Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01081985 - 2.3 a,3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, �Qs+a County Administrator l DATE: January 7, 1985 County SUBJECT: Organizational Issues Relating to Transportation SPECIFIC REQUEST($) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTIONS In order to provide for an increased comprehensive community development and transportation planning effort, it is recommended that the following actions be considered. 1. Direct the County Administrator to prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing a Community Development Department. This report will be considered in conjunction with the Board's deliberations on the 1985-1986 County Budget. 2. Establish an Office of Transportation Planning consisting of engineering and planning staff positions designed to provide for a comprehensive transportation management and planning effort in the County. The office would perform functions such as: General Plan Circulation Element, Transportation and Traffic Forecasting, Coordination with Cities and Other Agencies, Transit and Paratransit Programs, Transportation Systems Management (ride sharing, flex time, staggered work hours, carpooling, vanpooling, etc. ) , EIR Review of Transportation Impacts, Development Conditions and Exactions, and Financing for Transportation Projects. 3. Agree to establishca Director - Office of Transportation Planning position and authorize staff to initiate those efforts necessary to establish and recruit for the position as soon as possible, including the use of an executive search firm as required. 4. Direct the County Administrator to return to the Board on February 5, 1985 with recommendations on the organizational placement, staffing, location, and financing of the Office of Transportation Planning. 5. Approve the concept of establishing a central permit counter providing for centralized services in a single location for application review and permit processing by the departments of Planning, Building Inspection, Public Works, and Health Services (Environmental Health) . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES xx SIGNATURE: .XX_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _XC APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)-VV L�v !i ACTION OF BOARD ON January 8, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X DECLARED intent to take action on the recommendations contained in report from the County Administrator relating to transportation organizational issues; REFERRED said report to the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, all cities in the County, the development community, environmental community, and other interested parties for review and comment back to the Internal Operations Committee; and REFERRED matter to the Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Torlakson and Powers) for report back to the Board. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED `n�Lf'� v Cities PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Internal Operations Committee SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Director of Planning Public Works Director �r)J5 M382/7-e3 BY DEPUTY ,.4 ' 2. 6. Direct the County Administrator to prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing a General Services Department. This report will be considered in conjunction with the County' s deliberations on the 1985-1986 County Budget. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation . No. 1 To determine if the establishment of a Community Development Department would be advantageous .in terms of increased efficiency and coordination in the planning and implementation of community development activities. Recommendation No. 2 1. To provide a higher level of visibility to transporta- tion planning issues. 2. To focus responsibility and accountability for trans- portation planning matters. Recommendation No. 3 1. To provide for one person to be in charge of transporta- tion planning. 2. To provide the County with additional leadership in transportation matters. Recommendation No. 4 To allow adequate time for review of alternative organizational and financing arrangements and development of the most appropri- ate recommendation. Recommendation No. 5 1. To provide a more efficient system for processing of land development applications and requests for various related permits . 2. To better coordinate the activities of the County departments involved in this process. 3. To make the service more convenient to the clientele. Recommendation No. 6 To determine if the establishment of a General Services Depart- ment would be advantageous in terms of increased efficency in the organization and provision of various internal support services. BACKGROUND On December 18, 1984 the Board referred to my office for report the matter of evaluating a number of alternative structures within which the County' s transportation planning function could be organized. In response to the Board's direction, my office has taken the following actions: 1. Several meetings have been held with the Director of Planning and Public Works Director to discuss their current respective roles in the transportation planning process and how various organizational alternatives would impact on their operations. CJ 3. 2 . Meetings have been held with the aforementioned depart- ment heads, members of my office, and two consultants (Elizabeth Deakin, Assistant Professor, City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, and Terry Austin, Private Transportation Planning Consultant) to discuss organizational placement of the transportation planning function and the advantages/ disadvantages of each of the alternatives. 3. A telephone survey was conducted in order to obtain information from several counties (Alameda, San Mateo, Sacramento, Fresno, Orange, and San Diego) . 4 . On site visits were made to two counties (Orange and San Diego) . 