Infill_Program_Update.pdf

RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SACRAMENTO

COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE SACRAMENTO

COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE AND INITIATE IDENTIFIED

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS

WHEREAS, the County of Sacramento (County) continues to face an unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis, and the Board of

Supervisors desires to positively affect new housing production to address these crises, meet the County’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations, and accommodate anticipated regional growth closer to urban core centers; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors approved an Infill Coordinator position in September 2007 and adopted the Infill Program and Principles

(2008 Infill Program) in May 2008 recognizing the value of infill development;

however, efforts to ensure the success of the program and continued implementation and management of the program did not occur due to budgetary impacts from the Great Recession; and

WHEREAS, upon authorization by the Board of Supervisors directing the Planning Director to submit an application for Local Early Action Plan

(LEAP) grant funds administered by the California Department of Housing and

Community Development (HCD), the County was awarded $369,725 on July

15, 2021 to update the County’s 2008 Infill Program for the purposes of identifying barriers and developing a strategy to streamline infill development;

and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2023, affirmed in

Resolution No. 2023-0104 its support for development review process improvements while also acknowledging the unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis and identifying the need to facilitate equitable investment in and economic development of existing communities, particularly within aging commercial corridors and Environmental Justice communities, and public improvements to help catalyze such investments; and

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of Sacramento County, State of California, To Adopt The Sacramento County Infill Program Update And Initiate Identified Implementation Actions

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2024, affirmed in

Resolution No. 2024-0394 direction for County staff to undertake related to process improvements, hearing body authority, regulatory and financial incentives to streamline development of housing in infill areas, and also directed staff to bring forth the Infill Program Update for consideration by the

Board and supports the establishment of an Infill Coordinator position to support the program; and

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Country Infill Program Update (Infill

Program Update) set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, is a roadmap to facilitate policy and procedural changes, as well as development review process improvements, to encourage infill development and to increase and accelerate housing production in the County;

and

WHEREAS, the Infill Program Update identifies 7 barriers to infill development and an implementation program consisting of 13 implementation actions addressing said barriers to facilitate infill development; and 11 of the

13 implementation actions identified in the Infill Program Update are currently in progress as a result of Board direction affirmed in Resolutions No. 2023-

0104 and 2024-0394.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby:

1. Adopt the Infill Program Update and directs affected County departments to comply with its directives; and

2. Direct County staff to make all necessary administrative changes to the Infill Program Update, including but not limited to correcting page, table, and image breaks; updating pagination and page references;

correcting minor grammatical or other typographical errors; finalizing the document; and updating webpages; and

Initiate Identified Implementation Actions

3. Direct County staff to:

a. Continue implementation of ongoing and initiated implementation actions as set forth in Resolutions 2023-0104 and 2024-0394, and

b. Advance Implementation Action #9 (establish mixed-use districts and objective standards) by initiating Zoning Code amendments to refine objective design standards for mixed-use development.

On a motion by Supervisor ______________, seconded by Supervisor

______________, the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the

Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento this 20th day of August, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Supervisors, NOES: Supervisors, ABSENT: Supervisors, ABSTAIN: Supervisors, RECUSAL: Supervisors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT (§ 18702.5.)

Chair of the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, California

ATTEST:

Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Initiate Identified Implementation Actions

EXHIBIT “A”

PLNP2020-00127 LEAP GRANT INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE

May 2024

Sacramento County Infill Program Update

O R A N G E C O U N T Y • B AY A R E A • S A C R A M E N TO • C E N T R A L C O A S T • L O S A N G E L E S • I N L A N D E M P I R E • S A N D I E G O

PlaceWorks.com

Prepared By:

PlaceWorks 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200

Folsom, California 95630 t 916.245.7500

May 2024

Sacramento County Infill Program Update

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE i ii COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 1

1 https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/smartgrowth.htm

2 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 3

4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 5

Source: Sacramento County Special Districts staff, 2019

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Antelope Carmichael Elverta N.

Vineyard Station

Vineyard Laguna Ridge

Folsom SOI Riolo Vineyards

Whitney Ranch

Westpark Solaire

Greenbriar Southport

Processing Fees Development Impact Fees School Impact Fee Plan Area Impact Fees Finance Districts

6 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 7

http://www.sacramentocountyinfill.com/

8 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 9

10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 11

12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 13

2 The infill feasibility factors were informed by infill best practices, Sacramento County General Plan policies, and the Guiding Principles of this Program.

