Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04101990 - 2.2 (2) F tis®0" -A TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra .rte:.. FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa n1 S O: Count DATE: June 26, 1990 off,_ - .•�t srq cou#� SUBJECT: PROGRESS REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution establishing the class of Customer Services Manager. 2. Accept the progress report on the Environmental . Management Agency from the County Administrator. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the additional position will be shared equally by the Public Works, Building Inspection and Community Development Departments, at no additional burden to the General Fund. BACKGROUND: On April 17, the Board approved in concept the creation of an Environmental Management Agency which would consist of the functions currently performed by Community Development, Public Works and Building Inspection Departments. In addition, the Board approved 19 recommendations aimed at improving the service and efficiency of the affected Departments and directed the staff to present monthly progress reports. Over the last nine weeks, an Agency Transition Committee, composed of the County Administrator and the Directors of the involved Departments, held nine meetings to plan the implementation of the 19 recommendations. Additionally, several subcommittees of the Agency Transition Committee held. numerous meetings to prepare the detailed operational plans necessary to implement the 19 recommendations. What follows is a progress report through June 19 . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: J l✓Y� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 26, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _�UNANIMOUS(ABSENT- AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED— Public TTESTED PUb11C Works PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY t -2- Development Processing Review Committee A Development Processing Review Committee was to be established which would review and recommend, to the appropriate Departments, matters involving application and permit processing, fee changes and code changes. The Committee was to be composed of developers, representatives of the public and staff from the three Departments. A committee has been formed under the leadership of Bob Giese and has held two meetings. At these meetings, the Committee has examined the mission and goals statements of the Agency, proposed fee increases by Public Works and Community Developments, plans to establish a center for processing applications and permits, and a proposed process on pre-application review. Attachment A is the minutes of the last meeting. The Agency Transition Committee has referred several additional policies to the Development Processing Review Committee, which is scheduled to meet again on July 9, 1990. Pre-Application Review Process A pre-application review process was to be formulated for developers which would target small developers and include representatives from the three Departments. The objective of this process was to avoid problems before developers invest significant resources in a project. Under the initiative of Karl Wandry, a process has been proposed and will be a subject for further examination by the Agency Transition Committee as well as the Development Processing Review Committee. Future discussions of the proposed process will be focused on answers to the four questions presented below: 1. Should the process be mandatory for all applicants? 2. Will the process expedite or delay application processing time? 3. Will the process require additional staff time? 4. Would a post-application review process be more effective? It is expected that a process will be established and operational within 30 days. Center for Processing Applications and Permits, Development Processing Information Interim and permanent plans were to be prepared for the creation of a Center for processing development applications and permits. This facility would house staff from the Building Inspection, Community Development, Public Works and Health Services Departments. The plan was to include a program to streamline the processing of applications and permits with Environmental Health and Special Districts. A Committee of staff representatives from the three Departments and the Administrator' s Office has been established to study the Center concept. The Committee visited the Sacramento County Center to examine how that operation functions and what insights, process and procedures can be transferred to our County. The interim Center is scheduled to become operational in late August and will be established on the second floor, North Wing, of the Administration Building. The Center will provide all Community Development application processing services, Public Works permit processing services, and Building Inspection information and referral services. Building inspection permits will continue to be processed on the third floor, while tentative and final maps will continue to be approved at the Public Works -3- facility on Glacier Drive. Discussions aimed at including Fire Districts and Environmental Health Services at the Center are currently underway. Attachment B presents the physical layout of the Center. It is proposed that a Customer Services Manager will manage the Center and provide the ombudsperson activities included in the Board recommendation. A resolution establishing the job class and a job