HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2013 ss1 consider cdd organizational assessment reportcounci l3'agenda nepoRt
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :Ryan Betz, Supervising Administrative Assistan t
SUBJECT :CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S
ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIC ACTION PLA N
RECOMMENDATIO N
As recommended by the Planning Commission, receive and file the 2013 Community Developmen t
Department Organizational Assessment and Strategic Action Plan .
DISCUSSIO N
With the 2011-13 Financial Plan, the City Council adopted a Major City Goal for Preservation o f
Essential Services and Fiscal Health . Part of the goal's scope of work was to perfor m
organizational assessments on each of the City's Departments to identify opportunities for increase d
efficiency and effectiveness of the overall City organization . Following the organizationa l
assessment of the Public Works Department in 2011, the Community Development Department wa s
selected for a review . The previous organizational assessment for the Department was conducted i n
1992 .
In September 2012, the City Council reviewed and approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) to retai n
a consultant for the assessment . In October 2012, after comparing eight proposals and conductin g
interviews with several consultants, Citygate Associates, LLC (consultant) was awarded th e
contract to undertake the organizational assessment and develop a strategic plan to ensure tha t
recommendations were incorporated into future planning and departmental actions within a
reasonable timeframe .
The work program proceeded in three phases . The first phase included an initial review o f
operations and processes by the consultant . The work effort included reviewing operationa l
manuals, conducting walk-throughs and face-to-face interviews with employees, the City Manage r
and the City Council . To help spearhead this effort, an internal Steering Committee wit h
representatives from Community Development, Public Works, Utilities, Police, and Huma n
Resources was formed . The Committee met bi-monthly to ensure an opportunity for staff input o n
process improvements, identify external stakeholders to be engaged in the assessment and t o
communicate the project's milestones to their departments .
The second phase involved in-depth operation analysis including a review of the Department's
organizational and management structure, the permit review process, and the existing informatio n
technology systems . The consultant also reviewed operations within the Administration ,
Development Review, Long-Range, and Building & Safety Divisions . An evaluation of custome r
service delivery, for internal and external customers, was also conducted . Part of that evaluatio n
ss1-1
meeting Date04-16-1 3Irltem Number SS 1
•
•
Community Development Department Organizational Assessment Page 2
•included an employee survey to provide opinions and perceptions about goals, objectives, workload ,
staffing, customer service, training, supervision, and technology .
The third phase consisted of civic engagement including three focus group sessions wit h
developers, over-the-counter permit applicants and residents . The consultant also conducted a
customer survey and a resident survey to allow businesses and residents an opportunity to voic e
their concerns about the department's ability to meet expectations and if there are any gaps betwee n
citizen expectations and the delivery of services . The consultant also presented the preliminar y
findings to the three focus groups to provide input prior to the preparation of the final report .
Five Important Contextual Themes and Recommendation s
Based upon the interviews with internal and external stakeholders, review of the developmen t
review processes, focus groups, and surveys, the Assessment identified several major fmding s
(Attachment 1). The findings are categorized including :
1.The community knows San Luis Obispo is a very special place .
2.Push-pull exists between community preservation and economic development .
3.Push-pull exists between citizen involvement and efficient development permit revie w
processing .
4.The organization is respected, dedicated, and collegial, yet professionally isolated .
5.If you can't be predictable, communicate .
The Assessment provides over 80 recommendations . Of those, ten were identified to be the mos t
important and strategic in nature . Those included :
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 .
6.Increase professional training, cross-training, and co-management to promote excellence an d
organizational nimbleness .
7.Establish a "Continual Improvement Group".
8.Move the Public Works engineering development review program into the Communit y
Development Department .
9.Make full use of technology to enhance the customer experienc e
10.Develop a solution for the cyclical nature of development .
The remaining recommendations were organized into five categories, including :
1.Front Counter Operations and Staffin g
2.Building and Safety Improvement s
3.Code Enforcement Improvement s
4.Good of the Order: Department-Wide Improvement s
5.Things Policy Setters Can Do to Improve the Department's Effectiveness .
