The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-04-21; City Council; 18829; Development Services ReportClIYOflTt flSS9ClflTfS, LLC FOLSOM (SACRAMENTO)MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS i r~ r~ PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE City of Carisbad FINAL REPORT April 21, 2006 m m • 705 Gold Lake Drive, Suite 100 • Folsom, CA 95630 (916) 355-1385 or (800) 275-2764 • Fax: (916) 355-1390 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pase Executive Summary and Action Plan 1 Customer Focus Groups 1 Planning 1 Inspections 2 Engineering 2 Fire 2 General Comments 3 Customer Survey 3 Employee Survey 4 Most Positive Feelings of Employees 4 Most Negative Feelings of Employees 4 Conclusions 5 Action Plan 6 Section 1—Introduction Section 1—page 1 The City of Carlsbad, California 1 Description of the Development Services Departments 1 Study Scope and Objectives 1 Study Approach 3 Section 2—General Observations Section 2—page 1 Strategic Alignment 1 Perspective No. 1: Less Staff Will Be Needed As the City Transitions From New Developments to Infill 3 Perspective No. 2: The City Council Wants Issues Worked Out Before They Come To The Council 3 Perspective No. 3: Be More Flexible While Maintaining the City's High Standards 4 Cultural Change 4 Section 3—Planning Section 3—page 1 Background 1 Organization of the Planning Department 1 Planning Staff Concerns 2 Customer Focus Groups and Survey 4 Citygate Associates Findings 6 Workload 6 Table of Contents—-page i CIWK IK Reorganization of the Department 7 Re-evaluation of Planning Positions 8 Deputy Directors 8 More Vacant Positions 10 Junior Planner 10 Update Critical Planning Documents 10 City General Plan 10 Zoning Ordinance 11 Customer Information 12 Development Review Process 13 Case Management 13 Development Review Team (DRT) 14 Deeming an Application Complete 15 Citygate's Conclusions Regarding "Deeming an Application Complete" 16 Management Information and Performance Measures 17 Unanticipated Service Program 18 Standards for City-Generated Projects 20 Monitor Consultants 20 Implementation 20 Section 4—Building Department Section 4—page 1 Background 1 Staffing 1 Work Volume 3 Cycle Times 4 Monitoring Consultants 4 Customer Information 4 Technology 4 Section 5—Code Enforcement Section 5—page 1 Background 1 Code Enforcement Process 1 Workload 2 Findings 3 Challenges Facing Code Enforcement 4 Section 6—Development Services Counter Section 6—page 1 Background 1 Citygate Findings 1 Creation of Development Services Division 2 Table of Contents-ii I I I I I I I Customer Assistance 2 Customer Information 3 Data Management System 3 Management Reports and Tracking 4 Section 7—Engineering Development Services Section 7—page 1 Focus Groups Concerns 2 I Engineering Staff Concerns 2 Engineering Division Organization 3 Citygate Findings 4 Engineering Standards 4 Workload Analysis 5 Staffing Level 6 Cycle Times 8 Customer Information 9 Application Triage 9 Project Corrections in the Field 9 City Project Reviews 10 Grading Permit Violations 10 Monitoring Contracting Firms 10 r i i i i Section 8—Redevelopment Agency Section 8—page 1 I Workload 2 Development Review Process 2 I City gate Findings 3 Inconsistency Among Plans and Standards 4 | Section 9—Fire Prevention Section 9—page 1 Section 10—Technology and Documentation Section 10—page 1 (Objectives of Development Services Technologies 1 Technology Planning 2 - WebSite 2 | Citygate Finding 3 GIS 3 I Citygate Finding 4 Permitting and Zoning Systems 4 Citygate Finding 5 Handheld Devices 5 Citygate Finding 6 Table of Contents—page iii Permit Plus 6 Citygate Finding 6 Document Managing and Imaging 7 Citygate Finding 8 Citygate Associates' Recommendations 8 Examples of E-Government Technologies 10 Excellent City and County Web Sites 10 Web Mapping 10 Permitting and Zoning Systems 11 APPENDIX Appendix A—Comparative Agencies Survey Appendix A—page 1 Appendix B—Policy No. 34 Appendix B—page 1 Appendix C—Customer Survey Analysis Appendix C—page 1 A. Overview and Methodology 1 B. Demographic Classification Statements 2 C. Carlsbad Development Services Overall 4 D. Front Counter Operations 7 E. Current Planning 14 F. Long-Range Planning 23 G. Building Department 28 H. Development and Housing 33 I. Fire Prevention Services 38 J. Engineering Land Development 43 K. Yes/No Questions 51 L. Additional Comments 52 M. Summary of Findings 53 Appendix D—Employee Survey Analysis Appendix D—page 1 A. Overview and Methodology 1 B. Closed-Ended Questions 1 C. Open-Ended Questions 25 D. Demographic Data 33 E. Summary of Findings 34 Table of Contents-iv I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND ACTION PLAN I This report presents the results of Citygate Associates, LLC's Development Review Process Audit of the City of Carlsbad. Citygate conducted its field work for the study between November 2005 and January 2006. The scope of the study included the following program areas: I + Planning (Community Development MSA) + Building (Community Development MSA) | ^ Housing and Redevelopment (Community Development MSA) ^ Development Services Engineering (Public Works MSA) I + Fire Prevention (Public Safety MSA). The objective of the study was to analyze the policies, procedures, management and operations (of the Development Review Processes and to make recommendations for improving the service provided by the development services entities to the citizens and customers of the City of Carlsbad. To accomplish this objective, Citygate first analyzed the Community Development (Strategic Plan and the available mission statements for the departments as they relate to the Development Review Process and assessed the congruence of these critical guidelines with the priorities of the Mayor and City Council, staff, applicants, and the needs of the community. I We then evaluated the organizational structure and management systems, organizational relationships, allocation of employees and other resources, data management, personnel I management and training, records management, communications, information systems, facilities and equipment, relationships with citizens, the perspectives of employees, and related aspects to determine if these are in alignment with the development services entities' mission, policies, (operations, and service delivery. This Executive Summary presents a brief, but comprehensive, overview of our findings and recommendations. It is suggested that in order to obtain a complete understanding of I Citygate's analysis, this report should be read in its entirety. • CUSTOMER Focus GROUPS Citygate conducted three focus groups with those who submit applications to Community I Development, Development Services Engineering, and Fire Prevention. A summary of the Focus Group comments are presented below: Planning + Planners are open, honest, fair, and forthright. ^ It seems impossible to have an application deemed complete on the first submittal. I I + If design is an issue, it should be treated as a condition to be corrected for the next I phase. I Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 1 aswtwwauc I ^ Timing is always the big issue - staff is often short handed or behind; some planners get things through quickly and provide good service, yet some always have reasons for running behind. + For preliminary reviews of project, the City should get all the key staff in the room with the applicant to discuss issues and concerns. ^ Customers should not have to serve as "project managers" to get projects through the system by calling each department periodically to see where things stand. ^ Because of the time it takes to get through the process, the applicant makes compromises just to speed up the process. + City projects should be held to the same standards that are required of customers. + The original planner is not always involved in subsequent approvals. Inspections ^ One individual indicated that he had good experiences with Building 95 percent of the time; Building staff "know the rules" and are consistent in applying rules; others indicated they have had experiences where the inspector asked for something different than specified on the plan. Engineering ^ Many expressed that the Engineering program is understaffed - "If understaffed, bill us for it." + Half-way through the project, Engineering made additions to the list of what needed changing - "We need to know what is needed upfront." + The Deputy City Engineer communicates well, is fair and honest, and makes decisions. ^ It is not uncommon that Planning comments are stalled while waiting for Engineering to review. + Some engineers appear to be burned out. ^ In the field, the engineering inspector changes the plan to suit personal preferences (e.g., storm inlet) - requirements need to be brought up front on plan check. ^ In Engineering, there is one large firm and three small firms performing contract plan checks for the City; not all of them provide the same quality of review. Fire + Fire Marshall staff communicates well, there is latitude and things work well. + Fire issues come up after the fact, and this is more problematic; fire access discussion should come in pre-conference meeting. + The field staff (Fire Marshal and Building) are great. Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 2 I General Comments I ^ Some customers feel they are "punished" for asking questions. ^ There are inconsistencies between ordinances and policies. I I I I I I I There are different standards for a City-generated project. ^ Planning, Engineering, and Building need to try to solve issues, not "play _ policeman." The emphasis should be placed on getting customer's projects I through, while not compromising standards. + Customers need a degree of certainty - the more the requirements are stated up I front, the better job the developer can do. ^ Difficult to get calls returned; is it possible that the staff be required to return _ phone calls within 24 hours? I + The City staff should own the project and solve problems - impress the customer with positive attitude - their customer has best interest at heart. I + Carlsbad does a much better job than larger cities. Discussion with staff is responsive and positive. • ^ Interdepartmental communication seems lacking. ^ Do the Redevelopment and Community Development permit systems have to be separate? CUSTOMER SURVEY I Citygate took the results from both the Customer Focus Groups and our initial interviews, and used this input to design a Customer Survey, which was strictly confidential. While Customer I Survey respondents were relatively few in number, they appear to be a representative cross- section of the development community in Carlsbad. Many positive comments and numerical results were generated by the respondents. A theme that (emerges from the responses is reflected in the generally high marks given by the respondents to the physical place where they conduct business and to the City personnel, whom the respondents generally indicate are helpful and desire to do a thorough and professional job. This trend was repeated in most of the subdivisions of development services areas as well as overall. On the other hand, the respondents give lower marks to the amount of time it takes to go through the Development Review Process, Development Review staffs understanding of private business, and poor experience in having staff return customer phone calls. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the respondents indicated their willingness to pay more if they could be guaranteed a more timely process and sixty-eight percent (68%) indicated a willingness to pay more for express handling of their applications. A detailed analysis of the Customer Survey can be found in Appendix C. I Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 3 ami BOTB nc EMPLOYEE SURVEY Citygate also conducted an Employee Survey that included responses from twenty-six (26) employees within the development services areas. Shown below are the salient positive and negative findings based on analysis of both the closed-end statements and open-ended questions. A detailed analysis of the Employee Survey can be found in Appendix D. Most Positive Feelings of Employees + Employees feel they have the necessary skills to do their jobs and that it is clear to them what their role is in the process of the larger task that is to be performed. + They believe that service to the public is strongly emphasized both in their "program area" and in the development services areas as a whole. 41 They indicated that performance evaluations have been received in a timely manner and according to schedule. + They believe that they have sufficient resources to complete their work, such as office space, computers, etc. + They generally find that they have adequate decision-making authority in processing an application, approving a permit, or assisting a customer in another way. ^ They indicated that they seek and receive sufficient training to effectively complete their job responsibilities. + Finally, they believe the City of Carlsbad has an effective process for listening to citizen or customer concerns and that customer inquiries are responded to promptly. Most Negative Feelings of Employees ^ The survey respondents as a whole strongly disagree that the workload, both within their 'program area' and within the larger development services areas, is equally divided among their co-workers. ^ They disagree with the statement that the current compensation process rewards them for higher than average levels of performance. + They do not believe that Carlsbad's codes, policies, and procedures are up to date and provide for effective and efficient delivery of services. ^ Further, they do not believe that the development services review process is an efficient, well-run process or that given the current level of staffing within their 'program area,' that the goals and objectives of that program area are achievable. ^ Overall, they do not believe there is an effective flow of information between management and staff within the development services areas or that decision- making within these areas is consistent. Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 4 I I I I They indicated that clear, written policies and procedures are not in place to assist them in the performance of their job responsibilities. Finally, they believe that the development services areas' computer tracking system does not address the project tracking needs of the operation. CONCLUSIONS I On the whole, Citygate Associates found a high caliber of employees in each division involved in the Development Review Process. It is also evident that the opportunities for improvement Citygate identified while conducting the independent performance audit were highlighted in our (interviews with the Council, City Manager, development services managers, employees, and customer focus groups. Both the customers and employees agreed that policies were outdated and inconsistent, that the review processes take too long, customers receive inconsistent answers (to questions, and inadequate staffing levels exist in some areas. Both the customers and employees are anxiously awaiting significant changes and improvements to address these problems. I The Planning Department is the face on the development process as it not only performs * project reviews, but the comments from other development-related entities flow through Planning to the customers, Planning Commission, and City Council. § Our major recommendations in the Planning Department include a reorganization of the Department into two divisions (which are now four) of Advanced Planning and Current (Planning. The General Plan, Coastal Plan, and Zoning Code should have comprehensive rewrites which not only bring them up-to-date, but also incorporate existing interpretations of those documents. Implementation of these recommendations will require a strong commitment by • planners and managers. In addition, Citygate is recommending the following changes in the Planning Department: a redesigned Development Review Team approach consisting of representatives from Planning, I Building, Engineering, and Fire to meet with applicants of major developments at the initial point in the process to outline issues and concerns; a Case Management program wherein a _ planner is assigned to facilitate applications through the Development Review Process (from the I submittal of application to issuance of a permit); an "unanticipated service" program; and that the technology be upgraded so that planners have access quickly to GIS maps, application - tracking system, permit data, maps, and other resources. Citygate is also recommending that two I of the Principal Planners positions be upgraded to new Deputy Director positions (the third Principal Planner position is recommended to be reclassified to a Senior Planner position in (Current Planning). This will provide the management guidance, support, and oversight needed to implement these recommendations. It needs to be stated strongly that the planning staff is doing a remarkable job given the (existing tools and resources they have. Once these recommended programs are in place, the technology is enhanced, and the plans, code, and policies are updated, it is reasonable to then hold the planners to cycle turnaround times and other types of performance measures. I It also is likely that there will be need for additional staff. The Department has been logging their activities since July 2005. This was not long enough for Citygate to determine to what extent such a staff increase is necessary. These additional programs (e.g. Case management) and Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 5 onwui asSa uc I rewriting the critical documents to the development review process are not easy tasks - it will take time, commitment, and support for these initiatives to be effective. The Building Department program is run in an effective and efficient manner as is the Code Enforcement Program. Our recommendations in these areas relate primarily to technology enhancements. By providing computers or PDAs for those in the field to instantly access information from the City's database (e.g., permit tracking system), and to record actions in the field which sync instantly to the City's system, will eventually allow for same-day permit approvals. Citygate Associates is recommending that the Development Services Counter operations be reorganized into a division of its own to provide ongoing management oversight, coordinate how the technicians work as a team, provide intervention on occasions when technicians are dealing with difficult (or potentially dangerous) customers, observe employees daily as a basis for performance evaluations, monitor the effectiveness of information provided to customers, and enhance customer service delivery. Finally, Citygate has concluded that the Development Services Engineering Division is significantly understaffed (this was also expressed by the customer focus groups and other development-related entities employees). Partly this is due to two vacant positions which have been held up pending this study. These two positions should be filled immediately. We are also recommending an additional engineering position. This will take the staffing level back to where it was a few years ago, when the workloads were much less than they are now. As Development Services Engineering's turnaround times impact not only this Division, but the Planning Department's (and through them, the customer's) turnaround time as well, Citygate strongly recommends the proposed staffing level as well as adequate supervision from the Deputy City Engineer and Senior Engineer to speed up the Development Review Process while at the same time maintain the City's high standards. ACTION PLAN A listing of our recommendations and a blueprint for their implementation are presented in the following Action Plan. This Action Plan contains: + The priority of each recommendation ^ The suggested implementation timeframe + The anticipated benefits of each recommendation ^ The responsible organization. The legend at the bottom of each page of the Action Plan defines the level of each priority indicated by the letters "A" through "D." It is important to note that priorities have been established independent of the suggested timeframe. For example, a recommendation may have the highest priority (indicated by the letter "A") but may require an estimated six months to implement. Conversely, a recommendation with the letter "C" priority, which indicates that the recommendation is not critical but will improve operations, may have a two-month timeframe, since the estimated implementation effort would not require an extended period of time. Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 6 I I Moreover, the timeframe is independent of actual time. Initiation of a recommendation is based on the priority given, as well as local factors. I It is also important to note that an "A" priority, which indicates that the recommendation is deemed "mandatory or critical," should not be interpreted to mean that the recommendation is _ "mandated" by a statute or regulation - it is simply an "urgent" recommendation of high priority. I The timeframes indicated in the Action Plan do not necessarily mean the anticipated completion dates for the implementation of each recommendation, since the timeframes given are I estimations. Citygate evaluates the implementation process of other studies it has conducted in other _ organizations and finds that a common implementation timeframe is two years. Given resource I adjustments, we believe all of development services' various departments and divisions could complete substantial implementation of all recommendations within two years. I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary and Action Plan—page 7 I 5a. o o ^N^-'Jjl |^ (^ ^«3c 185 1 ipated Ben•a•5C ^ i| 1 §£. >*^ i Si ^^* •1 | II £^Recommendationt- 1k.PLANNING DEPARi _o "o g E 0 « T3 <« e «•8.1 1 e ISIS£<s < g ^"So < « *i—i NN 1 Recommendationg g5 1 iea JS fr0- Q c bC ^ |5C Reorganize the Plainto Advanced andDivisions.o 0o ^v^ Q 1 "5 fa .-S C 5 II 1o o> =sU Q E u •£ c ^ ^ *G ^"^ c< * ^™ i*^ *"N • »M UH |||il|1 1 MllHHUlllill ^'•C (311*^0 M P CJ |-|1 1| vr e.lf'> CT ^ ^ ^ s u 5 PH CA A -tn J-H h"1 O PH C^ Q^ <U J2 "£ ^5 ^5 Sr^ *O ™ r^ 1 e g £c £ £ c vo ^g ^g ro < < Cfl•M ^^ ^"^ ?i ^ -, Qjj -4_J (O ^-^ QJ ^«^ ^^ ^ O *^ ^ "rt •-— .*3 rrt •— ' 5 L -C P u_ O .2ts i> i> c ^c _c ^ "^ 5 *^ ^ T1 ^"^ W ^^ fl_J ^ -^ QJ • " C^ t-H C ^ ^5^2 ^? i^J ^ LM r^ ^™M &Q ^ 6Ji O "3 O <ii ^ ^ O *i3 ^ ^H c rti " C *^ * ^^ O^ O i,^ fH yj O ^J >^^) ^v C^ OH ^H (-^4 ff^ V3 ^^ ~—i £^4 ^\ c^ Co Ctf 2 o • • • • — c O"8 I « 1 If 5 &*^ o «C > co g .0 •f -a §•;§ Illl5: g •> 3 § § B*.•s E 3 "°43 I* «J E ^-g E |1?'S |o o *- ov h O oot £ Z c* < CQ U Q 00 u(so CL, C 03 C8 '•4-»3Oa>x W I 5 CL O >,££ ZO CUC-T3 coi_ 03cu>> I/-) »— H|1 <\ Recommendation III-3:CH-Ho scd•a & .Conduct a comprehensivethe Carlsbad General Plan,c•^jo23 bO_C'S J3bo -5 o- 2•S « >> oc <sE co 30 •M OH gco CU .S< Q Q ides clear, concise, and>stent requirements,mline -review processes, andte to address infill standards.> co c3 rtO C w T3^ 0 J3 OHOH O CO 3 2cSCU>> i/~> •— H1 <1 Recommendation III-4:<+H O CU•4—*« ^rtU s Conduct a comprehensivethe City's Zoning Code.to.SG O J 1E .3 « S ?« o >>co o 3 '35 2 OHco .3 CU< Q Q •s more understandablemation for first timeimers.III CO1 o rO CQ 1 Recommendation III-5:> ^_ C .1 cu ^ §> o j= Ecu C *- CC P3 CU So-s S 8 Involve a technical writer 1all customer handouts to eitheir readability and to ensare understandable to "theperson." Add graphics andflowcharts.bO_c'c OJEH_> c te« s CO O•a 2co .3< Q ides a more readable form forimers.£ °2 3 OH 0 ^"cu•4— t («*3CU J3 < G til I'8 f r^ -^J^ c> cu6 S Recommendation III-6:Rewrite the Planning Revito provide a separate docuieach review..o .2 •c 2 •&•I! Q U O 1 illiin~s S 3 -a•a |-°.-sc 5 -3 c 1^11ll'SI 8 S s "t£ c/5 Z SDi 03 U D j g j^^^ftj •"S C)ft. 1 ^Anticipated Benefits* * ^^i *«^ 5 1« §£ i s c^ Kl 'C Uc \ 3k X?RecommendationbOo .S•4-^ £3CJ CO CV* ffji5 Ef IsC W3 Oc -S H_2 co .SE < P Allows for a planner assigned toeach application to track theproject through the reviewprocess.Keeps applicants informed.Solves problems.CO •g O OO vo CQ 1 Recommendation III-7:%Adopt a Case ManagementApproach for project revie^u. W>o .S 8 cu C3 P Pi bO "P t--S ^2S ^2 ^ S ^ > § ^ si ISmi §| ^^ '3'S $ enil< g-ll CO ^C3o OJ <1 Recommendation III-8:1 - H bfi u> C ^ .22 i Create a Development Revconsisting of Planning, BuiEngineering, and Firerepresentatives to conduct 1meetings with applicants.bO O *- " 'So> ci— i c35 S -S 1 °C co og -53 E 5 < 3 ° C U %> « ^ g•g 3 1 12 S g» g is S'gS-S 1 8,13 2 .22 -a3 fe 0 C S c -S ^ ^ § - -3o cx c ^« 3 2 o •II 1? 1 111^1OH 03 C on C CO *COrt bOCacO <1 Recommendation III-9:^s «o c _ ^_, *•* co cd—, cU T3 C '*3 Continue to keep logs of alactivities and use them to sperformance standards. Adlogs - why were applicatiodeemed complete on its inisubmittals?0 o<D P bOC'S Cc$ E| Is J3E co O 'M ^ «cUCrt Institute an "Unanticipatedprogram.0 « u o bo cd ll '32 or 2 B I -o 8.1o „QI cd 11 3.11 < CO U Q utoo<J3O, cfl O IE300 o I 3 Q. Zg I ^W ^J*-£»c5j <,a»^•4 ^V}~«k §& £ft^ 1 §^WOQ 1Q •&.s•C TN ^ S me Frame JiplementathS^ £>§ §1BI^ CA ^^Recommendation-»-» S ,O V (/OO2 o"5w&'Q 60_g'Hcca E u-t!C3*O... 1 gibfl O ^ •£ A ^g s"0 C ^ 05&-2 s S •eview^4u-£ g? O3•a ?l?-z.§ i'i•S -° &, o 2 ^u w «^ . <€ 1 I"Sr- § S-S <a w c -o ca js £& oa 1 Recommendation III-ll:-<-> 45« o.x> T3<a0303B&Xu <L>O 0 03 « & 03 S0) P03 fc}>03 S*1 0 03 l§< UH ^13-4—»C3•6.•+ 'u<i]1 ! i ( P D .;3^f\ *^?i O- ^3 1|J -5 60 1O PQ 1 Recommendation 111-13:Monitor the quality of servicesprovided by contractors.BUILDING DEPARTMENTJ-<uXT.WJJ« 2^3 S0 «U S "2 c§ | 60 SG 853 £rs e83 cPQ U m W+2 >•— CO E -C Is£.2o tS(U 0) U CXc s -3$ C *"rt3 ' ^ flicfl T= -gw g o * ^ C ^n?§"« &u sM 45 9T3 t3 0 0) D C•S,S 8C/2 O X) C3 <4-H (J ° ^ -<-" -*-* r- C* S § c J2 ^ 1 6 • 2 ft-•| B, & S i S^ 0 3 0 g £ft ^^ (IJ * ^" «• (U.2 ^ Si > o ^o ^| fe| ^P-, -o Q oo £ on Q C j=Recommendation IV-1:Once a Development ServicesInformation Systems Plan has beeconducted, provide inspectors witcomputers or PDAs to log ininformation to instantly update th<Accela database from the field.&y=f 1S CO S 1 "C 2 "ou upb- g-1 ^ " ii II1-8.N Q aO § i ? * 1PIIMIIf! I(2 M z (S < CQ U Q 6003O. js £ § •803 ifa I 00 OuXW < 0_ o< •? ^^*" Q £ R. <5 1 SHfj£* ^ _g % §oq 1 t'«sT <S. .§Time Frame jImplementati'£ §^ \•2 to Recommendationu PT<T3 G O J2U Jg *^3 +* *¥•# QJCv )>H c S• S3 O "^ O^»3 f II 3 CCQ W M > ' § J= 4) g #«-H Q o "o CH ^ S ^ -^y^ rt QJ ™H f^ s" u E^^S 8 g 8 §ex c u00 O X) ea o F-« -4-» "tn C* g S g J2S> S E .2 euliis iiiiislfUH -a Q &o £ on Q Recommendation IV-2:As part of the Development ServicesInformation Systems Plan, include ameans by which inspections may bescheduled, applications with fees canbe submitted, and digital versions ofplans can be submitted on line.DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTERSo.£ •g £> D § CX § "S SH ^ O 1>U Q o C^cc •^ c tt g2 .2 ° -B fj 'S & 0 ex « -a os> cy Cu ^ « .52g-^ iS1 & c?^1 > §18 ^3 E -SPto *o «j 221) .. O <U-o g -a >•r .si -r o1 £ l*s*-" (U *-i C0- M OH « en •*— » § m <1 Recommendation VI-1:Create a new Development ServicesDivision within CommunityDevelopment and add a DivisionManager.C w,. u .£ c r§ E'3 ?,, « c J?'§S SS &flJS c OH PJ o •au 'I ^ ex ** C ^O 1|d ill S e ~S 6 £3 o S | 05 -0 W o § 1 <1 Recommendation VI-2:Conduct a thorough reading of eachof the information sheets given tocustomers to ensure they are up-to-date, understandable to the "commonperson on the street," and well-designed...azfedO J "M0 •cu UiO ^O . « ccd Co •og o < "8•a g E E0 £ ^'5bcS CO CAco S8.O >s .1 'i 3 •°_ 13.H o 0 U 13crs•^ tn CO .*i •a 3JO T?"4> g E o8of G I 0_ zg o •»fcs•«_ Sfc."P9k.M£*ON •32-C**»<fiM | 1>c03 Anticipated Benefits%, R^•|u *! 1 5 1 § ^ 1&} ^581K^ ^S•^£§i, -^Recommendation•4— »C >-u wG bOS- K3CIi GO 0313 5> ^1> 1/3 Q" (U0£ 'E> -5 S 22^ ue g•ili s £ 2 C 0 '" 5U OS 03 'ol S 0^ i/i 1g ^D u 1 Recommendation VI-3:o3uc *-^ i55 £.5 Q.Provide an information "kithe entrance to the Develo]Services Counter.-^^G »-S oS SP5 03 OH CO 03"S S U "3r^ uO o *'£4> uZ on GO Allows continual monitoring ofactivities upon which to makemanagement decisions regardinstaffing levels and performancemeasures.CO ^O m ffl \ Recommendation VI-4:S(U ^^[A >lU5 tooC Establish an activity tracki§ 1 Q i ^^<o i?iUJ DEVELOPMENT SERVICEST3 t-i<u(UrHM 'SocW>-,*-^ U ^G Q c/5 Provides additional engineers aifills the vacant senior engineerpositions needed to speed updevelopment reviews whilemaintaining the City's standard:^fli ^03=3uS t-H <\ Recommendation VII-1:*v^^c03 u.<U(U uc -a Fill the vacant Senior Engiadd two additional AssocitEngineer positions.(_ u0> '5bC UH >•>-4— ». ^HUt3CuuQ Provides clearer response tocustomers regarding theirprojects.•g! <\ Recommendation VII-2:£03 03 S ft_2 S Rewrite the Engineering PReview form to provide a :document for each review.o oztdo •c 2-6"U <3 3s §-5I U1'tl5 T3 ca IIPi!-2!g £J «" S E^-s ££ oo'C Eo c o oo o *- o3 O Ua! oo Z OS -J| < CD U Q 00cCP. CO o 03 C/3 - 1XW 5 Q. -* •*•» £> •"2 c Ci, ^ 1«ueq1 fc 1 1g § i*, 1 fti ^S) ^* •1 | ^^t ^^j ^^^ ^^1^•2 BQ ft,^RecommendationtoO_C « M §•« 'l| Wo 11 g OH ^2 "c £ 13 U3 a,x;u £ uu o0 01 S | i & -a ^•T™1 ^O ^r u^ 1T3 Eg < (/:"S <D 1>*5T* <^Recommendation VII-3:Ensure that City-generated pnmeet the same standards that tCity requires of developers.bO"2 c -Si -2 S3a « too — GC O 'bol-g '> c e? ^ g 1 £Q QD "-* 2 eg•^ o 53 . •1 & g^J 4) ^ <U fti C3 ^^ (1) cfl S £ -S £ on•S o m m 1 Recommendation VII-4:too tobG G'm £P 'C00 C U Make the initial steps in addregrading permit violations theresponsibility of the Engineer]Inspectors, rather than of theDevelopment Services Engineo »-2 <oo <u8 -gv=j MQ c M W 1 | O -&" S 3 ^ QJc2 Q ^*-HO .4—1 toO "&oi . u oo 32•o "oU f-ll 1 S a on -y S<l> C S •^ (11 T-^^2 ?s 3> 6 |0 S^ GLH CQ O OH & 0 |VH0S <1 Recommendation VI 1-5:| D.DnTS3 C Provide more administrative sto track consulting contracts aprovide monthly reports.£ t-l l»f\OJJ(U C3 O ^U S "S ^ * fltoO § 2 ^g OQ W c.2 ;| .1 O <L>o »-o ^^ *o oo fH> c 1/1 "O '"^ MO ^"^t- <4-OH O •4— > Cfl•3 1g < W . ^*Recommendation IX-1:An automatic copy of EsGilcomments should be sent to FPrevention.«o 'Co o t if|1 o "«y.i^I «-Si1 = E x.H EE "a-c E8 g - 85^ I— Q 4) (*S to Z £* < CD U Q toOC3 _0 '-^O CO «J §tfl 1 1siaj Anticipated Benefits^1i ^1 §^ s %> ""N*52 QL K^ IS RecommendationTECHNOLOGYo•4— »O t* t||I O <U r_ P— 10 Q C O of(U (11 .J A comprehensive informationsystem analysis needs to be donfocusing on the developmentreview process, permitting, andadvanced planning. This willserve as the roadmap ofenhancing the data available toemployees, cut down on mistakiand speed up the review process0> CQ ^Hi 1 Recommendation Xoo 1 O U'£«§ iw •*- 5^ £ 0.•*-> CC CJgS-a 1113 £ f- ^ >> S ^ M ^Q c c « 2 c*- ~S c§ S g- ^llo ^^ s%u £-§ i ^ u SPJ" t nM h. S II §" t>0 M .SC C U so O3 O ._ >W U «s1 1 Recommendation X•o 2^3 -O0 C "^ ^ •3 S "^ ^CJ) ^ (53 .S oo li!bO *-^ l> w ^2 ^ _o 0u1_ • •HQ . c . fc ^ g fe M § On g § S > S cnO U r^ £HU Q b O 00HH u "O oT3 03 "o.u o6 1 III ^ _g ^ D, u ^ 11 Hi^ 7T" P >, U (U 03 (D U bO'B Sc 2 M•> g g o ,2 "S ^3 ^o ^ ^*fc CO U «*i 1 Recommendation Xt*-l u -*-*_--.* 2J^^s § I ^^ ^" •f» *•** C ^ _C 'S j^ C *2 S 3&s u ra IIe-w 11111 = ez Uu u c go | - -'•S E 3 T3 •o I^-Sc S ^f cO I. M (j E±>-s £6 oo-c £O C tj Q 4J fc- Q 4J Di c/D 2 0^ < CQ U Q I <u u(U I I I In this section of City gate's report, we introduce key features of the City of Carlsbad that are I I I I I I SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION germane to this study, identify the key service areas that are involved with Carlsbad's Development Review Process, and outline Citygate's project scope and study approach. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I The City of Carlsbad is a unique coastal community located 30 miles north of San Diego on seven miles of beachfront, surrounded by mountains, lagoons, and the Pacific Ocean. The City is _ approximately 70 percent developed and is expected to grow from its current population of I 94,000 to 128,000 once its 42 square miles are built out. Forty percent of the City will remain in permanent open space because of the City's progressive open space and habitat conservation . plans. Carlsbad residents enjoy the benefits of a full service city, including its own fire, police I library, utilities, and water services departments. The level of activity in new development, additions, remodels, teardowns, and rebuilds is brisk, and residents/developers expect a high level of timely service from the City's development services areas. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENTS RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES City services are grouped into five Major Service Areas (MSAs). Development service activities include as many as five departments within three MSAs. The development services areas are I responsible for reviewing all proposed developments and issuing development permits, as well as working with the City Attorney's office on code enforcement issues. The departments also provide staff support to the City's Planning Commission, City Council, and the various ad hoc I committees, e.g., Agricultural Mitigation Fee Committee, Open Space Committee, etc. The areas under study in this report are: ^ Planning (Community Development MSA) I ^ Building (Community Development MSA) + Housing and Redevelopment (Community Development MSA) | ^ Development Services Engineering (Public Works MSA) + Fire Prevention (Public Safety MSA). STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to provide an independent, third party analysis of the policies, procedures, management and operations of these five programs, as they now exist, and to design a creative strategy for improvement, as needed. Included in the analysis is an assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, and responsiveness of these programs. Section 1—Introduction—page 1 anasissaiauc CARLSBAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 Planning Department Community Development Director 1 1 Building Department &: . Code Enforcement Housing & Redevelopment 1 Economic / Developments. Real Estate 1 •* •;,?. QIS:." V ;•• Department; In order to meet the objectives identified above, the following key factors deemed critical to the success of the five programs under examination were reviewed in detail: ^ Mission and goals of the City + Mission and policies of the programs + Communication among the staffs, and the staff with their customers + Current and future performance measures + Support systems + Organization of the system components + Management structure and effectiveness ^ Customer satisfaction ^ Allocation of employees and other resources ^ Personnel management, supervision, and reporting ^ Staffing, budgeting, and training ^ Workload trends ^ Physical layout of the current program locations. The scope of Citygate's engagement did not include either a financial audit or a compliance audit. Within the scope and objectives of the study, Citygate set its own goals that, once accomplished, would help determine if the programs under review provide their services in a timely, efficient, effective, and responsive manner. These goals included: ^ Analyzing the City's goals of its review process and the overall philosophy of the Planning, Building, Code Enforcement, Development Services Counter, Engineering, and Redevelopment programs, and assessing the congruence of these critical guidelines with the orientation of the City as well as the needs of the public and the development community. amnwwac Section 1—Introduction—page 2 1 1 1 • 1 11 1 1• ' 1 • 1 1I 11 11 1 • 1 ^ Assessing whether the programs provide a set of clearly defined comprehensive services that are well planned and executed. ^ Reviewing the aspects within the programs that are most critical to successful organizational performance and outstanding customer service. Cirygate also set a goal of providing realistic and executable recommendations to programs improve their overall effectiveness and meet the needs of the City Council, City departments, and the customers and citizens they serve. STUDY APPROACH Citygate's study approach and methodology consisted of five major tasks, which were in our Proposal to the City of Carlsbad. These tasks are listed below: + Initiate and manage the project. + Conduct initial review of operations of each program area. ^ Conduct analysis of external service delivery systems. ^ Perform in-depth operational analysis. ^ Prepare Final Report (recommendations/implementation plans). help the the other described In executing these tasks and addressing the scope of this study's objectives, Citygate engaged in the following processes: ^ Met with the City's assigned project staff to initiate the study + Prepared an employee orientation brochure and conducted an orientation session + Conducted interviews with: > Mayor and City Council members > City Manager > Community Development Director, Planning Director, Building Enforcement Manager, Economic Development and Real Estate Housing and Redevelopment Director, GIS Manager > Community Development employees > City Engineer, Deputy City Engineer, and the Development Engineers > Fire Marshal and staff > City attorneys > Planning Commission > City Clerk ^ Conducted three Customer Focus Groups and a Customer Survey ^ Conducted an Employee Survey Section 1 — Introduction — page 3 employee and Code Manager, Services eras! seam ac ^ Performed walkthroughs of offices and facilities ^ Reviewed available documents and records relating to the management and operations of the development services entities + Compiled and performed analysis on various quantitative and qualitative data regarding the permit process ^ Performed benchmark comparisons of services to identify best practices in comparable agencies ^ Reviewed the activities of the Department in the context of best practices to determine if opportunities exist to enhance organizational performance. Throughout this process, it was our policy to review findings of the study with multiple sources in order to validate findings and data used in the report. The Draft Report was presented to only three managers who were asked to review the report to check it for accuracy (in terms of facts, but not for discussion of the recommendations). ami BJSOSB, iic Section 1—Introduction—page 4 I I SECTION 2—GENERAL OBSERVATIONS I STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT I As an initial and routine part of Citygate's review, we check to see if the goals of the development services areas are in alignment with the City Council's Strategic Goals. Community Development's Strategic Plan is an excellent example of strategic planning. A summary of the I Council and Community Development's goals are provided on the following page. Alignment of strategic goals between the City Council and the Community Development function is a primary ingredient to the delivery of efficient, effective, responsive, timely, and I customer-oriented development review processes. In the dozens of interviews Citygate conducted with elected officials, managers, staff, and . customer focus groups, individuals expressed their views of Carlsbad's future in terms of I development review and decision-making processes. Although there appears to be consistency and alignment between the documented City Council Strategic Goals and the Community I Development Strategic Plan, Citygate worked to determine whether the perspectives consistently raised in our interviews were an organizational philosophy, the policy of elected officials, or an outgrowth of tradition. I In summary, there appears to be several potential "disconnects" that can drive how the staff in the various divisions perform their work. These views are worth identifying at the onset of this report for review and future discussion by the City. I I I I I I I I I Section 2—General Observations—page 1 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC GOALS, 2005—2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN Balanced Community Development - A city that connects community, place and spirit, through balanced and economically sustainable land uses. Citizen Connection - A city that embraces Community connectivity through the effective use of technological and interpersonal mediums. Communication - Ensure that community members, Council and staff are well informed, continuing to be a more responsive government while providing a high level of citizen confidence in its government. Environmental Management — An environmentally sensitive community by focusing on: conservation, storm water, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste, and cost effective and efficient use of energy including alternative energy sources. Financial Health - Pursue and implement proactive strategies that support sustainable economic health and manage fiscal resources effectively. Learning, Culture and Arts - Promote and support continuous Learning, cultural opportunities and the arts within the community and the City Organization. Parks/Open Space/Trails - Acquire, develop and maintain a broad range of open space and recreational facilities that actively address citizen needs which are fiscally responsible, and are consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management Standards. Top Quality Service - A city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis Transportation/Circulation - Provide and support a safe and efficient transportation system that moves people, services and goods throughout Carlsbad. Water — Ensure, in the most cost-effective manner, water quality and reliability to the maximum extent practical, to deliver high quality potable and reclaimed water incorporating drought-resistant community principles. Mission We are committed to helping people build a strong community by guiding and facilitating high quality projects preserving the environment, providing for diverse housing and employment, and maintaining a strong economic base. Vision Integrated - ComDev is seamlessly integrated. Functions that once operated in individual departments or division are now conducted by project team members with topical expertise and great teaming skills. Streamlined — ComDev functions share administrative services, run flexible teams, conduct regular process improvements efforts, and use technology to be productive and accurate. Professional — ComDev mentors employees to exhibit qualities of professionalism and leadership with high ethical standards. ComDev members interpret the laws, ordinances, and guidelines with stakeholders balancing facilitation and regulation. Progressive - The wisdom from experience, insight from thoughtful dialogue, and the freedom to innovate make ComDev progressive in technique, work environment and culture. Customer Service Oriented — ComDev works diligently to continuously improve and refine our ability to service our residents, businesses, and developers. Fiscally Astute - Acknowledging the city government's duty to be a good steward of public funds, ComDev cultivates understanding of fiscal issues and productivity. Com Dev gets results from innovative economic development initiatives and facilitation of redevelopment projects to enhance City revenues. astrn BRosa ac Section 2—General Observations—page 2 I I PERSPECTIVE No. 1: LESS STAFF WILL BE NEEDED As THE CITY TRANSITIONS FROM NEW • DEVELOPMENTS TO INFILL The view expressed repeatedly in staff interviews is that the City Council intends to cut staff as I the City reaches build-out and the focus shifts from new developments to infill developments and redevelopment. When Citygate raised this concern with an elected official, that individual was clearly surprised - another referred to this as a "policy artifact." I Citygate's experience is that infill developments often require at least as much time, and • frequently much more time than the large projects on undeveloped land for several reasons: I + Large plots of undeveloped land with new developments are easier to manage, because the developers know what they are doing, and have teams who understand what is expected. Conversely, infill customers are frequently one-time I applicants who need more explanation of the processes and who often do not have other professionals working with them, so the City staff must spend more time guiding them through the process. I ^ As applications come in to change a "present existing structure," there are more stakeholders involved because the property now has neighbors. I ^ Many of these inner city lots were left vacant for a reason - the land is harder to develop (e.g., slopes, land access, water pressure, sight visibility, utilities, no easements), and they may need a variance from design standards and other I processes. Citygate believes that infill projects will take more time to work through the process, and they may require a different set of staff skills as well. PERSPECTIVE No. 2: THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS ISSUES WORKED OUT BEFORE THEY COME • To THE COUNCIL Referred to by many as "The Carlsbad Way," working through issues to a consensus is a I desirable goal for any organization. No one likes controversy and certainly the City Council wants the staff to solve problems rather than take them to the higher levels. Doing this is an advantage to the development community because projects go through more quickly when there I is no controversy. (Council Policy No. 34, adopted in June 1984, establishes a procedure to ensure an orderly and thorough review of all applications for development projects which require consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of this policy is provided in • Appendix B). • At the same time, complete consensus may not always be possible. There are inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Coastal Plan, and also among the different sections of the I Zoning Code. Infill developments do have neighbors that may not want their area to change, and the public may view the process where everything is worked out with a project before it is scheduled for the Planning Commission to really mean that the project is a "done deal," before I the public can provide input. Controversy often occurs when two or more values clash. Although it is desirable to base land use decisions on a great deal of information and reasoned conclusions, often there are manyI I Section 2—General Observations—page 3 unknowns and conclusions that require value judgments and policy decisions. Such value judgments must be made when several values important to the community are in conflict. Each of these values may be worthy on its own, but when it conflicts with other needs, difficult choices must be made and a balance reached. The key is to determine how the "balance" between these values can be appropriately achieved. It is the City Council's responsibility (along with recommendations from the Planning Commission) to make those value judgments and find that balance, which means that some issues will not be able to be resolved at the staff level. Controversies, though uncomfortable for some, are part of the planning process, and though the planning (and policy) process can be difficult, it also is part of the dynamic process which makes a community what it is. Therefore, it is not always attainable to have full consensus achieved prior to an issue coming to the City Council (or the Planning Commission). It may be appropriate in some cases to delay agendizing a matter for the public meeting in an attempt to further work out or resolve difficult or controversial issues. On the other hand, developing a full consensus on a complex topic prior to scheduling the item for public consideration can cause significant, and potentially inordinate delays in its resolution. While the balancing of consensus versus speed of processing is a unique local matter in every community, many of the interviews Citygate conducted with both the development community and internal staff reflected the perspective that the "Carlsbad Way" values consensus over timely processing. PERSPECTIVE No. 3: BE MORE FLEXIBLE WHILE MAINTAINING THE CITY'S HIGH STANDARDS In the interviews conducted by Citygate, elected officials, managers, and staff seemed to generally agree on the following objectives: + Maintain Carlsbad's high standards ^ Continually improve without fear of changing or testing ourselves ^ Treat everyone equitably and fairly + Recognize that the City Council has responsibilities they need to perform. The staff expressed concern that they are asked "to be more flexible." This places staff in the position of trying to decide what City standards should or should not be enforced in order to meet the expectations of applicants and elected officials. In this mode, if the decision goes badly, it is easy to come back to an employee and ask them why they did something "against the Code." It also sets up a situation where one applicant may get something that other applicants are denied. When applicants get different treatment by the City, they sometimes express these concerns to either the staff or to members of the City Council. At same time, the staff may be assuming too much when they read the code, or get so caught up in enforcing the codes that they lose focus on solving problems. While Citygate heard these comments, it was difficult for us to discern to what degree this happens. As Citygate conducted our analysis, one area we identified that may create this situation is that the General Plan and Coastal Plans are treated as separate documents and may not be in alignment, and clearly, the Zoning Code has many inconsistencies from one chapter to another. Section 2—General Observations—page 4 I I We suggest that most of the problems we heard expressed from focus groups, elected officials, and staff could be resolved if these critical documents were updated and consistent. I It is Citygate's view that the "flexibility" requested and needed by the City's decision makers must be written into the standards, in order to not place the staff in the position of _ choosing what to enforce and what not to enforce. The present situation presents a "no- I win" position for staff, for the City, and for the customers. • CULTURAL CHANGE As the City moves into a different stage of development, it is time to review assumptions and test I all approaches. Some accepted practices may no longer be effective, acceptable, or necessary. The organization will find much that is good and some that is dysfunctional and needs to be changed. Clearly, all those we talked to stressed that the City should maintain its high standards I and remain unwilling to compromise on these high standards. The question becomes how to maintain those standards, applying them consistently and fairly, and providing a means for some flexibility in the ordinances and well-defined processes to work out the more difficult I development problems. I I I I I I I I I Citygate Associates' recommendations in this report address the broad framework and tools used to adapt to change, but the leadership team and staff will need to discuss and work through the every day details of how to make one's work more efficient and effective. Saying the Development Review Process needs to be a collaborative process (i.e., facilitation, coordination, mediation, negotiation) does not mean that staff compromises standards, but instead finds ways to solve problems. This will also require changes in the organizational culture. An example of such an approach is provided by the American Planning Association in the November 2004 Zoning Practice, where Stuart Meek outlines critical organization cultural characteristics. One could also refer to these as "Best Practices." Section 2—General Observations—page 5 CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS Big-Picture framework ^ Recognize the reality of multiple publics ^ Understand the role of a "pragmatic facilitator of public interests" Service + Rules serve the mission. Do not be so rule-bound that you lose sight of the mission ^ Go above and beyond the call of duty in pursuit of the mission + Adopt a client-centered approach ^ Present a consistent message ^ Establish a solution-oriented business relationship ^ Use fair and ethical treatment ^ Know when to be flexible ^ Good customer service is not about saying "yes," but about all the above. Staff/Human Resources ^ For development review staff, train and hire for "facilitator" competency + Empower staff to make decisions appropriate to their responsibilities and point in the process ^ Establish a team approach at all levels: between planning and customer, between department divisions, between city departments, and between planning and the community ^ Reward exceptional behavior and results - staff, customer, and citizens. (Although the chart above is recommended by the American Planning Association, these cultural imperatives relate to all involved in the development review process, for example, engineers, building, fire, code enforcement, planning commissioners, elected officials, etc.). CWifflf BS9CHB. ac Section 2—General Observations—page 6 I I SECTION 3—PLANNING I BACKGROUND I The discipline and practice of land-use planning often revolves around managing conflict between the values that society places on such things as quality of life, open space preservation, traffic, urban sprawl, property rights, water quality, air quality, and various types of housing. I Citizens have differing views on these public policy issues, and often their views are held with a good deal of passion. _ In this context, planning and land use ordinances are very powerful tools. Adopted by the City I Council, these tools shape how the City will develop over time, and (by their very nature) define how land will be used, built upon, and preserved. Ultimately, the responsibility of the Planning I Department (along with Building, Code Enforcement, and Engineering) is to ensure that growth and development within the City are well-planned, integrated, and meet the goals of the community as adopted by the City Council. This is a challenging process, which is further I complicated by added layers of environmental regulations. Often, the customer's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the City's Development Review Process will be targeted at the Planning Department because it is the "face" on the regulations -- it is the I first step in the development services review. However, the reality is that the process is a mixture of what the Planning, Engineering, Building, and Fire staffs do, and how they work together effectively. It is important that each division (Planning, Engineering, Building, and Fire) is on I time and accurate with their reviews in order to have the Development Review Process function as it should. I ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT . The Planning Department consists of 27 individuals who work as a team to support the programs I of the City Council, Planning Commission, and the General Plan. Together, the Planning staff works on a wide variety of development project reviews, capital improvement projects, various planning studies, and advance planning activities. The approved staff positions are: + Planning Director ^ Assistant Planning Director + 3 Principal Planners (one is now vacant) +4 Senior Planners ^6 Associate Planners (one is now vacant) +3 Assistant Planners ^ 2 Planning Techs + 1 Management Analyst + 3 Senior Office Specialists I I I Section3—Planning—page 1 ^ Document Management Systems Clerk (part-time) ^ 2 Planning Aides (both part-time). The staff is assigned to various teams illustrated on the following page. PLANNING STAFF CONCERNS Through Citygate's interviews and our Employee Survey, key Planning staff concerns include the following: + The General Plan has not been comprehensively reviewed since 1994. + The Zoning Ordinance has not been comprehensively reviewed since 1954. It has been amended piecemeal and the standards now conflict from section to section. + The "rules" the planners have to check for development review appear in too many documents, some of which conflict, e.g., General Plan, Coastal Plan, special studies, the Zoning Code, state and federal requirements, Council, Planning Commission policies, Administrative policies, and the "H" drive interpretations of codes. ^ There are so many levels of information to check - it takes time, and sometimes, interpretation. There are too many opportunities to overlook items. + Planners are expected or need to know what standards apply, interpretation upon interpretation. ^ Some of the approaches used come back to what was referred to by one employee as "tribal knowledge." ^ Other City departments try not to meet the same standards asked of applicants. ^ Planners are not comfortable giving approvals at the Development Services Counter or too early in the review process, as mistakes may happen and they do not feel they will be supported, i.e., there is no acceptance of making errors (although there are not that many). ^ Principal planner "goals projects" often take the place of other projects that are more vital to solving problems. Section 3—Planning—page 2 Advanced Planning Focused on maintaining the City's General Plan and related documents and policies. The Team also has responsibility for growth projections, annual General Plan updates, and Housing Report. Current Planning The majority of applications for private development projects, residential, commercial, and industrial projects, which typically must be heard by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, are handled by this Team. Administrative Support Provides administrative support to the department including; clerical functions, budget preparation and monitoring, and contract administration. They also provide support to Planning Commission and Community Development Director. Special Projects Special studies on topics of concern to the community (e.g., open space, zoning code amendments), and City public facility projects contribute to a variety of projects. Planning Department Teams Development Services Located at the Public Service Counter, this team assists the public in person and over the telephone, accepts applications for permits, collects fees, and processes administrative permits. Section 3—Planning—page 3 " S-*s "*> CUSTOMER Focus GROUPS AND SURVEY Citygate conducted three focus groups, developed and administered a Customer Survey, and reviewed other information as it became available. In the Planning area, customers expressed the following (not in any specific order) ^ Planners - open, honest, fair, forthright > Miscommunication - new planners may not understand the processes well > Problem of turnover - the new planners don't know the rules, and interpretations; inexperienced ^ It is "impossible" to have an application deemed complete on the first submittal > Submitted all the items listed on the checklist, but other things are added once staff looks at the application submittals > Some responses from planning do not relate to whether the submittals are incomplete, but are comments about design issues > There are unwritten rules that do not appear on the submittal checklist + Preliminary Reviews > Need to get all the actors in the room > A project manager needs to coordinate the process ^ The time it takes to get through process > Timing is always a big issue - staff is short handed, behind, some planners get things through quickly and provide good service, and others always have reason for running behind > Rather than delay "deeming an application complete" until staff gets a requested item, staff could put it as a condition, which would get addressed or corrected in the next phase of the review > The customer becomes the "Project Manager," rather than the planner who is assigned the project > Applicants will make compromises just to get through the process > A bad decision is better than no decision > There is no culture to reward getting projects through the process + The City should go by the same standards they ask of developers > If an applicant wants a project fast-tracked, the applicant can tie the project to a City project to get it approved quicker > The City does not have to take City projects through the same review steps n Section 3—Planning—page 4 The customer's responses are not unusual for those involved in the planning process. In the November 2004 Zoning Practice, Stuart Meek outlined the typical expectations of customers (one might also call these "best practices"): I I I I I I WHAT APPLICANTS WANT Predictability > Clear expectations, no surprises > Clear process and decision points Fair Treatment > Rules are the same for everyone > No "good" or "bad" developers - offer trust and be trustworthy Accurate and accessible information > Easy to find and understand > Clear application requirements and standards Timely processing > Establish early tentative dates for hearings > Guaranteed review turn-around times > Published commission and council/board of commissioners meeting dates Reasonable and fair costs > Application fees > Development commitments > Impact fees Competent staff > Staff team should have a balance of "hard" technical skills and "soft" people skills Elegant regulations > That fit > That are easy to navigate > That are rational > The most desired outcomes are easy to meet Section 3—Planning—page 5 n (SOU BSX«B. IK ClTYGA TE A SSOCIA TES FINDINGS In reviewing the Planning Department, Citygate observed: + Carlsbad is fortunate to have a high level of professionalism in its Planning Department at every level. Staff is receptive to change that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the advanced planning and development review processes. + The critical documents (e.g., plans, Zoning Code) for planning and development review have internal inconsistencies and conflict with one another, which leads to frustration for staff as well as the development community, and negatively impacts the efficiency and effectiveness of the Development Review Process. The out-of-date Zoning Code impacts not only the effectiveness of the Planning program, but Building and Code Enforcement programs as well. ^ The Department should be reorganized into the two core functions of Community Development - Advanced and Current Planning. The further division of these two functional areas to include Special Projects and Development Services is unnecessary, and limits management options to assign staff as needed when the workloads warrant it. + The Advanced Planning and Current Planning Divisions need a higher degree of management leadership and supervision than is presently outlined in the job description for the principal planners. ^ The vacant positions in Advanced Planning (one principal planner and one associate planner position) could be better utilized. ^ There is confusion among the development community and planning staff as to how "Deeming an Application Complete" is defined. ^ The City Planning Department needs to strengthen the "Case Management" and "Development Review Team" approaches to applications reviews. ^ There needs to be more monitoring of the consultant hired to conduct landscape site inspections when the project construction is near completion. WORKLOAD The Planning staff has shown a steady increase in the number of administrative and discretionary permit applications. The workload over the last five fiscal years is presented below: Administrative Permits Discretionary Permits Total Permits 2000 600 876 1476 2001 553 869 1422 2002 608 870 1478 2003 700 1000 1700 2004 733 1035 1768 2005 739 1072 1811 own Ksxm. EC Section 3—Planning—page 6 Planning Permit Reviews 2000 1800 1600 o>.QI " -Administrative Permits Discretionary Permits Total Permits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Fiscal Year REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT Planning has two vital functions - Advanced Planning and Current Planning. Advanced Planning's responsibility is to facilitate the process by which the City's key stakeholders are brought together to determine the vision for the City and to recommend policies which seek to take the City step-by-step to realizing that vision. Current Planning's responsibility is to conduct development reviews and approve land use permits in accordance with the General Plan and other plans and policies. Although Advanced Planning and Current Planning are two distinct functions, when the workload pressure is on Current Planning to keep up with applications reviews, the planners in Advanced Planning are asked to help. As this starts to happen frequently, Advanced Planning often gets de-emphasized. Across the country, "Planning Offices" are quickly becoming "Permit Centers," as the focus on turnaround times and reviews loom in the public's mind. This becomes counterproductive, as Advanced Planning is the "problem-solving" function. Over and over, customers and planners expressed to Citygate that the plans and zoning ordinances are out-of-date and enforcement of them results in inconsistent answers from staff. When the Planning staff do not have the time to step back to define the problems and address them, tension builds as staff and applicants face the same problems day after day with no systemic resolution. If there are inconsistent or dated zoning codes, Advanced Planners (with the input and review of Current Planners) should be assigned to solve the problems, e.g., to do a comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Code. Section 3—Planning—page 7 1 £craw f»?cfflc uc Recommendation III-l: Reorganize the Planning Department into Advanced and Current Planning Divisions. The Department did recently combine the four divisions into two on a trial basis. This was accomplished by combining Advanced Planning and Special Projects into one division as they both use the same skills sets. Citygate is recommending that the "Development Services" (Front Counter) be separated from Current Planning and made a separate division under Community Development (see the Development Services Counter section of this report). RE-EVALUATION OF PLANNING POSITIONS Recommendation III-2: Make the following position changes: > Eliminate two principal planner positions and create two Deputy Director positions. > Move the third principal planner position (changed to a senior planner level) to Current Planning. > Fill the vacant associate planner position and keep it in Advanced Planning to help with special studies or projects. > Add a junior planner (entry level) position to the planning position options. Deputy Directors With the two divisions clearly defined (Advanced and Current Planning), the next step is to ensure there is strong management supervision and leadership of these divisions. What one would expect from division management: ^ Provide leadership ^ Be responsive to elected officials' policy direction ^ Resolve issues + Oversee the planning processes and work out any "bugs" in the system + Provide consistent interpretations of the Code + Help staff prioritize workload + Monitor workload - weekly and monthly reviews to know what is going on, e.g., surges, distribution, cycle times, track problems ^ Encourage and be responsive to new ideas + Provide internal training, guidance, and performance evaluations ^ Ensure planning staff and the administrative support staff are working together ..—._.. ^ Hold planning staff to performance measures. era"S«B uc Section 3—Planning—page 8 I At the present time, there is not much difference between the Principal Planner and Senior Planner positions. The Principal Planner-defined responsibilities are as first level supervisors, and are not at the level needed to provide the leadership or management guidance, and support needed for these divisions. For this reason, Citygate recommends eliminating two Principal Planner positions (there are three) and creating two Deputy Director positions, one over Advanced Planning and one over Current Planning. Citygate is also recommending (see below) a comprehensive rewrite of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Leadership, management, and oversight needs to be strengthened for the Advanced Planning Division by a key professional who has problem solving and people skills, and who has a strong background in policy development. The Current Planning Deputy Director would have the responsibility to implement a strong case management program and development review team program along with overseeing the Division. The expectations of the Planning Director, Assistant Planning Director, and Deputy Directors should be clearly defined. NEW PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Director 1 I I I I Assistant Planning Director Deputy Director Advanced Planning Deputy Director Current Planning Administrative Support I I Section 3—Planning—page 9 n Move Vacant Positions The recommendation is to re-classify the third Principal Planner position to a senior planner level and place it into Current Planning to help with development reviews. Citygate also recommends the vacant Associate Planner position remain in Advanced Planning. Junior Planner Presently, the career track for planning includes these levels in ascending order: Assistant, Associate, Senior, Principal Planner, and Assistant Planning Director. Where one's position is on these levels depends upon one's education and experience. If a person wants to begin a planning career, it is difficult to get a position because of their lack of experience. If they get a position working for Carlsbad, they usually start as a permit technician. Once they have experience, they then move on to be an Assistant Planner. This creates two problems for Community Development: (1) constant turnover at the Development Services Counter and (2) no clearly defined steps for job advancement for these technicians who do not have the desire or education to move up into a planner position. By providing this new position of "Junior Planner," it allows Carlsbad to hire someone right out of school and train them in the basics of planning while they assist the more experienced planners with data collection and research. It also encourages greater retention as individuals know there are advancement opportunities. Finally, it makes a clearer distinction between the technicians and the planners in terms of their education and training. UPDATE CRITICAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS The customer focus groups expressed frustration that planning reviews take too long and the mistakes that are made lead to "late hits." As Citygate pursued whether this was indeed true and if so, the reasons for this, it was immediately obvious that a good deal of the problems relate back to inconsistent policies and regulations. For example, the General Plan and Coastal Plan conflict, and inconsistencies exist from chapter to chapter in the Zoning Code. This can be a challenge for any planner doing the reviews, but it is particularly daunting for the new planner who does not have the benefit of knowing how these problems have been handled in the past. The result is not only a longer review process, but inconsistent answers from staff as well. City General Plan The last comprehensive update to the General Plan was in 1994 (the Housing Plan is renewed every five years). The General Plan is fine-tuned four times a year to remove any "glitches." When a development is proposed for large acreages (which may have its own vision), a specific master plan for that area is prepared along with design standards. Concerns staff raised regarding the General Plan and other City development documents include: + The last comprehensive update of the General Plan was in 1994, and it needs updating ^ The Growth Management Plan (adopted in 1986) often is relied upon more than the General Plan Section 3—Planning—page 10 I I I I I + There are inconsistencies between the General Plan and the City's zoning ordinances, and between the Growth Management Plan and its map ^ An amendment to the Coastal Plan is needed so not all single-family permit applications have to go through development review ^ The General Plan needs review to see how adequate it is in providing guidance regarding infill developments Recommendation III-3: Conduct a comprehensive update of the Carlsbad General Plan. (Planning and development successes are only as good as the City's policies and regulations. General Plans should provide a clear framework and direction for decision-making. Without clear direction, the Planning Commission and City Council discussions of every proposal before I them will be much longer as they seek to define where Carlsbad is going and whether a specific proposal helps or hinders attaining that vision. Revising the General Plan is an opportunity to articulate the current vision of the City's future, I address the numerous problems cited above, and bring the Coastal Plan into the General Plan * rather than have two separate documents (in this approach, the coastal policies would be highlighted in some way). Zoning Ordinance I Recommendation III-4: Conduct a comprehensive rewrite of the City's Zoning 1 Code. I The last time the Zoning Code had a comprehensive review was 1954. Amendments have been accomplished in an incremental and piecemeal manner which, over time, has led to inconsistencies within the document. For example, some standards appear in numerous places, I but list different requirements. The Plan boundaries and zoning boundaries do not match. When a new use or issue arises, planners have to survey one another to gather the "tribal knowledge" to _ try to address it. As a result, the Code is too complicated for anyone but professionals to get I through. Those who come in to apply for a permit for the first time may need to hire a consultant to help them. This should not be necessary if the documents were well written and had _ graphics, maps, and tables added. I Such problems with the Zoning Code ultimately lead to inconsistent answers from planners to the applicants. Both deserve a better way to handle this. A comprehensive review is critical to I ensure the development review processes are as effective as possible. A comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Code could accomplish the following objectives: 1 + As the Zoning Code is one of the strongest tools to implement the General Plan, it needs to be reviewed to ensure consistency with the plan. _ > Is it applicable to what we have set as City goals? I > What do we want the Code to do for us now? Section 3—Planning—page 11 + The Code needs to be rewritten to be more readable and understandable to "the common person on the street." Graphics, maps, flow charts, and tables should be used extensively to illustrate key planning concepts and requirements. ^ A rewrite would also provide opportunities to: > Explore ways by which the regulations could be more flexible > Include new planning concepts > Analyze which processes could be administrative rather than requiring Planning Commission or City Council action, which would save both the applicant and staff time > Anticipate problems that will arise from the increasing number of infill projects and bring the Zoning Code and Redevelopment requirements closer into alignment > Determine which processes could be improved or eliminated if they add no value > Consolidate everything related to an item (e.g., conditional uses) into one place > Include all Administrative policies and interpretations into the Code > Be a good refresher course for everyone to remember why the City requires what it does, and why the processes are conducted as they presently are. Finally, in the best of planning worlds, the General and Coastal plans would be revised before the Zoning Ordinance, as the ordinance receives its direction from plans and is a primary tool for implementing the plan. Unfortunately, Carlsbad's Zoning Ordinance cannot wait that long. Both need to be done. To do one without the other does not address all the concerns raised by the customer focus groups. CUSTOMER INFORMATION Carlsbad citizens and applicants need to know how the various development processes work upfront so they know what to expect. Citygate reviewed all the planning handouts and checklists and makes the following recommendation: Recommendation III-5: Involve a technical writer to review all customer handouts to enhance their readability and to ensure they are understandable to "the common person." Additional graphics and flowcharts also would be helpful. The Planning Department has done a good job in providing customer information on the website, e.g., the handouts, applications, General Plan, and Zoning Code link are provided online. Handouts are provided at the Development Services Counter as well. As with the Zoning Ordinance discussion above, there needs to be more graphics (particularly flow charts) to help illustrate the process for the first-time applicant as individuals understand visuals easier than pages of descriptive narrative.FTcinawmecua IK Sections—Planning—page 12 I I I I Recommendation III-6: Rewrite the Planning Review form to provide a separate document for each review. Citygate reviewed the plan review forms in terms of their understandability to the customer. Unlike Building, the Planning review reports are difficult to track. If three reviews are I conducted, all handwritten comments are put on the same form. In some cases, it is difficult to track whether the comments made on the forms relate to the latest review or to a previous one. With the advent of standardized WORD-based documents, there is no reason a separate plan I review comment sheet cannot be generated each time a project is re-reviewed. Each new report would list only those items yet to be met by the applicant. Using this system, rather than the scribbled comments, will also give the review a much more professional look. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS | Current Planning is responsible for reviewing development plans for compliance with the General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Code and coastal regulations, and reviewing and updating I development processes. The Planning staff estimates their reviews break down as 25-30 percent small applications (some still discretionary), 25-30 percent commercial/industrial, 25 percent large subdivisions, and 25 percent infill. I When the application comes in, it takes several days to set up and check the file. The application • then goes to the Assistant Planning Director, who assigns the projects to individual planners. I Once the project's assignment has been made, the planner: + Sends copies to other departments for their review 1+ Reviews the application to deem them complete or incomplete + Conducts a thorough review of the applications to ensure it meets all plans and regulations I + Works out any problems with the applicant before scheduling the application for the Planning Commission meeting I + Gives instructions to Administrative staff to send out notices (if required) ^ Prepares the staff report which is sent to the Planning Commission 1 + Prepares the Agenda Bill summarizing the project and Planning Commission recommendations for the City Council for all legislative items and those that the City Council policy indicates they will review, such as residential projects of 50+ I units. Case Management Recommendation III-7: Adopt a Case Management Approach for project review. I Case Management is defined as designating the planner assigned to each project as responsible for handling an application from the beginning of the development review process until completion of construction. The Assistant Planning Director indicated he tries to assign the sameI nSection 3—Planning—page 13 "" ** I Cflfflf BSSK« UC planner from preliminary review application to final construction, yet complaints are still expressed by the customer groups that the developer, not the staff, has to manage projects by constantly calling the individual departments to determine the project status. Citygate recommends that all discretionary permit applications for larger projects (e.g., large subdivisions, PUDs, major commercial, major industrial) be assigned a planner as a Case Manager. Further, it is recommended that the Case Management assignment log be widely distributed throughout the organization. The Case Manager should be assigned the responsibility to move the application through the entire permitting process, from Pre-Application to issuance of a building permit, and, when applicable, to occupancy. The Case Manager would be given the authority to take the initiative in order to: ^ Keep the applicant informed on a proactive basis ^ Assist the applicant in developing a complete application + Keep track of the application as it moves through the complex review process + Move the application along throughout the process by identifying and resolving issues as they arise, irrespective of the program or department in which the application confronts an obstacle + Establish and maintain credible working relationships with staff and managers in all program areas ^ Keep managers informed with regard to assistance that is needed to resolve issues in a timely manner ^ Deliver "Unanticipated Service" to the applicant (see below) + Serve as the primary contact for those members of the public, City staff, and the decision makers seeking information regarding the application and the project. The Case Management duties would require that the planner be actively involved in managing and supporting the processing of their assigned applications as the applications move through other program areas (e.g., Engineering, Fire Marshal, etc.) for review and/or the post-approval stages of development. Planning will be the front line on the development process, but Case Management will not work well unless the managers of all the development-related divisions stay vigilant in meeting their cycle deadlines and working toward a common goal. Development Review Team (DRT) Recommendation III-8: Create a Development Review Team consisting of Planning, Building, Engineering, and Fire representatives to conduct bi-weekly meetings for reviewing projects with applicants. At the present time, the Carlsbad Planning Department makes use of a Department Coordinative Committee, who are called together when the various divisions performing development reviews Section 3—Planning—page 14 I I require something that conflicts with what other divisions may be requiring, or when an applicant requests such a meeting to resolve issues before going to the Planning Commission. I Citygate recommends that this be extended an ongoing process for major developments (and smaller ones when warranted). . Often referred to as a Development Review Team, this group meets weekly or bi-weekly to I review the discretionary permit applications and outline the expectations and concerns for the applicant at the beginning of the process. This process notifies the applicant, staff and Planning I Commission as to what the key issues will be and what options are available to resolve them. This program also increases the dialog between the development review professionals (e.g., planners, engineers, building inspectors, fire marshal) as they work together to address concerns I and solve problems. Deeming an Application Complete I State Requirements. State law requires that once an application for non-legislative review is submitted, the Agency "has 30 days to determine and notify applicant whether the application is I complete for processing. If incomplete, re-submittal starts new 30-day review period. If agency fails to notify applicant of completion status within 30-day period, application is deemed complete. A completed application starts the clock for agency review and decision." The Planning staff procedures indicate that the following steps are taken to determine if an application is complete: + Review the application checklist to ensure the required items and signatures are provided. Also review to determine if all relevant applications have been submitted. I + Review the applicable sections of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that apply to the • project. I I Field check the site. Review comments received from relevant departments and determine whether thei : application is complete or incomplete, and if the project has any major issues. I ^ Mail either an Incomplete or Complete Letter. The Incomplete Letter identifies the items listed on the application form that were not submitted and what is (needed to make it complete. The letter also identifies any project-related issues that must be resolved prior to approval. Once the application is deemed complete, the staff has 90 days to review the application, which I includes a staff report and a decision rendered by the Planning Commission (and City Council * where appropriate). The time limit may be extended once, by mutual agreement, not to exceed 90 days. I Applications are seldom deemed complete within the first 30 days. The Focus Groups and Planning staff both indicated to Citygate that applications very seldom are deemed complete on I the initial submittal (the Redevelopment staff indicated this was also true of their permit reviews). Citygate verified this by randomly sampling project files (for projects and conditional use permits), and found only one instance in 15 files where an application was deemed complete I "ITSection3—Planning—page 15 ammxm ac in the first 30 days. Citygate also reviewed the reasons for the denial of completeness and found that in most cases, required documents had not been submitted. Citygate then reviewed departmental handouts to determine if checklists were available to the applicant as guidance for the documents that needed to be submitted with the application. Such checklists were included with the application. So where is the discrepancy? Obviously, there are some applications that are not complete when submitted, but there also may be a definitional problem due to differences in understanding what "deemed complete" means. As Citygate explored the issue of initial submittal being deemed incomplete, we found that the definition of when an application is deemed complete differs between the Carlsbad planners and developers. + The Planning staffs definition of being complete is: > The staff conducts a review of the application and submittals to determine not only that it is complete (i.e., have all documents been submitted), but they also identify issues that must be addressed during the 90-day review period. > When addressing the issues during the review process, there may be occasions when the planner requests additional information that is more specific than what is required with the initial application to ensure plan policies and regulations are met. > The expectation is to set the customer up for success by resolving all issues before the application goes to hearing, so it does not get denied. ^ The Customers' expectations are: > The letter deeming an application complete be sent out in 30 days. > Everything the applicant needs to do is stated upfront so they can plan their expenses. > The list of issues be complete with no "late hits." Citygate's Conclusions Regarding "Deeming an Application Complete" By identifying as many issues as possible up front, it helps the applicant know what to expect. At the same time, it should be recognized that this service crosses over from "deeming an application complete" into the review process. It is still in the best interest of the City and the applicant to have all needed information submitted and all issues identified upfront. Deeming an application complete, in terms of having the required submittals, should be able to be accomplished within the 30 days. At the same time, it may not be realistic to expect that ALL ISSUES can be identified in those 30 days. After all, the law assumes a more in-depth review during the following 90-180 days. Once into the reviews, the planners may find that more specific data is needed to ensure compliance with the regulation and that data may raise issues not readily identifiable when the application was first deemed complete. Given the expectation and criticism that no new issues or "late hits" will arise, the planners are reluctant to deem an application complete until they go further into the review process to ensure no new issues arise later on. Section 3—Planning—page 16 I I Unfortunately, the staff has major obstacles to overcome to meet the required cycle times, including the inconsistent Zoning Code, conflicting General Plan and coastal plans, and the I various sources of information they must check are not available quickly on the City's intranet system (see the Technology section of this report, Section 9). Nonetheless, the development community needs some assurance that cycle times will be met, that the planners should be held responsible for quick reviews as time is money to the applicant, and that there not be any "game playing" going on. Applicants also want assurance that the reviews are consistent from one planner to the next. Where is the balance between thorough review and speedy review? This is the responsibility of the Department managers, who (among other things) review monthly reports, monitor the I activities of the Department as a whole, and monitor individual planners as they perform their duties. Such monitoring will identify areas where the review process can be improved. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES I Recommendation III-9: Continue to keep logs of all activities and use them to set performance standards. Add to the logs - why were applications not deemed complete on its initial submittals? I I I I I I Tracking projects and departmental activities provides a tremendous amount of data upon which a manager can monitor the review process. The system set up to keep log of these activities should: 1 + Reflect all the activities, for example, administrative, time at Development Services Counter, etc. 1 + Be able to tell the Director, staff, and applicant at each step of the process, what the issues are, where each project is in the review process, what documents are still missing, when an approval was given and on what conditions, what inspections have been conducted and approved, general comments, etc. ^ Have automatic data entries, so no "gaming" can be played with the numbers • ^ Track how long the application is in the system. Making activity logs helps management: 1 + Assign projects, allocate hours, and check assigned workloads of individual planners _ + Establish review cycles I ^ Know the number of re-submittals required before a project is approved and the reasons those applications were incomplete + Know how long it takes to get a project through the process and how that compares with other governmental entitiesI I I Section 3 — Planning — page 1 7 am mm ac ^ Provide a complete history and status of a project ^ Provide weekly status reports, including a list of projects by name, number, detailed status, comments, and what projects are overdue ^ Identify problems and investigate why project reviews do not meet cycle times + Determine workload distribution, performance measures, and whether additional staff is needed. To accomplish the objectives listed above, the Planning Department has begun keeping activity logs (starting in July 2005), and also have the Accela Permit Plus system as a resource (see Technology section of this report regarding Permit Plus). The Department's purpose in keeping these logs is to report performance on certain aspects of our operations that affect customers in order to make better management decisions about how their work is organized. The Planning staff activity logs include the following information: + New Administrative Assignments - project, planner, engineer, date in and due, and days active ^ Planning Application Summary - number of application broken down into administrative and discretionary ^ Active Project Assignments - project planner, number of review (1st, 2n , etc.), drawing number, project title, project engineer, date in, date due, date completed, and days active. These reports are comprehensive in scope and will be effective tools in monitoring the activities of the Department and the work done by each planner. Keeping these logs over time will illustrate where the problems in the review processes are and the action that needs to be taken. Of particular concern is to use the data to track why applications have not been deemed complete on the initial submission. The focus of these logs is on the permitting center. Advanced Planning is more difficult to log, as one project could take a full year, while others could be done more quickly. UNANTICIPATED SERVICE PROGRAM Recommendation 111-10: Institute an "Unanticipated Service" program. Instituting an "Unanticipated Service" program in the Planning area, and throughout the Department, is likely to be the single most effective approach to increasing customer satisfaction and reducing complaints from applicants. The Department's customers are often frustrated by their inability to obtain reliable and timely information about the status of their applications. This frustration, Citygate believes, only adds fuel to customers' concerns about other aspects of the development review and permitting process. In our experience, when applicants are kept informed, they are less likely to assume the worst. Conversely, when applicants are not kept informed, they assume the worst with regard to what is happening to their applications and their project. It is axiomatic that in the absence of Section 3—Planning—page 18 I I information, people "fill in the blank" with negative perceptions. This negative perception can take hold and be very difficult to reverse, irrespective of a public agency's efforts to improve I systems and procedures. The principle of "Unanticipated Service" is a simple one: ("Customer satisfaction increases most dramatically when a customer receives a service they did not expect." Examples of how it could be used in Planning include the following: I + The Planning Director sends a personal letter to the Department's most active applicants and consultants, describing to them improvements and changes that are I underway in the Department. + The Director rebates 10 percent of an applicant's fee if they submit a complete application without having to resubmit. I ^ The planner assigned as Case Manager calls applicants of larger projects at least every other Friday to let them know the status of their application and to identify I and discuss how issues can best be resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner. The applicant is also asked if he or she has any concerns regarding the application's status. I + The developer receives a letter from the Planner assigned to that project at the conclusion of the hearing wherein he or she is asked how the Department might improve their efficiency and effectiveness. I Recommendation III-ll: Hold employees accountable to meet cycle times and other standards, such as returning telephone calls within I 24 hours. Holding employees who are responsible for the efficient and effective processing of development I applications accountable for meeting the "Best Practice" cycle-times and delivering • "Unanticipated Service" is an essential element of a successful development services customer service program. | Citygate believes that once cycle-time standards and the "Unanticipated Service" program are developed, adopted and publicized, most employees in the Department will respond by meeting | the new expectations. At the same time, it is important to stress that the Planning staff currently does not have all the tools to attain "Best Practice" cycle-time standards. Holding the Planning staff I accountable to meet cycle times is dependent on: (1) a clear definition of what constitutes "deeming an application complete; (2) revisions to the Zoning Code and plans to eliminate _ inconsistencies; (3) activities logs and management reports to work on glitches in the I review process; and (4) the Development Services Engineering having enough staff that they meet their turnaround times to get their comments to Planning. I Once these tools are in place and the expectation is made clear that cycle times will be met, and managers provide the support detailed above, reviewing staff should be held accountable for their performance with regard to moving applications through the process. Assistance should beI nSection 3—Planning—page 19 cram wxm ac I provided to staff members who might be having difficulty meeting cycle-time expectations. This assistance can take the form of constructive criticism, coaching, additional training or, if circumstances warrant, progressive discipline. In the event that employees fail to meet the established standards for cycle-times and "Unanticipated Service," steps must be taken to assist, caution and discipline poor performers. In the event there is a need for disciplining an employee, it should be conducted in a progressive manner and in close consultation with the City's Human Resource Office. STANDARDS FOR CITY-GENERATED PROJECTS Recommendation 111-12: Ensure that City-generated projects meet the same standards that the City requires of developers. The Customer Focus Groups commented that the City projects do not go by the same standards and process of permit reviews that the developers are asked to meet. It is understandable with some projects that must be done expeditiously to meet health and safety issues, but this should not regularly be the case on City projects. MONITOR CONSULTANTS Recommendation 111-13: Monitor the quality of services provided by contractors. The staffs of other development-related divisions expressed frustration that they are continually waiting for the final Planning Department check (i.e., outside landscaping) on a completed development before the project can be finalized. These final checks are provided by a contractor. The Planning Director acknowledged-this problem by indicating that the consultant's contract expires in March 2006 and the service will be put out to bid. (Since this study began, a new contractor has been hired). Along with the new contract, the Department instituted controls to monitor the quality of services, such as having all requests for a site visit be scheduled through the Planning Office rather than requests going directly to the contractor. In this way, the turnaround time from request for inspection to service can be logged and monitored. IMPLEMENTATION The graph on the following page illustrates the flow of implementation of these recommendations. Not all recommendations can be implemented at the same time, as some items must be implemented before other recommendations can be carried out. Also, the sequencing is important so that the Planning staff is not overwhelmed with additional work load. As mentioned in the Executive Summary, it is likely that there will be need for additional staff. The Department has been logging their activities since July 2005. This was not long enough for City gate to determine to what extent such an increase is necessary. These additional programs (e.g. Case management) and rewriting the critical documents to the development review process are not easy tasks - it will take time, commitment, and support for these Oral! BSSC9a IK Section 3—Planning—page 20 programs to be effective. Furthermore, additional work load monitoring and forecasting tools will be helpful in quantifying staff requirements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C ISection 3—Planning—page 21 COzo Q ZLLI O OLU01 o u.O LU _l Q. W ® O '« £ « o o o O E0.1 a. >- izc w o "^m «u-LLJ O)o o 1IJI O)o a t co t • *= '•= §>i5> Sre w -g o — 08 <«2 85 3 "o Z005 a <re 0 t fl) <0 0w § 5 E «iH <N<N UbO RS _0 ^—»O1) 00 = ± .E o> 'w SS o o•> ® N o ® o °8ao t c E>» 0) W 0) o > ^1.1m ^ 3Ja a: _ (0 0c Q. u o £*.- S ~ oTO C mO c ?ro {o .E ^ QL ? fr c LU I • SECTION 4—BUILDING DEPARTMENT I BACKGROUND I The City of Carlsbad's Building program is responsible for administering the State of California's structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical codes. The Department also provides code enforcement services for the City for zoning, housing, building, and other I Municipal code violations. The inspectors in the field are supervised by a senior inspector. Customers call in to request an _ inspection. This information is then put on a slip of paper which lists the code for each job, the I kind of inspection requested, history of any previous inspections, scope of work described, contact person and number, and written correction notices. Each morning, the inspectors go I through the slips and assignments are made. Although efforts are made to keep the workload I balanced for each inspector, the Department also has a commitment to keep the same inspector all the way through the construction of a specific project. The Senior Inspector also carries an I inspection load as well as filling in for inspectors who are on vacation or ill. The inspectors are all multiple-certified, which means they can conduct inspections of structural, mechanical, plumbing or electrical inspections. This multi-certification saves the City and the I customer time and money, since the City can send one inspector out to do four inspections, instead of four inspectors to each do one. The other Senior Inspector supervises the Code Enforcement officers and the Building technicians at the Development Services Counter (see analysis of these two divisions in other sections of this report).\ I I I I I I I STAFFING The Building program's approved staff positions are: ^ 1 Building and Code Enforcement Manager • ^2 Senior Inspectors • ^7 Building Inspectors (5 full-time, 2 on 3-year contracts, 1 part-time) 2.5 Code Enforcement Officers 2.5 Building Technicians 2 Office Specialists Section A—Building—page 1 h-z Uls K a. HI O CD Q_j m -§•1 OB'S • 1*4 g*jj ; - < £* Q 1 bO •11 SJ1 * OS ,P pMHIMi^ BO ft SS3 t3 -m «•It 4>, CO atg || t/i — ^ U 3O WH g B t^O4»-»O!§ag c "5*3 ^ CQ a wO•4«» 11 • 43 '*•• g' 3 *oi (•••4 *""""* c3 OII ll1-51 i i-™j i p- » 3- f-st p-3 Td T> •g -g rf^ pfa g O SJ III || i |.fi.. 8 ^B .83 e Oj-1' fe 8 si Ifi^ W3 I I 1 s a a> 1 «1 u O fe a »M ^jl w 1^1 'i!5 *11 S t> Ofi^L .5=1'*1O (1X4 CQ 1 • |; |a o- «§:"§ TC3 trf j:ipq sd ^ U:: jmmmtmt -1' ~:'" U ;*«H. 4>, fit a c«t*S o 6<D fH a ^r1 D0 T— * -S r?•o sCQ *— i "3 c g o .jEj .s t2-o 3'. *. 1 •1 § 'y « J3"a H CN 0> c3 Q. g 2 CQ C _0 '*2ooon WORK VOLUME The Building Department does an exceptional job in monitoring the workload, permits, and costs/revenues to the City. They track inspections per day, per inspector and field inspection trends, and prepare a monthly report. The monthly report includes an income summary, valuation summary, permits issued (dwelling units), and permits finalized (dwelling units). The Department also keeps a list of building permits which include the permit number, type, inspector, description, address, date permit was approved, the date it was issued and when it expires. This Department meets "Best Practices" in its documentation of work activity. Given these statistics, the City is able to adjust the staffing levels using contract (3-year) and part-time employees. The graph below illustrates the trend of dwelling unit permit activity from 1990-2005. In that same time period, the staffing levels went from 7 inspectors in 1991, to 10-11 in 1999-2000, and back to 7 in 2005. Dwelling Unit Permits 2500 2000 1500 (A o!•5 jj 1000 E 3z 500 Year The ratio of inspections per day, per inspector is used to gauge the average day-to-day workload of the inspectors. At the present time, the inspectors average 15-20 inspections on a light day and up to 50 inspections on heavy days. On the heavy days, the City runs the risk of the inspector becoming so overwhelmed that they move too quickly through a series of inspections, increasing the likelihood of missed code violations. In 2004, the inspections made 96 percent of the service requests the next day. Section 4—Building—page 3 CYCLE TIMES Average cycle time for inspection plan check is 10 calendar days. The Building and Code Enforcement Manager indicated that they rarely use the full cycle time. Their contract with Esgil requires a maximum turnaround of 21 calendar days. MONITORING CONSULTANTS One of the items Citygate reviews when conducting performance audits is whether the function monitors the quality of service provided by those performing contracted services; in this case, it is Esgil who provides plan check services. The Building and Code Enforcement Manager indicates this check is done on a random basis. Discrepancies occasionally show up as the inspector in the field goes on site and finds a problem. The contract with Esgil Corporation for Plan Check services is renewed each year. It requires Esgil to perform the necessary plan review services for proposed construction projects and to provide the applicant and the City with a typed list of items needing clarification or change to achieve conformance with the City's technical codes. Esgil is required to provide adequate resources to achieve the desired work performance goals, which state that buildings of less than four stories and of normal complexity would have the initial review completed within 15 workdays or less. Buildings over four stories in height or of unusual complexity are negotiated with the Building Manager and Esgil. The Department does random selection of plan checks to monitor the quality of service and also gets feedback from the inspectors if problems arise. CUSTOMER INFORMATION The Building Department also has done a good job in providing customer information. The handouts, application, explanation of the various permits, and residential construction standards are very understandable and graphics help those who have never gone through such a process. Most of the Building Department handouts were updated in 2000 to reflect the latest codes. Citygate reviewed the plan check reports generated by Esgil in terms of their understandability to the customer. Unlike Planning and Engineering, the plan check reports are easy to understand, and each review has a distinct report eliminating the confusion which might be generated in handwritten serial reports. TECHNOLOGY At present, a customer who wants an inspection must call in one day in advance to place a request. This inspection is then scheduled and a compiled list of scheduled inspections is given to the inspectors each morning. During an inspection, the inspector fills out forms with the pertinent information of that project, which inspections were performed, and if they were approved. At the end of each day, the inspection forms are given to the office assistants to enter the information. This typically takes two hours the day after the inspection. Until that data is entered, a permit cannot be issued. S I Section 4—Building—page 4 I I I Recommendation IV-1: Once a Development Services Information Systems Plan has been conducted, provide inspectors with computers I or PDAs to log in information to instantly update the Accela database from the field. Building departments across the country are conducting same-day inspections (if the call comes before 7:00 a.m.) and the inspection data is remotely logged in the field by each inspector. Once the data is entered, the inspector's wireless computer or PDA syncs with the Department's I computer (in Carlsbad's case, Permit Plus). This allows the permit to be issued almost immediately. Such technology also allows the inspector to tie into the Community Development database as questions arise. This mode of remote data access is now a "Best Practice" for (building departments, and the investment in this technology will enhance inspector productivity, efficiency, and customer service. I The City's preliminary efforts to look into this capability have indicated the licensing fee may be I too costly. Citygate recommends that a Development Services Information Systems Plan be conducted for the entire Department (see the Technology section of this report). This will allow the IT Department to explore the various systems used by inspectors and Code Enforcement officers using computers or PDAs in the field.I (Recommendation IV-2: As part of the Development Services Information Systems Plan, include a means by which inspections may be scheduled, applications with fees can be submitted, • and digital versions of plans can be submitted on line. Many communities now make applications and information sheets available on line, as Carlsbad _ does. But now many are going one step further by providing the means to submit those I applications, drawings, and fees on line as well. As more becomes available elsewhere, the expectations for Carlsbad system will rise as well. I I I I I I Section 4—Building—page 5 cam ss°c« uc I I I SECTION 5—CODE ENFORCEMENT I BACKGROUND I Code Enforcement requires a wide range of knowledge of the building codes, zoning code, and nuisance ordinances. These codes seek to promote the public health, safety, and welfare within the City of Carlsbad by ensuring City requirements are met. Code Enforcement must be I performed very carefully because of the potential liability to the City. Code Enforcement is one of the most difficult jobs in the Development Services area. Their sole _ responsibility is to enforce the rules set by the elected officials. While performing these duties, it I is not uncommon for them to find that one neighbor wants to use them as a weapon against another. They know to stay firm to the Code and stay out of the middle, but still, it is a very I uncomfortable position. There are other citizens who feel the government does not have the right I to tell them what to do with their land, while others feel the City should be "pristine," and still many others in between. I Typically, the goals of Code Enforcement programs are reached by: + Administering a fair and unbiased enforcement program to correct violations of I the codes + Working with property owners _ + Initiating programs that target specific problems. I The Carlsbad Code Enforcement Division has 2.5 full-time equivalent positions. They are supervised by one of the senior building inspectors. I This program is primarily a reactive program rather than a proactive program, which means that the officers respond mostly to complaints received from City citizens. The Code Enforcement _ (CE) Officers may take action if they see a violation (particularly building without permits, I signs, and banners). Complaints may come in by telephone, email, or a visit to the office. An administrative (employee fields the calls and emails, and hands the complaints (Requests of Action) to the officers. They then group the complaints by area to save the officers' travel time, but there are no specific assigned areas. I The City's focus is on compliance, not on punishment. The goal is to have 90 percent compliance within 90 days. Some, because of the seriousness of the infraction, are given 30 (days. The CE Officers experience tells them that 60 percent of those cited did not know what the law was. CE Officers investigate 10-12 cases on average per day. They try to handle the complaints at the I lowest level possible. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS * + Allege letter - receive complaint • + Notice of violation Section 5—Code Enforcement—page 1 I Second notice of infraction The three choices beyond the second notice include: > Administration Citation - The first citation is a warning: the second costs $100; if there is no compliance, $200, then $500. The property owner may appeal to the San Diego Mediation, and the property owner has 10 days to file written appeal. > Notice of noncompliance - Illegal construction. These are not a life safety concern, but the City determines it is not worth spending more resources to bring the property into compliance. Instead, the City adds a note to the Property Title. In order for the property owner to sell his/her property, they will need to address the violation. This technique is used for closing tougher cases. > Criminal Action - Treated as a criminal infraction (This is a long process; the City has 5-6 of these per year). WORKLOAD This Division does an excellent job of keeping track of the work they do, including the number of cases, the type, and how long it takes. The annual report regarding Code Enforcement indicates that "varying case types handled by Code Enforcement have differing degrees of importance relative to the amount of time needed to resolve those cases. There are twenty (20) different categories into which complaints are filed and tracked. Each type of case has a varying time increment of which 90 percent of the cases are resolved." Type of Call for Service Engineering/ROW Signs Expired Building Permit Zoning Vehicle Abatement Vehicle Zoning Building Garbage & Junk Business License Totals or Average 2004 80 101 20 99 25 49 212 112 123 821 2003 85 117 28 77 46 64 198 107 121 843 2002 75 118 48 50 37 79 220 131 122 880 2001 71 132 53 97 38 84 208 104 161 948 30 Days 30 Days 60 Days 60 Days 60 Days 60 Days 90 Days 30 Days 60 Days 2004 81% 77% 85% 71% 76% 84% 77% 68% 89% 79% 2003 80% 79% 82% 90% 91% 92% 82% 64% 81% 82% 2002 88% 77% 79% 82% 89% 88% 84% 75% 86% 83% 2001 87% 79% 79% 78% 76% 75% 73% 73% 72% 76% Section 5—Code Enforcement—page 2 The report goes on to say, "The expected recidivism rate (same violation at same address within 3 years) is unknown and this will become the baseline rate for future comparisons." Recidivism rates for the last four years are: Total Number of Cases 2004 2003 2002 2001 2612 2758 2302 1828 Number of Repeat Cases on Same Property 212 275 221 162 Percent of Re- opened Cases 8.12 9.97 9.60 8.86 These reports also help the Division determine if more education is needed by the customers, the cost of service, and, overall, how effective they are in doing their job. The Senior Inspector and CE Officers review the reports and determine what changes are needed. Their approach is to try to deal with people ahead of time, i.e., to be more proactive with education. One performance measure used by Code Enforcement is the cost efficiency measure, i.e., the number of cases closed in the fiscal year divided by the full burdened cost for the Code Enforcement operation, which includes the CE Officers, the clerical staff, allocated supervision, management, and Deputy City Attorney salaries, along with vehicle and telephone costs. This measurement has been used for the last three years: Fiscal Year 2005 2004 2003 Expenditures $369,000 $352,000 $332,000 Cases Closed 1066 869 987 Average Cost per Case $346 $405 $336 The analysis of these performance indicators assist the CE Officers in determining what approach to enforcement is more cost effective (for example, letter, administrative citation, criminal citations, and in what circumstances). FINDINGS •This Division has excellent management direction, support and oversight, and has built an effective team. This Division does an excellent job of tracking its caseload, determining the degree of recidivism, and the costs of services. They also are continually evaluating their program in a proactive manner. Section 5—Code Enforcement—page 3 ncram Bsecutt uc CHALLENGES FACING CODE ENFORCEMENT + Old Codes - The Code Enforcement program is only as strong as the codes upon which it is based. As noted elsewhere, the Zoning Code is in need of a comprehensive rewrite. For code enforcement purposes, the zoning code must be very specific, so there is no need to have a planner interpret the parts of the Zoning Code which the CE Officer is expected to enforce, such as fences in front yards. + Support from City attorneys - The city attorneys assigned to assist Code Enforcement tend to turn over. Each attorney has a different view of what they expect of the CE Officer (e.g., degree of documentation). It would be helpful to this Division to have the Attorney's Office clearly define what the attorneys expectations are for the code enforcement program, and in turn, what the code enforcement officers can expect from the City Attorney's Office in terms of the level of support. cmosi BSKW IK Section 5—Code Enforcement—page 4 I 1 SECTION 6—DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER I BACKGROUND I The Development Services Counter is the first station in the development process, and as such, the image of the development process is projected here. The technicians take care of the majority of inquiries from both people walking in and those who telephone. In a given year, 3800 to 5000 I permits are issued over the counter, which translates to 35-50 percent of the permits issued. Building, Engineering, and Planning each have three technicians located at the front counter. I Examples of their responsibilities include: I ^ Planning - These technicians receive applications and answer questions regarding discretionary permits (e.g., coastal development permits), check maps and I easements, and check setbacks. + Building - These technicians receive applications and answer questions regarding I building codes (e.g., plumbing and mechanical codes), check Planning I Commission conditions of approval, check site plans and grading plans, and check what agreements must be on file (e.g., dedication of the land) before I building permits are issued. + Engineering - These technicians answer questions and take care of building plan checks for engineering issues, right-of-way permits, permit fee calculations, traffic control plans, and a host of other miscellaneous items.I The Finance Department also has staff near the front counter that take all monies related to • development services fees. CITYGATE FINDINGS I + The Development Services staff are individuals who routinely go through the information about each type of permit with each new customer, focusing on the • customer's needs and the City's mission. ^ The technicians work well together, are highly trained to perform the requirements of Building, Planning, and Engineering, and have a strong I commitment to customer service and professionalism. As a group, they are very self-sufficient. ^ The staffing levels in each area should be maintained at the present level (some are on three-year contracts) to maintain the current level of service to the customers. This is particularly important as the City transitions to infill rather than new development workloads. There will be more customers who are first time (and maybe only one time) applicants who need more coaching regarding how the processes work and what they are required to submit. ^ At the same time, when new questions arise, these technicians must go hunting for advice. When technical questions are asked, they must find a supervisor somewhere else in the Department to come forward to address the issues. And Section 6—Development Services Counter—page 1 I I I I I when, on occasion, a customer becomes difficult, there is need of a supervisor to come forward to deal with the situation. Informally, some of these supervisory responsibilities are performed by a senior building inspector whose desk is in the general vicinity of the front counter, but it is not his responsibility to have in depth knowledge about each division's responsibilities. ^ The information provided by Permits Plus and other Accela programs is only used to a limited extent to meet simple day-to-day needs (see further explanation in the Technology section of this report). CREATION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Recommendation VI-1: Create a new Development Services Division within Community Development and add a Division Manager. At the present time, there is no one person who supervises this area. Each Division (Building, Engineering, and Planning) has a presence at the Development Services Counter. Fire is available nearby and can be called to the Development Services Counter when a customer has questions about this function. Creating a new division with oversight from an ever-present manager would: + Provide a resource to answer questions ^ Coordinate how the technicians work as a team, from group meetings to coordinating efforts + Ensure City employee policies are met, such as coming in on time + Provide intervention on. occasions when technicians are dealing with difficult (or potentially dangerous) customers + Provide common expectations for service delivery ^ Resolve employee frustrations with some of the other departments + Observe employees at work day to day as a basis for performance evaluations + Focus on recording Development Services activity at the Development Services Counter + Avoid some applicants shopping for answers + Monitor the effectiveness of information provided to the customers. CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE The Finance Staff, given their proximity to the front entrance, is often the first person to come into contact with the customer as they enter the permitting area. As the Finance Staff is not familiar with the details of the development processes or the departments, it is inevitable that they may not know to whom the customer should be directed ~ and errors happen. On occasion, there have been customers waiting that had appointments with planners, but that person had to Section 6—Development Services Counter—page 2 I I wait while the technicians helped other customers before they got to a technician who then called the planner to the front counter. I The City may wish to institute a routing system by adding a receptionist or "router." This person would greet the customer, ask what the customer is proposing, give them the appropriate handout _ which explains that process and ask them to fill out the application while they are waiting to talk I to one of the Engineering, Planning, or Building technicians. This person also could take some of the researching files and other duties to lighten the technicians' load. I CUSTOMER INFORMATION I One of the "Best Practices" for community development is the focus on customer service and providing information that describes the Department's core processes in an understandable and user-friendly manner. In Carlsbad's program, descriptions of the core processes are plentiful but I daunting. Full of the legalities of the Code, the information (to someone who has never come in for a permit before) can seem like a foreign language. (Recommendation VI-2: Conduct a thorough reading of each of the information sheets given to customers to ensure they are up-to-date, understandable to the "common person on the street," and well-designed. Recommendation VI-3: Provide an information "kiosk" near the entrance to the Development Services Counter. Customers often look for any information about the issue they have come to discuss. A kiosk (would give them the opportunity to read the information sheets before meeting with the technicians. Such information should include not only a description of the process, but flow charts, and a basic checklist of the documents they are required to provide with the application. It I would be helpful to have a technical writer look at these handouts to ensure they are I I understandable to someone unfamiliar with the development process. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM\ . The staff indicated that there are fourteen different ways to look up information, including: old I plans, files (permit history, how many improvements, inspections), GIS maps, county tax assessors book, access data (streets and drawings), card catalogue, street names, description, • street improvement drawings, fire run book, larger maps, etc. All these sources should be I entered into the City's data system so that they are readily accessible on the computer to save time for themselves and for the customers, (see Technology and Document • Management section of this report). I I Section 6—Development Services Counter—page 3 I MANAGEMENT REPORTS AND TRACKING Recommendation VI-4: Establish an activity tracking system. This area, as the initial step to the development review process, should have continual monitoring of activities, for example, waiting times at each station (Planning, Building, Engineering, Fire), number of customers assisted, and logs of the types of permits issued. Reports should reflect all the activities the staff performs. This will help management make decisions regarding staffing levels and performance measures, and address any problems which might not be evident without the data. Section 6—Development Services Counter—page 4 I I SECTION 7—ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I The City of Carlsbad's Engineering Development Services' primary function is to ensure that all private property to be developed to the City is in conformance with the City's engineering design standards. This Division focuses on new development. It is important to note that the (Development Services Engineers not only review new plans submitted to them, but also must respond to any adjustments or amendments to the original plans. Examples of the types of review the Development Services Engineers conduct are listed below. I ^ Subdivisions ^ Water, sewer, and recycled water I + Traffic Plan check + Vesting tentative maps I + Adjustment plats + Calculation of fees I + Certificates of Compliance + Certificates of Correction - after subdivision map is recorded, the original may I not be changed. However, there are methods available to modify or correct the data on the recorded map _ ^ Private development condemnation of easements (such as off-site improvements I which neither developer nor City own) ^ Construction changes - required when City staff determine changes to the plans I are too complex to be handled as an "As-Built" ^. I I I I Easements and covenants of easements Grading plans and violations Apportionment of assessments Quit Claims|1 + Substantial conference exhibit procedure 1 + Encroachment agreements 4 Blasting Permit 1+ Haul Route Permit + Right-of-way Permits 1+ NPDES Reports/investigations. Once the plans have been reviewed, the Development Services Engineers then prepare their written comments for the applicant and for those recommendations which are passed onto the planners for inclusion in their memos going to the Planning Commission. Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 1 creAwro uc Focus GROUPS CONCERNS The Deputy City Engineer communicates well, is fair and honest, and his open- door policy is great. Sometimes it is necessary to talk with the Deputy City Engineer to get a decision on what is needed to go ahead. Many participants expressed their feeling that this Engineering section is understaffed, "If they are understaffed, bill us for it. Time is money to us." We need to know upfront what is needed so we can respond in a timely way and line up our workers and finances; adding requirements during construction is too hard. Development Services Engineers need to try to solve issues. Lack of communication - difficult to get calls returned. Feeling that if we complain, there will be reprisals from the staff. It is not uncommon that Planning comments sit waiting for engineering's review. Some Development Services Engineers appear to be burned out. How efficient are they, that is, how often do they touch the same piece of paper? In the field, the Engineering inspector changes the plan to suit personal preferences, e.g., storm inlet. ENGINEERING STAFF CONCERNS The workload is overwhelming. It continues to increase, but there is not the staff to handle it. The Engineers are burning out. Other responsibilities continue to be added to the workload. The turnover in planning has changed the dynamics - engineers and planners don't know each other as well as before, which makes coordination more challenging. When a Public Works Director is appointed (which may mean a new City Engineer), the change impacts what the development services engineers do (that is, the Director or City Engineer may not have the same priorities.) Stress and workload have a major impact on staffs' personal lives as the reduction in staff has taken its toll. Development Services Engineers would like respect from the managers above the Deputy City Engineer. When the City Engineer gets a complaint, he needs to ask staff about the history first, then make decisions based on the facts, and trust the staff. Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 2 I I + Development Services Engineers tend to have responsibilities shifted to them when other departments do not want to do them. (For example, grading plans, I water, and sewer plans). + Development Services Engineers feel they do not receive respect for what they do here. ENGINEERING DIVISION ORGANIZATION I The Development Services Engineering Division includes: ^ The Deputy City Engineer I ^ A senior civil engineer (presently vacant position) ^ 3 Associate Engineers I ^ An Assistant Engineer + 3 Counter Engineering Technicians I + The plan check function is contracted to a private engineering firm. The Division is headed by a Deputy City Engineer and the day-to-day operations are managed by the Senior Civil Engineer.I I I I I I CITYGATE FINDINGS + Given the many obstacles with which the Development Services Engineers are dealing, they are doing a remarkable job. I ^ The Division has recently updated the Engineering Standards and Procedures. + The Engineering staffing level is inadequate to handle the workload now and inIthe future. The Senior Engineering position recently has been under-filled by an Associate Engineer. This will not be enough to deal with the workload or the supervisory responsibilities of this Division, (see Workload discussion below). + The Division does an excellent job of documenting workload, project turnaround times, and other data upon which management can base decisions. + The Division's approach to "application triage" to speed the review time is reasonable. 1 + The Customer Focus Groups asked Citygate to recommend that changes to plans could be made in the field. The Engineering Inspectors may make changes to the "As-Built" drawings in the field as long as the changes are reasonable and raise I no concerns. Otherwise, the changes are sent back to the Project Engineer for review. Citygate's finding is that the present approach is reasonable. + There needs to be more attention paid to monitoring of consultant contracts and I payments. ^ There needs to be closer coordination between the Planning Division and Development Services Engineering. Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Public Works Director J Deputy City Engineer {over : Devt Services Eng.) 1 Senior Civil Engineer (vacant, but under-filled by Associate '• ;;--;:i '"•'• Engineer) ""- " "'' 1 Associate Engineers (4)Assistant Engineer 1 Counter Engineering Technicians (3) ENGINEERING STANDARDS All City Engineering standards were updated a year and a half ago, and included: + Construction specification manual - statewide; needed by inspectors in the field. + San Diego County Regional Standards. + City of Carlsbad additional standards and supplements. ^ Specific design practices, e.g., percent grade for driveways. ^ The design standards test and graphics were blended together, and the design criteria were reviewed. The Division also has a thorough Procedures Manual, which has step-by-step instructions for each of the different application types. It includes application forms, application checklists, checklists for content of improvement plans, grading plans, final maps, adjustment plats, standard transmittals, letters, and forms. The importance of this manual is that: (1) it ensures that customers get consistent responses from the engineer no matter which engineer is assigned to their project; (2) it provides expectations for each employee which may later be the basis for disciplinary action; and (3) it gives a comprehensive overview for new employees. Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 4 I I I WORKLOAD ANALYSIS The history of Development Services Engineering's staffing level is as follows: Fiscal Year 1994 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 #of Engineers 3 5 4 4 6 5 4 Senior Engineer No No No Yes Yes Yes No # of Discretionary Reviews 233+ 350+ 520+ 540+ 520+ 500+ 820+ This table deals only with discretionary permits. In recent years, the Development Services Engineering Division also has been asked to take on additional responsibilities. These include NPDES (a new process which added an estimated 10 percent to the workload), grading violations (transferred from Engineering Inspections added an estimated 10 percent), Reimbursement Agreements (the responsibility of the Program Planning Division of Engineering, but some are left for Development Services Engineering to do), precise grading plans (new process), and water and sewer plans. On average, the engineering staff estimates it takes 10 hours to process a Planned Industrial permit, and 40 hours for review for each large subdivision or discretionary application. The total number of applications reviewed (discretionary permits only) are: I Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 5 "Fi"£ Ecrro issxist! IK Fiscal Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Application Reviews 215 297 335 370 512 540 580 558 525 577 610 901 Applications Completed 51 63 83 71 89 91 84 123 116 108 94 148 Average Reviews Per Month 17.9 24.75 27.9 30.8 42.7 45.0 48.3 46.5 43.7 48.1 50.8 75.1 Average Completed Per Month 4.2 5.25 6.9 5.9 7.4 7.6 7.0 10.25 9.7 9.0 7.8 12.3 Engineering Reviews, 1994-2005 2 400o> E 200 Year •Applications -"-Applications Completed £ £ CHST! IWCITR lie Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 6 I I In the graph above, the "Applications Completed" refers to specific applications. I The "Application in Review" is not specific applications, but are all the reviews that were performed (e.g., the same application may go through multiple reviews). I STAFFING LEVEL - Recommendation VII-l: Fill the vacant Senior Engineer and add two additional I Associate Engineer positions (one of these positions may have been filled since the Citygate study began). I In the interviews with the Customer Focus Groups, Development Services Engineers, and City staff from other divisions working with the Development Services Engineers, there was - recognition that the Engineering Division is understaffed and the engineers are burning out. The I workload data underscores this need. Given the workload, Citygate recommends the vacant Senior Engineer's position be filled as I soon as possible. Citygate also recommend an addition of two more Associate Engineer positions. - + The workload has increased 57.7 percent since 2001 when Development Services I Engineering had six project engineers, and now have four - one position was moved to Parks, and the Senior Engineer position has been vacant for almost two 1 years. ^ In Fiscal Year 1994, each engineer averaged 59 project reviews and approximately 20 applications completed per engineer. In Fiscal Year 2005, each (engineer averaged 225 projects reviews and approximately 40 applications per engineer. 1 + During the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2006, the amount of applications was 22.6 percent ahead of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2005. + The Development Services Engineering backlog not only slows the turnaround I time for their development reviews, but also affects the deadlines set for Planning to meet its cycle times. 1 + The Division has made a serious attempt at contracting for engineering assistance for land development reviews. > It contracted with a firm for land development reviews for one year, but the I consultant did not meet deadlines, and then when construction commenced, errors were found. I > The Division then tried to hire someone for a term such as 3 years. There was little to no interest of potential applicants to do so. As the workload turns to infill projects rather than new development, it may require more engineering time, not less. The engineering problen complex and there are more neighbors and property owners involved. ^ I require more engineering time, not less. The engineering problems are more I I Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 7 ami asxm. K The Senior Engineer position is essential to alleviate the pressures on the Deputy City Engineer regarding day-to-day operations and quality control, assigning projects, being a technical resource for the staff, filling in for individual engineers when they are on vacation or ill, reviewing status of projects for turnaround times, and ensuring consistency of work. The Deputy City Engineer can then focus more on updating and maintaining ordinances, standards, and procedures; building relations with other divisions involved in the development review process; maintaining personnel, training, and performance measurement reporting systems; and representing the Division at Council meetings, policy group meetings, etc. This also ensures there is a succession plan in the event the Deputy City Engineer gets promoted or leaves the City. Two Associate Engineering positions puts the staff back to the Fiscal Year 2001 level when the workload was 57.7 percent less. If the City wishes to set and meet cycle times for both Engineering and Planning, there need to be adjustments in the project engineer staffing level. CYCLE TIMES Under State law, the City has thirty (30) days following the initial application submittal to determine if the submittal package meets the application requirements, and is complete and suitable for further review. Once the application has been determined to be complete, the City has one hundred eighty (180) days in which to review and approve or deny the project if a Negative Declaration has been filed, or one (1) year of processing time if the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. Minor subdivisions must have final action by the City within fifty (50) days. The Engineering Development Services Division's stated goals are to get 90 percent of the first applications reviewed within 21 days, and 15-18 day subsequent submittals. The staff checks weekly or bi-weekly to determine the status of projects coming due. When an engineer is assigned a project, it is his/her responsibility for that project from inception to completion of construction. That is, when a pre-application comes in, a project engineer is assigned for review and comments. When a formal application is made, that same project engineer stays with the project through its land use review process, public hearing process, and then on into the plan checking process to prepare improvement plans, grading plans, and maps. Beyond that, the project engineer is responsible during the construction phase of the project to handle construction changes, any questions from field staff, developer, contractor or citizens. The project engineer has 30 days to deem a construction plan complete. Once that is done, the plan submittals are sent to consulting engineering firms to perform plan checks. The goals for plan check are 30-day review of initial submittal and 3-4 weeks for subsequent reviews. It usually takes 2 or 3 plan checks before the plans are ready for approval. Logs are kept to track the projects; for example, when projects come in and the number of days are tracked for each review. The reports reflect the time this Division actually has the projects for review, but does not include the days they are waiting for applicants to submit missing data. Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 8 I I CUSTOMER INFORMATION I The Engineer Development Services Division has provided applications to the customers on the web site. Although checklists are provided, it would be useful to have the already developed process description and flowchart on the web site as well. I Citygate also reviewed the Plan Review form in terms of its understandability to the customer. Unlike Building, the Plan Review reports are difficult to track. If three reviews are conducted, all handwritten comments are put on the same form. It is difficult to track whether the comments I made on the forms relate to the latest review or a previous one. Recommendation VII-2: Rewrite the Engineering Plan Review form to provide a I separate document for each review. With the advent of standardized WORD-based documents, there is no reason a separate plan I check comment sheet cannot be generated each time a project is re-reviewed. Each new report • would list only those items yet to be met by the applicant. Using this system, rather than handwritten, scribbled comments, will give the review more clarity and a much more I professional look as well. • APPLICATION TRIAGE In looking at ways reviews could be organized to maintain (or to improve) cycle times, one • variable Citygate reviews is whether the applications are taken on first-come, first-serve basis, or I whether the smaller projects are separated from the larger ones, given to an engineer to review to get comments back to Planning and the customers more quickly. I At the present time: + Simple applications are reviewed and approved at the Development Services I Counter by the technicians. + The next level of applications (smaller but more in-depth applications than those items handled at the Counter) are given to the Assistant Engineer. Because there I are a lot of these applications, they also may be distributed to the Associate Engineers where needed. • ^ Larger projects are handled by the Associate Engineers. PROJECT CORRECTIONS IN THE FIELD I The Focus Groups raised the question of whether changes could be made in the field by red- lining the plans. Engineering indicated that changes can be made in the field if the Engineering (inspector clearly understands the remedy that is proposed and sees no problems with the change. In these cases, corrections on the "As-Built" drawings and the final plans are made to reflect these changes. If the Engineering Inspector is not comfortable with the proposed change(s), they are sent back to the Project Engineer who did the original reviews.I I I Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 9 CITY PROJECT REVIEWS Recommendation VII-3: Ensure that City-generated projects meet the same standards that the City requires of developers. The Customer Focus Groups indicated their concern that the City should meet the City standards (not only engineering standards, but also including Master Plan, development standards, state requirements for master plans and EIR) they are required to meet. GRADING PERMIT VIOLATIONS Recommendation VII-4: Make the initial steps in addressing grading permit violations the responsibility of the Engineering Inspectors, rather than of the Development Services Engineering. As Citygate looked for ways to alleviate some of the workload on the Development Services Engineers, we took note not only of the workload, but at some of the processes which we felt could be reassigned elsewhere. We believe one of those processes is grading permit violations. The Development Services Engineers review the grading plan for each project, and if it meets the standards, a permit is issued. If the Engineering inspectors come upon a grading violation: + he/she takes photos of the violation and sends them to the Deputy City Engineer + he/she also may place a Stop Work Order on the project and the owner is told to contact the Development Services Engineers to work through the problem to get a grading permit. A Development Services Engineer then must: ^ Go to the site to see what the violation is + Contact the property owner and discuss the possible violation + Write a letter citing evidence of the violation. If the violation is not resolved in two weeks, a notice of the grading violation is put in the file. + Violators then direct their engineer to talk with the City's engineer to ensure there is agreement of what the problem is and determine how to address it. The problem with this approach is that the property owner may not go to the Development Services Engineers to get a grading permit and there is no follow-up to make sure they have it. It seems to Citygate that tracking, citing, and follow-up on such violations belong in Engineering Inspection. These steps are no different than what Code Enforcement Officers do regarding Planning and Building requirements. And just like Planning and Building, the remedy may need to come back to Engineering for review to fix the problem. But to require the Development Services Engineers, with the type of workload they are trying to manage, to do Section 7—Engineering Development Services—page 10 I I what is essentially non-engineering paperwork, is not the best use of their time and results in higher staffing costs to the City. I Citygate proposes the following process: ^ When the Engineering Inspector finds a violation, he/she takes photographs of the • violation and sends the photos to the Deputy City Engineer for review. ^ If the Deputy City Engineer agrees that there is a violation, the Engineering Inspector contacts the property owner and discusses the violation. I ^ The Engineering Inspector writes a letter citing evidence of the violation. ^ The property owner's contractor contacts Development Services Engineering to I get a grading permit. Citygate feels this is the best use of the engineers' time, and in the long run will save the • customer time. MONITORING CONTRACTING FIRMS I As with the other development services entities, Citygate reviewed how the quality of the consulting engineers is monitored. Because the City's project engineer reviews the applications (briefly before and after the application comes back from the firms contracted to provide plan checks, they can usually spot mistakes in the firm's analysis. I A more problematic issue in Engineering and monitoring of consultants has to do with their payments. • Recommendation VII-5: Provide more administrative support to track consulting I contracts and provide monthly reports. _ The Development Services Engineering Division contracts with four consulting firms to provide I plan check services. The contract amounts vary for each firm. When work is assigned to each firm, the amount to be paid is estimated and tracked on an assignment-by-assignment basis. No I totals for each contract are tracked. I Each firm bills Development Services Engineering for their percentage of each of the assignments completed. Those billings are distributed to each of the project Development (Services Engineers to review for accurate percentages of each assignment they oversee. Monthly payments are then made to each firm. I As the fiscal year progresses, the payments, plus the remaining assignment payments to be due, I approach the contract amount. Although the various Development Services Engineers perform their reviews project by project, no one is tracking how close those numbers are to the amount (budgeted. Near the end of the fiscal year, the Division does not know whether to assign additional work to a firm to avoid exceeding their contract amount. Citygate has raised throughout this report the need to monitor the use of consultants, both in I terms of the quality of the service and fiscal accountability. For this purpose, and to alleviate some of the workload on the Development Services Engineering Division, more administrative nSection 7—Engineering Development Services—page 11 support is needed to provide a monthly report that indicates the following data for each consulting firm: + the total amount paid to date ^ the total amount paid for each assignment ^ the total amount remaining to be paid + the total amount remaining for each assignment ^ if the total amounts paid and remaining to be paid exceeds the contract amount. The Division has met with the IT representatives on several occasions requesting a software program where this information could be summarized and monitored. For unknown reasons, this solution has not been forthcoming. Whether by computer programming or through administrative support — or both — this task should be performed. axfflfBS9cwB.se Section?