specification is included in Attachment C. Currently, a staff member on loan from the Public Works Department is assisting in the establishment of the Center and in simplifying and revising information on application instructions and fee schedules. Finally, Building Inspection staff has developed a brochure explaining building permit regulations and procedures. The brochure is targeted at the homeowner and provides handy step-by-step instructions. The brochure is included as Attachment D. Fee Advisory Committee The County Administrator was authorized to create an Advisory Committee to review how land development fees should be distributed among the various Departments. Another charge of the Committee was to design a "premium service" fee structure under which clients desirous of accelerated services will pay increased fees, without impacting services provided to other clients. A committee has been formed of Administrative Services Officers of the three Departments and a representative from the Administrator' s office. The Committee is reviewing how land development fees should be distributed among the various Departments. Actual redistribution will occur gradually after the following step's are taken. First, costs and revenues related to land development services have to be identified. Second, the Departments determine which services have higher actual costs than revenues received. Finally, the fees will be redistributed and/or the fee schedule increased to cover the costs. An outside consultant is assisting the Departments with this process. Public Works and Community Development have already established the need for fee increases for a number of services. A proposed increase to their fee schedules has been prepared and is currently under review by the development community. The Board of Supervisors will be asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed increases on July 31, 1990. The Committee has briefly discussed the development of a premium service fee structure to serve those who desire accelerated services. Currently Community Development and Building Inspection Departments provide variations in service on an informal basis. For example, Community Development has used consultants and assigned one project only to a planner on a temporary basis. Building Inspection occasionally grants a permit for a total project, reviews plans immediately as the builder completes each step, and inspects in stages. Over the next two months, the Committee will be examining how the premium service concept could be implemented. Outreach Planners The Community Development Director was charged with developing a program which periodically deploys outreach planners to provide citizens ready access to staff on large or controversial developments. The deployment decision was to based upon criteria established jointly by the County Administrator and the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director has proposed two program approaches. One approach would deploy planners on a bi-weekly basis to East, West and South Central County facilities. The t -4- planners would be. available to the public for one-half to a full day to discuss general plan, zoning or project plans. The second approach would utilize a "Plan-Van" or mobile office to provide the same type and level of outreach services to the public. Both approaches will be closely evaluated by the Agency Transition Committee and referred to the Development. Processing Review Committee for review and comment. A program is expected to be adopted and implemented within the next 60 days. Data Processing The County Administrator was charged with the task of identifying the data processing needs of the Community Development Department. This needs assessment was to include the cost of necessary hardware and software and the utility of networking personal computers within the Department and with other Departments. The Data Processing Division of the Administrator' s Office has conducted the assessment and prepared a detailed report, which is included as Attachment E. Discussions are currently underway with the Department management to determine priority needs and implementation plans. Recently the Department has purchased eight personal computers and associated hardware to address their most pressing automation needs. A final plan of action is expected to be adopted within 60 days. Conditions of Approval Policies and procedures were to be implemented which would improve setting conditions of development in conformity to codes and enhance the communication of these conditions to field inspectors. A committee was assigned to study this matter and traced some of the recent cases involving problems with conditions of development. Several suggestions are currently under consideration by the Agency Transition Committee. One suggestion is to strengthen the tree ordinance by requiring an assessment of $10,000 and replacement costs for any tree lost during development. Another is to include all conditions of approval on the computer system used by inspectors who issue final project approvals or certificates of ' occupancy. This procedure would assist field personnel in keeping track of the conditions as well as increase management oversight. It is expected that recommendations will be sent to the Development Process Review Committee within 30 days. Environmental Impact Review Policy A policy was to be prepared for vigorous staff review and comment on developments in cities and other