HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-2013 b1 temp contract staff & consultant asst
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Charlie Hines, Fire Chief
Wayne Padilla, Finance Director
SUBJECT: DEFER AND CARRY FORWARD AND APPROPRIATION OF 2012-13
DEVELOPMENT REVENUES TO PAY FOR TEMPORARY CONTRACT STAFF
ASSISTANCE AND CONSULTANT SERVICES; AND REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS (RFP) – FOR BUILDING, FIRE, ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK
SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO. 91200; AND PLANNING SERVICES,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91201
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution deferring, carrying forward and appropriating $300,000 of 2012-13
development review revenues and making that amount available in 2013-14 to pay for
temporary contract staff assistance and consultant services (“Development Related
Services”); and
2. Approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide plan check and planning “on-call”
services to supplement planning, engineering and building resources to maintain processing
times, as follows.
a. Building, Fire, and Engineering Plan Check Services (Specification No. 91200)
b. Planning Services (Specification No. 91201 )
c. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with the selected consulting
firms.
d. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual
consultant service contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized carry forward
amount.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The purpose of this item is to request funding to support the City’s development review process.
Increased funding is necessary to address a substantial increase in development applications. City
Council approval is needed to allow the carryover of development fee revenues that were received
in 2012-13 for services to be provided. The funds will be used during the 2013-14 fiscal year to pay
for the costs of temporary staff and contract services to ensure timely review and conduct of
development applications, studies and inspections.
On May 21, 2013 the Council considered a similar request to allow development fees that were
received from private development projects for which the related plan check reviews, environmental
studies and inspections had not been performed to be carried over into the current fiscal year to pay
Meeting Date
Item Number 9/3/13
B1 - 1
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 2
for the costs associated with the completion of those tasks, which exceed the currently budgeted
appropriations for those same services. In addition, the May report also sought the City Council’s
authorization to release a series of Request for Proposal documents to obtain proposals from
qualified consulting firms which would assist with the preparation of the required reviews, studies
and inspections. The Council did not act on that request on May 21, 2013 and subsequently
requested 1 to place the item on an agenda for further consideration.
Since May, the number of building permits and project applications has increased substantially,
generating a demand for plan check services that has grown further beyond staff’s current ability to
complete them within the required time limits. Staff has reassessed the amount of additional staff
hours from all affected departments (Building, Planning, Public Works and Fire) that will be
required to complete this volume of work and has determined that a mix of both additional staff
time and consulting time will be required to complete the current workload within the state-
mandated timelines and also to meet one of the fundamental goals of the Organizational Assessment
and Economic Development Strategic Plan to streamline the development review process.
DISCUSSION
Background
This report provides the background for why the requested actions are needed, the linkage to the
recently completed organizational assessment and how these actions tie to the adopted Economic
Development Strategic Plan. The proposed actions are also linked to the 2013-2015 Major City
Goals of Economic Development and Fiscal Health.
San Luis Obispo is experiencing a surge of private development activity and additional resources
are needed to provide the required levels of customer service to meet required permit processing
times as required under the Permit Streamlining Act. The Permit Streamlining Act (§65920 et. seq.)
requires public agencies (including charter cities per §65921) to follow standardized time limits and
procedures for rendering land use decisions and issuing permits.
As discussed in this staff report, several large-scale projects have been submitted for review and/or
have pulled building permits that yielded revenues that exceeded the Fiscal Year 2012-13 revised
adopted budget by $514,300. Development applications during the months of May and June 2013
far exceeded estimates. Fiscal Year 2012-2013 planning applications are exceeding the previous
year by 38%. These applications now need to be processed, but the additional workload they
represent cannot be accomplished by the existing staff, triggering this request for a supplemental
budget appropriation to pay for the cost of hiring additional consultants and adding contract
temporary staff. In a normal year the additional workload would be absorbed by the existing staff
with some use of consulting services as needed to manage the overall workload. This request stems
from the fact that the recently submitted projects are very large and therefore require a much larger
than normal volume of work within a defined time period. It also appears that the volume of work
will not be diminishing for the remainder of this fiscal year.