—Engineering Development Services—page 12 SECTION 8—REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The City of Carlsbad has an established Redevelopment Agency which administers two redevelopment project areas known as the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. One of the primary goals of the City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Department is to promote the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area as a quality shopping, working, and living environment. In addition to these projects and programs, the Redevelopment Department is responsible for processing all land use applications and land use inquiries within the downtown V-R (Village Redevelopment) zone, which encompasses over 200 acres of land. The V-R zoning accommodates a wide range of land uses and serves as a specialty retail center for the City of Carlsbad. In order to provide guidance to the public and other City staff related to future development within a particular portion of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area, Agency and City (planning) staff are currently working on a document entitled "The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan," which will help to govern future land uses in an area commonly referred as "Ponto." The Redevelopment Department is responsible for overseeing all land use applications and related land use inquiries regarding future development activities within this area. However, the Planning Department is responsible for the actual processing of all land use applications within the Area. Redevelopment staff continues to process land use applications within the Village Area. Permitting process for projects in Redevelopment districts was transferred to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in 1994-95. The RDA staff works with two reviewing bodies: the Design Review Board, consisting of two Planning Commissioners and others with relevant expertise, and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (the City Council). HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Housing and Redevelopment Director I CDBG/Home Redevelopment and Affordable Housing (General) Redevelopment Land Use Applications Rental Assistance Program Section 8—Redevelopment—page 1 crevt rasOT WORKLOAD The Redevelopment workload related to permits is as follows: Type of Permit Administrative Major Minor Outdoor Display Permit Sidewalk Cafe Permit Sidewalk Sign Permit 2000 8 3 0 1 1 3 2001 3 4 2 1 5 2002 8 2 1 22 0 17 2003 9 0 2 2 0 6 2004 5 8 1 2 0 10 2005 3 4 0 0 0 2 Redevelopment Permits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year •Administrative - Major Minor Outdoor Display Permit Sidewalk Cafe Permit Sidewalk Sign Permit DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Because the RDA's mission is to encourage new developments in infill areas and adaptive reuse of older buildings, Carlsbad provides that redevelopment projects need more flexibility in their standards than the Municipal Zoning Code (which may be focused on new development on vacant land). The redevelopment project areas also have a different focus regarding the intensity of the uses allowed, such as mixed uses, higher housing densities to provide for affordable housing, and less parking requirements. In reviewing development applications in the Village Redevelopment Area, RDA staff uses several documents to guide them, including: 1 ! (Will F,OTitS l!C Section 8—Redevelopment—page 2 I I + The Village Master Plan (adopted in 1995), which includes development standards (under review) and design guidelines for projects in the Area. I + Village Redevelopment Plan (as appropriate) + Carlsbad Municipal Code (for matters not addressed by the village Master Plan. I The review process includes: ^ Working with Current Planning, Engineering, Building, and Fire, all of whom | also review the plans. • + Sending out notices to property owners (3) - one at project beginning, one for the Design Review Board, and one for the City Council meeting | ^ Placing a sign on site. Who makes the final decision: I ^ All new construction goes to the City Council - $ 150,000+ - public hearing * Between $60,000-150,000 goes to Design Review Board (DRB) - public hearing I + Below $60,000 is administrative. At the present time, the Redevelopment Standards are in the process of being reviewed. Staff (provided Citygate with an overview of the changes via a copy of the Design Manual, which includes the Master Plan, standards, and implementation strategies. As the standards are being revised, the Redevelopment Agency has used the following process: I ^ Reviewing financial scenarios on impact of development standards + Consulting developers/property owners and architects I + Reviewing previous and current project applications + Researching standards of other coastal cities in Southern California I ^ Receiving preliminary feedback from the Council + Continuing to meet with property owners, architects, and developers to obtain I additional feedback on potential changes + Meeting with business groups, including the Chamber and CVBA I ^ Meeting with Coastal Commission staff ^ Processing recommended revisions. I CITYGATE FINDINGS 1 + The Village Master Plan and Design Manual Standards appear to be comprehensive, well-illustrated, and understandable. + The process used to review standard revisions is well thought out in terms of I involving the key stakeholders and solving various recurring problems. ^ RDA staff has confirmed that their applications, like Planning's, are typically not deemed completed when first submitted. Their approach is to: Section 8—Redevelopment—page 3 > Continue to process the project and obtain the remaining necessary information during the review, which does extend the review cycle time > Identify items to be completed and develop a list of issues to be resolved before approval is recommended. INCONSISTENCY AMONG PLANS AND STANDARDS Many with whom Cirygate spoke indicated that the Redevelopment plans are inconsistent with the City Zoning Code because more flexibility is needed in the Redevelopment districts than the Zoning code allowed. This may be true, given the focus of the existing Zoning Code, which assumes new growth, rather than revitalizing older neighborhoods. Citygate's strong recommendation in the Planning section of this report is to do a comprehensive revision of the Zoning Code. Given that Carlsbad is nearing build-out, the Zoning Code must focus both on new development and infill development, which may require a focus on adjusting setbacks and heights by area of the City, rather than "one size fits all." In making this adjustment, the Code revision should look at the Redevelopment area challenges and standards to ensure they are generally consistent. For example, having separate plans and standards for the City as a whole and for the RDA districts specifically may not be a problem when they operate separately, but on occasion, the questions that arise in a Redevelopment project may not be resolved through the Design Manual or the Master Plan. The staff then turns to the City's Municipal Code for further guidance, if available. Optimally, there should be ways to bring them closer together and still maintain the flexibility that each set of guidelines needs to realize the City's vision and the Council's direction. Section 8—Redevelopment—page 4 I I SECTION 9—FIRE PREVENTION I The Fire Prevention Division consists of the Fire Marshal, 3 Deputy Fire Marshals, 2 part-time Inspectors, and a secretary. Their responsibilities include: 1 ^ Construction inspection, plan review, and weed abatement + Maintenance - inspections of all commercial occupancies in the City (hotels, apartments, jails, and schools) I + All State mandated inspections. The Deputy Fire Marshal indicated that it takes approximately 10-12 days for initial plan checks I or longer to approve a project, and 1 -2 days for inspections. FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION I '"•'.'-•:'•' Fire Marshal :'"•• I Deputy Fire Marshals <3)~| Fire Inspectors (2) ~| I The Fire Marshal staff has indicated that they are overloaded and need additional staff. Without detailed workload data, it is difficult to make a judgment that this is warranted. Data is presently - being collected for future submission. Due to a shortage of staff, a fire prevention public I education program is not presently offered. Recommendation IX-1: An automatic copy of EsGil comments should be sent to I Fire Prevention. When building plans are submitted at the Development Services Counter, a set goes to the I Building Department, which then is sent on to EsGil Corporation, and another set is sent to Fire Prevention. In order to provide consistency and avoid duplication of work, the Fire Prevention staff goes to the Building Department staff for a copy of EsGil's completed reviews. It would be I more streamlined for EsGil to automatically send its comments to both Building and Fire as soon as possible. I I I Section 9—Fire—page 1 cimics-oiaac I I • SECTION 10—TECHNOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION I The internet, e-mails, and computer programs have revolutionized the way government does its business. As Citygate performs operational reviews, one of the elements we examine is how departments make use of technology to speed up the review process and track the progress of I applications through the system, how staff time is recorded, how managers make use of this ' information, and a host of other actions which record activities within the departments. This assessment of technology is particularly important when evaluating municipal operations as I complex as a development review process. Carlsbad has made strides toward using these applicable automated technologies, particularly in I the Building and Engineering Departments. As there are many areas where automated technologies have not yet been fully explored by the development services departments, Citygate has focused on this area for findings and recommendations. I I I I I I OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNOLOGIES I ^ Internal to the development services departments: > Effective means to communicate with public, interagency, and intra- governmental functions > Increased efficiency to help manage workloads I > Reduced costs of government operations/enhanced revenue collections > Ability to conduct "what if scenarios _ > Data management I > Effective means to measure change > Ensure an acceptable level of control and risk management I > Match the skills and capabilities of the organization + External to customers: I > Ability of customer to communicate with staff > Provide electronic access by customers to government data bases I > Cost and time savings (for example, customer does not have to come into office) I > Data applicable to a broad spectrum of community organizations Ability to target data by area for ones' own needs Enhanced customer service and satisfaction. inSection 10—Technology and Documentation—page 1 TECHNOLOGY PLANNING The City of Carlsbad has a Strategic Technology Plan (June 30, 2000) that provides the general framework for the City's information systems, including an information technology assessment, vision, strategies, and transition plan. The Plan also lists three key IT issues facing Carlsbad: ^ The need to establish a well-defined information technology governance structure and process - a permanent "umbrella" that will guide Carlsbad decision-making as new IT issues evolve in the future. ^ The need to provide citizens and employees access to City integrated information which is available on a 24 x 7 basis, 365 days per year. + The need to establish an enterprise-wide methodology for implementing IT solutions. This approach will serve Carlsbad well. Although the Plan looks broadly at the City's needs, Citygate focused primarily on the needs of the development services departments for this analysis and recommendations. The major elements of plans adopted by development services agencies across the country are discussed below. Some elements are included in the Carlsbad IT Plan, and some are not (and will need to be included in order to implement the needed functions, capabilities and desired performance measurements for Community Development). WEB SITE As citizens often use the internet to begin their search for information, they turn to the City's web site. The public insists on ready access to public officials, databases, information concerning public meetings, and the ability to submit applications from afar. The web also has become a vital tool for participation in the democratic process. The expectations for development services information fall into three levels: + Most development services departments now provide the following information online: > The ability to contact elected officials and departmental staff. > Agendas and minutes of City Council and planning-related meetings. >• Zoning codes. > Departmental structure, contact information, and general descriptions of how planning, building, code enforcement, and other development-related processes work. > Commonly requested forms for downloading by citizens and businesses; these are usually accompanied by instructions on how to fill out the forms, which documents must be submitted with the application (for example, a legal description of the property or a soils report), and a checklist to ensure the citizens have all that is needed to deem an application complete. + The development services departments now are beginning to expand their web sites to a second level to include: FT Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 2 I I > Educational materials. > Comprehensive plans and other types of plans or reports of interest. > A means to submit simple applications and pay fees online. > Scheduling of building inspections online. > A permit tracking system (for the customer as well as City staff). > Basic GIS maps (for example, zoning, transportation, and environmental). ^ At the more advanced level, some development services departments also include on their web sites: > Web mapping (interactive mapping). > Submittal of digital versions of plans. I > Process application form submittals online through to the complete approval and issuing of permits. I > Access to historical documents that have been scanned. > I I > Public participation efforts (for example, surveys, virtual meetings). CITYGATE FINDING The capabilities of the Carlsbad web site are presently between the first and second level I described above. Information regarding the City structure, meetings, minutes, zoning code, plans, and contact information for elected officials, managers and staff are all available online. _ On the second level, the web site provides the General Plan, special reports, and some I educational materials. The City has yet to go to submitting application and fees online, scheduling inspections online, providing a permit tracking system, and more than a few GIS I maps. The staff is aware that such services are being provided by other governmental entities and I are working toward these goals. I GIS The Carlsbad Community Development GIS division provides services to all City departments. I Other than Public Works doing data entry of public facilities data, the GIS in Community Development MSA is the central GIS operation for the City. The information available from GIS includes: ^ Parcels, streets - via data-provider license ^ Vegetation-created for Habitat Management Plan in 1990 ^ Various Administrative and Planning Boundaries ^ Street lines ^ Zoning and General Plan ^ Contour, slope, and terrain data Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 3 CWMKMJ.uc + Orthophotography (overhead aerial photography) - various dates and resolutions + Survey monumentation - new + Public Works 'built environment' - sewer, water, reclaimed, storm systems, streets data, etc. The GIS system abilities range from simple graphics requests to detailed geographical modeling and analysis. GIS is linked to the City's document management system (DMS) via a web-based interface (although this data does not appear to be actually accessible on the web site at this time). This link enables a user to search for documents by location, or search for the location of a selected document. Currently in operation is an intranet-based web mapping application, providing GIS access for all City staff. CITYGATE FINDING The GIS Division is progressing well towards a "Best Practices" system, but is limited by the inability to interface with the permits system (see Permits Plus discussion below). One cannot emphasize too strongly that this link has to be made to approach the potential of the Accela system. With that connection and the resources available on GIS, the City can use other tools for policy development and manager decision-making, such as: ^ Extensive information resources + Visualization tools + Impact analysis and GIS modeling tools ^ Predictive modeling tools ^ Community process or civic engagement tools. Such a system also speeds up the time it takes planners to check the myriad of documents that need to be checked during their reviews as information and maps are literally at their finger tips. Currently, if the Planning staff needs a map, they call the GIS Division to produce one, and GIS is very responsive to their needs. But as Carlsbad's development reviews get more complicated as it transitions to infill developments, the history of development approvals, maps, and the rest of the data (see Information on Accela box below) will be critical to performing proper reviews within required cycle times. The GIS Division is working with Accela to come up with the interface to connect these two large databases. The Community Development GIS Division's current effort is to link to external databases to leverage the "centralizing" power of location to add value to the City's data assets. (To see how other cities and counties provide extensive mapping and data online, see the listing at the end of this section of the report.) Once the City has this information available on its web site, it can work toward "web mapping." Web mapping provides the ability for customers tapping into the City's web site to layer data on GIS maps (such as plans, zoning, environmental, roads, and public facilities) and to zero in on a particular area of a City. This allows citizens to customize the information for their needs. Ultimately, the goal is for the customer to actually receive GIS support over the Internet. Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 4 I I PERMITTING AND ZONING SYSTEMS (Often referred to as "E-Permitting," these systems provide a convenient way for customers to access forms on line, provide directions regarding how to fill them out, review checklists on what should accompany applications and how they may be submitted ~ either in person or by e- I filing. These might include samples of images such as a plot plan to illustrate what a submittal needs to look like and to what scale. With the forms and the basic requirements online, most departments are moving to provide a I means to submit non-discretionary permits online as well. This saves time for the customer and staff by eliminating paperwork and speeding processing time. An electronic system can also _ detect missing information, invalid addresses, and other missing information. The greatest I difficulty is figuring out how to pay the fees along with it, but as cities and counties move more and more to allow the payments of property taxes, utility billings, vehicle registrations, etc. _ online, this challenge will be addressed. I In some cases, permitting software allows development services departments to track the status of permits, whether the application was submitted in person or online. Some allow only the (applicant to view the information; others allow not only the applicant, but citizens and businesses to review the status of the permit as well. (Finally, some development services departments are moving toward allowing developers, architects, and engineers to submit required documentations (such as CAD drawings) electronically. These require the submission and approval of various documents including site (plans and detailed construction drawings. Such projects require multiple permits, multiple inspections, and collaboration among a variety of designers, contractors, subcontractors, and government departments. (Note: Concerns have been expressed by architects and designers that • these plans not be made available on the web site as others may copy their designs.) CITYGATE FINDING I The City does have application forms and information available online, but there is currently no way to submit the application and fees for simpler applications at this time. Citygate I recommends a Development Services Information Systems Plan specific to Community Development, Engineering and Fire Prevention. Such a plan should address how Carlsbad can move toward e-permitting. ' HANDHELD DEVICES I Many building departments are now using wireless computers or PDAs in the field, which allows * them to remotely tie into the main data system when questions arise. This also enables the inspector or code enforcement officer to enter data which can be synced instantly to the City I databases, which reduces errors, accelerates the delivery of compliance letters and reports (which are completely automated), and opens the possibility of approving the building permits while on site. Once the information is entered into the database and added to the department electronic I maps, this information is made available to the public through the web site. • ISection 10—Technology and Documentation—page 5 CITYGATE FINDING When the Carlsbad building inspectors and code enforcement officers conduct inspections in the field, they fill out forms of what they see and approve, and then they return to the office and give those forms to the Office Specialists Us to type (which usually takes them two hours each day). This is redundant and time-consuming, and delays the issuance of permits. The Building Department has looked into using computers or PDAs in the field, but at this time, the license required to do this is considered to be cost-prohibitive. When IT explores various systems, they may find a more reasonably priced program. Adjusting to using this equipment will not be easy for staff to adjust to, particularly for those who are not familiar with computers or other electronic equipment, but the enhancements to customer service will be significant. PERMIT PLUS Carlsbad has a system called Permit Plus, by Accela. This system, when used to its potential, can provide an enormous amount of information for policymakers, managers, and staff to use when performing "what if scenarios, and to access workload data and review activity logs). Though Accela is a powerful planning tool, entering and keeping the data up-to-date is no easy task. One can access such information as parcel legal descriptions, assessed valuation, zoning, subdivision drawing showing the parcel for which one is searching, and other information on the City's intranet system. Examples of other types of information are presented on the following page: CITYGATE FINDING In Carlsbad, the Accela Permit Plus system contains data for Planning, Building, Engineering, and Fire. This information is compiled by entering information from all permits and applications which come into each department. There is so much more data that could be readily available if documents were scanned and there was an interface to the GIS system. For example, when a permit application comes in, the staff checks a myriad of documents to make sure all requirements are met before a permit is issued. These documents include project files such as permit history, how many improvements and inspections have been made, County Tax Assessor's books, assessor parcel number, large maps, and GIS to name a few. Eventually, all these documents will or should be available on the City's intranet system so these checks can be made quickly and a permit approved. A Development Services Information Systems Plan would help to identify opportunities for improving the use of Permit Plus. Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 6 EXAMPLES OF ACCELA INFORMATION Maps, lot and tax numbers ;, Name;, address, project ;; Permits on parcel and purpose of permit Dimensions of structure and lo| , ,p ! i Land -use ' , ..,,.:• • '•• ' , ,, ,, ,,, .• ,v-: • : * ^ „• Lot - width, depth, rear, apa, sfttMeks minimum.;: distance between structures , ;;" ' |';I: . ;, i'f.;' • * , Planning^transportation, fire, polce review! aiid conditions Planning Commission approval rid4teJ3 resoliitkw*, and Building Plan Checks — Class, tvjpe- of constru^tjonlbiiilding areas building height, stories, impact protection^ condijions Log of all activitj? «>- type of inspection, descriptioli,, dates of inspection,; date permit issued»i,notes Tags oniproperties which Jhave been served; with a Code Enforcement notice " ; ; Assessment iaformation, area, value/square feet, t®tal value Have daily, weeldly, monthly, and yearly repolts upon which management can base their decisions, Identify trends, concerns, anil issues, , Ptovide a means by which^ customers may suSmit applications. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND IMAGING In development services agencies across the country, volumes of papers exist, pile by pile - sometimes in the nooks and crannies of the Department, some in storage units off-site, and some in staff offices. Handling all the paper products (such as applications, minutes, soils reports, and site plans) is a major challenge for everyone. Many agencies have transitioned into document imaging (that is, organizing each individual files and then taking a picture of each piece of paper which is then uploaded into the computer system). This not only assists City staff with their reviews, but some of this data is available for citizens on the web site so they can check information about their house (such as finding which side of the house the sewer lateral is on.) By providing this information on line, it drastically reduces the Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 7 CTttUt SSCIStS UC number of the calls now coming to staff. It also decreases the time an applicant spends at the Development Services Counter getting a permit. CITYGATE FINDING Carlsbad is progressing very well in this area. The City has an established Document Management System (DMS). + Planning - Many of the planning files have been scanned over the last four years. The staff also is in the process of scanning the large paper copies of developments. ^ Building - About 30 to 40 files are scanned per day. An assistant was recently hired to help three days a week. With this information on the database, the departments get reports of all those permits ready to expire and form letters which are sent to applicant. + Development Services Counter - Currently there are files near the Counter, which include single-family subdivisions, new commercial and industrial buildings, track homes, multiple-unit buildings, etc. When applicants come in for a permit, the files are checked. Once the data is scanned in, it would only be necessary to check the database where all this information is provided. + Storage Units - Some of the old plans and permit files are kept in storage units off site. When a request conies to the staff, they look up the case number and see that it is kept in storage. They then go to the storage units to bring it to the Development Services Counter and then call the customer to let them know it is available. Understandably, this is time consuming. ^ The expectation is that once the documents are scanned, they will be open to the public. CITYGATE ASSOCIATES' RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation X-l: Conduct a Development Services Information Systems Plan for the development services departments. The City is progressing toward "Best Practices" in the area of technology, but has far to go to ensure a system that is reliable, predictable, and fast. A detailed Development Services Information Systems Plan needs to be developed as the next step in the IT planning process. Such a plan should address: ^ Interface between Permits Plus and the GIS. ^ Expanding the web site to add much of the information from Permit Plus. + Adding GIS maps to the web site. ^ Submitting building application and fees, and scheduling of building inspections online. Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 8 I I I I I Using computers or PDAs by building inspectors and code enforcement officers to reduce the turnaround time on data entry and issuing of building permits and citations. Speeding up the imaging process to put all development services department's documents into the database. Determining what part of and when the database will be available online for customers and citizens. Recommendation X-2: Engineering and Building should follow Planning's example and hold "free the files days." I The Planning Department periodically conducts a "free the files day" where they go through old files and delete duplicates and other information that is not needed. By streamlining the files, it has cut down the time it takes to scan the files and ensures that all information in the data system is necessary. I Recommendation X-3: Conduct additional training for staff using Accela and Permit Plus to identify ways the staff can make the greatest use of this technology's potential. I Like many computer applications, one only needs to know about ten percent of the application to get by. Learning the rest of the applications' potential is left for another day (which often never I comes). Citygate recommends that once the major recommendations of this study have been implemented, an analysis of how the staff is using Accela be conducted by outside Accela experts, and recommendations made regarding greater efficiencies in the review process and • getting more utilization of what Accela makes available. I I I I I I I flSection 10—Technology and Documentation—page 9 \ EXAMPLES OF E-GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGIES EXCELLENT CITY AND COUNTY WEB SITES + City and County of Honolulu - www.honoluludpp.org + San Francisco - http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning index.asp ^ Lenexa, Kansas - www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/planning/compplan/homepage.htm ^ Scottsdale, Arizona - http://www.ci.scottsdale.az. us/Topic.asp?catIDz=l + Clark County, Nevada - http://www.co.clark.nv.us/development, services/index.htm ^ Accela data management systems - http://www.accela.com/products/landmgt.asp WEB MAPPING + Boston www.citvofboston.gov/bra/maps/maps.asp - The BRA requires plans for new projects be submitted in a digital computer-aided design format, which are then integrated directly into the BRA's GIS. ^ Neighborhood Knowledge California (NKCA) - www.nkla.ucla.edu - A new web-based geographic information system which enables citizens perform research and analysis at a neighborhood level using only a web browser and web- based mapping tool. ^ City/County of Honolulu - www.honoluludpp.org + Indianapolis, Indiana - http://imaps.indygov.org/ed%SFportal/ — if one moves through the web site to the economic portal, and asks for all vacant parcels, a listing of such parcels pops up showing locations on a map; clicking on one, pulls up the aerial photo and highlight location of parcel, and the accompanying data includes a photo of the site, square footage, transportation access, utilities available, whether for sale or not, parcel number, zoning district, etc. + Discover Sioux City www.discoversiouxcity.com/ed.asp?bhiw=797&bhih=576 - This program integrates site selection, demographics, planning and zoning information and business data combined into one easy to use interface, and allows visitors to tailor maps and report to their needs. ^ Raleigh, North Carolina - www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt?space= ConimunityPage&caclied-true&parentname=Login&parentid=0&in hi userid=2 &control=SetCommunitv&CommunityID=208&PageID=0 W*"c •Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 10 PERMITTING AND ZONING SYSTEMS King County, Washington - a combination of cities within the county agreeing to join into one permitting process - www.mybuildin.gpennit.com/home/ Bellevue, Washington - www.mybuildingpermit.com I I I + Scottsdale, Arizona's One-Stop Center - www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/bldgresources/ I counterresources/default. asp?catID= 1 &linkID= 128&lType= 1 + Sunnyvale, California - http://ecityhall.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/cd/ 1 + City and County of Honolulu Dept of Planning and Permitting - www .honoluludpp. org ^ Toledo, Ohio I + Concord, California + Tallahassee, Florida I + Buffalo, New York E-permits - www.city-buffalo.com/document 17000.html + Concord, California (Accela Permitting) - www.cityofconcord.org I ^ Pierce County, Washington + San Carlos, California - http://www.ci.san- I carlos.ca.us/gov/depts/building/smartpermit/internet permit_system.asp ^ Ft. Myers, Florida. I I I I I I I I I Section 10—Technology and Documentation—page 11 Cl'fiW fBMlB IK APPENDIX A COMPARATIVE AGENCIES SURVEY ncran mm ac APPENDIX A—CARLSBAD COMPARATIVE AGENCIES SURVEY CITY Carlsbad Chula Vista Escondido Irvine POPULATION 95,146 217,543 141,350 180,803 NUMBER OF STAFF Planners 18 26 11.5 24 Building Inspectors 7 16 4 35 Engineers Development Review 5 11 4 12 I I CITY Carlsbad Chula Vista Escondido Irvine Cycle ' Ap Planning 30 days 3-13 months 30-60 days Times for Deeming an plication Complete Building 10-21 days 15-25 days Engineering 21 days 1 wk— 4 wks 30-60 days 60 Days - 1 year Cycle Times for Development Reviews Planning 3-6 months 6 months 2-3 months Building N/A N/A Engineering 3 months 1 7 weeks 6 months - 1 year I I CITY CITY Carlsbad Chula Vista Escondido Irvine Estimate of the % of Time an Application is Deemed Complete on First Submittals Unknown 75% Old system; Implementing "Rapid Review" with Pre- Application Meetings Planning: 95% Building: <10% None DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAMS Do They Have One? No Yes Yes No Who Is On It? Various teams, 1 Standing Committee with: Eng, Fire, Bldg, Planning, Police CM Office, Finance, Attorney Project Planner; Engineer, Fire, Building as needed N/A CASF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Do They Assign Planners to Each Discretionary Permit? Limited Yes Yes; One for Entitlement, New one after Entitlement Yes CONTRACTED SERVICES Appendix A—Comparative Agencies Survey—page 1 crew ssEuufi, IK Carlsbad Chula Vista Escondido Irvine PLANNING What Type Landscaping RBF for processing discretionary applications; Environmental consultants 1 Planner as needed on projects BUILDING Plan Check Esgil Esgil Esgil What Other Type None Consultant Inspection Services if needed for overflow workload None ENGINEERING Plan Check Yes, four firms None None What Other Type None None Technical Studies 40% of All Services (Plan Checks, Entitlement, Code Enforcement, etc.) contracted out. Appendix A—Comparative Agencies Survey—page 2 COT! BSXB8. IK APPENDIX B POLICY No. 34 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Specific Subject-. STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Page 2 of 2 Policy No.34 Date Issued 6/11/84 Effective Date 6/11/84 Cancellation Date Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin. Boards, Press, File A. Size, scale or complexity of project. B. Major environmental concerns. C. Inadequate plans or insufficient information, D. Major circulation/traffic problems. E. P. Major engineering concerns (drainage, soils, sewer). Project requires change in general plan, zoning, master plan or other city ordinance. 4.The issue Review Committee shall review the findings of staff. If confirmed, the project shall be put on hold and the project applicant shall be notified of the problems or issues. The project shall not be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council until the issues have been addressed and an adequate, thorough recommendation can be made by staff. The Issue Review Committee shall review all projects put on hold on a monthly basis to determine the status of the issues or problems. Once all the issues or problems have been resolved, the project shall be forwarded for normal scheduling based on the existing workload. ATTACHMENTS: Processing Flow Chart 5. Appendix B—Policy No. 34—page 1 (SOW IHSSM8S K ] • CITY OF CARLSBAD [ COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT 1 General SuJbject: DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Specific Subject: STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Policy No. 34 Page 1 of 2 Date Issued 6/11/84 Effective Date 6/11/84 Cancellation Date I Supersedes Copies to: City Council, City Manager,, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPQ.SB To establish a policy and procedure to insure an orderly and thorough review of all applications for development projects which require consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. STATEMENT Qg POLICY It is the policy of the City Council to require that all applications for development projects have a thorough, comprehensive review by staff before the projects are scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. In order to insure that sufficient time is provided for this review, it is the policy of the City Council to establish a procedure for determining the order in which projects are reviewed. In general, the normal scheduling of applications for development projects shall be based on the order in which the applications are filed with the City. When the workload does not permit the normal scheduling of all applications filed with the City, staff shall not schedule more applications than staff can review in a thorough, comprehensive and efficient manner. Priority for processing and scheduling shall be given to those applications for which all information is complete and all issues have been addressed. In this regard, the following procedures shall apply: 1. 