14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

3 County map of identified Environmental Justice communities: https://planning.saccounty.gov/PlansandProjectsIn- Progress/Documents/Environmental%20Justice%20Element/EJ_Communities_NonEJ_Communities.pdf

4 As identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. 2023 Opportunity Map can be accessed here:

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2023-ctcac-hcd-opportunity-map

5 Underutilized sites are properties with an improvement value to land value (I/L) ratio of 0.2, which is consistent with industry standard practice.

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2023-ctcac-hcd-opportunity-map http://www.sacog.org/greenmeansgo

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 15

16 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 17

Source: County of Sacramento, 2022; ESRI, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023.

18 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Source: Google, 2023; View from 16th Ave.

Source: Google, 2023; View from Stockton Blvd.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 19

20 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Source: Google, 2023; View from Stockton Blvd.

Source: Google, 2023; View from Lindale Dr.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 21

22 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

6740 Fair Oaks Blvd. Source: Google, 2024; View from Fair Oaks Blvd.

6750 Fair Oaks Blvd. Source: Google,2024; View from Fair Oaks Blvd.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 23

24 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Parcel 21801510080000. Source: Google, 2023; View from Karen Ln.

Parcel 21801510090000. Source: Google, 2023; View from Karen Ln.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 25

26 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Source: Google, 2023; View from Watt Ave.

Source: Google, 2023; View from Watt Ave.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 27

28 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

6 See Municipal Code Section 16.100.030 for a list of eligible fees that may be deferred or waived through the Affordable Housing Fee Deferral and Waiver Program.

7 “Very Low Income Households” refers to the definition contained in California Health & Safety Code Section 50105, including but not limited to an income limit of 50% of area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually.

8 “Low Income Households” refers to the definition contained in California Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5, including but not limited to an income limit of 80% of area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually.

9 See Municipal Code Section 16.120.030 for a list of eligible fees that may be deferred through the Residential Fee Deferral Program.

6,7,8,9

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 29

10 See Municipal Code Section 16.95.030 for a list of eligible fees that may be deferred through the Non-Residential Fee Deferral Program.

30 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 31

32 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 33

34 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 35

36 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 37

38 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 39

40 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY INFILL PROGRAM UPDATE 41

42 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Sacramento County Development Review Process:

Assessment and Recommendations

September 2022

Prepared for

Sacramento County.

County Executive’s Office.

Attn: Ann Edwards, County Executive Officer.

700 H Street, Suite 7650

Sacramento, CA 95814-1280

By

Ray Kerridge.

1510 SE Cutter Ln.

Vancouver, WA 98661

Tel. 916. 205. 4646 rayjak2013@gmail.com

Appendix A - p.1 of 38

Appendix A -mailto:rayjak2013@gmail.com

Table of Contents Introduction. 2

Executive Summary. 4

Assessment. 6

1. Low Customer Satisfaction. 6

2. Timeliness, Predictability, and Consistency of Reviews. 7

3. Management and Coordination of the Process. 9

4. Inadequate Performance Measures and Reporting. 11

5. Lack of Oversight. 12

6. Workload and Staffing Levels. 12

7. Quantity and Complexity of Regulations. 13

8. Reliability of Staff Responses. 14

9. Supervisory Review and Problem-Solving. 16

10. Difficulty in Navigating the System. 16

11. Under-Utilization of the Accela Computer system. 17

12. Negative Corporate culture. 18

Recommendations. 20

First Tier. 20

Second Tier. 29

Specialty Permit Programs. 32

Conclusion. 37

Appendix A - p.2 of 38

INTRODUCTION

The Board of Supervisors and the Chief Executive Officer continue to receive complaints about the County’s Development Review Process (DRP). Stakeholders have expressed concerns and frustrations about the lack in timeliness of reviews, the unpredictability of the process, and the poor customer service delivered by some County staff. These experiences have led to a low level of customer satisfaction with the process.

A contract to carry out a general assessment of the DRP and make recommendations for improvements was approved in March of this year. An assessment of the system was completed at the end of June. This report incorporates the result of this assessment and recommendations going forward.

In the research phase of this project, stakeholders shared a number of negative experiences working with different elements of the development review processes. Whereas these are all worthy of acknowledgment, specifics related to these incidents have not been included in this report. Their true value is in illustrating certain types of system failures and helping to shine a light on elements of the DRP that are not working well. It is also likely that describing these in detail might actually be counter-productive to our ultimate goal of improving the system.

A number of negative experiences about the processes was also shared during interactions with certain County employees. Again, whereas these experiences are all worthy of acknowledgement, there is little to be gained by posting specific details. Their true value is in pointing to a culture that exists within elements of the DRP that is not beneficial to good customer service. If nothing else, they highlight the need for customer service training and increased supervisory and management oversight.

