HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.4 Mgmt Audit of Planning Dept f � s
r
CITY OF DUBLIN -
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 14, 1989
SUBJECT Management Audit of Planning Process
(Report Prepared by Richard C. Ambrose,
City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Management Audit prepared by Hughes, Heiss, &
Associates
RECOMMENDATION 1 . Authorize Staff to secure the services of
training consultant(s) to implement a Service
\ Policy Development and Training Program and to
facilitate recommended workshops.
2 . Establish workshop meeting date(s) for a detailed
review and discussion of the Management Audit and
a team building workshop with the Planning
Commission and Staff.
3. Provide Staff with input on desirable meeting
locations.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Training Consultant Costs for the Service Policy
Development and Training Program are estimated at
$3, 700 to $5, 700. Consulting costs related to
facilitating workshops will range from $75 to $100 per
hour. These training costs, as well as costs
associated with the reorganization of the Planning
Department are covered by the 1989-90 adopted Budget.
DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND: Improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness to
provide a higher degree of customer satisfaction is a goal, which is
regularly pursued by most private corporations. Although the mission of
public agencies is quite different from those of the private sector,
nonetheless, public agencies should equally pursue organizational
development necessary to enhance the level of satisfaction of constituents.
In recognition of the rapid growth and numerous land use decisions facing
the City, the City Council indicated during its annual Goals & Objectives
sessions in 1988 and 1989 that streamlining the City's Planning Application
Process was high priority. In response to this goal, the City Manager and
Planning Director recommended, and the City Council approved undertaking a
Management Audit of the Planning Development Process in August 1988. In
March 1989 the firm of Hughes, Heiss & Associates was selected by the City
to undertake this audit.
During the development of this Management Audit, members of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff involved in the development
process, provided input to the Consultant to assist in the development of
this document. It is important to note that all of the parties who played a
role in the development of this study are extremely anxious and willing to
work towards providing an improved level of service to planning and
development customers, while at the same time maintaining the quality of
development that the citizens of Dublin have come to expect since
incorporation.
MANAGEMENT AUDIT CONTENT: The Management Audit performed by Hughes, Heiss &
Associates includes the following major areas.
1 . A profile of the Planning Department
2 . An analysis of feedback of applicants for permits issued by the
Planning Department
3 . An analysis of the processing of current planning applications
4. An analysis of the organization of the staffing of the Planning
Department
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
�yf COPIES TO: Planning Department
ITEM NO. Planning Commission
15 . An analysis of the information system requirements of the Planning
Department.
6. Plan of implementation
The Management Audit also includes a Summary of Recommendations, (Appendix
XIX, page 93) , on which the balance of the Staff report will focus.
In the exit interview with the Consultant, it became readily apparent that
in order to improve and streamline the Planning Application Process without
signicantly compromising the quality of life in the community, a concerted
effort on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager's
Office, Planning Department, and other affected City Departments would need
to be made. This will entail a substantial time commitment on the part of
all those involved in the Planning Approval Process.
RECOMMENDATION: The Summary of Recommendations on page 93 represents a
condensed summary of the Consultant's recommendations which are discussed in
more detail in the body of the report. Staff supports nearly all of the
Consultant's recommendations with a few exceptions. However, many of the
Consultant's recommendations require a determination by the City Council as
to whether or not it wishes to change current policy established under the
City' s Zoning Ordinance. Those recommendations which are within Staff' s
ability to act upon are being acted upon immediately. Policy issues, of
course, will involve more indepth discussions by the City Council, Planning
Commission, and Staff. Staff has reviewed the Summary of Recommendations
and has reorganized those recommendations and the accompanying
responsibility as follows:
1 . HOLD JOINT. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP(S)
a. Detailed review of Management Audit recommendations
( 1 ) Modify the Zoning Ordinance
(a) Delegate additional authority to Zoning Administrator
and Staff
(b) Revise Administrative Conditional Use Permit Process
(c) Modify Conditional Use Permit Process
(d) Modify Site Development Review
(2 ) Avoid restating Ordinance conditions
(3) Simplify Staff Reports
(4) Review Fee Schedules
b. Team Building Workshop - Although this workshop was not identified
in the Consultant' s report, members of the Planning Commission and
Staff feel that such a workshop would be extremely beneficial to
the City.
2 . PUBLIC RELATIONS - Initiate a Service Policy Development and Training
Program Citywide. This program would include the adoption of a regulatory
service philosophy by the City Council. Although the focus of the
Management Audit was on the Planning Application Process, Staff believes
that the development of a Citywide Service Policy and the implementation of
that policy with specialized training would be beneficial to all City
Departments.
3 . REORGANIZE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
a. Establish Current and Advance Planning Divisions
b. Hire additional Staff
C. Establish Development Review Committee
d. Make mid-range work program assignments
As part of the adoption of the 1989-90 Budget, the City Council provided the
City Manager with sufficient resources to implement the reorganization of
the Planning function. Effective October 1 , 1989, there will be two
divisions in the Planning Department. One division will be responsible for
Current Planning and one division responsible for Advance Planning. Each
division will be supervised by one of the City's existing Senior Planners.
These Senior Planners will be responsible for the day-to-day planning and
administrative responsibilities within their respective divisions. By
creating two separate divisions, the Planning Department will be more able
to initiate and complete those projects identified by the City Council
during their annual Goals & Objectives session, which are in the mid and
long-range Planning areas. In addition to the two divisions headed by
Senior Planners, a clerical unit will be formed, which will be headed by the
current Planning Secretary.
2 -
14 . STREAMLINE PROCESSING SYSTEMS
a. Establish Planning and Scheduling System for Current Planning
b. Schedule complete applications for hearing
C. Streamline submittal requirements
d. Modify role of Planner of the Day
e. Streamline Secretarial work
f. Convert files to street address file system
g. Reduce interdepartmental review of sign, site development review
h. Develop and implement an automated permit system
i . Improve Planning Application handouts
Most of the recommendations in this category can be implemented by Staff.
However, it should be pointed out that some of the items such as streamline
submittal requirements could be impacted by decisions by the Council on
policy issues related to the Zoning Ordinance.
Conclusion
In summary, the Management Audit should be viewed as a positive tool to
assist the City in improving the overall level of service to the community.
Staff would recommend that the Council consider those recommendations
identified above and direct Staff to make the arrangements to implement this
study as expeditiously as possible.
3 -
Management Audit of the
Planning Department
CITY OF DUBLIN,
" CALIFORNIA
L
July 1 , 1989 Hughes, Heiss & Associates
675 Mariners Island Boulevard
Suite 108
San Mateo, CA 94404
._ Hughes, Heiss & Associates 675 Manners Island Blvd./Suite 108 35 S. Raymond Ave./Suite 220
M A N A G E M E N T C O Fl S U L T k t l T S San Mateo.California 94404 Pasadena, Calitorria 91105
- 415/570-6111 818/584-1111
July 1 , 1989
Mr. .Richard Ambrose
_ City Manager
City of Dublin
6500 Dubl in Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
We have completed our analysis of the organization and operations of
the Planning Department. The report which follows contains detailed
descriptions of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. This letter
provides a brief summary of the highlights of the report.
Chapter I provides a prof i I e of the Planning Department. Relevant data
presented in the chapter includes the following:
The Planning Department is currently authorized a staff of six.
This includes a Planning Director, two Senior Planners, an
Associate Planner, a Secretary, and a Clerk-Typist/Receptionist.
In addition, a half-time contract planner is utilized to process
deposit-only current planning applications.
Staffing for the Department has increased by two positions over
..._ the past f ive years. Th i s staff i ng i ncrease i ncl udes a Sen i or
Planner and a Clerk-Typist/Receptionist.
. The budget for the Department has increased over the past f ive
fiscal years. The three major causes were increases in staffing
and personnel costs, increases in professional service costs (for
the general plan amendments), and increases in contract services
for the half-time contract planner.
-year time frame.
Revenues have increased over this same five
However, the amount of increase in the Department' s budget exceeded the
amount of increase in revenue. The result is that the net City cost -- the
__. difference between revenues and expenditures -- has tripled over the past
five years since 1984-1985.
Chapter II of the report presents an analysis of a questionnaire
administered to many of the applicants for permits issued by the Planning
Department in 1987 and 1988, as well as face-to-face interviews with selected
applicants. These applicants, while indicating a number of positive factors
regarding the Planning Department, also had a number of concerns including:
Many of the respondents believed that applicants had to wait an
unreasonabl a amount of time to get pi ans approved, to f Ind out about
problems which need to be corrected, or to find out whether plans
had been accepted as a complete submittal .
Many of the respondents believed the Planning Department was not
fair or practical in its application of the zoning ordinance and
regulations and that ttie , zoning ordinance, itself, poses
requirements which were more cumbersome than that experienced in
surrounding cities.
Streamlining and simpl if ication of the process uti I ized by the
Planning Department to review and analyze applications was most
frequently cited by respondents as a necessary improvement.
The face-to-face Interviews with selected applicants for permits issued by
the Planning Department identified a number of similar as well as different
concerns:
The Planning Department needs to improve communication with
applicants to avoid "late hits" regarding conditions of approval ,
advise the applicant of staff's recommendations earlier than the
day before i t w i I I be presented to the Zon i ng Adm i n i strator or
Planning Commission, and communicate requirements earlier and
more strongly in the process of analysis of an application.
The process utilized by the Planning Department for review and
analysis of applications needs to be streamlined.
Authority should be delegated to staff of the Planning
Department. Currently, little discretionary authority is
delegated to the Zoning Administrator. Further, the decision-
making authority within the Department tends to be centralized
with the Planning Director.
Staff of the Planning Department need to be more flexible in
their interpretation of the zoning ordinance and regulations.
Feedback obtained by the Chamber of Commerce voiced similar concerns as
that identified in the questionnaire and the face-to-face interviews of
selected applicants.
-ii-
Chapter III presents an analysis of opportunities to streamline and
simplify the processes uti I ized by the Planning Department for review and
analysis of applications. Principal findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions include the following:
The time required by the Planning Department for review and
analysis of current planning applications is too lengthy in many
instances. The amount of time required to determine whether an
appi ication was a complete submittal was also too lengthy -- in some
instances exceeding that allowed by State regulations. in
addition, in many instances, applications were found to be
incomplete for basic submittal requirements which should have
been caught at the counter at the time of submittal .
A number of opportunities exist to streamline and simplify the
process uti I ized by the Planning Department for review and
analysis of applications. These opportunities include the
following:
- Schedule current planning applications for a public hearing
at the time of the submittal of the appl ication -- if the
application is determined to be basically complete.
Utilize checklists to determine if an application is
complete at submittal . Incomplete applications should not
be accepted.
Streamline application submittal requirements.
- Modify the role of the "Planner of the Day" to quaff ity
control applications, schedule applications for the public
hearing, and conduct over-the-counter plan checks.
- Estabi ish a Development Review Committee to provide early
- input to major applicants of conditions of approval .
- More fully develop application handouts.
- Establish a planning and scheduling system for processing
applications including calendar day targets for the length
of time staff should take to process these applications.
- The record management system should be modif led to an
address-based system.
- Simplify staff ' reports submitted to the Zoning
Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council .
- Sign site development review appl ications should not be
referred to other departments for comment (except monument
signs) .
- -iii-
.
' - Modify the site development review process to clarify its
_..
objectives, provide training to departments on Its intent
and purpose, and treat different size/scope applications
differently. In addition, guidelines need to be developed
to provide clear direction to applicants concerning design
policies, and the City should consider retaining a design
review consultant to train staff of the Planning Department
in design review and assist them with specific applications
when needed.
Do not restate the zoning ordinance or the subdivision
ordinance as conditions of approval , or develop
standard conditions which could easily be attached to the
appealable action letter.
Delegate additional decision-making authority for granting
applications to staff and to the Zoning Administrator.
Streamline the process for administrative conditional use
permits, converting this type of permit to zoning
clearance not requiring noticing of approval/disapproval .
Modify the zoning ordinance so that use permits do not
require ongoing renewal after an initial probationary
period.
Adopt a service philosophy for the Planning Department to
provide staff direction in terms of flexibility, "not
sweating the small stuff", etc.
Streamlining of this process should enable staff of the Planning Department to
focus more effort on the mid and long-range planning work program.
Chapter III also presents an analysis of the cost recovery by the
Planning Department for planning services provided to applicants. Over the
four fiscal years from 1984-1985 to 1987-1988, the Department recovered
between 25% to 35% of its costs in user fees. In 1988-1989, the Department
estimates it will recover approximately 52% of its cost through user fees.
This increase in cost recovery results from contributions for general plan
amendments, not an increase in fees. Over the past five years, the City's net
-. cost for planning services has Increased from $111 ,000 to $375,000. This does
not reflect the policy of the City Council for full-cost recovery for
services which benef it a spec i f i c customer. Th i s problem results from some
lower fees than surrounding communities, not increasing the fees for
approximately five years, an overhead factor which does not appear to reflect
the City' s real cost, and a standard deposit which appears to be insufficient.
A number of actions are recommended to resolve these issues:
The City should adopt a new fee structure. A proposed fee
structure is included in the appendix for consideration of the
City Council .
-iv-
The Finance Director should update the City's overhead factor.
This updated overhead factor should be utilized for all
applications charged on a cost basis.
The City should consider levying a surcharge on building permits
for the cost of building permit plan checking by the Planning
Department.
These recommendations should assist the Planning Department in increasing
its cost recovery beyond 25% to 35% of its costs.
Chapter IV presents an analysis of the organization and staffing of
the Planning Department. Principal findings, conclusions, and
recommendations include the following:
A number of issues exist with the present form of organization of
the Planning Department. The Planning Director serves as the
central focus for all planning decison-making. From the
perspective of providing middle- level management, the Senior
Planner positions should be considered underutilized. There are
a number of opportunities for improvement which need to be
resolved, which will require the attention of the Planning
Director. The Planning Director has and will continue to have a
heavy commitment of his time to general plan amendments.
To resolve these issues, the Planning Department should be
organized into two divisions: a Current Planning Division and a
Long-Range Planning Division. Each division would be headed by a
Senior Planner. The Senior Planner in charge of the Current
Planning Division would be responsible for directly supervising
all staff assigned to the . Division; assigning all applications
and planning and scheduling their completion; quality controlling
staff reports; and representing the Planning Department at the
Planning Commission, at the Development Review Committee, and in
meetings with applicants. The Senior Planner in charge of the
Long-Range Planning Division would be responsible for supervising
the contract planner assigned to the West Dublin General Plan
Amendment; Interfacing with consultants preparing general plan
amendments, specific plans, and environmental impact reports; and
performing in a working role in completing the goals and
objectives developed for the Planning Department by the City
Manager and City Council .
An additional professional planner position should be authorized
for the Current Planning Division. Comparison of the workload
faced by the Planning Department in comparison to other cities
such as Cupertino, Novato, and San Ramon indicate three pro-
fessional staff are appropriate. An evaluation of the workload
in comparison to the staff hours required to process this work-
load indicates, however, that these three staff should be
capable of accomplishing mid-range planning tasks such as
rewriting the zoning ordinance, development of architectural/
design review guidelines, and the like.
-V-
The Planning Director needs to develop a mid and long-range
planning work program for accomplishing the goals and objectives
specified for the Planning Department. This work program should
identify the tasks, the priorities of these tasks, the number of
- staff hours required to complete the task, and the schedule for
completion of the task. To assist the Department in
accomplishing this work program, an additional professional
planner position should be authorized.
A number of opportunities exist to streamline the work practices
of the secretarial staff of the Planning Department. This
streamlining is designed to enable the secretarial staff of the
Planning -Department to perform tasks such as checking
appl ications to assure completeness, providing zoning clearance of
minor appl ications, and the I ike. This wil I require training, but
the performance of these types of tasks by secretarial staff, and
not prof ess i ona I staff, * is a more efficient use of these
resources.
Chapter V presents an analysis of information systems. Principal
findings, conclusions, and recommendations include the following:
Currently, the Building Inspection, Public Works, and the
Planning Departments maintain a number of manual information
systems including plan check tracking files, perm its issued
files, appl ication files, and the I ike.
There are a number of problems with the existing information
system. These systems are not interactive and require the manual
typing of a number of different and duplicate documents, the
systems are largely manua I and paper- intensive, the systems are
rudimentary and result in an inefficient use of secretarial staff,
the existing systems I imit the abi I ity of department heads to
manage the timely processing of development applications, and
the existing information system is incomplete i n some of its
aspects.
The City should purchase an 'off-the-shelf" permit information
system. This system should be designed to serve the information
needs of all three departments: Public Works, Planning, and
Building Inspection. The system should enable the City to track
the inspection and plan checking history for permits, as well as
-the status of plans being plan checked, document parcel data
( i.e. , owner, site address, zoning, etc. ) , automatically
calculate fees, increase the productivity of clerical staff, and
the like.
The cost of the software should approximate $25,000.
-vi-
A summary of these recommendations Is presented In the appendix (see
Appendix XII ) . As the summary indicates, a number of these recommendations
represent policy issues which will require the approval of the City Council .
The City Manager and the Planning Director are aware of the need for
streamlining and simplifying the processes used by the Planning Department
for review and analysis of current planning applications. This audit was
performed at their initiative to identify the methods which should be
utilized to streamline and simplify these processes. The recognition of this
problem is the most important step in its resolution.
It has been a pleasure to serve the City of Dubl in in the audit of the
Planning Department. I look forward to the opportunity to present the report
to the City Council .