1 This discussion occurred during budget deliberations on June 11, 2013.
B1 - 2
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 3
As stated above, the current inventory of cases combined with their complexity is the reason why
staff has substantially increased the appropriation request from the $100,000 that was requested in
May to the proposed $300,000 with the intent to return to the City Council during the Mid-Year
Budget Update to provide an update on this workload management tool as well as ask for the
remaining amount needed to complete the application review and inspection process, if needed.
This approach will allow staff to update the City Council on the status of the remaining workload,
the cost of providing those services and the overall development climate as it relates to permit
applications.
If the existing pace of development activity continues, staff may need to request funding in an
amount greater than the remaining unanticipated revenue from the 2012-2013 fiscal year. Until the
Mid-Year budget update, the remaining $214,300 will remain unallocated in the General Fund
Balance.
The attached resolution (Attachment 1) provides for the deferral and carryover of development
review revenues from 2012-13 to 2013-14 as well as the appropriation of the amounts necessary to
pay for the development services that are called for by these projects.
Attachment 2 shows permit activity for Fire, Engineering, Building and Planning over the last five
years and projections for the next financial planning period. This attachment also shows that
Planning and Engineering reduced staffing in prior years to offset the reduction in permit activity.
Fire and Building did not make staffing adjustments as the decrease in permit activity did not allow
for a full reduction in staffing. In the case of Building, although revenue went down, there was a
marginal decrease in overall building activity and hence staff was not reduced.
The 2013-2015 Financial Plan provides the same permanent staffing levels in each of the four
divisions that were budgeted in the 2011-2013 Financial Plan. When the 2013-2015 Financial Plan
was being developed, new staff was not requested because 1) development is unpredictable, 2)
additional permanent staff is costly, 3) revenues were conservatively estimated to account for the
unpredictable nature of development and could not justify additional staff, and 4) adding temporary
contract staff or using temporary consultants for Development Related Services can be utilized on
an as needed basis or remain idle depending on the level of permit activity and not burden the City
with ongoing staffing costs in downward trends.
Fiscal Year 2012-2013 development revenues increased due to the increased amount of building
application and permit activity that occurred within the last three months. Attachment 4 shows the
adopted revenue budgets, actual revenues and over-realized revenue received for each permit
activity as of June 30th. Development revenues continue to be collected at a pace that exceeds that
which was anticipated for the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year. It is likely that revenues will again exceed
the amounts forecast in the adopted budget with a corresponding increase in expense due to the
higher workload demand.
While not enough time has elapsed to determine whether the current surge in activity can be
considered to be a new trend, applications for planning and building (which are a precursor to future
engineering and fire applications) are up nearly 19% and 59% compared to the previous fiscal year.
These increases are only for one month of the new fiscal year and is too early to determine whether
this trend will continue through the end of the year, hence the proposal to treat last year’s over
B1 - 3
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 4
realized revenues as a one- time occurrence and for the request to expand service levels using
contract and part-time staffing hours to ensure that costs are instantly scalable to the existing
development revenue stream. Attachment 5 shows large projects pending review and those that
have been submitted since May have been highlighted.
Organizational Assessment
The recently completed organizational assessment provided over 80 recommendations to improve
the department. Staff will be providing the City Council a project plan of how staff intends to
implement these recommendations in late September.
One of the ten strategic recommendations is to develop an approach to administer revenue derived
from permit activity so that resources are readily available to tackle periods when permit activity
exceeds available resources and quickly shed unneeded resources when development activity slows.
The exact language from the assessment is as follows:
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.
The cyclical nature of development is not a unique phenomenon to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Every jurisdiction experiences the ebb and flow of development. San Luis Obispo was at the
leading edge of the uptick and now virtually every Planning Director in the County is reporting
elevated permit levels.
One approach to compensate between the time that services are delivered and the period in which
Planning, Building, Fire, and Engineering permit fees are collected is through the establishment of a
Development Services Fund. This approach is commonly used in larger organizations where large
fluctuations in development activity can cause significant swings in permit revenues and cost
centers.
Staff is not recommending the establishment of a full Development Services Fund at this time. The
reasons are that assigning the full costs (i.e. direct, indirect, and overhead) for processing
applications is challenging to establish and once established is time consuming to administer.