SS1-2
•
•
•
•
•
Community Development Department Organizational Assessment Page 3
Strategic Action Pla n
The strategic action plan was developed to assist staff in identifying which of the recommendation s
are the highest priority, a timeline for implementation, the anticipated benefits and the responsibl e
parties. The assessment also noted that the Department is in a good position to make positiv e
organizational changes due to the following :
1.The Department has successfully instituted many customer service best practices that ar e
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 though t
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.The Community Development Director is already taking the initiative to make neede d
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 .
Relationship To Economic Development Strategic Pla n
In 2012, the City Council adopted an Economic Development Strategic Plan (Plan) to increas e
focus and support for head of household job creation . The Plan includes four key strategies, the firs t
of which is "Break Down Barriers to Job Creation ." Strategy 1 .1 reads as follows :
Identify opportunities for permit streamlining with the goal of reducing permi t
processing times, seeking opportunities to increase internal coordination, an d
improvement cross-department focus on development review .
Strategy 1 .1 includes ten tasks, many of which are reinforced in the strategic action pla n
recommended by the consultant . Specifically, the strategic action plan includes actions that wil l
improve communication with applicants, create standard conditions of approval, improve projec t
management training for staff and provide overall enhancements to the City's development revie w
process .
Review of Public Draft
A draft of the Assessment was made available on March 21, 2013 . Residents, applicants, and othe r
stakeholders who were interviewed in the process were sent an email link to the report and invite d
to participate in follow up focus group meetings or attend the Planning Commission hearing t o
provide comments on the consultant's findings . The Assessment was also presented to the Chambe r
of Commerce . Those who attended the meetings generally supported the themes an d
recommendations . Some attendees expressed concern about the sheer volume of recommendation s
and that in some cases the report did not reflect earlier comments, such as making staff report s
easier to comprehend .
SS1-3
Community Development Department Organizational Assessment Page 4
•Next Step s
After review and comments from the Council, recommendations of the Assessment that can b e
implemented now will be integrated into the Department's operations and programs . The remainin g
recommendations will be implemented based upon priority and available staff resources . The
consultant has established a fairly aggressive implementation schedule . While the Department wil l
embrace and explore the implementation of the recommendations, Staff shares the Plannin g
Commission's general sentiment that changes should occur incrementally and with tremendous car e
and input. This will require a greater amount of time than the consultant has afforded in thei r
recommendation .
CONCURRENCE S
The Planning Commission unanimously received and filed the Assessment at a March 27, 201 3
meeting and recommended the City Council consider the report . Other departments, includin g
Public Works, Utilities, Fire, and Police have been consulted and understand their staff will b e
involved in the further evaluation or implementation of recommendations in the Assessment .
FISCAL IMPAC T
The primary objective of the Community Development Department Assessment was to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the department's existing operations, service, and staffing levels . The
Assessment provides over 80 recommendations to address or improve these key areas . Staff will
continue to evaluate and research each recommendation to determine potential cost savings .
To assist with the implementation of the recommendations, the Department is requesting the use o f
one-time funds in the amount of $20,000 as part of the 2013-15 Financial Plan . The funds will b e
used to improve permit processing and other customer service enhancements . Specifically, th e
funds would be used to hire a consultant to implement performance measures and best managemen t
practices, create new handouts, brochures, and other written materials, and implement a more robus t
customer service feedback system in consultation with resident and applicant customers .
ATTACHMENT S
1.Executive Summary and Strategic Action Pla n
2.Planning Commission draft minutes from March, 27, 2013 .
