
with specific aspects of each division. In the Development Review section of the survey, there
were 27 of these aspects; in the Long -Range Planning section, there were 18; in the Building and
Safety section, there were 27; and in the Public Works Engineering section, there were 26.
1 While the number of responses is not statistically significant, these results, when used in tandem with the stakeholder
interviews, provide a very good indicator of the perceptions of customers.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 36
The rating scale for each aspect was "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1).
Respondents were also asked a few additional "yes" or "no" and rating scale questions with one
concluding open -ended question about the Community Development Department and the Public
Works Engineering Division overall.
Below, a summary of the results for each division are provided, showing the 5 highest ranking
aspects (in descending order) and the 5 lowest ranking aspects (in ascending order) .2
Development Review Results
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 59 customers responded to questions about Development
Review. Customers were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Development Review. A summary
is provided below:
5 Hithest Ratings
Subject
Courtesy
Mean
4.03
Median
4
Mode
4
Std Dev
0.76
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
3.82
4
4
0.92
Positive attitude
3.66
4
3
0.81
Knowledge of development review
3.61
4
4
0.79
Providing complete process information at public
counter
3.47
3
3
0.99
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
..•
Std D-
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.17
2
2
1.12
Complexity of regulations
2.42
3
3
1.05
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
2.45
2
2
1.16
review
Understanding of private business
2.45
2
2
1.19
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
2,55
3
2
1.04
2 Note: If a tie in the mean score exists for the 5`h highest or lowest ranking aspect of any division, the aspects with the same
mean score are also shown. Thus, in some cases more than 5 aspects will be shown.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 37 ,e
Long -Range Planning Results
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 10 customers responded to questions about Long -Range
Planning. Customers were asked to rate 18 specific aspects of Long -Range Planning. A
summary is provided below:
5 Highest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
Mode
Std Dev
Courtesy
4.60
5
5
0.52
Positive attitude
4.50
5
5
0.53
Helpfulness and inclusiveness
4.22
5
5
1.09
Knowledge of long -range planning
4.20
4
4
0.63
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
4.00
4
4
0.82
document submittal)
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
4.00
4
I 5
1.05
project
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Cost of processing application (fees)
Mean
2.33
Median
3
.. -
3
1.21
Understanding of private business
3.44
3
3
1.42
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.56
4
4
1.13
Providing consistent and dependable information
3.60
4
5
1.17
Communication on project status
3.67
4
5
1.32
Building and Safety Results
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 89 customers responded to questions about Building and
Safety. Customers were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Building and Safety. A summary is
provided below:
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department
page 38
5 Highest Ratines
Subject Mean
Courtesy 3.80
Median
4
..
3
D-
0.82
Thoroughness of inspections 3.74
4
3
0.92
Helpfulness of front counter assistance 3.71
4
4
1.04
Timeliness of inspections 3.71
4
4
0.98
Positive attitude 3.70
4
4
0.86
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Cost of processing applications (fees)
Mean
2.48
Median
3
Mode
3
Std Dev
1.21
Understanding of private business
2.72
3
3
1.29
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
2.93
3
3
1.12
Complexity of regulations
2.93
3
3
1.06
Accuracy /consistency of code interpretations
3.06
3
3
1.06
Public Works Engineering Results
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 38 customers responded to questions about Public Works
Engineering. Customers were asked to rate 26 specific aspects of Public Works Engineering. A
summary is provided below:
5 Highest Ratings
Subject
Courtesy
Mean
3.95
Median .. -
4 I 4
Std Dev
0.73
Knowledge of public works engineering
3.76
4 4
0.79
Positive attitude
3.71
4
3
0.80
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
3.54
4
4
0.82
Providing complete process information at public
counter
3.20
3 3
0.87
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 39 f
5 Lowest ,Ratings
Subject
Customer OVERALL Responses -.
-• ian
Mode
Std D-
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.22
2
1
1.17
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
expensive than other communities; professional and time considerations of plan check
services should not require extra fees.
7
City is too restrictive /has too many regulations; apply regulations in a reasonable, goal -
2.27
2
1
1.22
review
better communication to customers regarding expected timeframe, costs, and procedures
in the Planning process; make review process more "applicant friendly."
4
Coordinated review between divisions and
breaks down at Public Works.
departments of the City
244
2
1
1.28
Understanding of private business
2.47
2
1
1.19
Timeliness /number of re- checks
2.53
3
3
1.21
General Open -Ended Comments
Below, a summary of the responses to the open -ended Customer Survey question is presented.
The results are summarized by common themes identified in each response and are organized by
count (frequency) of each response. Only the top 5 most common themes are shown below.
Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in the
City's Community Development Department and Public Works Engineering Division.
Count
Customer OVERALL Responses -.
Improve timeliness of decisions and process flow; reduce time of checking process and
12
plan reviews; approve simple construction over - the - counter, rather than require multi -week
reviews.
Perm it/development/building fees too expensive; permit fees for development are more
9
expensive than other communities; professional and time considerations of plan check
services should not require extra fees.
7
City is too restrictive /has too many regulations; apply regulations in a reasonable, goal -
oriented fashion; distinguish between "regulations" and "guidelines."
Letters to customers should encourage cooperation and not be threatening / intimidating;
5
better communication to customers regarding expected timeframe, costs, and procedures
in the Planning process; make review process more "applicant friendly."
4
Better communication and organization between all departments; permitting process
breaks down at Public Works.
For a more detailed explanation of the results, please see Appendix A provided at the end of this
report.
! Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 40
3.3 INTERESTED PARTIES AND STAKEHOLDERS
3.3.1 Focus Group Meeting
In addition, during the course of our study, Citygate held a focus group meeting with residents
and individuals who were not development permit applicants but who had historically been
active and visible community stakeholders with a track record of providing input during the
development permit review process. We asked the participants in this focus group the same two
simple questions:
1. How is the Community Development Department doing?
2. How can the Community Development Department improve its efficiency and
effectiveness?
Again, after a very lively 90- minute session the participants reached a loose consensus. Due to
time constraints, we were not able to establish priorities with the non - applicants focus group.
Nonetheless, here is what they had to say:
1. Redefine the customer; definition currently includes applicants but leaves out the
community.
2. Limit the City's streamlining efforts to maintenance and replacement building
permits only (e.g., water heaters, roofs).
3. It is difficult to get written materials to the City's advisory bodies in advance of
hearings, especially the Cultural Heritage Committee.
4. Examine packet distribution system to allow for greater earlier public input at the
Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee.
5. Develop an aggressive "Community Outreach Tactical Plan" that would: use
modern technology; use simple language in public notices and announcements;
provide for public input early in the permitting process; explain why the pending
action is important to the neighborhood; make sure the venue has capacity to
handle the public turnout; have a checklist box with the name of the staff person
who decided whether a pending action had a neighborhood impact.
6. Establish a Committee of the Chairs in order to bring together on a regular basis
the chairpersons of each neighborhood association for discussion of common
interests.
7. Include alternatives at the beginning, with equal weight, in staff reports; include
pros and cons of each alternative; STOP advocacy planning; show fiscal and non-
fiscal impacts on residents.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 41�
8. Meet with neighborhoods first in the application process.
9. General Plan Update currently underway should include an Environmental Task
Force and a Neighborhoods Task Force to provide balance to the Economic
Development Task Force.
3.4 RESIDENTS
3.4.1 Resident Survey
Citygate conducted an Internet -based Resident Survey for residents of San Luis Obispo. The
purpose of the survey was to understand resident opinions of how the Community Development
Department is meeting or not meeting the needs of the residents. The survey was "open" to
accept input between March 7 and March 18, 2013. The availability of the survey was
announced via direct email invitations to 2,000 randomly - selected residents. In addition,
approximately ten (10) interested stakeholders asked to be sent invitations to the survey. Their
requests were accommodated. In total, there were 220 completed surveys.
Residents were asked to rate 15 different aspects of the Community Development Department.
The rating scale for each aspect was "Strongly Agree" (5) to "Strongly Disagree" (1).
Respondents were also asked one open -ended question about the Community Development
Department overall.
Below, a summary of the results is provided, showing the 5 highest ranking aspects (in
descending order) and the 5 lowest ranking aspects (in ascending order).
5 Hip-hest Ratiino
Subject
Mean
Median
.. -
Std Dev
The Community Development Department does a
good job protecting the City's cultural heritage
3.50
4
4
1.07
resources (e.g., historic preservation).
The ability to safely move around the City by car is
3.50
4
4
1.11
generally efficient.
The Community Development Department
contributes to the overall quality of life in San Luis
3.43
3
3
0.98
Obispo.
The Community Development Department does a
good job protecting the unique architectural
3.38
3
4
1.08
character of the City's various neighborhoods
(e.g., infill development, code enforcement, etc.).
The Community Development Department does a
good job planning for the City's growth and
3.29
3
3
1.01
development.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 42
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
..
D-
The Community Development Department favors
2.64
3
3
0.91
the City's residents over the City's businesses.
Information is generally available and I feel
informed about planning and development
3.04
3
4
1.18
projects.
The quality of life has improved since the City
3.04
3
3
1.08
began proactive code enforcement.
The Community Development Department favors
3.09
3
3
0.98
the City's businesses over the City's residents.
The Community Development Department's staff
reports presented at public meetings are
3.14
3
3
0.95
informative and balanced.
General Open -Ended Comments
Below, a summary of the responses to the open -ended Resident Survey question is presented.
The results are summarized by common themes identified in each response and are organized by
count (frequency) of each response. The top 6 most common themes are shown below
Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in the
City's Community Development Department.
Count Resident OVERALL Responses -.
Listen to long -term residents instead of the political flow; Community Development staff
have consistently avoided involving residents in issues that affect them; Residents are being
bullied and over -run by staff; Our input is constantly neglected, avoided even!; Decisions
have already been made prior to public meetings; City seems intent on a top -down
9 approach to planning and only involving people when what they have decided is already
finalized, i.e., Hillside ordinance, historical ordinance, wildland /urban fire boundaries; CDD is
out of control and out of line. They have their own agenda and throw tried and true policies
"under the bus" and deny residents ability to know implications of what is being considered
and changed; Essential information is withheld from the public, making any presentation by
staff, suspect. This results in a lot of bad feelings.
Need to place more emphasis on planning that reduces and mitigates the "homeless
problem;" promote development goals that address the problem of the homeless and
8 residents sharing the same space in a thoughtful way that discourages negative
interactions; approach the city -wide "aggressive pan handling" problem with other
agencies /departments; need better services for at -risk populations, specifically homeless
outreach.
Continue to maintain a vision of SLO being a safe place to bicycle and a pedestrian - friendly
8 town. Improving this infrastructure on current and future streets should be a continual
consideration. Connect bike trails. Need safer walking paths on South Higuera; more
walking trails and bike right -of -ways established.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 43
Count
Resident OVERALL Responses
SLO Community Development Department needs more visibility and outreach to help
residents know this department exists, use fliers or ads, not just social media, or put inserts
6
in utility bills by snail mail; perhaps branding to give the Department and its projects more
recognizability; the Department should spend money on letting the public know what they do
and how.
More resident involvement; There is no staff commitment to reach out to residents and try
4
and solve problems; We hear about things after they are a done deal, or right before council
approval; City staff does not notify residents when items are being proposed that will affect
them.
Develop a more user - friendly code enforcement system. People aren't sure who to call,
4
someone should be willing to talk to the complainer and work out a plan of action; provide
information on the number of infractions and what types are being handled, and if they are
being resolved in a timely manner; complaints are not being heard.
For a more detailed explanation of the results, please see Appendix C provided at the end of this
report.
3.5 CITY'S EMPLOYEES
The morale among employees is, as a group, good. As mentioned earlier in this report, most
employees are proud and pleased to be working for the City of San Luis Obispo's Community
Development Department. They are open to change and optimistic about their future and what
they can do to improve operations.
The planners were concerned about being caught in the middle between business and developer
applicants, on one side, and community preservationists, environmentalist, and neighborhood
activists on the other side. Planners are also concerned about the Department's Annual Work
Program and the manner in which substantial work items are added to their "to -do" list without
additional staffing or financial resources. We observed a sentiment amongst the line staff of
"what do we do first, and what should drop off the list ?" This sentiment is supported by our
observations that in many areas, expectations and workload exceed current available resources.
There exists a great deal of frustration and disappointment over the conversion to a new
electronic permit processing system. This EnerGov system has not lived up to expectations.
Despite the shortcomings, we did observe a "can -do" attitude of wanting to see the system work
and provide better customer service.
There also exists concern over the staffing levels and responsibilities at the front counter and in
the Development Review Planning Division.
3.5.1 Employee Survey
Citygate conducted an Internet -based Employee Survey for staff in the divisions of Development
Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, Administration, Public Works Engineering,
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 44
Utilities, and Fire Prevention involved in the Community Development
Department /Development Permit Review Process of San Luis Obispo. This survey consisted of
the same closed -ended questions asked about the divisions of Development Review, Long -Range
Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Engineering in the Customer Survey that
Citygate conducted prior to the Employee Survey. The purpose of the survey was to understand
how similar or dissimilar the staff opinions were of how they were performing compared to the
customers' perception. A summary of this comparison is provided in Section 3.6, immediately
following this summary of Employee Survey results.
The survey was "open" to accept input between January 31 and February 21, 2013. The
availability of the survey was announced via direct email invitations to staff. In total, there were
28 completed surveys.
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 10 employees responded from Development Review; 4
responded from Long -Range Planning; 6 responded from Building and Safety; 6 responded from
Administration; 4 responded from Public Works Engineering; 0 responded from Utilities; and 1
responded from Fire Prevention.3
For each of the seven divisions addressed in the survey, employees were asked to rate their
perception of how they were performing regarding a number specific aspects. In the
Development Review section of the survey, there were 27 of these aspects; in the Long -Range
Planning section, there were 18; in the Building and Safety section, there were 27; in the
Administration section, there were 24; in the Public Works Engineering section, there were 26;
in the Utilities section, there were 26; and in the Fire Prevention section, there were 27.
The rating scale for each aspect was "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1).
Respondents were also asked one open -ended question about the Community Development
Department /Development Permit Review Process overall.
Below, a summary of the results for each division are provided, showing the 5 highest ranking
aspects (in descending order) and the 5 lowest ranking aspects (in ascending order).4
Development Review Results
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 10 employees responded from Development Review.
Employees were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Development Review. A summary is
provided below:
3 The response totals of 10, 4, 6, 6, 4 and 1 for Development Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety,
Administration, Public Works Engineering, and Fire Prevention, respectively, do not add up to 28 since several employees
completed the survey for more than one division.
4 Note: If a tie in the mean score exists for the 5`b highest or lowest ranking aspect of any division, the aspects with the same
mean score are also shown. Thus, in some cases more than 5 aspects will be shown.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 45
5 Hiehest Ratinis
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std Dev
0.84
Customer service when compared with cities
4.70
5
5
0.48
within San Luis Obispo County
3.60
3.5
3
0.97
Knowledge of development review
4.50
4.5
4
0.53
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
4.50
5
5
0.71
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
4.50
4.5
5
0.53
project
3.70
4
4
0.95
Courtesy
4.40
4
4
0.52
Providing complete process information at public
4.40
4
4
0.52
counter
Responsiveness to / consideration of customer
4.40
4
4
0.52
concerns
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes
3.60
-..
3
Mode
3
Std Dev
0.84
Cost of processing application (fees)
3.60
3
3
0.84
Clarity of codes and policies
3.60
3.5
3
0.97
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.60
4
4
1.07
Timeliness /number of re- checks
3.70
3.5
3
0.82
Complexity of regulations
3.70
3.5
3
1.06
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.70
4
4
0.95
Long -Range Planning Results
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 4 employees responded from Long -Range Planning.
Employees were asked to rate 18 specific aspects of Long -Range Planning. A summary is
provided below:
Section III -What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 46
5 Highest Ratings
Subject
Customer service when compared with cities
within San Luis Obispo County
Mean
4.50
Median
5
..-
5
Std D-
1.00
Helpfulness and inclusiveness
4.50
5
5
1.00
Courtesy
4.25
4
4
0.50
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Providing complete information
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Providing consistent and dependable information
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std D-
Cost of processing application (fees)
3.00
3
3
0.00
Coordinated review between divisions and
3.00
3
3
0.82
departments of the City
4.67
5
5
0.82
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
3.25
3.5
4
0.96
document submittal)
Communication on project status
3.50
4
4
1.00
Understanding of private business
3.50
3.5
3
0.58
Building and Safety Results
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 6 employees responded from Building and Safety.
Employees were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Building and Safety. A summary is
provided below:
5_10-ahest Ratines
Subject
Customer service when compared with cities
within San Luis Obispo County
Mean
5.00
Median
5
..-
5
Std D-
0.00
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
4.67
5
5
0.82
Timeliness of inspections
4.67
5
5
0.52
Thoroughness of inspections
4.67
5
5
0.82
Communication on project status
4.60
5
5
0.89
Section III -What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 47
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std D-
Cost of processing applications (fees)
2.67
2
2
1.21
Complexity of regulations
3.00
3
3
0.63
Coordinated review between divisions and
3.00
3
4
0.89
departments of the City
4.00
4
-
1.00
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
3.17
3
2
1.17
document submittal)
4.00
4
4
0.82
Understanding of private business
3.67
4
4
0.52
Administration Results
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 6 employees responded from Administration. Employees
were asked to rate 24 specific aspects of Administration. A summary is provided below:
5 Highest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
..•
Std D-
Communication on project status
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Knowledge of Urban Planning issues and best
4.00
4
4
0.82
practices
3.00
3
2
1.00
Knowledge of Building Code issues and best
4.00
4
-
1.00
practices
Ability to creatively garner technical resources to
4.00
4
4
0.82
assist department employees
Customer service when compared with cities
4.00
4
4
0.82
within San Luis Obispo County
Accuracy /consistency of interpreting policies and
4.00
4
4
0.82
procedures
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Understanding of private business
Mean
2.75
Median
2.5
..-
2
Std D-
0.96
Ability to anticipate organizational problems
2.80
3
3
1.10
Ability to articulate a vision for the Department
3.00
3
-
1.00
Ability to build consensus on important issues
3.00
3
2
1.00
Responsiveness to / consideration of customer
concerns
3.00
3
2
1.00
Section III -What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 48
Public Works Engineering Results
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 4 employees responded from Public Works Engineering.
Employees were asked to rate 26 specific aspects of Public Works Engineering. A summary is
provided below:
5 Highest Ratings
Subject
Providing complete process information at public
counter
Mean
4.50
Median
4.5
..-
4
Std D-
0.58
Ability to solve problems as opposed to create
problems
4.50
4.5
4
0.58
Customer service when compared with cities
within San Luis Obispo County
4.50
5
5
1.00
Courtesy
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Knowledge of public works engineering
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Providing consistent and dependable process
information at public counter
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 49
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std D-
Timeliness /number of re- checks
3.50
3.5
2
1.73
Positive attitude
3.75
4
5
1.50
Fulfilling commitments
3.75
4
5
1.50
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
3.75
4
5
1.50
Cost of processing application (fees)
3.75
4
5
1.50
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
3.75
4
5
1.50
review
Clarity of codes and policies
3.75
4
5
1.50
Communication on project status
3.75
4
5
1.50
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.75
4
5
1.50
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
project
3.75
4
5
1.50
Understanding of private business
3.75
4
5
1.50
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.75
4
5
1.50
Overall process
3.75
4
5
1.50
Fire Prevention Results
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 1 employee responded from Fire Prevention. Employees
were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Fire Prevention. A summary is provided below:
.. n''
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 50
5 Hip-hest Ratings
Subject
Response
Median
Mode
Std Dev
Courtesy
5.00
-
-
-
Positive attitude
5.00
-
-
-
Knowledge of Best Management Practices in
2.00
-
-
-
applying fire code as part of one -stop
5.00
-
-
-
development permit review process
3.00
-
-
-
Customer service when compared with cities
5.00
-
-
-
within San Luis Obispo County
3.00
-
-
-
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
5.00
-
-
-
project
Understanding of private business
5.00
-
-
-
Coordinated review between divisions and
5.00
-
-
-
departments of the City
Providing complete upfront information regarding
5.00
-
-
-
inspections
Thoroughness of plan review
5.00
-
-
-
Timeliness of inspections
5.00
-
-
-
Thoroughness of inspections
5.00
-
-
-
5 Lowest Ratings
Subject
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
Response
2.00
Median
-
Mode
-
Std Dev
-
Providing complete process information at public
counter
2.00
-
-
-
Providing consistent and dependable process
information at public counter
2.00
-
-
-
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
2.00
-
-
-
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
3.00
-
-
-
Helpfulness of informative handouts on
processes
3.00
-
-
-
Cost of processing applications (fees)
3.00
-
-
-
Communication on project status
3.00
-
-
-
General Open -Ended Comments
Below, a summary of the responses to the open -ended Employee Survey question is presented.
The results are summarized by common themes identified in each response and are organized by
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 51r^
count (frequency) of each response. Only the top 2 most common themes are shown below, since
no other themes occurred more than once.
Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in your
division or the Community Development DepartmentlDevelopment Permit Review Process
overall.
Need additional staff to reduce processing times with current and anticipated increase of
workload; Permit Technician for Building and Public Works need to be full -time and
5 permanent as they are essential to the entire flow of the Development Review process;
due to an increased development workload, the Fire Department counter Administrative
Assistant and 1 1/4 Fire Inspector positions should be restored.
Need better entitlement routing system with more user - friendly documents; upgraded
website with handouts for common counter questions.
Re- design website to be more user - friendly with drop down menus to links such as "living
2 here" or "doing business here" to minimize time spent on phone helping customers
navigate the website. The homepage should include links to zoning and regulations
checklists, and the GIS parcel viewer should be easily accessible for customers' own
research.
For a more detailed explanation of the results, please see Appendix B provided at the end of this
report.
3.6 COMPARING CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESPONSES
As indicated earlier, both the Customer and Employee Surveys consisted of the same closed -
ended questions regarding the divisions of Development Review, Long -Range Planning,
Building and Safety, and Public Works Engineering. This was done to compare how similar or
dissimilar the staff opinions were of how they were performing compared to the customers'
perception.
Below, for each division we compare the five scores with the greatest difference and the five
scores with the lowest difference. The rating scale for each aspect was "Far Exceeds
Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). The highest differences represent aspects of the
division where perspectives of customers and employees are misaligned. The lowest differences
represent aspects where customers and employees are closer in agreement.