Similarly, statistics comparing the level of permit activity in the County with those of other counties or cities within the region are not included. Sacramento County is its own entity with its own unique demographics and varied communities. Consequently, any comparison with

Placer County or El Dorado County is not going to provide much data useful to the purpose of this report. This applies even more so when it comes to comparing the County’s performance with cities in the region. The County, unlike many cities in the region, is not a “full-service”

Appendix A - p.3 of 38 provider, and as such is more dependent on the actions of regional partners. Consequently, the

County has less direct control over elements of its development review.

It should be acknowledged that the CEO has already taken a number of positive steps to enhance the level of customer service provided by the DRP. Most important among these is that previously vacant leadership positions in the DRP have been filled. The officials now occupying these positions are all experienced and competent professionals. Their influence on the system is already being felt.

Appendix A- p.4 of 38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is an assessment of the County’s Development review Process (DRP). The services provided by the DRP are intended to achieve three goals. These are:

a) To ensure that proposed developments and building projects are consistent with current County and State regulations.

b) To help support the Board of Supervisors’ goal of creating livable communities in the County.

c) To protect the health and safety of County residents in the built environment.

The assessment that follows is based on interviews with Development Review (DR) staff, three members of the Board of Supervisors, and representatives from the development industry. These included builders, architects and engineers, development consultants, land-use attorneys, and members of the North State Building Industry Association, and the Central Valley Chapter of the

American Institute of Architects. Other valuable information was gathered from available DRP performance standards, computer reports, and other relevant plan review materials.

A. The first section of the report is the assessment. It identifies twelve key areas of concern on which the County’s improvement efforts need to focus. These areas of concern are as follows:

1. Low customer satisfaction.

2. Timeliness, predictability, and consistency of reviews.

3. Management and coordination of the process.

4. Inadequate performance measures and reporting.

5. Lack of oversight.

6. Workload and staffing levels.

7. Quantity and complexity of regulations.

8. Reliability of staff responses.

9. Supervisory review and problem-solving.

10. Difficulty in navigating the system.

11. Under-utilization of the Accela computer system.

12. Negative corporate culture.

Appendix A - p.5 of 38

More detailed descriptions relating to each of these areas of concern are outlined in the assessment section of this report.

It should be noted that this report does not address questions related to cost-of-service or the

County’s development related fee structures, even though these both emerged as topics of concern for many stakeholders.

B. The second section in this report outlines 34 recommendations, all of which are aimed at addressing the areas of concern noted above and moving the system towards a better and more positive relationship with its customers. Many of these initiatives have been implemented in jurisdictions which have experienced customer service and customer satisfaction issues in the past.

The recommendations outlined in this report are not intended just as solutions to fix current problems. They are also intended to help put in place a framework for good decision making, and one flexible enough to accommodate changes in the future.

C. The third section includes a number of concepts for specialty permit programs that the County might consider for future implementation. Several of these are currently used in other jurisdictions.

It was observed during the research phase of this report that there are experienced and competent people currently working in the County’s DRP. Many of the employees who were interviewed were aware of the criticisms and complaints that are being made about the process, but stated their willingness to participate in whatever way they could to help improve the system.

Appendix A - p.6 of 38

ASSESSMENT

This section of the report outlines key observations in each of the twelve areas of concern.

1. Low Customer Satisfaction

Interviews with stakeholders identified a number of issues with the performance of the DRP. The lack of timeliness and the unpredictability of reviews were by far the most often reported criticisms. These were closely followed by a general dissatisfaction with the number and complexity of County and State regulations, and the way an applicant’s legitimate concerns over technical issues and problems are resolved.

An area of particular concern and dissatisfaction was the time, complexity, and lack of clarity implicit in the County’s land-use entitlement and environmental processes. This is of particular concern regarding the level of detail being required for CEQA. Another area was the complexity and time it takes to get Department of Water Resources (DWR) approvals. Engineering consultants for the developers expressed concerns relating to level and detail of engineering studies being required by DWR, and the demand that all of these studies be submitted upfront.

Another problem reported by customers with regard to both of the above review areas was the perceived unfriendly and unhelpful attitude of some staff members.

The following observations are generalizations. But, if a broad characterization were to be applied to staff, it would be that of “risk averse.” Another is that the primary focus of many DRP employees appears to be on ensuring that the regulations are being enforced. The risk aversion factor here is that of ensuring that they cannot be blamed for anything later on if something goes wrong. This plays out in the apparent rush to get to “no” rather than “yes” that is displayed by some reviewers. This is further evidenced by the little interest apparently taken by some staff in trying to find out what applicants are trying to achieve with the projects. It was noted that staff seem reluctant to use their experience to suggest alternatives or to offer up early assistance on problematic elements of a project.