Moreover, the process of establishing and maintaining a separate Development Services Fund
would likely add administrative costs to the development review process. Lastly, development
services fees make up 3.4% of the overall General Fund revenues and establishing and maintaining
a separate fund to account and track these funds would likely not be worth the time and effort. Staff
intends on returning to the City Council to propose a financial policy when it has been fully vetted
to create a Development Services Revolving Account to fund development related services when
permit activity outstrips available resources.
In the short term, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to
allocate $300,000 of the $514,300 of the excess permit revenues to be used for Development
Related Services. In the longer term and in coordination with the Financial Plan, staff will propose
policies which provide the administrative flexibility to manage revenues to meet customer service
and permit processing obligations.
B1 - 4
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 5
Economic Development Strategy and the Permit Streamlining Act
The proposed reallocation of excess revenue ties to the Economic Development Strategic Plan that
identified a goal of reducing permit processing times as one of the key strategies to creating Head of
Household jobs 2. This goal identifies ten (10) different strategies to achieve this goal; the majority
of these are process changes rather than a shift in policies. The main goal nonetheless is to reduce
processing times while also ensuring compliance with adopted policies, regulations, and
development standards.
The staffing levels of the Community Development Department, Fire, and Public Works are
oriented towards servicing regular permit activity rather than staffing to the peak. Staffing to peak
permit activity would result in the inefficient use of resources during periods of normal or below
normal permit activity. Attachment 2 shows the amount of planning applications and building
valuation over the past five years and compares it to existing and projected activity. The graphs
also show the amounts of employees dedicated to the direct processing of permits in Fire,
Engineering, Planning, and Building. These graphs show projected permit activity outstripping
current resources, particularly in the Planning and Building Divisions, which is resulting in delays
in permit processing. If additional resources are not allocated, the City will likely be unable to meet
its obligations under the Permit Streamlining Act.
If no action is taken within the allotted time, a project may be deemed approved by City inaction.
Upon receipt of a project application, the City has 30 calendar days to notify the applicant, in
writing, of whether or not the project application is complete enough for processing. When rejected
as incomplete, the City must identify where deficiencies exist and how they can be remedied. The
resubmittal of the application begins a new 30-day review period. If the City fails to notify the
applicant of completeness within either of the 30-day periods, the application is deemed to be
complete (§65943; Orsi v. City Council (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 1576). Failure to meet this time
period constitutes acceptance of the application as complete. Once complete and accepted, the City
then proceeds with the CEQA process, and the approval or denial of the project.
If not processed within the timelines contained in the Permit Streamlining Act, an application can
only be deemed approved as a result of failure to act if the requirements for public notice and
review have been satisfied (§65965). This can be done by (1) the applicant may file an action
pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure (civil mandamus) to force the agency to
provide notice or hold a hearing, or both; (2) if the applicant has provided seven (7) days advance
notice to the permitting agency of intent to provide public notice that the project will be deemed
approved if the permitting agency has not acted within 60 days.
The Planning application projections for calendar year 2013 indicate a total of 264; the highest
annual total before the recession began in 2007. Furthermore, in addition to the total number of
applications, the size and complexity of project applications has substantially increased in just the
last couple of months. The large projects in the pipeline as shown in Attachment 5 total
approximately 1,000 housing units and over 500,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. These
projects involve modifications to previous approvals, Specific Plan Amendments, General Plan
2 1.1 Identify opportunities for permit streamlining with the goal of reducing permit processing times, seeking
opportunities to increase internal coordination, and improving cross department focus on development review
B1 - 5
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 6
Amendments, Zone Changes, Environmental Review, and Annexations. As Attachment 6 shows
the current workload in hours per project type equates to 5.68 full-time planners – current
Development Review staff is 4 full-time planners. Processing the current inventory of planning
applications within the timeframes of the Permit Streamlining Act cannot be met without additional
resources.
Companion RFPs
Two RFPs are also part of this agenda report to retain outside “on-call” consulting firms to assist
plan review. The first RFP is for plan check services for Building, Engineering, and Fire plan check
and inspection services. These three are grouped because there are firms that have all three of these
technical competencies within one group. The second RFP is for planning services which is a
unique skill set and requires a firmer understanding of local policies found in the City’s General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The review of planning applications as compared to Building, Fire and Engineering applications is a
more customized area of plan check services. In comparison, the Building, Fire, and Engineering
Codes are generally uniform throughout the state, with exception of limited amendments to account
for unique local topographic, geological, or climatological conditions. The City of San Luis Obispo
has adopted such amendments and building plan review consultants are required to encompass any
amended building codes into their plan review.