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E
1 .Final Draft of the Organizational Assessment and Strategic Action Pla n
t:\counal agenda reports\2013\20130416\consaers odd organimtonal assess ment (johnun0e2ncounoI agenda reportdocx
SS1-4
•
•
•I ITCfl Tt 559(Ifi TtS f
F 'OLSOM (SACRAMENTO)MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
Attachment 1
ORGANIZATIONA L
ASSESSMENT OF TH E
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR TH E
an OP Sn i
OSVBPOt CA
April 2, 201 3
■ 2250 East Bidwell Street, Suite 100 ■ Folsom, CA 9563 0
(916)458-5100 ■ Fax : (916) 983-2090 C68f9 i59C10if5,LLC
Attachment 1
•
This page was intentionally left blank
•
•
SS1-6
Attachment 1
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENT S
Section
Pag e
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 Specia l
Place 4
Theme Two : Push-Pull Exists Between Community Preservation and
Economic Development 4
Theme Three : Push-Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement and Efficien t
Development Permit Review Processing 5
Theme Four : The Organization is Respected, Dedicated, and Collegial, Ye t
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
Section I—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 2 9
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 3 0
Table of Contents
page i
SS 1-7
Attachment 1
Section II—City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situation 3 1
2 .1
The Story and the Good News 3 1
2 .2
Five Important Contextual Themes 3 1
2 .2 .1 Theme One : The Community Knows San Luis Obispo is a Ver y
Special Place 3 1
2 .2 .2 Theme Two : Push-Pull Exists Between Community Preservation and
Economic Development 3 2
2 .2 .3 Theme Three : Push-Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement an d
Efficient Development Permit Review Processing 3 2
2 .2 .4 Theme Four : The Organization is Respected, Dedicated, an d
Collegial, Yet Professionally Isolated 3 3
2 .2 .5 Theme Five : If You Can't Be Predictable, Communicate! 3 3
Section III—What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development Department 3 5
3 .1
Elected Officials 3 5
3 .2
Applicants Large and Small 3 5
3 .2 .1 Focus Group Meeting 3 5
3 .2 .2 Customer Survey 3 6
3 .3
Interested Parties and Stakeholders 4 1
3 .3 .1 Focus Group Meeting 4 1
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 5 2
3 .6 .1 Comparing Customer/Employee Development Review Results 5 3
3 .6.2 Comparing Customer/Employee Long-Range Planning Results 5 4
3 .6 .3 Comparing Customer/Employee Building and Safety Results 5 5
3 .6.4 Comparing Customer/Employee Public Works Engineerin g
Results 5 6
Section IV—Department Organizational Structure 57
4 .1
Administration 5 7
4 .2
Long-Range Planning 5 7
Table of Contents
page ii
•
•
•
SS1-8
Attachment 1
4 .3
Development Review 57
4 .4
Building and Safety 57
Section V—Ten Strategic Recommendations 6 1
Strategic Recommendation #1 : Develop an Award-Winning Community Outreach
Program 6 1
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 Cit y
Council that is Dynamic and Interactive 64
Strategic Recommendation #4 : Increase Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Credibility o f
the Development Review Team 6 6
Strategic Recommendation #5 : Institute an Award-Winning "Unanticipated Service"
Program for Customers of All Types 7 1
Strategic Recommendation #6 : Increase Professional Training, Cross-Training, an d
Co-Management to Promote Excellence and Organizational Nimbleness 72
Strategic Recommendation #7 : Establish a "Continual Improvement Group" 7 5
Strategic Recommendation #8 : Move the Public Works Engineering Development
Review Program into the Community Development Department to Align Servic e
Goals 7 6
Strategic Recommendation #9 : Make Full Use of Technology to Enhance th e
Customer Experience 8 1
Strategic Recommendation #10 : Develop a Solution for the Cyclical Nature o f
Development 8 2
Section VI—Other Recommendations 8 7
6 .1
Front Counter 8 7
6 .2
Building and Safety 8 8
6 .3
Code Enforcement 9 0
6 .4
Good of the Order 9 1
6 .5
Policy Setters 9 1
Section VII—Review of Literature Sources 9 3
7 .1
Articles 9 3
7 .2
Books 9 3
7.2 .1 General Public Agency Management 9 4
•
Table of Contents
page ii i
•
SS1-9
Attachment 1
•7 .2 .2 Management 9 4
7 .2 .3 Fiction 9 4
Appendice s
Appendix A San Luis Obispo Customer Survey Analysi s
Appendix B San Luis Obispo Employee Survey Analysi s
Appendix C San Luis Obispo Resident Survey Analysis
•
Table of Contents
page iv
•
SS1-10
Attachment 1
•EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC ACTION PLA N
This Executive Summary highlights the results of Citygate Associates, LLC's organizationa l
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 thir d
party analysis of the policies, procedures, management and operations of the Communit y
Development Department, as it now exists, and to design a constructive, forward-looking, an d
creative strategic action plan for improvement, as needed . As part of the study Citygate reviewe d
and analyzed the current organizational structure and service delivery of the Communit y
Development Department as well as, to the extent necessary, the associated land developmen t
services provided by other departments of the City .