Stakeholders also complain about a general lack of transparency and accountability inherent in

DRP processes. Other than over-the-counter permits, applicants are seldom sure where their

Appendix A - p.7 of 38 projects are in the system at any one time. Some stated that there is an “air of mystery” around how the County goes about making its technical and process related decisions.

Development industry representatives expressed dissatisfaction with the way staff deals with complaints and with solving technical problems that crop up during reviews. Consultants state they feel excluded from the decision-making process and that the responses they receive are not always consistent with previous responses to the same problems.

Also expressed by stakeholder was a level of skepticism about the County’s ability to change things, as previous attempts to improve the DRP have been apparently either short-lived or largely unsuccessful.

However, there is one area of customer satisfaction that should be acknowledged. Those customers who had received “over-the-counter” (same day) permits for small projects, minor installations, or trade permits, tended to rate the customer service they received at the counter or on-line as high. In addition, positive feedback was also given about several County employees who were recognized for routinely going above and beyond to help resolve issues and keep applications moving along. These are positive building blocks for the future.

The remainder of this report focuses on identifying the reasons for the low level of customer satisfaction with the DRP, and to recommend the improvements necessary to raise confidence and customer satisfaction with the system. All of the areas outlined below overlap to some degree.

2. Timeliness, Predictability, and Consistency of Reviews

Concerns were often voiced about the timeliness, predictability, and consistency of the plan review processes. Not one stakeholder could say with any degree of certainty when his or her development application would be approved and permits issued.

Problems often begin at the start of the review process. DWR was cited as delaying project reviews through its policy of not accepting deferred submittals. The Department requires that all project studies, reports, and designs be submitted before an application will be deemed “complete” by staff. Stakeholders point out that some of these studies and designs have no applicability until much later on in the review process. The Planning Division also received criticism for delaying

Appendix A - p.8 of 38 project reviews. An often-cited example is the length of time it takes for division staff to determine if a proposed development activity is or is not a “project” under CEQA. Both of these examples add time to the review process and cause extra expense for applicants.

At the other end of the process, during the construction phase, it has become more difficult to get required permit inspections carried out within reasonable timeframes. Rather than delivering same day service, inspections are now scheduled two to three days out.

The DRP has benchmarks for the timeliness of initial reviews and carrying out rechecks if corrections to plans are required. However, a review of available performance reports indicates that these benchmarks are not routinely adhered to. But once initial reviews are complete, the process is essentially open-ended from that point on. There are no other benchmarks. Timely rechecks are important because the progress of a review in one part of the process may be halted when a recheck in another is pending.

Managers point to several factors that affect the timeliness of plan reviews. These include the growing complexity and cumulative effect of Federal, State, and County regulations and the numerous policies that review staff are required to enforce. They also point to the increasing complexity of building designs. Their rationale being, the more complex the development or building design, the longer the review time. There is some validity to this.

Increased workload is another source of delay. At the time of writing, most DR sections are carrying a significant backlog of reviews. This means that a project cannot/will not get reviewed until the ones before it in the hopper are reviewed. This may partially explain applicants’ perceptions that it has gotten harder to get projects accepted as complete, early on. Once applications are accepted into the system as complete, the clock starts to run on the initial plan review ‘time-taken’ benchmark.

Another factor affecting timeliness and predictability is that the County is not a “full-service” provider. Projects often require sign-offs from other regional partners or fire districts. Each of these outside agencies has its own timeframes and review requirements. Some fire districts are volunteer districts, and this adds another element of delay to the process. As a result, final County approval is often contingent on the time it takes these agencies to sign-off.

Appendix A - p.9 of 38

DR functions are carried out by several sections, many of which are housed in different locations.

Coordination and communications are not well integrated between the various DR sections.

There is no ‘one’ overarching management umbrella coordinating the reviews.

Also, time is sometimes lost as plans migrate through the system because no one is officially designated with the task of tracking projects. The recent change to locate all responsibility for the DRP under one Deputy CEO is a good move and will help improve coordination.

Lastly, it is important to acknowledge the recent service disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many key staff members had to transition to remote operations, or work from home.

This has had an effect on both timeliness and productivity as well as entering an additional element of unpredictability to the DRP. Also, there is no indication of when, or even if, staff will be required to return to their previous workplaces.