In contrast, the review for planning applications is based on the adopted General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance which is unique to the City of San Luis Obispo and reflects the community’s values and
adopted development standards. There are local land use firms (i.e. PMC, Rincon, and Sage
Consulting) that are familiar with the City’s policies and standards as a result of preparing
environmental documents for projects. These firms are required to become familiar with the City’s
policies and development standards.
The Community Development Department will likely limit consultant review of planning
applications to larger projects. This is because there is generally a clear beginning and end of the
review process and their effort would focus on the unique issues associated with a project rather
than smaller projects which demand a broader understanding the City’s land use policies. The
Deputy Director for Development Review Division would be responsible for supervising and
ensuring that the review of projects meets adopted City land use policies and standards. A staff
planner will be assigned to work with any consultants to ensure that institutional knowledge is
communicated to the consultant team and ensure continuity after the consultant has completed the
project.
Consultants reviewing building plans would be supervised by the Chief Building Official.
Attachment 8 provides a graphic of what current and proposed resources would be allocated to
provide Development Services.
One of the overarching strategies of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) is to break
down barriers to job creation by improving the development review process. On the heels of the
EDSP, the Community Development Department’s Organizational Assessment focuses on
increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability of the Development Review Team. Part of
B1 - 6
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 7
that effort is establishing and committing to cycle time standards for permit and project reviews. A
specific recommendation of the Organizational Assessment (#11.7) is to use consultants when staff
cannot perform within the guaranteed time frames.
Consultants can add additional resources during peak permit times when activity outstrips available
City resources to timely process permits. Moreover, consultants can help ensure that high profile
projects bringing multiple City objectives are processed in timely manner. City staff has recently
used consultants successfully to plan check the SESLOC building permit plans. In that particular
instance, building plan check time was reduced from eight to two weeks. Building plans for Mind
Body were also plan checked using outside consulting services, reducing the regular review time in
half and also no additional costs to the applicant.
Potential projects for planning services in the immediate future include the redevelopment of
University Square, the McBride development at the corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm, new
Dalidio project, and other potential subdivisions within the Orcutt, Margarita and Airport Area
Specific Plans. These larger projects are more appropriate for a consultant with their longer time
frames and policy issues than the quick turn-around ministerial projects which are best suited for
City staff in the office on a daily basis.
The pool of potential consultants would be too small if only one RFP was solicited for Fire,
Engineering, Building and Planning services. Building, Engineering, and Fire plan checking
services are technical in nature and governed by the California Building and Fire Codes, which are
applicable to all jurisdictions throughout the State. Engineering plans are reviewed for consistency
with adopted State and local standards. The City has successfully used outside plan checkers in the
past for Building, Fire and Engineering plan check.
Planning services are more general and broad in nature and require knowledge of general plans,
zoning, environmental review, development standards, and the entitlement process. The technical
skills are distinct and separate from one another. Community Development staff is unaware of any
firms that offer all of these services under the same roof. Two RFPs are proposed to recognize this
and get a better response from consultants under the respective disciplines.
The RFP solicits proposals from interested consultants stating their qualifications, experience, and
proposal for timely processing of City building permit applications and planning projects. After
evaluating proposals, the top consultant(s) will be selected based on their ability to provide the
requested services. Once the selected consultants have entered into an agreement with the City,
these consultants will provide services for individual projects as needed.
The consultants will operate under the conditions of the agreement included in the RFP. For
planning projects, individual work scopes and fees will be negotiated on a project-by-project basis.
Once a project scope and fee are agreed to, the specific work will then be authorized via a Purchase
Order through the Finance Department. The consultant’s fees for Building, Fire and Engineering
B1 - 7
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 8
plan check will be based on a percentage of the City fees (typically 55%). The remaining 45% is
retained for general processing, inspections, and overhead 3.
These firms would only be used when staff resources cannot meet cycle times and only when there
are adequate balances in the Development Services Account. The general approach would be to use
additional temporary contract staff to service applications and turn to outside consultants for larger
projects and when these resources are needed to meet permit processing timelines (see Attachment
7 for Proposed Unanticipated Revenues Cost Breakdown).