A key purpose in the design of a general perfonnance analysis, such as this engagement, is t o
ensure that sufficient flexibility is provided to the consultant and the City to pursue issues that ar e
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 permittin g
processes, and the systems and procedures that support it, and to "scan" for issues that are materia l
• 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 actua l
issues identified by the City's employees, customers and stakeholders during our one-on-on e
interviews, focus groups, and our on-line surveys .
During the course of this study Citygate received input from Community Developmen t
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 helpe d
define the additional goals and priorities that we would consider in analyzing potentia l
alternatives for improvement .
We also had access to extensive public records and documents throughout the course of th e
study.
•Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 1
SS1-11
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Attachment 1
.
Section I
Introduction
Section II
City of San Luis Obispo's Unique Situatio n
Section III What Stakeholders Say About the Community Development
Departmen t
Section IV Department Organizational Structur e
Section V
Ten Strategic Recommendation s
Section VI Other Recommendation s
Section VII Review of Literature Source s
ADVICE TO THE READER :How BEST TO HANDLE PEER REVIE W
From time to time throughout the report, we speak clearly and to the point without pulling an y
punches . It is not our intent to offend anyone . However, we believe that our client is best serve d
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 o f
many factors . The process has both good and bad characteristics, none of which are the fault o f
any one person . This also applies to non-Community Development departments and program s
that touch applications moving through the development review permitting process, such as
Public Works Engineering Development Review, Utilities, Transportation, and the Fir e
Department.
To the extent improvements need to be made, it is due to process problems, as opposed t o
personnel problems . The attitudes and philosophies of the Department's employees are amon g
the best that we have encountered in our twenty years of conducting such studies . The
Community Development Department staff involved in the development review permittin g
process is, more often than not, working very hard and in a conscientious manner to do what is i n
the best interest of the City of San Luis Obispo. Their affection for the City and community i s
deep and abiding . Many of them labor under difficult circumstances, due to time pressures, th e
complex regulatory environment, and the high level of community involvement an d
expectations .
THE STORY AND THE GOOD NEW S
San Luis Obispo's situation with its Community Development Department is fundamentall y
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 .
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan
page 2 •
SS1-12
Attachment 1
•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 custome r
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 mak e
improvements to their facilities . In addition, there are the Architectural Review, Cultura l
Heritage, and Planning Commission advisory bodies and other groups wishing to protect an d
enhance the fabric of the community ; homeowners wishing to make improvements an d
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 an d
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 i t
among the top "best practice" agencies in California . These are the indicators :
• 1 . To its credit, the Community Development Department has successfully institute d
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 t o
handle one-time investments that might be necessary to improve efficiency an d
effectiveness .
4.To his credit, the Community Development Director is already taking th e
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 i n
the Department; they simply need to be more formalized and applied mor e
vigorously .