3. Management and Coordination of the Process

Overall management and coordination of the system are two of the most important factors affecting the timeliness of reviews. Stakeholders are concerned and frustrated by an apparent leadership gap in the DRP. Managers see to their own areas of responsibility and are not likely to step outside their own boxes to help coordinate the process. This attitude is a consequence of the ‘siloed’ organizational structure of the DRP. Instead of having one integrated system, the

County has a number of loosely connected mini-systems. Staff are not co-located; reviews are carried out in different departments, in different locations, and at different times in the process.

With no one overarching management structure in place, coordination between reviewers is difficult and, in some cases, non-existent.

Having fully comprehensive inter-agency agreements between participating departments that clearly stipulate roles, responsibilities and performance expectations and standards is essential.

The risks of operating without updated and fully comprehensive inter-agency agreements in place are a lack of accountability and less management coordination of the system.

Some utility/infrastructure managers appear to have their own hierarchy of priorities. Their first is the installation and maintenance of their infrastructure. Although lip service is paid to

Appendix A - p.10 of 38 development review, it is clear that it is regarded as a second priority. There are anecdotes to suggest that some in the infrastructure departments consider that part of their role involves protecting “their” infrastructure from developers. If true, this attitude is contrary to the County’s development and livability goals.

Stakeholders were very supportive of DR pre-application conferences. Staff meet with developers and their consultants at these conferences to identify minimum requirements and acceptance standards for the proposed project. Each DR section is supposed to bring its own checklist of requirements to the meeting. By complying with these checklists, applicants are meant to be assured that their application will be considered complete and ready for review.

However, stakeholders have commented that despite the prior notification, some staff members come to the meeting unprepared, and that not all of the relevant DRP sections are represented at the meeting.

Specific examples were given in which, even after complying with the requirements of checklists and studies, application submission packages were eventually rejected by staff as being

“incomplete.” Stakeholder identify three reasons for this. First, checklists are overly long, often incomplete in themselves, or even out-of-date. Second, in the intervening period between the meeting and submission, a reviewer discovers an omission on the original list of requirements.

Or, third, another reviewer is assigned to the project who has other ideas about the list of requirements. Whatever the reason, the review is put on hold until the additional information is submitted. This causes delays and at the same time, the section’s timeline for completing its first plan review is stopped and the clock is reset back to zero.

Coordination issues have arisen due to a breakdown in plan distribution and circulation. These are usually due to a misfiling error at submission, or inaccurate data entry into Accela. Also, plan reviewers have been known to misplace or lose plans.

No department at the present time is assigned an overall coordinator role for the system. Whereas the Community Development Department (CDD) carries the bulk of DR plan review responsibilities and issuing permits, its authority is limited to on-property development. Other departments are in charge of infrastructure planning and approvals and right-of-way projects.

Development related plan reviewers in these department are independent of CDD.

Appendix A - p.11 of 38

4. Inadequate Performance Measures and Reporting

Performance measurement starts with a statement from the Board of Supervisors outlining their vision and expectations regarding development in the County. This vision should then be reflected in the mission statements of the participating departments. Mission statements are operationalized in the departmental organizational goals, and performance measures put in place to measure progress towards the mission. Mission statements, organizational goals, and performance measures are all connected and reflect one another. None of this is happening in the

County’s DRP.

Departments with DR responsibilities do not reference organizational goals for the system on their web pages or in any of their budget documents. With no strong mission statements and organizational goals, and very few metrics tying performance back to the mission, there is little foundation for accountability and transparency in the DRP. Also, there is no overarching performance management system in place capable of measuring performance for consistency, efficiency, or effectiveness.

At the present time, the primary metric in use is the average time taken to do initial plan reviews and re-checks and each department has its own standards in this regard. The Planning Division has more timeline requirements than do other departments.

Time taken for first review and rechecks are obviously important measures; however, these alone cannot provide a comprehensive picture about the performance of the system. Whereas timeliness is important, it should not overshadow other metrics important to gauge the overall success of the

DRP.

A more comprehensive and reliable set of performance measures for the DRP would provide a better and more accurate picture of the system’s performance. As it is, current performance measures offer little opportunity for accountability and transparency to the general public.

Lastly, the County does not carry out formal annual telephone surveys with DRS customers to measure their level of customer satisfaction with the services provided and it does not track or analyze trends in respondents’ attitudes towards the DRP.

Appendix A - p.12 of 38

5. Lack of Oversight

Without adequate metrics in place, it is difficult to determine the level of effective oversight on the DRP. In fact, at the moment, there is no way to exercise effective oversight on the system.

Some managers and supervisors are engaged and take a more active role in monitoring the performance of their sections than do others. But this lack of effective oversight has led to the perception that requirements are not being applied consistently.

