HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/00/1990, 4 - MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WORKPROGRAM MEETING DATE:
111111111111J$110#1 city of San cJI S OBISPO - 2 NMI - _
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT "EM"
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By:Terry Sanville,Principal Planner k:5 3
SUBJECT: Management of the Community Development Department Workprogram
CAO RECOMMENDATION- Review the work program of the Community Development Department,
conceptually approve the recommendations, and direct staff to return to the
City Council with the actions necessary for implementation (eg. revised
schedules,appropriations,etc.).
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
On March 5, 1990,the City Council will review the City's progress in meeting budget objectives. This report
supplements the Community Development Department's goals reporting documents by:
Identifying significant accomplishments in meeting budget objectives(see Figure#1).
Describing the overall department work load(See Figures#2, #3 and#4).
Describing current staffing levels and relationship to workload(see Figures#5 and#6).
Evaluating alternatives for staffing and project management.
Presenting recommendations for better managing the department's work program.
SUMMARY OF THE DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM AND WORK PROGRAM ISSUES
The Community Development Department is divided into two divisions: current/advanced Planning and
Enforcement division and the Building and Safety division. Most of what is presented in this report deals with
the planning division's work because it is responsible for meeting most of the department's budget objectives.
L Significant Accomplishments
Since the adoption of the Financial Plan and budget for FY 1989-90,the department has successfully completed
the major tasks shown on Figure#1.
These accomplishments demonstrate the continued commitment of the department in responding to the
council's and community's needs. The planning division's top work priority has been and continues to be the
revision of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the general plan. As shown on Figure#2,a major amount
of staff time is committed to completing this work and bringing the plan to the City Council for action.
Since March 1989,the Planning Commission has been carefully reviewing the draft Land Use Element prepared
by the staff and should complete its work in March or Apri11990. The commission's review has been very detailed
--extending the time needed to complete the first phase of the process. After the Planning Commission has
forwarded its recommendations to the City Council,public meetings will be scheduled for the council to review
1
���n�►�►►i�u111111111P°tl�lll city of San �aIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
the draft,suggest further amendments,and authorize the initiation of the environmental review process. -
Staff and consultants will then prepare a Draft EIR which evaluates the impacts of implementing both the Land
Use and Circulation Elements. It is anticipated that the draft EIR might be published in late fall, 1990 with
Planning Commission and City Council hearings to consider adoption of the Land Use Element in Winter,1991.
A draft Circulation Element should be submitted to the Planning Commission in Spring 1990 for its review and
recommendation to the City Council. The city's transportation consultant is working in parallel with staff to
complete neighborhood traffic studies, prepare a trip reduction ordinance, and evaluate changes to the city's
street network. The consultant is also assisting staff in the drafting of the Circulation Element which will be a
"policy"document with a variety of implementation programs to follow.
The planning staff is also assembling information and beginning to work on the scope of a transit management
plan. Planning for expanded transit service has not progressed as fast as first envisioned because the city has been
without a transit manager since October 1989.
The key people working on the general plan update are Glen Matteson,Associate Planner and Terry Sanville,
Principal Planner. Adding to this staffing includes support from department management(Arnold Jonas,Terry
Sanville and Randy Rossi) and from support staff(Allen Hopkins, Administrative Assistant; Rick Hocker;
Drafting Technician; Barbara Ehrbar, Executive Secretary and others). We estimate that the equivalent of
about 2 to 2.5 full-time staff are assigned to work on the general plan.
Because of our sustained commitment to completing the general plan and our overall work load,the department
has not been able to progress as quickly or accomplish as much as envisioned during the budget sessions in Spring
1989 because:
(a) The department had been without a director for six months, during which time the Long Range
Planner was functioning as interim director;
(b) The department's contract planner left the city six months early;
(c) The department's work progiam is more ambitious than originally envisioned;
(d) Items continue to be added such as amendments to the Condominium Regulations or work on transit-
related projects.
IL Scope of The Community Development Department Work Program
A. Budget Objectives
The ambitious nature of the department's work program is reflected in Figure#2. To complete these non-
application or public initiated work items during the Financial Planning Period will require 11.79 full-time
staff(FTE). Currently,the budget authorizes 17.8 FTE for the entire current and advanced planning work
program(see Figure#5).
The staff effort needed to complete a project involves the hours spent by the assigned planner, and
substantial time commitments of the department director,mid-managers,and technical support staff. The
time estimates shown on Figure #2 include estimates for support and management services needed to
2 4L 09Z.
���H�i�H�IVlllll(Illp��u�q�dlil MY Of San LJIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
complete the project. It does not include support from other departments such as Public Works,Fire or
Recreation.