5 . A number of organizational alternatives were developed and discussed. These alternatives included: a. Increasing the budget of the Public Works Department to allow for the addition of two transportation planner positions . b. Establishing a task force to increase trans- portation coordination and leadership. C. Providing for increased inter-departmental coordination by establishing a committee consisting of the Public Works Director, Director of Planning, and Transportation Coordinator (new position) . d. Transferring the transportation planning function from the Public Works Department to the Planning Department. e. Creating a new Department of Advance Planning to include the current functions of advance planning, general plan, and transportation planning. f. Establishing a Community Development Depart- ment to consist of the Planning Department, Building Inspection Department, Transportation Planning, Land Development, and Environmental Control. g. Creating a "super" agency to consist of the Public Works, Planning, and Building Inspection Departments. h. Creating an Office of Transportation Planning to be responsible for transportation planning (as currently performed by the Public Works Department) and the circulation element of the County General Plan. OTHER JURISDICTIONS Our review of transportation planning in various other counties has indi- cated that there is no one particular way in which this function is organized.. Some counties have this function organized as we currently do, i.e. , transportation planning is split between the Planning and Public Works Departments . In such instances, the Planning Department is normally responsible for transportation planning from the standpoint of preparation of the circulation element of the County General Plan, whereas the Public Works Department's engineering staff is responsible for the preparation of short range, detailed transportation plans. This is the situation in 4. Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Sacramento County. Some counties have concentrated total responsibility for transportation planning in a traditional county department or have established new transportation planning offices. In . some counties, there are transit districts (e.g. , San Mateo and Marin) or transportation commissions (e.g. , Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Santa Clara, and San Bernardino Counties) which have major responsibilities for development of transportation plans and systems. In such counties, there is an important need for the county and these other agencies to closely coordinate their transportation planning activities. ON-SITE VISITS On January 2, 1985 a staff member and I personally visited San Diego and Orange Counties inasmuch as both of these counties have undergone several organizational changes in relation to the transportation planning function. At one time all departments in San Diego County were organized under a number of "super" agencies. Eventually the super agencies were disbanded in favor of a more traditional organizational structure. This occurred in the mid-1970 ' s. In 1975, San Diego County created the Integrated Planning Office. The creation of such office was an attempt to place in one organizational unit the responsibility for all long range planning activities. The office included the functions of the County General Plan, Transportation Planning, Flood Control Planning, and Sewer Planning. The Director of the Integrated Planning Office reported directly to the County Administrative Officer. This arrangement lasted for about three years. The county learned from this experiment that it was not practical to create a long range planning office which separated the planning and operational functions. Thus, the Integrated Planning Office was abandoned and the county established a more traditional County Planning Department. Trans- portation Planning is currently a division of the Planning Department. Orange County has an Environmental Management Agency (a "super" agency) . The agency includes all functions of Public Works, Planning, Building Inspection, Flood Control, etc. , and includes an Office of Transportation. Within such office is included Transportation Planning, Traffic and Finance. Prior to 1979 transportation planning was a division of the County Planning Department. Orange County staff also commented about the impracticality of separating the planning and operation functions . With all county transport- ation functions being located under an agency head, the necessary coordi- nation among the various planning and operating entities can be assured. As a matter of fact, a formal memorandum of understanding has been developed between the Advance Planning Division and the Transportation Planning Division to define the responsibilities of each in planning and implementing transportation improvements . CONSULTANTS In our discussions with the consultants mentioned above (Elizabeth Deakin and Terry Austin) , it was decided that our county must devote more staff resources to the transportation planning function in order to develop transportation systems which will meet the needs being created by develop- ment growth. Our discussions resulted in a recommendation that we establish a separate transportation office with broad responsibilities for transporta- tion planning and its interface with land use. It is recommended that such new office include the following functions: 1. Transportation and traffic forecasting and analysis - maintenance of a land use and travel forecasting data base. 2. Development of a transportation (circulation) element of the County General Plan - updating monitoring and all other functions related to the circulation element of the County General Plan. g � g 5. 3. Coordination with. Contra Costa County cities, neighbor- ing counties, and regional and state agencies regarding transportation and related planning and programming. 4. Development of transit and paratransit proposals and programs for the county. 5. Development of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs for the county - these are transportation related programs such as ride sharing, parking manage- ment, bicycling, flex. time, staggered work hours, etc. , which can help mitigate traffic congestion. 6. EIR review with regard to transportation matters . 7. Development of implementation strategies for trans- portation, including policies on development conditions and exactions. 