Sincerely yours,
Gary Goelitz HUGHES, HEISS & ASSOCIATES
Associate San Mateo
—vii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
I. PROFILE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1
I I. ANALYSIS OF FEECBACK OF APPLICANTS FOR
PERMITS ISSUED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4
11 I. ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESSING OF CURRENT
PL ANN I NG APPL I CAT I ON S 20
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 57
V. ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 70
V1. PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION 76
APPENDIX
Page Number
i. POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY 79
FOR CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
II. SAMPLE ZONING CLEARANCE FORM 80
I I I. SAMPL E APPL I CAT ION CHECK- I ST FOR USE PERMITS 81
IV. SAMPLE SCHECULE FOR PROCESSING CURRENT 83
PL ANN I NG APPL I CAT I ON S
V. SAMPL E APPL I CAT I ON FORM 84
VI. POSSIBLE REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY FOR THE FL ANN I NG 85
DEPARTMENT
VII. COMPARISON OF USER FEE CHARGES FOR PLANNING 87
SERVICES
VIII. PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 88
I X. COMPAR I SON OF CU RRENT FL ANN I NG APR I CAT I ON 89
WORK-OAD/STAFF I NG
X. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESSING CURRENT 90
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Xi . MID AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING WORK AGENDA 91
XIi. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 93
I. PROFILE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
i
I. PROFILE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This chapter contains descriptive information regarding the current
organization and staffing of the Planning Department as well as trends in
staffing, expenditures, revenue and workload. Information contained in the
chapter is obtained from several sources including:
Interviews with all staff of the Planning Department.
Review of a number of documents -- budgets, application logs,
- and other data pertaining to characteristics of the Department.
The purpose of this chapter is. to provide a profile on the current
organization and operations of the Department as a basis for subsequent
analysis contained In other chapters of this report.
1 . THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED A STAFF OF SIX POSITIONS.
The following points should be noted regarding the current plan of
organization for the Planning Department:
The Director of Planning is the manager of the Department and
reports to the City Manager.
The Department is organized horizontically. All the professional
staff report directly to the Director of Planning. The Secretary
responsible for clerical support also reports to the Planning
Director, but supervises the Clerk-Typist/Receptionist as well.
Responsibility for functioning as "Planner of the Day" is rotated
among the two Senior Planners and the Associate Planner. Each of
these three staff are also responsible for processing current
planning applications as well as performing tasks of a long-range
planning nature.
In addition, a half-time contract planner is utilized to process
deposit-only current planning applications. This position also
- reports to the Planning Director.
The two staff allocated to clerical support — the Secretary and
the Clerk-Typist/Receptionist -- provide a broad range of support
services to the professional staff of the Planning Department
including typing, answering the phones, responding to the pubi is
at the counter, assembling the packets for the Planning
Commission, pubic noticing, xeroxing, and the like.
Overall , the Department is authorized six positions. The bulk of these
positions are currently allocated to processing current planning applications.
2. THE STAFFING AUTHORIZED FOR THE-PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS INCREASED FROM
FOUR POSITIONS IN 1984-1985 TO SIX POSITIONS IN 1988-1989.
Important points to note regarding the staffing trends for the
Department include the following:
The total staff ing for the Department has increased from four
positions in 1984-1985 to six positions in 1988-1989.
This staffing increase included one Senior Planner, added in
1986-1987, and one Clerk-Typist/Receptionist, added in 1987-1988.
The professional planning staff authorized for the Department are
allocated at the upper end of the professional planner
classification series. The Department Is not authorized
positions at the lower end of the professional planner series
( 1.e. , Assistant Planner, Planning Technician, etc. ) .
Overall , the staffing for the Department has increased by two positions
over the past five fiscal years.
3. THE BUDGET FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS INCREASED OVER THE PAST
FIVE FISCAL YEARS FROM $172,980 IN 1984-1985 TO $725,370 IN 1988
TO 1989.
Important points to note regarding the budgetary trends for the
Planning Department include the following:
-2-
The expenditures for the Planning Department have increased from
$172,980 in 1984-1985 to a budgeted $725,370 in 1988-1989.
Expenditures for Personnel Services — salaries and benefits --
have also increased over the same five fiscal year period
increasing from $129,394 in 1984-1985 to $293,380 in 1988-1989.
Expenditures for services and supplies have increased over the
past five fiscal years from $38,952 in 1984-1985 to $336,180 1n
1988-1989. However, it should be noted that the bulk of this
increase results from professional services. The monies
authorized for professional services are allocated for
preparation of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific
Plan and the Hansen General Plan Amendment.
The monies authorized for contract services include the contract
.planner and the half-time zoning enforcement officer.
Over the same time frame, revenues generated by the Planning
Department have increased from $62,000 in 1984-1985 to an
estimated $375,000 in 1988-1989.
The net City cost -- the difference between revenues generated by the
Planning Department and its expenditures -- has increased over this five-year
period from $110,980 in 1984-1985 to $350,370 in 1988-1989.
The next chapter presents an analysis of the feedback received from
applicants for permits Issued by the Planning Department regarding services
provided by the Department.
-3-
II. ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK OF APPLICANTS FOR PERMITS ISSUED
BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
II. ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK OF APPLICANTS FOR PERMITS ISSUED
BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This chapter presents an analysis of feedback received from applicants
for permits issued by the Planning Department regarding the adequacy of
services provided by the Department. This feedback originates from three
sources:
A questionnaire administered to homeowners, contractors,
commercial tenants,- etc. , who have applied for permits issued by
the Planning Department during 1987 or 1988.
Interviews with selected applicants for permits issued by the
Planning Department to provide 'a more comprehensive feedback than
that offered by the fixed-choice questionnaire.
Comments elicited from the Chamber of Commerce as a result of
interviews with selected businesspeople.
The chapter opens with an analysis of the results of the
questionnaire.
1 . RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POSITIVE ASPECTS
OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.
Overall , a total of 58 responses were received to a questionnaire
ma i led to individuals who app I led for permits issued by the Planning Department
during 1987 or 1988. This is a response rate of approximately 41%. A brief
profile of the respondents reveals the following:
20.7% are contractors.
25.9% are real estate developers.
10.3% are residents/homeowners in Dublin.
19.0% are professionals/consultants (e. g. , architects).
. 48.3% are commercial tenants within the City of Dublin.
1 .7% are real estate brokers/agents.
57% have had occasion to request a permit from the Planning
Department within the last year, while 43% had an opportunity
within the last two to five years.
50% of the respondents had occasion to request a permit from
planning departments in other communities than Dublin within the
last year, while 53% had occasion to request a permit within the
I ast two to f ive years.
15% of the respondents rated themselves very knowledgeable
regarding the City of Dublin' s Planning Department services and
regulations, while 35% considered themselves knowledgeable, 35%
considered themselves somewhat knowlegeable, 13% considered
themselves to have little familiarity with the services and
regulations, while 2% indicated they had no familiarity.
21% of the respondents indicated they had applied for a permanent
sign permit with the Planning Department, while 15% indicated
they had applied for a temporary sign permit, 27% applied for a
use permit, 14% applied for a variance, and 23% applied for a
site development review.
The percentages above do not equal 100% since respondents are
"counted" under more than one category or some did not respond to every
question.
The survey questions are grouped by topic area and are presented as
follows:
Each question is listed by major topic area and responses to
those questions are displayed in two ways:
Actual distribution of respondents on a one to five scale
used to judge the degree of agreement to each question.
A "weighted average" response which provides a composite of
all the responses to each question.
Each major topic area is preceded by an introduction
narrative which identifies common threads among responses
and pinpoints the salient attitudes indicated by
respondents.
Salient attitudes were identified as those in which 30% or more
of the applicants agreed or disagreed with the statement in the
questionnaire.
The analysis of these responses is provided on the following page.
-5-
(1 ) Responses Indicate That Many Applicants Perceive The Planning
Department As Being Responsive And Helpful.
Overall , most respondents believe that they are provided
courteous assistance from the staff of the Planning Department.
-. Handouts supplied by the Department are believed to be informative and
useful (although there is a high proportion of respondents who neither
agree nor disagree), and most found that the counter staff are
responsive and helpful . Staff of the Planning Department were believed
to be accessible in resolving ,problems with the respondents'
application. However, 46% indicated that the Planning Department staff
dealt with them in a negative "you can' t do that" approach. Of
particular interest is the following:
! 57% of the respondents found counter staff of the Planning
Department to be helpful .
46% of the respondents perceived Planning Department staff
dealing with them in a negative "you can't do that" approach. On
the other hand, 37% perceived the Planning Department staff as
dealing with them in a positive "here' s what needs to be done" to
get the application approved approach.
62% of the respondents indicated that the staff of the Planning
Department were courteous when reviewing their permit applice--
tions and plans.
48% of the respondents indicated that staff of the Planning
Department were easily accessible when assistance was needed in
resolving problems with their application. On the other hand,
29% of the respondents indicated that staff were not easily
accessible in resolving problems with their application.
39% of the respondents found the handouts supplied by the
Planning Department at the counter to be useful and informative
in explaining the requirements they had to meet. However, 46%
had no opinion regarding the usefulness of the handouts.
The specific responses to the questions are presented on the
following pages.
Neither
Strongly Agree nor Strongly
Agree A ree Disa ree ( Disa ree LIDIsaciree
1 2 3 4 5
1 . When making
applications for
a permit, I have
generally found
the counter staff
in the Planning
Department to be
responsive and
helpful .
- Composite 2.4
Response
- Distribution 12 20 I 15 5 I 4
of Responses I l I
1 2 3 4 5
2. In general , Plan-
ning Department
staff have dealt
with me in a
positive, "here' s
what needs to be
done to get the
application
approved"
approach rather
than a negative
"you can' t do
that" approach.
- Composite
Response 3.26
- Distribution 7 15 9 8 18
of Responses
1 2 3 4 5
9. Staff of the
Planning Depart-
ment were court-
eous when
reviewing my
I permit appli-
cation and plans.
- Composite
Response 2.54
- Distribution 9 25 12 4 5
of Responses
—7—
Neither
Strongly I ` Agree nor ( Strongly
A ree I Agree I Disagree Disagree Disa reel
1 2 3 4 5
112. The staff of the
Planning Depart- I
I ment were easily I
accessible when
I needed assist-
ance in resolv-
ing problems with I
my permit
I
application.
- - Composite 2.87
yResponse
- Distribution 5 23 13 8 9
of Responses I I I I
1 2 3 4 5
114. 1 found the hand-
outs suppl led by
the Planning I I I
Department at the
counter to be
useful and Infor-
mative in exp I ai r-
ing the require-
; I ments I had to
meet.
- Composite 2.72 I
Response ( i
_ I - Distribution I 4 , 19 + 26 + 5 3
of Responses I I I
(2) Concern Was Expressed By Respondents Regarding Turnaround Time
For Plan Checking.
Turnaround times were viewed with some concern by respondents.
- More specifically:
53% of the respondents felt that turnaround time for review and
analysis of their application by staff of the Planning Department
was not acceptable, and that they had to wait an excessive amount
of time to get their permit application approved or to find out
about problems that needed to be corrected. On the other hand,
29% found the turnaround time acceptable.
-8-
47% of the respondents indicated they believed they had to wait
an excessive amount of time to find out from the Planning
Department whether their application had been accepted as
complete or to find out about needed changes to achieve a
complete submittal . On the other hand, 31% indicated they did
not have to wait an excessive amount of time.
The specific responses to these questions are presented below.
Neither
IStrongly Agree nor Strongly
A ree A ree Disa ree Disa ree D I saaree
1 ( 2 3 4 5
4. Turnaround time
for review and
analysis of my
application by
staff of the `
Planning Depart-
ment was accept-
able. I didn' t I
have to wait an
excessive amount ( I I I
of time to get my
permit application
approved or find 1
out about prob-
lems that needed
to be corrected.
- Composite 3.50
Response
- Distribution 7 10 10 9 22
of Responses
1 2 3 4 5
5. 1 didn't have to
wait an excessive
amount of time to
f ind out from the
Planning Depart-
ment whether my I
application had
been accepted as I I I I
complete or to
find out the
needed changes to l f )
achieve a com-
plete submittal .
- Composite I I 3.33
Response
- Distribution 8 + 10 , 12 9 + 18
of Responses I
-9-
(3) A Majority Of The Respondents Believe The Planning Department Is
Not Fair And Practical In Its Application Of The Zoning Ordinance
And Regulations.
The majority of those responding to the questionnaire felt that
- the Planning Department was not fair or practical in applying City
standards and regulations to the analysis and review of their
applications. The following points are of particular interest:
52% of the respondents believed the Planning Department staff
were not practical in applying City standards and regulations to
the analysis and review of their application. On the other hand,
33% believed that the Planning Department staff were practical .
44% of the respondents believed that Planning Department staff
were fair in deal ingwith their apps ication. On the other hand, 40%
believed that the Planning Department staff were not fair in
deal ing with their appl ication.
53% of the respondents believed that the Zoning Ordinance and
regulations of the City pose requirements for approval of their
application which were more cumbersome than other surrounding
cities.
47% of the respondents believed the Planning Department is not as
fair and practical in its application of the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan as other neighboring cities. On the other hand, 31%
of the respondents believe the Planning Department is as fair and
practical as other neighboring cities.
- Specific responses to these questions are presented below.
Neither
Strongly Agree nor Strongly
Agree A ree DIsaqree Disa ree Disagree
1 2 3 4 5
_ 6. Within the con-
straints of the
General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance,
the Planning
Department staff
were practical in
applying City
standards and
regulations to the
analysis and
review of my
application. J
- (Cont' d)
—10—
Neither
Strongly Agree nor Strongly
6. (Cont' d) A ree Aqree—I Disagree Disagree Disagree
1 2 3 4 5
- Composite ( I I
- Response I i 3.34
- Distribution
of Responses 9 I 12 I 7 10 20
7. Planning Depart-- I I I
ment staff were I
"fair" in dealing
with my permit I !
application. I
I
- Composite
IResponse 1 _ 3.16
- Distribution
of Responses 7 18 7 5 ( 18 I
1 2 3 4 5
8. The Zoning Ord-
inance and regu-
lations of the I I
Planning Depart -
ment did not pose I
requirements for
approval of my
application which
were any more
cumbersome than I
other surrounding I I I
- cities.
"J - Composite
Response I I 3.53 I I
- Distribution
of Responses 4 I 8 15 14 16
1 2 3 4 5
13. The City of Dubl in I I I I I
was Just as fair
and practical in
its application
of the Zoning
Ordinance and
General Plan to I I l I !
my permit appli-
cation and plans
as other neigh- I
boring cities.
- Composite
Response 3.43
- Distribution
of Responses 5 13 13 9 18
(4) Most Respondents Bel ieved That The Review And Analysis Of Their
Application By The Staff Of The Planning Department Was Complete
And Accurate.
The majority of respondents believed that the staff of the
- Planning Department were knowledgeable and made few mistakes in
conducting a review of their application and plans. Further, when
problems were found by staff of the Planning Department, respondents
perceived staff as being thorough in explaining what the respondent
had to do to correct these problems. Of particular interest is the
following:
53% of the respondents believed that review and analysis of
their application by staff of the Planning Department was complete
and accurate. On the other hand, 30% believed that the review
and analysis was not complete and accurate.
55% of the respondents be ieved that staff of the PI annina
Department were knowledgeable and made few mistakes in conducting
review of their appl ication and plans.
42% of the respondents bel ieved that the staff of the Planning
Department were thorough and clear In explaining what the
respondent had to do to correct problems found during review of
their application or plans. On the other hand, one-third of the
respondents believed that staff were not thorough and clear in
explaining what had to be done to correct these problems.
The specific responses to these questions are presented below.
Neither
IStrongly I I Agree nor I I Strongly I
Agree A ree Disagree Disagree Disa reel
1 2 3 4 5
3. Review and analy-
sis I I I I
mY PP l i
I
cation by the
staff of the PI an- I I I I I
- ning Department
was complete and
I accurate. I I 2.51 I I
- Composite
Response I
- Distribution
of Responses ( 9 21 10 ( 13 I 4
-12-
Neither
I Strongly Agree nor Strongly
Agree A ree Disagree Disagree Disa reed
1 2 3 4 5
0. Staff of the PI an- I
ning Department
were knowledgeable
and made few mis-
takes in conduct-
ing a review of my l
permit application
and plans.
Composite 2.68
Response
- Distribution 1 1
of Responses I 7 I 24 13 I 7 5 I
1 2 3 4 5
(11 . When staff of the
Planning Depart-
ment found prob-
lems during review `
of my permit
application and
plans, they were
thorough and clear
in explaining what I
I had to do to
correct those
problems and get
a sign-off. I
- Composite 2.193
Response
- Distribution
of Responses 8 15 14 9 9
(5) Streamlining And The Simplification Of The Process Utilized By
The Planning Department To Review And Analyze Applications Was
Most Frequently Cited As A Necessary Improvement.
Survey question #15 asked respondents: "What three changes would
you make if you were appointed by the City as the Manager of the
Planning Department?" Survey question #16 asked respondents: "What
—13—
three improvements would you make In the way the Planning Department
delivers its services to make it more responsive without compromising
qual ity?" Of the 58 respondents to the questionnaire, 41 answered
these two questions. 80% of the respondents identified streamlining
and simpl 1f ication of the process uti I ized by the Planning Department
to accept, analyze, and approve applications as a necessary improve-
ment. Relevant suggestions included the following:
Approve minor permits over the counter.
No longer send out appealable acti-on letters and final action
letters by certified mai I .
Do not require title reports for minor permits.
Reassign applications when the Project Planner Is on vacation.
Utilize pre-application meetings to alert applicants to
conditions of approval early in the process.
Do a complete analysis of the application during the first check
and advise the applicant of all corrections necessary. Do not
develop new conditions during the second check.
Al low staff of the Planning Department more flexibility i n assuring
applications adhere to zoning regulations. This requires
delegation of authority to line staff of the Department as well
as delegation of authority to the Department from the Planning
Commission.
Provide applicants with alternatives to potential problems and
needed corrections rather than just rejecting the application.
Provide input to applicants during site development review
early In the process.
Revise the Zoning Ordinance as It pertains to signs to delegate
authority to staff for approval of signs.
Disclose all pertinent information and conditions before the
staff report is presented to the Planning Commission or City
Council .
Overall , The responses to the questionnaire, while identifying a num-
ber of positive aspects of the Planning Department, also identif fed a number
of concerns f rcm the perspective of the respondents including the fol lowing:
-14-
Staff not consistently dealing with applicants in a positive
"here' s what needs to be done to get the application approved".