B. Current Planning Activities
Figure#3 presents a snapshot of the department's current planning activities as of February 1,1990. These
activities consume about 65% of the department staff resources.
Current planning activities include processing various types of discretionary planning applications,
conducting environmental review and staffing the Planning Commission,Architectural Review Commis-
sion, Cultural Heritage Committee and the City Council. Current planning also includes ongoing
administrative programs such as:
Checking building plans
Reviewing business licenses
Issuing Home Occupation Permits
Enforcing the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
Establishing street addresses
Reviewing projects referred to the city by the County
Keeping track of water allocations and the retrofit program
Staffing the public information counter
The number of current planning applications is presently down about 20% from 1987 and 1988 levels.
However,the overall level of activity remains high(See Figure#5).Also,the planning staff is now involved
in water management work and is responsible for establishing environmental monitoring programs.
HL Staff Resources and the Department Work Load
In sum,the key demands on department staff are summarized in Figure#5. The bottom line of our analysis is:
Staffing Required to Complete Work = 23.39 FTE
Staffing Authorized by the Budget = 17.80 FTE
Staffing Deficiency = 5.59 FTE
3
'1111111111110liA►I��BIU city of san L.AIs osIspo
A1111
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
EVALUATION OF WORK PROGRAM MANAGE:mENT ALTERNATIVES
In this section,the following work management options are evaluated:
Deferring some council or department projects until the general plan is adopted or until fiscal year 1991-
92 or beyond;
Deferring all work on certain types of projects such as annexations and specific plans;
Increasing staff,either as consultant services,contract services,or permanent positions;
Shifting staffing from current planning activities to council and department work program items.
A combination of options (the recommended strategy).
A sixth option might be the"do nothing"option. This option would leave the question of department priorities
for meeting ongoing needs to the operational decision-making of the Community Development Director and the
City Administrator. This option is not evaluated here because council input in setting priorities and establishing
performance expectations is important.
L Reschedule Work on Some Council and Department Work Program Items
A. The Current Budget Work Program
The department could stop work on or defer the initiation of certain projects listed in the budget that are
determined to be non-critical.Non-critical projects might be those that meet one or more of the following
criteria:
Projects not needed to address immediate health and safety problems.
Projects that can be deferred without adverse effects on the quality of life in the city.
Implementation Projects that more logically follow the adoption of the general plan.
Projects that have no advocacy from outside of city government and have not been initiated.
Deferring non-critical projects may result in failure to meet the expectations of some council members and
public advocacy groups. However,it will allow the department to work on the most important projects.
B. Unanticipated Work Assignments
The City Council and other commissions and committees request staff to work on projects that are not
included in the budget.Incorporating these projects into the department's work program(unless accom-
panied by additional resources)incrementally increases the work load and detracts from work on budgeted
projects.
���H����Ni�Illilll�l►►° 9��U MY Of San L.-.ASS OBISp0
MMGW COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Because of the scope of the department's work program,it would be of significant benefit if the Council
would adopt a policy deferring all new non-critical projects until the next financial planning period and
encourage other commissions and committees to do likewise.
If this policy is determined to be inappropriate,then the council should acknowledge that some budgeted
work items will be impacted when it establishes new work assignments. Additions to departmental
resources might also be needed.
C. Projects Recommended for Rescheduling
Perhaps the single most productive method for dealing with the department's workload is to reschedule
specific non-critical projects.The Council has discretion to identify any project listed on Figure#2 that it
feels should be rescheduled.Staff recommends the following projects be rescheduled:
1.Reschedule Work on the Downtown Physical Plan until after the Land Use and Circulation Elements
are adopted--est.Fall, 1991.
Pros
This plan will require substantial staff hours and logically follows the establishment of general plan policies
for the central business district. The general plan hearings may provide insight into the scope of planning
issues affecting downtown. Existing beautification projects and public safety programs(eg.unreinforced
masonry building programs)could continue.
The preparation and review of the downtown concept plan will be of substantial interest to the public and
will be controversial. If it is being considered at the same time the general plan is under review,it could
detract from the priority focus on community-wide planning issues.
Cons
There has been strong council support for preparing a downtown plan. The BIA membership and some
property owners have shared that interest.
2.Reschedule Work on Cheek Row
Pros
The city could alter its advocacy position on this project and shift support to more generic on-campus
student housing programs being investigated by Cal Poly. The inter-fraternity council and other groups
associated with fraternities could be identified as leading this effort.
Deferring this project until 1991 or beyond may be more in line with the pace of other student-related
housing programs that are under investigation.
�,��i i��IIIIIIIIIP°"�'9�111 city of san ...Ais oBispo
l00age COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
cons
The city has actively participated in determination of the feasibility of a greek row—preferably on campus.