Conclusion
Attachment 2 illustrates general indicators of permit activity. Currently, when permit activities
substantially increase, the Departments do not have an immediate mechanism to access financial
sources to retain additional resources to meet cycle times. The proposed reallocation of excess
revenue would allow staff to bring on additional resources to meet or exceed permit processing
times. Consultants would be used for larger projects when the capacity of current staff is exceeded
as is the case now with the recent surge in applications. Staff anticipates returning to the City
Council during the Mid-Year budget to provide an update on the initial use of the funds to provide
service, potentially request additional funding to provide for services and propose fiscal policy
amendments to allow for the administrative management of funding to meet customer service and
permit processing timelines.
CONCURRENCES
Fire, Public Works, Utilities, and the Finance & I.T. Departments all support the proposed
reallocation of funding to provide immediate funding to process permit applications when volumes
exceed available resources.
FISCAL IMPACT
All Development Services revenues are deposited into the General Fund and the amounts proposed
to cover the costs for the Development Services resources to process permits is offset by revenues
that exceeded budget projections in the 2012-2013 budget.. These monies would only be used for
temporary contract staff and plan check and inspection services on an as-needed basis, thus ensuring
the General Fund’s long-term fiscal sustainability since the proposed supplemental costs can
instantly be reduced anytime that development fees begin to decline. The maximum amount that
would be available to allocate towards additional resources is $300,000 until staff returns during the
mid –year report and
Issuing an RFP does not obligate any funds for consultant work. When the on-call agreements are
executed by the City Manager and projects are identified requiring consultant services, purchase
orders will be issued and billed to the individual project accounts. As a result, no monies are
expended to keep resources on standby and waiting for work opportunities to occur.
3 These percentage amounts should not be confused with the City’s practice of collecting planning fees. Per Council
adopted policy, 55% of the planning fee is collected upon submittal and the remaining 45% is collected when the
building permit is issued.
B1 - 8
Development Services Customer Service Request Page 9
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny this request. The City Council could choose to deny the proposed appropriation and
approach to addressing this increase in service demands. Staff does not recommend this
alternative as current staffing and resource levels budgeted in the current and next fiscal
years will at times not be sufficient to timely process permit applications without additional
outside resources. This would cause delays in permit processing and will lead to the City
not meeting its obligations under the Permit Streamlining Act which would delay beneficial
economic activities associated with projects and potentially allow for the automatic approval
of projects as authorized under the law.
2. Deny the use of RFPs as requested and require that they be issued for Individual Projects.
The Council could direct staff to proceed in a more traditional fashion, issuing RFP’s for
each individual project. The use of on-call consultant services is an efficient and effective
approach to reviewing projects in a timely manner. Issuing RFPs for individual projects
would not be an effective and efficient approach for assigning work quickly on projects to
maintain or reduce the City’s published cycle times for review of permits/applications.
3. Deny the use of RFPs and require the use of in-house resources. The Council could direct
staff to complete more of the work in-house. Staff does not recommend this approach since
this recommendation calls for consultants to be used thoughtfully and strategically on the
larger projects achieving multiple City objectives when existing staff resources are
exceeded. Consultants would not be used to contract out the normal project reviews or day-
to-day operations. The ability to use consultants is an important part of the mix to help
process the current workload outlined in this report and was successfully used in the last
upswing of the economy.
ATTACHMENT
1. Unbudgeted Appropriation and Allocation of Revenues from Permit Fees Resolution
2. Five-Year Planning, Fire, Engineering, and Building Permit Activity
3. Permit Processing Cycle Times
4. Development Services Revenue Projections
5. Current Large Projects
6. CDD Staff Hours Project Worksheet
7. Cost Summary
8. Development Services-Functional Organizational Chart
COUNCIL READING FILE
1. Request for Proposals – Building, Fire, and Engineering Plan Check Services (Specification
No 91200)
2. Request for Proposals – Planning Services (Specification No. 91201)
t:\council agenda reports\2013\2013-05-21\unanticipated development review revenue policy (padilla-johnson)\unanticpated development review revenue.docx
B1 - 9
Attachment 1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE
DEFERRAL, CARRYOVER AND APPROPRIATION OF 2012-13 DEVELOPMENT
FEE REVENUE AND MAKING THAT AMOUNT AVAILABLE IN 2013-14 TO PAY
FOR TEMPORARY CONTRACT STAFF ASSISTANCE AND CONSULTANT
SERVICES AND APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) – FOR
BUILDING, FIRE, ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO.