Many applicants having to wait an excessive amount of time to get
their applications and plans approved, to find out about problems
which need to be corrected, or to f ind out whether their plans
have been accepted as a complete submittal .
Staff not being consistently practical in applying City standards
and regulations during the analysis and review of applications.
Staff not being consistently thorough and clear in explaining what
had to be done to correct problems found in an application.
The Department not being as fair and practical in its application
of the Zoning Ordinance and regulations as other neighboring
cities.
An overly cumbersome Zoning Ordinance and regulations.
Opportunities to address these concerns through streamlining of
the processes used by the Planning Department will be presented in the
next chapter.
2. I NTERV I EM S M I TH SELECTED APFL I CANTS IDENTIFIED A NU146 ER OF SPECIFIC
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.
As part of the effort to elicit specific responses from current planning
applicants regarding the level of service delivered by the Department, the
consulting team interviewed a number of different appi icants. These
-_
applicants Included the following:
A contractor who builds multi-family dwellings.
An applicant for a General Plan amendment.
A contractor who builds single-family homes.
-A contractor who builds large .commercial complexes.
A contractor who builds light industrial/office complexes.
The purpose of these interviews was to elicit from these applicants
their perceptions as to how the Planning Department could improve its
operations. The opportunities identified by the selected applicants are as
follows:
-15-
(1 ) The Selected Applicants Perceive The Planning Department Needs To
Improve Its Caamunication With Applicants.
These selected applicants provided a number of examples of in which
communication between staff of the Planning Department and the
applicants could be improved. These include the following:
Conduct pre-application meetings, in which all the regulatory
parties would attend ( including Engineering, Planning, Building
Inspection, Uti i ities, Fire, etc. ) , and advise the applicant of
likely conditions of approval focusing on major conditions likely
to impact the construction drawings and plans of the applicant.
Advise the applicant of staff' s recommendations earlier than the
day before the staff report will be presented to the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission.
Avoid "late hits" regarding conditions of approval .
Communicate requirements earlier in the application review
process and more strongly. If bad news is to be delivered, make
sure the applicant hears it "loud and clear".
In summary, the experience of these applicants appears to indicate that
the Planning Department needs to advise applicants earlier in the
application review process of likely requirements, and advise
applicants of staff recommendations and conditions of approval earlier.
(2) The Process Utilized By The Planning Department For Review And
Analysis Of Applications Needs To Be Streamlined.
The selected applicants perceived that the turnaround time for
review and analysis of applications by the Planning Department is too
lengthy. Applicants beIlev a that this is a problem both with the
Zoning Ordinance as well as the staff' s approach and philosophy towards
the review and analysis of applications. Specific concerns cited by
these applicants included the following:
-16-
The Department imposes conditions which are or should be part of
the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Ordinance. in this case,
staff is only stating the obvious. Imposing these conditions
increases staff workload unnecessarily.
The Zoning Ordinance may need to be revised in some instances to
clarify requirements. As an example, the parking/driveway
requirements are not specific. This created problems in the review
and analysis of one of the applicant' s projects, in which the
_ applicant was not advised of the development standards until
later in the review and analysis process.
Overal I , the appl scants felt that the process utii ized by the Planning
Department could be streamlined and that the turnaround time for the
analysis of their applications needed to be shortened.
(3) Authority Should Be Delegated To Staff Of The Planning Department.
These selected applicants indicated that decision-making
authority within the Planning Department tends to be centralized.
Applicants felt that this contributed to the lengthy turnaround time
required for review and analysis of applications. If authority was
delegated to line staff of the Department, the turnaround time could be
improved and staff of the Planning Department used more effectively.
Further, the selected applicants also believed that additional
discretionary authority for approval/disapproval of applications needs
to be delegated to staff from the Planning Commission. The delegation
of additional discretionary authority would further streamline and
simplify the process and reduce the turnaround time for review of
applications.
(4) Staff Of The Planning Department Need To Be More Flexible In
Their Interpretation Of The Zoning Ordinance And Regulations.
_ Interviews with these selected applicants indicated a number of
concerns regarding the practicality and fairness of the interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance and regulations by staff of the Planning
Department. These concerns focused on staff flexibility in imposing
-17-
conditions of approval . Conditions should not be imposed which have
little relevancy to the application. As a specific example, in a
review of an application for installation of an awning, staff imposed
- requirements for landscaping of a parking lot. As another example,
staff would not al low the deletion of a spa from an appl ication for a
multi—family apartment building. These selected applicants believed,
in these instances, that staff of the Department need to demonstrate
more flexibility in their interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and
regulations.
The methods for addressing the concerns expressed by these
selected applicants will be addressed in the next chapter of the
report.
3. FEEDBACK OBTAINED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IDENTIFIED A NUWER OF
SIMILAR ISSUES.
Independently of this audit, the Chamber of Commerce obtained feedback
from selected bus i nesspeop I e. in the City of Dublin. This feedback
identified a number of issues including the following:
"Staff of the Planning Department does not offer assistance to
solve problems. " This Is similar to the concern expressed by
respondents to the questionnaire (question #2) regarding whether
staff have dealt with the respondent in a positive "here' s what
needs to be done to get the application approved" approach or a
negative "you can't do that" approach.
Use permits should not have a short time period (five years) as
most businesses find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain
short—term financing. "
"The promotional sign ordinance needs to be simplified. A
promotional sign should be allowed for up to 30 days, not up two
weeks down four days, up two weeks. The sign ordinance needs to
be reviewed. "
"When working with planners, you can never get a yes/no answer. "
"The planning process needs to be shorter. I wonder why
everything needs to go back for review. There are no decisions
made on the spot. "
—18—
"After two years and four months, the City has said okay to our
plans . . Planners should not be designers or architects. We
understand the need to make sure each building is in code.
Maybe the City needs a Design Review Board. "
These concerns are similar to those expressed by respondents to the
questionnaire as well as the selected applicants interviewed by the consulting
team. However, the busi nesspeopl e interviewed by the Chamber of Commerce did
suggest some specific changes to the Zoning Ordinance regarding use permits
and signs, as w eli as a Design Review Board. These concerns will be
addressed in the next chapter of the report.
The next chapter presents an analysis of opportunities to streamline
and simplify the process utilized by the Planning Department for review of
current planning applications.
—19_
I11. ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESSING OF CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
I 11. ANPL YS IS OF THE PROCESSING OF CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
This chapter presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations
regarding the processes used by the Planning Department for reviewing current
planning applications ( i.e. , use permits, administrative conditional use
.-m its, tentative maps, site development review, etc. ) . This chapter
focuses on a number of issues i ncl udi ng the foi I ow ing:
The distribution of current planning application workload by type
of appl ication.
The existing turnaround time for different types of current
planning applications.
Objectives for turnaround time for review and approval of current
planning applications.
An information sy stem to track actual performance against
these objectives for the Planning Department.
Procedures and responsibilities for managing the current
planning application process.
The process for reviewing plans and opportunities for
simpl if ication of this process.
This chapter opens with an analysis of the workload faced by the
Planning Department in terms of current planning applications.
1 . THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED 157 CURRENT MANNING APPL I CAT IONS IN
1988.
Important points concerning the current planning applications processed
by the Planning Department in 1988 include the following:
The number of current planning applications received in 1988
amounted to 157.
The most numerous type of application received by the Planning
Department in 1988 was Administrative Conditional Use Permits.
—20—
The Department received 48 applications for Administrative
Conditional Use Permits, or 30.6% of the total number of
applications received by the Department in 1988.
The Department received 43 applications in 1988 for Conditional
Use Permits. This amounted to 27.4% of the total applications
received by the Department in 1988.
The Department received 24 applications for sign site development
review in 1988 or 15.3% of the total applications received by the
Department in 1988.
The Department received 20 site development review applications
in 1988 or 12.7% of the total applications received.
The Department received 14 applications for variances in 1988, or
8.9% of the total applications received by the Department.
Other types of applications -- including General Plan Amendments,
planned development, rezone, and parcel maps -- amounted to eight
in 1988 or 5.1% of the total applications received in that year.
The table below presents the number of applications received by the Planning
Department over the past three calendar years.
Trends in Current Planning Applications
Calendar Year
Type of Application 1986 1987 1988
Administrative Conditional Use Permit 52 62 48
Conditional Use Permit 38 43 43
Sian Site Development Review 11 34 24
Site Development Review 24 29 20
Variance 9 16 14
Rezone 3 4 3
General Plan Amendment 1 3 2
Planned Development 2 0 2
Tentative Map 3 4 0
Parcel Map 1 2 1
Total 144 197 157
Important points to note about the data contained in the table include the
following:
—21—
- The total number of applications appears to have peaked in 1987
with 197 applications. This compares to 144 current planning
applications in 1986 and 157 in 1988.
Administrative Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits,
Sign Site Development Review, Site Development Review and
Variances are the most numerous types of applications received by
the Planning Department in any calendar year. While the City of
Dublin has experienced rapid growth over the past five years, it
has received relatively few planned unit development
applications, tentative map applications, or parcel map
applications over the past three calendar years. Given the
nature of the General Plan Amendent applications currently being
processed by the City, this can be expected to change in the
short term.
The bulk of applications received by the Department in 1988 would
appear to be relatively simple to review and analyze, and should not require a
significant amount of staff or calendar time to process.
2. THE TIME REQU 1 RED FOR ANAL YS I S OF CURRENT PL ANN I NG APPL I CATIONS IS TOO
LENGTHY IN MANY INSTANCES.
The table below presents statistical data from a sample of current
planning applications. This sample represents 45% of the applications filed
in 1988. The table identifies the low, median, and the high number of calendar
days required to process Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Site Development
Review, Sign Site Development Review and Administrative Conditional Use
Permits.
Time Required to Process
Current Planning Applications
Number of Applications Calendar Days
Type of Application Included in the Sample Low Median High
Conditional Use Permit 24 24 43 147
Variances 10 42 89 165
Site Development Review 8 20 47 162
Sign Site Development
Review 11 14 36 105
Administrative Condi-
tional Use Permit 18 2 14 68
-22-
Important points to note concerning the data presenting both in the
table and in the exhibit preceding this page includes the following:
A total of 24 Conditional Use Permits processed in 1988 were
Included w ith i n the sample. This sample size represents 26% of
the total Conditional Use permits received by the Planning
Department in 1988. These 24 Conditional Use permits required a
median processing time of 43 calendar days to approve/
..- disapprove, with a low of 24 calendar days and a high of 147
calendar days. Of the 24 applications included in the sample,
seven or 29% were deemed incomplete submittals. The median
number of calendar days required to determine whether an
application was complete at submittal was 20 calendar days with a
range from a low of seven calendar days to a high of 71 calendar
days.
A total of 10 Variance applications were sampled to determine
the amount of time required by staff of the Planning Department
to process the application from the date of submittal to the date
of approval/disapproval by the Zoning Administrator. The 10
Variance applications required a median of 89 calendar days to
process from the date of submittal to. the date of approval/
disapproval by the Zoning Administrator with a low of 42
calendar days and a high of 165 calendar days. Of the 10
applications included in the sample, three or 30% were deemed
incomplete at the time of submittal . The median number of
calendar days required to determine whether an application was a
complete submittal was 28 calendar days with a range from a low
of two calendar days to a high of 49 calendar days.
A total of eight Site Development Review applications were sampled
to determine the number of calendar days required by staff of the
Planning Department to process the application from the date of
submittal to the date of approval/disapproval of the application
by the Planning Director. The median number of calendar days
required to process a Site Development Review application was 47
calendar days with a range from a low of 20 calendar days to a
high of 162 calendar days. Of the eight applications sampled,
one or 12% was an incomplete submittal . The median processing
time to determine whether a Site Development Review application
was a complete submittal was 21 calendar days with a range from a
low of 10 calendar days to a high of 39 calendar days.
A total of 11 Sign Site Development Review applications were
sampled to determine the amount of calendar days required by staff
of the Planning Department to process these applications from the
date of submittal to the date of approval by the Planning
Director. The median number of calendar days required to process
Sign Site Development Review applications was 36 calendar days
with a range from a low of 14 calendar days to a high of 105
calendar days. Of the 10 Sign Site Development Review
applications sampled, three or 30% were deemed an incomplete
submittal . The median processing time to determine whether a
-23-
Sign Site Development Review application was a complete
submittal was 28 calendar days with a range from a low of six
calendar days to a high of 56 calendar days.
A total of 18 Administrative Conditional Use permits were sampled
to determine the amount of calendar days required to process the
application by the staff of the Planning Department from the date
of submittal to the date of approval by the Planning Director.
The median number of calendar days required to process these
Administrative Conditional Use permits was 14 days with a range
from a low of two calendar days to a high of 68 calendar days.
Of the 18 applications sampled, only one or 6% was deemed an
incomplete submittal . The median number of calendar days
required to determine whether an Administrative Conditional Use
Permit was a complete submittal was nine calendar days with a
range frcm a low of two calendar days to a high of 29 calendar days.
Overall , the Planning Department .is taking a longer amount of calendar
days to process applications than other planning departments which the
consulting team has analyzed. Based on the experience of the consulting
team, the Planning Department should be able to process these different types
of applications in a shorter amount of calendar time. The lengthy amount of
time required to process these applications appears to indicate problems with
the process for reviewing current planning applications. The amount of time
required to determine whether an application was a complete submittal was
also lengthy; in some instances, the time taken by staff exceeded that
allowed by State regulations. In addition, the reasons many applications
were found to be an incomplete submittal were basic and should have been
caught at the counter by the "Planner of the Day" at the time of submittal of
the appl ication. However, incomplete submittals by applicants also
contributed to these long processing times. As the sample indicated, as much
as 30% of the submittals were determined to be incomplete.
4. A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR STREAMi- INING THE PROCESS UTILIZED
FOR ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS.
There are a number of factors which unnecessarily complicate the process
uti I ized by the Planning Department for review and analysis of current planning
—24—
applications. These complications, however, are not difficult to resolve, and
. _ ample precedent exists as a guide for streamlining the process.
The improvements in the process are designed to satisfy the following
objectives:
To revise the process so that, to the extent possible,
- the applicant is provided the maximum feasible amount of
information regarding the problems likely to be encountered with
the proposed project as well as ail the requirements which the
applicant will need to satisfy before actually completing the
project.
To minimize processing delays related to transmittal of the
application to departments. for comment, assignment of each
application for analysis, and the like.
To maximize the extent to which each application is "managed and
controlled" as it moves through the current planning application
process, and to minimize, to the extent feasible, the possibi i ity
that applications can get "lost in the cracks" and lie idle for
significant periods of time.
To assure that applications are dealt with consistently within
the parameters of existing zoning guidelines and restrictions.
To influence the entire process and have a lasting impact rather
focusing only on portions of the process utilized to review and
analyze current planning applications.
These improvements focus on four areas. These four areas -- and the
specific recommendations made by the consulting team -- are summarized below.
Additional detail regarding each recommendation is presented in the pages
which follow.
Pre-application and submittal of applications.
Schedule current planning applications for a public hearing
( if required) at the time of the submittal of the
application -- if the application is determined to be
basically complete.
- Streamline application submittal requirements.
- Modify the role of the "Planner of the Day".
- Establish a Development Review Committee to provide earl
input to applicants with siz able projects regarding
conditions of approval .
- More fully develop application handouts.
-25-
Analysis of Applications
- Establish a planning and scheduling system for processing
current planning applications.
- The record management system should be modified to an
address-based system.
- Simplify staff reports submitted to the Zoning
Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council .
- Sign Site Development Review applications (except monument
signs) should not be referred to other departments for
comment.
- Modify the Site Development Review process to clarify Its
objectives, provide training to departments on its intent
and purpose, develop checklists for review of applications,
and treat different size/scope applications differently.
Do not restate the zoning ordinance or the subdivision
ordinance as conditions of approval .
Decison-making authority
Delegate additional decision-making authority for granting
current planning applications to staff and to the Zoning
Administrator.
Streamline the process for administrative conditional use
permits, converting this type of permit to zoning clearance
not requiring noticing of approval/disapproval .
Modify the Zoning Ordinance so that use permits do not
require ongoing renewal after an initial probationary period.
Regulatory philosophy. Adopt a service philosophy for the
Planning Department to provide staff direction in terms of
flexibility, "not sweating the small stuff", etc.
The sections which follow present these recommendations in more detail .
(1) Establish A Planning And Scheduling System For Processing Current
Planning Applications.
The purpose of the work planning and scheduling system is to make
visible the amount of staff. time and calendar time required to analyze
and reach an approval or disapproval decision on the following types of
applications:
Parcel maps
Subdivision Maps
Rezones
-26-
Site Development Review
Use permits
Variances
The specific objectives related to the design and development of
this system are as follows:
To establish a process whereby specific staff time and calendar
date targets are set for each application.
To generate data sufficient to assess the performance of both
individuals as well as the Planning Department in comparison to
those targets.
To provide a data base from which staff i ng requirements can be
analyzed and budget requests can be justified during the annual
budget process. .
OveraI I , data prov ided by the system should be sufficient to:
Indicate when caseload exceeds the time requirements and
commitments of individual professional staff.
Show the impact of overload on calendar times required to resolve
cases and on the amount of time staff have available to devote to
long-range planning.
Major elements of the system are as follows:
The Senior Planner for of the Current Planning Division would
review all incoming "major" applications, (e.g. , parcel maps, use
permits, rezones, subdivisions, etc. ) and analyze application
characteristics, focusing in particular on potential processing
difficulties. Once difficulties are identified, the Senior
Planner sets targets as follows: (1 ) overall staff time
allocated to process the applications; and (2) calendar targets
for completing the analysis of the applications. Based on the
target data, the Senior Planner reviews the most recent open case
inventory report and notes the workload of staff members; cases
are then assigned as appropriate. The Senior Planner then enters
the target data and the name of the project planner on a project
schedule sheet.