During the extended development period, the city would continue to be faced with complaints about
certain fraternities and sororities in existing neighborhoods.
There may be continued pressure from neighborhoods,Cal Poly and student groups to aggressively pursue
the development of a greek row program.
3.Reschedule Development of an Enhanced Historic Preservation Program
Pros
This'project could be deferred until the CHC completes its second round of surveywork(1991-1942)and
until the city has adopted a mitigation program for unreinforced masonry buildings.
Current programs provide a modest level of protection for key historical resources—although the city is
yet to take on a strong sponsorship role of specific projects. For example,the restoration of the Rodrigues
Adobe and the Railroad Water Tank were proposed as part of the budget but were only partially funded.
Also,the general condition of most historic buildings is good,and city zoning regulations coupled with high
property values may act to encourage preservation rather than replacement.
Cons
Members of the council have continued to support historic preservation and there maybe a sense that key
resources are threatened(eg.the Biddle House). The recent Bay Area earthquake also emphasizes the
need to address the preservation of important masonry buildings. Without specific programs and specific
new funding sources,the preservation of these resources is uncertain.
(Note:this program could probably be handled by a consultant,working with the CHC,staff and the City
Council. That alternative could reduce staff hours by about 160 or 0.08 FTE.)
4.Reschedule the Preparation of a Property Maintenance Ordinance
Pros
Most significant property maintenance problems can be addressed through the abatement process.
Current city zoning codes,fire codes,and county health department requirements can deal with the worst
cases. The city has hired a Zoning Investigator who can administer the abatement process. This project
might be deferred until 1991-1992 when staff has a chance to better assess the community's property main-
tenance issues.
Cons
There are holes in the current regulations that do not address some property maintenance concerns. If the
6
���+��►�Niullllllllllp ���pl city of San pais OBISPO
MOGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
city wants to establish standards which mandate ongoing building maintenance(eg.for historic buildings),
then this issue is not addressed by current codes. A consolidated property maintenance ordinance would
improve the effectiveness of the city's enforcement efforts.
5.Reschedule Work on Changing the Zoning Regulations to Require Planning Commission Use Permits
for most Large Development Projects(until the Land Use Element is adopted—est. Spring, 1991).
Pros
Changes will be required to the zoning regulations to extend use permit requirements. The public hearing
process for these changes could be controversial and detract from the general plan work currently
underway. It could shift the public debate to focus on detailed implementation concerns and away form
basic policy issues. The environmental review process and ARC review coven;most major projects.
If implemented, additional use permit requirements would incrementally add to staff work and might
detract from other budgeted work program items.
Cons
The general plan will take some time to complete. During this interim period,the Planning Commission
wants to require use permits for large projects and projects located in sensitive areas(eg.along creeks)that
currently only require ARC approval. The commission has expressed concern that there are off-site
impacts associated with these types of projects and land use planning concerns that warrant commission
review and action. The commission has set up a subcommittee to develop recommendations to the full
commission.
6.Reschedule Work on Changing the Zoning Regulations to amend the height limit in the R-1 zone(until
the Land Use Element is adopted--est.Spring, 1991).
Pros
Amendments to the zoning regulations could await the adoption of the general plan. Action on this item
could divert staff time to more important policy planning projects.
Cons
In the interim,some people may complain about proposals to add second stories to houses in the R-1 zone.
Otherwise, there would be limited negative effects of deferring these projects.
7. Reschedule Other Miscellaneous Projects including: Downtown Beautification Studies;Residential
Lot Coverage and Density;Sinsheimer Park RFP Administration; Counter Handouts.
Downtown Beautification studies can be deferred or be integrated into the work on the Downtown
Physical Concept Plan. Detailed density studies can be deferred pending the adoption of the Land Use
Element and the initiation of revisions to the Housing Element during the next financial planning period.
7 r
ibu►�IIIIIIIIIIPjcity of San "IS OBISPO
ONZA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Sinsheimer Park RFP can be administered by a different city department,such as the Recreation Depart-
ment.
D. Reschedule All Work on Specific Plans and Annexations Until the General Plan is Adopted
Figure#2 shows that about 3,000 staff hours(1.46 FTE)will be committed to work on:
(1)Specific Plans (Margarita-Riveria Area,Dalidio Area);
(2)The Airport Area Specific Plan(continued support for the city-county joint project); and
(3)Minor Annexation Projects (Prefumo Canyon and the Gas Company Annexation).
The council could defer all work on these type of projects until the general plan is adopted.
Pros
During the next 15 months,deferral of these types of projects could reduce the demand for staff time by
1.46 positions. These deferred work items might better follow the adoption of the general plan since they
must be found consistent with the plan.