FIVE IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL THEMES
In order to best understand the Community Development Department's current challenges an d
opportunities it is important for the reader to consider the contextual themes that have bee n
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 3•
SS1-13
Attachment I
•identified during the course of our organizational assessment . These five contextual theme s
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 Plac e
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 Ca l
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 Economi c
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 an d
cultural heritage of San Luis Obispo . This value is embodied by the City Council establishin g
robust Architectural Review and Cultural Heritage advisory bodies .
We also heard repeatedly that the City and its stakeholders have a desire to maintain and improv e
the business environment . We often heard during our interviews that the City needs and want s
"head of household" jobs .
These two values—community preservation and economic development—exist in support of on e
another and in opposition of one another, all at the same time . San Luis Obispo's architectura l
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 burde n
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 th e
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, staffs obligatio n
is to be fair, objective, and balanced in all that they do, to recognize and embrace the diversity o f
the Department's customer base, and to deliver responsive, transparent service to all .
fl Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 4
•
•
SS1-14
Attachment 1
•Theme Three : Push-Pull Exits Between Citizen Involvement and Efficien t
Development Permit Review Processin g
The City Council and the community together place a high value on citizen involvement . This i s
not uncommon in university towns, particularly those that have distinct neighborhoods and dee p
historical roots, as does San Luis Obispo .
The high level of citizen involvement leads to rich collaborations and high developmen t
standards, all of which benefits the community . However, the high level of citizen input make s
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 staf f
did not give enough deference to neighborhood groups, residents, and the advisory bodies durin g
the review process .
On the other hand, we heard repeatedly from the business and development community that th e
development permit review process was overly complicated and too deferential to parties tha t
were not vested financially . However, we should note that there was a general consensus tha t
high development standards, albeit burdensome, protected their business investments over th e
long term .
Theme Four : The Organization Is Respected, Dedicated, and Collegial, Ye t
•Professionally Isolate d
The community and its varied stakeholders generally respect the talents and dedication of th e
individual staff members within the Community Development Department . Our survey data als o
supports this conclusion. Staffs 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 certai n
core areas of work as a result, we believe, of its geographical and professional isolation . Thi s
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 t o
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 th e
Department in this direction by establishing Professional Development Plans, ongoing training ,
and a Continual Improvement Program . We believe that, if given the opportunity, staff wil l
thrive and stay ahead in their respective fields of professional endeavor .
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 5 fl
SS1-15
Attadimer
•Theme Five : If You Can't Be Predictable, Communicate !
Everybody would be happy if the City could devise a development permit review processin g
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 numerou s
suggestions and recommendations.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding these efforts, the system will remain unpredictable to one degree o r
another. This is due to the push-pull as we described and because the inherent nature of plannin g
and building affords great latitude in exercising judgment on projects . This intrinsic proble m
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 medi a
make this easier currently, and will continue to do so . Keeping the channels of collaboration an d
mutual respect alive and well maintained is an ever-growing community expectation, and thu s
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 Recommendation s
formulated during the course of this study . All of these Strategic Recommendations ar e
important to understanding what needs to be done to continue reshaping the organization, t o
build upon its current successes, and to make real organizational improvements that will b e
visible and meaningful .
Put another way, if the City implements all of the other recommendations presented later in thi s
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 Progra m
2.
Establish Cycle-Time Standards : Synchronize ; Widely Publicize ; Measure ;
and Report Ou t
3.
Develop an Annual Work Program with the City Council that is Dynami c
and Interactive
4.
Increase Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Credibility of the Developmen t
Review Tea m
5.
Institute an Award-Winning "Unanticipated Service" Program fo r
Customers of All Types
n Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 6
•
•
SS1-16
enc 1
•6.Increase Professional Training, Cross-Training, and Co-Management t o
Promote Excellence and Organizational Nimblenes s
7.Establish a "Continual Improvement Group"
8.Move the Public Works Engineering Development Review Program into th e
Community Development Department to Align Service Goal s
9.Make Full Use of Technology to Enhance the Customer Experienc e
10.Develop a Solution for the Cyclical Nature of Development .