Generally speaking, the employees rated themselves considerably higher than the customers. In
many cases, a difference of more than one point existed. The exception to this is in Long -Range
Planning, where there was a much closer alignment of scores and where the employees actually
rated themselves lower than the customers on many questions.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 52
3.6.1 Comparing Customer /Employee Development Review Results
Below the comparison for Development Review is shown:
Highest Differences
Lowest Differences
Customer
Employee
Subject
Survey Mean
Survey Mean
Difference
Customer service when compared with cities
3.03
4.70
1.67
within San Luis Obispo County
4.03
4.40
0.37
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.17
3.60
1.43
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
2.45
3.80
1.35
review
3.66
4.20
0.54
Understanding of private business
2.45
3.80
1.35
Ability to solve problems as opposed to create
3.02
4.30
1.28
problems
Complexity of regulations
2.42
3.70
1.28
Lowest Differences
Section III -What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 53 .
Customer
Employee
Subject Survey
Mean
Survey Mean
Difference
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes
3.27
3.60
0.33
Courtesy
4.03
4.40
0.37
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.16
3.70
0.54
Positive attitude
3.66
4.20
0.54
Timeliness /number of re- checks
3.02
3.70
0.68
Section III -What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 53 .
3.6.2 Comparing Customer /Employee Long -Range Planning Results
Below the comparison for Long -Range Planning is shown:
Hip-hest Differences
Negative Differences
5 Unlike the other divisions where "Lowest Differences" are shown, for Long -Range Planning this table represents
the five scores where the employee scores were the farthest below the customer scores.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 54
Customer
Employee
Subject
Survey Mean
Survey Mean
Difference
Knowledge of long -range planning
4.00
3.25
-0.75
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.56
3.00
-0.56
Providing consistent and dependable information
4.50
4.00
-0.50
Cost of processing application (fees)
4.60
4.25
-0.35
Courtesy
4.00
3.75
-0.25
5 Unlike the other divisions where "Lowest Differences" are shown, for Long -Range Planning this table represents
the five scores where the employee scores were the farthest below the customer scores.
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 54
3.6.3 Comparing Customer /Employee Building and Safety Results
Below the comparison for Building and Safety is shown:
Highest Differences
Lowest Differences
Customer
Employee
Subject
Survey Mean
Survey Mean
Difference
Customer service when compared with cities
3.31
5.00
1.69
within San Luis Obispo County
Communication on project status
3.22
4.60
1.38
Responsiveness to / consideration of customer
3.26
4.50
1.24
concerns
Ability to solve problems as opposed to create
3.13
4.33
1.20
problems
3.70
4.00
0.30
Providing complete upfront information regarding
3.36
4.50
1.14
inspections
Lowest Differences
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 55 .�,
Customer
Employee
Subject
Survey Mean
Survey Mean
Difference
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
3.26
3.17
-0.09
document submittal)
Complexity of regulations
2.93
3.00
0.07
Coordinated review between divisions and
2.93
3.00
0.07
departments of the City
Cost of processing applications (fees)
2.48
2.67
0.18
Positive attitude
3.70
4.00
0.30
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 55 .�,
3.6.4 Comparing Customer /Employee Public Works Engineering Results
Below the comparison for Public Works Engineering is shown:
Highest Differences
Lowest Differences
Subject
Positive attitude
Customer
Employee
Differenc I
0.04
Subject
Survey Mean
Survey Mean
f; e
Ability to solve problems as opposed to create
2 79
4.50
1.71
problems
3.06
3.75
0.69
Customer service when compared with cities
2.88
4.50
1.62
within San Luis Obispo County
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.22
3.75
1.53
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
2.27
3.75
1.48
review
2.58
4.00
1.42
Process for final /parcel map approval
Lowest Differences
Subject
Positive attitude
Customer
Survey Mean
3.71
Employee
Survey Mean
3.75
Differenc I
0.04
Courtesy
3.95
4.25
0.30
Knowledge of public works engineering
3.76
4.25
0.49
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.06
3.75
0.69
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
3.54
4.25
0.71
Section III —What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department page 56
SECTION IV- DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The Community Development Department is comprised of four (4) divisions with
responsibilities and activities that can be summarized as follows:
4.1 ADMINISTRATION
The Administration Division of the Community Development Department provides leadership
and administrative support for the entire Department. It is comprised of the Director, Supervising
Administrative Assistant, 1.5 Administrative Assistants, and the equivalent of 1.2 temporary
positions.
4.2 LONG -RANGE PLANNING
The Long -Range Planning program oversees the preparation, maintenance and implementation
of the City's long -range plans that direct the City's efforts to meet the future needs of its
residents. These plans include the General Plan, Specific Plans and Area Plans, Community
Development Block Grant, Historic Preservation, demographics and land use information,
annexations, environmental review and advisory body support. It is comprised of the Deputy
Director /Long -Range Planning, Senior Planner, Housing Programs Manager, Associate Planner
and a part-time (.5) paid intern. A temporary Planning Technician is currently backfilling for a
planner that is working on a multi -year project.
4.3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The Development Review Division assists the community with land use issues and questions,
evaluates all type of development applications (including City- sponsored projects) relating to
compliance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Standards, and other
development regulations. The Division is comprised of the Deputy Director/Development
Review, Senior Planner, Associate Planner, and Assistant Planner. A temporary Planning
Technician is currently backfilling for a planner that is working on a multi -year project.
4.4 BUILDING AND SAFETY
The Building and Safety program implements the adopted construction codes and other state and
local laws that regulate building construction and use including the CA Building Code, CA
Residential Code, CA Electrical Code, CA Plumbing Code, CA Mechanical Code, CA Energy
Code, disabled access compliance, and wild and urban interface regulations.
The City's Code Enforcement program, including the new Neighborhood Services effort, is in
the Building and Safety Division.
The Division is comprised of the Chief Building Official, Assistant Building Official, Permit
Coordinator, Plans Examiner, 2 Building Inspectors, 2 Code Enforcement Officers, 1 Stormwater
Section IV— Department Organizational Structure page 57
Inspector, a part -time (.75 FTE) Permit Technician, 2 Neighborhood Services Specialists and a
part-time (.2 FTE) Scanning Intern.
The following chart illustrates the Community Development Department's current organizational
structure:
MSection IV— Department Organizational Structure page 58
—
/3\
4— §y
§ t
\} \}
ƒt ƒs fs
$ .
�
J
} \
2 \�
/ c
/\ /3\
.[/
—
2
\\
/\ /3\
.[/
—
2
/\ /3\
SECTION V-TEN STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section Citygate identifies and briefly discusses the Ten (10) Strategic Recommendations
that were developed during the course of this study. All of these Strategic Recommendations are
important to understanding what needs to be done to continue reshaping the organization, to
build upon its current successes, and to make real organizational improvements that will be
visible and meaningful. Put another way, if the Department makes all the "Other
Recommendations" set forth in this study but does not implement the Ten (10) Strategic
Recommendations, the overall improvement program is likely to end in failure. The list of ten is
not intended to reflect an order of priority.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #1: DEVELOP AN AWARD - WINNING COMMUNITY
OUTREACH PROGRAM
As mentioned earlier in this report, San Luis Obispo places a high value on community
communication, openness and transparency, neighborhood involvement, and having a vibrant
public participation and civic engagement process. Though activist stakeholders are important
vested participants in the development permit review and plan development process, it is
important that ordinary residents and other elements of the community not be overlooked in the
process. This is important in any community, but it is even more important in San Luis Obispo
because of its very unique physical, historical, cultural, educational, and demographic
characteristics.
In order to preserve the balance, integrity and credibility of the Department, staff should be
empowered and directed to make an extraordinary effort to ensure that the Department gets out
ahead of the issues and aggressively communicates and fully engages the community. The
Department can and should use robust, proactive, multi - directional communication with the
community. The Department should put an emphasis on using the Internet and the Department's
website. It should also stay current on the use of evolving communication technologies and
social media such as Facebook, Twitter, MindMixer, mobile apps, crowdsourcing and Virtual
Town Hall (VTH) meetings. By communicating and interacting with all the various stakeholders
in the community and their varying interests, the Department will build trusting and working
relationships that will strengthen the ability of its staff to effectively and efficiently function in
San Luis Obispo's unique and complex operating environment.
We believe the Department has a higher degree of knowledge and experience in using
information technology than most other local governments and that the City has the potential,
opportunity and the necessary interest in the community to be a national leader in state -of -the -art
community outreach programs.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations
page 61 a
Recommendation 1.1: Prepare and implement a proactive Community Outreach and
Communication Plan.
With the continually improving power of communication and information technology, a
community outreach program can be as robust and powerful as the City Council, Community
Development Department, and stakeholders want it to be.
At a minimum, an effective Community Outreach and Communication Plan would include a
clear statement of purpose, values, and commitments.
In addition, the Plan should also clearly describe how the Department intends to use information
and communication technology to:
1. Communicate with the community
2. Facilitate communication from the community to the Department
3. Encourage and maximize public participation and civic engagement in the
preparation of plans and in the development, implementation and enforcement of
regulations
4. Maximize the ability of community members to obtain information and services
using the Internet
5. Design the Department's website to be a communications portal to other
departments and services
6. Continually improve the outreach program by measuring and adjusting
7. Provide public reports on outreach successes and failures.
It is our understanding that the Department has already begun the early work on a community
outreach program.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #2: ESTABLISH CYCLE -TIME STANDARDS:
SYNCHRONIZE; WIDELY PUBLICIZE; MEASURE; AND REPORT OUT
The Building and Safety Division has done a good job of establishing and publishing cycle -time
standards. The Department's planners and engineers that touch the development permit review
process need to do the same thing. The Development Review Team, which is described in
greater detail later in this report, must give particular attention to managing and measuring cycle
times and turnaround times and adjusting practices to ensure that cycle times and commitments
are realized. It may at first be difficult for the Department to do, but it can be done and it should
be done. It will be well worth the effort, for the reasons discussed below.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 62
Based on our observations and interviews, Department staff has little to no awareness of its
processing times for discretionary permits. When we asked staff, we either got unsure answers or
no answer at all.
This low level of awareness is not adequate. Managers should have ongoing statistics and reports
that track how specific projects are moving through the system so that they can identify problems
that need to be addressed.
Tracking cycle times and turnaround times helps all staff, and particularly managers:
♦ Assign projects, allocate hours, and check assigned workloads of individual
planners to projects and match resources to workloads
♦ Position the Department to advocate for resources to meet cycle times
♦ Establish and monitor review cycles times and other performance measures
♦ Know all the activities going on in the Department
♦ Be able to tell the Director, staff, and applicant at each step of the process, what
the issues are, where each project is in the review process, what documents are
still missing, when an approval was given and on what conditions, etc
♦ Know the number of re- submittals required before an application is deemed
complete and the reasons those applications were incomplete
♦ Determine how long it takes to get a project through the process and how that
compares with other governmental entities
♦ Identify problems and investigate why project reviews do not meet cycle times
♦ Receive weekly status reports, including a list of projects being reviewed by
name, number, detailed status, comments, and what projects are overdue
♦ Make judgments regarding appropriate staffing levels and accurately match
resources to the level of service expectations established by the City Council
♦ Understand the issues at the Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Commission, and Cultural Heritage Committee that might be holding up the
efficiency of the review process.
Cycle -time and turnaround reports are basic in scope and will be effective tools in monitoring the
activities of the Department and the work done by each planner. Much of the data needed to
reach the objectives listed above will be available through the electronic permit tracking system
purchased by the City.
The Community Development managers have recognized the need for such tracking reports.
Citygate cannot emphasize more strongly that the problems with EnerGov need to be worked out
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 63
quickly and that performance management needs to be integrated into the DNA of this electronic
permit tracking system. Many of our recommendations hinge on the ability of the Department to
closely track project turnaround times, planner productivity, and providing a means by which the
applicant can have access to all information related to their project.
It is not possible to deliver excellent customer service without diligently monitoring and
reporting out on how much time it is taking to move applications through the review process.
The applicants deserve to know, staff needs to know, other departments need to know, the City
Council deserves to know, advisory bodies need to know, and activists and other stakeholder
groups deserve to know. Without this knowledge of cycle times, the process will be inherently
unfair, out of balance, less than efficient, and of questionable effectiveness and credibility.
Recommendation 2.1: Establish, synchronize, and widely publicize cycle -time
standards for all development permit types.
The Department, as a group, should dedicate whatever time is necessary to identify the key steps
in the development permit review process and to assign reasonable cycle and turnaround times
for each step in the process. These steps would typically include, at a minimum:
1. Application submitted
2. Application deemed complete
3. Environmental Assessment completed
4. Staff evaluation completed
5. Advisory body review(s) completed
6. Planning Commission action completed.
The measurement of cycle -time and turnaround time results should be reported out publicly to
the City Manager, City Council, and all customer and interested stakeholder groups on a regular
basis. Everyone involved in the development permit review process should be aware of how long
it is taking to process permits.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #3: DEVELOP AN ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IS DYNAMIC AND INTERACTIVE
The Department operates day -in and day -out by interacting with stakeholders and customers that
have competing values and expectations. In this respect, its operating environment is like no
other department in the City. Because of this unique situation, the Department needs to make an
extra effort to maintain at all times its credibility with the City Council, City Manager, and the
community. Continual alignment and re- alignment of the City Council's and City Manager's
expectations, and the time and resources allocated to these expectations, is critical to the
Department's success.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 64
Currently, the Department's quarterly and midyear reports are presented by the Finance
Department, not the Community Development Department. These reports are focused primarily
on budgetary objectives and, as such, do not adequately address the desired outcomes of the
Department's Annual Work Program.
It is our understanding that the Annual Work Program is now being integrated into the annual
report on the General Plan. However, it does not institutionalize an ongoing conversation
between the City Council, City Manager, and Department regarding ever - changing and
sometimes conflicting Work Program expectations and corresponding resource allocation.
The only other opportunity for the Department to align its day -to -day efforts with the
expectations and assignments from the City Council comes when there are new initiatives or
assignments for the Department that come up extemporaneously at City Council meetings. This
is a common problem in busy and complex municipal environments. Based on our interviews, it
is our understanding that the Department struggles to meet the City Council's workload
expectations. We did not observe just a few disgruntled individuals; rather it was a pervasive
sentiment of concern throughout the organization. This is a sign that expectations, time, and
resources are out of balance. All cities to one degree or another can get out of balance in this
regard. However, because San Luis Obispo has such strong, complex, and visible competing
interests, it cannot afford to let this imbalance go unattended too long. It affects employee
morale, and just as importantly, if left unattended, misunderstandings with regard to expectations
and the allocation of Department resources will lead to mistakes and lead to the Department
becoming too demoralized to try new approaches to problem solving that might require risk and
innovation.
Recommendation 3.1: Develop an Annual Work Program with the City Council that is
dynamic and reviewed publicly with the Director at least twice a
year in a study session.
Recommendation 3.2: Consider the Annual Work Program when adding or subtracting
new Department programs, initiatives, or services.
Recommendation 3.3: Include in the Annual Work Program measurable objectives,
timelines, and outcomes that are tied to the Department's annual
budget.
Recommendation 3.4: Increase linkage between Employee Performance Evaluation
System and the Department's Annual Work Program.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 65 ;;
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #4: INCREASE EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS,
AND CREDIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
The Department has a well - established Development Review Team (DRT) that meets weekly. A
seasoned planning professional at the Deputy Director level leads the DRT. Having a DRT is an
important "best practice." Many cities and counties do not have development review teams;
fortunately it is already in place in San Luis Obispo. The DRT members include representatives
from the City's Transportation, Public Works, Utilities, Fire, Natural Resources, Economic
Development and Building and Safety programs.
A "best practice" DRT has ten (10) basic functions, which include the following:
1. Monitoring customer service through all aspects of the development review
permitting program; reminding staff that customers include both applicants and
stakeholders and other interested parties in the community
2. Placing conditions of approval on discretionary entitlement applications
3. Tracking development applications to make sure they are processed in a timely
manner
4. Holding pre - application conferences with applicants, and institutionalizing a
criteria for priority projects
5. Managing items going to the Planning Commission and City Council, and
advisory bodies such as the Architectural Review Commission and the Cultural
Heritage Committee
6. Monitoring for consistent application of planning, engineering and building
standards
7. Identifying and resolving development review permitting problems
8. Effectively managing the map finalization and the Certificate of Occupancy
process
9. Disseminating information regarding development review policies and procedures
to other staff members in the City, and provide training as needed
10. Celebrating successes.
Highly effective DRT meetings begin and end on time. Attendance is mandatory.
A mature DRT will continually heighten awareness of time frames, produce consistent and clear
development standards, and deliver reliable fee cost estimates for the customer.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations
page 66
We found that San Luis Obispo's DRT is collegial and unstructured relative to teams we have
observed and advised in other cities. For example, in San Luis Obispo the DRT has no formal
agenda. Nor is there a rigorous project tracking system in place. Each planner tracks his or her
own projects and reports orally to the DRT as to where the application is in process.
The DRT, as it operates today, is nonetheless a positive program for the Department and its
customers.
We believe the DRT could be even more efficient and effective if it employed the "best practice"
techniques listed above. These improvements would serve to broaden its scope and
accountability and strengthen its customer - orientation.
The DRT already has in place a commitment to providing "early assistance" to its customers. It
offers Pre - Applications for its more complex projects. This service helps both the applicant and
the City identify problems and issues at the beginning of the review process before the applicant
has made investments of time and money. It allows staff the opportunity to solve technical
development issues in advance and to make the applicant aware of neighborhood compatibility
issues that can be addressed in advance. The Pre - Application fee is refunded to the applicant if
he or she files the formal application permit within 6 months. Applicants are encouraged to meet
with neighborhood groups that will be affected by development activities.
Recommendation 4.1: Establish and publish the criteria for projects requiring Pre -
Application review.
It is best to institutionalize success by formally establishing the criteria by which Pre - Application
review is required. The categories of projects should be established by the DRT, in consultation
with the City Council or, at a minimum, the City Manager. The criteria might include, for
example only:
♦ Residential projects that have more than 20 dwelling units
♦ Commercial projects that have over 20,000 square feet of new development
♦ Projects located in San Luis Obispo's historical downtown area
♦ Projects that create more than 20 head -of- household jobs
♦ Projects that generate more than $10,000 per year in new sales tax revenue.
Recommendation 4.2: Meet and coordinate staffs issues and concerns BEFORE pre-
application meetings with customers.
Recommendation 4.3: Open up the Pre - Application process by offering early
community review.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 67
During the course of our study we encountered both applicant and activist stakeholders who were
frustrated with the development permit review process. Applicants expressed their fear of
investing in San Luis Obispo because of the high level of multi - layered planning, architectural,
and cultural review. Activist stakeholders complained of being locked out of the process until it
was too late to make a difference. It is our understanding that too many development decisions
are being pulled up by the City Council to their level, rather than being resolved earlier in the
review process.
We recommend that the Department continue to encourage applicants of larger, more
consequential projects to meet with neighborhood groups as early as possible in the Pre -
Application process. This would allow the applicants and interested stakeholders to be talking to
each other and working informally to resolve issues to the extent possible at the front -end of the
development permit review process.
Opening up the Pre - Application process in this manner should be addressed as part of the
previously mentioned Community Outreach Plan.
Recommendation 4.4: Establish a formal DRT agenda.
The DRT should establish a formal agenda for its weekly meetings, identifying categories of
permits, existing timelines for each permit type and mechanisms for streamlining the review
process for each permit category to meet cycle -time standards. As an example, the DRT agenda
could include:
DRT Weekly Meetine Agenda
1. Review conditioning of pending projects and action items from last
meeting
2. Discussion of upcoming commission and council action items
3. Review of new projects
4. Review of Pre - Applications for priority projects
5. Status of DRT continual improvement items
6. Status of Development Services Fund
7. Around- the -table comments and requests for help
8. Meeting action items -due dates, required coordination, etc.
9. Adjourn.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 68
The precise agenda that would work best in San Luis Obispo should be refined and developed
collaboratively by the DRT members, the Deputy Director, and the Department Director.
In short, the DRT should be the center stage for development coordination and problem solving
in the City.
Recommendation 4.5: Utilize Determinate Processing Agreements for high priority
projects.
Successful development review permitting programs are able to provide entitlements and permits
in a way that is consistent and predictable. A highly evolved DRT approach to development
review permitting can help San Luis Obispo achieve this objective.
The Department should, in addition, establish a "Determinate Processing" program for
discretionary permits. Using a Determinate Processing program will help reduce the steps in the
development review permitting process into a simple, non - binding, outcome - oriented Schedule
of Performance agreement between the City and the applicant.
Citygate recommends that the City use Determinate Processing Agreements only for high
priority projects. These agreements, which should be used selectively to further the City's
economic development objectives, are simple and highly effective. The agreements are non-
binding and typically are limited to two pages in length. The City could choose, for example
only, to offer Determinate Processing Agreements for:
1. Commercial projects in downtown San Luis Obispo
2. Business Park and Industrial projects that generate or retain over 20 head -of-
household jobs
3. Commercial projects that generate over $10,000 per year in new sales tax revenue
4. Affordable housing projects of 10 units or more.
In a fashion similar to establishing the Pre - Application requirements, the DRT participants and
the City's leadership team should discuss and decide which type of projects should be afforded
Determinate Processing Agreements and the exact content of the document. Determinate
Processing Agreements should include basic project information and a back -and -forth schedule.
It is best to keep it simple, as provided in the following example:
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations
page 69
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DETERMINATE PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Date:
Project Name:
Priority Category:
Proponent Contact:
Location:
Case Planner:
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
ACTION (RESPONSIBLE PARTIES] COMPLETE DATE
1. Pre - application Conference (All Hands) January 5, 2014
2. Submission of Complete Application (Applicant) January 19, 2014
3. Deemed Incomplete Letter (Case Planner) February 12, 2014
4. Project Meeting (All Hands) February 14, 2014
5. Second Submission (Applicant) February 21, 2014
6.
Deemed Complete Letter (Case Planner)
March 1, 2014
7.
Call for Conditions of Approval (Case Planner)
March 3, 2014
8.
Review Conditions at DRT (All Staff)
March 24, 2014
9.
Discussion with Applicant regarding conditions (Case Planner /Applicant)
March 26, 2014
10.
Project Refinements Due (Applicant)
April 1, 2014
11.
Staff Report Prepared (Case Planner)
April 15, 2014
12.
Staff Report to Director for Review (Case Planner /Director)
April 15, 2014
13.
Final Service Check with Applicant (Case Planner /Applicant)
April 16, 2014
14. Post Hearing Notice April 17, 2014
15. Advisory Body Hearing Mayl, 2014
Signatures indicating concurrence:
Community Development Director Applicant
Economic Development Manager
Assistant City Manager
NOTE: This Determinate Processing Agreement is intended to increase effective communication between the City of San
Luis Obispo and the Project Proponent. It is a "good- faith" commitment to cooperate and to advance the subject project in
a manner consistent with the public interest.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 70
The following are additional recommendations for improvements that should be made in the
Development Review Team program as soon as practical for the Department.
Recommendation 4.6: Standardize Conditions of Approval to promote internal
consistency.
Recommendation 4.7: Examine the practice of issuing Blue Cards for projects that may
not have fully met Conditions of Approval.