Although council policy(adopted August,1989)already defers action on some of these projects until after
the general plan.is adopted,there is substantial staff work needed to review concept plans,and administer
the environmental review and public review process. This work could increase if the city wants to consider
proposals for the La Lomita Ranch and Obispo Del Sur projects(which are both outside the city's current
urban reserve).
Cons
Work is already underway on most of these projects and the council and staff has previously identified a
review strategy. For example:
(a) Concept plans for the Dalidio and Margarita areas are being prepared and reviewed
(b) The Gas Company Annexation is awaiting council action after the drought.
(c) The scope for the EIR for the Prefumo Canyon EIR is being prepared
(d) The citystaff has been working with the county on the Airport Specific Plan for years. The county
is hiring a consultant to work with the planning team on drafting the specific plan and EIR.
For some of the projects(Prefumo Canyon,Gas Company)there is always the concern that the project
applicants will approach the county and ask for Land Use Element and Land Use Ordinance changes to
accommodate development. The real risk of encouraging inappropriate development in adjoining county
territory should be carefully assessed by the council if it wants to select this option.
8
���n�i�ii►iulllllllllp° II8111 MY Of San LJIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
II Add Planning and Support Staff(either as contract services,consultant services,permanent positions,or
increase current staff hours).
A. Hire A Contract Associate Planner for Two Years
The current budget includes the funding of a contract planner up to June 30, 1990. This position was filled
in November, 1987 but has been vacant since January 1990. With a budget amendment,the department
could advertise for a contract planner for a two-year period.
Pros
Hiring a contract planner will expand staff hours by 2,058 during the 60 month financial planning period
and provide staffing for an additional nine months beyond that period.
Cons
Approximately$88,000 will be needed to support a two-year contract. This will require budget augmen-
tation.
Because city personnel policies only allow departments to hire contract employees for two years or less,the
ability to attract a field of qualified candidates is questionable. Past department experience in recruiting
for two-year contract planning positions has been less than satisfactory,indicating that a longer contract
term would be more productive.
B. Contract Out For Consultant Services
The department could rely more on consultants to handle council or department work objectives. Some
consultant services are already targeted for work on the downtown physical plan, Greek Row, Laguna
Lake Master Plan,and archaeological studies. However,even projects which include consultant services
will require considerable in-house staff time to coordinate the "public review" process and administer
consultant contracts. Figure#2 reflects these staffing requirements.
Pros
Some projects might be completed sooner because consultant resources can be focused. Candidate
projects where consultant services could be used to advantage include:
The Downtown Physical Plan(Current consultant budget = $30,000)
Greek Row Studies (Current consultant budget = $30,000)
Enhanced Historical Preservation
Property Maintenance Ordinance
Freeway Signing Program(drafting legislation)
Affordable Housing Programs
Laguna Lake Master Plan(Current consultant budget = $50,000)
Rodriguez.Adobe Restoration (Current consultant budget = $25,000)
Subdivision Regulations
Condominium Regulations Update
Archaeological Survey Guidelines
9
���na►�H��IIIIIII�p ��Ill city of San k_.AIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
If the hiring of consultants for these projects to provide both design and processing services could reduce
staff hours by 50-60%as noted on Figure#2. The deficiency in staff hours could be reduced by 1.30 to 1.55
FTE.
Cons
For some of the more controversial projects,expanded consultant services may not significantly reduce the
need for in-house staffing. Also,for projects that involve significant non-technical policy issues,consult-
ants have not proven to be effective in understanding community needs.
Cost is the key limitation of this alternative. If all of the projects listed above were contracted out in their
entirety, costs to the city would be significant —well in excess of$200,000. Also, because of the time
required to prepare project work programs,RFPs,solicit consultant proposals,screen proposals,draw up
contracts and hire consultants, this strategy may not result in the completion of the work during this
Financial Planning Period.
C. Permanent Staff Positions
The department could hire one or more permanent staff planners and supportstaff. Permanent staff could
work on either advanced or current planning projects and eventually be used to administer programs
approved in the new Land Use and Circulation Elements.
Pros
The amount of training provided to new permanent staff would not be lost(as with the contract employee
or consultant alternatives). New permanent staff could participate in the design of general plan programs
which would facilitate their implementation.
The cost of new permanent staff(assume one planner starting at the assistant planner level)would be
about the same as for the contract position. There is a high probability that, because of an ongoing
aggressive work program(reference Figure#2),the Community Development Department will need ad-
ditional permanent staff.
Cons
The addition of a permanent assistant/associate planner position would expand the department's budget
by about$41,300 per year. Because the general plan has not been adopted,the future staffing needs to
implement general plan programs cannot be fully defined at this time.
D. Increase Current Staff Hours
The Council could expand the department's budget to authorize additional overtime. One Associate
Planner and the Principal Planner(currently working 4/5's time)could be asked to work full time.