When projects are first assigned, the project planner to whom the
application was assigned reviews targets (calendar targets and
staff time allocations) established for the case. If the planner
feels the targets are unreasonable, the project planner should
discuss them with the Senior Planner and negotiate appropriate
changes. The project planner would then report actual time
required for the case utilizing his/her payroll card.
-27-
Uti I izatIon of the pay roI I system is the most effective approach
to identifying actual hours required to process each case and develop a
reporting system based on that case data. The Senior Planner for the
Current Planning Division would then utilize that data to compare
actual hours required to complete a case versus target hours.
Listed below are the suggested average processing times ( in
staff hours) plus high and low ranges which experience shows to
be characteristic of cases most commonly processed by other Planning
Departments.
Target Processing Times (Staff Hours)
for Current Planning Applications
Type of
Application Average Hiah Low
Parcel Map 18 32 8
Use Permit 18 32 8
Rezones 18 32 8
Tentative Sub-
division Map 30 60 16
Variance 12 16 8
Site Development
Review 32 80 12
Sign Site Develop-
ment Review 2 3 1
Administrative
Conditional Use
Permit 1 1 1
Building Permit
Plan Check 1 2 1
These target processing times should be utilized for each case.
The average val ue shoul d be uti I ized unless the case is cl early
significantly easier or more difficult than the average. if either
situation applies, the Senior Planner for the Current Planning
Division would decrease or increase the time allocation based on
Judgment.
-28-
Targets should also be established for the length of time -- in
". calendar days -- required to process applications from the date of submittal
to the date of the applications' initial public hearing. These processing
time targets should include a number of features:
The targets should be set for each organizational unit involved
in the processing of plans. Individual targets should be set for
Planning, Engineering, Building Inspection, and the like.
These targets should be established as a Joint effort by each of
these units. Ultimately, however, the City Manager needs to
review these targets to determine whether processing targets for
some units are either unacceptably long or too short.
The targets need to be differentiated according to the type of
plan being processed and its complexity. The target for
processing a use permit should be different than a subdivision
map.
The targets may need to be differentiated according to whether
the plan check is the first review, or a recheck of a revised
plan.
Possible calendar day targets for processing the different types of
current planning applications are presented in the table below.
Target Processing Times (Calendar Days) for
Processing Current Planning Applications
Target Processing Times
Type of Application (Calendar Days)
Variance 30
Use Permit
. Approved by Zoning Administrator 30
. Approved by Planning Commission 45
Sign Site Development Review 5
Administrative Conditional Use Permits 1
Site Development Review
• Approved by Planning Director 30
• Approved by Planning Commission 45
Parcel Map 60
Subdivision Map 90
Rezone 90
These possible targets for processing current planning applications should be
reviewed by the Planning Director and City Manager before being adopted, and
modified as necessary. These targets will need to be more flexible initially
than those suggested in the table. The Department does not initially want to
make commitmepts it cannot keep.
-,?o-
(2) The Record Management System Of The Planning Department Should
Be Converted To An Address-Based System.
The Planning Department has approximately 20 linear feet of hard
copy current planning records. These records consist of applications
processed by the Planning Department over the past five years. These
records are critical to the Department for a number of reasons
including:
Processing the applications for properties which have previously
submitted applications. Reviewing the case files for this
property provides the project planner with a history of condi-
tions imposed on the property,, problems encountered previously,
and a number of other data which are critical to processing the
appl ication,
Responding to inquiries received over the counter. The Planning
Department receives a number of inquiries each day regarding the
development history of a particular property.
Application files are utilized by professional planning staff in
conducting special studies and for long-range planning efforts.
Basically, these application files are used on a daily basis by
the professional planning staff of the Department. As a consequence,
it is essential that these f 11 es be based on a system which enabl es
easy access to the data contained within the f i I e. The system
currently utilized by the Planning Department files applications by
application number. This creates a number of obstacles to accessing
information readily. The first problem with this system is the ability
to determine the application number for a particular property. Neither
the public nor the staff of the Planning Department normally know their
application number. The system utilized at present records the
-- application numbers for each address on an assessor' s parcel map. This
requires staff to access the parcel map book and then determine the
different files required to be pulled for a single address. The second
—30—
problem is that data concerning the history of a single property could be
contained within a number of separate files reflecting the different
appl ications for that particular property. The current system of records for
current planning appl ications is cumbersome and requires significant effort
and time to retrieve data.
A new record management system should be developed for current planning
applications. (excluding parcel maps and subdivisons) . This system should be
based upon the address of each property. This is the most common system
uti I ized by other cities. In fact, it is the system uti I ized by the
Building Inspection Department. Development of this system for the Planning
Department will require a number of steps:
The application folders will need to be accessed to determine
the address for a particular property.
A new file folder will then need to be developed for that
particular address.
Properties with m u l t i p l e applications w i l l need to be assembled
in historical order, perhaps in multiple files.
A four—by-six card should be stapled on the opposite side of the
file and a brief history of the applications for the particular
property written onto the card (e. a. , use permit approved on
August 2, 1988) .
It is important that the conversion to an address-based system
not be a lengthy process in which the two different systems overlap.
The existing system is confusing, but the existence of two different
systems would be even more so.
-31-
(3) Delegate Additional Decision-baking Authority For Granting
Current Planning Applications To Staff And The Zoning
Administrator.
The City should take a "fresh" look at the final decision-making
authority for current planning applications and delegate authority to
staff and to the Zoning Administrator for appl ications which have a
lower exposure/ impact. A possible division of decision-making author-
ity is presented in the appendix at the end of this report (see
Appendix I ) . Specific recommendations regarding this division are
presented below.
An additional mount of decision-making authority should be
delegated to staff. Consideration should be given to delegating
to staff authority for approval of the following types of
applications.
Minor amendments to previously approved plans if the
changes requested are minor, do not involve substantial
alterations or additions to the originally approved plan or
the conditions of approval , and are consistent with the
intent of the original approval .
Change Section 8.87.60 of the Sign Ordinance to allow staff
approval of signs, and not require Conditional Use permits.
This would impact directional tract signs, community
identification signs, temporary promotional signs,
freestanding signs in excess of twenty feet in height,
time/temperature signs, special easement signs, and two
freestanding signs on parcels of four acres or greater
located adjacent to 1-580, 1-680 or the Flood Control
Channel .
The delegation of this authority will enable the Planning
Commission to focus on more critical , high impact issues.
Authority for approving low exposure/impact applications should be
delegated to the Zoning Administrator. The authority delegated to
the Zoning Administrator should be both specific as well as
general . The Administrator should be delegated authority for
approving/disapproving the following types of applications:
-32-
Variances from the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
Parcel Maps.
A limited extent of use permits focusing only on those
which are categoricaIIy exempt' from CEQ A, operational
changes in permits (e. g. , allowing a service station to
extend its hours of operation), and establishing a use
(e.g. , opening a restaurant) in an existing building which
does not require substantial remodeling to the existing
building.
The authority of the Zoning Administrator should include the ability to
refer to the Planning Commission even these "minor" use permits for
approval/d I sapproval if they become a high exposure/impact issue.
(4) Simplify Staff Reports Submitted To The Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission And The City Council .
Staff reports prepared by the Planning Department are typically
more "wordy" than necessary. A number of items are Included w ith i n
the staff report that other cities, which have streamlined their staff
reports, do not. For example:
The assessor parcel number is included in the general information
portion of the staff report.
The zoning history of the particular parcel .
The method of public notification.
In essence, the report should be simplified without removing essential
information which the Planning Commission and the City Council require
to make an informed decision. Further, reports presented to the Zoning
Administrator should, by and large, strictly be verbal presentations by
the project planner.
(5) Streamline The Process For Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
Section 8-87.61 of the Sign Ordinance requires the foilcwing
types of signs to obtain an Administrative Conditional Use Permit:
-33-
Grand opening temporary promotional signs.
Temporary promotional signs.
Temporary off-site sale or lease signs.
Identification signs.
These types of signs are considered conditional uses for which an
Administrative Conditional Use permit must be obtained. This section
of the Sign Ordinance should be modified to make these signs a
permitted use which requires zoning clearance. Zoning clearance could
be handled by clerical staff of the Planning Department and issued over
the counter. Currently, the Administrative Conditional Use permits
require a median of 14 calendar days to process and approve. Th i s
modification would affect roof balloons, promotional banners, grand
opening signs, and the like. At the same time, temporary uses, as
defined by section 8-60.60.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, should be
treated as permitted uses requiring zoning clearance. This would
affect such uses as Christmas tree lots, arts and crafts fairs,
carnivals, sales offices used for model homes, temporary sales
trailers, temporary construction trailers, and the like.
Al I of the above uses would be treated as permitted uses. This
zoning clearance would be issued over the counter by secretarial staff.
This would require the development of criteria for approval of a
zoning clearance and the provision of training to clerical staff.
These cr i ter i a w i I I need to be specs f is to the type of use (e.g. ,
insurance requirements for arts and crafts fairs). These criteria
-34-
r:
woul d then be uti I ized by the secretarial staff to issue zoning
clearance over the counter. In addition, a zoning clearance from
would need to be developed to maintain a record of what types of
uses were granted zoning clearance. A sample form, developed by
the City of Sunnyvale, is presented in the appendix (see Appendix
il ) .
(6) Modify The Zoning Ordinance So As To Not Require Renewal Of Use
Permits After An Initial Probationary Period.
Of the 24 Conditional Use' permits included in the sample for
processing time, 17% consisted of renewal of use permits. Renewal of
use permits can be expected to represent an increasing proportion of the
Conditional Use permit applications. Renewal of use permits presents a
number of problems including tracking the renewal period, notifying
applicants that their use permits need to be renewed, providing
sufficient lead time to applicants to assure that their existing
Conditional Use permits do not lapse, and the tike. The process for
- granting Conditional Use permits should be modified under the following
conditions:
Conditional Use Permits should initially be granted with a
- one-year probationary period.
If no complaints are filed against the applicant during that
one-year probationay period, the Conditional Use permit should be
renewed by staff, with no specific renewal period. In other words,
Conditional Use Permits would not contain a specific termination
date.
Modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow staff to initiate a
review/revoke process for the Conditional Use permits based on
complaints by citizens or the failure on the part of the
applicant to comply with all the conditions of the Conditional Use
permit.
-35-
The purpose of establishing renewal periods is to enable staff to
monitor the extent of compliance on the part of applicants for a
Conditional Use permit. For the large proportion of applicants, few if
any complaints are ever filed with the Planning Department. Rather
than establ ish a system designed to monitor comp) iance on the part of
all applicants for Conditional Use permits, the system should be
focused on those few applicants who generate problems and complaints.
(7) Schedule Current Planning Applications For A Public Hearing At
The Time Of Submittal If The Application Is Determined To Be
Basically Complete.
There are a number of cities, both large and small -- ranging
from San Carlos to Concord -- which utilize a process designed to
inform an applicant at the time of submittal of a current planning
application when the application will be heard by the Zoning Adminis-
trator or the Planning Commission. The process utilized by these
cities to provide this information to the applicant is as follows:
Develop checklists for determining whether applications are
complete at submittal . A key problem typically encountered by all
Planning Departments is the submittal of incomplete applications.
In samples drawn by this consulting firm, it is not unusual to
find 30% of all applications submitted to be incomplete. To help
reduce this problem, many cities have taken an approach of
developing checklists which either the "Planner of the Day" or
secretarial staff must complete before an application will be
accepted. This is intended to avoid the submittal of applications
which are clearly incomplete. A sample checklist utilized by the
City of Concord for use permits is presented in the Appendix (see
Appendix 111 ). This checklist, when completed, would be placed
in the case file for the applications.
Develop schedules for the public regarding the timing for
processing current planning applications. These schedules are
designed to inform the applicant when their applications will be
processed and considered by the Zoning Administrator, Planning
Commission or City Council. Again, this approach is utilized by a
number of cities. A sample schedule is presented in the Appendix
(see Appendix IV) . The schedule is designed to improve communica-
tion between the City and the applicant, and inform the applicant
when their application will be considered by the Zoning Adminis-
trator, Planning Commission or City Council .
-36-
There is no need for the Planning Department to re- Invent the
wheel and develop its own checklists. Rather, the Planning
Department should obtain the checklists utilized by the City of
Concord and modify them as fits the circumstances of the City of
Dublin. Further, the schedule developed by the Planning
Department should fit the calendar day targets established by the
City for processing the different types of permits. In this
case, different processing targets may need to be established for
different types of permits' given the variety of hearings required
for these different types of permits.
(8) Streamline Submittal Requirements.
Important points to note regarding the application submittal
requirements for current planning applications includes the following:
15 different items are included as part of the basic submittal
requirements for a Site Development Review application. These 15
different items include an application form, a fee/deposit form,
an environmental assessment form, location map, title report,
written statement from the applicant, site slides (35 mm) ,
overhead transparencies, reductions of plans to 8-1/2 inches by
11 inches, site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans,
roof plan, floor plan, and signs.
11 different items are required for Conditional Use permit
applications. These 11 items include an application form,
fee/deposit form, environmental assessment form, application map,
title report, written statement from the applicant, mailing
labels, site slides (35 mm) , overhead transparencies, and
reductions of the plans to 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches. In
addition, site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans,
floor p I ans, and sign plans may be required depending upon the
circumstances of the applications.
-37-
Nine different items are required for a Variance Application
including an application form, fee/deposit form, location map,
title report, written statement, mailing labels, site slides (35
mm) , site plans, and building elevation plans. In addition,
depending upon the circumstances of the application, an
environmental assessment form, overhead transparancies, plan
reductions to 8-1/2 inchs by 11 inches, landscape plans, roof
plans, and f I oor plans may be required.
Four different items are required for an Administrative
Conditional Use permit. These include an application form, a
fee/deposit form, a location map, and a written statement from
the applicant. In addition, depending upon the circumstances of
the appl ication, mail 1ng labels, site sl ides (35 mm) , reductions of
plans to 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, site pi ans, and sign plans may
be required.
These submittal requirements can be reduced. They should be
reduced as follows:
An environmental assessment form should not normally be required
for Conditional Use permits. The staff of the Planning Depart-
ment should be sufficiently familiar with CEQA requirements to
determine whether an application is exempt.
A location map should not be required if the applicant is
an owner/occupant of a single-family dwel I ing. Staff of the
Planning Department should develop these location maps.
A title report should not be required for Conditional Use permits
or Variances.
Site slides (35 mm) should not be required for Administrative
Conditional Use permits, Variances, or Conditional Use permits.
Instead, as part of the process for preparation of staff reports,
staff should go to the site and take these site slides.
Submittal requirements should be based on the minimum needs of the
Planning Department to analyze the application and develop findings and
recommendations regarding whether the application should be approved or
disapproved. A number of current submittal requirements appear to have
little bearing on analysis of the applications.
-38-
In addition, the app ication form utiI ized by the Planning
Department should also be streamlined. The appl ication form should be
stream ined to one page in length. A one-page appl ication should be
uti I ized for a I types of app ications ranging from a use permit,
rezoning, variance, tentative map, parcel map, and the like. A sample
one-page application form uti l ized by the Planning Division of the City
of Concord is pre- sented in the Appendix (see Appendix V) .
(9) Sign Site Development Review Applications Should Not Be Referred
To Other Departments For Cmuent.
Of the 10 Sign Site Development Review applications sampled for
processing time, six were referred to other departments for comment.
Sign Site Development Review should not require feedback and comments
from outside departments (except monument signs) . The development
criteria established by the sign ordinance should be sufficient for the
staff of the Planning Department to determine whether the sign meets
these criteria or not. As a matter of fact, the process uti I ized by
staff within the Planning Department for review and analysis of Sign
Site Development Review applications differs; some of the staff
referred these applications to outside departments for review and
comment while others do not. This discrepancy should be resolved.
Comments should not be sought from outside departments (except monument
signs) .
(10) The Role Of The "Planner Of The Day" Should Be Modified.
The "Planner of the Day" serves the counter and answers questions
from the public and from potential applicants regarding the Zoning
Ordinance, General Plan, and the like. In addition, the "Planner of the
-39-
Day" answers these same types of questions over the phone. The role of
the "Planner of the Day" should be modified to assume primary
responsibi I ity for the following:
Quality control of the application using a checkl ist to assure it
is complete at submittal .
Scheduling the application for public hearing at submittal .
Conducting over-the-counter plan checks.
The "PI anner of the Day" needs to serve a stronger role for
qual ity control of appl ications. The: "Planner of the Day" should be
responsible for assuring applications are complete at submittal . This
responsibility could, however, be delegated to secretarial staff after
sufficient training.
(11 ) Establish A Development Review Committee.
One of the concerns expressed by a number of the selected
applicants interviewed by the consulting team was "late hits" in
terms of conditions of approval . Applicants expressed concerns that
conditions of approval -- particularly major conditions -- need to be
expressed earlier in the review and analysis of applications. To
remedy this problem, the Planning Department should establish a Develop-
ment Review Committee to obtain feedback from other departments and/or
agencies regarding I I ke l y conditions of approval . The Devel opment
Review Committee should meet once every two weeks. The responsibilities
of the Development Review Committee should be clearly spelled out, most
likely within the Zoning Ordinance. A potential definition of the
responsibilities of the Development Review Committee is presented below:
—40—
Purpose: The purpose of the Development Review Committee is to:
Familiarize department representatives with proposed
projects and provide an opportunity for exchange of views
on project characteristics that are of mutual concern.
Enable the Director of Planning to discuss project impacts
with representatives of other departments prior to
preparation of staff reports for the Planning Commission
and City Council .
Allow Departmental representatives to discuss potentially
significant impacts, the nature of mitigation measures and .
conditions of approval , and the need for background studies.
To prov i de f eedback to app I icants ear I y i n the process of
review of their application regarding likely conditions of
approval and mitigation measures.
Development Review . Committee: A Development Review Committee is
hereby establ ished. The Development Review Committee shall be
composed of the following persons or their representatives:
The Director of Planning, who shall act as Chair.
- The Public Works Director/City Engineer.
The Fi re Marshal of the DRFA.