Recommendation 4.8: Improve coordination and consistency of planners and engineers
signing -off on, and being accountable for, the application of non-
standard fees.
Recommendation 4.9: Shorten the time it takes for an applicant to get to the Cultural
Heritage Committee.
Recommendation 4.10: Use the time between now and when the EnerGov system is due to
be delivered to update, streamline, and shorten development
permit review processing procedures.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #5: INSTITUTE AN AWARD - WINNING
"UNANTICIPATED SERVICE" PROGRAM FOR CUSTOMERS OF ALL TYPES
Recommendation 5.1: Institute an "Unanticipated Service" program.
This is a system for consistently exceeding customer expectations in the development review
permitting process. It is based on principles and practices used by Nordstrom stores and best
practice public agencies.
Instituting an "Unanticipated Service" program in the Community Development Department is
likely to increase customer satisfaction and reduce complaints from applicants.
Community Development Department customers are often frustrated by their inability to obtain
reliable and timely information about the status of their applications. This frustration, Citygate
believes, only adds fuel to customers' concerns about other aspects of the development review
permitting process. In our experience, when applicants are kept informed, they are less likely to
assume the worst. Conversely, when applicants are not kept informed, they assume the worst
with regard to what is happening to their applications and their project. It is axiomatic that in the
absence of information, people "fill in the blank" with negative perceptions or fear of worst -case
scenarios. This negative perception can take hold and be very difficult to reverse, irrespective of
a public agency's efforts to improve systems and procedures.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations
page 71
i
The principle of "Unanticipated Service" is a simple one:
"Customer satisfaction increases most dramatically
when a customer receives a service they did not expect."
Examples of how it could be used in the Community Development Department include the
following:
The Community Development Director sends a personal letter to the
Department's most active applicants, consultants, or environmental advocacy
groups describing to them improvements and changes that are underway in the
Department.
2. The staff member assigned as Project Planner calls applicants and stakeholders on
larger projects at least every week to let them know the status of the application
and to identify and discuss how issues can best be resolved in a mutually
satisfactory manner. The applicant and stakeholders, when interested, are also
asked if they have any concerns regarding the application's status.
3. Make Friday morning "call your clients day" for all planners.
4. The developer and stakeholders, when interested, receive a letter from the Project
Manager at the conclusion of the hearing wherein they are asked how the
Department might improve their efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency.
Holding employees accountable for delivering "Unanticipated Service" is an essential element of
a successful development review permitting process customer service program.
Citygate believes that once the "Unanticipated Service" program is developed, adopted, and
publicized, San Luis Obispo's Community Development Department employees will embrace it
enthusiastically and meet the new expectations, particularly if the time spent providing the
service is recognized as a legitimate and tracked project cost.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #6: INCREASE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING,
CROSS- TRAINING, AND CO- MANAGEMENT TO PROMOTE EXCELLENCE AND
ORGANIZATIONAL NIMBLENESS
The Department shows signs of being professionally isolated. The most notable and
consequential examples of this isolation are the Department's lag in technology, lag in the use of
social media, and its lag in the use of modern communication techniques. We theorize that much
of the lag can be attributed to the geographic location of San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly offers
opportunities to engage academic and other professionals in the building and planning field;
however, the approaches and practices often originate from the same source. Looking out of the
area could be of great benefit to the Department. Also, to offset this geographic reality, the City
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 72
should make a conscientious effort to continually invest and reinvest in its personnel. It is
otherwise far too easy to become professionally complacent. Though it is cliche to say so, the
Community Development Department's people ARE its most important asset.
Recommendation 6.1: Conduct a training needs assessment.
The Department, with the assistance of the Human Resources Office, should conduct a training
needs assessment for all employees in the Department.
Training comes in several forms: in- house training on various processes and technology, training
by experts related to specific aspects of their job, and training provided by professional
organizations.
At the present time, in- house training only includes new planners shadowing experienced
planners for a short period of time. To some degree, informal non - structured training on specific
topics takes place in the planning staff meetings.
This level of training in the Community Development Department is not adequate for the
responsibilities these planners have, in light of community expectations and the fact that San
Luis Obispo is so geographically and professionally isolated. It has been de- emphasized because
of workload pressures, but it needs to become a top priority.
Two goals of such training are: (1) consistency, so that everyone interprets the code in a similar
fashion, and (2) to make planners comfortable enough that they know where they have flexibility
to deviate to accommodate nuances and when to seek management or policy -maker direction
when circumstances so dictate.
The professional planning seminars, particularly those located in the Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Sacramento regions, are important, not only for the sessions presented, but also
for the interaction with other planners to share experiences, observations, and frustrations. It is
important that the planning staff be given the opportunity to attend sessions provided by such
professional organizations. It is encouraging that staff routinely attend these conferences, but
more emphasis should be placed on making sure that new staff are also engaged in outside
training.
The Director should be encouraged to participate in leadership roles within his profession and
should attend both regional and national level conferences on an annual basis.
Recommendation 6.2: Commit to and fund a professional development plan for all
employees.
A conscious effort needs to be made to broaden the exposure that all employees have to current
business methods within their respective jobs and professions. This is particularly important
among the Department leadership and mid - management and professional planning and
engineering ranks.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 73 �*
Recommendation 6.3: Develop Core Competencies Training program for new planners.
All staff in the Department should develop the particulars of a Core Competencies Training
program collaboratively. The program might include, for example:
1. Delivering excellent customer service
2. Working the Department filing system
3. Interacting with other departments
4. Being resourceful and knowing how to ask for help
5. Writing a good staff report
6. Linking your performance plan to the Annual Work Program
7. Tracking your time for each project
8. Understanding the Planning Commission and City Council packet preparation
schedule.
This would ensure that new planners have the skills and knowledge that are uniquely required in
San Luis Obispo; it will equip planners to avoid having to "sink or swim."
Recommendation 6.4: Provide continual training in the use of all forms of modern
graphics and illustration.
Recommendation 6.5: Provide training for the best use of PowerPoint presentations.
Recommendation 6.6: Co- manage important projects by assigning a lead planner and
support planner.
The Department and its customers and stakeholders would be better served if each major
planning project had two planners assigned to it. There could be a lead planner and a support
planner. Both would be charged with providing collaboration -based high quality service to the
applicant and participating stakeholders and other parties of interest, as needed.
Recommendation 6.7: Integrate Current Planners into the Long -Range Planning Work
program.
We observed that Long -Range Planning could benefit from the professional assistance and input
of other planners within the Department. Given the size of the Department, we believe it would
work best if all planners were working in both the long -range planning and current planning
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 74
arenas, as a matter of course. Doing so will promote teamwork and the quality of the work will
increase by using systemic collaboration within the Department.
Recommendation 6.8: Establish a weekly training program for all plan check,
inspection, and code enforcement personnel.
This would enhance uniformity, create a "closer team" and strengthen front counter morale.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #7: ESTABLISH A "CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT
GROUP"
Recommendation 7.1: Establish a Continual Improvement Group on the Development
Review Team.
A Continual Improvement Group should be established to focus on processing improvements
that are directly linked to customer satisfaction for all stakeholder categories: businesses;
applicants; and neighborhood participants. The Continual Improvement Group's activities should
be ongoing and never complete. An emphasis should be given to technology -based
improvements, such as website self -help and permit -cycle time management. The Group,
through observation, conversation, and collaboration, should establish the work items with the
Department's various customers. The Group should operate openly and organically so that
opportunities to improve operations can be seized when they present themselves. As examples
only, here are some possible actionable items for the Continual Improvement Group to take on:
♦ Update the customer service evaluation cards; place an emphasis on getting the
cards into the hands of customers and getting them returned to the Department for
continual evaluation and systems improvement
♦ Continue to redesign written staff reports to provide brevity, simplicity, balance,
and objectivity
♦ Continue to clarify, simplify, sunset, and modernize the City's zoning code on an
annual basis as is the current practice.
A Continual Improvement Group of five members will work well. There are approaches to
constituting and managing the Continual Improvement Group that will enhance its success. It
should be broad -based in its makeup and skill sets. This will ensure meaningful input and ensure
that the Group's tasks do not become overly burdensome to any one employee. The Team
should meet often outside of the DRT format, but the meetings should be brief. Working teams
should be assigned around specific improvement tasks. Their work should be done between
DRT meetings, not at the meetings. The Continual Improvement Group should report out to the
DRT on progress and successes. A sample agenda would be as follows:
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 75 .�
CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT GROUP
MEETING AGENDA
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
1. Review of goals and objectives and reaffirmation of
principles
2. Consensus around newly identified needed
improvements
3. Review and status of new Group projects
4. Review and status of ongoing Group projects
5. Around- the -table comments and requests for help
6. Adjourn.
This is a proven model that works in many best practice agencies that want to place a high
priority on customer satisfaction.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #8: MOVE THE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROGRAM INTO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TO ALIGN SERVICE GOALS
During the course of our interviews we concluded it is difficult for the City to meet customer
expectations regarding turnaround times for the important engineering work that needs to be
performed during the development permit review process. The engineering work is highly
technical and, unlike planning, less subjective in nature. Unfortunately, delays in getting
planning items and reports reviewed, and conditions of approval finalized, are not uncommon.
It is worth reaffirming that, to the extent changes might be needed to meet turnaround
expectations, we suspect it is due to problems associated with juggling priorities and with the
process itself, as opposed to personnel problems. The skills and attitudes of the Division's
employees are outstanding.
We believe it would be helpful to move the Public Works Engineering Development Review
Division into the Community Development Department. This would foster a closer alignment of
the Engineering Development Review team's service goals with the service goals of the Planning
and Building divisions.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 76
Moving the Engineering Development Review Division into the Community Development
Department is merely Step One. Step Two, which is more important, would be to thoroughly
review the structural issues that have led to the perceptions that turnaround times are
problematic. Things to consider as part of this structural review could include:
1. Are the turnaround times set by the Community Development Department well
established, clear, published, and understood by all stakeholders (applicants, staff,
advisory bodies, City Council)?
2. Is the Engineering Development Review Division adequately resourced to meet
the turnaround cycle -time standards established by the Community Development
Department?
3. Does the Engineering Development Review Division have unfettered access to
qualified consultants to ensure the Division can meet the turnaround expectations
on a routine basis?
Delays in the development permit review process will arise even under the best of circumstances.
Often the factors contributing to the delay are beyond the control of staff. When delays occur, it
is best for the planners and engineers to work closely together, like a seamless team, as they
endeavor to satisfy the customer by resolving problems that occur as a result of the delay. If staff
needs to deliver bad news, it is always best to do it as a team.
We believe the Engineering Development Review Division will thrive in the Community
Development Department. This is a model that works in many best practice agencies,
particularly those that have high customer and stakeholder expectations regarding development,
design, preservation, and economic development, as is the case in San Luis Obispo.
As part of our analysis, in making this recommendation, we considered the entire development
permit review process at it now exists in the City. Although most of the review process takes
place in the Community Development Department, many important review activities take place
in other departments. These elements of review include:
♦ Engineering Development Review
♦ Utilities review
♦ Transportation review
♦ Traffic review
♦ Fire Marshall review.
The Engineering Development Review Division, currently operating out of the Public Works
Department, is comprised of the Supervising Civil Engineer, 1 Senior Civil Engineer, .75 Permit
Technician, and a .3 FTE part-time employee.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 77
As a matter of course, when studying reorganizational options Citygate utilizes the following
prioritized principles, in descending order, to determine which functions would be included or
not included in a newly reorganized entity:
1. Create a positive and successful customer experience. Throughout our analysis we
first seek to make organizational changes that will improve customer service by
putting the customer first, period, ahead of organizational wants and ahead of
individual wants.
2. Maximize the visibility and public awareness of changes that are practical and
make common sense. We do not propose changes just for the sake of making
changes. Rather, we wish to promote reorganizations that will be understood and
supported by the public and City staff because the changes are simple in design
and an obvious improvement over the current structure.
3. Inventory of all functions touching development perms it review process. As part of
our analysis we carefully study and understand the steps in the review process as
they stand in 2013, after the City's latest moves and staff reductions and the
impacts such moves have had on customer service.
4. Cradle to Grave vs. Checks and Balances. This involves weighing the trade -offs
between the two approaches to structuring an entitlement permit review and
approval process. A "Cradle to Grave" approach means having the same
department responsible for a project throughout the approval process:
environmental review; entitlement; plan check; construction; occupancy; and
post- occupancy monitoring. A "Checks and Balances" approach means having
different departments responsible for each phase in the approval process, as is the
City's current condition.
5, Whole vs. fractional units. As part of our analysis we consider the practical
advantages and disadvantages of moving entire work units versus, as an
alternative, moving just part of a work unit. We consider the affect such a move
will have on the department from which the function is being removed.
6. Function vs. persons. During the course of our analysis we look at where it is best
to house each function of the development permit review process independent of
the skills and talents of the individuals currently assigned to these functions. This
is done to ensure that the organizational design will hold up over time.
7. Reorganization vs. co- location. In a few instances a department's involvement in
the overall permit review process is relatively minimal. Moreover, the personnel
conducting the review function have other responsibilities within their own
department. In such instances co- location at or near the permit counter is the best
option for the City and for the customer.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 78
8. Financial impacts and consequences. Throughout our analysis we are mindful of
the City's commitment to full cost recovery and keeping fees to levels that are
competitive with other jurisdictions. Having said this, we look first to what would
be best for the customer, and then work with City staff to make sure our
recommendations are financially achievable.
Recommendation 8.1: Effective January 1, 2014, move the Engineering Development
Review Division into the Community Development
Department.
Fortunately, the Engineering Development Review Division as it currently functions is a single
purpose, stand -alone program. That is, all of the Division's activities and responsibilities are
directly linked to the development permit review process: reviewing permit applications,
reviewing parcel map and track map plans, reviewing public infrastructure improvement plans,
and reviewing development - related studies. The Utilities, Transportation, and Traffic
Engineering functions are staffed and administered wholly separate from the Engineering
Development Review Division. Therefore, from an organizational and functional standpoint, the
City can move the entire division and its 3.05 (FTE) employees into the Community
Development Department without any other significant organizational shifts.
However, notwithstanding the stand -alone composition of the Engineering Development Review
Division, it is important that cooperation between the Division and the engineering field
operations and engineering inspections operations, for example, continue to be supported in a
seamless fashion. It is critically important that during construction the public improvements are
installed properly and built according to the plans approved by the City's civil engineers.
The following steps should be taken by the City to accommodate the move in a seamless and
effective manner:
1. Establish lines of authority and cooperation with City Engineer. It is
important to note that the City's public infrastructure standards are established
and maintained by the City Engineer of record, not the Engineering Development
Review Division. This position has historically, like in nearly all cities the size of
San Luis Obispo, reported directly to the Public Works Director. The City
Engineer is a statutory position vested with certain authorities by the State of
California. This important designation cannot and need not change under this
proposed move of the Engineering Development Review Division.
The City cannot afford to have its customers suffer from poor communication,
mixed messages, or delays between the City Engineer and the Community
Development Department. Time is of the essence when it comes to providing high
quality customer service. Regulations and workable alternatives and common
sense solutions must be brought to the customer on a routine basis. To ensure this
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations
page 79
happens, the City should execute an interdepartmental support agreement between
the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department in
order to support the development permit review process under the new
organizational structure.
The support agreement should include:
➢ A statement of purpose clearly stating the City's obligation to provide
excellent customer service on a routine basis across departmental lines
➢ A detailed explanation of the services the Public Works Department will
provide to the Community Development Department, particularly the City
Engineer and Traffic Engineer
➢ A detailed explanation of the responsibility and authority that will be
granted to the Community Development Department by the City Engineer
and Traffic Engineer
➢ A detailed explanation of the services the Engineering Development
Review team will continue to coordinate and provide to the Public Works
Department (e.g., field services, inspection services, other services)
➢ A detailed explanation of protocols for quickly handling special conditions
and variances from established City Engineer and Traffic Engineer
standards and regulations
➢ A commitment to ongoing continual improvement meetings between the
City Engineer and the Community Development Department regarding the
development permit review process, and to reporting out results.
2. Make HR and Budgetary changes. Prior to the January 1, 2014 cut over date,
Department administrative staff should confer with the Human Resources and
Finance departments in order to put in place the necessary changes to the City's
payroll and budgeting systems to accommodate the move.
3. Establish performance evaluation process. Prior to the January 1, 2014 cut over
date, the Community Development Director, in consultation with the Human
Resources Director and the City Engineer, should establish a protocol to allow for
input from the City Engineer into the personnel performance evaluation process
relative to the incumbent management employee in the Engineering Development
Review Division.
4. Measure and report out. The Community Development Director should measure
the cycle time turnaround performance of the newly organized Division, and
report out publicly to the City Council, City Manager, and stakeholder customers
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations
page 80
on a quarterly basis until the desired outcomes are achieved. At part of the
measuring, the Director should seek input from applicant customers by means of
surveys or focus groups.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #9: MAKE FULL USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO
ENHANCE THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
The Department has fallen behind in its use of technology. Staff should use the time between
now and when the EnerGov system is due to be delivered to continue to update, streamline, and
shorten development permit review processing procedures by implementing the suggestions
outlined in the Development Review Team sections of this report. Attention and energy to
employing "best practices" in the technology arena will yield significant improvement results.
The following represent actionable items targeted at developing a work program and list of
desired outcomes for technology- related improvements in the Department.
Recommendation 9.1: Maximize the EnerGov system to enhance customer experience
do not just digitize and automate the City's existing processes and
procedures.
Recommendation 9.2: Use technology (EnerGov) to promote transparency in the
regulatory process.
Recommendation 9.3: Increase the amount of information and self -help services
provided online via the Internet.
Recommendation 9.4: Make use of social media to increase public access and
participation.
Recommendation 9.5: Update the Department's website home page on a regularly
scheduled basis.
Recommendation 9.6: Create a webpage that allows the public to view all properties that
are ready for development.
Recommendation 9.7: Purchase and use smart phones, computer -based mobile units,
GPS devices, and cameras for Building Inspection and Code
Enforcement personnel.
Recommendation 9.8: Target accepting and tracking plans for plan check electronically
by January 1, 2015; target declining non - electronic plans by
January 1, 2016.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 81
Recommendation 9.9: Target providing all staff plan check comments on Building Plans
electronically, and make the comments accessible to the public at
the time they are generated, by January 1, 2015.
Recommendation 9.10: Offer online permit issuance for small projects (e.g., re- roofs,
water heaters, etc.); process via credit card or PayPal.
Recommendation 9.11: Establish website -based inspection request system for 24/7
accessibility.
Recommendation 9.12: Include Information Technology support costs in the City's fee
program.
Recommendation 9.13: Purchase additional I.T. support staff time, equipment, and
software in order to exceed customer expectations.
Recommendation 9.14: Upgrade website to include examples of completed forms and
applications; include FAQs.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #10: DEVELOP A SOLUTION FOR THE CYCLICAL
NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT
The Community Development Department's financial health depends greatly upon the flow of
revenue generated off building and development activity. In recent years, as is well documented,
the Department had to endure significant declines in revenue and the resulting cuts in programs,
services, and personnel.
Planning and building activities can be as unpredictable as the economy, interest rates, financial
bubbles, and the weather. Even at its best, development is cyclical from year to year. These
cycles create instabilities for the Department that affect its ability to provide reliable quality
service through the ups and downs of development.
In order to smooth out the cyclical nature of development, "best practice" agencies have made
moves to segregate out of the City's General Fund all development - related revenues and
expenditures. Establishing a Development Services Fund or comparable mechanism typically
does this. Establishing such a fund would allow the Community Development Department to
carry over its year -end balances into subsequent years for activities directly related to
development permit review process activities. Doing so would have several notable positive
effects for the Community Development Department, including:
1. Financial stability over a multi year time period by giving the Depyirtment the
authority and responsibility to manage its allowable reserves.
.M.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 82
2. Financial stability even though most revenues are collected at the building permit
phase, which is at the end of the project development cycle.
3. Stronger financial accountability and stronger generally accepted accounting
compliance methods by segregating its development permit review resources
outside the General Fund.
4. The ability to operate more like a business because "savings" as a result of
working efficiently will be retained in the Department's budget; thus, the
incentives are properly aligned.
In the private sector, businesses are constantly focused on the services they provide their
customers. This is because their revenues, and thus the fate of the company and its employees,
are dependent upon customer satisfaction. It is good to establish in the employees' minds this
link between services, revenues, and organizational stability and employee paychecks. Everyone
in the organization should see and understand this relationship. Heightening staffs awareness in
this regard will increase efficiency, effectiveness, and employee pride and satisfaction. This can
be accomplished, notwithstanding the fact that the City is in a regulatory business.
The first step in running things like a business is to set up the accounting records so that all the
employees in the Department can clearly see the relationship between their work and the
Department's revenues and expenditures.
Recommendation 10.1: Establish a Development Services Fund, or comparable
accounting device, that will allow the Department to
appropriately manage resources during peak and non -peak
development activity periods.
Citygate Associates recommends establishing a Development Services Fund (DSF), or
comparable accounting device, for the City's Planning, Engineering Development Review, and
Building and Safety programs. All development - related revenues and expenditures would be
accounted for in the DSF. The DSF would include several important features:
1. Beginning Balance
2. Ending Balance
3. Operating Reserve
4. Designated Reserves
5. Fee revenue from both applicants and fees charged to other departments for
services rendered, when applicable
6. Annual operating deficits and surpluses, to the extent they are experienced
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 83
7. Overhead allocation charges that would be adjusted annually and assessed to the
DSF according to the City's approved Indirect Cost Ration program
8. More accurate tracking and management of full cost recovery.
The Development Review Team, as described earlier in this report, needs to constantly discuss
and be made aware of the status of the DSF. The Team should be asking these questions: How
do revenues look? How do our expenditures look? Our reserves? Can we hire people? Can we
increase net revenues and build reserves by using consultants? The DSF should be reported on
as a standing agenda item for purposes of creating a sense of urgency and business acumen.
Recommendation 10.2: Establish a Modified Trust Fund Deposit system for development
fees.
Currently the City uses a fee structure that is based upon an estimate of the costs associated with
providing staff review and processing of development - related applications and permits. The City
intentionally reduces select fees so that they are not an inappropriate burden on taxpayers, which
is a common practice in California cities. The Finance Department has taken steps to update the
City's development fees and to continue to do so on a biennial basis into the future. This current
"best practice" should continue so that the City's General Fund does not end up subsidizing
development, which would be contrary to a City Council policy.
The next step towards full cost recovery would be to establish a trust fund deposit approach to
planning fees. Under this approach, which is the "best practice," applicants pay the City for
costs associated with their individual development permit. Overall, this is a fairer and more
justifiable approach to fee and cost management. For example, subdivisions that are large,
complex and controversial pay higher fees. On the other hand, straightforward and simple
subdivisions pay lower fees. The same principle would apply to Conditional Use Permits, Parcel
Maps, Planned Unit Developments, General Plan Amendments, Variances, Zone Changes and
any other major type of discretionary development permit. While some services lend themselves
to flat fees, other planning services should be funded through an applicant deposit in a trust
account so the Department can recover the actual costs.