2. 3. Once the application is filed with the City, staff shall review the application for completeness, complexity of project and unresolved issues. If the application is complete and no issues are identified, the project shall be forwarded for normal scheduling based on the order in which the application is filed with the City. If additional information is needled, unresolved issues are identified or additional time is needed for review of the application, staff shall forward its findings to the Issue Review Committee consisting of Director of Building and Planning, the City Engineer and the Land Use Planning Manager. Guidelines for determining major unresolved issues shall include the following: OiKffifiSCWK Appendix B—Policy No. 34—page 2 ATTACHMENT TO POLICY NO. 34 APPLICATION ISSUES IDENTIFIED ISSUE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF CITY IAMO USE BLANKING ISSUE & APPLICANT PflOJECT FUT OM HOL0 HEVIEW 1 NO 1DEHTIFSED BE¥IEW Appendix B—Policy No. 34—page 3 CJHOf!R SS9C8IB IK" APPENDIX C CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS email SOTK. APPENDIX C—CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS A. OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY As part of a larger study for the City of Carlsbad, Citygate Associates conducted an Internet- based customer/citizen survey regarding the Development Services function of City government. The survey was "open" to accept input between February 20 and March 28, 2006. The availability of the survey was advertised via direct mailings to applicants who had done business with the Carlsbad Development Review Process within the last twelve months. Approximately 1,100 mailings were sent. When fewer than expected responses were received, Citygate made the decision to leave the survey open for a longer than usual period of time and reminder postcards were then sent to the 1,100 customers. Citizens of the community were asked to link to a special Internet site from which they could respond to a variety of inquires about Development Services. Details of the deployment are shown below. Launch Date Close Date Visits1 Partials2 Completes^ 02/20/2006- 1:29 PM 03/28/2006 - 9:40 AM 126 5 43 The survey consisted of a number of demographic classification statements. Then there were rating questions about the Front Counter Operations, Development Services overall, and the individual Divisions within Development Services. At various places, open-ended questions were asked to allow respondents to comment. There were several Yes/No questions at the end as well as additional places for general comments. In the sections that follow, each of the items on the survey is addressed and analyzed, where appropriate. It should be noted in reviewing the results below that the survey respondents were not required to answer any of the questions. Additionally, they were permitted to respond "Don't Know/Not Applicable/No Opinion" to many of the statements, and these responses were excluded from the weighted average response calculations shown below. Finally, at various points in the survey, the respondents were asked a yes/no question about whether they had experience with each particular subdivision of Development Services; only those people answering 'yes' were questioned further about that particular subdivision. Therefore, the response totals do not always add to the total of 43 completed surveys. In the sections below, the term Weighted Average is included frequently. To understand that term, it should be noted that each response to the degree-of-agreement statements was given a weight. For example, ratings that were 'low' or 'below expectations' were given a weight of 1. Ratings that were 'medium' or 'met expectations' were given a weight of 2. Ratings of 'high' or 'exceeds expectations' were given a weight of 3. Therefore, for a particular statement, the "Visits" - the total number of people who visited the survey site during the open period. "Partial" - the number of surveys that were begun but not completed. In this case, that number is zero. "Completes" - the number of surveys that were completed and successfully added to the database. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 1 £ £ CRffi KSXSK. UC number for each response was multiplied by its 'weight.' All the weighted responses were then added together, and the resulting total was divided by the total number of valid responses to create a weighted arithmetic mean or average. Blank responses and Don't Know/Not Applicable/No Opinion responses were excluded from the calculation. The value of the weighted average in this survey is both to quantify the related aspects of Development Services against a common standard and to allow a reader to conclude which aspects are more highly regarded than others. In total, the evaluations show where Development Services is strong and where improvement is needed. B.DEMOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION STATEMENTS The survey began with the following classification statements, demonstrate the type of respondent who answered the survey. They are included here to 1.1 First, please mark all categories that apply to you as a customer. The top percentage indicates totalrespondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondentsselecting the option 1. A. Neighborhood stakeholder (e.g. property owner or nearby affected property owner) 2. B. Developer/Builder 3. C. Development Consultant (e.g. engineer, architect, landscape architect, lawyer, planner, etc.) 4. D. General or Subcontractor 1 Frequent 44% 11 65% 15 74% 20 36% 4 One-time / Infrequent 56% 14 35% 8 26% 7 64% 7 2.(Please mark the types of project(s) you have been involved with: The top percentage indicates totalrespondent ratio; the bottom numberrepresents actual number of respondents selecting the option 2. A. Single Family Detached 2. B. Single Family Attached/Multi-Family 2. C. Commercial/Industrial Facility 1 New Construction 63% 20 88% 14 84% 21 Modification 38% 12 13% 2 16% 4 1 £ crai!t ItSOTB IK Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 2 I I Which functions were involved in your interaction at the Development j Number(rf ! Response 3.! Services Public Counter? I Response* 1 Ratio Front Counter Planning Building Economic Development CIS Code Enforcement Engineering Land Development Division Housing & Redevelopment Fire Prevention Services 33 36 33 8 6 8 28 11 21 79% 86% 79% 19% 14% 19% 67% 26% 50% I How long did you wait for assistance at the Development Services Numberof Response 4.1 Public Counter? I Responses j Ratio Less than 5 minutes Between 5 and 15 minutes More than 15 minutes N/A 25 11 2 4 42 60% 26% 5% 10% 100% Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 3 in£ •0wt tssxm nc C. CARLSBAD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OVERALL Note: In the original survey instrument, this section ("Carlsbad Development Services Overall") immediately followed "Front Counter Operations. " However, for presentation purposes in this report, the order of these two sections has been reversed to provide a more logical presentation of respondents 'perspective relating to Carlsbad Development Services. The respondents were asked to give an overall evaluation of Carlsbad's Development Services. (Overall, how would you rate Carlsbad Development Services (all Departments/Divisions) in 13.(the following areas? The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 13. a. Courtesy 13. b. Timeliness 13. c. Positive attitude 13. d. Knowledge 13. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 7% 3 39% 16 15% 6 5% 2 20% 8 2 Medium 34% 14 32% 13 41% 17 56% 23 44% 18 3 High 54% 22 24% 10 37% 15 34% 14 32% 13 N/A 5% 2 5% 2 7% 3 5% 2 5% 2 Continue to rate Carlsbad Development Services (all Departments/Divisions) in the following 14. | areas: The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 14. a. Consistency 14. b. Fairness / Objectivity 14. c. Problem solving ability 14. d. Returning phone calls 14. e. Quality of advice 1 Low 20% 8 22% 9 22% 9 29% 12 17% 7 2 Medium 39% 16 46% 19 49% 20 34% 14 46% 19 3 High 34% 14 24% 10 22% 9 29% 12 29% 12 N/A 7% 3 7% 3 7% 3 7% 3 7% 3 I Kcraw rarart; i;c Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 4 i Conclude this section by rating Carlsbad Development Services (all Departments/Divisions) 15.1 in the following areas: I I I I I I I I I TTie top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 15. a. Understanding of private business 15. b. Decision-making capability 15. c. Level of discretion 15. d. Overall performance 1 Low 32% 13 22% 9 17% 7 20% 8 2 Medium 39% 16 51% 21 41% 17 51% 21 3 High 22% 9 24% 10 32% 13 27% 11 N/A 7% 3 2% 1 10% 4 2% 1 The ratings for Development Services overall are shown below with the addition of the Weighted Average score for each rating point. Development Services Overall 13: a. Courtesy 13: b. Timeliness 13: c. Positive attitude 13: d. Knowledge 13: e. Dependability / Reliability 14: a. Consistency 14: b. Fairness / Objectivity 14: c. Problem solving ability 14: d. Returning phone calls 14: e. Quality of advice 15: a. Understanding of private business 15: b. Decision-making capability 15: c. Level of discretion 15: d. Overall performance Low 3 16 6 2 8 8 9 9 12 7 13 9 7 8 Medium 14 13 17 23 18 16 19 20 14 19 16 21 17 21 Above 22 10 15 14 13 14 10 9 12 12 9 10 13 11 N/A 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 1 Average 2.49 1.85 2.24 2.31 2.13 2.16 2.03 2.00 2.00 2.13 1.89 2.03 2.16 2.08 The same information is shown below, sorted by Weighted Average score, highest to lowest. I I Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 5 1 - creff (BOTH !K Development Services Overall (sorted by Average, high to low) ^^^^^^^^^•••••l^^^^^^^^l^^BIH^Mi^^^^^Mi^B^HMMI^^^^^MMHm^^^^^MMMi 13: a. Courtesy 13: d. Knowledge 13: c. Positive attitude 14: a. Consistency 15: c. Level of discretion 13: e. Dependability / Reliability 14: e. Quality of advice 15: d. Overall performance 14: b. Fairness / Objectivity 15: b. Decision-making capability 14: c. Problem solving ability 14: d. Returning phone calls 15: a. Understanding of private business 13: b. Timeliness Low 3 2 6 8 7 8 7 8 9 9 9 12 13 16 Medium 14 23 17 16 17 18 19 21 19 21 20 14 16 13 Above 22 14 15 14 13 13 12 11 10 10 9 12 9 10 N/A 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 2 Average 2.49 2.31 2.24 2.16 2.16 2.13 2.13 2.08 2.03 2.03 2.00 2.00 1.89 1.85 Analysis of Development Services Overall The highest weighted average score was 2.49. The lowest was 1.85. The composite score (i.e. the average of the high and low scores) is 2.17. This is at the low end of the 'medium' rating. Highest marks went to courtesy, knowledge and a positive attitude. Lowest ratings went to returning phone calls, the understanding of private business and timeliness. Note that this is consistent with the ratings for the Front Counter. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 6 D. FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS Front Counter Overall Respondents were asked to rate overall aspects of the Front Counter Operations. The results follow. ! Overall, how would you rate the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER 5. | OPERATIONS in the following areas? The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 5. a. Courtesy 5. b. Timeliness 5. c. Positive Attitude 5. d. Knowledge 5. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 5% 2 7% 3 12% 5 7% 3 12% 5 2 Medium 19% 8 28% 12 28% 12 42% 18 23% 10 3 High 72% 31 58% 25 56% 24 47% 20 58% 25 N/A 5% 2 7% 3 5% 2 5% 2 7% 3 6. Continue to rate the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS in the following areas: The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 6. a. Consistency 6. b. Fairness / Objectivity 6. c. Hours of Operation 6. d. Problem Solving Ability 1 Low 12% 5 7% 3 5% 2 21% 9 2 Medium 35% 15 40% 17 19% 8 40% 17 3 High 42% 18 40% 17 67% 29 28% 12 N/A 12% 5 14% 6 9% 4 12% 5 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 7 "IF!"£ I CraW HSKMIfi. IK i Continue to rate the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS in the 7. | following areas: N/AThe top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 7. a. Returning Phone Calls 7. b. Quality of Advice 7. c. Understanding of Private Business 7. d. Decision-making Capability 1 Low 23% 10 14% 6 26% 11 30% 13 2 Medium 30% 13 37% 16 33% 14 35% 15 3 High 30% 13 40% 17 21% 9 23% 10 16% 7 9% 4 21% 9 12% 5 Continue to rate the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS in the 8. |following areas: The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option B. a. Level of Discretion 8. b. Counter Location is Convenient 8. c. Lobby Area is Comfortable 8. d. Overall Performance 1 Low 0% 0 2% 1 7% 3 2 Medium 33% 14 14% 6 12% 5 40% 17 3 High 35% 15 77% 33 77% 33 47% 20 N/A 23% 10 9% 4 9% 4 7% 3 The Front Counter Overall ratings are shown in the table below with the Weighted Average score calculated for each rating point. See discussion of Weighted Average on page 1. I fcrew recme uc Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 8 1 Front Counter Overall 5: a. Courtesy 5: b. Timeliness 5: c. Positive Attitude 5: d. Knowledge 5: e. Dependability / Reliability 6: a. Consistency 6: b. Fairness / Objectivity 6: c. Hours of Operation 6: d. Problem Solving Ability 7: a. Returning Phone Calls 7: b. Quality of Advice 7: c. Understanding of Private Business 7: d. Decision-making Capability 8: a. Level of Discretion 8: b. Counter Location is Convenient 8: c. Lobby Area is Comfortable 8: d. Overall Performance The same information is presented below, sorted Low 2 3 5 3 .5 5 3 2 9 10 6 11 13 4 0 1 3 by highest Medium 8 12 12 18 10 15 17 8 17 13 16 14 15 14 6 5 17 High 31 25 24 20 25 18 17 29 12 13 17 9 10 15 33 33 20 N/A 2 3 2 2 3 5 6 4 5 7 4 9 5 10 4 4 3 Average 2.71 2.55 2.46 2.41 2.50 2.34 2.38 2.69 2.08 2.08 2.28 1.94 1.92 2.33 2.85 2.82 2.43 average score to lowest. 1 Front Counter Overall 1 (sorted by Average, high to low) 8: b. Counter Location is Convenient 8: c. Lobby Area is Comfortable 5: a. Courtesy 6: c. Hours of Operation 5: b. Timeliness 5: e. Dependability / Reliability 5: c. Positive Attitude 8: d. Overall Performance 5: d. Knowledge 6: b. Fairness / Objectivity 6: a. Consistency 8: a. Level of Discretion 7: b. Quality of Advice 6: d. Problem Solving Ability 7: a. Returning Phone Calls 7: c. Understanding of Private Business 7: d. Decision-making Capability Low ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M 0 1 2 2 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 4 6 9 10 11 13 Medium ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 6 5 8 8 12 10 12 17 18 17 15 14 16 17 13 14 15 High 33 33 31 29 25 25 24 20 20 17 18 15 17 12 13 9 10 N/A 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 6 5 10 4 5 7 9 5 Average 1 2.85 2.82 2.71 2.69 2.55 2.50 2.46 2.43 2.41 2.38 2.34 2.33 2.28 2.08 2.08 1.94 1.92 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 9 craw nxxatj Analysis of Front Counter Operations Overall Results Almost all results scored in the 'medium' to 'high' satisfaction categories with best scores going to the physical aspects of the counter operation. Lowest scores centered around the work conducted there: consistency, quality of the advice given, returning of phone calls, understanding of private business and decision making capability. Front Counter Operations Compared to Expectation of Government Service Next, the respondents were asked to compare various aspects of the Front Counter Operations to their expectations for government service. 9. Please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 9. a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 9. b. Ease of Understanding Where to Go, What to Do 9. c. Informative Brochures and Handouts 9. d. Pre-application Review Meeting 9. e. Usefulness of Pre-application Review Written Comments 1 Below Expectations 5% 2 7% 3 19% 8 Met Expectations 40% 17 44% 19 49% 21 37% 16 28% 12 3 Above Expectations 42% 18 40% 17 23% 10 21% 9 21% 9 No Opinion 9% 4 12% 5 21% 9 33% 14 33% 14 The questions below relate to applications taken in by the Development Services Front Counter, but reviewed by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, Fire, and Building. The ratings then relate to those divisions conducting the reviews. 10. [Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 10. a. Application Checklist Requirements 10. b. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 10. c. Process for Deeming Application Complete 10. d. Thoroughness of Plan Review 10. e. Processing / Turnaround Times of Plan Review 1 Below Expectations 10% 4 10% 4 29% 12 15% 6 39% 16 Met Expectations 44% 18 68% 28 37% 15 37% 15 37% 15 3 Above Expectations 27% 11 10% 4 27% 11 37% 15 20% 8 No Opinion 20% 8 12% 5 7% 3 12% 5 5% 2 crxart iBKifm i;c Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 10 Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS compares to your 11. j expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom numberrepresents actual number of respondents selecting the option 11. a. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 11. b. Clarity of Development Code 11. c. Fairness Interpretations / Consistency of Code 11. d. Communication on Project Status 11. e. Use of Technology 1 Below Expectations 33% 14 17% 7 21% 9 21% 5% 2 Met Expectations 33% 14 43% 18 50% 21 45% 19 57% 24 3 Above Expectations 12% 5 19% 8 10% 4 21% 9 26% 11 No Opinion 21% 9 21% 19% 8 12% 5 12% 5 I I I 12. Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' FRONT COUNTER OPERATIONS compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom numberrepresents actual number of respondents selecting the option 12. a. Staff Dependability 12. b. Coordinating Divisions/Departments Review with Other 12. c. Appeals Process 12. d. Site Development Review Process 1 Below Expectations 21% 9 29% 12 10% 4 17% 7 Met Expectations 45% 19 43% 18 21% 9 36% 15 3 Above Expectations 29% 12 14% 6 7% 3 17% 7 No Opinion 5% 2 14% 6 62% 26 31% 13 The same information is presented below, showing the Weighted Average of each rating point. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 11 (KWl IKSXKl'B. UC I Front Counter versus Expectation 9: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 9: b. Ease of Understanding Where to Go, What to Do 9: c. Informative Brochures and Handouts 9: d. Pre-application Review Meeting 9: e. Usefulness of Pre-application Review Written Comments 10: a. Application Checklist Requirements 10: b. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 10: c. Process for Deeming Application Complete 10: d. Thoroughness of Plan Review 10: e. Processing / Turnaround Times of Plan Review 1 1 : a. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 1 1 : b. Clarity of Development Code 1 1 : c. Fairness / Consistency of Code Interpretations 1 1 : d. Communication on Project Status 1 1: e. Use of Technology 12: a. Staff Dependability 12: b. Coordinating Review with Other Divisions/Departments 12: c. Appeals Process 12: d. Site Development Review Process Below 4 2 3 4 8 4 4 12 6 16 14 7 9 9 2 9 12 4 7 Met 17 19 21 16 12 18 28 15 15 15 14 18 21 19 24 19 18 9 15 Above 18 17 10 9 9 11 4 11 15 8 5 8 4 9 11 12 6 3 7 N/A 4 5 9 14 14 8 5 3 5 2 9 9 8 5 5 2 6 26 13 Average 2.36 2.39 2.21 2.17 2.03 2.21 2.00 1.97 2.25 1.79 1.73 2.03 1.85 2.00 2.24 2.08 1.83 1.94 2.00 This information is presented again below, sorted by Weighted Average of each rating point from highest to lowest. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 12 I I I I I I I Front Counter versus Exoectation (sorted by Average, high to low) Below Met Above N/A Average 9: b. Ease of Understanding Where to I Go, What to Do 2 19 17 5 2.39 9: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 4 17 18 4 2.36 I 10:d. Thoroughness of Plan Review 6 15 15 5 2.25 ' lire. Use of Technology 2 24 11 5 2.24 _ 9: c. Informative Brochures and I Handouts 3 21 10 9 2.21 10: a. Application Checklist • Requirements 4 18 11 8 2.21 I 9: d. Pre-application Review Meeting 4 16 9 14 2.17 12: a. Staff Dependability 9 19 12 2 2.08 1 9: e. Usefulness of Pre-application Review Written Comments 8 12 9 14 2.03 ll:b. Clarity of Development Code 7 18 8 9 2.03 1 10: b. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 4 28 4 5 2.00 11: d. Communication on Project I Status 9 19 9 5 2.00 12: d. Site Development Review Process 7 15 7 13 2.00 I 10: c. Process for Deeming • Application Complete 12 15 11 3 1.97 12: c. Appeals Process 4 9 3 26 1.94 I 11: c. Fairness / Consistency of Code Interpretations 9 21 4 8 1.85 . 12: b. Coordinating Review with Other I Divisions/Departments 12 18 6 6 1.83 10: e. Processing / Turnaround Times • of Plan Review 16 15 8 2 1.79 I 11: a. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 14 14 5 9 1.73 Analysis of Front Counter Operations Compared to Expectations of Government Service These ratings were lower than the overall review of the Front Counter. The scores ranged from a high of 2.39 to a low of 1.73 or from the lower end of the 'met expectations' category down to the higher end of 'below expectations. Highest marks were given to ease of understanding the I process and the helpfulness of front counter personnel. Lowest marks were given to the timeliness of the both the review process and of getting comments back. B IAppendix C—Customer Survey—page 13 eras'" SOTS E.CURRENT PLANNING JHave you had business with CURRENT PLANNING over the pasti iyear? Examples of processes they oversee include Subdivisions, Site) Numberef 16.1 Plan Review, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, etc. ; Response*Response Ratio Yes No 30 13 T*tol 43 70% 30% 100% Current Planning Overall 1 Low 3% 1 27% 8 10% 3 7% 2 7% 2 2 Medium 37% 11 47% 14 47% 14 60% 18 53% 16 3 High | 17. Overall, how would you rate the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION in the following areas? The top percentage indicates total 1 2 3 N/A respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondentsselecting the option 17. a. Courtesy 17. b. Timeliness 17. c. Positive Attitude 17. d. Knowledge 17. e. Dependability / Reliability 60% 18 27% 8 43% 13 33% 10 40% 12 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 This information is repeated below with the addition of the Weighted Average score for each rating point. Current Planning Overall 17: a. Courtesy 17: b. Timeliness 17: c. Positive Attitude 17: d. Knowledge 17: e. Dependability / Reliability Low 1 8 3 2 2 Medium 11 14 14 18 ' 16 Above 18 8 13 10 12 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Average 2.57 2.00 2.33 2.27 2.33 £ 5 CfW;! KXX1K UC Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 14 Current Planning Compared to Expectations of Government Service 18. In the statements that follow, please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the' bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 18. a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 18. b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 18. c. Pre-application Review Meeting 18. d. Usefulness of Pre-application Review Written Comments 18. e. Application Checklist Requirements 1 Below Expectations 3% 1 3% 1 10% 3 23% 7 13% 4 Met Expectations 50% 15 63% 19 50% 15 37% 11 53% 16 3 Above Expectations 43% 13 20% 6 23% 7 27% 8 27% 8 No Opinion 3% 1 13% 4 17% 5 13% 4 7% 2 Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how CURRENT 19.JPLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 19. a. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 19. b. Process for Deeming Application Complete 19. c. Thoroughness of Application Review 19. d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 19. e. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 1 Below Expectations 10% 3 53% 16 10% 3 47% 14 40% 12 Met Expectations 70% 21 33% 10 53% 16 33% 10 37% 11 3 Above Expectations 13% 4 10% 3 30% 9 17% 5 20% 6 No Opinion 7% 2 3% 1 7% 2 3% 1 3% 1 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 15 f £ cram BS9CWB uc I Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how CURRENT 20.i PLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 20. a. Clarity of Development Codes 20. b. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 20. c. Communication on Project Status 20. d. Use of Technology 20. e. Staff Dependability 1 Below Expectations 17% 5 20% 6 23% 7 0% 0 10% 3 Met Expectations 50% 15 57% 17 53% 16 59% 17 62% 18 3 Above Expectations 27% 8 17% 5 23% 7 34% 10 28% 8 No Opinion 7% 2 7% 2 0% 0 7% 2 0% 0 21. Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how CURRENT PLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 21. a. Coordinating review with other Divisions/Departments 21. b. Appeals Process 21. c. Site Development Review Process 21. d. Process of "Minor" Changes to Plans ' 1 Below Expectations 40% 12 14% 4 27% 8 37% 11 Met Expectations 33% 10 24% 7 40% 12 23% 7 3 Above Expectations 23% 7 10% 3 20% 6 20% No Opinion 3% 1 52% 15 13% 4 20% 6 Cli'ultt RSraiti IK Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 16 ! I Conclude this section by selecting the answer that best represents your assessment of how ; 22.[CURRENT PLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number Bi represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 22. a. Timeliness of Re-checks 22. b. Process for Final Plan Map Approval 22. c. Process for Listening to Customer Concerns 22. d. Overall process 1 Expectation 53% 16 23% 7 20% 6 20% 6 2 ns Met Expectations 27% 8 40% 12 40% 12 63% 19 3 Above Expectations 13% 4 10% 3 23% 7 17% 5 No Opinion 7% 2 27% 8 17% 5 0% 0 This same information is shown below with the addition of the Weighted Average response to each rating factor. Current Planning versus Expectation Below Met Above N/A Average 18: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 18: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 18: c. Pre-application Review Meeting 18: d. Usefulness of Pre-application Review Written Comments 18: e. Application Checklist Requirements 19: a. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 19: b. Process for Deeming Application Complete 19: c. Thoroughness of Application Review 19: d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 19: e. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 20: a. Clarity of Development Codes 20: b. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 15 13 2.41 1 3 7 4 3 16 3 14 12 5 19 15 11 16 21 10 16 10 11 15 6 7 8 8 4 3 9 5 6 8 4 5 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2.19 2.16 2.04 2.14 2.04 1.55 2.21 1.69 1.79 2.11 17 1.96 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 17 ^^^^^H Current Planning versus 20: c. Communication on Project Status 20: d. Use of Technology 20: e. Staff Dependability 21 : a. Coordinating review with other Divisions/Departments 21: b. Appeals Process 21: c. Site Development Review Process 21: d. Process of "Minor" Changes to Plans 22: a. Timeliness of Re-checks 22: b. Process for Final Plan Map Approval 22: c. Process for Listening to Customer Concerns 22: d. Overall process The above table is repeated below, sorted • Current Planning versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low) •••^••^•••••••^•^^^^••^^^^^•^^^^^^^^•••^^^^^^••••M^^^^^^^^MHI 18: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 20: d. Use of Technology 19: c. Thoroughness of Application Review 18: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 20: e. Staff Dependability 18: c. Pre-application Review Meeting 18: e. Application Checklist Requirements 20: a. Clarity of Development Codes 18: d. Usefulness of Pre-application Review Written Comments 19: a. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 22: c. Process for Listening to Customer Concerns "IPi"i • cira"ss°c" B IK Arroendix C — i Below 7 0 3 12 4 8 11 16 7 6 6 Met 16 17 18 10 7 12 7 8 12 12 19 by Weighted Average Below 1 0 3 1 3 3 4 5 7 3 6 Customer J Met 15 17 16 19 18 15 16 15 11 21 12 •Jurvev — nai Above 7 10 8 7 3 6 6 4 3 7 5 response, Above 13 10 9 6 8 7 8 8 8 4 7 ?e 18 N/A 0 2 0 1 15 4 6 2 8 5 0 highest to N/A 1 2 2 4 0 5 2 2 4 2 5 Average 2.00 2.37 2.17 1.83 1.93 1.92 1.79 1.57 1.82 2.04 1.97 lowest. Average 2.41 2.37 2.21 2.19 2.17 2.16 2.14 2.11 2.04 2.04 2.04 Current Planning versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low)Below Above Average 7 6 6 4 8 12 7 12 11 14 16 16 16 19 17 7 12 10 12 11 7 10 8 10 7 5 5 3 6 7 3 6 6 5 4 3 0 0 2 15 4 1 8 1 6 1 2 1 2.00 1.97 1.96 1.93 1.92 1.83 1.82 1.79 1.79 1.69 1.57 1.55 20: c. Communication on Project Status 22: d. Overall process 20: b. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 21: b. Appeals Process 21: c. Site Development Review Process 21: a. Coordinating review with other Divisions/Departments 22: b. Process for Final Plan Map Approval 19: e. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 21: d. Process of "Minor" Changes to Plans 19: d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 22: a. Timeliness of Re-checks 19: b. Process for Deeming Application Complete Analysis of Current Planning Compared to Expectations of Government Service The ratings ranged from a high weighted average score of 2.41 (halfway between 'meets expectations' and 'exceeds expectations) down to a low of 1.55 (halfway between 'below expectations' and 'meets expectations') with a composite average score (the average of the highest and lowest scores) of 1.98. The composite, therefore, is at the 'meets expectations' level. The highest rated aspects of Current Planning were helpfulness of the front counter staff, the use of technology and the thoroughness of the application review. The lowest scores were given to turnaround times, the timeliness of re-check and the process for deeming the application complete. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 19 m £ OM ISS9CW IK Current Planning Open-Ended Questions All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. (Have you noted any positive changes in the service provided in CURRENT PLANNING 23. [during the past year? If so, what? 1 no i have noticed a decrease in positive changes to be truthful 2 Staff has always been courteous and helpful 3 The Ponto vision was a good start but needs work on public outreach and education. 4 no 5 Yes - our project has received some priority that has enabled us to process faster than we would have otherwise. 6 No. 7 na 8 no 9 Staff consistently provides a time frame to respond back, and almost always meets that commitment. Much appreciated! 10 Your process is as good as your planner. My planner is very good. 11 XXX is a very knowledgable planner, but is "hamstrung" on making decisions. [Name removed by Citygate] 12 no Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 20 24. In what areas should CURRENT PLANNING focus its attention in the next year to provide excellent service to the public? 1 customer service 2 Keep up the good work 3 Turn around time for reviews 4 Overall community planning rather than project specific planning. In a city our size, do we have all the components and are they in the best location and the correct size or amount? Look at the social and civic aspects of the overall community plan. 5 Quicker turnaround on submittals. 6 coordination and consistency in the process 7 Work to streamline the review process to limit repetitive/monotonous comments that often slow down the process while at the same time, provide minimal positive impact. 8 Create a planning review checklist to coodinate with planning submittal checklist. This will reduce the number of time a project needs to be resubmitted. 9 1. There should be more consistency in interpretations of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Interpretations vary greatly from planner to planner. 2. Planning department likes to treat issues that really should be issues of concern as incomplete items in order to prolong the process. 10 attention to expediating process. 11 better coordination of internal departmental communications 12 Can the zoning code be reformatted - the legal code format is dismal to work with, and leads to confusion in interpretations that could probably be avoided with a more user-friendly format. 13 Faster turnaround time for home remodel plans. 14 The process is simply much more difficult than it needs to be. The simplest tasks have long, drawn out complicated processes. Staff needs to be empowered to make decisions and keep the process moving. The staff seems to take the attitude "If I make a decision I might get in trouble, so it is safer to do nothing." 15 Better coordiantion with Engineering Dept., faster turn around on reviews 16 Consistent code interpretations, treating builder/developers with dignity and respect, flexibility in allowing us builder/developers to get our job done while meeting City Code. 17 none Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 21 "Pi"e • eras BSXISfi UC What resources would you like to see provided by the Planning Department (e.g. more 25.(effective and updated descriptions of the processes, more information on the website, etc.)? 1 Web site is great and easy to use. Staff is helpful in finding what is requested from website. 2 More public education on community planning. CCPS was a good start but only reached a small amount of the citizens. Find a way to get more people engaged in the discussions. 3 Better information on website. It's very difficult to find something. The search engine just doesnt work. Documents and codes are found in strange locations. Who ever set it up should sit down with a user and see how thye have to travel thru the site to get what they need. I usually can't find anything after working on it for 30 minutes 4 More manpower 5 Website is very good, I would like to see more incentive in planning for accelerating the approval process. 6 Possibly a flow chart for a planning process so that all the steps are clearly layed out, taking the project from sumittal to final approval with approximate timelines. This way both the consultant and client would clearly understand what they are in for. 7 more effective and updated descriptions of the processes; attention to staffing - work load seems more than then capable of handling. 8 Website document access is very good - and current. A great tool. 9 Simplify the process. It seems that every time staff gets burned on an issue, they make up another layer of bureaucracy to make sure it doesn't happen again. 10 updated policies, revised Zone Code 11 Put all info on the City's website. Beats having to drive to the City to get it. 12 none Pi Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 22 F. LONG-RANGE PLANNING i Have you had business with LONG RANGE PLANNING over thej ipast year? Examples of processes they oversee include General] Nltmberof 26. | Plan, Plan Amendments, Special Projects, etc. j Response*Response Ratio Yes No 14 29 43 33% 100% Long-Range Planning Overall 27.Overall, how would you rate LONG RANGE PLANNING in the following areas? The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 27. a. Courtesy 27. b. Timeliness 27. c. Positive Attitude 27. d. Knowledge 27. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 31% 4 8% 1 15% 2 15% 2 2 Medium 31% 4 46% 6 46% 6 54% 7 38% 5 3 High 54% 7 15% 2 38% 5 23% 3 38% 5 N/A 8% 1 8% 1 8% 1 8% 1 Shown below is the Weighted Average score of each of the overall evaluation elements. I I I Lone Range Planning Overall 27: a. Courtesy 27: b. Timeliness 27: c. Positive Attitude 27: d. Knowledge 27: e. Dependability / Reliability Low 1 4 1 2 2 Medium 4 6 6 7 5 Above 7 2 5 3 5 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 Average 2.50 1.83 2.33 2.08 2.25 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 23 F!K • Long-Range Planning Compared to Expectations of Government Service ! Now, please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how LONG RANGE 28. j PLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 1 2 3 Below Expectations Met Expectations Above Expectations 28. a. Helpfulness Assistance of Front Counter 28. b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 28. c. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 28. d. Application Checklist Requirements 8% 1 8% 1 15% 2 23% 3 46% 6 38% 5 62% 8 38% 5 0% 0 0% 0 15% 2 No Opinion 46% 6 46% 6 23% 3 23% 3 I Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how LONG RANGE 29. j PLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 1 2 Below Expectations Met Expectations 29. a. Fairness/Consistency Interpretation of Plan 29. b. Communication on Status of Work 29. c. Use of Modem Planning Practices 29. d. Receptive to Change 29. e. Use of Technology 23% 3 15% 2 15% 2 38% 5 54% 7 46% 6 46% 6 54% 7 62% 8 3 Above Expectations 8% 1 31% 4 23% 3 0% 0 23% 3 No Opinion 15% 2 8% 1 15% 2 8% 1 8% 1 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 24 'Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how LONG RANGE 30. j PLANNING compares to your expectations for government service. 