Chief Building Official .
The Development Review Committee may include the representatives
of other City departments or other public agencies, at the
invitation of the Chair or any other member of the Development
Review Committee. Meetings of the Development Review Committee
shall be scheduled during business hours at the time and place
convenient to the Committee. Attendance ' by the applicant and
authorized agent is encouraged but not required.
Duties of the Development Review Committee: At the Development
Review Committee meeting, the Director of Planning shall describe
the requirements of the review process. Department
'representatives shall :
State concerns based on preliminary review of project
plans and materials.
Ask questions of the Director and/or applicant to clarify
their understanding of the project.
-41-
Discuss the preliminary and potentially significant
impacts, the nature of any mitigation measures and con-
ditions of approval , and any background studies that may
be required.
The Planning Director shall distribute the plans for the
project no less than three working days prior to the
meeting.
Within five working days of the meeting, all members shall
transmit their written comments and preliminary conditions of
r approval to the Director of Planning. Within ten working days,
the Director of Planning shall •mail written comments to the
applicant and a statement of the type and sequence of approvals
necessary.
Required plans and materials. The following materials shall be
submitted by the applicant, provided that the Planning Director
may waive submission of items deemed unnecessary:
A fully dimensioned site plan.
Elevations of proposed structures and signs with exterior
materials and wall openings indicated.
Cross-sectional drawings showing cuts, f i I l s, and floor
I evel s.
- Calculations in tabular form showing compliance with
applicable density, floor area coverage, parking, and open
space regulations.
Applicability. A preliminary development review shall be required
for: (1 ) projects requiring a general plan amendment, specific
plan approval , or zoning amendment; and (2) projects involving
construction of 10,000 square feet or more.
Initially, a representative of the City Manager' s office should
participate in these meetings to assure prompt response by operating
departments to requests for preliminary conditions of approval .
-42-
(12) Modify The Site Development Review Process.
The purpose of the Site Development Review -- as stated in
section 8-95.0 of the Zoning Ordinance -- 1s "to promote orderly,
attractive, and harmoneous deveI opments; recognize env ironmentaI
I imitations of development; stabi I ize land values and investments; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or
erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the
specific intent clauses or performance standards of this chapter or
which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic
circulation, or their environmental settings. " Site Development Review
i s genera I I y req u 1 red f or any structure of 1 ,000 sq uare f eet or more or
any construction aggregating 1 ,000 square feet or more. The process
uti I ized for site development should be modif led in a number of its
approaches. These modifications are presented below:
The objectives of Site Development Review need to be clarified.
While the Zoning Ordinance Indicates that the primary purpose of
Site Development Review is to focus on aesthetics, in actual
fact the Planning Department also focuses on the conformance of
the plan to development standards ( i.e. , setbacks, heights,
impact on the infrastructure, etc. ) . The Zoning Ordinance should
be modified to expand on the intent and purpose of Site
Development Review to include conformance of the application to
development standards. This would include a review of site
development review applications to assure conformance to:
Minimum lot area.
Minimum lot width.
Minimum front, rear, and side yard setbacks
Height.
- Landscaping requirements (not their aesthetics) .
Parking.
-43-
General Plan ( 1.e. , density, land use, etc. ) .
- Permitted uses within the zone, or whether a conditional
use permit would be required.
I of rastructure req u i rements such as right-of-way
dedication, street improvements, traff is impact fees, water
or sewer improvements needed, etc.
Departments involved in Site Development Review need to be
trained in its intent and purpose. A review of a number of Site
Development Review applications indicates that some departments
appear to lack a clear understanding of the intent and purpose of
Site Development Review. For example:
-
In a review of a site development plan, one department
indicated that the proposed handicap parking space should
be pal nted w i th bl ue I i nes, the area in f ront of the store
should be painted red and marked with signs stating "f ire
lane - no parking"; the yellow loading zone should be
removed, and the proposed location of the trash dumpster
should be moved. Another department commented that where
ponding occurs within the parking lot, it shall be
el iminated; a prov Ision shat I be made to convey water
through the planters; where water travels along a curb, a
curb and gutter shall be used; the proposed two- Inch PVC
drain pipe is not large enough; stop bars, lettering,
symbols, and speed bumps shall be painted white; and the
ramps at the driveway shall be constructed according to
City specifications; and the like.
In another Site Development Review, one department
indicated that the west wall of the new building must be
one hour with no openings and must have a 30-inch high
parapet wall . Another department indicated that the front
door must be equipped with a double cylinder dead bolt; the
rear door must be of steel clad construction with single
cylinder dead bolt; landscaping in the front is not to
exceed two and one-half feet in height when mature; and
that handicap parking is to comply with current vehicle
requirements. Another department indicated that the
asphalt cut has been delineated on the Wong side of the
pavement; the area to the south does not appear to drain
and the developer shall show the drainage pattern; handicap
parking stalls shall have signs and marking; detail of the
trash enclosure must be submitted for review; minimum
pavement sections shall be two inches of asphalt over six
inches of aggregate; and the like.
-44-
In another Site Development Review, one department
indicated that three handicap parking spaces are required.
Another department indicated that the applicant would be
required to move and replace any broken curb, gutter, and
sidewalk; repair the ends of the curb at the westerly
driveway entrance, and the like. Another department
indicated the skylight should be secured with a grate or
alarm, vandal-proof lamps should be used for exterior
lights, and the like. Many (but not ail) of these comments
indicate that - by and large -- most of the departments
involved In Site Development Review do not understand its
purpose and intent.
Many of these comments (but not ail) are more appropriate to the
building permit plan check process. At this time, the approach
being utilized by the Planning Department for Site Development
Review is a "vacuum cleaner" approach and the comments are
.focusing on "nitty gritty" details. This is not the purpose and
intent of Site Development'Review.
Site Development Review applications which are different in scope
and size should be processed in a different manner. Currently,
the Planning Department utilizes the same process for Site
Development Review of applications, regardless of whether an
application is small or large. in essence, an application to
add 264 square feet to an existing restaurant and another
application for a 135 unit condominium complex proposed are both
treated alike. The process should be modified; additions or
alterations should not be treated in the same manner as new
construction. Additions or alterations which are small in nature
should not be referred to other departments for review and
comment. In those instances, the Planning Department alone
should review these Site Development Review applications for
asthetics and conformance to development criteria and standards.
Of the eight Site Development Review applications included in the
sample, six w ou I d not h av a been referred out to outside
departments under these criteria. Only two would have been
referred out to other departments. Elimination of this referral
will reduce the processing time by approximately two to three
weeks.
Guidelines should be developed to provide clear direction to
applicants as to the design policies of Dublin. Currently, the
City lacks design criteria identifying what the City Council ' s
vision is for the City of Dub[ in. Without such guidelines,
applicants will not be certain what the City really is looking
for in terms of the design of structures, the sites they occupy,
and landscaping. These written guidelines are needed to reduce
the number of redesigns and resubmittals which have occurred in
the past. Such guidelines, for example, might specify in greater
detail such factors as:
-45-
Preservation of the current landscape in its natural state,
where possible, by minimizing tree and soil removal and
major grade changes.
Screening of exposed storage areas, machinery
— installations, service areas, and so on to avoid their
incongruity with surrounding properties.
— Undergrounding of utility services.
Separation of vehicular traffic and pedestrian walkways.
Not oversizing structures on the sites in which they are
located or in terms of their visual relationship to adjacent
buildings.
If design criteria and guidelines cannot be specified, then
criticisms that the Site Development Review process is "too
subjective" and "uncertain" will have greater validity. These
checklists and criteria will remove the tendency, at times, for
City staff to get too involved in minute details. When these
checklists and criteria are developed, orientation sessions
between the Planning Department and developers, builders,
architects, and others should be held to explain and discuss them
so their intent, meaning, and interpretation are clearly
understood by all parties.
. Consider retaining a Design Review Consultant to train staff of
the Planning Department in Architectural Review and assist them
with recommendations and negotiations with specific applications
when needed. A common problem with design review processes in
most cities is the lack of architectural design expertise among
staff of Planning Departments. A few cities ( i. e. , Costa Mesa,
Larkspur, etc. ) , use the assistance of an architectural consultant
for training staff and even for analysis of specific
applications. The cost for training would have to.be borne by the
City. However, work on specific applications is typically
charged to the applicant. Used carefully, the assistance of an
architectural consultant can improve the effectiveness of the
process. An architectural consultant could perform the following
functions in Dublin:
Training staff.
Provide expertise on specific applications where needed.
Assist in the development of specific design review
standards.
The cost for an architectural consultant depends upon the time
he/she devotes. Typical per hour cost is about $85 to $100.
-46-
In addition to this cost consideration, the City should carefully
consider the abilities and styles of potential architectural
consultants. It is important to find one who understands the desires
of the City and is able to train staff and work effectively with
applicants.
(13) Develop More Effective Handouts.
Currently, the Planning Department has a number of effective
handouts including handouts for variances, subdivisions, planned
development, general plan amendment, environmental assessments, use
permits, and Site Development Review. . Each handout contains basic
information explaining the nature of each application, how each
application i s processed, specific steps involved, how long i t w i l l
take to process the application, and the like. While these applica-
tion handouts are very descriptive, there are a number of issues
with these handouts as well :
The City lacks a handout for a sign permit.
- The brochures which the Planning Department does provide do not
specify the submittal requirements for each type of application.
The Department lacks sample plot plans to help the novice
applicant. Trying to explain to an applicant what should be
-- incl uded on their pl ans is very diff icuit, and rarely do they
remember all the things discussed. Graphics should help explain
the required information more easily and possibly help the
applicant better understand what is needed, thus saving time for
all parties concerned.
There are a number of graphic and content issues within the
existing brochures including use of small print for the
brochures, the lack of graphics to illustrate issues, and the
lack of examples ( i. e. , examples of findings identifying under
what circumstances a variance would be Justified).
By and large, the Planning Department has developed effective
handouts for the public to explain the processes utilized to review and
analyze current planning applications. However, some minor
modifications are required to enhance their effectiveness.
-47-
(14) Avoid Including Provisions Of The Zoning Ordinance And Subdivision
As Conditions Of Improvement.
One of the concerns stated by selected applicants interviewed by
the consulting team was the lengthy number of conditions of improvement
imposed by the Planning Department. For example, for one project,
_ the Planning Department imposed 61 different conditions of approval .
A review of these conditions of approval by the consulting team
indicated that many of these conditions are (or should be) part of
the zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance. For example, some of
the conditions of improvement which appear to state the obvious include
the fol lowing:
"Prior to issuance of building permits, a parcel map shall be
filed creating this parcel . "
"The developer is reminded that the tentative map expires in
two and one-half years from the date of approval . It is rec-
ommended that an extension request be submitted to the Planning
Director for consideration as soon a possible. "
"A condominium plan shall be filed for this property prior to
occupancy of any unit. "
"Construction plans submitted for building permits shall include
details on design, dimensions, locations and materials for the
swimming pool , spa, gazebo, mail kiosk, tennis court, and trash
enclosures. These details are subject to review and approval by
the Planning Director."
"A street naming and numbering system based on the City address
grid system must be submitted for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Department prior to the issuance of building
permits. "
"Driveway aprons shall be concrete and receive a finish
distinctly different from that portion of the driveway which
aligns with the walkway. In addition, one-half inch expansion
Joints for the concrete driveway apron shall be located in the
driveway to al ign with the adjacent walkway."
"Minimum building setback from internal roads shall be five feet,
except that a minimum of 15 feet setback is required for the
main entry road. "
-48-
"Ail uncovered parking spaces shall be shown to be at least nine
feet in width and 18 feet in length. Compact spaces shall be
shown to be at least eight feet in width and 17 feet in length.
A two-foot overhang ( into a landscaped area) is permitted. "
"Transformers, irrigation control boxes, backf low devices, valves,
and the like, shall be enclosed in vaults, fencing, and/or
painted out and landscaped, as determined acceptable by the
Planning Director. "
"A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any grading to the
site."
"An encroachment permit is required for all work in the public
r i ght-of-way. "
"The structural designs for sound walls shall be submitted to the
.City for review and approval ."
"Exterior I fighting shat I be provided on stairwel Is, dwel I ing
entrances, and by street and unit numbers. "
"No off-site subdivision signs shall be utilized within the City
limits until the appropriate conditional use permit approvals are
secured. "
In reviewing the conditions imposed on this project, it would
appear that as much as half of these conditions are stating the
obv sous. This would not appear to be an effective uti I ization of the
time of the staff of the Planning Department; plus the number of
conditions and the level of "natty gritty" details could overwhelm the
applicant. Another approach could be utilized. For those applicants
which have had experience with the regulations and rules of the City of
Dublin before, the Planning Department should avoid stating the
obvious. For applicants who have not had such experience with the City
of Dublin' s rules and regulations, the staff of the Planning Department
should verbal ly familiarize the applicants with these rules and
regulations, particularly as they will apply to the applicant' s
proposed development. Another alternative would be to develop a
standard set of conditions. The applicant would then be expected to
meet these standard conditions, but they need not be typed as part of
the conditions imposed on the applicant.
-49-
(15) Adopt A Regulatory Philosophy For The Planning Department.
A regulatory philosophy is simply a statement of what the Planning
Department intends to do for the applicant. Specifically, an effective
regulatory philosophy:
Is a non-trivial statement of intent.
Has value in the eyes of the applicant.
Is deliverable by the Planning Department.
Noticeably diffentiates the City's Planning Department from other
planning departments.
.A- statement of regulatory philosophy functions first and foremost
as an internal focus of effort. It is based on an understanding of a
combination of the policies of the City Council , expectations of the
applicant, expectations of the- residents of the City of Dublin,
expectations of the applicant regarding the process of doing "business"
with the Planning Department, and an in-depth analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses of the Planning Department. That information must be
distlIIed in a statement that can be understood by the employee and the
applicant alike.
A possible regulatory philosophy for the Planning Department is
presented in the Appendix (see Appendix VI ). Employees of the
department must be aligned with this regulatory philosophy. To
achieve that alignment, the regulatory philosophy must be actively
communicated to the employees of the department and utilized during
performance evaluation of these employees as well . Communication of the
message is not a single event, however. It is a continuing effort
that can never be pronounced done. It would be appropriate for the
-50-
Planning Director, when problems occur with alignment, to counsel
the employee on how he/she could have acted differently to achieve
alignment with the regulatory philosophy.
When it comes to improving service quality, the discussion begins
and ends with the appl icants' assessment. Superior service quality is
_. there if the appi icant says so, and it is not there if the appl icant
votes thumbs down. What' s more, the only true and rel iabl a measurement
of service qual ity is the assessment of the apps icant' s most recent
experiences with the organization and their level of satisfaction with
those experiences. One of the most common characteristics of
outstanding service providers is their dedication to measuring customer
satisfaction and using the results to guide operations. They measure
formally. They measure frequently. And they attach important outcomes
to the results. Because the results of service measurements are
meant to be taken seriously, the most effective systems are those that
produce actionable information. The object of the data is more than
"smile ratings", in other words. The questions asked are very specific
to the particular customer. A caref u I I y crafted ser i es of quest i ons
probe into the customer's assessment of all aspects of the encounter
with the organization including timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness,
courtesy, completeness of information, response to inquiries by the
customer, and any other appropriate questions that build the overall
impression of quality in a specific manner. The Planning Department
should uti I ize the questionnaire, much like that utilized by the
-51-
consulting team, to obtain feedback from applicants regarding the level
and qual ity of service provided by the department. It should be done
at the completion of every application, when the application has been
approved or disapproved. The responses should be summarized on a
quarterly basis, with the results fed back to employees of the Planning
Department. The results of the questionnaire should be widely
discussed and used for problem-solving meetings among staff of the
Planning Department. The numbers should not Just be posted or sent out
as a complaint summary memo with a "FYI"; this does not really call for
any significant action. Rather; the information should be utilized to
change the process utilized by the Planning Department to provide
services to its applicants as appropriate.
The streamlining and simplification of the process utilized by the
Planning Department should reduce the workload of staff of the Planning
Department and enable the staff to allocate more time and effort to the mid
and the long-range planning program. The Department -- in essence -- has
tended to "sweat the small stuff". As a consequence, the Planning Department
has been unable to address the mid and long-range planning work program
established by Council every fiscal year in any realistic manner. Equally as
well , the gap between revenue and expenditures has grown over the past five
years. With the streamlining and simplification of the process utilized by
the Planning Department to review and analyze applications, both these
problems should be redressed.
5. THE NET COST TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR PLANNING SERVICES HAS TRIPLED
OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
Budget cuts, high interest costs, reductions in inter-governmental
transfers . . . more and more, large and small governments face fiscal
-52-
problems Iike these. In this environment, municipal officials seek to
improve government output, and develop alternatives to shrink budgets. Local
governments are also turning to user fees and charges in efforts to diversify
their revenue base.
The table below presents the revenue recovery for provision of
planning sery ices on the part of the City of Dubl in for the f five f fiscal years
since 1984-1985.
. Cost of Providing Planning Services
Versus Revenue Recovery .for these Services
Percent
Actual Expenditures/ Net City Cost
Fiscal Year Authorized B udoet Revenues Cost Recovery
1984-1985 $172,980 $ 62,000 $110,980 35.8%
1985-1986 261 ,562 84,000 177,562 32.1
1986-1987 338,288 110,000 228,730 32.5
1987-1988 402,730 106,000 296.,730 26.3
- 1988-1989 725,370 375,000 350,370 51 .7
Important points to note about this table are as follows:
In fiscal year 1984-1985, the City recovered approximately 35.8%
of its costs for providing planning services in user fees. The
net City cost for providing planning services was $110,980.
In 1985-1986, the City recovered approximately 32.1% of its costs
for providing planning sery ices In user fees. The net City cost
was $177,562.
In 1986-1987, the City recovered approximately 32.5% of its costs
for providing planning services in user fees. The net City cost
was approximately $228,730.
In 1987-1988, the City recovered approximately 26.3% of its cost
for providing planning services in user fees. The net City cost
was approximately $296,730 for providing planning services.