Lack of oversight and few written standards or operating procedures across the DRP was one of the major concerns expressed by development industry representatives. This was of particular concern in regard to the reviews being carried out in the Planning Division and in DWR.

Lack of oversight is also evident in that line level review staff routinely make high level decisions about reviews apparently without input or guidance from senior management. Some of these decisions recounted during interviews with stakeholders were, if accurate, arbitrary in retrospect, and resulted in additional work, additional costs, and delays for the applicant, with little overall benefit accruing to either the project or the County. Whereas it is important to empower staff with the authority to make decisions, it cannot be “free rein” without the necessary oversight or input.

6. Workload and Staffing Levels

When workload is driving the system, customer service levels inevitably suffer, and customer dissatisfaction goes up.

A workload/staffing imbalance exists across the DR sections. Many, if not all sections have open vacancies which they have found difficult to fill. Whereas much of this can be attributed to a lack of applicants due to the current hot job market, some managers point to the length of time it takes to get recruitments through the Human Resources (HR) process.

As a result, each section has an accumulation of backlog jamming up the system. This means that before new applications can be reviewed, the backlog already in the hopper will have to be cleared. Consequently, timeliness of reviews will continue to be a problem until this backlog is bought under control and a positive staff/workload balance is reestablished.

Appendix A - p.13 of 38

All departments have the ability to farm out excess workload to outside contractors. But unfortunately, some have been slow to expand their pool of contractors. CDD, for example, currently has only two on its approved list of fire and life safety plans examiners. At last hearing, all departments are now going through a process to expand their lists of contractors.

Managers also point out that HR’s minimum qualifications for jobs are often out-of-date or too restrictive. Being able to increase the tradeoff between work experience and relevant educational achievements would help managers fill vacancies.

Another issue was identified as the difficulty of getting new position classifications through the

County’s Civil Service protocols.

Additionally, CDD inspectors are operating a 9/80 schedule. This, along with unfilled vacancies, illnesses, and vacations, have led to permit inspections being scheduled out two to three days ahead.

A further compounding element is that when DR staff do overtime to help relieve pressure on the system, they are paid in comp-time. This can only be redeemed by taking more vacation.

7. Quantity and Complexity of Regulations

DRP plan reviewers are responsible for enforcing a significant volume of County regulation.

Managers point out that the number, scope, and complexity of development related regulations has increased and is now a primary cause of the timeliness issues within the DRP. State construction code requirements expand every code cycle, and though the County already has numerous planning and special districts, planning and environmental regulations continue to increase.

However, it is not only the scope and volume of regulations that is on the increase. The trend is towards more complex and sophisticated building and infrastructure designs. These are both valid observations.

Volume and complexity of the regulations was also a frequently mentioned topic of concern for stakeholders after the timeliness and predictability of DRP reviews. As mentioned earlier in this

Appendix A- p.14 of 38 report, internally generated increases, especially in the level of detail for engineering studies in both DWR and the Planning Division, have also increased. Engineering consultants report that the level of detail now being required by these two County groups is more extensive than in other jurisdictions in the region.

It is also observed that the County does not have an ongoing regulatory improvement workplan initiative in place to review and evaluate proposed new regulations and their impacts on existing regulations and their overall impact on development in the County.

8. Reliability of Staff Responses

Stakeholders also reported frustration and concerns about an apparent lack of consistency in staff’s responses to technical or process-related questions, and code interpretations. They state the answers they receive to these questions often vary depending on who the applicant is, or who the staff person is. But it was also stated that even in going through regular plan reviews, staff interpret the rules differently. Also, staff do not appear to communicate with each other over these issues. Anecdotes were relayed about different reviewers giving different answers to the same code or technical question at different times.

Examples were also presented of reviewers changing their minds later on in the review process.

Also, that reviewers do not necessarily feel bound by responses that had previously been given by other reviewers in the same section. It is evident that information about decisions of this kind is not being passed on to other staff.

An often-expressed frustration was that reviewers do not adopt a collaborative approach with stakeholders to arrive at solutions. More often than not their response is to resort to rote answers without trying to properly understand the applicant’s or the project’s needs.

As noted earlier, there was general support among stakeholders for the County’s pre-application conferences. However, only a smaller percentage were satisfied with the quality of information transmitted at these meetings. When they felt that enough information was provided about the process, DR staff were often defensive when asked to explain the meaning or intent behind specific requirements, or why and when a certain study, design, or entitlement was required.

Appendix A - p.15 of 38

Also, some applicants are aware that specific requirements being made of them exceeded both

State minimums and what is being asked by surrounding jurisdictions. The response often given was that the County, being larger and more diverse, has conditions that do not exist elsewhere.