10
►►n�i�NilVllllllll(�pN°�9I8111 city of San .JIS OBISPO
NMZm COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Pros
Temporarily converting the 4/5's positions to full time could add "a maximum of 823 hours (0.40 FTE)
during the remainder of the financial planning period. A few hundred hours could be added through the
authorization of overtime.
Existing staff does not require training and the cost increases to the department would be modest
compared with other alternatives.
cons
Expanding current staff hours may not increase productivity. Since the existing demand for staff services
is high,this strategy might only spread current work assignments out over more hours.
E. Contract for One Additional Support Staff
A significant portion of the staff hours allocated to projects shown on Figure #2 involve department
support staff: clerical staff, graphics, data processing, computer mapping and modeling, and computer
programming. The demand for these services increases as the number of long-range planning and special
projects increases.
The department could hire one additional full-time support staff.While student interns and planning aides
can be used for routine administrative tasks, more specialized services in the areas of data processing,
computer programming and graphics will be needed.
Pros
Hiring a full-time support staff could free up the existing planning aides,graphic services technician and
administrative assistant to focus on other support services needs. The person could initially start as a two-
year contract employee.
Hiring additional support staff at this time will enable the completion of work program items and provide
for better quality control of products and facilitate computer analysis and data management.
Cons
The cost of the full time equivalent of a support staff position could be$30,000/year for two years. This
will require augmentation of the department's budget.
III. Shifting staff resources from current planning activities to council and department work program items
About 65% of the department's planning and support staff resources are, of necessity, allocated to current
planning activities (Application processing, etc.). Although, current water limitations might be affecting the
issuance of building permits,it has had much less impact on the processing of discretionary permit applications
-- zoning permits,subdivisions,rezoning and general plan amendments,and architectural review.
11
������u�IVlllllll�p°AJJJ$ city Of San WIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The Council could direct staff to reduce its staffing commitment to support current planning activities and shift
these resources to work on council and department work program activities.
Pros
The knowledge and experience of existing staff could be applied to completing important council and
department work projects. The total staff hours allocated to current planning activities is 11.60 FTE. In theory,
some portion of these staff hours could be redirected to other work areas.
Cons
Once a permit application has been submitted to the Community Development Department,state law requires
that the city complete processing within a maximum amount of time. The processing of some types of
applications might be slowed somewhat but could not be indefinitely deferred.
In order for the city to refuse the processing of current planning applications,the City Council would have to
adopt some form of moratorium ordinance based on findings of adverse affects to the public health and safety.
From an operational standpoint,once a application has been certified as complete and ready for processing,
there is continuous pressure from project applicants or by advocacy or adversarial groups to complete city action.
Trying to retard the development review process would be difficult because of these built in pressures to
complete it.
It would also be difficult to refuse the processing of small administrative permits (yard and fence height
exceptions, approval of building additions, etc.) -- even though the cumulative impacts of these types of
applications on planning staff time is significant and is growing.
12
���n��ibNl�ulllllllllP°i►IIdIp city of san LW S 0131SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
RECOMMMiDED STRATEGY—A COMBINATION OF ACTIONS
The objective of the following recommendations is to balance staff resources with an agreed-upon work
program. Our recommendations involve a combination of actions.
The parts of our recommendation should be considered as a unified management strategy. Changes to one part
of the strategy will require adjustments to the other parts. For example, if projects are not deferred, then
additional staff will be required. Or if additional staff is not hired,then more projects will have to be deferred.
(For example,between 15 and 20 additional projects will have to be rescheduled if additional staff is not hired,
reference Figure#2.)
The staff is prepared to further discuss these tradeoffs with the council at its March 5th meeting and subsequent
meeting.
Our recommendations are as follows:
L Reschedule the Following Non-Critical Projects:
Downtown Physical Plan PC Use Permit Requirements
Greek Row R-1 Zone Height Limits
Enhanced Historic Preservation Sinsheimer Park RFP Administration
Property Maintenance Ordinance
Downtown Beautification
Density Studies
IL Reschedule All Work on the Margarita-Riviera Specific Plan and on the Prefumo Canyon Annexation
Until After the Land Use Element is Adopted(Spring 1991).
III. Adopt a Policy Rescheduling AllNew Non-Critical Projects Until the Next Financial PlanningPeriod and
Encourage Other Commissions and Committees to do Likewise.
IV. Authorize the Airing of Consultants to Complete the Following Projects:
A. Freeway Signing Legislation(Estimated Cost$10-$20K)
B.Subdivision Regulations and Condominium Regulations($10-$20K)
C.Archaeological Guidelines ($5-10K)
V. Authorize the Hiring of a Permanent Assistant Planner ($41,000/year) and a Contract Support Staff
Person for Two Year;($30,000/year).