Citygate recommends using a modified trust fund deposit system wherein the City would use
both set fees and trust fund deposits. The set fees would be for smaller, "Mom and Pop" type
permits; whereas, larger developer- sponsored permit types would be on a trust fund basis. In
both instances, the fees and deposits would be established to maximize full cost recovery to the
City overall. This is a pragmatic approach used by progressive "best practice" cities.
State law requires development permit fees to be based upon the City's actual costs of providing
the review and regulatory service. The City needs to closely manage its fee program to ensure
full compliance with this requirement. It is also important that costs charged to a proponent's
application could be well documented at any point in time.
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 84
Recommendation 10.3: Establish a project and program time -card tracking system in the
Community Development Department for project billing and
tracking.
The City can and should support this objective by converting to a time -card system for at least
the Department's Planning and Engineering Development Review services. This is a common
"best practice" in today's growing and dynamic communities.
Time -card systems can vary significantly in terms of sophistication. The City may wish to
integrate the time -card system into the City's financial reporting system, the City's payroll
system, or Electronic Permit Tracking System. The extent to which this integration takes place
is not as important as simply making sure a reliable time -card system is established and
functioning and that it links back in support of the Development Services Fund.
..In..
Section V —Ten Strategic Recommendations page 85
SECTION VI -OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 FRONT COUNTER
The following recommendations are not strategic in nature but are nonetheless important
improvements that should be made as part of managing the Department's front counter program
as soon as practical for the Department. The recommendations are based on our onsite
observations, interviews with staff, review of the budget, personnel, workflow documentation
provided to us by staff, and our interaction with customers and stakeholders.
Recommendation 11.1: Expand front counter hours of operation carefully as the
economy improves.
In an up economy front counter hours would be open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
and would not be closed for lunch. Currently, the front counter is closed during lunch hours and
after 3:00 p.m. Based on our observations and focus group meetings, we believe most customers
have adjusted to these hours. However, the economy is beginning to improve. Demand for front
counter services will no doubt increase in the coming months and years, so staffing levels will
also need to increase.
It should be noted that closing the front counter at 3:00 p.m. provides staff with quiet, highly
productive time that they use to catch up on their "back office" and support duties. This is critical
to smooth operations of the Department. This needs to be taken into consideration when the
Department inevitably increases its front counter services. We would suggest that the
Department consider first staggering lunch hours to allow for service increases and adding staff,
if necessary, before extending hours to 5:00 p.m.
Recommendation 11.2: Assign a full -time Building Division Permit Technician to cover
the counter 40 hours per week as soon as practical.
This would allow the Plans Examiner to maintain the guaranteed turnaround time frames for plan
checks as opposed to issuing permits at the public counter each day.
Recommendation 11.3: Move Administrative Assistants to the back office.
This would allow for more seamless attention to the front counter from staff members who are
trained to help at the front counter.
Recommendation 11.4: Include Fire and Transportation/Traffic in "One -Stop Shop"
program immediately.
The City currently, for the most part, runs a "One -Stop Shop" at its front counter. Our focus
group sessions and interviews led us to conclude that customers did not view the front counter as
a problem area of the Department.
Section VI —Other Recommendations page 87
Nonetheless, a representative from Fire should be assigned to be fully available at all times to
serve the public counter in order to assist the public with technical information immediately
when they walk in the door, as do the other reviewing divisions. Fire does not need to necessarily
maintain hours at the counter or be physically present at all times; that would be overkill and
impractical. However, the current practice of leaving phone messages, having the customer walk
over to a separate building, or sending a -mails does not meet "One -Stop Shop" requirements. If a
customer needs help, the Fire representative should be available on the telephone for immediate
service.
Recommendation 11.5: Modify front counter "sign -in sheet" in order to offer express
service for drop -offs and quick questions.
This feature would eliminate the need for the public to wait long periods of time in order to
receive assistance from staff that takes less than a couple of minutes.
Recommendation 11.6: Maximize cross - training skills for Planning, Building, and
Engineering Development Review front counter staff.
All front counter staff should be trained to provide at least "routinely requested permit- related
information" to the public.
6.2 BUILDING AND SAFETY
The following recommendations are not strategic in nature but are nonetheless important
improvements that should be made in the Building and Safety program as soon as practical for
the Department.
Recommendation 11.7: Use plan check and inspection consultants when staff cannot
perform within the guaranteed time frames.
As plan check and inspection workloads rise and fall, "contract staff' should be utilized to
maximize efficiency and adhere to guaranteed time frames.
Recommendation 11.8: Create a career ladder for the Permit Coordinator position.
This position is key in terms of the levels of responsibility. Consideration should be given to
upgrading this position to a higher level without being a supervisory position.
Recommendation 11.9: Consider assigning a part -time Assistant Permit Coordinator.
The current workload of the Permit Coordinator appears to be excessive. The Director, in
consultation with Permit Coordinator and the Human Resources Director, should examine this.
Consideration should be given to hiring an intern or part -time: Assistant Permit Coordinator to
reduce the workload and assist other staff members when the workload declines.
Section VI —Other Recommendations page 88
Recommendation 11.10: Allow the public to make contact directly with Building
Inspection and Code Enforcement staff; eliminate screening by
clerical staff and voice messages.
Currently, in order for the public to make verbal contact with the Building Inspection and Code
Enforcement staff, they are required to call City Hall and have a dialogue with the clerical staff.
The clerical staff then forwards the person to voice mail or calls the Inspector or C.E. Officer,
who then calls the citizen/contractor back. It would be much more efficient if the cell phone
numbers (and e-mail addresses) for all Inspectors and C.E. Officers were placed on staff's
business cards, on the City website and were handed out to the public when issuing a permit.
The public would then be able to call the field staff on their cell phones or send e-mail directly to
the field staff's smart phone.
Recommendation 11.11: Establish an expedited plan check process; allow applicants to
pay "overtime fees" or special consultants' fees; reduce the plan
check time frames in half.
The Building Division should create a process that would allow the applicant to pay higher fees
in order to expedite the plan review process. The justification for the higher fee is that staff and
consultants would work "after normal business hours" (overtime) in order to perform plan
reviews. This process should have a written guarantee that all departments will complete their
respective plan reviews in one -half the normal turnaround time.
Recommendation 11.12: Enforce a "one- bite -at- the - apple" policy with regard to plan
checks.
The Building Division should create a policy that would require all plan check and inspection
staff to perform an initial thorough plan review and initial thorough inspection without adding
additional requirements during subsequent plan reviews and inspections. The only exception to
this policy would occur when staff missed "life- safety" requirements during the initial plan
review or inspection.
Recommendation 11.13: Lower the volume of building inspections per day to ensure
quality and value.
The Building Division should approve several Professional Services Agreements with private
firms to provide overflow inspections services on an "as needed basis." This would reduce the
current workload to a maximum of 213 inspections per week, per Inspector (i.e., 1 framing
inspection which includes structural, plumbing, electrical, and heating, venting, and air
conditioning = 4 inspections) and not more than 14 stops per day. The optimum inspection
workload that would allow the Inspectors to perform thorough and quality inspections is 150
inspections per week or 12 stops per day. This should be the target workload.
Section VI —Other Recommendations page 89 ,
Recommendation 11.14: Cross -train plan check staff to perform minor inspections.
The plan check and Permit Technician staff should have at least 3 hours of training per week so
that they can perform routine inspections such as block wall, patio cover, swimming pools and
other such routine inspections. Cross - training will allow the technicians to become more well -
rounded and assist when the inspection workload peaks.
Recommendation 11.15: Update all existing Building Division policies and create new ones,
as needed, by January 1, 2016.
Large portions of the Building Division policies are obsolete. Many of these policies are based
on model codes that have been replaced by more recent state codes. These obsolete policies
should be updated by January 1, 2016.
Recommendation 11.16: Designate the Assistant Building Official as a supervisorial
position, with the corresponding authority, in order to strengthen
its leadership role.
The current job description for the Assistant Building Official (ABO) position includes
supervisory duties and, therefore, should not be in the General Employee category. Examples of
this are: "The ABO directs operations," "trains and evaluates performance of assigned
personnel," "provides direction to Building Inspectors, Plans Examiners, and clerical staff,"
"performs appraisal of Building Inspectors," and "administers and coordinates activities." This
position is critical to the operation of the Building Division and should be upgraded to a
management position.
6.3 CODE ENFORCEMENT
The following recommendations are not strategic in nature but are nonetheless important
improvements that should be made in the Code Enforcement program as soon as practical for the
Department.
Recommendation 11.17: Assign Assistant Building Official to manage and supervise the
Code Enforcement program.
First, reclassify the ABO position into a middle management position. Since Building Inspection
duties and C.E. duties are similar, place the C.E. division under the supervision of the ABO in
order to create a higher level of efficiency and uniformity.
Recommendation 11.18: Increase by 75 percent the amount of time Code Enforcement
Officers spend out of the office and in the field.
Section VI —Other Recommendations page 90
C.E. Officers are spending an excessive amount of time in the office as opposed to canvassing
the City. This could vastly improve if they were provided with smart phones, mobile data
terminals and received calls directly from the public while in the field.
Recommendation 11.19: Stagger the workweek so that at least one officer is working on
Saturdays.
It is commonly known by the public that Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Services staff do
not work weekends which is actually the time of the week that promulgates violations such as
special events, signage, etc. The number of violations would be significantly reduced with a
staggered workweek.
Recommendation 11.20: Establish response time standards for code enforcement
complaints; advertise standards on the Department website.
In order to make staff accountable and assure the public that their complaints will be handled in a
timely fashion, a time frame standard for the "initial contact" should be established.
6.4 GOOD OF THE ORDER
The following recommendations are not directly associated with any specific strategic
recommendation, division, or program within the Department. Yet, based on our observations
and experience, these items deserve attention.
Recommendation 11.21: Rethink the Department -wide staff meeting.
Recommendation 11.22: Examine compaction between Associate Planner and Senior
Planner.
Recommendation 11.23: Redesign packet distribution system to improve access to
Planning Commission, Architectural Review and Cultural
Heritage Review processes.
Recommendation 11.24: Continue to encourage proponents to meet "early and often" with
community members.
6.5 POLICY SETTERS
The following recommendations are not strategic in nature but are nonetheless important
improvements that the City's policy setters can do. These good ideas came up during our
interviews with staff and our interaction with customers and stakeholders.
Section VI —Other Recommendations page 91
Recommendation 11.26: Institute a Ride -Along for elected and appointed officials to help
familiarize them with the City's Inspection and Code
Enforcement programs.
Recommendation 11.27: Develop a Continuing Education Prvgralu for advisory body
members.
V I Section VI —Other Recommendations page 92
SECTION VII- REVIEW OF LITERATURE SOURCES
The purpose of this section is to augment the City's knowledge on current development review
practices through Citygate's survey and literature search efforts. A variety of published sources
are listed below that provide national data on various benchmarks and operational norms, as well
as case studies on the results of experimental and state -of -the -art community development
practices and other relevant issues. The results of our experience with comparable agencies,
relevant literature in the profession, and our collective knowledge of best practices have been
integrated into our study to maximize opportunities for defining the most contemporary and
useful recommendations possible.
7.1 ARTICLES
McClendon, Bruce W. "Putting a Bias for Action into Planning Agency Management: A
Practitioner's Perspective." Public Administration Review, Vol. 46, No. 4. July - Aug.
1986: 352 -355
Carson, Richard H. "Changing the Culture of 'No' (Planning Practice) and Keys to a Successful
Performance Audit." Planning, Magazine. Dec. 2004: 16 -19
Carson, Richard H. "Connected at Last in CoolTown." Planning Magazine. July 2003
Knack, Ruth Eckdish. "Inspiring the Troops." Planning Magazine. Jan. 1998
7,2 BOOKS
Goodman, William I., and Eric C. Freund. Principles and Practice of Urban Planning. Institute
for Training in Municipal Administration, 1968
Hoch, Charles. The Practice of Local Government Planning (The "Green Book "). International
City Management Association, latest ed.
Slater, David C. Management of Local Planning. International City Management Association,
1984
McClendon, Bruce W., and Anthony James Catanese. Planners on Planning: Leading Planners
Offcr Real -life lessons on What Works, What Doesn't, and Why. Jossey -Bass, 1996
McClendon, Bruce W., and Ray Quay. Mastering Change: Winning Strategies for Effective City
Planniniz. Planners Press /American Planning Association, 1988
McClendon, Bruce W. Customer Service in Local Government: Challenges for Planners and
Managers. APA Planners Press, 1992
Begg, Iain. Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities. The Policy Press, 2002
(written from perspective of British agencies)
Section VII — Review of Literature Sources page 93
Duncan, James, and Arthur Nelson. Growth Management Principles and Practices. APA
Planners Press, 1995
Zucker, Paul. ABZs of Planning Management. West Coast Publishing, 1983
Branch, Melville. Urban Planning Theory. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975
Chapin, Stuart, and Edward Kaiser. Urban Land Use Planning. University of Illinois Press,
1979
Blair, Fredrick. Planning_ Cities. APA Planners Press, 1970
7.2.1 General Public Agency Management
Radin, Beryl. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and
Democratic Values Public Management and Change). Georgetown University Press,
2006
Managing Government Services: A Practical Guide, 3rd ed. International City /County
Management Association
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. Collaborative_ Public Management. Georgetown
University Press, 2003
Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit O[ganizations. Jossey -Bass, 1995
7.2.2 Management
A few interesting books for the manager:
Gardner, Howard, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and William Damon. Good Work: When
Excellence and Ethics Meet. Basic Books, 2002
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Good Business; Leadership. Flow, and the Making of Meaning.
Viking, 2003
Susskind, Lawrence, and Patrick Field. Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains
Approach to Resolving Disputes. The Free Press, 1996
7.2.3 Fiction
Fiction has innumerable lessons for the manager. A couple of metaphorical guides to managing
human assets that are also enjoyable reads:
Asprin, Robert Lynn. Phule's CompanX. The Berkley Publishing Group, 1990
Asprin, Robert Lynn. Another Fine Myth. The Berkley Publishing Group, 1978
Section VII — Review of Literature Sources page 94
APPENDIX A
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS
SECTION I- CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS: OVERVIEW AND
METHODOLOGY
Citygate conducted an Internet -based Customer Survey for customers of the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development Department. The survey was "open" to accept input between
December 28, 2013 and January 25, 2013. The availability of the survey was advertised via hard
copy invitation letters sent to approximately 2,000 randomly - selected applicants who have had
an application processed within the past two years. Invitation letters were also available at the
Department's front counter. In total, there were 129 completed surveys. I
Details of the deployment are shown below.
The survey consisted of a number of closed -ended and yes /no questions with one concluding
open -ended question. Customers were asked to rate the divisions of Development Review,
Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Engineering, and were only asked
to rate the division(s) they had business with.
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 59 customers responded to questions about Development
Review; 12 responded to questions about Long -Range Planning; 91 responded to questions about
Building and Safety; and 40 responded to questions about Public Works Engineering. For each
of the four divisions addressed in the survey, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction
with specific aspects of each division. In the Development Review section of the survey, there
were 27 of these aspects; in the Long -Range Planning section, there were 18; in the Building and
Safety section, there were 27; and in the Public Works Engineering section, there were 26.
The rating scale for each aspect was "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1).
Respondents were also asked a few additional "yes" or "no" and rating scale questions with one
concluding open -ended question about the Community Development Department and the Public
Works Engineering Division overall.
While the number of responses is not statistically significant, these results, when used in tandem with the stakeholder
interviews, provide a very good indicator of the perceptions of customers.
2 "Partial"— the number of surveys that were begun but not completed. These surveys cannot be added to the database.
3 "Completes" — the number of surveys that were completed and successfully added to the database.
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodoiogy page 1
It should be noted in reviewing the results that customers were not required to answer any
question. Additionally, they were permitted to respond "Not Applicable" to the rating
statements, and these responses are not included in the mean response calculations. Therefore,
the response totals do not always add to the totals of 59, 12, 91, or 40 completed surveys for
Development Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works
Engineering, respectively.
ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS
This survey appendix is organized in the following order:
Classification Statements
♦ The types of customers who responded to the survey are presented.
Detailed Results for each Division Surveyed
Detailed survey results for each division are presented in the following order: Development
Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Engineering. The results
for each division are presented in the following format:
♦ Summary of Findings – The 5 statements receiving the overall highest and
lowest mean score.
♦ Statistical Analysis for Each Statement – All the survey statements are
presented with the calculation of the Mean, Median, Mode and Standard
Deviation along with the percentage of each type of response. These are sorted
from highest to lowest mean score.
General and Yes /No Questions
♦ The responses to 4 yes /no questions, 3 general closed -ended questions, and 1
general open -ended question are presented.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The terms defined below are encountered in the information that follows:
Mean: An arithmetic mean that is the sum of the responses for each statement divided by the
number of responses for each statement.
Median: "Middle value" of a list. That is, half the numbers in the list are greater than the
median response and half are less.
Mode: The most frequently occurring number in a list. In the case of the Customer Survey, it
was the response (from "Far Exceeds Expectations" to "Unacceptable ") that was the most often
chosen for any one statement.
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology page 2
Standard Deviation: Standard deviation tells how spread out the responses are from the
arithmetic mean. A standard deviation close to zero indicates that most responses are close to
the mean response and that a greater degree of agreement exists among survey takers with regard
to the statement. A greater standard deviation indicates that there was a wider spread of
variation in the responses and that a greater degree of disagreement exists among customers with
regard to the statement.
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology
page 3 +.
�01X:1It IISS.(1OII) IL<
SECTION II- CLASSIFICATION STATEMENTS
The survey began with the following classification statements. They are included here to
demonstrate the type of customers who responded to the survey.
First, please mark all of the categories that apply to you as a
customer.
Individual Applicant - frequent
Individual Applicant - one - time /infrequent
Developer /Builder (company) - frequent
Developer /Builder (company) - one - time /infrequent
Development Consultant" - frequent
Development Consultant - one - time /infrequent
General or Subcontractor - frequent
General or Subcontractor - one - time /infrequent
Commercial Real Estate Broker - frequent customer
Commercial Real Estate Broker - one - time /infrequent
Councilmember - frequent customer
Councilmember - one - time /infrequent
Homeowner /Resident - frequent customer
Homeowner /Resident - one - time /infrequent
Non - profit developer - frequent customer
Non - profit developer - one - time /infrequent
Other, please specify`*
0% 15% 30% 45%
60%
1 %
9%
4%
15%
5%
5%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
5%
1 64%
75%
* (e.g., engineer, architect, landscape architect, lawyer, planner, etc.)
** Other responses include: (1) Multi -unit dwellings/Building; (2) Owner /Contractor (3) Home owner/Builder;
(4) Local business; (5) Owner /Builder; (6) Chimney rebuild permit by our mason.
•� Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Classification Statements page 4
Please mark the types of project(s) you have been involved
with.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Single Family Detached - New
construction
Single Family Detached -
Modification
Single Family Attached /Multi-
Family - New construction
Single Family Attached /Multi-
Family - Modification
Commercial /Industrial Facility -
New construction
Commercial /Industrial Facility -
Modification
Church /Institutional - New
construction
Church /Institutional -
Modification
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Classification Statements page 5 • .
SECTION III— DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Development Review section of the Customer Survey are summarized below.
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 59 customers responded to questions about Development
Review. As part of the survey, customers were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Development
Review on a scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary
includes the 5 highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Courtesy
Mean
4.03
Median
4
Mode
4
Std Dev
0.76
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
3.82
4
4
0.92
Positive attitude
3.66
4
3
0.81
Knowledge of development review
3.61
4
4
0.79
Providing complete process information at public
counter
3.47
3
3
0.99
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Courtesy
Helpfulness of front counter
assistance
Positive attitude
Knowledge of development
review
Providing complete process
information at public counter
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Development Review
page 6
4.03
3.82
3.66
i
i
3.61
3.47
I
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Development Review
page 6
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
..
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.17
2
2
1.12
Complexity of regulations
2.42
3
3
1.05
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
2.45
2
2
1.16
review
Understanding of private business
2.45
2
2
1.19
Coordinated review between divisions and
2.55
3
2
1.04
departments of the City
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
Cost of processing application (fees)
Complexity of regulations
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
review
Understanding of private business
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Development Review page 7 41
y
J
O
W
W
F►
W
W
Q
W
Ix
y
J
Z
Q
J
v
1►
h
CO)
U
7s
�3
0
O �
C O
O CA
A �
'O
.O .b
N
�>
O O C
cU
E
0
N
� d
� o �
O � N
o y
W
cj
z ..
� � C
� v v
ti
O
U)
V O
cd N
n
N
N
4-i N
O
U O
cd N
N �
O v
rQ �
0
O
O
r
0
0
O
O
0
O
ti
N
0
N
M
co
0
v
M
O
A
N
7
O
U
0
O
O
r
O
0
r-
O
0
O
N
0
N
M
0
LO
N
N
O
0
v
It
N
00
ri
m
U
C
.N
m
C
U
O
O
N
N
O)
C
w
a
L
0
O
O
r
N
0
O
0
M
0
OR
M
r
OR
0
M
i0
i0
�i
N
"O
m
c
0
a
0
O
O
r
0
O
0
O
O
M
NO
N
r
rn
0
r
i0
M
3
0
N
C
N
E
O
N
O
N
a�
0
c
Y
0
O
O
r
0
0
O
r
O
N
00
0
ti
r
0)
Tl-
rn
O
0
M
.�►
qw
M
c
O
m
E
,OR
c
N
N
O
CL
O)
N �
CL �N,
E C
U U
O U
C .