OTHER RECOMMENDATION S
In addition to the Ten Strategic Recommendations listed above, this assessment includes mor e
recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community Developmen t
Department . These recommendations are wide reaching in their scope and are designed t o
support the Strategic Recommendations within the realities of the contextual themes describe d
above . These additional recommendations address the following:
1.Front Counter Operations and Staffin g
2.Building and Safety Improvement s
•3 .Code Enforcement Improvement s
4.Good of the Order : Department-Wide Improvement s
5.Things Policy Setters Can Do to Improve the Department's Effectiveness .
OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC ACTION PLA N
A listing of our recommendations and a blueprint for their implementation are presented in th e
Strategic Action Plan . This Plan contains :
1.The priority of each recommendatio n
2.The suggested implementation time fram e
3.The anticipated benefits of each recommendatio n
4.The responsible parties .
The legend at the bottom of each page of the Strategic Action Plan defines the level of eac h
priority indicated by the letters "A" through "D ." It is important to note that priorities have bee n
established independent of the suggested timeframe . For example, a recommendation may hav e
the highest priority (indicated by the letter "A") but may require an estimated six months t o
implement. Conversely, a recommendation with the letter "C" priority, which indicates that th e
•Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan
pager ..
r
..
SS1-17
Attachment 1
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 i s
deemed "mandatory or critical," should not be interpreted to mean that the recommendation i s
"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 anticipate d
completion dates for the implementation of each recommendation .
•
•
Executive Summary and Strategic Action Plan page 8
•
SS1-18
Attachment 2
DRAF T
SAN LUIS OBISP O
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S
March 27, 201 3
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC E
ROLL CALL :Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Vice -Chairperson Eric Meyer, and Chairperson Michael Draz e
Absent :Commissioners Airlin Singewald and Charles Stevenso n
Staff: Director of Community Development Derek Johnson, Supervisin gAdministrative Assistant Ryan Betz, Deputy Community Developmen t
Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, Associate Planner Jame sDavid, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recordin gSecretary Dawn Rudde r
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA :
The agenda was accepted as presented .
MINUTES :
•Minutes of February 13, 2013, were approved as amended .Minutes of March 13, 2013, were approved as amended .
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS :
There were no comments made from the public .
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
1 .Community Development Department Organizational Assessment an dStrateqic Action Plan .Receive a presentation, public comment, and provide arecommendation to the City Council .(Derek Johnson)
Ryan Betz, Supervising Administrative Assistant, presented the staff report ,recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to receive an dfile the organizational assessment and strategic action plan .
Jay Corey, MPA, Citygate Associates, presented the Organizational Assessment'smajor findings and recommendations, including :
•5 important contextual theme s
•10 strategic recommendation s
▪Additional recommendation s
•Commr . Multari stated that he was reluctant to get into potential departmen tmanagement issues within the report . Derek Johnson, Director of Communit y
•
SS1-19
Attachment 2
Development indicated the intent of the recommendation to City Council was for th e
Commission to share general observations or direct concerns to be noted for Counci l
consideration .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the public .
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commr . Larson questioned contextual theme number 5 as to what is unpredictable fo r
whom and who are we communicating with? He also stated the "award-winnin g
programs or best practices" indicated in almost all recommendations puts a highe r
burden on staff . He suggested small incremental steps toward implementing th e
recommendations .
Vice-Chair Meyer stated that communication and division of project review purvie w
between advisory bodies is a concern and, at some level, a project needs to receive a n
overall review of the proposal .
Commr . Multari requested clarification on recommendation number 1 . Mr. Johnso n
stated the purpose would be to notify additional residents and community members fo r
projects going before a hearing in addition to the existing legal notification practices th e
Department conducts . The intent is to develop and implement public outreac h
expectations with the public and use new technology to assist with the outreach .