1 I The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom numberrepresents actual number of respondents selecting the option 30. a. Staff Dependability 30. b. Coordinating Review with Other Departments/Divisions 30. c. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 30. d. Overall Process 1 Below Expectations 15% 2 31% 4 31% 4 8% 1 •••••HHHMUBHII^B^BiSKSBSM^BM^P^roiiMiiiitiii For each rating element, the Weighted Average score 1 Long-Range Planning versus Expectation 28: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 28: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 28: c. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 28: d. Application Checklist Requirements 29: a. Fairness/Consistency of Plan Interpretation 29: b. Communication on Status of Work 29: c. Use of Modern Planning Practices 29: d. Receptive to Change 29: e. Use of Technology 30: a. Staff Dependability 30: b. Coordinating Review with Other Departments/Divisions 30: c. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 30: d. Overall Process Below 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 5 1 2 4 4 1 2 Met Expectations 54% 7 38% 5 38% 5 77% 10 BHMUHBHB«| ______ 3 Above Expectations 23% 3 15% 2 15% 2 8%1 «__•____-___ No Opinion 8% 1 15% 2 15% 2 8%1 lirmiBT-imiiiTifnm ir-mSSSf^S^SSSHSSSSSS^i^K is shown below. Met 6 5 8 5 7 6 6 7 8 7 5 5 10 Above 0 1 0 2 1 4 3 0 3 3 2 2 1 N/A 6 6 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Average | 1.86 2.00 1.80 1.90 1.82 2.17 2.09 1.58 2.17 2.08 1.82 1.82 2.00 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 25 .f t)K •> cra« IKHR K The same information is shown below, sorted by Weighted Average from highest to lowest. Long-Range Planning versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low)Below Above Average 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 3 4 4 2 5 6 8 6 7 5 10 5 6 7 5 5 8 7 4 3 3 3 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 6 1 3 6 2 2 2 3 1 2.17 2.17 2.09 2.08 2.00 2.00 1.90 1.86 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.80 1.58 29: b. Communication on Status of Work 29: e. Use of Technology 29: c. Use of Modern Planning Practices 30: a. Staff Dependability 28: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 30: d. Overall Process 28: d. Application Checklist Requirements 28: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 29: a. Fairness/Consistency of Plan Interpretation 30: b. Coordinating Review with Other Departments/Divisions 30: c. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 28: c. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 29: d. Receptive to Change Analysis of Long-Range Planning Compared to Expectations of Government Service Scores ranged from a high weighted average score of 2.17 (close to 'meet expectations' score of 2) down to 1.58 (halfway between 'below expectations' and 'meets expectations. The composite average of the highest and lowest scores is 1.88, which is somewhat less than 'meets expectations.' High scoring aspects were status communication, the use of technology and the use of modern practices. Low scoring aspects were again timeliness, costs associated with processing an application and the perceived degree to which Long-Range Planning is receptive to change. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 26 Long-Range Planning Open-Ended Questions All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. JHave you noted any positive changes in the services provided in LONG RANGE PLANNING 31. j during the past year? If so, what? 1 Centre City Gateway planning 2 They are more open to meeting and communicating project status. 3 no 32.What area should LONG RANGE PLANNING focus attention in the next year to provide excellent service to the public? 1 See previous comments 2 Working to keep the process moving without slowing down for monotonous changes. 3 engage stakeholders early and then support the decisions Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 27 G. BUILDING DEPARTMENT | Have you had business with the BUILDING DEPARTMENT over the! j 1 past year? Examples include Building Permits, Plumbing Permits,! Numberrf j 33. j Electrical Permits, etc. ! Responses j Response Ratio Yes No 27 16 43 63% 37% 100% Building Department Overall 34.1 Overall, how would you rate the BUILDING DEPARTMENT in the following areas? The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondentsselecting the option 34. a. Courtesy 34. b. Timeliness 34. c. Positive Attitude 34. d. Knowledge 34. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 4% 1 15% 4 11% 3 7% 2 15% 4 2 Medium 19% 5 30% 8 19% 5 33% 9 19% 5 3 High 78% 21 56% 15 70% 19 59% 16 65% 17 N/A 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Shown below is the Weighted Average score for each of the overall ratings. Building Overall 34: a. Courtesy 34: b. Timeliness 34: c. Positive Attitude 34: d. Knowledge 34: e. Dependability / Reliability Low 1 4 3 2 4 Medium 5 8 5 9 5 Above 21 15 19 16 17 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Average 2.74 2.41 2.59 2.52 2.50 E £ CliXffit IBSKTO Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 28 Building Department Compared to Expectations for Government Services I I jNow, please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the BUILDING 35. | DEPARTMENT compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 35. a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 35. b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 35. c. Cost of Permits (fees) 35. d. Thoroughness of Plan Review 35. e. Processing / Turnaround Times of Plan Review 1 Below Expectations 7% 2 7% 2 19% 5 7% 2 30% 8 Met Expectations 41% 11 41% 11 59% 16 48% 13 33% 9 3 Above Expectations 44% 12 22% 6 19% 5 44% 12 37% 10 No Opinion 7% 2 30% 8 0% 0 0% 0 I I I I I I Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the BUILDING 36. | DEPARTMENT compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 36. a. Complexity of Regulations / Consistency of Code36. b. Fairness Interpretations 36. c. Communication on Project Status 36. d. Use of Technology 36. e. Staff Dependability 1 Below Expectations 11% 3 11% 3 15% 4 19% 5 15% 4 Met Expectations 56% 15 44% 12 48% 13 41% 11 30% 8 3 Above Expectations 26% 7 33% 9 37% 10 30% 8 56% 15 No Opinion 7% 2 11% 3 0% 0 11% 3 0% 0 I I Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 29 "Fi"£ £craw mm uc [ iContinue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the BUILDING ! 37. i DEPARTMENT compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates lota! respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 37. a. Timeliness of Inspections 37. b. Thoroughness of Inspections 37. c. Fairness of Inspections 37. d. Conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans 37. e. Overall Process 1 Below Expectations 11% 3 7% 2 12% 3 15% 4 15% 4 2 Met Expectations 41% 11 44% 12 35% 9 41% 11 41% 11 3 Above Expectations 26% 7 26% 7 31% 8 11% 3 33% 9 No Opinjon 22% 6 22% 6 23% 6 33% 9 11% 3 Show below are the rating points for the Building Department with the addition of the Weighted Average score for each element. Building versus Expectation Below Met Above N/A 35: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 35: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 35: c. Cost of Permits (fees) 35: d. Thoroughness of Plan Review 35: e. Processing / Turnaround Times of Plan Review 36: a. Complexity of Regulations 36: b. Fairness / Consistency of Code Interpretations 36: c. Communication on Project Status 36: d. Use of Technology 36: e. Staff Dependability 37: a. Timeliness of Inspections 37: b. Thoroughness of Inspections 37: c. Fairness of Inspections 37: d. Conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans 37: e. Overall Process 11 12 12 2.40 2 5 2 8 3 11 16 13 9 15 6 5 12 10 7 8 1 0 0 2 2.21 2.00 2.37 2.07 2.16 2.25 4 5 4 3 2 3 4 4 13 11 8 11 12 9 11 11 10 8 15 7 7 8 3 9 0 3 0 6 6 6 9 3 2.22 2.13 2.41 2.19 2.24 2.25 1.94 2.21 I I CBWIt IS9CTO i!C Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 30 Shown below is the same table, sorted by Weighted Average from highest to lowest rating for each element. Building versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low) ••••••^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•MHI^HB^H^^^^^^^ 36: e. Staff Dependability 35: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 35: d. Thoroughness of Plan Review 36: b. Fairness / Consistency of Code Interpretations 37: c. Fairness of Inspections 37: b. Thoroughness of Inspections 36: c. Communication on Project Status 35: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 37: e. Overall Process 37: a. Timeliness of Inspections 36: a. Complexity of Regulations 36: d. Use of Technology 35: e. Processing / Turnaround Times of Plan Review 35: c. Cost of Permits (fees) 37: d. Conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans Below 4 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 5 8 5 4 Met 8 11 13 12 9 12 13 11 11 11 15 11 9 16 11 Above 15 12 12 9 8 7 10 6 9 7 7 8 10 5 3 N/A 0 2 0 3 6 6 0 8 3 6 2 3 0 1 9 Average 2.41 2.40 2.37 2.25 2.25 2.24 2.22 2.21 2.21 2.19 2.16 2.13 2.07 2.00 1.94 Analysis of the Building Department Compared to Expectations of Government Service Weighted average scores for the Building Department ranged from a high of 2.41 (nearly halfway between 'meets' and 'exceeds' expectations) to a low of 1.94 (somewhat less than meets expectations). The composite weighted average score (average of high and low score) is 2.18, which is somewhat better than 'meets expectations.' High scores were given to staff dependability, helpfulness of Front Counter assistance and thoroughness of the review. Low scores were given to turnaround times of plan review, costs, and conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 31 OTWffiSOTfi i Building Department Open-Ended Questions All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. 'Have you noted any positive changes in the services provided in the BUILDING j 38. | DEPARTMENT during the past year? If so, what? j 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I've been working with this department for over 5 years and it's always been a pleasure. XXX and XXX are knowledgable and resolve problems within minutes, not hours or days. They understand the needs of every applicant that I've seen in there. [Names removed by Citygatej response times to inspections are better No. All I know is the guy who inspects our project is a superior human being. He loves my dogs and is always cheerful. He is an excellent rep for the city!!!! na The inspectors dont always show up when they were expected, they don't even bother to call. If you take a day off to wait for them, you loose a day of work and still the inspector has not signed off on the plans. The City of Carlsbad has recently hired inspectors with a professional trades background. These new professionals have been a complement to their inspection team. keep up the great effort jln what areas should this BUILDING DEPARTMENT focus attention in the next year to 39. | provide excellent service to the public? 1 It can't get any better. 2 quicker turnaround times on plans Allow meetings to resolve plan issues. 3 Set up an e-mail system or website to check project status. This would save staff time answering calls on project status and they could process project even faster. 4 staffing levels 5 Show up on time, and do what you say you are going to do. 6 Plan check turn around time 7 Consistency in inspections by building inspectors. £ E CliWI I3OTB K Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 32 H. REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING I Have you had business with REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING over | jthe past year? Examples include site plan reviews in redevelopment! Numberof ! 40. 1 districts. j Responses j Ratio Yes No 7 36 43 16% 84% 100% Redevelopment and Housing Overall Overall, how would you rate REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING in the following areas?41. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 41. a. Courtesy 41. b. Timeliness 41. c. Positive Attitude 41. d. Knowledge 41. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 0% 0 29% 2 0% 0 14% 1 0% 0 0% 0 29% 2 14% 1 43% 3 71% 5 3 High 100% 7 43% 3 86% 43% 3 29% 2 N/A 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 The overall rating elements are shown below with the addition of the Weighted Average for each. Redev. & Housing Overall 41: a. Courtesy 41: b. Timeliness 41: c. Positive Attitude 41: d. Knowledge 41 : e. Dependability / Reliability Low 0 2 0 1 0 Medium 0 2 1 3 5 Above 7 3 6 3 2 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Average 3.00 2.14 2.86 2.29 2.29 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 33 ' Redevelopment and Housing Compared to Expectations for Government Service ;Now, please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how 42.1 REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 42. a. Informative Publications/Handouts/Brochures 42. b. Cost of Permits (fees) 42. c. Thoroughness of Plan Review 42. d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 42. e. Complexity of Regulations 1 Below Expectations 14% 1 14% 1 0% 0 43% 3 0% 0 Met Expectations 57% 4 71% 5 57% 4 43% 3 71% 5 3 Above Expectations 0% 0 0% 0 14% 1 0% 0 14% 1 No Opinion 29% 2 14% 1 29% 2 14% 1 14% 1 Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how 43.| REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 43. a. Fairness/Consistency Interpretations of Code 43. b. Communication on Project Status 43. c. Use of Technology 43. d. Staff Dependability 43. e. Overall Process 1 Below Expectations 0% 0 29% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Met Expectations 86% 6 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 86% 3 Above Expectations 14% 1 29% 2 29% 2 57% 4 14% 1 No Opinion 0% 0 0% 0 29% 2 0% 0 0% 0 Shown below is each rating element with the Weighted Average score for that element. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 34 Redev. & Housing versus Expectation 42: a. Informative Publications/Handouts/Brochures 42: b. Cost of Permits (fees) 42: c. Thoroughness of Plan Review 42: d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 42: e. Complexity of Regulations 43: a. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 43: b. Communication on Project Status 43: c. Use of Technology 43: d. Staff Dependability 43: e. Overall Process Below 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 Met 4 5 4 3 5 6 3 3 3 6 Above 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 4 1 N/A 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1.80 1.83 2.20 1.50 2.17 2.14 2.00 2.40 2.57 2.14 This information is repeated below, sorted by Weighted Average score from highest to lowest. Redev. & Housing versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low) 43: d. Staff Dependability 43: c. Use of Technology 42: c. Thoroughness of Plan Review 42: e. Complexity of Regulations 43: a. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 43: e. Overall Process 43: b. Communication on Project Status 42: b. Cost of Permits (fees) 42: a. Informative Publications/Handouts/Brochures 42: d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review Below Above Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 3 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2.57 2.40 2.20 2.17 2.14 2.14 2.00 1.83 1.80 1.50 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 35 "Fi"£ * CPMWIKS9CM UC Analysis of Redevelopment and Housing Compared to Expectations of Government Service Weighted average scores ranged from a high of 2.57 (more than halfway between 'meets' and 'exceeds' expectations) down to a low of 1.50 (exactly halfway between 'below' and 'meets' expectations. The composite weighted average is 2.04 or just over 'meets expectations.' High scores were given to staff dependability, use of technology and thoroughness of plan review. Low scores were given to costs, the quality of handouts/brochures and turnaround times for processing. 1 ! Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 36 Redevelopment and Housing Open-Ended Questions All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. (Have you noted any positive changes in the services provided in the REDEVELOPMENT & 44. | HOUSING during the past year? If so, what? 45. In what areas should REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING focus attention in the next year to provide excellent service to the public? 1 Work to return calls and/or respond to e-mail in a more timely fashion, or even respond at all. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 37 mi FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES lHave you had business with the FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES! j (DIVISION in the past year? Examples include building and site plan) Mumberof j 46.1 reviews. ' Responses Ratio Yes No 16 27 43 37% 63% 100% Fire Prevention Services Overall 47. Overall, how would you rate the FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES DIVISION in the following areas? The top percentage indicates totalrespondent ratio, the bottom numberrepresents actual number of respondents selecting the option 47. a. Courtesy 47. b. Timeliness . 47. c. Positive Attitude 47. d. Knowledge 47. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 0% 0 20% 3 7% 1 13% 2 13% 2 2 Medium 40% 6 40% 6 53% 8 33% 5 33% 5 3 High 53% 8 33% 5 33% 5 47% 7 47% 7 N/A 7% 1 7% 1 7% 1 7% 1 7% 1 The overall ratings for Fire Prevention Services are shown below with the addition of the Weighted Average response. "iFi"f £ Crai'f I559CISB IK 1 Fire Prevention Services Overall 47: a. Courtesy 47: b. Timeliness 47: c. Positive Attitude 47: d. Knowledge 47: e. Dependability / Reliability Aonendix C— Low 0 3 1 2 2 -Custome Medium 6 6 8 5 5 :r Survev — t>; Above 8 5 5 7 7 aee38 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 Average 2.57 2.14 2.29 2.36 2.36 Fire Prevention Services Compared to Expectations for Government Service I Now, please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the FIRE 48.1 PREVENTION SERVICES DIVISION compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 48. a. Informative Publications/Handouts/Brochures 48. b. Cost of Permits (fees) 48. c. Thoroughness of Plan Review 48. d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 48. e. Complexity of Regulations 1 Below Expectations 27% 4 0% 0 13% 2 13% 2 20% 3 Met Expectations 33% 5 80% 12 73% 11 67% 10 67% 10 3 Above Expectations 7% 1 0% 0 13% 2 20% 3 13% 2 No Opinion 33% 5 20% 3 0% 0 0% 0 j Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the FIRE 49. | PREVENTION SERVICES DIVISION compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 49. a. Fairness/Consistency Interpretations of Code 49. b. Communication on Project Status 49. c. Use of Technology 49. d. Staff Dependability 49. e. Timeliness of Inspections 1 Below Expectations 14% 2 21% 3 14% 2 7% 1 7% 1 Met Expectations 43% 6 50% 7 43% 6 50% 7 36% 5 3 Above Expectations 36% 5 21% 3 29% 4 43% 6 21% 3 No Opinion 7% 1 7% 1 14% 2 0% 0 36% 5 I Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 39 IP*g I eras f8S9CHfS. UC i ' Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the FIRE j 50.: PREVENTION SERVICES DIVISION compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 50. a. Thoroughness of Inspections 50. b. Fairness of Inspections 50. c. Conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans 50. d. Overall Process 1 Below Expectations 7% 1 7% 1 7% 1 7% 1 2 Met Expectations 40% 6 40% 6 33% 5 40% 6 3 Above Expectations 20% 3 20% 3 13% 2 33% 5 No Opinion 33% 5 33% 5 47% 7 20% 3 The ratings are presented below with the addition of the Weighted Average score for each rating element. Fire Prevention Services versus Expectation 48: a. Informative Publications/Handouts/Brochures 48: b. Cost of Permits (fees) 48: c. Thoroughness of Plan Review 48: d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 48: e. Complexity of Regulations 49: a. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 49: b. Communication on Project Status 49: c. Use of Technology 49: d. Staff Dependability 49: e. Timeliness of Inspections 50: a. Thoroughness of Inspections 50: b. Fairness of Inspections 50: c. Conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans 50: d. Overall Process Below 4 0 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Met 5 12 11 10 10 6 7 6 7 5 6 6 5 6 Above 1 0 2 3 2 5 3 4 6 3 3 3 2 5 N/A 5 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 5 5 5 7 3 Average 1.70 2.00 2.00 2.07 1.93 2.23 2.00 2.17 2.36 2.22 2.20 2.20 2.13 2.33 This information is repeated below, sorted by Weighted Average score, highest to lowest. Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 40 Fire Prevention Services versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low) 49: d. Staff Dependability 50: d. Overall Process 49: a. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 49: e. Timeliness of Inspections 50: a. Thoroughness of Inspections 50: b. Fairness of Inspections 49: c. Use of Technology 50: c. Conflicts between Inspectors and Approved Plans 48: d. Processing/Turnaround Times of Plan Review 48: b. Cost of Permits (fees) 48: c. Thoroughness of Plan Review 49: b. Communication on Project Status 48: e. Complexity of Regulations 48: a. Informative Publications/Handouts/Brochures Below Above 1 Average 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 3 3 7 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 10 12 11 7 10 6 5 5 3 3 3 4 2 3 0 2 3 2 0 3 1 5 5 5 2 7 0 . 3 0 1 0 2.36 2.33 2.23 2.22 2.20 2.20 2.17 2.13 2.07 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.93 1.70 Analysis of Fire Prevention Services Compared to Expectations of Government Service Weighted average scores for this area ranged from a high of 2.36 (considerably above 'meets expectations' to a low of 1.70 (considerably lower than 'meets expectations.' The composite weighted average of the high and low scores is 2.03, just above the 'meets expectations' level. Highest scores were given to staff dependability, overall process and the fairness/consistency of code interpretations. Lowest scores were given to project status communication, complexity of regulations and the quality of publications, handouts and brochures. I Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 41 "IPS"£ I ccratf wxm ix Fire Prevention Services Open-Ended Questions All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. lHave you noted any positive changes in the services provided in the FIRE PREVENTION 51. | SERVICES DIVISION during the past year? If so, what? Response 1 Again, staff is top notch, especially XXX. He's very knowledgable and easy to work with, but he plays it by the book and won't give in to anything. [Name of employee removed by Citygate] 2 No. 3 na 4 no In what areas should the FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES DIVISION focus attention in the 52. next year to provide excellent service to the public? Response 1 Timing of Fire Division comments on Preliminary Reviews of siteplans and timing of decsisions on other proposals is deplorable. This is the one department that fails to work with planning in any way that is helpful to the customer. 2 Again, provde on line status check of project to save staff time. Ability on line to ask questions or possibly get code questions answered. 3 na 4 none Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 42 J. ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT [Have you had business with the ENGINEERING LAND! j !DEVELOPMENT DIVISION over the past year? Examples include! Numberof ! Response 53.J construction plan review, final plan review, etc. j Responses | Ratio 25 18 43 58% 42% 100% Engineering Land Development Overall Overall, how would you rate the ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION in the 54. {following areas? The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 54. a. Courtesy 54. b. Timeliness 54. c. Positive Attitude 54. d. Knowledge 54. e. Dependability / Reliability 1 Low 17% 4 56% 14 24% 6 20% 5 32% 8 2 Medium 33% 8 24% 6 48% 12 36% 9 44% 11 3 High 50% 12 20% 5 24% 6 44% 11 24% 6 N/A 0% 0 0% 0 4% 1 0% 0 0% 0 The overall ratings are shown below with the addition of the Weighted Average score for each element. Ene. Land Development Overall 54: a. Courtesy 54: b. Timeliness 54: c. Positive Attitude 54: d. Knowledge 54: e. Dependability / Reliability Low 4 14 6 5 8 Medium 8 6 12 9 11 Above 12 5 6 11 6 N/A 0 0 1 0 0 Average 2.33 1.64 2.00 2.24 1.92 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 43 EMECIHOT BS d'ti ac Engineering Land Development Compared to Expectations of Government Service i Now, please select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION compares to your expectations for 55. j government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 55. a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 55. b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 55. c. Application Checklist Requirements 55. d. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 55. e. Process for Deeming Application Complete 1 2 Below Expectations Met Expectations 16% 4 16% 4 16% 4 17% 4 40% 10 44% 11 40% 10 56% 14 58% 14 48% 12 3 Above Expectations 32% 8 20% 5 13% 3 8% 2 No Opinion 36% 9 8% 2 13% 3 4% 1 Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the (ENGINEERING LAND USE DIVISION compares to your expectations for government 56.1 service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 56. a. Thoroughness of Construction Plan Review 56. b. Processing/Turnaround Times of Construction Plan Review 56. c. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 56. d. Clarity of Development Code 56. e. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 1 Below Expectations 13% 3 44% 11 56% 14 36% 9 32% 8 Met Expectations 63% 15 36% 9 32% 8 56% 14 56% 14 3 Above Expectations 21% 5 16% 4 4% 1 8% 2 No Opinion 4% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 1 E I Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 44 i Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the [ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION compares to your expectations for 57. j government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio: the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 57. a. Communication on Project Status 57. b. Use of Technology 57. c. Staff Dependability 57. d. Coordinating Review Divisions/Departments with Other 57. e. Timeliness of Development Inspection 1 Below Expectations 48% 12 21% 5 40% 10 52% 13 28% 7 Met Expectations 40% 10 54% 13 48% 12 28% 7 28% 7 3 Above Expectations 12% 3 17% 4 12% 3 20% 5 12% 3 No Opinion 0% 0 8% 2 0% 0 0% 0 32% 8 58. Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION compares to your expectations for government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 58. a. Fairness/Consistency Inspection of Development 58. b. Process of "Minor" Changes to Plans 58. c. Timeliness of Re-checks 58. d. Number of Re-checks 1 Below Expectations 28% 7 40% 10 44% 11 42% 10 Met Expectations 40% 10 28% 7 32% 8 38% 9 3 Above Expectations 4% 1 12% 3 0% 0 No Opinion 28% 7 20% 5 16% 4 21% 5 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 45 K • VB m OTfB IBSfCHIB. IK I Continue to select the answer that best represents your assessment of how the ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION compares to your expectations for 59.I government service. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondentsselecting the option 59. a. Process for Discretionary Plan Approval (e.g. Development Permit, Site Development Plan, etc.) 59. b. Process for Final/Parcel Map Approval 59. c. Process for Listening to Customer Concerns 59. d. Overall Process — ^^-~|™^_™™_— ™™~|™™™_— ^j^™«— — _™.__™^j^^™_^^^^^^™^^^ 1 Below 2 Met Expectations Expectations Coastal mmwitfmm 38% 9 39% 9 29% 7 42% 10 HMBMHBHMBjHBM|MBBBHBBHBMBBHi!^B^^ffllm^iiffl^Hffl^llBii^HH Shown below are the rating elements for Engineering Land Weighted Average score for each element. • Eng. Land Development versus Expectation 55: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 55: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 55: c. Application Checklist Requirements 55: d. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 55: e. Process for Deeming Application Complete 56: a. Thoroughness of Construction Plan Review 56: b. Processing/Turnaround Times of Construction Plan Review 56: c. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 56: d. Clarity of Development Code 56: e. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 57: a. Communication on Project Status "F!"f * craiussKTO IK Anoendix C — f Below 4 4 4 4 10 3 11 14 9 8 12 histome Met 11 10 14 14 12 15 9 8 14 14 10 r Snrvev- 33% 8 26% 6 29% 7 42% 10 RHSEragiiiiil^&raj&i Development Above 8 2 5 3 2 5 4 2 1 2 3 — nacre 46 3 Above No Opinion Expectations 8% 2 9% 2 21% 5 13% 3 _«____«_ with the N/A 2 9 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 21% 5 26% 6 21% 5 4% 1 addition of the ••Average I 2.17 1.88 2.04 1.95 1.67 2.09 1.71 1.50 1.67 1.75 1.64 I Eng. Land Development versus Expectation ••^^•••^••^^•^^•••^•••IM 57: b. Use of Technology 57: c. Staff Dependability 57: d. Coordinating Review with Other Divisions/Departments 57: e. Timeliness of Development Inspection 58: a. Fairness/Consistency of Development Inspection 58: b. Process of "Minor" Changes to Plans 58: c. Timeliness of Re-checks 58: d. Number of Re-checks 59: a. Process for Discretionary Plan Approval (e.g. Coastal Development Permit, Site Development Plan, etc.) 59: b. Process for Final/Parcel Map Approval 59: c. Process for Listening to Customer Concerns 59: d. Overall Process This information is repeated below, sorted I Eng. Land Development versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low) i^^^MM^^^^^MHMM^H^^^NiM^^^^B^^^^H^^^^MMMMMMHMH^^M 55: a. Helpfulness of Front Counter Assistance 56: a. Thoroughness of Construction Plan Review 55: c. Application Checklist Requirements 55: d. Cost of Processing Application (fees) 57: b. Use of Technology 59: c. Process for Listening to Customer Concerns 55: b. Informative Brochures and Handouts 57: e. Timeliness of Development Inspection Below^^^^M 5 10 13 7 7 10 11 10 9 9 7 10 Met ^^^^M^H 13 12 7 7 10 7 8 9 8 6 7 10 by Weighted Average Below ^^^^^^^^^m 4 3 4 4 5 7 4 7 Appendix C — Customer Met ^^^^mmami^mmmi^m 11 15 14 14 13 7 10 7 Above^^^^•m 4 3 5 3 1 3 2 0 2 2 5 3 score, from Above mm^^a^^^^^^^^m 8 5 5 3 4 5 2 3 N/A I^BBHi 2 0 0 8 7 5 4 5 5 6 5 1 ••• Average ••^••l ••••••••I 1.95 1.72 1.68 1.76 1.67 1.65 1.57 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.89 1.70 highest to lowest. •N/A ^••••••••B 2 1 2 3 2 5 9 8 Survey — page 47 ^m•••• Average ^^H •••••••••••••••Ml 2.17 2.09 2.04 1.95 1.95 1.89 1.88 1.76 "FlE • craw BSKDffi. UC Eng. Land Development versus Expectation (sorted by Average, high to low) 56: e. Fairness/Consistency of Code Interpretations 57: c. Staff Dependability 56: b. Processing/Turnaround Times of Construction Plan Review 59: d. Overall Process 57: d. Coordinating Review with Other Divisions/Departments 55: e. Process for Deeming Application Complete 56: d. Clarity of Development Code 58: a. Fairness/Consistency of Development Inspection 58: b. Process of "Minor" Changes to Plans 57: a. Communication on Project Status 59: a. Process for Discretionary Plan Approval (e.g. Coastal Development Permit, Site Development Plan, etc.) 59: b. Process for Final/Parcel Map Approval 58: c. Timeliness of Re-checks 56: c. Timeliness of Staff Written Comments 58: d. Number of Re-checks Below 9 11 14 10 6 8 8 9 Above 2 2 2 0 6 4 1 5 Average 8 10 11 10 13 10 9 7 10 12 14 12 9 10 7 12 14 10 7 10 2 3 4 3 5 2 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 7 5 0 1.75 1.72 1.71 1.70 1.68 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.65 1.64 1.63 1.59 1.57 1.50 1.47 Analysis of Engineering Land Development Compared to Expectations of Government Service Weighted average scores ranged from a high of 1.75 (less than 'meets expectations') down to a low of 1.47 (halfway between 'below' and 'meets' expectations. This was the lowest ranking category of the survey. The composite weighted average is 1.61, considerably below 'meets expectations.' Highest scores were given to fairness/consistency of code interpretations, staff dependability and turnaround times for construction plan review. Lowest scores were given to timeliness of rechecks and staff written comments and the number of rechecks. IIcrau riS9CKB ac Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 48 Engineering Land Development Open-Ended Questions All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. 'Have you noticed any positive changes in the services provided in the ENGINEERING LAND 60. | DEVELOPMENT DIVISION during the past year? If so, what? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attitude has been a little more flexible None, the engineers are great and fair to work with. The front counter just shows no desire to work with me when there are problems. They make feel like they go out of their way to help finalize the smallest things like a building permit fee or just the permit in general. None of them can give straight answers. It may have to do with the codes and work they do, but I never get all the information at that department like I do in the others. [Negative comments concerning named individuals were removed and Citygate paraphrased the resulting statement.] No. Very thorough, but almost to a fault in some cases. No. U received a change in engineers and that has helped a lot. The most recent change was to do away with concurrent processing. That was a negative change that will simply draw out the process longer. XXX is a huge asset to the Engineering Department. Since he has taken on a bigger role, things are much better than they used to be. [Employee name removed by Citygate.] I Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 49 E •M mcrar ISSKW. uc jln what areas should the ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION focus attention 61.Jin the next year to provide excellent service to the public? 1 Be a little nicer and understanding. 2 Be consistent witn comments and subsequent comments on the same project. Engineering consistently adds issues after the fact. 3 Need to see better communication between staff within engineering on plan checks and consistency on what is and has been, considered acceptable in design standards. 4 See 41. 5 The review process turn around time should be reduced. New comments should not be given after third and fourth reviews. The first plancheck should bring forth all issues and the remaining planchecks should work towards resolution to those issues. 6 staffing levels 7 speed up turn around time. 8 Quicked response to questions 9 Allow concurrent processing. Turn around times of plan checks needs to be improved, but the real problem is with the final stages of getting a project approved. Several staff members tend to freeze at the end and projects sit on their desks without being moved forward. Your customers need time certain turn around times and immediate docketing of projects that have been through the process. Monthes go by between the last plan check and docketing for council. Quite frustrating. The field inspection construction change process needs to be shortened and given priority attention. Equipment on standby is very expensive. More control should be given to inspection to make decisions. You have better plan check expertise in inspection than in engineering. Might as well use them. The new precise grading process should be given back to building. It was pushed to engineering in order to bond for swales. That ended up being not worthwhild so now there is really no reason for this extra level of review. 10 This division needs to focus on satisfying the customer instead of the City of Carlsbad approach of being VERY heavy- handed with developers and the City regulations instead of working with us and being flexible in order for us to get our job done and still meet City code. The City's attitude is "Our way or the highway" and forced us to do things which were not required by code or else risk not getting our project done. Inspection division is very difficult to work with. 11 Consistency and timeliness of review. Get more capable staff in current division. 12 none Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 50 K. YEsINo QUESTIONS 62.! Please Answer "Yes", "No" or "Not Applicable" to the Following Questions. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio, the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 62. a. Initial information given to me by the various divisions in Development Services was accurate. 62. b. The various divisions required changes to project after initial plan check. 62. c. The various divisions required changes to project after the second plan check. 62. d. If it were guaranteed that an increase in fees would increase timeliness and quality of services, I would support a fee increase. 