O o
a o
0
O
O
r
0
0
0
N
r
N
0
r
0
ti
M
0
O
r
0
LO
M
O
M
Cl)
M
M
N �
L C
M :3
� U
N U
� 7
a
C },
m O
O
N
c
U C
C (p
N
a�
a` n
0
O
O
r
0
O
0
O
r
M
0
ti
r
0
M
o
W
0
r
M
M
N
0
M
O
rn
m
c
m
E
V
a�
�O
CL
01
C
V a)
O
m a
o w
v,
m N
wv
0
O
O
r
N
0
IR
M
00
0
O
N
0
OD
v
O
0
M
M
I-
N
M
c
O
U)
O
v
c
m
L
N
9
m
C
O
0
N N
d N
C 0
N
nU
O
= d
0
O
O
r
N
0
N
0
M
0
N
N
0
M
0
Lo
N
0
N
r
O
M
Cl)
V-
C4
M
O
c
O
m
a>
N
c
U
0 C
O)
N V
� C
c 0
> U
N
o E
cn o
N N
Of U
0
O
O
r
0
Cl
0
ti
O
O
N
M
0
O
_)
r
M
W,
O
N
M
a�
c
C
m
E
T
N
E
m
,c
N
C
0
L
a
cm
C
'c
m
a
0
O
O
r
0
O
0
N
O
N
0
ti
N
0
N
Cl)
0
LO
N
N
r
M
O
M
M
O�
r
M
C
N
E
E
U
0I
c
75
LL
0
O
O
r
O
0
OO
O
N
0
O
0
N
N
co
M
O
0
M
M
O
r
M
m
U
am
O
a
c
O
c
�0
f0
7
E
O
A
co
I ml
�r
�3
C
qi
E
0
(D
41
C
CD
E
CD
r
co
s
W
L
.N
C
Q
V
N
*+
ig
co
0
0
o
Ii ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
Cl
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
0)
D1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(p
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
M
M
O
N
O
Cl
Cl
0
0
0
0
N
r
r
M
M
�
L�
N
N
Fl-
�`
O
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
N
M
N
I,-
Ln
N
to
N
U')
U')
N-
N
N
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
I-
�
co O
It
N
~
co
O
ti
ti
ti
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
r
M
.-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�010
0
1.-0
0
'IT
r
T
r
N
r
N
O
U)
In
LO
I-
11
co
M
N
N
�
N
q*
M
N
N
N
r
r
M
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of
0
g-
0
0
0
0
0
LO
N
r
N
U')
O
qq
QO
r—
v
O
O
v
st
N
M
N
r
r
N
r
N
r
r
r
r
r
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
G
G
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
0
0
LO
Lo
M
In
Or
CN
M
LO
O
O
N
Ln
N
O
N
r
co
N
r
M
r
O
r
r
O
(p
In
N
O
O
O
r
O
N
O
r
O
O
O
r
r
O
r
O
O
O
r
r
O
O
Co
M
lqt
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
M
N
3
N
N
C
M
M
cM
M
M
M
M
M
M
co
M
N
N
M
N
O
E
n
O
N
i
10
0
Go
M
N
N
Cl)
w
10
In
N
f�.
�
r
O
O
O
O
O
0
Go
so
P.
N
Re
q*
V
w-
M
M
M
Co$
m
e)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
th
A
m
Y
m
>
C
Q
O
Y
0
t
u,
3
n
m
c
N
a�
U
C
p
N
0
m
O
y
rn
N
m
m V
�c
n
m
n
N
v
(j n
CL
O
0.
E
E
N
N
O
t
n
U
t
O
N >
V
N
to
N
tU
3
aci O
o
On
m
a� r
c
c a-
'�
. p
C
U
V
L to
'�
O
N
V+
>
7
m
3
c
>
m
3 o
n
°
Orn
C
0 c
�
n u,
to
rn
�
m
>�
O
cm
E m
N
y
K
c
c
L
O-
° o
O
E
C
V
m
a
N
c
° n
m
°
c n
n
W�
(D
Q
° j
m
U
E 3
°
4;
n
uNi
V
uNi
U
°
O
U!
n
O
a� °
a�
°
U)
v, m
E
— m
v `m
o
o
° v
o c
E
w O
>
2
'i
y r
2
2
o c
c
2°
o
o
D o
O
a
U
H
Q U
a
U m
:)
a u
U
U
SECTION IV- LONG -RANGE PLANNING RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Long -Range Planning section of the Customer Survey are summarized below.
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 10 customers responded to questions about Long -Range
Planning. As part of the survey, customers were asked to rate 18 specific aspects of Long -Range
Planning on a scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary
includes the 5 highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
..
Courtesy
4.60
5
5
0.52
Positive attitude
4.50
5
5
0.53
Helpfulness and inclusiveness
4.22
5
5
1.09
Knowledge of long -range planning
4.20
4
4
0.63
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
4.00
4
4
0.82
document submittal)
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
project
4.00
4
5
1.05
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Courtesy
Positive attitude
Helpfulness and inclusiveness
Knowledge of long -range
planning
Use of technology (web site,
plan check, document submittal)
Ease of accessing project
manager to discuss project
t Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning
5.00
I
page 10
4.60
4.50
4.22
4.20
i
4.00
4,00
t Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning
5.00
I
page 10
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.33
3
..
3
-
1.21
Understanding of private business
3.44
3
3
1.42
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.56
4
4
1.13
Providing consistent and dependable information
3.60
4
5
1.17
Communication on project status
3.67
4
5
1.32
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
Cost of processing application (fees)
Understanding of private business
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
Providing consistent and dependable information
Communication on project status
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning page 11 f .
3
0
J
O
W
0
D
0
W
W
FQ►
y
V
W
O
�L
y
J
2
Q
v
y
F�
U
� 3
o °
c o
o
.� UU
'b4
N
Q
•tf • Q
'd 'd
E C
p., A
a
o � m
� J
tj
C
ti d
y O
o N
cd
o � �
v
� � W
U •�
-- V
U � �
2
y
� O
U
� O
cd N
00
4-i y
O
U o
OU
O
GG �.
0
O
Cl
0
r
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
M
M
0
O
O
N
O
a
O
O
O
f0
IV
a
w
7
O
U
0
O
O
r
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
N
0
N
M
O
0
O
O
O
N
a
N,
m
N
O
d
0
O
O
r
r
0
00
O
0
co
co
0
ti
r
N
v
D)
O
O
N
N
a
0
N
a�
C
.N
7
V
C
a
c
m
N
O
c
E'
Cl
L
.■
0
O
O
r
0
O
O
0
O
co
0
O
O
0
O
N
M
CO
0
v
O
N
V
CA
C
C
m
n
0
CA
C
N
CA
c
O
0
0
rn
a
N
O
c
Y
0
0
0
0
1.40
0
0
la0
0
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
N
O
O
00
co
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
\°
\°
OR
0
0
0
0
\
0
\
0
O
00
O
00
00
go
�
0
0
0
O
I-
0 0
'o
ti
O
I-
M
M
f-
N
N
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
O
N
f-
ti
O
OD
O
ti
O
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
M
LO
Cl)
M
M
N
N
It
N
N
O
M
M
O
co
ONO
N
N
o
.-
v
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
00
00
00
1't
1lt
P
1.
I*
Wt
M
Cl)
M
M
M
M
M
(Yj
L
C
O
O
3
O
m
C
m
:3
O
0
>'
0
O
C
°
nU
m
a�
E
c
a
O
+?
E
E a
v
m
N
U
U�
O
O
N
Cl
O
J
V
o
C
aD
N
c�
C
:?
Q)
o
O
c u)
E
pm
uNi v
Z�
m
_
E
co
O E
C 7
t N
N 0
U O
O
N C
C O
0 U
U
O
E
O
t
C1
O
U
> N
O
c
coo a
�!
y
a
0
0)
E
0)
v7
o
w 0
O E
O N
w
E 3
c—
O E
0
-
c
c
v_
a
a�
0 0
7
u0i U
Ln
U)
0 0
CL
N N
W
0
`�
W
O
— 0
D a°
W v
U 5
c0i
O
li
a
Q 0
0
O
O
r
0
r
OR
aD
0
oD
0
O
0
O
N
0
ti
r
LO
N
N
M
O
ti
10
M
N
v,
V
0
O
Cl
c
O
0
U
•c
i
I
l
N
r
rn
C_
C
C
N
a
O
J
.N
N
(D
0
N
7
K
V
C
CL
CL
Q
Fn
t�
4+�
cr
r_
i
Q
C
d
E
d
t
V
W
V
Q
.N
A
C
Q
V
H
co
_Tri t i Grl tie'
Nr
ch
m
o
A
N
oCl
C)
C)
C)
M
M
M
N
o
�
o
�CD
y
CC
0
0
0
9
O
co
co
m
m
c
M
U c
c
c
O
O
O
co
a
m
�a -a
LO)
r
o
o C
0
0
ti
ti
00
CD
r
�
o
o
LO
ti
LO
fl-
N
N
0
0
LO
00
QO
N
o
LA
f°
LO
o
N
N
1-
M
N
_Tri t i Grl tie'
Nr
ch
m
o
A
N
t0D
N
M
M
M
M
N
crs
m
c�
C
C
C
m
a
iii
N
>+
m
C
a
z
U)
0
Q
K
c
d
a
a
Q
o
A
N
Z
�Z
�CD
y
CC
c
3 o
n
9
N
o m
o
��
m
c
(D
U c
N-t
r
O
Co
a Cu
CC
N
a
m
�a -a
LO)
0 0 0-0
L�
o C
a
c
w
o
a.5
U m
D
U
crs
m
c�
C
C
C
m
a
iii
N
>+
m
C
a
z
U)
0
Q
K
c
d
a
a
Q
SECTION V— BUILDING AND SAFETY RESULTS
SUMMARY of FINDINGS
The results for the Building and Safety section of the Customer Survey are summarized below.
Of the 129 total completed surveys, 89 customers responded to questions about Building and
Safety. As part of the survey, customers were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Building and
Safety on a scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary
includes the 5 highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Courtesy
Mean
3.80
Median
4
Mode
3
Std Dev
0.82
Thoroughness of inspections
3.74
4
3
0.92
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
3.71
4
4
1.04
Timeliness of inspections
3.71
4
4
0.98
Positive attitude
3.70
4
4
0.86
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
Courtesy
Thoroughness of inspections
Helpfulness of front counter
assistance
Timeliness of inspections
Positive attitude
5 Lowest Ratings
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
..in..
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Building and Safety page 14
Subject
Cost of processing applications (fees)
2.48
3
..•
3
Std D-
1.21
Understanding of private business
2.72
3
3
1.29
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
2.93
3
3
1.12
Complexity of regulations
2.93
3
3
1.06
Accuracy /consistency of code interpretations
3.06
3
3
1.06
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
Cost of processing applications (fees)
Understanding of private business
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
Complexity of regulations
Accuracy /consistency of code interpretations
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Building and Safety page 15
H
3
0
J
O
I►
W
W
W
W
V
W
J
Z
Q
V
y
ti
CO)
U
O
cd O
O �
•.r U
..r
N
,!
Z.
A �
R
V] U
4-
N
� � C
� a+
_
U �
E
y O
O
� n
t
W
U •45
U � �
�z
a� -g
V
U
U
O N
c O
Cd
N
O
U O
cd �
N �
3
O U
O
O
\o
0
M
0
r
0
O
N
0
M
Cn
M
N
N
N
00
0
M
O
00
Cl)
N
O
U
0
O
O
r
0
N
0
O
r
O
r
0
M
0
LO
M
0
co
N
N
N
N
O
0
M
ti
M
N
c
O
U
(D
n
N
C
O
N
N
N
C
L
cm
0
O
t
H
0
O
O
0
N
0
M
r
O
M
0
ti
o_
N
0
M
0
N
O
r
pt
M
U
C
m
N
.N
rn
m
C
O
U
C
O
to
N
N
C
w
n
0
O
O
r
0
LO
0
O
r
O
r
o
O
0
co
N
0
O
N
O
N
O
O
0
IT
O
O
r
0
M
0
r
O
O
0
ti
0
V
M
0
M
0
O
� I
(O
00
0
0
O
O
r
0
N
0
N
O
0
co
0
LO
M
0
co
0
r
co
OR
0
1% ti
!'9 V) M
N
c
O
m
n
N
C
O
N
N
N
c
ur
N
a
N
N
N
O
a
m
N
a
C
M
rn
C
.0
0
N
a
(D
0
c
Y
0
O
O
r
0
N
0
M
M
0
M
0
O
It
0_
N
ao
r
O
O
0
M
M
11!
N
M
O
C
N
U)
V
0
n
N `
a N
E c
U U
tm V
vM
o Q-
a m
-.c-
0
O
0
IT
M
N
0
O
r
0
O
0
N
0
r
O
O
0
Cl)
M
fn
C
N
E
V
O
U-
0
O
O
0
M
O
N
I
N
\o
O
r
v
M
0
0
r
co
O
M
M
M
q*
M
O
N
O
m
C
m
E
U
N
0
n
O
C
N N
V O
m n
o rn
rn
� N
W ;5
0
O
O
r
0
M
C M
N
0
I-
-00-
0
O
r
N
r
N
O
0
M
M
00
CO)
M
N
>
N
c
(0
CL
O
to
N
N
C
M
O
I
0
O
t
H
0
O
Cl
r
N
M
0
Nr
0
ti
o_
0
O
ONR
r
It
M
O
M
Cl)
Co
Cq
M
N �
� C
7
C V
CL U
a-0
•a C
c n
m
rr C
O
Mn m
m E
U C
C (p
rn
N
d n
0
O
O
r
0
M
0
M
It
0
O
Z
ti
M
0
O
r
O
M
M
W
V)
M
C
O
m
E
40
C
C
nN
� C
O
n�
O "'
0.9
C C
v'2
O p�
a 0
0
O
O
r
0
N
0
co
r
IT
o
r
0
O
N
0
N
14-
r
r
M
M
M
W
c
c
M
N
E
m
C
U
N
C
O
L
CL
O
C
'c
m
0
O
O
r
M
0
O
N
0
N
0
co
Z
N
�t
0
M
oNe
r
N
0
M
M
M
Cl)
M
c
O
++
7
O
a
C
m
L
1
m
.O
C
O
N
N
N to
d
C y
� rn
0. V
O
2 n
[f�
0133
Q
w
m
U)
a
c
m
v
c
m
CO
N
O
N
Q
a
C
CL
CL
4
z
tF
LO
V
C
C
`C3
m
E
d
-+
is
co
t
V
W
V
0
N
.y
_A
C
Q
V
++
Jq
U)
0
Z
0
0
0
-.-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
O
T
Cl
T
O
T
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
M
N
M
co
M
N
T
N
T
T
N
IT
M
\°
�
a
ON
-O
\
\
\
\
�
\
'09
o
\
O
N
O
T
IT
IT
to
O
R
N
N
M
0
0
0
0
\
o
R
N
to
R
TO
R
R
to
0)
m
N
°
0
0
0
0
\
0
u
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
R
M
M
co
to
to
T
T
T
to
LO
to
T
T
T
T
T
T
N
N
N
T
T
T
of
0
\°
0
\
0
0
0
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
0
N
N
M
R
M
tp
to
to
to
00
T
N
N
N
M
M
M
�
N
�
M
M
M
M
N
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
\°
o
M
to
O
O
O)
O
to
0)
00
co
N
m
N
T
N
T
T
T
N
T
T
T
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
O
T
N
T
T
T
N
T
N
T
N
T
T
T
T
T
O
T
lb
00
O
LO
O
N
R
t0
to
IT
O
(o
to
N
O
T
T
r
T
r
O
T
O
T
O
T
T
r
O
T
T
O
T
O
T
T
N
T
N
T
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Cl)
M
M
M
Cl)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
r
40
w
N
Go
M
co
ti
to
M
t7
N
Go
M
N
N
N
r
r
O
O
O
at
O)
1t
�
Cl)
CO)
M
M
M
M
{"�
CO)
Cl)
N
N
N
N
Y
O
3 �
o
N
O
C
N O
O
U
o
U° )
N
aV
a
n
c
U)
E O
CL
a)
v
O
w
()
E
°
-a
o
U)
:3
O
:-�p
U
C
N
N
N
..
'�
N
U
N
U
a) O
v
a)
o
E
c
�,
o
m t
N
a
t N
3 J
O w
3—
co
n
c
cn
c
o
U
c
as
3 p
n
to
v
c
>,
o
o
cu 3
a)
tm
c
°
a) °
p
-6.6
o
rn
to
n cn
m E
E m
>
u
N
a`))
>
°
a-i
a) m
c co
c U)
m
v
> m
o o
°
-a E
c°))
a)
> U
o
n
N o
me
N o
0-
x
mV
c
o
n
3
—
a Q
o
tnCo
c�i
t`o�
a—)
c a
0
pE
�E
o
E
m
(D
�,
a:
a) u
n
v 0
o
v, a)
CO) N
a) 0
E
a)
—°
U n
N
U
Q
E
0-0
N
v
w
U V
W U
M-0
U
O
Q U
U
�
C
U
U
D
U
R
r
O
R7
O
r
a)
w
m
U)
v
C
a)
C_
m
W
.N
_A
a5
Q
m
U)
a)
0
N
7
Q
x
V
d
CL
CL
Q
SECTION VI— PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Public Works Engineering section of the Customer Survey are summarized
below. Of the 129 total completed surveys, 38 customers responded to questions about Public
Works Engineering. As part of the survey, customers were asked to rate 26 specific aspects of
Public Works Engineering on a scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable"
(1). This summary includes the 5 highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Courtesy
Mean
3.95
Median
4
.. •
4
Std Dev
0.73
Knowledge of public works engineering
3.76
4
4
0.79
Positive attitude
3.71
4
3
0.80
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
3.54
4
4
0.82
Providing complete process information at public
counter
3.20
3
3
0.87
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Courtesy
Knowledge of public works
engineering
Positive attitude
Helpfulness of front counter
assistance
Providing complete process
information at public counter
5 Lowest Ratings
.. P'�
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Public Works Engineering
page 18
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
•.
Mode
Std Dev
Cost of processing application (fees)
2.22
2
1
1.17
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
2.27
2
1
1.22
review
Coordinated review between divisions and
244
2
1
1.28
departments of the City
Understanding of private business
2.47
2
1
1.19
Timeliness /number of re- checks
2.53
3
3
1.21
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Cost of processing application (fees)
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
review
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
Understanding of private business
Timeliness /number of re- checks
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: Public Works Engineering page 19
.s
.Si
'3
a�
3
O
d o
o
N
A �
^� �
d
C
yU�,y W
'� CQ
O ��
L
O
a
O d
0
O N N
� s
U •U V
W
L
� O �
� a
O
cn
m O
Cd
N
4, y
O
U O
ai U
N Ca
O
N
0
O
O
V)
0
0
0
0
O
0
00
N
0
LO
0
M
N
M
O
It
OI
07
v7
O
U
0
O
O
0
LO
0
0
0
0
M
0
LO
M
0
O
IT
0
00
r
O
O
IRT
IT
(o
M
O)
C
O
c
C
0)
N
3
U
7
CL
0
N
rn
a
m
3
O
c
Y
0
O
O
0
V)
0
O
0
0
0
M
0
O
It
LO
M
0
00
r
O
00
O
M
It
r
I-
M
N
C"
>
N
O
a
0
O
O
0
LO
0
00
0
0
0
00
0
LO
M
0
M
0
O
r
N
00
O
IT
IT
U
C
Mo
.N
co
Y
c
U
c
O
N
v7
(D
c
w
a
0
O
O
0
U)
0
00
0
M
O
r
0
O
Cn
00
r
00
P-
00
O
M
M
0
N
M
C
O
W
E
w
C
w
N
O
a
m
N
a�5
E
U U
rn
c .(3
.o
o n
a m
0
O
O
r
LO
0
00
0
M
0
O
N
0
O
00
r
00
Cn
O
O
M
M
en
O
M
N �
� C
(o �
C U
CL U
c n
(0 co
FD C O
N
U
ON
v N
0)
`
a a
0
O
O
0
00
0
r
00
0
O
r
0
00
M
r
00
(D
O
M
.
m
O
M
Y
U
0)
L
U
c
(a
n
0)
N
3
a m
o E
O
c :3
v7
N -r-
(D
0,
4)
w
D -O
0
O
O
r
LO
0
O
N
0
M
0
0D
r
0
00
M
0
O
r
0
00
O
M
M
M
O
M
C
O
U)
O
c
(0
L
>
m
E
0
C
O
N
v7
00) N
a�
c N
7 0)
n U
N O
X a
0
O
O
r
0
M
0
00
0
U)
N
0
LO
M
\o
00
r
0
OD
O
T-
M
M
N
0
N
d
v
U
0
U
c
2
N
N y
c c
U O
U �
m �
CL
U -
U SL
Q c
0
O
O
0
U)
0
O
0
O
r
0
O
Cr)
0
O
M
O
r
M
N
r
M
M
O>
00
N
C
a�
E
0
rn
7
U
0
O
O
0
LO
0
O
0
Cn
\°
M
M
0
M
M
OD
r
0
00
M
O
T-
M
M
OI
00
N
N
N
0)
U
O
CL
>
Al
0
O
O
0
LO
0
00
0
O
r
0
OD
r
0
00
M
\o
00
r
0
V)
Cn
O
T-
M
M
0
00
N
N
C
m
CL
O
N
rn
C
m
L
U
'L-
0
C
O
N
U
O
m
0
O
O
r
0
0o
0,
00
N
0
00
M
r
0
00
N
r
0
M
M
O
T-
M
M
00
00
N
L_
� c
N o
MU
CL O
E a
U
c O
L fq
3J
UC
Z (v
N C
N
Co
0 3
c) N
U 'v
O
N
()
0)
(0
a
rn
N
C
C
W
U
7
a
N
.N
(0
C
Q
0)
7
CO
m
0
v7
U
i
X33
1
C
d
E
a+
t0
s
W
L
.N
C
Q
V
a+
N
cn
�fI
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
O
CO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
O
O
N
0
Ne
o
N
In
LO
LO
LO
00
LO
00
C)
LO
00
LO
11')
LO
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
U)
O
O
M
LO
O
In
0p
co
LO
0
0
0
0
0
0
OR
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
M
LO
M
00
O
M
M
00
M
LO
N
N
N
M
M
0
0
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
LO
00
M
co
O
00
LO
Ln
M
M
00
M
M
M
N
M
M
N
N
N
-
N
N
N
\°
0
-.-R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
00
M
co
LO
M
M
O
LO
O
O
M
Ln
N
N
M
N
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
00
LO
LO
00
O
O
M
O
Ln
ao
Ln
O
M
Ol
o
-.'0
-0,0
-0,0
0
o
ao
0
o
0
LO
M
LO
m
O
n
n
I-
(O
O
N
N
(N
�
O
00
N
r-
r
r
O
N
N
N
N
7
N
N
�-
0)
N
N
M
N
M
M
M
N
M
r
r
r
W
C
rn
C
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
M
N
N
N
N
U_
7
P.
0
N
1"
00
0
O)
Go
M
1`
1`
N
d
Co
OR
00
1`
11
IC
Iq
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(0
C
O
C
O
a)
N
N
>
>
O
m
d
>
>'
a
N
>_
p
!n
CL
N
m
N
-,e
.N
N
C
N
E
N
rn
N
N
t
°
C
m
d
E
_O
'-
E
N
c0
+,
�_
N
Ln
�,
U
a)
N
c
c
E
U
2
2��
N
rr
a 3
N
Q
O
Ln
o
CL
E
o
O
m
°
c°
O to
c
M
N
0
0-
3 0
°
v�
m
o
c
°
a
N
n
.�
N
O
Q
n
°
)
a (n
E
°
°
m
c
3
O
.>
" w
E°
a
x
c O
aNi a�i
v
>
°
Q
'~
°
C
-o E
C
ai
U
V
C
>
m.Q
�°, o
E
rn
o
N°�
o
o
a
°
o y
o
o a
�
c
N
w
°
c
�°
rn
c Q-
0)
w U
W°
°
a
Q
°
�N
E
c
0-a
`o�
v
w°
0) j
w 0
N
"
N
2
E�
O
N
E
O
0
E
C
O C
rn
`O D
N
O
W
,U)
Wa
U
QU
U
W
U
a
D
U(o
13. C.)
U
SECTION VII— GENERAL AND YES /No QUESTIONS
YES /No QUESTIONS
Customers were asked to respond Yes/No to the following 4 questions.