13
����i�►b►►►�111111111�n ��dl11 city of San 'L.-AS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ATTACI DdENTS
Figure#1:Major Accomplishments Since the Beginning of FY 1989-1990
Figure#2:Special Projects,Department and Council Work Program Items
Figure#3:Current Planning Activity(February 1, 1990)
Figure#4:Planning Division Activity(1987-1989)
Figure#5:Stang Needs vs.Authorized Staffing Levels
Figure#6:Staffing Needs
t
14
FIGURE# 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF FY 1989-1990
/
PROJECT/CATEGORY MAJOR WORK ELEMENTS COMPLETED (1)
A.COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM(2) /
High Occupancy Residential Regulations Ordinance Adopted by City Council;enforcement person hired and
enforcement procedures established
Neighborhood Traffic Management DI{S Associates hired to identify impacted neighborhoods; prelimi-
nary identification underway with schematic plans to follow /
Freeway Signing Program City successful in gaining League of California Cities support for new
legislation
Senior Center/Community Center Request for Consultant Proposals completed
Laguna Lake MasterPlan Request for Consultant Proposals completed and consultant hiring
process underway
Open Space Acquisition Program Council authorized hiring of permanent senior planner and hiring
process underway
B.MANAGEMENT TEAWDEPARTMENT OBJECTIVES (2)
Land Use Element Land Use Element Workbook published and under review by the /
Planning Commission /
Circulation Element Phase I Report Published;contract signed for neighborhood traffic
management,trip reduction and street network studies
Noise Element County has selected a consultant and is negotiating a final services j
agreement
Archaeological Resources Survey RFP has been distributed to consultants; consultant proposals re-
ceived and hiring process underway /
/
C.DEPARTMENT SPECIAL PROJECTS /
1.Public Facility Programs
Unreinforced Masonry Building Survey Initial survey of buildings complete;consultant proposals fora mitiga-
tion plan solicited and consultant hiring process underway
Rodrigues Adobe Restoration RFP for rehabilitation and reuse feasibility study nearing completion /
Street Median Design Draft proposal completed and being reviewed by staff
Railroad Square Water Tower Hazard abatement part of the restoration project is complete /
Figure#1--Major Accomplishments
PROJECT/CATEGORY MAJOR WORK ELEMENTS COMPLETED_(1) /
/
2.Program Administration and Planning Standards
Environmental Monitoring Program Draft program guidelines have been completed and adopted in com-
pliance with state law
Findings and Conditions for Development Rough Draft completed and being reviewed by staff
Projects
Historic Plaque Program Draft program guidelines have been completed;plaque design estab-
lished along with cost estimates /
/
Phase II Historic Building Survey Initial survey forms for over 500 properties have been completed and
tabulated
Public Art Program Draft program complete and ready for council approval
Archaeological Survey Guidelines Examples from other agencies collected
3.Annexations and Specific Plans
Margarita Specific Plan Concept plan reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council
Dalidio Plan Concept.plan reviewed by Planning Commission
4.Miscellaneous Projects
Downtown Shuttle Service RFP prepared and distributed /
Airport Land Use Plan Critique Letter to the Airport Commission expressing city concerns; first /
meeting of Planning Commission review j
Transit Plan Work Program Examples of other agency plans collected; typical table of contents /
prepared
Transportation Survey Survey mailed out to random sample of city residents;citizen response j
complete /
S.Department Support Projects
Land Use Inventory and Data Base Initial data base complete /
Department Remodeling Recarpeting and repainting of the public areas and some offices
complete;phase II to follow
NOTES: /
(1)Foradditional information aboutprogress on completing specific projects,refer to thegdalsrepo rting information
prepared by the CommutitY Development Department under separate cover(January 1990).
(2)Fora description of these projects,reference the adopted San Luis Obispo Financial Plan for 1989-92. % -
//////// ///
FIGURE#2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT j
SPECIAL PROJECTS,DEPARTMENT AND COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM ITEMS
/
STAFF HOURS PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT CATEGORY(3) PER PERIOD(1) FTE (SUPPORT STAFF)(4)
A.Council Work Program Items /
Downtown Physical Concept Plan(7) 1,400 0.68 Ricci(Matteson,Hook,Moran,Hopkins) j
Downtown Beautification(7) 260 0.13 Hook
Noise Amplification Affecting Public Areas 20 0.01 Bruce
Greek Row Studies(7) 360 0.17 Lautner
Enhanced Historical Preservation(7) 280 0.13 Sanville(Hopkins)
Neighborhood Traffic Management (2) Sanville j
Private Property Maintenance Ordinance(7) 760 037 Smith(Hopkins) /
Residential Lot Coverage,Unit Size,Density(7) 280 0.13 Moran(Smith,Hopkins).