. In 1988-19891, the City has estimated it will recover
approximately 51 .7% of its cost for providing planning services via
- user fees. However, this percentage has increased as a result of
contributions for general plan amendments. Furthermore, the net
City cost for providing planning services Is estimated to
approximate $350,370.
-53-
Over the four fiscal years from 1984-1985 to 1987-1988, the City has
recovered approximately 25% to 35% of its costs for providing planning
services via user fees for such services. From fiscal year 1984-1985 to
fiscal year 1987-1988, the general fund of the City subsidized the cost of
planning services. This subsidy ranged from 65% to 75% of the actual
expenditures of the Planning Department.
This subsidy appears to contrast with the philosophy of the City Council .
The City Council has adopted a policy of full cost recovery for sery ices which
benefit a specific customer. The discrepancy between the pol icy of the City
Council and the actual cost recovery for planning services appears to result
from a number of probI ems. These problems include the following:
Some of the City's f l at fees for services are lower than other
cities in the Tr i-Val ley area. The user fees for planning services
charged by the City in comparison to four other cities, Pleasanton,
Danville, Livermore, and San Ramon, do not appear to be competi-
tive in some instances (see Appendix V I I for a comparison of
fees) . Important facts to note regarding the comparison are
presented below:
The user fee charged by the City of Dubl in for a Conditional
Use Permit is lower than any of the other four cities.
The user fee charged by the City of Dubl in for a Variance
Is lower than three of the four other cities. Only the
City of Pleasanton charges a fee comparable to the City of
Dublin.
The City of Dubl in does not charge a fee for an appeal ,
unlike the four other cities.
The fees charged for zoning clearance (Administrative Conditional
Use Permit) and Sign Permit are comparable or a little higher
than some of these four other cities in the Tri-Valley area.
Overall , the flat fees charged by the City of Dublin for planning
services appear to be laver than these four other cities. This is
not surprising since the City of Dubl in has not updated its fee
schedule for planning services for approximately five years.
Unl ike the other four cities, the City of Dubl in charges cost or
cost plus for other types of permits. This includes parcel map,
-54-
subdivision map, and site development review applications.
However, the City's basis for determining cost appears to utilize
an overhead f actor which does not ref I ect the City's cost. The
current overhead factor ranges from 25% to 36% (depending upon
whether a contract planner is utilized). The Director of
Finance, however, documented an overhead factor of approximately
50% to 70% for f fiscal year 1985-1986. However, the overhead
factor in use for determining the City's cost for processing a
parcel map, subdivision map, or site development review is
one-half of that documented by the Finance Director. As a
consequence, the City is not recovering its real cost for
processing a parcel map, subdivision map, or site development
review. In fact, the overhead rate charged only attempts to
recover Department-wide overhead, not City-wide overhead. It
falls -to include a number of City-wide costs which should be
included such as building space occupied by the Planning
Department; depreciation of fixed assets (e.g. , furniture);
administrative support provided to the Department by the City
Manager' s Office, City Attorney, etc. ; sick leave and vacation
accrual ; and the like. Further, the overhead rate currently
utilized falls to factor the staffing changes which have
occurred recently such as the addition of the Clerk-Typist/
Receptionist.
The standard deposit charged by the City appears to be
insufficient. Currently, the City charges a standard deposit of
$875. Most frequently, the standard deposit does not appear to
recover the City's real cost for processing an application. As a
consequence, the City must seek reimbursement from the applicant
for the cost of processing the applicant' s proposal . On
occasion, th is w i I I occur of ter a project has been approved. On
occasion, the applicant will not reimburse the City for its cost.
The Finance Department has estimated that it has 30 delinquent
accounts at present who are $20,000 to $30,000 in arrears. The
Finance Department is planning on taking these accounts to court
to seek reimbursement for the City's costs.
A number of actions are recommended to resolve these issues as follows:
The Finance Director should document the City's basis for
overhead. This overhead factor should be designed to recover
indirect costs such as clerical support, services and suppl ies,
and the I ike. The cost of overhead w i I I exceed the 25% to
36% factor presently utilized. This updated overhead figure
should be utilized for all applications which are charged on a cost
basis including parcel maps, subdivision maps, and site
development rev iew.
The City should consider levying a fee on building permits for
the cost of building permit plan checking by the Planning
Department.
The City should adopt a revised fee schedule for planning. This
revised fee schedule should levy a fee for appeals and charge
-55-
cost for conditional use permits and variances (other than
owner/occupants of single-family dwel I ings) . A revised fee
schedule for consideration of the City Council is presented in
the Appendix (see Appendix IIX).
The City should base its deposits on the average cost for
processing each different type of application. This will result
in different amounts for each different type of application. In
addition, two forms should be developed for deposits:
A checkl 1st to be uti I lzed at the counter by staff to assure
staff discuss all the critical issues with the applicant
regarding the deposit (e.g. , if costs exceed the deposit,
the applicant will be required to deposit additional
monies) .
A form for the applicant to sign off acknowledging the
monies deposited as a deposit only.
It is unlikely the City will ever fully recover its costs for planning
services. This is a reflection of the time expended on long-range planning
by staff of the department as wet I as the I over fees for residents of the
City. However, the Planning Department should be expected to recover more than
25% to 35% of its cost through user fees.
The next chapter provides an analysis of the organization and staff ing
of the Planning Department.
-56-
e
IY. ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
STAFFING OF THE PL ANN I NG DEPARTMENT
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This chapter provides an analysis of a number of issues including the
following:
The current plan of organization of the Planning Department.
The level of professional staffing within the Planning
Department.
Opportunities to streamline work practices within the
Department.
The mid and long-range work program for the Planning Department
and the extent of staffing required to support accomplishing
that work program.
The sections which follow contain our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations regarding these issues.
1 . THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE ORGANIZED INTO A CURRENT PLANNING
DIVISION AND A LONG-RANGE PLANNING DIVISION.
Principal focus of the analysis of the organization structure of the
Planning Department was as follows:
How should the Department' s management and administrative
organization be structured to meet both current and future
demands related to planning of the City?
What should be the role of the management of the Department
(Planning Director as well as Senior Planners)?
Are current managers (Planning Director as well as Senior Planners)
appropriately utilized in providing appropriate direction to
subordinates?
The section which follows identifies issues which exist as a result of
the present form of organization of the Planning Department.
(1) A Number Of Issues Exist With The Present Form Of Organization Of
-The Planning Department.
A variety of issues characterize the current plan of organization
of the Planning Department. These issues include the following:
-57-
The Planning Director serves as the central focus for all
planning decision-making, hampering internal communications and
limiting the effective utilization of Senior Planners. The
central focus for tieing together planning services -- for
providing the day-today direction necessary for all of .the staff
of the Planning Department -- is the Planning Director.
-_ With the Planning Director' s heavy commitment to major projects
(e.g. , East Dublin General Plan Amendment) , his accessibility for
internal staff is frequently limited. To the extent that the
Planning Director' s availability to staff is limited:
Internal communications are hampered.
Decision-making is slow.
Information gaps occur.
The Director cannot continue to serve as the central focus in
assuring constant emphasis on the cost-effectiveness of planning
services given his external commitments.
Fran the Perspective of Providing Middle-level Manaqement, the
Senior Planner Positions Should be Viewed as Underutilized. The
managerial role of the Senior Planner Involves work planning and
control , productivity monitoring, staff development, and the like.
There are a number of factors, however, suggesting the Senior
Planner positions are underutilized.
The Senior Planners are functioning as Project Planners,
allocating almost all of their time to the review and
analysis of applications. in this role, the Senior Planners
are performing the same tasks as the Associate Planner.
The day-to-day responsibility for managing the Planning
Department -- in terms of current planning and long-range
planning -- is assigned to the Planning Director.
These factors raise issues concerning the effectiveness of the
role of the two Senior Planners In managing the day-to-day
operations of Planning Services.
The Planning Director has and rill continue allocation of a
significant proportion of his t i ate to general plan amendments.
Currently, the City is processing or about to commence processing
several large general plan amendments. These include the Donlan
Canyon General Plan Amendment amounting to 200 acres; the East
Dubl in General Plan Amendment/Specif 1c Plan consisting of 7,400
acres; and the West Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
-58-
which consists of 4,000 acres. By any scale, these general plan
amendments are large in scope and size. Given the impact of
these general plan amendments and specific plans on the future of
the City of Dublin, the Planning Director will need to be
intensively involved in the preparation of these general plan
amendments and specific plans. Given that role, it is unlikely
the Planning Director will be able to allocate the appropriate
amounts of time needed to resolve a number of opportunities for
improvement.
There are a Number of Opportunities for Improvement Which Need to
be Resolved. The Planning Department is characterized by a
number of positive factors. However, there are also a number of
opportunities for improvement which require attention by
management of the Department. These include such opportunities as
follows:
- The streamlining of the process utilized by the Planning
Department for acceptance, analysis, and approval/dis-
approval of current planning applications.
- The installation of an automated information system to
provide both land use information as well as permit
i of ormat i on.
- Completing the work tasks associated with the mid and
long-range planning goals and objectives adopted for the
Planning Department by the City Council .
- Obtaining an improved cost recovery for planning services
provided to appl icants.
- Improving the satisfaction of applicants with the services
provided by the Planning Department.
Overall , there appear to be a number of opportunities which
require attention by management of the Planning Department.
The resolution of these issues in the organization of the Planning
Department and opportunities for improvement in service delivery
requires a different approach to the organization of staff within the
Department. Heretofore, the current plan has not been able to
successfully address these issues.
-59-
(2) Any Modifications To The Current Organization Should Achieve
Several Key Objectives.
Basic objectives for improving the current plan of organization
and staff ing for the Planning Department should encompass the following:
Recognize the Planning Director cannot serve as the focus for
tieing together every planning process and function within the
Department.
That distinct organizational focus for two key areas needs to be
established including:
Current planning services including analysis of current
planning appl ications :and mid-range planning.
- Long-range planning including the accomplishment of
long-range planning goals and objectives set forth for the
.. Department by the City Council .
Each of these two key functions need to be placed under
middle- level managers (Senior Planners) who have direct
accountability for the performance of these services.
It needs to be recognized that over the short and medium-range,
the high visibi I ity and I arge scale and scope of the general pl an
amendments and specific plans will continue to absorb significant
portions of the Director' s time and attention. This is only
appropriate given their size and scope and long-range impact on
the City of Dub[ in.
Additional managerial skills -- those possessed by the Senior
Planners -- need to be uti I ized by the Department.
These objectives should serve to guide the modification of the
structure of the Planning Department.
(3) A Revised Plan Of Organization Has Been Developed To Resolve
Identified Issues.
The issues noted above indicate that it is important that both
the management organization and selected management approaches to
_._
planning sery ices need to be adjusted within the Planning Department.
Basic components of the reorganization are described below:
-60-
Adjust the Imbalance of Workload Involving the Planning Director.
Principal objectives of this adjustment ought to be:
To reduce the involvement of the Director In day-to-day
meetings with developers, consulting planners and
architects, etc. , and align him to deal with the managerial
improvements required within planning services and increase
his ability to devote managerial attention to the general
plan amendments and specific plans.
To increase the City's in-house planning management
capacity (Senior Planners) to reduce the need for the
Director' s immediate involvement in current planning.
Establish a Current Planning Division and Assign Responsibility
for Managing it to Senior Planner. The Senior Planner in
charge of the current Planning Division would have a number of
responsibilities including:
Directly supervising all staff assigned to the Current
Planning Division.
Assigning all applications to staff of the Division and
planning and scheduling the completion of the analysis of
these applications.
Quality controlling staff reports before submittal to the
Planning Commission. The Senior Planner would have total
responsibility for this quality control . The Planning
Director would not be involved in this review.
Representing the Planning Department before the Planning
Commission.
Representing the Planning Department at the Development
Review Committee and in all negotiations with applicants
regarding conditions of improvement.
- Managing the accomplishment of mid-range planning goals and
objectives (e.a. , updating the Zoning Ordinance) established
by the City Council .
This Senior Planner would be responsible for managing all facets
of the Current Planning Division.
Establish a Long-Range Planning Division and Assign
Responsibility for Managing that Division to a Senior Planner.
The Senior Planner will be totally responsible for long-range
planning for the City of Dublin. These include such
' responsibilities as the following:
Supervising the contract planner assigned to the West
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan.
Interfacing with consultants preparing general plan
amendments, specific plans, and environmental impact reports
ensuring these consultants complete their assigned tasks
within budget and schedule.
-61-
Performing in a working role in completing the long-range
planning goals and objectives identified for the Planning
Department by the City Council .
This proposed plan of organization is designed to redress the issues
previously noted -- particularly the intense involvement of the Planning
Director in the day-to-day operations of the Planning Department and the
underutilization of the Senior Planner positions.
2. AN ASSISTANT PLANNER POSITION SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED FOR THE CURRENT
PLANNING DIVISION.
To assess current planning workload, comparisons were made of work-
load and staffing to three other Bay Area cities. Important points to note
about the comparison are as follows:
The cities of Novato and Cupertino have significantly higher
current planning application workload than either the cities of
San Ramon or Dublin. Review of the workload data indicates that
each of these cities have a greater extent of applications for
design review, parcel map, major subdivision map, use permit,
rezone, and the like. Each of these cities staff their Current
Planning Divisions with four staff.
The City of San Ramon has comparable workload to the City of
Dublin. While the City of San Ramon has a greater number of design
review, rezone, and general plan amendment applications, the City
of Dublin has a greater number of site development review, sign,
conditional use, Currie t Planning Division nwith a total of three of San
_ Ramon staffs its 9
staff.
In comparison to the other three cities, the City of Dublin
allocates approximately three FTE staff for processing current
planning applications. This includes the contract planner, but
deducts approximately one-half staff year for processing of
general plan amendments which is considered a long-range planning
activity.
As a rough measure, the similarity of workload between the cities of
San Ramon and Dublin would Indicate that three professional staff should be
sufficient for processing current planning applications for the Planning
Department for the City of Dublin. The specific data from each of these
cities is presented in the'Appendix (see Appendix IX).
-62-
Additionally, workload factors were applied to determine staffing
- requirements for processing current planning applications. This is presented
specifically in the Appendix (see Appendix X). Important points to note
concerning this determination include the following:
The Appendix lists the types of permits processed by the Planning
Department. These include administrative conditional use,
conditional use, sign site development review, site development
review, variance, rezone, planned development, and parcel map
applications, as well as building permit plan checks.
The Appendix notes the number of applications processed by the
Planning Department in 1988 for each of these different types of
permits ranging from a l ow . of one parcel map to a high of an
estimated 275 building . permits checked by the Planning
Department.
The Appendix lists the average processing times which experience
shows are typically characteristic of cases processed by planning
departments.
The Appendix notes the total staff hour requirements to process
these applications in 1988. In sum, it would appear a total of
1 ,635 staff hours -- the equivalent of a staff year -- are
required to process these permits.
The average staff hours assumes, however, that the current planning
processes are streamlined and staff of the department are not spending more
time to process these applications than reasonably required. Given the
current processes utilized by the Planning Department, these average staff
hours are "lean". This workload assessment also does not include coverage of
the counter nor phones as the "Planner of the Day". Based on daily logs
completed by the staff of the Planning Department, it would appear that this
would require an additional one-half staff year. Further, it should be
expected that the Senior Planner would allocate approximately one-half of
his/her time to the supervision of the Current Planning Division. However,
the net sum of this workload would appear to indicate that with three
professionals in the Division, an additional staff year is available to
handle other tasks (e. g. , mid-range planning).
-63-
These other tasks should be those mid-range planning work assignments
identified as priorities by the City Council . These could include such mid-
range planning work assignments as the following:
Resolving the sphere of influence disagreement with Livermore.
Implementing the downtown specific plan improvement strategies.
Development of architectural/design guidelines.
Developing local CEQ A guidelines.
Rewriting and developing the.zoning ordinance.
Developing a hillside grading ordinance.
Developing a heritage tree ordinance.
Each of these tasks are mid-range planning work tasks most likely to impact
staff assigned tothe current PI anni ng Div ision. This is not to suggest that each of
these tasks could be completed in fiscal year 1989-1990, but rather that
these tasks are most logically assigned to the Current Planning Division.
When staff of the Division are not processing appi ications, they should be
performing these mid-range planning work assignments. This is the approach
also ut i I ized within the Planning Department of the City of San Ramon. The
Current Planning Division within that city also performs mid-range planning
work assignments. For example, the current Planning Division Just recently
updated and rewrote its zoning ordinance.
Both a comparison of workload and staff ing to the cities of Novato,
Cupertino, and San Ramon, as well as application, of workload estimates for
the different types of applications processed by the Planning Department
would indicate that three staff are sufficient for the current Planning
Division. Th is w i I I requi re the addition of a position for the Div ision:
an Assistant Planner.
-64-
3. DEVELOP A WORK PROGRAM FOR ACCOMPLISHING THE MID AND LONG-RANGE
PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES SPECIFIED FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND
AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL POSITION TO FACILITATE ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT.
Previous sections of this report have i.dentif led a number of issues
impacting the ability of the Planning Department to function efficiently in
processing current planning applications. These issues include the following:
Updating and streamlining the zoning ordinance. Currently, the
City is relying on a zoning ordinance developed by the County of
Alameda. This creates a number of problems including Inconsis-
tency -with the General Plan developed for the City of Dublin
as well as problems inherent in the process utilized by the
County of Alameda to process current planning applications.
The zoning ordinance needs to be written and tailored for the
City of Dublin with a focus on developing a more usable and
readable document than currently exists.
An architectural/design standards manual needs to be developed to
serve as a gu i de I i ne for staff of the Planning Department as well
as applicants.
A long-range planning data base needs to be developed and
maintained to enable monitoring and periodic calibration of the
General Plan.
These are only a portion of the mid and long-range planning work tasks
which the Planning Department needs to focus on in the short term.