1. Initial information given to me by the various divisions in Community Development
and the Public Works Engineering Division was accurate and complete.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
UM
2. Additional substantial changes to my project that should have been brought up in the
first review were not required or revealed to me until subsequent reviews.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
Ian
N/A
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: General and Yes /No Questions
page 22
3. I would consider the option to pay extra for "express" processing.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
N/A
4. I would consider the option to pay increased fees if it would increase timeliness and
quality of work.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
N/A
*
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: General and Yes /No Questions page 23 �
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Customers were also asked to respond to the following 3 general questions.
1. In my experience, the cost of processing any permit or application with the City of San
Luis Obispo when compared to the same type of permidapplication in other
jurisdictions in the San Luis Obispo County area is:
Significantly More
About the Same
Significantly Less
1►I/_1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2. In my experience, the time to process any permidapplication with the City of San Luis
Obispo when compared to the same type of permidapplication in other jurisdictions in
the San Luis Obispo County area is:
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Significantly More
About the Same
Significantly Less
N/A
• Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: General and Yes /No Questions page 24
3. In my experience, the overall quality of processing any permit or application
(knowledge of project management, problem solving, and communication) with the
City of San Luis Obispo when compared to the same type of permidapplication in other
jurisdictions in the San Luis Obispo County area is:
Significantly More
About the Same
Significantly Less
N/A
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: General and Yes /No Questions
page 25
Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in the
City's Community Development Department and Public Works Engineering Division.
Count
Customer OVERALL Responses -.
Improve timeliness of decisions and process flow; reduce time of checking process and
12
plan reviews; approve simple construction over - the - counter, rather than require multi -week
reviews.
Perm it/development/building fees too expensive; permit fees for development are more
9
expensive than other communities; professional and time considerations of plan check
services should not require extra fees.
7
City is too restrictive /has too many regulations; apply regulations in a reasonable, goal -
oriented fashion; distinguish between "regulations" and "guidelines."
Letters to customers should encourage cooperation and not be threatening / intimidating;
5
better communication to customers regarding expected timeframe, costs, and procedures
in the Planning process; make review process more "applicant friendly."
4
Better communication and organization between all departments; permitting process
breaks down at Public Works.
3
Increase counter hours and leave door unlocked during business hours.
2
Learn from other cities' example including Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Los Angeles.
2
Use one computerized process between all departments to improve consistency-
2
Staff improvement needed (customer service, project management, familiarity with state
regulations).
2
Assign each project a "project review manager" who stays with the project until the end
and is not substituted by another staff member.
1
Reduce number of committees and boards and delegate authority to make decisions to
staff who can appeal to a board or commission.
1
One part -time contract map checker is inadequate.
1
Community Development policies conflict each other.
1
City should uphold themselves to the high standards they require from their customers.
1
City should perform a review of Neighborhood Services and Code Enforcement.
1
Lack of thoroughness in plan check process.
1
Planning Department seems subjective when reviewing properties with historical
significance.
Appendix A— Customer Survey Analysis: General and Yes /No Questions page 26
APPENDIX B
SAN LUIS OBISPO
EMPLOYEE SURVEY ANALYSIS
.. Fl, .
SECTION I- EMPLOYEE SURVEY ANALYSIS: OVERVIEW AND
METHODOLOGY
Citygate conducted an Internet -based Employee Survey for staff in the divisions of Development
Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, Administration, Public Works Engineering,
Utilities, and Fire Prevention involved in the Community Development
Department /Development Permit Review Process of San Luis Obispo. This survey consisted of
the same closed -ended questions asked about the divisions of Development Review, Long -Range
Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Engineering in the Customer Survey that
Citygate conducted prior to the Employee Survey. The purpose of the survey was to understand
how similar or dissimilar the staff opinions were of how they were performing compared to the
customers' perception. A summary of this comparison is provided in Section 3.6 of the main
report.
The survey was "open" to accept input between January 31 and February 21, 2013. The
availability of the survey was announced via direct email invitations to staff. In total, there were
28 completed surveys.
Details of the deployment are shown below.
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 10 employees responded from Development Review; 4
responded from Long -Range Planning; 6 responded from Building and Safety; 6 responded from
Administration; 4 responded from Public Works Engineering; 0 responded from Utilities; and 1
responded from Fire Prevention.3
For each of the seven divisions addressed in the survey, employees were asked to rate their
perception of how they were performing regarding a number specific aspects. In the
Development Review section of the survey, there were 27 of these aspects; in the Long -Range
Planning section, there were 18; in the Building and Safety section, there were 27; in the
1 "Partial" — the number of surveys that were begun but not completed. These surveys cannot be added to the database.
2 "Completes" — the number of surveys that were completed and successfully added to the database.
3 The response totals of 10, 4, 6, 6, 4 and 1 for Development Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety,
Administration, Public Works Engineering, and Fire Prevention, respectively, do not add up to 28 since several employees
completed the survey for more than one division.
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology page 1 ••
Administration section, there were 24; in the Public Works Engineering section, there were 26;
in the Utilities section, there were 26; and in the Fire Prevention section, there were 27.
The rating scale for each aspect was "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1).
Respondents were also asked one open -ended question about the Community Development
Department/Development Permit Review Process overall.
It should be noted in reviewing the results that employees were not required to answer any
question. Additionally, they were permitted to respond "Not Applicable" to the rating
statements, and these responses were excluded from the mean response calculations. Therefore,
the response totals do not always add to the totals of 10, 4, 6, 6, 4 or 1 completed surveys for
Development Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, Administration, Public Works
Engineering, and Fire Prevention, respectively.
ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS
Detailed Results for each Division Surveyed
Detailed survey results for each division are presented in the following order: Development
Review, Long -Range Planning, Building and Safety, Administration, Public Works Engineering,
and Fire Prevention. Results are not provided for Utilities since there were no survey responses.
The results for each division are presented in the following format:
♦ Summary of Findings — The statements receiving the overall highest and lowest
mean score.
♦ Statistical Analysis for Each Statement — All the survey statements are
presented with the calculation of the Mean, Median, Mode and Standard
Deviation along with the percentage of each type of response. These are sorted
from highest to lowest mean score.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The terms defined below are encountered in the information that follows:
Mean: An arithmetic mean that is the sum of the responses for each statement divided by the
number of responses for each statement.
Median: "Middle value" of a list. That is, half the numbers in the list are greater than the
median response and half are less.
Mode: The most frequently occurring number in a list. In the case of the Employee Survey, it
was the response (from "Far Exceeds Expectations" to "Unacceptable ") that was the most often
chosen for any one statement.
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology page 2
Standard Deviation: Standard deviation tells how spread out the responses are from the
arithmetic mean. A standard deviation close to zero indicates that most responses are close to
the mean response and that a greater degree of agreement exists among survey takers with regard
to the statement. A greater standard deviation indicates that there was a wider spread of
variation in the responses and that a greater degree of disagreement exists among employees with
regard to the statement.
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology
page 3
SECTION II- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Development Review section of the Employee Survey are summarized below.
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 10 employees responded from Development Review. As part
of the survey, employees were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Development Review on a
scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary includes the 5
highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std D-
Customer service when compared with cities
4.70
5
5
0.48
within San Luis Obispo County
Knowledge of development review
4.50
4.5
4
0.53
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
4.50
5
5
0.71
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
4.50
4.5
5
0.53
project
Courtesy
4.40
4
4
0.52
Providing complete process information at public
4.40
4
4
0.52
counter
Responsiveness to / consideration of customer
4.40
4
4
0.52
concerns
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Development Review page 4
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Customer service when compared
with cities within San Luis Obispo
County
Knowledge of development review
Helpfulness of front counter
assistance
Ease of accessing project
manager to discuss project
Courtesy
Providing complete process
information at public counter
Responsiveness to / consideration
of customer concerns
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject Mean
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes 3.60
Median
3
..•
3
Std .-
0.84
Cost of processing application (fees)
3.60
3
3
0.84
Clarity of codes and policies
3.60
3.5
3
0.97
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.60
4
4
1.07
Timeliness /number of re- checks
3.70
3.5
3
0.82
Complexity of regulations
3.70
3.5
3
1.06
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.70
4
4
0.95
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Development Review page 5
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes
Cost of processing application (fees)
Clarity of codes and policies
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
Timeliness/number of re- checks
Complexity of regulations
Use of technology (web site, plan check, document
submittal)
' K Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Development Review page 6
1.60
1.60
3.60
3.60
I
3.70
3.70
I
3.70
' K Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Development Review page 6
y
3
O
J
O
W
W
O
W
W
V
W
y
J
2
Q
V
h
a�
�3 N
a�
3
o
cd o
o
a�
A �
N
'b � .a
a�
C E
G
5N
Cd
o �
� � W
Cd p,
U Q.i w
� N
O �N
�z
� � Q
� ea
�.
N �
vQi" O
C�
N
4, y
O
O
N
N to
� y
O U
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
-
O
0
O
M
O
O
P-
0o
0
s
O
L_
3 �
a c
CU
CL
o
E a
U Ln
c
N
L fn
3J
U c
Z M
N c
jE
0 3
N U)
7
U 'Z3
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
M
O
Cl
v
N
c
N
Q
O
m
>
O
a
O
N
rn
a
0)
O
c
Y
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
r
0
O
M
0
0
m
Cl
Ts
U
C
N
.N
M
m
C
U
c
O
N
N
4)
C
w
O_
L
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
o
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
M
O
0
Ts
N
O
N
D)
m
c
m
U
N
0
Q
rn
c
U O
m a
O N
N
m N
W a
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
<O
0
0
v
N
O
0
v
N
7
O
U
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
(O
0
0
v
N
O
0
v
c
O
m
c
N
N
U
O
Q
0
N �
M2
E c
7
U V
rn
C ,V
OO
a
a- cu
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
fD
o
0
It
N
O
0
v
O
c
O
(D
V)
C
v
o E
N N
N U
O C
C O
> U
N F
CL O
N N
N
X U
O
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
ti 0
0
M
00
0
v
O
M
0
a
N
w
0
CL
CL
O
N
M
0
L
O
CL
> N
N O
o
� a
+O+
— m
z N
Q V
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
o
O
0
O
ti 0
0
M
0o
0
v
O
Vl
C
M
CL
0
N
N
CD
c
M
L
U
t
O
c
E
O
N
N
N
U
`O
a
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
N
0
O
d'
0
0
It
O
0
s
O
N
m
a
N
N
>
N
O
a
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
N
0
O
O
0
M
ti
0
v
O
a�
C
c
M
N
E
M
N
(D
c
O
L
d
rn
c
�C
7
0)
w
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
C>
r
0
O
ti
0
N
O
0
IT
O
r
N �
L C
M �
C U
a0
a O
c Q"
M
C C
,o
N Cc
E
U C
r
N
a n
CO
CO
0
O
Cl
Z
0
O
O
O
O
r
0
O
ti 0
N
ti
O
0
V
O
r
w
N
U
O
CL
N
>
M
a�
rn
n
m
N
_T
m
C
N
7
N
m
O
n.
W
m
K
3
as
.V
C
X41
E
O
N
Q
a+
C
d
E
d
co
t
V
t0
W
L.
O
N
.N
A
C
Q
A
V
N
\°
0
\
0
\
0
\o
0
\o
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\o
0
\°
0
\
0
\o
0
\°
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
O
N
0
0
0
c
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
\o
0
\°
0
o
\o
0
\o
0
\o
0
a
\
0
\o
0
\o
0
\
0
\
0
\o
0
\o
0
O
O
O)
O
O
O
OD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
of
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
0
0
0
o
e
o
o
a
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
O)
O
O
O
OD
N
\
0
\
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
M
�
11
It
qq
LO
<t
M
LO
co
co
�
N
of
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
Ln
N
�
I
N
qq
M
N
N
M
qqt
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
0°
0
\°
0
\
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
M
N
N
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
qT
�
M
O
O
O
r-
e0
LA
N
qt
qqr
�
�
t•
t`
O
r-
t•
�
O
O
O
O
CO
L90
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
f7
L7
O
O
O
w4t
qqT
M
M
M
M
M
M
Iq
M
M
M
M
�
N
N
c
�
IT
11
11
qT
qq
M
qT
M
M
M
M
�
N
CO
0
O
N
N
O
O
M
O
O
O
e0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
0
ao
ao
so
ep
N
r�
P.
P.
O
0
e0
0
eh
M
ri
eh
M
M
ri
eh
M
@7
eh
eh
e'7
M
N
m
C
c
a
>
>
�
o
N
N
N
C
o
Z
O
eu
m
n
.,
o
(n
m
m
E
rn
N
C
a
m
a
V
C
C
N
N
E
O
+�
t
L
O
N
N_'
O
.+
U
rn
in
I
v
m U
o
rn
'o
o
c m
o
o
�
�?
c
a
'o
0) m
E
n
D
o`n
m
E
m
CL
E
o
-
m
c
0)
n>
°'
(
o
m
e
o
m
'c = E
c
E
n
o
`
o
y
>
m
o
,
0
o
�O
N
N
o
o
cc
�E
c
c
N
c
QoN
-
d
v>
U
0
o
°
in
'
�
m
v
Q
E
a
`
m
`
0a
c
`
E
�
o
P=
n
N
o
U
m
a 0
Q S
D
a
U
D -o
U
U-
!
U a
SECTION III- LONG -RANGE PLANNING RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Long -Range Planning section of the Employee Survey are summarized below.
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 4 employees responded from Long -Range Planning. As part
of the survey, employees were asked to rate 18 specific aspects of Long -Range Planning on a
scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary includes the 5
highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Customer service when compared with cities
within San Luis Obispo County
Mean
4.50
Median
5
..-
5
Std D-
1.00
Helpfulness and inclusiveness
4.50
5
5
1.00
Courtesy
4.25
4
4
0.50
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Providing complete information
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Providing consistent and dependable information
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Customer service when
compared with cities within San
Luis Obispo County
Helpfulness and inclusiveness
Courtesy
Returning phone calls in a timely
manner
Providing complete information
Providing consistent and
dependable information
5.00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning page 9 -'" =
4,50
4.50
4.25
4.25
i
4..25
4.25
5.00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning page 9 -'" =
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std .-
Cost of processing application (fees)
3.00
3
3
0.00
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.00
3
3
0.82
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.25
3.5
4
0.96
Communication on project status
3.50
4
4
1.00
Understanding of private business
3.50
3.5
3
0.58
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
Cost of processing application (fees)
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
Use of technology (web site, plan check, document
submittal)
Communication on project status
Understanding of private business
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning page 10
3.00
3:00
3.25
3.50
3.50
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Long -Range Planning page 10
h
3
O
J
O
F�
W
O
LU
O
CO
W
W
FQ►
cn
v
W
O
N
J
Z
Q
J
V
CO)
a�
a�
0
0
a o
o
A �
c�
-0 -d
c 0 cr
a
4)
O � �
0
I
J
� c
con d
O
o -Cl N
O
o .�
v
� � W
.-Uy �
CG cl, L
U ¢�
O
�b a
� v v
Ns.� nS
U �
� o
00
4-i y
O 4i
U O
cd N
N �
O N
N
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
LO
N
O
O
O
s
0
O
O
t
�3 r
� c
MU
ao
E CZ
U
c 0
t fn
3J
V C
Zm
(n c
N
E 3
0
m uNi
:3=
U 'Z3
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
N
O
U)
r-
C)
O
s
Ln
O
Iq
U)
(D
C
N
0
C
c
N
N
N
N
C
w
a
m
2
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
gg
O
0
LO
F-
'.-0
U)
N
O
0
M
N
w
E
o
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
N
0
LO
N
O
U)
CO
CA
0
N
N
a�
c
c
c�
am
E
N
'C
N
N
U
N
c
O
t
C1
CA
C
c
m
w
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
LO
N
0
LO
N
O
LO
(D
CA
0
N
N
c
0
m
C
2
N
Q
0
U
CA
C
0
a
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
Ln
N
N
O
LO
(D
O
0
to
N
a
N
m
v
c
(D
CL
4)
c
N
C
.O
c
U C
�
0
N
v
E
240-
a .5
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
LO
N
O
LO
N
N
CO
0
v
O
O
a
N
v
N
cn
o
d
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
LO
N
O
U)
LD
N
N
CO
0
v
O
O
a
v>
c
�c
c
ca
n
N
cm
c
N
&
c
O
0
N
CA
.0
?
0
c
Y
0
CO
CO
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
LO
N
NOR
O
U)
LO
N
N
CO
0
v
O
O
a
U)
C
O
E
E
U
CA
c
w
U-
0
O
O
0
Cl
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
LO
N
O
0
LO
N
N
CO
0
v
O
O
O
-o
a�
N
O
CL
Cl
O
U)
m
N
?
m
0
Cl M
> a?
Oc
N O
O `
' a?
— m
N
Q 0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
LO
LO
N
0
LO
N
CO
CA
0
M
M
N
M
O
C
0
a�
v
v7
C
U
O N
N N
N U
N c
c O
N U
N N
o
� y
W 0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
LO
N
0
LO
ti
0
O
O
0
O
N
M
0
a�
rn
N
c
m
t5
N
�O
Cl
CA
c
N N
U �
N C1
N
O w
m .N
w-D
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
LO
N
LO
ti
0
O
O
0
N
N
M
N
N
U
O
C1
>
Lel
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
LO
N
0
O
0
LO
I-
0
O
O
r-
v
N
M
N
U
N
O
n
C
O
C
0
U_
C
E
0
(D
Q
ca
n
v�
C
C
C
CS
�7
C
o)
c
O
J
0
.N
>
cu
c
Q
X
C
Qa
C3.
C3.
zo
c
'�.
�
2
@
c
e
�
c
0
�
C
■
§
2
2
cn
t
u
@
W
�
2
2
�
2
�
«
2
U
�
AW
2
co
I
$
@
a
R
E R
Cl -
@
0
a
@
A
0
0
0
0
�
a
a
@
@
0
o
q
o
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
\
\
%
%
a
$
@
@
2
q
N
2
@
#
a
/
Cl
2
o
q
0
0
0
0
co 2
$ R
0
C;
d
d
a
m
m
E'
2
a
U�
m
U�
w
§
�
c
S
A
o
V)
V)
M
V)
2
21
c
Q
§
'
Cl)
�
k
■�
�
k
$�
CL
CL
2f
$.
2
tm
f U)
m
cm
f
c
2
//
k
2k
C
2
a§
f m
a CL
0E
_a
°
k
k
-0
k k
k§
w� .
�
�■
SECTION IV- BUILDING AND SAFETY RESULTS
SUMMARY of FINDINGS
The results for the Building and Safety section of the Employee Survey are summarized below.
Of the 28 total completed surveys, 6 employees responded from Building and Safety. As part of
the survey, employees were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Building and Safety on a scale
from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary includes the 5
highest ranking aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Customer service when compared with cities
within San Luis Obispo County
Mean
5.00
Median
5
..
5
..-
0.00
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
4.67
5
5
0.82
Timeliness of inspections
4.67
5
5
0.52
Thoroughness of inspections
4.67
5
5
0.82
Communication on project status
4.60
5
5
1 0.89
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Customer service when
compared with cities within San
Luis Obispo County
Helpfulness of front counter
assistance
Timeliness of inspections
Thoroughness of inspections
Communication on project status
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Building and Safety page 13 '
5.60
4.67
4.67
d.6 7
4.60
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Building and Safety page 13 '
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
..
Cost of processing applications (fees)
2.67
2
2
1.21
Complexity of regulations
3.00
3
3
0.63
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.00
3
4
0.89
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
3.17
3
2
1.17
document submittal)
Understanding of private business
3.67
4
4
0.52
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
Cost of processing applications (fees)
Complexity of regulations
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
Use of technology (web site, plan check, document
submittal)
Understanding of private business
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Building and Safety page 14
H
J
O
W
0
D
0
ti
W
x
LIU
1-
y
v
W
0
LL
J
2
Q
V
F
h
y�
a�
0
O °
cd o
.0 0
A �
c�
� b
C
� � d
w
a�
H �
.o
� m
cd '
N �
0
y O
� ar
o N
z
o �, U
W
U �
O � N
O •�+
3z
� U
O N
U �
o
N
4-4 y
O
U O
c� O
O �
3
0 U
O �
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
M
ao
0
Cl
0
no
LO
0
0
N
3 c a
O
CL V
E O
0.
8A
c 0
L N
3 'S
J
U C
m
U)
N C
0 3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
Cl)
Do
N
co
0
_Tf:
r,,
ti
m
U
c
Z
w
^m
C
O
U
0
O
N
N
a)
C
CL
N
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
co
N
LA
0
Tf:
LO
co
Ln
c
O
U
m
0.
Ln
C
O
N
a)
c
a�
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
M
Oo
N
0
0
N
Ln
co
C
O
U
a�
CL
N
c
O
N
ch
m
C
t
D>
0
O
s
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ti
0
O
co
rn
00
0
T*
LO
0
co
4
N
U
a)
'o
CL
c
O
C
O
ip
U
.0
E
O
U'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ti 0
r—
co
lo-
coo
0
T*,
Ln
CD
l
N
7
O
U
0
0
0
0
NP
0
0
0
0
0
ti
r
0
CD
v
Do
0
Tf:
N
V
0
c
0
Am
W
a
N
C
O
U
O C
to N
N U
O C
C O
� U
N �
°no
N N
a)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ti
r
0
co
co
0
Tf:
U)
0
0
O
0
E
C
C
0 N
O C
o
E 0-
O N
U .0
C C
v
ocu
d "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ti
0
M
Cl)
N
0
qq-
It
Cl)
M
I*
m
cn
a
C
ca
C
a
0
a)
a
m
3
O
Y
°o °o °o
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
� ti ti
0 0 0
Cl) M CO
0 0
LO LO LLO
ONO ONO ONO
0 0 0
LO Ln LO
Ln Ln Ln
Cl) ! M Cl
V I V i qr
�
°
�
a
o
o
m
o
0.
m
co
JOR
c
0.