Office Conversion Policies (2) Matteson
City Build Out Projections (2) Matteson.
Freeway Commercial Signing Program 280 0.13 Laumer(Hopkins)
Open Space Acquisition and Development 2,000 0.97 Rossi(new support staff)(5)
Laguna Lake Master Plan 500 0.24 Rossi(Smith,Hopkins) /
Affordable Housing Programs 480 0.23 Moran /
Subtotal=6,620 .3.19
B. Management Team/Department Objectives
General Plan:
l Land Use 2,000 0.97 Matteson(Hopkins) /
Circulation 1,400 0.68 Sanville(Hopkins) j
Noise 240 0.12 Sanville j
Open Space/Conservation 800 0.39 Rossi(new support staff)
Parks and Recreation 800 039 Rossi(new support staff)
Archaeological Resource Studies 120 0.06 Sanville /
Airport Area Specific Plan 480 0.23 Sanville(Moran) j
Subtotal 5,840 2.84
C.Planning Division Projects j
1.Public Facility Programs j
Court Street Program Development/Mgmt. 100 0.05 Hook(Rossi)
Railroad Square Water Tower Preservation 120 0.06 Hook
City Hall Annex Design Development 600 0.29 Hook
Little Theater Design Development 240 0.12 Hook j
Garden Street Improvement Program 120 0.06 Hook
Miscellaneous Property Negotiations 120 0.06 Rossi
Rodrigues Adobe Restoration Study 120 0.06 Rossi(Tetmeir)
Sunny Acres Preservation 40 0.02 Rossi(Sanville) j
Sinsheimer Park RFP Administration(7) 40 0.02 Rossi(Tetmeir) /
Street Median Design and Guidelines 120 0.06 Rossi(Tetmeir) j
Subtotal =1,620 0.80
iiiiiii/
7
Figure#2 Special Projects,Departmental and Council Work Program Items
STAFF HOURS PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT CATEGORY(3) PER PERIOD(1) FTE (SUPPORT STAFF)(4)
2.Program Administration,Planning Standards
Environmental Monitoring Program 100 0.05 Hook(Hopkins)
Landscape Guidelines Homeowners Booklet 100 0.05 Hook(Hopkins)
Findings and Conditions for Development
Projects and Subdivisions 150 0.07 Lautner
County Hazardous Waste Plan Implementation(7) 120 0.06 Matteson
Zoning Changes to Accommodate
Recycling Centers(7) 120 0.06 Matteson
Well Policies and Standards 240 0.12 Matteson
Height Limit Changes in R-1 Zone(7) 480 0.23 Matteson
Subdivision Regulations Revision 280 0.14 Bruce
Historic Plaque Program 120 0.06 Sanville(Hopkins)
Phase H Historic Building Survey 280 0.14 Sanville(Hopkins)
Policies/Procedures Manual Update 300 0.15 Sanville(Hopkins)
Condominium Regulations Update
(both residential and commercial) 240 0.12 Unassigned
Planning Commission Use Permits
for Large Projects(7) 240 0.12 Sanville
Update Counter Handouts 280 0.14 Matteson(Hopkins)
Public Art Program 140 0.07 Hook(Hopkins)
Archaeological Survey Guidelines 120 0.06 Sanville(Hopkins)
Commission Compensation 10 0.01 McPike(Bruce)
Subtotal=3,320 L65
3.Annexations and Specific Plans
Margarita-Riviera Specific Plan(7) 900 0.44 Matteson(Hopkins)
Dalidio Specific Plan(7) 900 0.44 Matteson(Hopkins)
Prefumo Annexation(7) 600 0.29 Moran
Obispo Del Sur ? Matteson
La Lomita Ranch ? Matteson
Froom Ranch Project ? Matteson
Southern Cal Gas Annexation 120 0.06 Hook
Subtotal=2,520 1.23
4.Miscellaneous Projects
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Environmental Review 60 0.03 Matteson
Downtown Shuttle Service 40 0.02 Rossi(L.aumer)
On-Campus Housing Programs 240 0.12 Matteson-Moran
1990 Federal Census Coordination/Review 140 0.07 Matteson(Hopkins)
Water Element Amendments and Related Issues 120 0.06 Matteson
Airport Iand Use Plan Critique and Amendments 240 0.12 Sanvitle-Moran
City-Cal Poly Taskforce Support 120 0.06 Rossi
Transit Plan Work Program 240 0.12 Sanville(transit manager)
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden 40 0.02 Hook(Hopkins)
Transportation Survey 240 0.12 Sanville(Hopkins)
Subtotal =1,480 0.74 j
Figure#2—Special Projects,Departmental and Council Work Program Items /
STAFF HOURS PROJECT MANAGER /
PROJECT CATEGORY(3) PER PERIOD(1) FTE (SUPPORT STAFF)(4)
5.Department Support Projects /
/
Land.Use Inventory Maintenance 100 0.05 Hopkins
Project Tracking Program Development 160 0.08 Hopkins
Enforcement Tracking Program Development 160 0.08 Hopkins
System/36 Conversion 100 0.05 Johnson(Hopkins)
Computerized Plan Checking 40 0.02 Hopkins(Johnson)
Install Traffic Modeling Program 100 0.05 Hopkins(Rocker)
Department Remodeling(Carpets,Furniture) 30 0.01 Elliott(Hopkins) /
Computer Mapping Conversion 500 0.24 Hocker
Office Equipment Replacement 40 0.02 Hopkins
Electronic Mail and County Data Exchange 80 0.04 Johnson(Hopkins)
Automobile Replacement 40 0.02 Flynn(Hopkins)
General Support Services(6) 1,500 0.73 All Support Staff
Subtotal=2,850 1.39
GRAND TOTAL = 249250 (11.79 FTE)
—.