jurisdictions. A policy is being formulated and should be submitted to the Board in July. Additionally, one environmental planning position was approved for Community Development at the June 12 Board meeting to implement the policy. Contracting The Board reaffirmed its policy that contracting for staff should be utilized to avoid service delays and provide specialized skills not available within Departments. A review of the three Departments indicated that Public Works and Community Development contract for over $5 million in services. Attachment F lists the type of service contracted for and the estimated cost for the service this fiscal year. r' Fi/�"l3\ Itd Attadm,ent A TO: AGENCY REVIEW COMMITTE DATE: June 13, 1990 FROM: Bob Giese, Chair SUBJECT: Minutes of June 11, 1990 Agency Review Committee Present: Jim Causey, Ron deVincenzi , Eileen Doten, Tony Enea, Bob Giese, Dean LaField, Dave MacLellan Absent: Karl Danielson 1. CHAIRMAN'S REVIEW Meeting was called to order by Bob Giese at approximately 8:40 a.m. Minutes of April 4, 1990 were accepted and approved with one correction to page 2, number 4 under the heading "Staff to Committee" . Eileen clarified she is on temporary assignment as Central Permit Bureau Manager and part of her duties include being the permanent staff person to this committee. Dean advised the agency goals sound too much like growth management controls and he recommended they be adjusted to prevent them from being interpreted that way. 2. A/P FLOW CHART AND PERMIT PROCESS Eileen presented an example of the flow chart and reported she is working on a consolidation of fee schedules for the three departments. Dean asked what the chances are for the fire district's to be represented in the CPB. Tony advised all agencies will be contacted in an effort to consolidate personnel into one location. Chief Little of Riverview Fire has been contacted regarding a meeting between the districts for their comments on representation. A meeting is set for Wednesday (6/13/90) . Fire wants their inspection and plan checking together. Their figures for plan check look low for the amount of time they say they spend in unincorporated areas. Dean asked that the issues not be confused regarding the request for a fire representative in the CPB; a fire inspector/engineer can do plan checking. It is clear to industry that plan checking could be done in BI with no increase in fees. Industry is only asking that plan checking be a part of the CPB. It was determined none of the fire district's had a fire engineer and it was suggested BI hire one to be located centrally to coordinate with all the different districts. Tony asked if BI foresaw working with Cities. Bob indicated we don't have to work with the Cities. We are trying to improve the process for the County. If the County improves and speeds up their permit process we will find the Cities will want the same thing. Fire ordinances are different from ours. PW, CD and BI involves industry with ideas, anticipated fee increases, code adoptions, etc. prior to submission to the Board. The fire districts go straight to the Board. In the meeting with the Chiefs this issue will be pressed. r Agency Review Committee -2- June 13, 1990 3. PW/CD FEES Jim presented PW's fee increase proposal with supporting documentation, which is ready to present to the board. All of PW's development engineering is labor intensive and is done by technicians or engineers. These fee increases will provide $218,000 additional revenue and the difference will be made up on improvements within the department. This increase represents 25% across the board. Dave asked if PW can forecast with any degree of accuracy 6 months in advance. Jim said it is hard to forecast, but when changes occur PW moves personnel around to divisions with increased workload, etc. Dave commented PW appears to have the flexibility to cut back when needed, but what happens in a boom? Jim advised PW personnel work overtime and pull personnel from other areas as needed. Dean commented this recommended fee increase is already in the works and what will the impact be when the County wide fee review is completed per the Board order? The study will encompass all agencies within the County. The CAO has an outside consultant to do this study over the next three years. Dean suggested that once the consultant has made their study, PW could have another increase next year. The industry pays fees for prompt service, but it appears industry could be in double jeopardy with an increase going into effect per PW's proposal , while an independent study will be made that could also result in . proposed increases. Ron commented it was the CAO and BOS who recommended the independent study. Tony advised the CAO is confident the fees in PW, CD and BI have been well studied. He again emphasized this is an overall study of all County departments. Dave commented the 3 departments have always come to industry with a good case history. No cities have. Ron presented CD's proposed fee increase and advised the committee that their front-end fees have not been increased in six years. CD currently has 1.7 million in expenses; 1.4 million in income, with a $300,000 deficit. CD is recommending a 20% increase. Dean asked the time table for the fee increase. Jim advised the proposed ordinances will be on the 6/26 agenda for hearing date set for 7/26 with increase going into effect 60 days thereafter. Dave asked if CD is a catch-up. Ron advised CD has 3 vacancies and has never broken even in the development area. In 1978 CD began a catch-up effort due to the effects of Prop 13. CD is relative close to catching up. Dave commented that between industry slow-down and open space initiative it will be extremely hard to know what will happen to these departments. Why doesn't the County Administrator poll the industry on what they expect for the next 12 months. Ron commented each department has done well on estimates and appreciates industry's offer. Dave advised most builders have a 5 year plan that might be beneficial for County use. Agency Review Committee -3- June 13, 1990 4. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW Bob presented Karl Wandry's proposed pre-application review. Dean feels this will add up front time and wants clarification as to who has to go through this process. The volume is questionable cost to staff. Dave advised that on the surface there is nothing objectionable. Jim advised pre-application review will not affect PW. Dean said this still does not answer the question; who is involved? Tony said this is a good question to bring up at Wednesday's meeting. Dean says it indicates a negative impact of staff. Dave commented individuals might need a counter person. He asked if complaints have been received. Tony advised small developers have problems with PW, CD and BI . They bring these problems to board meetings and this process came about to cover the x, y, and z's. Dean asked why divert staff people to do this. Ron said he is not aware of any BIA members having problems. Dave asked that industry be better informed when ordinances are passed using the tree ordinance as an example. Dean and Dave both asked that the pre-application process be quantified. Bob feels the Board is reacting to 2% of complaints received and failing to recognize 98% goes well . Dean confirmed this possibility. 5. UPDATE ON TRANSITION Tony advised that after a six month study the submission went to the Board with 19 recommendations and that is what is being worked on. Job specs for an agency director has gone to a head hunter for recruitment. By 9/1 applicants should be screened down to 5 to 7 people to be interviewed by the Board and Phil Batchelor. Eileen (PW) has been put on temporary assignment as Customer Service Manager to work towards setting up the CPB and is currently reporting to the CAO's. The job specs for Customer Service Manager are going to the Board on the 6/19 agenda. Every Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. meetings are held with the 3 department Directors, ASOs, Phil Batchelor and staff to discuss all issues coming forth. The meetings with this committee will be discussed. The Wednesday meetings have been occurring since mid-April . From these management meetings sub-committees have been formed such as Fee Committee, Processing Committee, Conditions of Development Committee, and a few others. The Board's approach is to achieve the 19 recommendations. This committee is a critical component to represent the outside. Phil heard Dean's request that industry be a part and that is why this committee was formed. Dean asked who the committees will report to and Tony advised the advisory committees will report to the agency director. Dean ask if Environmental Management Agency is the name of the agency. Tony advised a meeting is in progress at this time to discuss the name. Santa Clara and Orange County have that name. Dean asked what happened to. Community Development? Isn't that the purpose of the agency? Dave said with the agency director hire deadline date of 9/1, we have a little over 2 months to be in limbo on what the initiative on the November ballot will mean to this process. Will the CAO, or Board, defer action on the agency until the outcome of the initiative is known? Tony advised no plans at this time to defer, however, it is under discussion. Dave is r Agency Review Committee -4- June 13, 1990 concerned that there is no plan of action. Bob said if initiative gets signatures required, we will all have to have a plan. Ron also. said as soon as we know the count decisions will be made. 6. CONTINUE Meetings: a. When - Second Monday of each month at 8:30 a.m. subject to cancellation. b. Where - BIA, 1280 Boulevard Way, Suite 211, Walnut Creek. C. Successor for Chair - Continued 7. MISCELLANEOUS Dave asked for item next meeting to include County likelihood of other agencies participation. Since fire districts already approached, suggest approach CC water and EBMUDD. Industry contacts might also be useful in this effort. A successful CPB requires participation of all agencies. Dean asked Tony if an update of the agency mission draft can be forwarded to committee members as it cannot wait another month. Tony will see everyone is provided with the latest draft. Dave asked if there is any process for industry input to the Board on the mission statement. Tony said any input should be directed to Phil Batchelor. We are in contact with the same agencies as industry and we would appreciate any strategies to help gain their support. Following are the fax numbers of committee members: David MacLellan 820-1742 Ron deVincenzi 646-1309 Dean LaField 820-7296 Eileen Doten 646-1147 Jim Causey 646-1147 Bob Giese 646-1219 The next meeting is scheduled for July 9, 1990, 8:30 a.m. , BIA of Northern California, 1280 Boulevard Way, Suite 211, Conference Room, Walnut Creek. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. LIO a fL'Attachmnt B a �® •� ID AW Ad J x _ lieC s � U. r go i + c