O
c
to
Ln
E
O
O
V
U
o
N
E
N
a)
�
N
2
m
CL
E
> 0
0
j
Cj O
0
U
75 'Z
V O
U
N O
0 Q
O 0
C .V
N
N
0
= as
O
`O
0-
¢ U
ccy
w -a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ti
0
O
0
Cl)
M
LO
r-
0
ti
r
a>
E
cO
C
()
C
O
.0
0_
E c
� c
E
Lo
a�
rn
m
n
a
r�
c
m
.N
m
c
T
Z
U)
a)
(D
T
O
0_
W
m
.fir
cc
U
V
C
'G
�3
m
C
E
co
s
ev
W
L
N
.N
A
ev
C
Q
N
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
\°
o
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ON
0
0
0
0
0
0
OR
0
o
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
r
M
(~o
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
0
I�
N-
I`
M
ti
co
co
M
Cl
M
co
I-
M
r-
r
M
co
co
M
to
M
M
(o
M
0
,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OR
0
0
°
O
O
I�
M
I-
O
O
Il-
M
I%-
I-
Il-
M
O
o
Ln
0
M
(o
(O
(n
r
M
(o
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
M
Il-
M
M
I--
T"
I-
I-
M
M
O
O
O
r
1n
(n
M
O
M
0
0
N
N
Il-
M
O
�
Il-
I,-
(O
00
w
I-
I-
N
00
L
(o
00
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
r
1
V)
ct
U')
M
19t
N
M
qqT
N
co
M
M
M
M
N
r
O
O
O
Co
00
0
0
10
r
O
O
0
-i
M
Ih
ri
M
th
M
0;
M
N
N `
N
C
O
(�
C
0
03 :3
O
w
co
C
0)
J
C O
O
0
(0
U
C
L
3
0)
v
C
m
C
n
c
c
o
-0.0
>
O
U
E
+.
�^
N O
U)
mom_
V
v a
N
0
>
Y
)
a�
c
(�
C
>.
7
0
t
Q
aci o
a
°)
o
c
a
v,
3 0
rn
N 03
O
N
!_'
C
E O
''
O
p) C
N tm
>
rw E
C '�
co
m
E
E
o
0
r>
3
rn
C
o
,�
O
N
O O
U�
y
c
'=
�
O
U}
U
O
O
N N
p) c
N
'O
C
C 7
L U
-o E
N
U
O
_C
r
L
V
Q
U
C(a
C
C
O
U'
N
+.
C Q
a
N
O
N
t7
N
N
_0
N
0
p p
O
:3 EL
U
UF '
'
'D
N 4
E
O-D
U
C
O
U .y
>
N 2
O 0.
A
C
N t
O
O C
O
n CL
a
Q .S
O
2 a
a m
U>>
U
U
U m
v
4
!q
a�
m
a
c
C_
.0
.j
in
N
N
T
(C
C
Q
A
7
cn
m
a)
O
a
W
m
K
C
Q
Q
Q
I'�
SECTION V-- ADMINISTRATION RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Administration section of the Employee Survey are summarized below. Of
the 28 total completed surveys, 6 employees responded from Administration. As part of the
survey, employees were asked to rate 24 specific aspects of Administration on a scale from "Far
Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary includes the 5 highest ranking
aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std .-
Communication on project status
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Knowledge of Urban Planning issues and best
4.00
4
4
0.82
practices
Knowledge of Building Code issues and best
4.00
4
-
1.00
practices
Ability to creatively garner technical resources to
4.00
4
4
0.82
assist department employees
Customer service when compared with cities
4.00
4
4
0.82
within San Luis Obispo County
Accuracy /consistency of interpreting policies and
4.00
4
4
0.82
procedures
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Administration page 17
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00
Communication on project status
Knowledge of Urban Planning
issues and best practices
Knowledge of Building Code
issues and best practices
Ability to creatively garner
technical resources to assist
department employees
Customer service when
compared with cities within San
Luis Obispo County
Accuracy /consistency of
interpreting policies and
procedures
5 Lowest Ratings
4.00 5.00
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Understanding of private business
Mean Median
2.75 2.5
Mode
2
Std Dev
0.96
Ability to anticipate organizational problems
4.25
3
1.10
Ability to articulate a vision for the Department
4,00
-
1.00
Ability to build consensus on important issues
3.00 3
2
-Ei4,QQ
Responsiveness to / consideration of customer
concerns
s 00
2
1.00
400
4.00
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Understanding of private business
Mean Median
2.75 2.5
Mode
2
Std Dev
0.96
Ability to anticipate organizational problems
2.80 3
3
1.10
Ability to articulate a vision for the Department
3.00 3
-
1.00
Ability to build consensus on important issues
3.00 3
2
1.00
Responsiveness to / consideration of customer
concerns
3.00 3
2
1.00
Appendix 13—Employee Survey Analysis: Administration page 18
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
Understanding of private business
Ability to anticipate organizational problems
Ability to articulate a vision for the Department
Ability to build consensus on important issues
Responsiveness to/ consideration of customer
concerns
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Administration
page 19 "
�• II+ Ni; plY. IMP .I
E
3.00
3.00
3.00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Administration
page 19 "
�• II+ Ni; plY. IMP .I
W
O
J
O
W
2
C7
W
IS
0
W
W
V
W
H
J
2
Q
v
y
Cl)
U
� 3
O 0
o
LA
rn
A �
c�
"C 'd
� � C
a�i C
� � Q
N
N
co
� � V
W
� O
U •U+ L�
U � �
�z
O � H
O
N" O
Ld O
N �+
Cd
4r 0
O
U O
Ld tw
N w
3
O O
U
\o
0
O
O
T
M
co
0
0
0
0
ti
T
0
T
0
M
M
co
O
0
LA
LO
N
I*
rn
N
U
a�
'o
CL
c
O
C
O
v
E
E
0
i
0
O
O
T
T
0
T
O
O
ti
T
0
M
M
ol
T
N
O
0
IT
O
O
cn
N
N
N
rn
C
C
c
Lo
a
c
0
- N
ov
M
c-
a N
(D o
O�
Y m
0
O
O
T
M
M
0
T
O
O
T
0
T
ol
T
0
O
T
1
qql
O
O
a
C
LO
U)
N
Ln
N
0
U
0)
c
7
m
o �
a
O 0
Y�
0
O
O
T
T
0
T
0
0
ti
T
M
M
T
N
O
0
v
O
O
IV
,
L c
U N
E
a`D u
m
m m
0)-0
a(n
N
Y
o
U M N
U j,
_ O a
�u'E
¢ N 0
O
O
T
0
T
0
T
0
O
0
ti
T
M
M
T
N
00
0
O
O
L
Y
�3 r
� c
m 0
Q' o
CL
U
c 0
L N
3J
U C
Z m
vii c
ow
to N
O
O
T
0
T
0
T
0
O
0
O
ti
T
M
M
0
T
N
O
0
lq-
NT
O
O
rn
c
N
CL
N
C
o w
>�2
C.) v
� U
N O
C d
0-0
C
U 0
ca o
0 .V
¢ d
0
O
Co
T
0
O
0
0
0
ti
T
a
O
ti
CO
0
T
co
O
0
eh
00
M
T
Ln
7
0
U
0
O
O
T
0
T
Co
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
M
T
0
M
O
OD
M
c
m
E
E
0
0)
.c
0
O
O
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
M
Cl
M
M
0
T
0
M
O
00
eh
N
c
0
.N
v
�U
a�
o
N N
N E
C C
O
U m
0
O
O
T
T
0
0
Cl
0
ti
T
ti
T
c M
M
ti
T
r
IT
O
tD
M
L
(D
N
m
Al
0
O
O
T
T
T
0
0
Ne
O
CV)
M
0
M
M
O
co
Ln
0
M
Ln
M
Iq
M
c
m
EL
a N
E
N �
3 N
Y
� C
O N
CO
E
�
L U
U O
2-0
O V
(D N
N
D v
O
N
C
0
Mn
C
Q
N
.N
f0
c
9.
Z
U)
K
I#
c
O
L
i+
Q
is
C
E
t
V
W
L
O
N
�N
O
C
a
i+
N
r �
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
Cl
N
o
o
o
�
-.0,
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
Co
cM
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
o
r
r
O
O
r
r
r
r
r
O
O
O
~
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
\
.Cl
IOR
0
\°
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
°O
o
o
o
o
°O
o
0
0
�
o0
o
r
I`
M
M
M
M
ti
I�
M
M
M
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
�
°O
\
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
I-
fl-
O
M
I�
co
M
I-
fl-
I-
O
ti
r
r
Ln
M
M
CO
L
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\O
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
0
0
I�
O
M
f%-
M
Il-
M
I-
ti
co
M
ti
I`
r
In
M
r
M
M
M
M
o
og
.,0
o
0
0
\o
o
\o
\o
\o
\O
IOR
r
O
O
r
r
r
O
~
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
In
q
O
IT
OD
O
O
O
O
O
N
00
U�
N
U�
OR
ll�
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
O
O
M
M
N
N
M
M
N
N
M
N
c
O
MM
co
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
to
•C
E
a
Q
O
O
O
O
Cl)
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
Y7
N
1q
er
M
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
ti
M
M
Cl)
eo
Cl)
M
M
M
M
Cl*
Cl)
N
N
y
m
C
N
N
()
O
a)
7
C
a)
T
:5
O
a)
N
to
O
V
O
C
to
w
O
CL
CL
O
a)
N
0.
O
f`0
m
p
()
E C
tM
a)
a
C
a)
O
•E
c
C_
O
+, to
C
c
a)
"O
N
m
V
N
"-
f
C
C
O
w
N
.0
O
Q
V
c
C
c
c Q
O
N
M
N
O
c
rn
O
E
•O
O
a
C
m
a)
w
C
m a)
>
C
0
N
>
W
a rn
m
a�i
o
io
�'
v
a�
c
w
O
a)
a
I
m
N
m Y
N
d rn
O O
[l
N .N
m
O
N`
O
O 0_
7
"O
C O
a)
7
U
O
>
p
U
C
U
C
>'
M
CO) C
O a)
�=
O m
O.
N
O 0
� "'
a
a) O
C
'a
C
O.
O
O
O
rn O
N
rn
V w N
m�
�
>`
m
c
NEE
�'�
oa
o
a°iN
o
o2
o�
o
�a�
o�
N
o.
Q
a)-o-
EL
r
3�
Z
�o n
2,
a)
C °
�
)
U O O
0O
O ,FO
o
C r
N E
Z a)
b w
0 j
Z 2
c
Q .E a
Q o
a .S
Q"o
d
Y m
Q
Q 2 a)
Q O
Q .N
W o
Q n
SECTION VI- PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Public Works Engineering section of the Employee Survey are summarized
below. Of the 28 total completed surveys, 4 employees responded from Public Works
Engineering. As part of the survey, employees were asked to rate 26 specific aspects of Public
Works Engineering on a scale from "Far Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This
summary includes the highest and the lowest ratings.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
..-
Std .-
Providing complete process information at public
4.50
4.5
4
0.58
counter
Ability to solve problems as opposed to create
4.50
4.5
4
0.58
problems
Customer service when compared with cities
4.50
5
5
1.00
within San Luis Obispo County
Courtesy
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Knowledge of public works engineering
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Providing consistent and dependable process
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
information at public counter
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes
4.25
4.5
5
0.96
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Public Works Engineering
page 22
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Providing complete process information at
public counter
Ability to solve problems as opposed to
create problems
Customer service when compared with cities
within San Luis Obispo County
Courtesy
Knowledge of public works engineering
Helpfulness off ront counter assistance
Providing consistent and dependable process
information at public counter
Helpfulness of informative handouts on
processes
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Timeliness /number of re- checks
Mean
3.50
Median
3.5
Mode
2
Std Dev
1.73
Positive attitude
3.75
4
5
1.50
Fulfilling commitments
3.75
4
5
1.50
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
3.75
4
5
1.50
Cost of processing application (fees)
3.75
4
5
1.50
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan
review
3.75
4
5
1.50
Clarity of codes and policies
3.75
4
5
1.50
Communication on project status
3.75
4
5
1.50
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
document submittal)
3.75
4
5
1.50
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
project
3.75
4
5
1.50
Understanding of private business
3.75
4
5
1.50
Coordinated review between divisions and
departments of the City
3.75
4
5
1.50
Overall process
3.75
4
5
1.50
WI
Appendix B- Employee Survey Analysis: Public Works Engineering page 23
Z
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Timeliness /number of re -checks
Positive attitude
Fulfilling commitments
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
Cost of processing application (fees)
Processing / turnaround times of construction plan review
Clarity of codes and policies
Communication on project status
Use of technology (web site, plan check, document submittal)
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss project
Understanding of private business
Coordinated review between divisions and departments of the City
Overall process
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Public Works Engineering page 24
�1
3
O
J
O
W
2
c�
W
IIOw
Cl)
W
W
IX
V
W
OO
J
Z
Q
J
V
F►
y
y
N
O �
8 O
O �
A �
d
C
�Oy W
'd ca
a.
-W
C
o
r
o a, N
g70. s
Q v V
W
L
O U Q
v7
1 0
N �
0 N
vii" O
N
N �r
4
O O
U O
cd U
O v
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
0
qq-
O
c
O
M
O
C
N
y
V
O
Q
a)
N
�0
E
U V
O
C .V
5 7
O Q
a` m
O
O
O
0
Co
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
0
O
4
N
0
a
0
O
n
n
O
N
N
N
N
O
acn
> N
y O
O n
-"
ME
Q U
O
O
0
Co
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
N
0
O
O
LO
r-
0
0
s
O
O
qli
t
3 �
v
oo
nU
O
Q
U
c O
t N
3 '5
J
U C
Z M
co
ui c
O
N
7
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
N
0
O
N
O
O
co
rn
0
s
O
Iq
to
4
N
7
O
U
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
N
0
O
N
0
O
co
rn
0
.ti
m
N
l
rn
c
a)
(D
S
tm
c
N
N
3
U
n
NI
O
m
3
O
c
Y
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
N
O
N
0
O
cD
rn
0
ZE
a
in
N
li
v
c
0
.N
N
(0
C
O
U
C
O
0
0
N
N
C
w
n
L
Cl
O
0
O
0
Co
O
O
O
O
0
O
N
O
N
0
O
(D
rn
0
TIP,
to
N
4
N �
� c
m �
C U
CL U
V O
C n
l0 �
C C
N ,O
N_ M
w E
U C
C_ y
N
N
a a
0
O
O
0
O
0
Co
O
Co
O
O
0
O
N
O
N
0
O
0
rn
0
it
4
O
N
li
c
O
O
C
W
m
E
4- O
c
O
N
N N
N N
C co
j N
CL U
O
2 n
0
0
0
vl-
0
O
o
O
O
Co
O
O
N
0
O
0
O
N
O
0
O
v
TV
O
4
O
O
4
N
C
O
N
7
O
�X
?
n
O
u
0
0
0
Tl-
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
LO
M
O
O
li
N
O
U
O
U
C
d
N N
c c
U O
V M
n
U +O+
Q .0
0
O
O
0
Co
0
O
O
Co
O
0
O
O
o
O
0
0
O
O
M
O
O
li
0
c
O
N
v
N
C
U
O C
N
U) U
O C
c O
> U
N N
wE
N
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
Co
O
0
O
O
O
O
to
M
O
O
4
y
c
oz
Q
O
N
N
O
C
N
t
U
t
O
C
O
N
N
U
O
a
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
M
O
O
4
M
0
CL
Q
M
Q
N
N
2
N
n
M
C
0
N
ca
U
O
a
�r
N
N
IQ
n
tm
O
c
e
W
Y
0
7
d
N
N
C
Q
Z
co
W
m
3I
a
d
E
w
U)
U
w
L
N
A
_
Q
ea
v
N
r
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
0
0
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\
0
\
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0`
o
0
0`
�
o`
of
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
to
U)
U7
U7
U7
U7
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U)
ZRIO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°O
U)
w
0
0
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
LO
U)
U)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
\°
0
\°
0
\o
0
\o
0
\o
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
\°
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
1.-0
0
0
0
0 -Ol
0
0
-0-0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
LO
U)
U)
LO
U)
LO
LO
�
U)
LO
LO
W)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Co
Co
O
O
ch
LO
�
U?
U?
U?
U?
LO
LO
U)
LO
U)
U)
I-
LO
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U7
U7
U)
U)
N
Lo
cYi
us
N
0
U)
w
w
I
h
w
H
o
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
N
ai
ri
r�
�i
Cl)
Cl)
fn
ai
e�
e�i
r)
Cl)
V)
c
Y
E
W
U
N
°
.N
O
7
N
m
N
N
>
(A
C
N
_
N
_
a
C
C
U
++
O
N
N
N
N
E
E
N
U)
t
lC
l U
V
_
U
N
U
_
U
C
U)
C
j ,O
Q
N
O
j
>
m
a
3.-.
cm
r
a
3 0
O
E
c
o
�m
C
O
�
`=
O
O
V)
N
m
} a
w
N
C
O
O E
O
Fn
N U
rN.
U)
N
_
E
t
a
U
U
c
u)
(D
E
O
E
O
C
cu
N
V
O
C� 'O +
+
w
C
V
U 0
M a
C
—(D N-t
O
N N
N
>
a
J9
C
4-
y
O
O
E
OC
+ N
4- N
°�
a
C
—
�y
ci
E
°
()
a�
-a
0-0
0)
v,
CL
�.
W
w
°
° U
w U
li
U
a` 0
U
U�
-°
w a
D
U m
0
H
(O
N
(D
a)
N
CL
cm
S
N
C
C
W
N
Y
_U
7
a,
A
7
K
c
d
a
a
0
MEN
SECTION VII—FIRE PREVENTION RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results for the Fire Prevention section of the Employee Survey are summarized below. Of
the 28 total completed surveys, 1 employee responded from Fire Prevention. As part of the
survey, employees were asked to rate 27 specific aspects of Fire Prevention on a scale from "Far
Exceeds Expectations" (5) to "Unacceptable" (1). This summary includes the 5 highest ranking
aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Response
Median
Mode
Std Dev
Courtesy
5.00
-
-
-
Positive attitude
5.00
-
-
-
Knowledge of Best Management Practices in
applying fire code as part of one -stop
5.00
-
-
-
development permit review process
Customer service when compared with cities
5.00
-
-
-
within San Luis Obispo County
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss
5.00
-
-
-
project
Understanding of private business
5.00
-
-
-
Coordinated review between divisions and
5.00
-
-
-
departments of the City
Providing complete upfront information regarding
5.00
-
-
-
inspections
Thoroughness of plan review
5.00
-
-
-
Timeliness of inspections
5.00
-
-
-
Thoroughness of inspections
5.00
-
-
-
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Fire Prevention
page 27
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Courtesy
Positive attitude
Knowledge of Best Management Practices in applying fire code as part of
one -stop development permit review process
Customer service when compared with cities within San Luis Obispo
County
Ease of accessing project manager to discuss project
Understanding of private business
Coordinated review between divisions and departments ofthe City
Providing complete upfront information regarding inspections
Thoroughness of plan review
Timeliness of inspections
Thoroughness of inspections
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Response
Median
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Std Dev
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
2.00
-
5.00
5:00
5.00
-
Providing complete process information at public
2,00
-
5.00
5.00
5.00
-
Subject
Response
Median
Mode
Std Dev
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
2.00
-
-
-
Providing complete process information at public
2,00
-
-
-
counter
Providing consistent and dependable process
2.00
-
-
information at public counter
Use of technology (web site, plan check,
2.00
-
_
-
document submittal)
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
3.00
-
-
-
Helpfulness of informative handouts on
3.00
-
-
-
processes
Cost of processing applications (fees)
3.00
-
-
-
Communication on project status
3.00
-
-
-
Appendix 113—Employee Survey Analysis: Fire Prevention page 28
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Helpfulness of front counter assistance
Providing complete process information at public
counter
Providing consistent and dependable process
information at public counter
Use of technology (web site, plan check, document
submittal)
Returning phone calls in a timely manner
Helpfulness of informative handouts on processes
Cost of processing applications (fees)
Communication on project status
z,00
I-
I 2.00
I�
I
3,00
I
3 00
3 00
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: Fire Prevention page 29 . rl
W
O
J
�O
F-
ill
Q)
O
FW
O
W
W
v
W
aO
W
CO)
O
CL
W
ct
b
c�
N
"C
1
�Or
!-r
Y
I
r
4
I
f
1
r
�
I
O
I
O
3
�
1
O
I
O
o
r
O
I
O
I
O
1
O
0
O
a�
O
O
O
O
O
a, to
O
O
O
O
Iff
Ifs
4,
1A
•
111
0 0
�
N
117
o
O
L
•� b
C
C
O
o m
`V
C
O
U
c
C�
U)
-
co
c
N V1
L
a
o
4)
CL
m
O
°
c
Eoa
E
�
O
c
woE
O) o
)
r
� O
0) 2:1
a)
C
(D
>
O
u. O
s
m
W
0
AW
0
41
G)
4-4
3
=
O
CL
a
N
a� o
a
a)
c
o
Q)
>.:Z
m ao
w c,3
y.�
�
O>
m
a m
o
40-1
o
(n
a O
o C
Z
y �
7
rn
u,
O
U
w
E
:Ll
a,
c 5
0 o
a)r
o
v0i
c
Eo
m
CD
En
cc
a, o
y
a) 0 �O N
E 3
O N o
� Q
7
C
7
C
o
O N
N 0
o
O-0
>
rn
�
`
O
wo
O
c r_ c
0
M
c
0
c
a
U-
w
N
m
c
Q
Z
U)
25
c
m
a
a
a
li mil .