This justification is unconvincing to many.

Staff are also reluctant to give time estimates for the completion of a review or the issuance of a permit. Stakeholders report that if an estimate was given, it was accurate only about 50 percent of the time.

A general observation is that whereas staff are knowledgeable about their own section reviews, they are very unfamiliar with what goes on in other sections. As a result, customers could not place any reliance on even the most general information they received from reviewers about another section’s timeliness or review processes.

Another issue regarding staff responses is that architects report that during the course of scheduled inspections, some inspectors have rejected architectural details that were outlined on the County’s

“Approved” set of plans. In these instances, inspectors had required details that are different from those specified by the architect and also had not been approved by the County during the plan review process.

There are a number of formal appeals processes available to applicants, and these appear to work reasonably well. Someone wishing to use alternative methods of construction under the State building, electrical, mechanical, or plumbing codes can submit an appeal to the County’s Building

Official in CDD, or to the Code Appeals Board. Applicants may also appeal Zoning code requirements to the Zoning Administrator. Also, if an applicant disagrees with a decision related to water or drainage requirements, he or she has the option of submitting an appeal to the senior engineer.

Last, but no less important, is that staff do not appear to be updating Accela with all meeting notes and any informal code interpretations that are made.

Appendix A - p.16 of 38

9. Supervisory Review and Problem-Solving

First line section supervisors have an important leadership role in the DRP. They are responsible for all the review activities carried out in the sections. As the link between upper management and line staff they are also responsible for ensuring that process goals and system objectives are effectively communicated and carried out by staff. They are also responsible for the distribution of workload in the section and for ensuring that reviews or inspections are being carried out within prescribed timelines.

As previously noted, there are concerns about how problems and customer complaints are handled in the DRP. Supervisors have a direct responsibility here. However, the processes for resolving customer complaints or technical problems are not clearly defined. Because there are no clearly written protocols for how to deal with these issues, customers feel that supervisors should be a larger presence. In regard to problem-solving, it was stated by stakeholders that DR supervisors’ default position is to automatically back-up the staff without proper investigation or giving adequate consideration to other possibly more adaptive or appropriate alternatives and solutions.

Also, not all supervisors appear to attach the same level of importance to making either themselves or their staff readily available to the public to answer questions. Some sections are more responsive to the public than are others, but customers complain that getting reviewers to just answer the phone is harder than it should be.

10. Difficulty in Navigating the System

Stakeholders report on the difficulty of moving projects through the DRP. Customers are frustrated because there is no single point of contact or someone they can talk to if they have concerns about the status of their projects. As a result, applicants feel that they have no other option than to take on the responsibility themselves to ensure their project continues to move through the system.

Although it is the County’s own process, the DRP is not one system but essentially a series of loosely connected micro-systems. But no DRP employee understands the whole process from

Appendix A - p.17 of 38 initial application through to Certificate of Occupancy. Essentially, the County is not in control of its own system, at the moment.

Adding to this difficulty is the fact that DR plan reviewers are spread out and that no one department carries overall responsibility for the entirety of the process. To navigate projects smoothly through the DRP depends on being able to coordinate all the DR sections through a centralized management system that crosses departmental boundaries.

11. Under-Utilization of the Accela Computer System

The County’s Accela computer permit system should be the hub of the DRP. The system’s ability to track and report on the status of projects is potentially the most powerful management tool available. The County has used the Accela system since 2007. The system has been upgraded several times over the years and the latest upgrade is due to go into operation at the end of this year. Accela is interfaced with the County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and can provide an up-to-date history on any parcel. There is also a customer interface to enable applicants to track the status of their projects as they go through the review processes.

IT staff report that Accela is capable of generating numerous and varied reports relating to the ongoing performance of the DRP. However, even though staff has access to the system, some managers are using inhouse spreadsheets to track projects as they go through the review process in their sections.

Accela is only as good as the data that is input. Plan review approvals, inspection results, meeting notes, and other related project data are required input for the system. However, it is not at all certain that staff are inputting all relevant project data. Complete historical data are essential if a post mortem or an after-action review on a project is required for any reason.

Notwithstanding the tremendous capacity and potential of the system, a senior staff member in the Planning Division commented that Accela is not as useful as it could be to them, because it

“does not match their business model.”

Appendix A- p.18 of 38

Discussions with senior DR managers also disclosed that they are not reviewing Accela reports on a regular basis. Also, senior management does not meet on a scheduled basis with department heads or other senior staff to review DRP performance data.