91200; AND PLANNING SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO. 91201
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the annual budget of the General Fund on June
19, 2012 setting forth the revenues and appropriations for the 2012-13 Fiscal Year; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Budget and Fiscal Policies call for periodic reviews of the city’s
financial status no less than semi-annually; and
WHEREAS, fees for Fire, Engineering, Building, and Planning (hereinafter
“Development Related Services”) exceeded budgeted revenues for the 2012-2013 Fiscal
year and a portion of those additional revenues represent the prepayment by the
developer for services to be performed as part of the application approval process; and
WHEREAS, the current appropriations within the Fire, Public Works and Fire
Departments are not sufficient to provide the resources to fund the required contract extra
staff assistance and/or outside consultant assistance needed to process permit applications
within published cycle times or to meet the City of San Luis Obispo’s obligations under
the Permit Streamlining Act; and
WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that $300,000 is required to be carried over from 2012-
13 for use in 2013-14 to allow for the supplemental increase in appropriations for
Development Related Services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby finds and directs the following actions:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The General Fund budget for Fiscal Year 2013-14 shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit A to this resolution.
SECTION 3. The Finance Director/Treasurer shall take all actions necessary to record
the budget amendment within the financial records of the city.
SECTION 4. The Community Development Director in consultation with the Fire Chief
and Public Works Director shall secure the required outside contracts or temporary
staffing resources as needed to provide the services for which fees have been collected in
accordance with City contracting policies and procedures.
B1 - 10
Resolution No. _____ (2013 Series) Attachment 1
Page 2
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of September 2013.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
B1 - 11
Resolution No. _____ (2013 Series) Attachment 1
Page 3
Exhibit A
Fund – General Fund Increase/(Decrease)
Revenue
45480 Planning and Zoning Fees $ 50,000.00
45485 Development Review $ 25,000.00
45490 Building Permits $200,000.00
45530 Fire Plan Check & Inspection $ 25,000.00
Expense
40100 – 7227 Contract Services $175,000.00
40100 – 7014 Temporary Staffing $125,000.00
B1 - 12
Attachment 2
475
438 441
462
566
585
610
5.755.755.755.755.755.755.75
0
2
4
6
8
10
300
400
500
600
700
800
2008‐20092009‐20102010‐20112011‐20122012‐20132013‐20142014‐2015
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
Fiscal Year
Total Building Permits
Total Building Permits
Staff (Approved F.T.E.'s)
2013‐15 Budget
Projections
Trendline
626
* 1 additionalF.T.E. (Planning Technician ) is being funded for the Avila Ranch& Chevron projects
194 193
199
175
237 214 225
6
55
44
4 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
2008‐20092009‐20102010‐20112011‐20122012‐20132013‐20142014‐2015
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fiscal Year
Total Planning Application Received
Total Planning
Applications Received
Staff (Approved F.T.E.'s)
2013‐15 Budget
Projections
Trendline
262
Revised 2013‐14
Projection
Revised 2013‐14
Projection
B1 - 13
Attachment 2
10,371
8,376
10,210
13,691
10,538
11,655
12,000
5.755.755.755.755.755.755.75
0
2
4