1
k
Y
I
r
4
I
f
1
r
f
I
O
I
O
1
O
1
O
I
O
I
O
r
O
I
O
I
O
1
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Iff
Ifs
117
1A
Y1
111
O
�
N
117
�
O
L
C
C
O
o m
�
O
c
U)
-
co
c
a)
CL
m
c
°
c
Eoa
E
:3
c
woE
O) o
0 y
+�
.0
0) 2:1
a)
C
(D
>
O
N .S E
3 J
a
3 o
a� o
a
(D
c
aa)
Q)
>.:Z
m ao
o
c
y.�
�
O>
m
a m
o
:z
c
o
E
o C
Z
in v
m
E a
u,
;�
w
E
:Ll
N.E�
c 5
0 o
a)r
c
v0i
c
Eo
m
CD
cc
>
a) 0 �O N
E 3
O N o
c
7
C
7
C
o
O N
N 0
-0
O-0
>
rn
`
O
`
O
_
O
c r_ c
'U
m A
C
O C
O
_
L
L
7
a
Y a o 0_
U
w -o
D
U m
a
H
F-
u-
0
M
c
0
c
a
U-
w
N
m
c
Q
Z
U)
25
c
m
a
a
a
li mil .
t
1
1
O
O
IV
O
N
O
E
C
7
O
c�
E a3i
v) C
O
N N
U d
am
1
r
I
O
O
N
C
0
m
N
O
A
A
r
O
O
q*
N
C
O
N
7
rn
O
�X
N
d
O
A
1
t
1
O
O
N
V
O
U
C
C C
O
\ O
U m
N �
� a
U +0+
Q ,c
1
1
r
O
O
O
C
O
N
N
N
C
V
O C
� o
y U
C C
O U
> `
fq N
o. O
N N
1
I
1
O
O
I*
N
rn
U
O
Q
N
N
L4W
1
1
k
O
O
Cl)
L
N
C
C
m
A
@
N
am
C
O
L
Q
C
C
L
7
N
r
A
t
O
O
M
C
O
O
JORc
f0
L
(0
c
O
to
U) N
N
d
C
_ M
7 N
Q U
z m
t
1
r
O
O
M
N
N
w
C
(Op
U
CL
Q
(0
rn
c
.N
N
U
O
Q
O
N
O
A
1
r
Co
O
M
N
N
V
N
O
Q
c
O
C
O
U
�C
7
O
A
O
O
N
V
C
co
N
.N
rn
m
C
7
V
c
0
0
N
N
N
C
Q
m
2
I
I
r
O
O
N
C
O
N
O
C
N
N
V
O
Q
N
(D
Qm
E j
U V
O)
C V
'a M
'> 7
Q
O
1_
a o
1
r
I
O
O
N
N
m C
f0 �
C U
Q U
.0 7
C Q
f0 �
� C
C
,o
LA m
N E
c L-
U C
C (p
-a M
N
a` a
1
r
O
O
N
Y
U
N
t
U
C
N
n
N
N
A �
o E
O �
C �
L N
� C
� N
O E
N U
■i
M
N
v
m
0
C
O
C
N
a
LL
N
.N
f0
C
Q
Z
K
c
CL
a
4
_ 1
O
. t
d
d
L
a
r
L_
O
E
2
N
O
t
�
O
W
Q
Q
O
N
d
w
i
E
O
N
CL
o
N
a rn
> N
75 M
to O
20-
O
m
�o
Q U
t
1
1
O
O
IV
O
N
O
E
C
7
O
c�
E a3i
v) C
O
N N
U d
am
1
r
I
O
O
N
C
0
m
N
O
A
A
r
O
O
q*
N
C
O
N
7
rn
O
�X
N
d
O
A
1
t
1
O
O
N
V
O
U
C
C C
O
\ O
U m
N �
� a
U +0+
Q ,c
1
1
r
O
O
O
C
O
N
N
N
C
V
O C
� o
y U
C C
O U
> `
fq N
o. O
N N
1
I
1
O
O
I*
N
rn
U
O
Q
N
N
L4W
1
1
k
O
O
Cl)
L
N
C
C
m
A
@
N
am
C
O
L
Q
C
C
L
7
N
r
A
t
O
O
M
C
O
O
JORc
f0
L
(0
c
O
to
U) N
N
d
C
_ M
7 N
Q U
z m
t
1
r
O
O
M
N
N
w
C
(Op
U
CL
Q
(0
rn
c
.N
N
U
O
Q
O
N
O
A
1
r
Co
O
M
N
N
V
N
O
Q
c
O
C
O
U
�C
7
O
A
O
O
N
V
C
co
N
.N
rn
m
C
7
V
c
0
0
N
N
N
C
Q
m
2
I
I
r
O
O
N
C
O
N
O
C
N
N
V
O
Q
N
(D
Qm
E j
U V
O)
C V
'a M
'> 7
Q
O
1_
a o
1
r
I
O
O
N
N
m C
f0 �
C U
Q U
.0 7
C Q
f0 �
� C
C
,o
LA m
N E
c L-
U C
C (p
-a M
N
a` a
1
r
O
O
N
Y
U
N
t
U
C
N
n
N
N
A �
o E
O �
C �
L N
� C
� N
O E
N U
■i
M
N
v
m
0
C
O
C
N
a
LL
N
.N
f0
C
Q
Z
K
c
CL
a
4
OPEN -ENDED RESPONSES
Employees were asked to respond to the following open -ended question:
Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in your
division or the Community Development Department/Development Permit Review Process
overall.
Employee Count OVERALL Responses -.
Suggestions
Need additional staff to reduce processing times with current and anticipated increase of
workload; Permit Technician for Building and Public Works need to be full -time and
5
permanent as they are essential to the entire flow of the Development Review process;
due to an increased development workload, the Fire Department counter Administrative
Assistant and 1 1/4 Fire Inspector positions should be restored.
Need better entitlement routing system with more user - friendly documents; upgraded
website with handouts for common counter questions.
Re- design website to be more user - friendly with drop down menus to links such as "living
2
here" or "doing business here" to minimize time spent on phone helping customers
navigate the website. The homepage should include links to zoning and regulations
checklists, and the GIS parcel viewer should be easily accessible for customers' own
research.
1
Cross train the staff between Building, Planning and Public Works.
1
Development Review should be considered as a function rather than cross departmental
lines.
1
Development Review needs to be a primary responsibility and priority to staff so that it
doesn't take a back seat.
1
Delegate certain ongoing /required tasks to support staff.
1
Need increased teamwork and communication within department.
1
Need improved succession planning and incentives for staff to avoid burn -out and boost
morale. Offer compensation incentives for achieving certifications from ICC.
1
Request an applicant proposal for critical timing, project scope, and intentions so
expectations can be met and critical concerns can be addressed early in the process.
1
Review areas other than the front counter.
Positive Comments
1
Electronic routing of plans reduced turn - arounds on plan checks from Public Works and
Utilities.
1
Front counter and permit process is seamless and communication occurs with customers.
Appendix B— Employee Survey Analysis: General page 32
APPENDIX C
SAN LUIS O
RESIDENT SURVEY ANALYSIS
..V�
SECTION I- RESIDENT SURVEY ANALYSIS: OVERVIEW AND
METHODOLOGY
Citygate conducted an Internet -based Resident Survey for residents of San Luis Obispo. The
purpose of the survey was to understand resident opinions of how the Community Development
Department is meeting or not meeting the needs of the residents. The survey was "open" to
accept input between March 7 and March 18, 2013. The availability of the survey was
announced via direct email invitations to 2,000 randomly selected residents. In addition,
approximately ten (10) interested stakeholders asked to be sent invitations to the survey. In total,
there were 220 completed surveys.
Details of the deployment are shown below.
Resident
Launch Date
Survey
3/7/13
Close Date
3/18/13
Partials'
96
Completes2
220
Residents were asked to rate 15 different aspects of the Community Development Department.
The rating scale for each aspect was "Strongly Agree" (5) to "Strongly Disagree" (1).
Respondents were also asked one open -ended question about the Community Development
Department overall, which is included at the end of this Appendix.
It should be noted in reviewing the results that residents were not required to answer any
question. Additionally, they were permitted to respond "Not Applicable" to the rating
statements, and these responses were excluded from the mean response calculations.
ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS
Resident Responses
The results for resident responses are presented in the following format:
♦ Summary of Findings – The statements receiving the overall highest and lowest
mean score.
♦ Statistical Analysis for Each Statement – All the survey statements are
presented with the calculation of the Mean, Median, Mode and Standard
1 "Partial"— the number of surveys that were begun but not completed. These surveys cannot be added to the database.
2 "Completes" — the number of surveys that were completed and successfully added to the database.
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology
page 1 ::
Deviation along with the percentage of each type of response. These are sorted
from highest to lowest mean score.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The terms defined below are encountered in the information that follows:
Mean: An arithmetic mean that is the suin of the responses for each ,statement divided by the
number of responses for each statement.
Median: "Middle value" of a list. That is, half the numbers in the list are greater than the median
response and half are less.
Mode: The most frequently occurring number in a list. In the case of the Resident Survey, it was
the response (from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree ") that was the most often chosen for
any one statement.
Standard Deviation: Standard deviation tells how spread out the responses are from the
arithmetic mean. A standard deviation close to zero indicates that most responses are close to the
mean response and that a greater degree of agreement exists among survey takers with regard to
the statement. A greater standard deviation indicates that there was a wider spread of variation in
the responses and that a greater degree of disagreement exists among residents with regard to the
statement.
�" Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Overview and Methodology page 2
SECTION II- CLASSIFICATION STATEMENTS
The survey began with the following classification statements. They are included here to
demonstrate the type of residents who responded to the survey.
Please tell us a little about yourself. This information will help us to better
understand your responses and respond to your concerns.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I own a business in San Luis Obispo
rent my residence in San Luis Obispo
I own a home in San Luis Obispo
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
More than 10
years
■ Yes
N No
1 have been living in San Luis Obispo for:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Classification Statements page 3 rl ..
14.20%
20.20%
65.10°/
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Classification Statements page 3 rl ..
SECTION III- RESIDENT RESULTS
SUMMARY of FINDINGS
The results for the Resident Survey are summarized below. As part of the survey, residents were
asked to rate 15 specific aspects of the Community Development Department on a scale from
"Strongly Agree" (5) to "Strongly Disagree" (1). This summary includes the 5 highest ranking
aspects and the 5 lowest ranking aspects.
5 Highest Ratings
(Presented in descending order. 5 is the highest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
Mode
Std Dev
The Community Development Department does a
good job protecting the City's cultural heritage
3.50
4
4
1.07
resources (e.g., historic preservation).
The ability to safely move around the City by car is
3.50
4
4
1.11
generally efficient.
The Community Development Department
contributes to the overall quality of life in San Luis
3.43
3
3
0.98
Obispo.
The Community Development Department does a
good job protecting the unique architectural
3.38
3
4
1.08
character of the City's various neighborhoods
(e.g., infill development, code enforcement, etc.).
The Community Development Department does a
good job planning for the City's growth and
3.29
3
3
1.01
development.
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Resident Results page 4
5 Highest Ratings
(presented in descending order)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
The Community Development Department does a good job
protecting the City's cultural heritage resources (e.g., historic
preservation).
The ability to safely move around the City by car is generally
efficient.
The Community Development Department contributes to the
overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo.
The Community Development Department does a good job
protecting the unique architectural character of the City's
various neighborhoods (e.g., infill development, code
enforcement, etc.).
The Community Development Department does a good job
planning for the City's growth and development.
5 Lowest Ratings
(Presented in ascending order. 1 is the lowest score)
Subject
Mean
Median
..•
Std D-
The Community Development Department favors
2.64
3
3
0.91
the City's residents over the City's businesses.
Information is generally available and I feel
informed about planning and development
3.04
3
4
1.18
projects.
The quality of life has improved since the City
3.04
3
3
1.08
began proactive code enforcement.
3.09
3
3
0.98
The Community Development Department favors
the City's businesses over the City's residents.
The Community Development Department's staff
reports presented at public meetings are
3.14
3
3
0.95
informative and balanced.
The mean of each response is presented graphically below.
Em
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Resident Results page 5 ;=
5 Lowest Ratings
(presented in ascending order)
The Community Development Department favors the
City's residents over the City's businesses.
Information is generally available and I feel informed
about planning and development projects.
The quality of life has improved since the City began
proactive code enforcement.
The Community Development Department favors the
City's businesses over the City's residents.
The Community Development Department's staff
reports presentee d at public meetings are informative
and balanced.
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Resident Results page 6
W
3
J
O
W
C7
W
F.
0
IS
W
W
V
W
O
r
J
z
Q
V
`h
y
U
O �
� O
O �
.� bQ
N
Q
� N
N
as
� N E
U � �
o b
� � V
W
o
N
O �
z
a
ti v H
cC O
N.
U �
N" o
v I
4r y
O
U O
QS �
N Cd
O U
Ga Q.
0
0
0
0
M
M
0
O
0
N
N
0
0
M
r
O
qq-
O
O
0
N
O
ti
r
N
r
0
O
IT
r
qq-
O
O
0
r
M
LO
0
N-
O
0
M
0
O
O
0
M
0
N
0
ti
O
r
0
O
M
0
M
0
M
w
O
IT
0
0
O
0
M
M
00
0
ti
0
OD
M
0
M
0
co
0
M
O
O
OR
N
N
0
O
M
N
M
r
LO
M
I
r
cfl
N
qq-
0
0
O
r
0
O
0
N
0
ti
N
co
r
O
M
Iq
v I � I M 1 M 1 M 1 � 1 M
N I�
M
I
rn
c
N V
LO =
Y 0. ^N`
E o `
Q a tm O
a O C m
a) m L a)
❑ N N
C0 j a
:3 Y U
L
E N o
V�t
mU
a) CL
H❑ =(D
0
4'f
M
Y
U
a)
L
V
c
0
m y
� C
O 'U
E FE
m
O N
- N
M E
m
O U
L
H �
M
N
a�
O O
Y n
AC a) .N
W ZE -0
QOO
O w N
> = J
O L C
❑ � m
O c
E c
a�
a -
o
U m'
a� n m
L a)
H ❑ o-
w
eh
Cl)
cmµ-^
U O 'C �(D
U
O O m a N
E -0 U O C
O O `JO
N O O c
> 0O.0 a)
N co -r- a)
❑ N .M a
O L C V
E��.o0
E E V-.F> o
c
a 7 N
L a) a) N
I—❑ L) -6
o�
N
M
0
rn
C
'c
c c
m �
Y CL Q
N . O
O
as >
O O 'D
> rna
M m
N L
C
Y O
E
E co
OED
U
t aU
O N
I— ❑ 6
ao
N
M
N
U`
W
L
a
C
7
O
m C
O1
C .LD
Y C
L
a C
C V
m
rna
c c
Y m
� m
T-
N
M
a
°O c
O O
L U
tm N 0-
Z m�
Lao
fn C _y
� m �
m O J
a) cn
—° E
O
O E N
N U m
Uc0m
a� '> m
Q O
ti
a
7
N
c
a�
v
a�
li �
Z
U
C
0
M
N
a)
K
C
a
a
LO
■
�
�
�
c
■
2
■
@
�
I
�
■
�
�
�
�
s
U
e
W
�
2
2
�
■
�
Q
2
0
�
�
�
/ $ @ / a / 2 /
R R R R R R q q
c
2 @ a / k
q q m q - n n
0 a $ @ @ a « 2
n m
a m a cq
co m U) o @ _
* @ a a a a /
a *
LO m o LO � co k
@
% 3 $ m
-0
m q q °
* a / @ a a / $
¥ LO LO ¥ 2 V) co q
q 2 2 $ & S 7 G
CD a 6 a w w 6
m m M cn m c n
2
8
cn m cn n n n m J
�
Ci ei 0 0 0 $
V) N ®
.\
�� ko a
� / A -0 ■ ■
' @ a 2 % / b A °
f� k/ 2 E� � u) 2 (D -0 2 '
§ �.� � C m @ � � o Z r ■ Cl)
£mom £ ®� £o0 2�> 22 a)c 2% 2� £
@ - ■ @ ■ o = @ n � ■ - o ■ a ■ - @
E § CL 0. & 0, 2 [ CL � 2 M � a' B 2
o @; / o o o@ o o o p o 0# E o c o- m ■
% o ■ ( > > » > a c ■ Q / ■ 7
■■:2 2 @0 ¢o« > W- ¢2 Mt @ ®o >k
'50 -2 � g o§ = a
�2 % �f k) / o�
U
Vim& X22 .§ &qk 22� x
c��2 E Co c =� EU)c ��- § cam
�� m �_ :3 :� �_ 0 CL _
C c c c c c t c� c ■ c- ®
Q o M @ o E■ p ■@ ■ Q § [[ E■ o a
§E#m kEg kE: §EEa) 0Ee mo2R� EE■ CL
Q m E 3 o R E Q�>, Q �: c U £ 2 [: ° U m
@ n ■ n m a ■ ■ n 2� @ ■ _� & - 2 ■
�otf 0-10- �3f $3Q.£ X30 �� £/$ moo K'.
Kul
SECTION III- DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS INFORMATION RESULTS
The survey asked the following statements regarding how residents would like to receive
information from the Department. The results are shown below.
For me, I would most likely receive information regarding operations of
the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department in the
following way(s): (check all that apply)
Local newspaper
Other newspapers
City of San Luis Obispo website
Attending City Council meetings
Public meetings
Talking to City Council members
City staff members
Flyers and pamphlets
Friends and neighbors
Television news
Radio news
Email
Social media" (e.g., Facebook posts,
Twitter updates, Google +, etc.)
*See following question.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
70% 80%
W'
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Department Operations Information Results page 9 �•
70.51%
37.79%
40 09 %
11,06%
19.35
7.83
9.68
36.41
30.88%
28.57
58.99%
W'
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Department Operations Information Results page 9 �•
Please check the form(s) of social media that you would most likely use to
receive information regarding operations of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department. (check all that apply)
Facebook posts
Twitter updates
Google+
Other, please list*
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*Other responses include (1) Bob Banner and (1) Tumblr.
•• Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Department Operations Information Results page 10
OPEN -ENDED RESPONSES
Residents were asked to respond to the following open -ended question:
Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in the
City's Community Development Department.
Count
Resident OVERALL Responses -.
Listen to long -term residents instead of the political flow; Community Development staff
have consistently avoided involving residents in issues that affect them; Residents are being
bullied and over -run by staff; Our input is constantly neglected, avoided even!; Decisions
have already been made prior to public meetings; City seems intent on a top -down
9
approach to planning and only involving people when what they have decided is already
finalized, i.e., Hillside ordinance, historical ordinance, wildland /urban fire boundaries; CDD is
out of control and out of line. They have their own agenda and throw tried and true policies
"under the bus" and deny residents ability to know implications of what is being considered
and changed; Essential information is withheld from the public, making any presentation by
staff, suspect. This results in a lot of bad feelings.
Need to place more emphasis on planning that reduces and mitigates the "homeless
problem;" promote development goals that address the problem of the homeless and
8
residents sharing the same space in a thoughtful way that discourages negative
interactions; approach the city -wide "aggressive pan handling" problem with other
agencies /departments; need better services for at -risk populations, specifically homeless
outreach.
Continue to maintain a vision of SLO being a safe place to bicycle and a pedestrian - friendly
8
town. Improving this infrastructure on current and future streets should be a continual
consideration. Connect bike trails. Need safer walking paths on South Higuera; more
walking trails and bike right -of -ways established.
SLO Community Development Department needs more visibility and outreach to help
residents know this department exists, use fliers or ads, not just social media, or put inserts
6
in utility bills by snail mail; perhaps branding to give the Department and its projects more
recognizability; the Department should spend money on letting the public know what they do
and how.
More resident involvement; There is no staff commitment to reach out to residents and try
4
and solve problems; We hear about things after they are a done deal, or right before council
approval; City staff does not notify residents when items are being proposed that will affect
them.
Develop a more user - friendly code enforcement system. People aren't sure who to call,
4
someone should be willing to talk to the complainer and work out a plan of action; provide
information on the number of infractions and what types are being handled, and if they are
being resolved in a timely manner; complaints are not being heard.
3
Quality of life is rapidly disintegrating; issues fall on deaf ears at the City. SLO is losing its
charm, quiet and safety.
3
We need affordable housing in SLO. Young professionals should be able to live and work in
the City; need more less- expensive apartments.
3
Community Development Department hours should be reviewed for adequacy; the hours
are absurd and staff inaccessible; Department needs to return phone calls.
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Open -Ended Responses page 11
Count
Resident OVERALL Responses
Continue to get opinions from local homeowners on how to better help the neighborhoods;
2
The City should follow the law, the City's General Plan, and hold meetings IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS, where affected residents can discuss the issues with each other as
well as the City reps
2
Establish neighborhood advisory groups to keep people informed and educated.
SLO is not ADA compliant, more needs to be done to make SLO more handicap accessible
2
(i.e. LOVR overpass for wheel chairs), and for people with hearing loss who wish to attend
council meetings.
2
Create more bus routes for commuters. More public transportation, specifically, light -rail.
2
CDD is doing a good /excellent job, that's why I love living in SLO.
2
Active Code Enforcement should be eliminated; it has turned my neighborhood into one
where we got along to one where everyone points the finger at each other.
2
Assaults, by transients or others, are a concern when walking downtown; there is a concern
about random attacks on pedestrians by strangers.
2
Parking downtown is a problem. Maybe drop -off zones to let people safely out of cards
downtown.
2
Medians have permanent maintenance cost and make left turns more difficult; do not cut off
left turns on Broad with medians.
1
Need better communication and accountability with all groups, especially temporary
residents (college students).
1
Don't establish Neighborhood Advisory committees and associations, it is a waste of time.
Related to planning, clarify what is statue and what is opinion, speak with one voice. There
1
is a pattern of mixed messages and staff imposing personal opinions on my project wasting
my time and money. Staff needs to follow through with what they said they will do.
1
Repel any department or program that puts the community or neighborhood ahead of
individual rights and property rights.
1
Block numbers on signs, buildings and houses should be clear, need a unified sign code.
The council should write rules and regulations that are going to be enforced, not just
1
selectively enforced when someone wants to push on a neighbor. We have too many rules
that are not enforced and only affect the individuals that try to follow the rules.
1
Planning staff tends to advocate for a particular position /plan instead of presenting pros and
cons of a few reasonable, carefully researched alternatives without bias.
1
Need a department to assist with complaints regarding Home Owner's Associations'
disregard for renters and renter concerns.
1
Pay more attention to neighborhoods that are NOT close to Cal Poly-
1
Provide more workshops like the Love SLO workshop.
1
Permit applications for night -time activities are expensive, especially when no permit is
issued in the end.
1
Less money should be spent on garbage -can placement patrols, and instead, should be
spent on neighborhood lighting near rail road tracks.
1
Historic influences should be preserved, but not at the cost of reasonable progress.
..Rr"..
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Open -Ended Responses page 12
Count
Resident OVERALL Responses
1
Slow and responsible growth should be a common goal to ensure quality of life in and
around SLO.
1
Need an increased awareness of drivers to pedestrians at crosswalks, and more citations
issued.
Put yourself in the shoes of people who want to establish, move, or change a place of
1
business; imagine the real costs that business owners are incurring as they wait for answers
from the CDD.
1
How cost effective are the services offered by the City? Can they be offered in a more cost -
effective way?
The City needs to stop looking out for the interests of their PET developers. If a project is
1
worthwhile to develop they should do so without multimillion dollar loans from City and free
land.
Miscellaneous
1
Bikers over 18 years should have to be licensed and taught the rules.
1
Why is there a crosswalk in front of the Marsh Street theatre? It stops traffic back to Chorro
Street.
1
Trying to make it too much like a fake Santa Barbara.
1
The City looks like there is no zoning. We have single - family and multi - family next to each
other.
1
We need another east -west road connecting S. Higurera and S. Broad Street
1
Do something about special events; there are not special accommodations made by police
in respect to traffic. (Graduation traffic is a good example.)
1
Dredge Laguna Lake and complete the Bob Jones trail,
City staff seems to be in its own little world and completely ignores the impacts on
1
businesses and residents. Where is all this 'outreach" the City keeps saying it is doing?
Appendix C— Resident Survey Analysis: Open -Ended Responses page 13