A work program for accomplishing these projects should be developed
by the Director of Planning for the 1989-1990 budgetary process, integrating
the 1989 goals and objectives into this work program. The program should
identify a number of elements such as:
The work tasks.
The description of what the task involves.
Priority of the task relative to other tasks in the program.
The number of staff hours required to complete the task.
The staff who would be assigned responsibility for completing
the task.
The schedule for completion of the task.
-65-
This work program should be developed by the Director of Planning and
then reviewed by the City Manager as well as City Council . This work program
should function as a "contract" between the Director of Planning and the City
Manager and City Council . The success of implementation of this program
depends on a number of techniques which should be utii ized by the Planning
Department:
The program should specify minimum amount of hours per week to
be allocated for mid and long-range planning. The Department
should strive to set aside 40 hours a week for long-range
planning within its Long-Range Planning Division (beyond managing
the consultants preparing the general plan amendments/specific
plans) . It is likely the Senior Planner, �ggiven the processingg of
the West and the East Dubl in General P1 an Amendment/Spec[f is
Plans, w i I I not be able to al locate more than a few hours per
week on the average to long-range planning. The current Planning
Division should also allocate a minimum number of hours a week to
mid-range planning. This division should strive to set aside 20
to 30 hours a week for m d-range pl ann i ng (e.g. , rewriting the
zoning ordinance) . In both instances, tasks which are part of
the work program should be planned and scheduled on a week-by-week
basis.
The responsibility for managing the accomplishment of the
mid-range and long-range work program should be assigned to the
Planning Director. The Planning Director wou I d function as a
"team leader" responsible for assigning tasks relative to the work
program and monitoring the effort of the planning staff in
accomplishing these tasks.
A task force approach could be utilized to accomplish these
tasks. A task force approach has a number of benefits including
boosting of morale by enabling planners to "plan" and not Just
process current planning application, as well as cross-fertiiiza-
tion of ideas, and enabling "growing" of a team of professionals
within the department.
As noted previously, the time a l I ocated for mid-range and long-
range planning should be specifically planned and scheduled by
the Planning Director on a weekly basis.
A tentative work program is presented in the Appendix (see Appendix
XI ) . This tentative work program identifies each work task, a description of
what the task involves, the priority of the work task, and the amount of
staff hours required in 1989-1990 to accomplish these tasks (the East Dublin
-66-
and West Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Pian will not be completed in
1989-1990) . This program should be reviewed by the Director of Planning
focusing on the amount of staff hours required. Clearly, It would appear
that two staff years are required if all of these tasks are to be completed
in a timely fashion (with the exception of the East Dublin and West Dublin
General Plan Amendments) . An Associate Planner position should be authorized
to facilitate accomplishing this work program.
The risk of long—range planning is that it has little connection to the
real world, particularly in processing current planning applications and in
guiding staff and pol icy—makers in quaff ity controlling appl ications.
However, the types of tasks which are proposed for the mid and long—range
work program for the Planning Department -- ranging from updating and
streamlining the zoning ordinance to developing architectural/design
guidelines -- have real meaning to the City in terms of providing that
guidance in its day—to-day work and in quality controlling the current
planning applications.
4. OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO STREAM- INE THE WORK OF SECRETARIAL STAFF OF THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
A number of opportunities exist to streamline the work of the
secretarial staff. The intent behind this streamlining is to enable the
secretarial staff to relieve the professional planning staff from covering
the counter for routine items (e.g. , zoning clearance for Christmas tree
lots), and to accept applications at the counter and to determine whether
these applications are complete using the checklist system previously
suggested. Clearly, some of the clerical work methods of the Planning
Department are laborious and inefficient work methods. Simplification of
these methods should enable the secretarial staff to provide support to the
publ is at the front counter. Work methods that can be simplified, include
the fol lowing:
—67—
Submittal status letters should be mailed to applicants if an
application is deemed incomplete, and not if an application is
deemed complete.
. Both an appealable action letter and a final action letter should
not be mailed to an applicant. Only one action letter should be
forwarded to the applicant: the appealable action letter.
With the conversion of the record management system to an address-
based system, secretarial staff w i l l no longer need to complete
pre-application checks.
The 300-foot mailing notice process should be changed to
require applicants to provide pre-stamped and pre-addressed
envelopes, not merely mailing labels.
Some of the xeroxing accomplished by the secretarial staff is
unnecessary. Xeroxing which appears as if it could be eliminated
includes the following:
Much of the xeroxing of the appealable action letter could
be eliminated including placement of the appealable action
letter conditions in the chrono file and tickler file,
forwarding of the appealable action letters to the Planning
Director and the Planning Commission.
Not placing submittal status letters within the chrono and
planning reading files.
Not including departmental referral letters within the
chrono and reading files.
Not providing Planning Commission packets for each Planner;
rather, each Planner would be provided a copy of the
appropriate staff report that the Planner wrote.
"Farming out" the xeroxing of large documents such as the zoning
ordinance, sign ordinance, and other large documents, rather than
having the secretarial staff xerox these documents.
Discontinue typing and distributing Notice of Exemptions for
categorial exemptions. Filing of categorical exemptions is not
required.
Streamline the Planning Commission minutes. There is no need to
restate the staff report within the minutes.
-68-
The streamlining of these work methods should enable the secretarial
staff to provide more extensive support to the professional staff of the
Planning Department relieving this staff of the more routine tasks.
The next chapter presents an analysis of the information system needs
of the Planning Department.
—69—
V. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
V. ANPL YSIS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
This chapter presents an analysis of the informations systems required
to support all aspects of the Planning Department' s operations. This
analysis includes the following:
Documentation of the nature and scope of the existing and
proposed information systems.
Analyzing the adequacy of the existing information system in
terms of the quality of information and the extent of information
provided to manage the Department.
Identifying the remedial actions which need to be taken to provide
the information necessary to manage the Department.
The chapter opens with a prof I l e of the existing information system.
1 . THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND SAFETY, AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS RELY ON
MANUAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
A brief description of the manual information systems utilized by
these three departments is presented below:
Street address file. This Is a manual system maintained by the
Building and Safety Department with a file for each address.
Within each f I l e is a history of permits, plans, inspections, and
complaints.
Workers' Compensation f lie. This f I l e is maintained by the
Building and Safety Department regarding workers' compensation
data for all contractors. This data is used by the Department at
the time of issuance of a permit.
Plan Check Tracking files. Both the Building Inspection Depart-
ment as well as the Planning Department maintain separate logs to
monitor the history of plans being processed by these two
departments, track and monitor turnaround time, and track and
monitor the routing of plans.
Inspection Check-back f ile. The Building and Safety Department
maintains this file to track the inspection activity for each
permit. If there isn't inspection activity after a permit has
been issued or if a final inspection has not been conducted, a
Building Inspector follows-up on that particular permit.
_70-
Perm its 1 ssued f I I e. This Is a file maintained by both the
Building and Safety, Planning, and Public Works Departments.
Each of these departments is maintaining a separate log regarding
permits issued. Also, each department is utilizing these logs to
prepare and issue -- on a manual basis -- a monthly report of
permits issued by type, monthly statistics reports, a census
report, and other types of reports.
Application file. This is a manual system with a file for each
application, maintained by the Planning Department. All documents
regarding an application are placed with this file.
Individual interviews with professional and clerical staff have
identified automation of these information systems as a high priority. Over
the past two years, the City as explored alternatives to automate the
information system needs of these three departments. These alternatives
focused on four modules:
Permit tracking.
Parcel history.
Generation of mailing labels.
Mapping.
As of yet, the City has not been able to identify a system which is
capable of meeting the information needs of all of these three
departments.
2. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PRCBLEMS WITH THE EXISTING INFORMATION SYSTEM
UTILIZED BY THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND SAFETY, AND PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENTS.
An assessment of the information systems utilized by these three
departments results in the identification of several issues which prevent
management and staff of these departments from functioning effectively.
These issues are summarized below:
-71-
The existing systems are not interactive and require the manual
typing of a number of different and duplicate documents. The
Interactive sy stem would require the entry of only one set of
information. The automated information system would then
automatically distribute this data to other files as needed.
For example, information entered as part of the issuance of the
building permit would automatically be distributed to the street
address file, permit file, and inspection file. This reduces the
typing workload of secretarial staff.
The existing system is largely manual and paper-intensive. The
system is almost exclusively manual , relying on a number of
single-purpose forms and systems for collection and recording of
data.
The existing information system is rudimentary. For example, the
- secretarial staff of the Planning Department prepare a monthly
report of permits. Four * reports are generated: a report
indicating the applications assigned to each planner; a report
indicating the total number of cases assigned to each planner
year-to-date; the open applications currently being processed by
the Planning Department; and applications which have been
completed year-to-date. Each of these reports are manually
typed. With an automated information system, the data would only
be input once by the secretarial staff. Using the sorting
capabilities of the automated information system, these four
different reports could be generated from only one set of data.
The existing system inhibits the ability of the department heads
of these three departments to manage the processing of applica-
tions. The existing systems do not provide these department
heads with readily accessible data and exception reports to
identify workload, service level , and productivity problems.
The existing information system is incomplete. The existing
system, for example, does not provide a parcel history of
properties within the City.
The next section evaluates information system requirements in view of
the above problems.
3. THE CITY SHOULD PURCHASE AN "OFF-THE SHELF" PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM.
The permit information system should meet a number of criteria:
Information reports must be shaped to the decison-making
processes for which the managers of these three departments are
responsible.
Reported information must be oriented to the services rendered
and analysis of those services.
-72-
Information reports must avoid the collection of excessive and
unnecessary types of data.
Reports must emphasize simplicity, visibility and control over
factors that most affect operating results.
The cost of gathering and inputting information must be economical .
The information system must reflect general City information
goals and priorities.
The information system should be designed as follows:
All modules should be menu-driven. Each module should provide
system controlled interaction with the user via help routines
provided as needed. Module capabilities should include:
- Data entry
- Updates and corrections
- Display upon command
- General reports
- Special reports according to user selection criteria using
a report writer capacity
The system should increase the productivity of secretarial staff
by accomplishing the following tasks:
Minimize repetitive or duplicative data entry through
interactive files.
Produce reports automatically for inspection and plan
checking services.
- Issue permits.
Provide checks automatically for data entry errors, holds,
and special conditions.
Track permit applications through the plan check and
inspection process.
The system should automatically calculate permit fees. These
fees are calculated manually at present. The information system
should have the capacity to perform these calculations
automatically.
The permit information system should also contain a parcel
h i story module to show owner, address, zoning, construction, and
the like. The system should not be expected to generate mailing
labels for 300 foot public notification. Few systems have this
capability.
-.- —73—
4;
The tracking of the status of plans being reviewed should be
. possible with the system. The system should have the capacity
to: (1 ) record the dates plans were sent to a variety of
organizational units for review and approval and the dates the
plans were returned by these units; (2) compare actual processing
times to targets established by the City; (3) automatically prompt
the managers of the department when the processing time taken by
an organizational unit exceeds the target and the plans have not
yet been returned by this unit; (4) issue reports comparing the
average actual time taken by each unit to process plans versus
the target time; and (5) store text regarding the status of
plans ( i. e. , plan was placed on hold by Planning on (9/19/88).
.. Logging of the plans and the inspection history for each
application and each permit should be within the capability of
the system. The information system should be capable of
automating this process for each application and each permit.
The system should issue a variety of reports. The reports should
include the following:
Monthly workload report indicating the number of
inspections conducted, and number of plans checked, etc.
Plan Check Report including identification of overdue plan
checks.
Year—to-date activity reports including applications
rece i ved, perm i is f i I ed, perm i is i ssued, etc.
Lists of permits in each phase including:
. . Applications submitted.
. . Permits in plan check including f i rst, second, or
third plan check.
. . Permits which have been issued and are currently in
the inspection phase.
.. . . Permits which have been issued and have completed all
requisite inspections except the final inspection.
. . Permits which have been issued and finalized and
should be sent to an archive file.
- -74-
The request for proposal issued by the City for acquisition of
the permit information system should Include the use of
"benchmark tests". This would enable the City to better evaluate
the capacity of competing information systems performing the same
"tests" with the same data.
The cost of this software would approximate $25,000 including training
and technical assistance for installation. The City should commence now to
begs n the process for acqui ri ng the needed hardware and software, but it w i I I
likely require twelve months before the City is ready to award a bid for
acquisition. There are a number of steps required before the City can
acquire the hardware and software. These include:
Definition of system requirements by . Planning, Building
Inspection, and Public Works/Engineering for the software and the
extent of hardware required.
Preparation of specifications for the software and the hardware.
Requesting proposals from f arms for software and hardware.
Conducting "benchmark" tests of the software on site at City Hail
to assess the capacity and "user-friendliness" of the software.
Awarding the bid based on the results of the "benchmark" tests.
This process cannot be completed quickly. To assure this process
occurs in a timely basis, a task force approach should be utilized with
representatives from Planning, Building Inspection, and Public
Works/Engineering. The Assistant City Manager should serve as the chairperson
of this task force. The task force should assemble a work plan for
completing the tasks necessary to award bid in early 1990-1991 . The task
force should "borrow" the specifications prepared by other cities to serve as
a guideline. The guiding rule for acquisition of the software should not be
whether it is compatable with the IBM System 36, but the capacity of the
software to meet the needs of its users.
The next chapter presents a plan of implementation.
-75-
I
VI. FLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION
VI. PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION
The previous f 1ve chapters have raised a variety of issues concerning
the operation of the Planning Department. The pages which follow summarize
recommended next steps in the context of a plan of implementation which
suggests steps and timing associated with installing the recommendations
contained in this report.
Step Priority Responsibility Timing
1 . Modify the process for pre-
application and submittal
of applications.
Schedule applications High Planning Oct. 1989
for a public hearing Director
at the time of submittal
Streamline submittal Medium Planning Oct. 1989
requirements Director
Modify the role of High Planning Oct. 1989
"Planner of the Day" Director
Establish a Development Medium Planning Dec. 1989
Review Committee Director
More fully develop Low Planning March 1990
application handouts Director
2. Modify the process for
analysis of applications
Establish a planning High Planning Oct. 1989
and scheduling system Director
for application processing
Modify the record manage- Medium Planning June 1990
ment system to an Director
address-based system
Simplify staff reports Medium Planning Dec. 1989
Director
-76-
I
Step Priori ty Responsibility Timing
No longer refer Sign Site Medium Planning Oct. 1989
Development Review Director
applications to other
departments
Modify the Site Develop- High Planning Jan. 1990
ment Process Director
Do not restate the High Planning Dec. 1989
zoning ordinance and Director
the subdivis.lon ordinance
as conditions of
approval
3. Modify the zoning ordinance
to delegate additional
decision-making authority
to staff and to the Zoning
Administrator
Delegate additional High Planning Jan. 1990
authority to staff and Director
to the Zoning Adminis-
trator
Streamline the ACU P High Planning Jan. 1990
Director
No longer require on- High Planning Jan. 1990
going renewal of use Director
permits after an initial
probationary- period
4. Adopt a regulatory High Planning Oct. 1989
philosophy Director
5 . Reorganize the Planning High Planning Oct. 1989
Department into a current Director
and long-range planning
division
6. Request two additional High City Manager June 1989
positions in the 1989-
1990 budget
7. Develop a work program for High Planning Dec. 1989
accomplishing mid and long- Director
range planning goals and
objectives
-77-
Step Priori ty Responsibility Timing
8. Streamline the work prac- Medium Planning Oct. 1989
tices of the secretarial Director
staff of the PI ann i ng
Department
9. Address cost recovery for
planning services provided
by the Planning Department
Implement the revised Medium Finance Oct. 1989
fee system. Director
Update the overhead High Finance Sept. 1989
factor and propose a Director
new overhead rate
10. Purchase a Permit Infor-
mation System
Work with Public Medium Assistant Dec. 1989
Works, Planning, and City Manager
Building Inspection to
develop a proposed sys-
tem configuration (hard-
ware and software)
Prepare and issue a Medium Assistant March 1990
request for proposal City Manager
and conduct "benchmark"
tests
Award bid Medium Assistant May 1990
City Manager
-78-
APPENDIX
APPENDIX I
City of Dublin
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF DECISION-
MAKING AUTHORITY FOR CURRENT
R ANN I NG APFL I CAT I ON S
- - - - - - Low Exposure/Impact - - - - - High Exposure/Impact - - - - -
Zoning
Staff Administrator Planning Commission City Council
Sign SDR Parcel Maps Use Permit Rezone
- CEQA Appeals
- Major issues
Lot L ine Use Permits Subdivisions
Adjustment
- Exempt Appeals
Minor Accessory
Structure Variances
- ATM' s
- Dish Antennas
Minor Amendments
- Use Permits
- Parcel Maps
Temporary
Structure
-79-
APPENDIX II
City of Dublin
APPLICATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS PLAN APPROVAL Sarrple Zoning Clearance Form
TEMPORARY UNENCLOSED USES; ADMINISTRATIVE Rl
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
File No.:
lanninq Office Use Only
( ) MISCELLANEOUS PLAN APPROVAL (SMC 19.20.310) Related Files:
( ) Moving van or loading spaces, car washing areas, children's play areas; Accepted By:
( ) Landscaping and/or irrigation plans; Date:
( ) Parking lot configuration and paving standards and materials;
( ) Exterior area lighting plans;
( ) Solar heating/cooling facilities and appurtenances:
( ) Exterior colors and/or materials; exterior modifications;
( ) Adoption of or modifications to master sign programs; other signs;
( ) Fences six feet or less in height;
( ) Waiver of utility undergrounding requirements, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 19.46.060;
( ) Plan Approvals (modifications, etc.).