6
8
10
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
2008‐20092009‐20102010‐20112011‐20122012‐20132013‐20142014‐2015
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Fiscal Year
Total Inspections
Total Inspections
Staff (Approved
F.T.E.'s)
2013‐15 Budget
Projections
Trendline
Revised 2013‐14
Projection
230
264
282
321
344
372 385
1.1
1.11.1
1.11.11.11.1
0
1
2
3
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2008‐20092009‐20102010‐20112011‐20122012‐20132013‐20142014‐2015
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
/
P
l
a
n
Re
v
i
e
w
s
Fiscal Year
Total Fire Department Permit/Plan Reviews
Total Fire Department
Permit/Plan Reviews
Staff (Approved F.T.E.'s‐
Devlopment Review)
2013‐15 Budget
Projections
Trendline
Revised 2013‐14
Projection
375
B1 - 14
Attachment 2
$42,229,600
$33,978,800
$39,548,800
$28,539,500
$39,956,400
$33,407,600
$41,857,400
0
2
4
6
8
10
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
$50,000,000
$55,000,000
2008‐20092009‐20102010‐20112011‐20122012‐20132013‐20142014‐2015
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fiscal Year
Total Valuations
Total Valuations
2013‐15 Budget
Projections
Trendline
Revised 2013‐14
Projection
$54,429,200
B1 - 15
Application Type Cycle Times (business days)
Planning (from "deemed complete" date)
Lot Line Adjustment 40
Tract Map 80-120
Minor Sub 40-50
Dir. Action 20-30
Admin UP 30-40
ARC Minor Incidental 20-40
ARC 40-60
Conceptual ARC 40-60
PC Use Permit 40-60
Mills Act 30-40
Signs 20-40
GPA 120-240
Rezone 120-180
Specific Plan Amend 120-180
Variance 20-40
Building Cycle Times (business days)
Residential Initial Review Recheck
Minor 20 10
Moderate 20 10
Major 20 10
Commercial
Minor 20 10
Moderate 30 15
Major 40 20
Fire Cycle Times (business days)
Initial Review Recheck
Fire & Life Safety 15 10
Fire Protection 15 10
PW Dev Rev Cycle Times (business days)
Initial Review Recheck
Lot Line Adjustment or
Certificate 20 10
PLANNING/BUILDING CYCLE TIMES
Attachment 3
B1 - 16
MS Map Review 30 15
MS PIP Review 30 15
Tract Map < 50 lots*40 20
Tract PIP's < 50 lots*40 20
Add time/50 lots 10 5
Encroachments
Minor 10 5
Moderate 20 10
Major 30 15
Misc PIP's
Minor 20 10
Moderate 30 15
Major 40 20
Traffic Plan Review
Moderate 10 5
Major 15 10
Attachment 3
B1 - 17
Attachment 4
(A)(B)(C)
2012-2013
Revised Revenues
(Mid-Year)
Actual Revenues
(6/30/13)
Unbudgeted Revenues
(6/30/13)
Planning $499,900 $638,700 $138,800
Building $1,104,600 $1,429,400 $324,800
PW Eng. Dev. Rev.$565,000 $521,400 -$43,600
Fire $150,000 $244,300 $94,300
Total $2,319,500 $2,833,800 $514,300
(A) = Revised revenues from the
2012-13 Mid-Year Budget Report
(C) = B-A
City of San Luis Obispo
Development Review 2012-13 Revenues
B1 - 18
Attachment 5
LARGE PROJECTS CURRENTLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
In Process (July, 2013) Anticipated Projects
(to be submitted Aug./Sept, 2013)
Anticipated Projects
(1-6 months)
Flagg Hotel (South Higuera) Revised Garden Street Terraces
(submitted August 8)
University Square
Redevelopment
Righetti Ranch (Orcutt Area)
275 homes
Revised Tract 2353 (Margarita
Area) 144 lots (submitted August 1)
McBride Commercial
Development (Corner of Tank
Farm and Broad Street
Wingate (Orcutt Area) 80 homes Revised 2428 (Margarita Area) 197
lots (submitted August 1)
Redevelopment of Foster’s
Freeze site
Airport Office Buildings
(40,000 sq. ft.)
Dalidio Property Johnson/Southwood Residential
Project
Revised Chinatown Bridge Street Project
(Submitted August 2)
Revised Pacific Courtyards (Morro
Street)
Village Mobile Home Park
Monterey Place Mixed-Use Project Bishop Knoll
Digital West (75,000 sq. ft.)