8. Circulation plan implementation - programming the development of the county' s circulation system by implementing fee policies, monitoring land use and transportation development, and maintaining a regularly updated transportation improvement program. It is recommended that the. Transportation Office should be headed by a strong manager with. excellent communications and public relations skills, and capabilities in the areas of transportation finance. The manager should be charged with advocating the county' s interest in accelerated funding of transportation improvements and in developing new funding sources. He or she would represent the county in dealings with cities, regional state agencies and the federal government. It was recommended that the office consist of at least five to six planners in addition to the office head. Personnel could have backgrounds in planning, engineering or related fields. Needed skills would include the ability to carry out computer based analysis, data management and forecasting, planning and policy development, and financial and implementation strategy development. It was also recommended that management and staff level coordinating committees be established. The first would be a management level coordin- ating committee consisting of the Transportation Office head, Public Works Director, the Planning Director, and the County Administrator. This group would work together to identify matters needing priority attention, coordinate work programs and assign responsibilities. The second group would be a staff level task force to assure that appropriate coordination is maintained and that needed actions are identified. It should be noted that coordination with. other jurisdictions, notably cities, could be achieved through their participation on one or both of these groups . CURRENT PROBLEMS The development of various organizational alternatives and the discussions with the consultants and other counties were undertaken with the under- standing that our county is facing the following problems: 1. Growing transportation problems in the county and region accentuate the need for greater coordination in land use and transportation planning and development. Coordination among county departments and with Contra Costa cities, as well as with neighboring counties and state and regional agencies, is needed. 2. A clearer assignment of responsibility for developing coordinated transportation/development policies and programs is needed to assure clear accountability for performance of this key function. 6. 3. Stronger advocacy of the county' s interests in regional, state and federal forums is needed in order to acceler- ate the priority given to transportation projects, to secure additional funding for projects, and to help create new sources of funds . 4. Strong staff capabilities are needed. to respond to Board proposals and public concerns on such. matters as TSM programs (ride sharing, flex time, traffic flow improvements, etc. ) , job-housing balance issues, and the development of clear, consistent and equitable policies and procedures for determining the respon- sibility of developers for transportation programs and financing. In summary, what is needed is effective coordination of land use and transportation plans and implementation, a clear, viable focus of respon- sibility for these matters, a stronger ability to advocate the county's interest on funding questions, and strengthened staff capabilities and responsiveness. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that successful coordination of land use, planning, transportation, zoning, and regulatory functions can be achieved by developing a structure which groups these various functions under one organizational unit. Creation of an Office of Transportation Planning represents an initial step toward insuring accountability and coordination of transportation matters. It appears that additional benefit could be derived from expanding this concept to develop a Community Development Department which would include all of the various functions related to community development. If approved by the Board, further investigation of the feasibility of establishing such a department will be undertaken by my office. CENTRAL PERMIT OFFICE Our telephone survey and on-site visits with other counties indicated that several of them operate central permit offices (notably San Diego, Orange, Santa Clara, and Sacramento Counties) . Discussion with staff of these other counties has indicated the benefits to be derived from a central permit operation. Better, more efficient service can be provided to clients (both individuals and professional developers) and coordination among various county department representatives is enhanced. Under such an organizational arrangement, application review and permit processing staff of various county disciplines are co-located in one office area for the purpose of reviewing various land use and development applications and processing the required permits . Co-location of staff enhances the staff' s abilities to jointly review applications "on the spot" and to resolve questions immediately, thereby minimizing the time required to respond to applicants . The effectiveness of such an operation requries an appropriate physical environmental whereby all necessary staff may be grouped together. Staff to be so grouped would include representatives from Planning, Building Inspection, Public Works, and Public Health. In addition, at least part time participation may be provided by representatives from other permitting agencies such as fire districts, sanitation districts, etc. At this point, it is recommended that the Board endorse the concept of a central permit operationand authorize my office to pursue the implementa- tion of such.. GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT The proposal to establish a General Services Department has been addressed in previous reports prepared by our office, the County Grand Jury, and the Citizens Governmental Review Committee. Most major counties in the State of California have established such departments . The purpose of such alb 7. department is to group together all of the various internal support operations such as Building and Grounds Maintenance, duplicating and printing, automotive fleet operations, purchasing, etc. These functions are those for which the providing department charges other departments. It appears there could be benefit to grouping such functions under one administrative head in order to achieve some operational effiency. It is proposed that my office further investigate the feasibility of creating such a department and report the results of our study back to the Board.