( ) APPURTENANT OR TEMP. UNENCLOSED USE (SMC 19.52.020}*
( ) Christmas tree or pumpkin retail sales lot;
( ) Car washes when operated for not more than two consecutive days
and for not more than ten days in any 30 day period;
( ) Arts or crafts exhibitions or shows;
( ) Amusement rides; ( ) Walk-up service windows;
( ) Flea markets; ( ) Petting zoos;
( ) Civic promotional events; ( ) Carnivals: TOTAL FEE $
( ) Religious or cultural festivals;
( ) Swimming pool heaters;
( ) 'Nindow_mounted air conditioning units; EXISTING ZONING
( ) Satellite dish antennas meeting the requirement of Section 19.44.132;
( ) Trailers used for other than residential purposes;
( ) Unenclosed dining areas in industrial zones;
( ) Equipment exempt from screening;
( ) Hazardous materials storage facilities meeting the requirements of Section 19.32.131.
NOTE: APPURTENANT OR TEMPORARY UNENCLOSED USES MAY HAVE CONDITIONS
ATTACHED AS SEPARATE SHEET(S).
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY):
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL !UMBER:
PROPERTY OWNER: Legal Name
Address City Zip
Phone (Business) (Home)
APPLICANT/ Name
CONTACT PERSON: Address City Zip
Phone (Business) (Home
Property Owner's Name Print Property Owner's Signature and Title Date
NOTE: NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED
APPROVED, NO CONDITIONS
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
DENIED B
Director of Community Development Date
(Form Distribution: White, Planning; Canary, Applicant; Pink, Revenue) CD-330
-80- 4/QQ
APPENDIX III (1)
City of Dublin
Sample Application Checklist For
Use Permits
City of Concord
Planning Division
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(415) 671-3152
Application Checklist
Number
of copies
USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Items required for a complete application:
[ ] 1. Completed application form including signature of one multi-cart forr
legal property owner(s) as well as applicant.
[ ] 2. Application filing fee. see separate handout
[ ] 3. All items required for environmental determination, one
e.g. environmental fact sheet.
[ ] 4. Materials required for notification to near-by property owners: one set
list of parcels, property owners' name and address; set of stamped,
addressed legal-size envelopes (4-1/2" x 9-1/2"). See separate
handout for details.
[ ] 5. Dimensioned site plan to scale, 1 in. = 20 ft. or larger. A north seven
arrow, scale and site area in square feet should be shown.
Additional copies may be requested for the Division of Highways,
the Flood Control District, etc. Plans shall be on sheets of paper
measuring at least 18 in. x 24 in. and shall be folded to
approximately 9 in. x 12 in.
Plan shall include the following:
[ ] A. Location of street center lines and street names.
Proposed right-of-way dedication, location and dimension
of lot lines, street and highway dedication, including
existing center line.
[ ] B. Location and nature of all easements.
[ ] C. Contour and trading plan - existing and proposed,
including cross sections and street profiles in all areas
covered by the Hillsite Development Policy.
[ ] D. Location, size, species of existing trees and location
and description of other natural attributes (prominent
rock out-croppings, creeks. gullies, ponds, etc. ).
Enough overlap onto adjacent properties to show relation-
ship of proposed development to the existing in immediate
area.
—81—
APPENDIX III (2)
City of Concord
Planning Division
Use Permit Application Checklist
[ ] E. Foot print of all buildings, including all dimensions.
[ ] F. Floor area for all buildings. For residential
developments, the floor area for each unit in square
feet, the number of units by type, and typical floor
plans shall be indicated.
[ ] G. Setbacks of buildings and pa.-king from property lines
(dimensioned).
[ ] H. Location of walls and fences and an indication of their
height and materials of contruction.
[ ] I. Location of driveways, off-street parking, and loading
facilities showing spaces and dimensions.
[ ] J. A graphic description of on-site circulation patterns for
both vehicles and pedestrians.
[ ] 6. A vicinity map at a legible scale showing the site in relation to one
nearest cross streets.
[ ] 7. Preliminary building elevations of all sides to scale (1/4 in. = 1 one
ft. 0 in. minimum) with an indication of materials and colors to be eac
used. The location of signs should be indicated on the elevations.
[ ] 8. Proposed sign program showing approximate size and location of all one
graphics; this information should be included on the required site
plan and building elevations. Any proposed ground sign shall be
shown on the site plan and by elevation drawing.
[ ] 9. Preliminary landscape plan to show the general location, character one
and intensity of trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
[ ] 10. Two to four photos of the site and adjacent development depending two/
on location and size. four
[ ] 11 . A written statement describing, in detail, the characteristics of
the proposed land use and development concept including the number
of employees, hours of operation, type of business, the number of
company vehicles, and other relevant information.
\AppReq/Use?ermt.REO
5/88 blm
-82-
APPENDIX IV
City of Dublin
Sample Schedule For Processing Currer
Planning Applications
CHECK
OFF I STEP DESCRIPTION JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER NOTES
1 PRE-APPLICATION MEFITNGS
Planning _ Mark Caughey
Building Joe Antonucci'
Public Works Bruce Donoghue
Cupertino Sanitary District B81 McBee
Central Fire District Ted Gaub
S.C.Valley Water District Bill Carlson
2 APPLICATION DEADLINE 6/29/88 7/27/88 8/31/88
3 PREPARE TENTATIVE AGEENDA 7/11/88 7/29/88 9/2/88
4 ASSIGN CASE MANAGuM 7/5/88 8/1/88 9/6/88 Your ccse
mcnager is:
5 PREPARE ENV.WORPCSr 7/6/88 8/2188 9/7/88
6 PREPARE LEGAL NOTICE 7/7/88 8/3/88 9/8/88
7 fEFERRAL TO AGEN CIS 7/8/88 8/5188 9/9/88
8 ENVIRON. REViENCOMMITTEE 7/13/88 8/10/88 9/14/88
9 SEND OUT 300 FOOT LIST 7/19/88 8/22/88 9/20/88
10 LEGAL NOTICETO PAPEiZ 7/22/88 8/23/88 9/23/88
11 ARCHITECTURAL&SITE COMM. 7/25/88 8/29/88 9/26/88
12 PREPARE FINAL AGENDA 7/26/88 8/30/88 9/27/88
13 LEGAL PUBLICATION DATE 7/27/88 8/31/88 9/28/88
14 PLANNING COMMISSION 8/8/88 9/12/88 10/10/88
15 REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL 8/9/88 9/13188 10/11/88
16 CITY COUNCIL
Use Permit.Tent. Map.Variance 8/15/88 9/19/88 10/17/88
Zoning Application
_ 1st reading 9/6/88 10/3/88 11/7188
2nd reading 9/19/88 10/17/88 11/21/88
Environ.challenge period 10/19/88 11/16/88 12/21/88
_ 17 USE PERMIT EXPIRATION 8/15/90 9/19/90 10/17/90
18 TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRATION 8/15/91 9/19/91 10/17/91
AS APP DATES(RD4)
—83—
APPENDIX V
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC City of Dublin
( i City of Concord PLANNING DIVISIOI
STANDARD APPLICf Sample Application Form
Civic Center, 1950 Parkside
Concord,CA 94519 DATE:
Phone: 1415)671.3152
( ) USE PERMIT ( ] REZONING [ ] MAJOR SUBDIVISIC
( J ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S PERMIT [ ] VARIANCE ( ) MINOR SUBDIVISIC
- ( ] DESIGN REVIEW [ ) OTHER
APPLICANT I OWNER OF PROPERTY
ADDRESS I ADDRE33
CITY ZIP I CITY ZIP
HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE
STREET ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY JAS 3ESSOR S PARCEL NUMBER IS)
APPLICATION TO ALLOW
I
t
I
I
NOTE: Your project,if approved,may be subject to certain fees. Contact the Engineering Division(671-3101)for further information.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT JDATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
I
FILE TITLE FILE NUMBER FEES FIN. REV. CODE
ZONING DISTRICT JAPPLICATION RECEIVED BY
I OTHER PERSON(S) TO NOTIFY:
REMARKS:
f
I TENTATIVE MEETING DATE
PL-4-1 APR 98 WHITE -PLANNING DEPARTMENT CANARY -APPLICANT Q/
APPENDIX VI (1 )
City of Dublin
POSSIBLE REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY
FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The Planning Department is committed to being the best in the
Tri-Valley area and the most worthy of the publics' and the applicants'
confidence. To meet this challenge, the Department pledges to:
Not sweat the small stuff. We are concerned with applicant
meeting the intent of the City's rules and regulations, but we do
not want to "nitpick" the applicant.
Be flexible. We want the applicant to meet the Intent of the
.City's rules and regulations*' or the conditions of approval , but we
will flexibly interpret the applicants' compliance and will allow
the applicant to make minor amendments or take minor exceptions
if the alterations are consistent with the intent of the rules
and regulations or conditions of approval .
Be timely. We will respond to applications quickly within stated
objectives for processing applications. We wiI I proactively
explain delays to applicants.
Communicate with Applicants. We will communicate conditions of
approval or concerns regarding applications early in the process
of analyzing applications. We will not communicate these
conditions of approval or concerns the day before the meeting of
the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council .
Avoid "late hits" regarding conditions of approval . We will
effectively utilize the Development Review Committee to
communicate conditions of approval to applicants early in the
process of reviewing their application.
Have a bias for action. We support reasonable risk-taking in
making decisions regarding applications. We want to
expeditiously interpret the City's rules and regulations in
analyzing applications.
Be friendly. If you are unsure if someone needs help, ask
him/her. Share information wil I ingly. if you cannot help, find
someone who can.
Reach out. When serving the counter or meeting applicants,
welcome the applicant to the Planning Department immediately.
Acknowledge their presence. Make eye contact and smile.
Introduce yourself in a pleasant tone of voice. State your name
and what job you perform. When the opportunity is available, use
the person' s name to address him/her. Be attentive, genuine, and
positive.
-85-
APPENDIX VI (2)
Explain what we are doing. Make explanations brief and easy to
understand. Answer questions and be willing to explain it again.
Use language the other person can understand.
Look for an opportunity to serve. You are the Planning
Department to every person you encounter. Go out of your way to
be helpful to others. Care enough to do your best.
Demonstrate your competence. Confidence comes from competence
in your Job skills and knowledge. Stay current. Express
confidence by performing tasks within the I im its of your Job,
solving problems within your authority, and helping an applicant
to the fullest.
Remember to s "good by".. Be sure the person has the
information he/she needs before leaving. End on a friendly note.
Say "good by".
—86—
APPENDIX VII
City of Dublin
COMPARISON OF USER FEE
CHARGES FOR PLANNING SERVICES
Type of Permit Dublin Pleasanton Danville L ivermore San Ramon
Conditional Use $ 50 (R-1 ) $150 $100-$750 $ 850 $150-$350
Permit $130 (Other)
Variance $ 25 (R-1 ) $50 $100(Adm. ) $ 250 $100 (R-1 )
$ 72 (Other) $250 (non- $150 (Other)
Admin. )
Appeal $ 0 $25 $150 $ 50 $100-$250
Parcel Map Cost plus $50 $1 ,000 $1 ,000 8 $850 b
$100 $20/ lot $50/ lot
Subdivision Cost $100 8 $1 ,500 8 $1 ,000 b $25-$75/
Map $2.50/ lot $25-$75/ $20/ lot lot
lot
Zoning $25 $25 $25 $200 $0
Clearance
Sign Permit $105 $15 $50 $150-$175
Site Develop- Cost plus $50 $250 - $600 $1 ,000 b
ment Review $140 $1 ,500 8 $25/DU or
$50/DU or $100/acre
$200/acre
—87—
APPENDIX VIII
City of Dublin
PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
Type of Permit Proposed Fee
Conditional Use Permit
Owner-occupant $150
Other Cost
Variance
Owner-occupant $100
Other Cost
Appeal $100
Parcel Map Cost plus $100
Subdivision Map Cost
Zoning Clearance $25
Sign Permit $105
Site Development Review Cost plus $140
—88—
APPENDIX IX
City of Dublin
COMPARISON OF CURRENT PLANNING
APPLICATION WORK-OAD/STAFFING
Novato Cupertino San Ramon Dublin
Type of Application (1988) (1987) (1988) (1988)
Design Review 121 153 115 0
Site Development Review 27* 0 15* 20
Sign Permit 43 0* 11 24
Parcel Map 13 27 1 1
Major Subdivision Map 12 0 5 0
Use Permit 82 55 29 43
Variance 18 4 11 14
Rezone 6 10 12 3
General Plan Amendment 7 2 8 2
Planned Development 0 0 0 2
Administrative Conditional 0 0 0 48
Use Permit
Professional Staff 4 4 3 3.5
1 . Cupertino counts its sign permits as design review.
2. The site development review for Novato includes master plan and precise
development plan applications.
3. The site development review for San Ramon reflects development plan
applications.
-89-
APPENDIX X
City of Dublin
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESSING
CURRENT PLANNING APP1_ I CATIONS
Number of Average Staff Annual
Applications Hours Req'd Staff Hour
Type of Permit in 1988 to Process Requirements
Administrative Conditional ,
Use/Zoning Clearance 48 1 48
Conditional Use 18 18 324
Sign Site Development Review 24 2 48
Site Development Review 20 32 640
Variance 14 12 168
Rezone 2 30 60
Parcel Map 1 18 18
Building Permit Plan Check 275 (est. ) 1 275
Total Annual Staff
Hours Required 1,1,
—90—
APPENDIX XI (1 )
City of Dublin
MID AND LONG-RANGE
PLANNING WORK AGENDA
1989-1990
Task Priority Staff Hrs.
1 . Resolve sphere of influence disagreement High 40
with L ivermore.
2. Implement downtown specific plan improvement
strategies: High 760
Economic/promotional improvement
Establish downtown improvement association
Signage for shopping center entry
Central block improvement program
Develop restaurant row
Street furniture
3. Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment. Finish High 24
editing and revise the general plan as
needed.
4. Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment. High 120
200 acres
Has not gone to public hearing yet.
Administrative draft of EIR prepared.
In the review period.
$40,000 contract for preparation of
the EIR.
5. East Dublin General Plan Amendment/
Specific Plan. High 920
7,400 acres
$575,000 contract with consultant to
prepare EIR, general plan amendments,
and specific plan.
Have completed goals/policies document
Estimate 13% of tasks completed to date.
6. West Dublin General Plan Amendment/
Specific Plan. High 0*
4,000 acres
Will retain a contract planner to manage
the consultant preparing the EIR.
$540,000 contract with consultant to
prepare the EIR, general plan amend-
ment, and specific plan Work has not
yet commenced
—91—
APPENDIX XI (2)
1989-1990
Task Priority Staff Hrs.
7. Prepare Architectural/Design Review Guidelines. High 80
8. Update the Housing Element. High* 300
9. Develop L oca I CEQ A Guidelines. Medium 16
10. Determine Whether to Develop a Historic
Element for the General Plan. Low 24
11 . Provide Input and Review of BART Park
and Ride EIR. High 80
12. Develop a Cortmun i ty Brochure for new Medium 40
Business and Residents.
13. Rewrite and Develop the Zoning Ordinance. High 360
14. Develop a Program to Recognize Outstanding
Developments. Medium 40
15. Prepare for the 1990 Census. Low 40
16. Integrate the HAZMAT Element into the
General Plan. Low 8
• HAZMAT element adopted by Council
• Needs to be incorporated into the
General Plan
17. Develop a Civic Center Master PI-an Element Low 40
for the General Plan.
18. Develop a Hillside Grading Ordinance. Low 80
19. Develop a Heritage Tree Ordinance. Low 80
20. Participate in the Development of a Tri-
Vailey Transportation Plan. Medium 40
21 . Develop a Dublin Boulevard Extension High 40
General Plan Amendment.
22. Develop an Annexation/Fiscal Impact Medium 40
Review Procedure.
Total Hours 3,172
-92-
APPENDIX XII (1 )
City of Dublin
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy
Recommendation Issue? Page No.
1 . Establish a planning and scheduling
system for current planning applica- Yes 26
tions including:
Staff hours per application.
Length of time to process
application.
2. Convert record management system No 30
to an address-based system.
3. Delegate additional decision-
making authority for approval of
current planning applications to Yes 32
staff and the Zoning Administrator.
4 . Simplify staff reports submitted
to the Zoning Administrator, Yes 33
Planning Commission and City
Council .
5. Convert the administrative condi-
tional use permit process to a Yes 33
zoning clearance.
6. Modify the zoning ordinance so as
to not require ongoing renewal of Yes 35
use permits after an initial
probationary period.
7 . Schedule current planning appli-
cations for a public hearing at No 36
the time of submittal of the
application is determined to be
basically complete.
8. Streamline subm i tta I requirements. No 37
9. No longer refer sign site develop-
ment review applications to other No 39
departments for review (except
monument signs) .
-93-
APPENDIX XII (2)
Policy
Recommendation Issue? Page No.
10. Modify the role of the "Planner of
the Day". No 39
11 . Establish a Development Review
Committee. No 40
12. Modify the site development review
process:
Clarify the objectives of
site development review. Yes 43
Train departments in the
intent and purpose of site No 44
development review.
Treat different scope/size
site development review Yes 45
applications in a different
manner.
Develop guidelines for site
development review to provide Yes 45
clear direction to applicants.
Consider retaining a design
review consultant to train and Yes 46
assist staff.
13. Develop more effective handouts and
brochures for current planning No 47
-- appl ications.
14. Avoid including provisions of the
zoning ordinance and subdivision No 48
ordinance as conditions of
approval .
- 15. Adopt a regulatory philosophy for
the Planning Department. Yes 50
16. Increase cost recovery of the
Planning Department for current
planning services:
Adopt a revised fee schedule. Yes 55
-94-
APPENDIX XII (3)
Pol icy
Recommendation Issue? Page No.
Consider levying a fee for
building permit plan checking Yes 55
by the Planning Department.
Document the basis for over-
head and revise the overhead No 55
factor.
Base deposits on the average
cost of processing each type No 56
of application.
17 . Organize the Planning Department
into Current Planning and Long- No 57
Range Planning divisions.
18. Authorize an Assistant Planner
for the Current Planning Yes 62
Division.
19. Develop a mid and long-range
planning work program and author- Yes 65
ize an additional position to
facilitate its accomplishment.
20. Streamline work practices of
the secretarial staff. No 67
21 . Acquire a permit Information
system. Yes 72
-95-