Redevelopment of Laurel Lane
Neighborhood Commercial Center
Long-Bonetti Ranch
Rachel Ct – 17 Homes
Johnson Ave. School District
Chevron Project
Avila Ranch
B1 - 19
PLANNING APPLICATIONS Current Fee Hours Allotted
per Fee
2012
Applications
Total
Projected
Fiscal Year
'13 - 14' Apps
Total
Projected
Hours Allotted
per Application
General Plan Amendment Map$16,091.00160.923482.7
General Plan Amendment Text$16,818.00168.211168.2
Appeals$273.002.7312.7
Rezone Map Amendment$6,609.0066.1000.0
Rezone Text Amendment$9,239.0092.4300.0
Lot Line Adjustments$1,480.0014.82459.2
Tentative Tract Maps$8,958.0089.624358.3
Minor Subdivision$6,910.0069.1810691.0
Directors Action$305.003.1101958.0
Administrative Use Permits$853.008.54739332.7
ARCMI$1,105.0011.13851563.6
ARC (Development Projects)$2,839.0028.41017482.6
Variance$931.009.33327.9
Secondary Dwelling Units$1,105.0011.10222.1
Planning Commission Use Permit$3,250.0032.5000.0
Mills Act Participation Application$3,867.0038.70138.7
Signs$1,454.0014.53114.5
Conceptual Review$1,420.0014.2000.0
Fence Height Exception$499.005.03525.0
Agreements$400.004.0000.0
Certificate of Compliance$1,610.0016.10348.3
Environmental Impact Determination$2,556.00 25.637178.9
Environmental review historic$530.00 5.33315.9
Merge$505.00 5.1115.1
Planned Development$8,809.00 88.122176.2
Non profit Special Event Fee$63.00 0.6663.8
Specific Plan Amendment$14,726.00 147.3100.0
Carry over large projects (GST, Johnson
Ave. Chinatown)500.0
Total Applications $111,269.001132.11511834255.3
Total Hours
Allotted per
Application
1040.0
500.0
500.0
Plan Checks 500.0
150.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
250.0
150.0
300.0
250.0
100.0
350.0
350.0
250.0
6190.0
10445.3
5.65
NON-PLANNING APPLICATION TASKS
CIP Review & Support
Mitigation Monitoring (EIRs & NDs)
Maintaining Development Regulations
Special Projects (i.e. Alcohol Regs, Mobile Food)
General Administration, Division Management
Total Hours
Number of Full Time Staff Needed per Hours per Year (1850 hours per employee)
Total Non-Planning Tasks
Exhibit A- SOPC-CDD/PW Staff Resource for Permit Process
CDD Development Review Division (total FTE 4.0)
Total Counter Hours Annually
2012 Case Carryover
Public Info-Outside of Counter
Training-Professional Development
Staff Meetings
Commission Support
Intern Departmental Coordination
Hearing Officer
CHC Projects (Master List, Env. Review)
EIR Administration
B1 - 20
Attachment 7
9/3/2013
Request
Projected Mid‐
Year Request Total
Item (consultant costs)Cost
Planning Consultant Services $50,000$25,000$75,000
Engineering Plan Check Consultant Services $50,000$50,000$50,000
Building Plan Check Consultant Services $50,000$50,000$50,000
Fire Plan Check Consultant $25,000$25,000$25,000
sub total $175,000$150,000$200,000
Item (temporary or contract staffing)Cost
Temporarily increasing Building Permit
Technician II from .75 to 1.0 F.T.E.****$6,900$6,900$13,800
Temporarily increasing Public Works Permit
Technician II from .75 to 1.0 F.T.E.****$6,900$6,900$13,800
Planning Technician (1.5 F.T.E.)*$40,000$22,600$62,600
Building Plan Check (1.0 F.T.E.)**$20,000$7,800$27,800
Engineering Plan Check Contract Staff$42,350$15,600$57,950
Building Inspector Interns (1.0 F.T.E.)***$8,850$4,400$13,250
sub total $125,000$64,200$189,200
Total $300,000$214,200$514,200
Assumptions
*3 Planning Tech. positions (1,000 hrs.) @
$20.87/hr.
** 1 Plans Examiner (1,000 hrs.) @ $27.78/hr.
***2 Building Interns (1,000hrs. each) @ $8.85/hr
**** No additional benefit costs.
B1 - 21
Fi
r
e
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
h
a
r
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Planning
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
.1
1.
0
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
1.
0
.11.
0
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
.5
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
.5
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
1.0
1.
0
1.
0
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
1.0 .75 -1.0 (Proposed)2.0 (Proposed)
1.
0
1.0 1.01.0 Consultant Services (Proposed)1.0 1.5 (Proposed)
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
Fu
l
l
T
i
m
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
(F
T
E
)
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
Ke
y
.7
5
–
1
.
0
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
In
t
e
r
n
s
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
1.
0
(P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
B1 - 22