12. Negative Corporate Culture

The corporate culture of the DRP is not perceived as a customer friendly one. In fact, it has a reputation of tending towards rigidity and a focus on enforcing the letter of the regulations, rather than their intent. Some have characterized staff as unhelpful, unfriendly, and in certain cases even hostile. This is evident when applicants challenge code interpretations or ask the justification for technical requirements. Absence of a customer-service based culture is at the core of customer dissatisfaction with the DRP.

Managers and supervisors can do more to model and reinforce a customer-service culture for their staff. However, this is not an across-the-board observation, as some managers, supervisors, and line staff were identified by customers as regularly going above and beyond to facilitate the process.

There may be historical reasons for the apparent inflexibility and bureaucracy displayed by some

DRP staff. It was pointed out by long serving employees that risk taking and thinking outside the box to improve customer service was not as valued by previous administrations as much as it is by the current one. A particular incident was described in which staff made some technical decisions on a project, in good faith, and with the intent of the regulations in mind. However, when the project became a legal and political football, the staff felt that the then CEO hung several of them “out to dry.” There was an imminent threat of significant personal financial liability left hanging over them for months on end. That this was allowed to happen in the first place still resonates across all sections, even among those who had no connection with the project. This incident has now taken root in County lore. As a result, restoring faith in senior management’s ability and willingness to protect staff in the future, while at the same time trying to persuade them to adopt a more customer friendly culture has added to the challenge. Without restoring a level of staff trust and their commitment to the change process, any service innovations and improvements are going to have limited success.

Appendix A - p.19 of 38

The County does not have an ongoing customer service training program in place for DRP staff.

No training is scheduled to help staff obtain a better understanding of customers needs. There are also no scheduled inter- or intra-departmental teambuilding exercises, or work/social opportunities to team-build and create partnerships with stakeholders.

As previously noted, there is no DRP mission statement or specific customer service goals outlined for the system. As a result, there is no solid foundation for any training in place at the moment.

Lastly, the County does not have a public information plan in place to promote the DRP or to inform staff and the public about ongoing efforts to change the culture.

Appendix A - p.20 of 38

RECOMMENDATIONS

These are grouped in order of priority starting with the first tier.

First Tier

It is recommended that the County:

1. Take immediate steps to eliminate the current plan review backlog of applications and reviews by:

a. Filling all current vacancies, as quickly as possible. Recruit for good customer service skills or potential, as well as technical competence.

b. Expanding the pool of pre-approved plan review contractors to pick up excess workload in all DR sections, as quickly as possible.

c. Creating overtime opportunities for review and inspection staff.

2. Schedule an all-DRP staff kick-off meeting in which the CEO clarifies for staff the need for a new corporate culture, and ‘officially’ introduces the new Deputy

CEO in charge of the system.

3. Draft a resolution for Board approval, in which the Board affirms its support and confidence in the new direction. It is critical for staff to know that the culture change and associated process improvements have the full support and backing of the Board.

4. Rebuild employee trust and confidence in County Administration and the Board through:

a. Scheduling quarterly all DRP staff meetings with the CEO and Deputy to provide updates on the mission, goals, and service improvements. Time for staff Q & A should be a regular feature in the schedule.

b. Generating a regular all-staff email/newsletter from the Deputy CEO updating on successes and upcoming changes.

Appendix A - p.21 of 38

c. CEO and Deputy CEO doing semi-regular “walk-arounds” to meet and greet DRS employees at their work stations.

Note: The following recommendation makes the case for an ongoing public information strategy.

This needs to be considered in the following context: government is not known for touting its achievements. However, when attempting to change norms and implementing a new corporate culture, it is vital that the staff and public be kept informed at every step. Constant reinforcement of the message by whatever means, backed up by managers and supervisors modelling good customer service skills, is vital. If kept up, in time it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, messaging through media outreach is critical to changing public perceptions. All these, backed up by visible service improvements, are key to success.

5. It is recommended that the County PIO:

a) Implement a strategy to launch the new DRP corporate culture to the staff and the public. The foundation of the new culture should be that of facilitation and problem solving, while emphasizing customer service, early assistance, and partnering with stakeholders.

b) Develop a public information strategy to promote the culture change both internally and externally. The goal should be to help keep DR staff and the public informed about ongoing efforts to improve the process. The benefits to staff of a healthier corporate culture should also be emphasized.

(See recommendation 12)

c) Develop a strategy to market the new Deputy CEO as the ‘face and voice’ of the system. Schedule media interviews for the Deputy to talk up the changes.

d) Create a marketing tag with which to brand the new cultural change and process…