NOTES:
(1) Staff hours include the total amount of staff time(both support staff and planners)that would be allocated to this project
between April 1, 1990 and June 30, 1991—a 60 week period. A full-time equivalent(FI'E)staff position equals 2,058
working hours over that period.
(2) These council work program items are listed as individual work projects. However,the staff time is accounted for under
other work items(eg.the Land Use and Circulation Element updates).
(3) Projects not listed in any particular priority order.
(4) Support Staff includes the graphic services technician and planning aides under the direction of the Administrative Assistant
(Hopkins)and the clerical Staff.
(5) Randy Rossi's work would be covered by the new permanent senior planer position authorized by the City Council.
(6) General support services is the work done by the support staff on the items listed on Figure#2 where the support staff time
is not accounted for in each line item.
(7) Candidate for rescheduling.
FIGURE#3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITY (as of February 1, 1989)
Type of Active Applications Number of Applications
Planning Commission Use Permits 4
Administrative Use Permits 22
Rezoning Applications(including 15
Planned Development Rezonings)
General Plan Amendments 14
Specific Plan Amendments 2
Tract Maps 4
Minor Subdivision and Lot 10
Line Adjustments
Architectural Review(full Commission) 22 /
Architectural Review(Minor and Incidental) 12
Environmental Determinations 7
Sign Review 4 /
Other Special Permits 5
TOTAL ACTIVE PERMITS 121 Active Applications(1)
NOTES: /
(1) This total is equivalent to about 20 applications of various types per staff /
planner.
j .
/
FIGURE#4
PLANNING DIVISION ACTIVITY
U 1987-1989
APPLICATIONS /
S00
/
/
400
300
- 200
i
100 /
PC ARC ENV ADMIN OTHER /
/
j
1987 ® 1988 1989 j
iaiaa21
FIGURE #5 /
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFFING NEEDS VS.AUTHORIZED STAFFING LEVELS /
FTE Staff FTE Staff
Activity Area Commitments Required
Current Planning Administration 11.60 11.60
Council/Department Work Program 6.20 11.79
Total FTE Staffing: 17.80 Available 2339 Required
STAFF RESOURCE DEFICIT: 23.39 Required less 17.80 Available = 5.59 FTE
PROPOSED WORK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
(A) Hire Assistant Planner and support staff = 2.00 FTE
(B) Reschedule Specified Projects: = 1.98 FTE
1. Downtown Physical Plan 0.68 FTE
2. Greek Row 0.17 FTE
3. Enhanced Historic Preservation 0.13 FTE /
4. Property Maintenance Ordinance 0.37 FTE /
5. Downtown Beautification 0.13 FTE
6. Density Studies 0.13 FTE
7. PC Use Permit Requirements 0.12 FTE
8. R-1 Zone Height Limits 0.23 FTE /
9. Sinsheimer Park RFP Administration 0.02 FTE /
(C) Reschedule Some Annexations = 1.23 FTE
(Prefumo,Dalidio, Margarita-Riviera)
(D) Additional Consultant Assistance: = 0.39 FTE
1. Freeway Signing Program 0.13 FTE
2. Subdivision Regulations 0.14 FTE /
3. Condominium Regulations 0.12 FTE
TOTAL AUGMENTATION = 5.60 FTE
Note:Rescheduling the introduction of new non-critical projects is also a part of this proposed manage-
ment strategy.
� w
FIGURE#6 .
STAFFING NEEDS
TOTAL FTE STAFF
25
20
15
10
5
/
AVAILABLE REQUIRED
CURRENT PLANNING ® WORK PROGRAM