Commr . Multari voiced concern with providing public outreach at the pre-applicatio n
stage . He also questioned how the City can commit to certain permit review tim e
frames . Mr . Johnson stated it's the City's responsibility to meet permit cycle times bu t
it's also up to the applicant to submit a complete application in order for staff to mee t
those timeframes .
Commr . Larson commented that the predictability and communication emphasis is o n
the process and that the outcome can't be predicted . He also wanted clarification o n
recommendation #10 . Mr . Corey responded that one solution would be for th e
Department to implement a development service fund, which would provide flexibility t o
allocate staff resources during the peaks and valleys of the development cycle .
Commr. Multari stated that a common complaint he hears is that permit fees are to o
high . Mr . Johnson stated that the City will be undergoing a fee study to review th e
permit fees and their amounts in the next year, however, when applicants hav e
concerns about fees, it is typically related to impact fees and not the processing fees .
Chairperson Draze concurred with Commr . Larson that implementing and reporting bes t
practices and performance measures requires resources and the measures should b e
implemented incrementally .
Commr. Fowler is concerned with staffs current workload while trying to achieve all o f
the recommendations .
There were no further comments made from the Commission .
•
•
•
SS 1-20
Attachment 2
•On motion by Commr . Larson, seconded by Commr . Draze, to accept the Communit yDevelopment Department Organizational Assessment and Strategic Action Plan and t orecommend to the City Council to receive and file the report .
AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multari, Meyer, and Draz eNOES:Non eRECUSED:Non eABSENT:Commrs . Singewald and Stevenson
The motion passed on a 5 :0 vote .
2 .City-Wide .GPI 12-13 ; 2013 Annual Report on General Plan progra mimplementation; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept .,applicant .(James David)
James David, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended
forwarding the 2012 Annual Report on the General Plan to the City Council fo racceptance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the public .
•COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Chair Draze commented that, in addition to State requirements and General Plan polic ydirectives, we do the Annual Report because it is a good thing for the community . H epraised staff for doing a great job on the report .
Vice-Chair Meyer noted the disparity between very little housing growth and significan tcommercial growth . He was dismayed that very little was done for bike infrastructure i nthe City and noted a wide variety of bike planning efforts should and will be brought t othe table in 2013 .
Commr . Multari thanked staff for the excellent report and good presentation . He pointe dout that recent on-campus housing construction at Cal Poly skews our reporting o nresidential growth because there was a large migration of students from Cit yneighborhoods back to campus housing in 2012 .
Chair Draze was proud of the report and the amount of information provided an drecommended the public give it a read online . He also noted that our jobs-housin gbalance [1 .6 to 1 .8 jobs per housing unit] is not as bad as some people perceive .
There were no further comments made from the Commission .
•On motion by Commr . Multari, seconded by Commr. Meyer, to accept the annual repor tand forward to City Council .
AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multari, Meyer, and Draze
SS1-21
Attachment 2
NOES :Non e
RECUSED :Non e
ABSENT :Commrs . Singewald and Stevenso n
The motion passed on a 5 :0 vote .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
3.Staff
a . Kim Murry presented the agenda forecast for upcoming meetings .
4.Commissio n
Chairperson Draze referenced an email from Ken Schwartz and asked whether th e
Commission was interested in holding a workshop or study session to discuss ho w
concepts in the Broad Street Corridor could be brought into the Land Use an d
Circulation Element update process . The Community Development Director indicate d
that without Council direction to conduct additional work on the plan, any concepts to b e
considered would need to come from the Task Force or residents . Staff indicated tha t
alternatives reviewed by the Task Force will be brought before the Commission in Ma y
prior to the June public workshop, and the Commission would have the opportunity t o
review and comment .
ADJOURMENT :The meeting was adjourned at 8 :13 p .m .
Respectfully submitted by ,
Dawn Rudde r
Recording Secretary
SS 1-22
•
•
•