1 Yes 2 No N/A 62% 26 69% 29 53% 21 54% 22 19% 8 7% 3 23% 9 34% 14 19% 8 24% 10 25% 10 12% 5 63. Continue to Answer "Yes", "No" or "Not Applicable" to the Following Questions. The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 63. a. I would welcome the option to pay extra for "express" processing. 63. b. I would support a faster, more streamlined development process, even if it meant more "black and white/pass or fail" requirements and fewer negotiations. 63. c. The cost of processing any permit is approximately the same as other jurisdictions in San Diego/Los Angeles area. 1 Yes 68% 28 41% 17 39% 16 2 No 17% 7 44% 18 34% 14 N/A 15% 6 15% 6 27% 11 Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 51 L. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS All comments are exactly as they were entered into the survey except where noted. ! Please add any specific comments or suggestions you may have for improving services in a j 64.1 specific division/department or community development as a whole. [ planning department needs to work on customer service, very bad with people. XXX in particular. XXX has been very mean and bitter to me and other couleages of mine. [Employee name removed by Citygate.] Time is the issue. It takes too long to turnaround comments. Then when comments come back, they are inconsistent with previous comments. Provde a method where the required steps for any process are clearly laid out. This way everyone will have the same expectations for the end results, both in requirements and timing. Suggest that developers be given the option to fund project specific consultants to enhance the overall planning process. Quit the heavy-handed approach with builder-developers. We are not stupid. Please treat us as professionals as you would want us to treat you. Be reasonable and flexible, not hard-nosed and "Our way or the highway". keep going strong 65. j Please write any additional comments you have below: 1 our contractor handled all this 2 The City of Carlsbad staff is always a pleasure to work with. 3 I work with a lot of cities and Carlsbad is one of the best. 4 Engineering is clearly overloaded with work. The approcal process to outsiders seems somewhat arbitrary. THe grading and improvement plan processing needs to be streamlined. 5 The front desk does not seem to know what they are doing. Payments get applied to the wrong account. There is a general attitude of "oh well, I don't get paid that much anyway, so what do you expect" 6 The City of Carlsbad is very difficult to work in because of the heavy-handed approach it takes to working with builder/developers. That's why many construction subcontractors flat out refuse to work in the City because the City's inspection division is very inflexible and at times very unreasonable. Work with us, and you'll get a great project; fight us every step of the way, and you will create even more animosity. 7 none 8 thank you Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 52 I M. SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS The survey respondents were relatively few in number, but they appear to be a representative cross-section of the development community in Carlsbad. Comments were generally positive, and ratings of the aspects of the entire operation and of its subsidiary parts were higher than Citygate often sees in surveys of this type. For the most part, high scores were in the range of 2.50, which is halfway between 'medium' or 'meets expectations' ratings and 'high' or 'exceeds expectations' ratings. Low scores tended to range around 1.50 or higher, which is halfway between 'low' or 'below expectations' and 'medium' or 'meets expectations.' I A theme that emerges from the responses is reflected in the generally high marks given by the respondents to the physical place where they conduct business and to the City personnel, whom the respondents generally indicate are helpful and desire to do a thorough and professional job. I This trend was repeated in most of the subdivisions of Development Services as well as overall. On the other hand, the respondents generally give lower marks to the amount of time it takes to go through the process. This is borne out in the Yes/No questions. Fifty-four percent (54%) of (the respondents indicated their willingness to pay more if they could be guaranteed a more timely process and sixty-eight percent (68%) indicated a willingness to pay more for express handling of their applications. I I I I I I I I I I • Appendix C—Customer Survey—page 53 APPENDIX D EMPLOYEE SURVEY ANALYSIS CBKMl BSKBli UC APPENDIX D—EMPLOYEE SURVEY A. OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY Citygate conducted a confidential Internet-based Employee Survey between March 7 and March 16, 2006 for the employees of the City of Carlsbad Development Services function of city government. Details of the deployment are shown below. Launch Date Close Date Visits' Partials2 Completes3 03/07/2006 - 03/16/2006- 45 0 26 1:24 PM 3:1 1PM The Development Services employees were sent an email with a link to the survey. Since no one else received this email, the responses were restricted to the employees within the Development Services area. The survey consisted of 56 closed-ended "degree-of-agreement" statements and 8 open-ended questions. In addition, data in 4 demographic areas were collected. // should be noted in reviewing the results below that the employees were not required to answer any of the questions. Additionally, they were permitted to respond "Don't Know/Not Applicable " to the degree-of-agreement statements, and these responses were excluded from the weighted average response calculations. Therefore, the response totals do not always add to the total of 26 completed surveys. B. CLOSED-ENDED QUESTIONS Closed-ended questions are defined as those for which the respondent must choose an answer based upon a finite number of choices. For this survey, 56 "degree-of-agreement" statements were presented. The respondents were asked to rate their agreement with the statements from "Strongly Disagree" with the statement to "Strongly Agree" with the statement. Provision was also made to respond "Don't Know or Not Applicable." Of course, the respondent could simply not respond at all, since no responses were required. A value was assigned to each valid response from 1 for "Strongly Disagree" to 5 for "Strongly Agree." For each statement, the total number for each response was multiplied by the assigned value and a weighted average response was calculated. Thus, a higher average response indicates more overall agreement with the statement, whereas a lower average response indicates less overall agreement with the statement. 1 "Visits" - the total number of people who visited the survey site during the open period. 2 "Partial" - the number of surveys that were begun but not completed. In this case, that number is zero. 3 "Completes" - the number of surveys that were completed and successfully added to the database. Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 1 i • Definition of Terms The terms defined below are encountered in the information that follows: ^ Weighted Average: An arithmetic average of the valid responses (excludes blanks and Don't Know responses) that takes into account the proportional relevance of each component, rather than treating each component equally. ^ Median: "Middle value" of a list. That is, half the numbers in the list are greater than the median response and half are less. + Mode: The most frequently occurring number in a list. In the case of the Employee Survey, it was the single response from "Strongly Disagree" (1) to "Strongly Agree" (5) that was the most often chosen for any one statement. ^ Standard Deviation: Standard deviation tells how spread out the responses are from the calculated average. A smaller standard deviation indicates that most responses are close to the average response. A larger standard deviation indicates that there was a wider spread of variation in the responses. Presentation of the Closed-Ended Results A summary of all responses to the closed-ended statements is presented on the following pages. Shown are: + All the statements and the responses to them as they appeared on the Internet- based survey. This is presented as raw data showing the number of responses of each type, including "Don't Know/Not Applicable" and the percentage each response represents of the total responses to a statement. ^ A formatted presentation of the responses expanded to include the number left blank followed by the calculation of the Weighted Average, Median, Mode and Standard Deviation. + A graphical representation of the statements in the order presented on the survey showing the weighted average score for each statement. (Due to the rather large number of statements, this information is presented in two charts.) + All the statements on the survey sorted by the weighted average response and arranged from highest average response (most agreement) to lowest average response (least agreement). ^ Charts depicting the same information graphically. + The 10 statements receiving the highest weighted average score (most agreement with the statements) along with a graphical representation of this information. ^ The 10 statements receiving the lowest weighted average score (least agreement with the statements) along with a graphical representation of this information. 1 • Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 2 RAW RESULTS OF THE RESPONSES PRESENTED AS THEY APPEARED ON THE SURVEY ^^^1 i ^— •-••- The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 1.a. I am actively encouraged to try creative approaches to my work, even to the point of taking the initiative. 1.b. The management of my 'PROGRAM AREA' helps my work unit to be fully productive. I.e. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA (grouping of all 'PROGRAM AREAS') management helps my work unit to be fully productive. 1. d. I receive clear and specific direction from my supervisors) regarding my work assignments. 1. e. Overall, I believe the decision-making in my 'PROGRAM AREA' is consistent. 2. a. Overall, I believe the decision-making in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is consistent. 2. b. I believe the workload within my 'PROGRAM AREA' is equally divided among my co-workers. 2. c. I believe the workload within DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is equally divided among my co-workers. 2. d. The goals and objectives of my 'PROGRAM AREA' manager are reasonable. 2. e. The goals and objectives for DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA are reasonable. 3. a. There is an effective flow of information between management and staff within my 'PROGRAM AREA.' 3. b. There is an effective flow of information between management and staff within DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA. 3. c. I believe my 'PROGRAM AREA' is an efficient, well-run organization. 3. d. I believe the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS is an efficient, well-run process. 3. e. I believe there is good teamwork in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA. 1 Strongly Disagree 4% 1 15% 4 4% 1 0% 0 12% 3 12% 3 38% 10 27% 7 12% 3 0% 0 8% 2 8% 2 12% 3 12% 3 8% 2 2 3 Disagree Neutral 15% 4 23% 6 15% 4 27% 7 23% 6 23% 6 12% 3 15% 4 8% 2 19% 5 12% 3 12% 3 8% 2 23% 6 20% 5 Appendix D — Employee 4% 1 12% 3 35% 9 23% 6 19% 5 19% 5 19% 5 19% 5 12% 3 15% 4 8% 2 38% 10 16% 4 31% 8 20% 5 Survey — page 4 Agree 46% 12 19% 5 27% 7 15% 4 19% 5 31% 8 15% 4 15% 4 42% 11 31% 8 50% 13 23% 6 32% 8 19% 5 28% 7 3 5 Strongly Agree 31% 8 31% 8 15% 4 35% 9 27% 7 12% 3 8% 2 4% 1 19% 5 8% 2 23% 6 4% 1 32% 8 8% 2 24% 6 Don't Know/Not Applicable 0% 0 0% 0 4% 1 0% 0 0% 0 4% 1 8% 2 19% 5 8% 2 27% 7 0% 0 15% 4 0% 0 8% 2 0% 0 "FTCOW!} l5S9Cffl& iiC RAW RESULTS OF THE RESPONSES PRESENTED AS THEY APPEARED ON THE SURVEY The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 4. a. It is clear to me what my role is in the process of the larger task that is to be performed. 4. b. 1 believe that my PROGRAM AREA'S approach to employee discipline is fair and evenly administered. 4. c. 1 have the necessary skills to perform the tasks associated with my position. 4. d. Clear, written policies and procedures are in place to assist me in the performance of my job responsibilities. 4. e. The coordination of projects and functions between my 'PROGRAM AREA' and other 'PROGRAM AREAS' involved in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is good. 5. a. The coordination of projects and functions between DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA and other City Departments (or MSA's) is good. 5. b. Policies and procedures are consistently followed in day-to-day operations. 5. c. The performance evaluations 1 have received have been completed in a timely manner and according to schedule. 5. d. 1 feel that 1 have sufficient authority to uphold recommendations and policies when challenged. 5. e. 1 generally find that 1 have adequate decision-making authority in processing an application, approving a permit, or assisting a customer in another way. 6. a. 1 feel positive about my 'PROGRAM AREA' and believe it is a good place to work. 6. b. 1 feel positive about DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA and believe it is a good place to work. 6. c. The current compensation process rewards me for higher than average levels of performance. 6. d. Given the level of staffing within my 'PROGRAM AREA,1 the goals and objectives of the 'PROGRAM AREA' are achievable. 7. a. 1 seek and receive sufficient training for the effective completion of my job responsibilities. 1 Strongly Disagree 0%o 12%3 0% 0 8% 2 8% 2 4% 1 4% 1 0%0 0%o 0% 0 12% 3 8% 2 23%g 23%g 0%o 2 Disagree 4% 1 12% •3O 0% 0 31%3 19% 5 19% 5 27% 7 12%•a«j 12% 3 8% 2 8% 2 4% 1 42%11 23%eu 8% 2 3 Neutral 4%1 27%7/ 0% 0 15%4 19% 5 23% 6 12% 3 4%1 15% 4 4% 1 4% 1 12% 3 12% 4% 1I 15%4 4 Agree 58% 15 23% 31% 8 35%g 42% 11 38% 10 46% 12 42% 111 1 46% 12 62% 16 38% 10 50% 13 12% 31% 54% 14 5 Strongly Agree 35%q*7 19% 69% 18 12%3 8% 2 4% 1 4% 1 42% 1 1i i 19%5 23% 6 38% 10 23% 6 12% 15% 23%g Don't Know/Not Applicable 0%nu 8% o ^ 0% 0 0% Q 4% 1 12% 3 8% 2 0% 8%2 4% 1 0% 0 4% 1 0% 4% •11 0%o IP si Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 4 II RAW RESULTS OF THE RESPONSES PRESENTED AS THEY APPEARED ON THE SURVEY The top percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom numberrepresents actual number of respondents selecting the option 7. b. 1 have sufficient resources to complete my work, such as office space, computers, etc. 7. c. Ordinances and/or policies 1 am responsible for administering are reasonable and enforceable (if applicable). 7. d. Resources and equipment needed for the performance of my job tasks are properly maintained. 7. e. 1 receive adequate recognition by management for my accomplishments and efforts. 8. a. The established goals and objectives of my 'PROGRAM AREA' have been clearly communicated to me. 8. b. The established goals and objectives of DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA have been clearly communicated to me. 8. c. 1 believe my 'PROGRAM AREA1 does not operate under a crisis management approach. 8. d. 1 understand my supervisor's expectations of the job 1 perform. 9. a. 1 believe that serving the City's elected officials is one of the leading goals of DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA. 9. b. 1 believe opportunities for employee involvement are adequate. 9. c. Overall, the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's computer tracking systems address our project tracking needs. 9. d. 1 believe that Carlsbad's codes, policies, and procedures are up to date and provide for effective and efficient delivery of services. 10. a. Overall, I believe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's performance is above average. 10. b. Service to the public is strongly emphasized in my 'PROGRAM AREA.' 10. c. Service to the public is strongly emphasized in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA. 1 Strongly Disagree 0% 0 4% 1 4% 1 12% 3 8% 2 4% 1 15% 4 8% 2 0% 0 0% 0 8% 2 23% 6 4% 1 0% 0 0% 0 2 Disagree 8% 2 12% 3 8% 2 15% 4 12% 3 19% 5 19% 5 15% 4 12% 3 12% 3 15% 4 15% 4 0% 0 8% 2 8% 2 3 Neutral 4% 1 20% 5 15% 4 15% 4 19% 5 27% 7 12% 3 0% 0 16% 4 27% 7 19% 5 19% 5 31% 8 15% 4 16% 4 4 Agree 58% 15 36% 9 54% 14 38% 10 38% 10 35% 9 31% 8 46% 12 44% 11 38% 10 38% 10 27% 7 31% 8 23% 6 40% 10 5 Strongly Agree 31% 8 12% 3 19% 5 19% 5 23% 6 12% 3 23% 6 31% 8 24% 6 19% 5 4% 1 4% 1 27% 7 54% 14 32% 8 Dont Know/Not Applicable 0% 0 16% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 4% 1 0% 0 0% 0 4% 1 4% 1 15% 4 12% 3 8% 2 0% 0 4% 1 Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 5 craw IBKWB. IK RAW RESULTS OF THE RESPONSES PRESENTED AS THEY APPEARED ON THE SURVEY The fop percentage indicates total respondent ratio; the bottom number represents actual number of respondents selecting the option 10. d. The City of Carlsbad has an effective process for listening to citizen or customer concerns. 10.e. I believe that DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's customers perceive that DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is consistently doing a good job. 11. a. I believe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA has a solution-oriented philosophy. 11.b. Comments generated by DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA for plan check are usually complete and accurate. Staff does not identify problems later that should have been caught prior to final approval. 1 1 . c. Customers wait a short amount of time for comments from the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA on whether plans have been approved or to find out about needed changes. 1 1 . d. Customer inquiries are responded to promptly. 11. e. Inspectors rarely find errors in the field that should have been caught during the plan checking process. 12. a. Compared to similar organizations in the Carlsbad area, I am satisfied with the salary and benefit package I receive. 12. b. My supervisor encourages team work in our unit. 12. c. There is good cooperation among members of my work unit. 12. d. In general, I am pleased with the overall DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS. 1 Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 8% 2 0% 0 0% 0 4% 1 12% 3 8% 2 4% 1 2 Disagree 0% 0 19% 5 12% 3 15% 4 8% 2 0% 0 8% 2 31% 8 12% 3 19% 5 19% 5 3 Neutral 27% 7 27% 7 31% 8 19% 5 23% 6 19% 5 15% 4 12% 3 15% 4 12% 3 23% 6 4 Agree 46% 12 23% 6 38% 10 27% 7 27% 7 54% 14 15% 4 42% 11 27% 7 19% 5 31% 8 5 Strongly Agree 23% 6 23% 6 15% 4 4% 1 8% 2 12% 3 8% 2 12% 3 35% 9 42% 11 15% 4 Don't Know/Not Applicable 4% 1 8% 2 4% 1 35% 9 27% 7 15% 4 54% 14 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 8% 2 "IRi "I 5 cnMt I3SKWB UC Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 6 I sasuodsay Suouiy UOIJB|A3Q sasuodsay U UJ CO LULU sasuodsay IIV LU LU o: 0)CLLU o: O LU> Q ii 3fLU O V/M JO AiOU>I §m < O V) o wLU *o •<*• o0 ^ m°om o(N O O oo 2 •* -1 la. I am actively encouraged to try creative approaches tcwork, even to the point of taking the initiative.in m Oin r^ t-rs m VO<N 0 O oo T, m -o Tf 1 Ib. The management of my 'PROGRAM AREA' helps my •<unit to be fully productive.oop 1— 1 <<•> OOf> VOf) f) \o<N O - T (^ ON •* - £3 0)T3 .0 O Ic. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA (grouping of'PROGRAM AREAS') management helps my work unit tfully productive.•t(N»— i >n Oin m oom fi votN O O ON •* VO r^ o 'tA ¥Id. I receive clear and specific direction from my supervisregarding my work assignments.o•* K"! 0 fl r~(N m \ofS o o r- V~l V~l VO m 1 le. Overall, I believe the decision-making in my 'PROOFAREA' is consistent.\ors •* 8 ro ooofl VO(N O ~ ro OO IO \o m s 2a. Overall, I believe the decision-making in DEVELOPMSERVICES MSA is consistent.•* - 8 fN ooc^ (N VO(N O fS tN •<s- in n O .OT 2b. I believe the workload within my 'PROGRAM ARE,equally divided among my co-workers.ONts l-H 0 (N r^•t tN VO(N O "n - •* in •* r- c«WU 2c. I believe the workload within DEVELOPMENT SERVIMSA is equally divided among my co-workers.oo(N Tt 0 T •<tin m vo(N O ts m - f> (N M <9 2d. The goals and objectives of my 'PROGRAM AImanager are reasonable.*-Hq •<* 0 Tt f-f) r^ VO(S o r~- fN OO •* m O OlUU 2e. The goals and objectives for DEVELOPMENT SERVIMSA are reasonable.ON Tt 8•* a\\o m o(N O O *o f> «N m <N co|UB|e IP I V/fv JO AVOU>[ o ~ ro ro' S ro VOCN O Tt VO O ro CN w of information betweenEVELOPMENT SERVICESa -o.9a t3o> 5)!3 EX! uH W) . ro - 8 "* S ro VOCN - O OO 00 * <N ro 1 "5u'o u S3 CO ^3c. I believe my PROGRAM AForganization.T— » ^H CO 8 ro 0000 CN VOCN O CN CN ,0 OO VO ro ENT SERVICES REVIEWprocess.3d. I believe the DEVELOPMPROCESS is an efficient, well-runCN - OO "* o ro VOCN - O VO r- •0 „ CN nwork in DEVELOPMENT3e. I believe there is good teaiSERVICES MSA.f —O - oo Tr roCN "* VOCN O O 0 >n -« - o u1 o Q. -*-» CO Ei. It is clear to me what my rolesk that is to be performed.oro ro OO ro CN ro VOCS o CN « VO r- ro ro VREA's approach to employeestored.4b. I believe that my PROGRAM /discipline is fair and evenly adminit-- o « oo >r> 0\VO "* VOCN O O OO OO O O o perform the tasks associated2 asCO Cv> || CN - OO ro CN ro VOCN O O ro « * oo CN cedures are in place to assistsponsibilities.SB >j> ;§ o II, o< u •£ U.S T3 G ro - Oo "* CN ro VDCN O - CN — Wl « CN and functions between my3GRAM AREAS' involved inA is good.4e. The coordination of projectsPROGRAM AREA' and other PRDEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSoo - 8 ro CNCN ro VOCN O CO r— I Of— 1 VO in -cts and functions betweenA and other City Departments5a. The coordination of projeDEVELOPMENT SERVICES MS(or MSA's) is good.VOo - 0 ** I— 1 CN ro VOCN O CN *- CN CO r- - .a •o 1 1CO C 5b. Policies and procedures are coday operations.r- o un 8 * £ Tt VOCN O O - r-H - ro O I have received have beeniccording to schedule.5c. The performance evaluationscompleted in a timely manner and i Suouiy UOIJBIA3Q sasuodsay IIV jo apoi\ IIV JO 3oEJ3,\V 33-IoBSIQ 33J§ESIQ § so(N 0 fN in fN -m O 5d. I feel that I have sufficient authority to upholdrecommendations and policies when challenged.r- o 3Tt sofN O - « 2 - fN O 5e. I generally find that I have adequate decision-makingauthority in processing an application, approving a permit, orassisting a customer in another way.<*•> 00 rn s o 0 o o - fN «6a. I feel positive about my 'PROGRAM AREA1 and believe it isa good place to work.fN T— t Oq ooo rn fN o - * 2 f> T— 1 fN 6b. I feel positive about DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSAand believe it is a good place to work.o oq fN fN O o m « « - -6c. The current compensation process rewards me for higherthan average levels of performance.o oq fNOs fN SOfN 0 - - oo - SO SO 6d. Given the level of staffing within my 'PROGRAM AREA,'the goals and objectives of the 'PROGRAM AREA' areachievable.ooo g fNOs SOfN O O * Tt" -fN O 7a. I seek and receive sufficient training for the effectivecompletion of my job responsibilities.fNoo o oq fN sofN 0 o oo 2 - fN 0 7b. I have sufficient resources to complete my work, such asoffice space, computers, etc.ooq oq ooTi- ro SOfN - - CO * Vt „ -7c. Ordinances and/or policies I am responsible foradministering are reasonable and enforceable (if applicable).o\o g r- ro SOfN O O *> 2 * fN -7d. Resources and equipment needed for the performance of myjob tasks are properly maintained.o § oof) fN O o ,0 o * * «7e. I receive adequate recognition by management for myaccomplishments and efforts.fN 8 00 fi so o o SO O « « fN 8a. The established goals and objectives of my 'PROGRAMAREA' have been clearly communicated to me. uomy sasuodsajj o ' 8 1 ^ fN CO sofN O [ " 0\ r^ Vt 8b. The established goals and objectives of DEVELOPMENTSERVICES MSA have been clearly communicated to me.^ oq g "* f-fN CO SOfN O O SO oo en .0 -8c. I believe my 'PROGRAM AREA' does not operate under acrisis management approach.r-fN 8 0 "* r- m SOfN O O oo fN O * fN 8d. I understand my supervisor's expectations of the job 1perform.SOON O - 8 "* oo m SOfN - - SO ~ -en O 9a. I believe that serving the City's elected officials is one of theleading goals of DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA.ON O § Oo ^ ooSO m OO SOfN O ~ VI O t- en O 9b. I believe opportunities for employee involvement areadequate.o - o m oo T— 1m SOfN O - - O *> ^ fN 9c. Overall, the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's computertracking systems address our project tracking needs.o\<N - OOm o fN SOfN O ^ - -*> * SO 9d. I believe that Carlsbad's codes, policies, and procedures areup to date and provide for effective and efficient delivery ofservices.o « 8 ^ 00 fl SOfN O fN r- oo oo O -10a. Overall, I believe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA'sperformance is above average.ON O « g VI fN ^ SO<N O o 2 SO -fN 0 lOb. Service to the public is strongly emphasized in myTROGRAM AREA.'COON O - 8Tr ooTr SOfN - - OO o -fN O lOc. Service to the public is strongly emphasized inDEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA.rot-- O - 0 Tt SO m SOfN O - SO fN r- o o llOd. The City of Carlsbad has an effective process for listeningto citizen or customer concerns.o m OV) en V) en SOfN O fN SO SO -V, o lOe. I believe that DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA'scustomers perceive that DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA isconsistently doing a good job.3 00ItI "1 sasuodsay sasuodsay IIV JO UEIp3J\ IIV JO 3SKJ3AV sasuodsay V/\ jo /vvoux £0 Tt o«f> \0CN ° •* 2 oo r>1 o 11 a. I believe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA has asolution-oriented philosophy.CN O\ O Tf- op 0CN rn «CN o t> -H t~- V) *<fr o lib. Comments generated by DEVELOPMENT SERVICESMSA for plan check are usually complete and accurate. Staffdoes not identify problems later that should have been caughtprior to final approval.V> 1-H •<d- Op VDCN rn VOCN o r- «N r- \o CN CN lie. Customers wait a short amount of time for comments fromthe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA on whether plans havebeen approved or to find out about needed changes.3o •«t § »— i 0\ fi ^ofS o TT r«1 TTf—i m o o lid. Customer inquiries are responded to promptly.5 m OVI OVI rn VO<N O •*»-H fN •* Tt (N O lie. Inspectors rarely find errors in the field that should havebeen caught during the plan checking process.V) •* g Rf! ^o<N O O <*1 - CO 00 ~12a. Compared to similar organizations in the Carlsbad area, Iam satisfied with the salary and benefit package I receive.o\CO V) 8 <Nvq CO «(N 0 o O\ r- •* ro n 12b. My supervisor encourages team work in our unit.5 V) OO o\vqr VI CN 12c. There is good cooperation among members of my workunit.m t oV) 00ro ro <:CN O CN T OO VO V) »— 1 12d. In general, I am pleased with the overall DEVELOPMENTSERVICES REVIEW PROCESS.SL <a (DIII.aiI £73 W-<•*5/3 ^^o I C/3co & 5j (N aa I a £"3 H ^cn s—^s- coa 8P i (U I I 8uouiy WK OO CO LU IIV JO 3pOI\l HV jo uBipai\ ffiuj IIV JO 3§BJ3Ay sasuodsay LU LJJ Sote § F UJ Ji! O o V/M JO AVOU>J m Wui m x 00(0 u- £O ? >- L1J O o UJQ I s g 1 ^^\& *ots o o oo o o o 13<U 1 Wcd 2enC3 I 0 1 uou« §It -1o -g o 8 <N VOfN O 0 «* in i— i - o uE?(Si o 05u cL<u a W 1 §io o•^ -o "3 5 d oq fN VOrM O o T— 1 VO -a- tN o lOb. Service to the public is strongly emphasized in my'PROGRAM AREA.'r- d oq 2 VOtN 0 0 ~ - - ^ o 5c. The performance evaluations I have received have beencompleted in a timely manner and according to schedule.fNoo o oq fN VO tN O O oo VI — tN O 7b. I have sufficient resources to complete my work, such asoffice space, computers, etc.d oo S fN O - VO £ - fN O 5e. I generally find that I have adequate decision-makingauthority in processing an application, approving a permit, orassisting a customer in another way.d oq 8 tN - - OO O - fN O llOc. Service to the public is strongly emphasized inDEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA.d 8 VO ts o ~ VO fN r- o 0 lOd. The City of Carlsbad has an effective process for listeningto citizen or customer concerns.oo d 8 fN VO tN O O VO Tt" * tN O |7a. I seek and receive sufficient training for the effectivecompletion of my job responsibilities.VOd 8 S VOfN O - « 2 „ o 0 lid. Customer inquiries are responded to promptly.— _ — — —* 8 oq votN O o 00 fN - * - 1 cn -Ia 1 _ II II W*2 O -M1! J2 OO *"*rt (3ii guouiy UOIJBIASQ sasuodsay IIV sasuodsajj IIV JO 3§E43A\/ sasuodsay V/M JO A\OU» V)2 § ! "^ 1 f*"V VOfN o o 2 2 1— t fN 6a. I feel positive about my 'PROGRAM AREA' and believe it isa good place to work.VOO\ O - oo f)00 VOfN »— i - VO »— 1 -M o 9a. I believe that serving the City's elected officials is one of theleading goals of DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA.0 m oo 00 VOfN O fN - OO 00 o -lOa. Overall, I believe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA'sperformance is above average.fN ' S Ooq vofN O - VO 2 en - (N 6b. I feel positive about DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSAand believe it is a good place to work.o\ci - 8 o>r-; VOtN O « *> fN * M O 5d. I feel that I have sufficient authority to upholdrecommendations and policies when challenged.o - 8 fi VO o o *> 2 + fN ~yd. Resources and equipment needed for the performance of mypb tasks are properly maintained.r-fN | 8 5 fN O O OO fN O * rs 8d. I understand my supervisor's expectations of the job Iperform.2 - 8 § VOfN O O VO 2 fN ro fN 3a. There is an effective flow of information betweenmanagement and staff within my 'PROGRAM AREA.'^ in g S vofN O O - *> m „ fN 12c. There is good cooperation among members of my workunit.ci op oo OO rn fN o - ,0 o r- ^ o 9b. I believe opportunities for employee involvement areadequate.•n - oo 2 fN - O 00 OO -fN fl 3c. I believe my 'PROGRAM AREA' is an efficient, well-runorganization.§ . oo fNvq VOfN O O o - -^ „12b. My supervisor encourages team work in our unit.f-H o Tl- op ovq VOfN O ~ -O OO „ o 11 a. I believe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA has asolution-oriented philosophy.(U 8P 1/3 cuI"H. S I X-3 I3: Suoiuy UOIjlll A,1(| sasuodsay IIV IIV JO 3§BJ3A\' V/N JO MOU>| 33JSKS1Q -' 10 %m oo rn VOfN O 0 0\ « r- o f Id. I receive clear and specific direction from my superviregarding my work assignments.fN - Oo ^ oov> m VOfN O o VO o *> en fN %8a. The established goals and objectives of my 'PROGAREA' have been clearly communicated to me.oofN - OOTfr "/Im VOfN O fN „ —en fN en $2d. The goals and objectives of my 'PROGRAM Amanager are reasonable.o en o en w~t en vofN o fN VO VO r- *> o CO CO lOe. I believe that DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IVcustomers perceive that DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Mconsistently doing a good job.oq en o en o en VOfN o •<* fN ••* * fN o 1 lie. Inspectors rarely find errors in the field that shouldbeen caught during the plan checking process.00q - 8 "* ooTen VOfN - - ^ os « en - £EC. Ordinances and/or policies I am responsibledministering are reasonable and enforceable (if applicable)OsfN - 8 "* o en VOfN - O VO f- « ^ fN z 3e. I believe there is good teamwork in DEVELOPN'SERVICES MSA.o - oo ^ oo m vofN O O T, o * * en 1"7e. I receive adequate recognition by management foaccomplishments and efforts.*•*" - o m oomm VOfN O fN ' OO VO « - 1 12d. In general, I am pleased with the overall DEVELOPSSERVICES REVIEW PROCESS.q - 0 rt m m vofN 0 - fN OO -.0 o s 2e. The goals and objectives for DEVELOPMENT SERVMSA are reasonable.ooq t-H m oo m mm VOfN O - - -OS * - <*. O Ic. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA (grouping o'PROGRAM AREAS') management helps my work unitfully productive.r-q - 8 m tN m VOfN O - m 0, r- ^ - Z 8b. The established goals and objectives of DEVELOPN'SERVICES MSA have been clearly communicated to me.8Pf oII •3uI Suouiy UOIJFIA3Q sasuodsay 11V JO UBIp9J\ sasuodsay HV7 JO 3§BJ3,\V 4O MOU>| \|oll()JJS 33J§BSIQ O i-H ^ O °-fO o\ fi fN O fN >n r- «4b. I believe that my PROGRAM AREA'S approach to employeediscipline is fair and evenly administered.fNO\ O - oo f> 0\fN f> \0fN O 0 - -« Tt o lib. Comments generated by DEVELOPMENT SERVICESMSA for plan check are usually complete and accurate. Staffdoes not identify problems later that should have been caughtprior to final approval.T, « o m fN n VOfN O O OO « « vo -Ib. The management of my 'PROGRAM AREA' helps my workunit to be fully productive.o « oo f> c-fN ro vofN O O - ^ « VO «le. Overall, I believe the decision-making in my 'PROGRAMAREA' is consistent.^ 8 oo "*" r-fN ro VOfN O O * OO « « -EC. I believe my 'PROGRAM AREA' does not operate under arisis management approach.^^ •<*• oo ^ fN m vofN O O « - « OO ^— 1 E2a. Compared to similar organizations in the Carlsbad area, Im satisfied with the salary and benefit package I receive.^-< •t oo f) VOfN fl VDfN O r- fN -* fN fN lie. Customers wait a short amount of time for comments fromthe DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA on whether plans havebeen approved or to find out about needed changes.^•H - Oo "* fN f) *0fN O - fN - Wl « fN 4e. The coordination of projects and functions between my'PROGRAM AREA' and other 'PROGRAM AREAS' involved inDEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is good.oo •<*• oo r^> fNfNm vofN O fl - O « >n —5a. The coordination of projects and functions betweenDEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA and other City Departments(or MSA's) is good.o - oo '* <N rr> VOfN O fN - fN en r- -|5b. Policies and procedures are consistently followed in day-to-day operations.o - oin f> oo^H fl vofN O - - O ,0 * fN |9c. Overall, the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's computertracking systems address our project tracking needs. guouiy pji?put:jS sasuodsajj sasuodsajj IIV JO 3§EJ3Ay V/X JO AVOU>{ 2 * fi fN ro <N O O ON Tt OO fN 1 2 0 4d. Clear, written policies and procedures are in plame in the performance of my job responsibilities.fN - 8f> OOom VO O - „ OO „ VD f> £ 5 PL, 0 2a. Overall, I believe the decision-making in DEVESERVICES MSA is consistent.oo m 8f> om VOfN O - - V9 O « fN C &O U >o ^wC C/]3b. There is an effective flow of informatiomanagement and staff within DEVELOPMENTMSA.o - 8m CN fN VOfN O - - OO — VO « •£§ ^ <^PJ51 2 ^ -511 IH O }I "tS .*"! O o ^ ts ^ « 8m OO00 fN VOfN O fN fN « OO VO CO g ?> tMP5 3d. I believe the DEVELOPMENT SERVICESPROCESS is an efficient, well-run process.fN - 8 r«1 O fN VOfN O fl - r-- « * « f^ O 2 o 3 .2"2 "*3O "O "g '3a.ic/ro -o1 s 11o u _yl k. l| !•§ "3 -a to S §•! O fN 0 fN ^fN VOfN O O m W « — » 4j= »H 6c. The current compensation process rewards methan average levels of performance.fN - 0 fN en•^i- fN vofN 0 *> - * « * - S 5 rS P-)00 2c. I believe the workload within DEVELOPMENTMSA is equally divided among my co-workers.- - 8 fN OOfO fN VOfN O fN fN TJ- « « O r qj ^H•<2b. I believe the workload within my 'PROGRAMequally divided among my co-workers.P,i-4— » bO § oo (Ubota t Ioo o I I X g(X 8, o _c t/3 & o -o &JD•PN B co <U g o o ox•P« W t:o ffo o(N O8P I (N 0•—' -C 5 o twA X! 1 I <sp 10 HIGHEST RANKING STATEMENTS (MOST AGREEMENT) (IN DESCENDING ORDER FROM HIGHEST SCORE. 5 IS THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCORE) Degree-of-Agreement Statement 4c. I have the necessary skills to perform the tasks associated with my position. 4a. It is clear to me what my role is in the process of the larger task that is to be performed. lOb. Service to the public is strongly emphasized in my 'PROGRAM AREA.' 5c. The performance evaluations I have received have been completed in a timely manner and according to schedule. 7b. I have sufficient resources to complete my work, such as office space, computers, etc. 5e. I generally find that I have adequate decision-making authority in processing an application, approving a permit, or assisting a customer in another way. lOc. Service to the public is strongly emphasized in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA. lOd. The City of Carlsbad has an effective process for listening to citizen or customer concerns. 7a. I seek and receive sufficient training for the effective completion of my job responsibilities. 1 Id. Customer inquiries are responded to promptly. 4.69 4.23 4.23 4.15 4.12 4.04 4.00 3.96 3.92 3.91 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.47 0.71 0.99 0.97 0.82 0.79 0.93 0.73 0.84 0.61 This information is presented graphically on the following page. Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 21 I Ecram BOTH, uc £ •MtW « on X oo CC aoH <N <N •*' 0} pspuodssj are ssumbui JSUIOJSHQ -p\ \ •ssijijtqisuodssa qof Xui jo uoijajduioo sqj jqj 3uiuiB.il juspyjns SAISOSJ PUB ypss j •SUJ30UOO J3U1OJSTIO JO U3ZIJIO OJ SuiU3JSl| JOJ SS30Ojd 3AIJ03JJ9 UE 'VSW SHDIAH3S lNaWdO13 XjSuoajs si oijqnd sip oj soi •XBAV jsqjouc u; asuiojsno B SuiJSISSB JO ')IUU9d 13 SlIlAOjdcfe 'UOI UB 8uiss30oad ui Xjuoqjnc Sui^Biu- jeqj pug X||BJ3U9S soiyo SB qons juspyjns •o}9 'sjsjndmoo ' Xui 3j9|duioo •sjnpaqos oj SutpaoooB puB JSUUBUI Xpuip B ui psiajduioo ussq 9ABq psAisosa 3ABq I SUOIJBniBAS 30UBUUOJJ3d 3qX '0^ ,'VaraV WVtfOOfld, ^"J X|3uoo}S si oijqnd sqj oj sq o) si jBqj >(SBJ J3§JB] 3q) jo sssoojd aqj ui si 3{oa Xui JBIJM sui oj JBS|O si }j •B 'UOIJISOd XUJ qilA\ pSJBlDOSSB S3JSBJ 3q) UUOJJSd 0} S||I5JS XJESS303U 3qj 3ABq 8P I00 Rof OCO o 00 10 LOWEST RANKING STATEMENTS (LEAST AGREEMENT) (IN ASSCENDING ORDER FROM LOWEST SCORE. 1 IS THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SCORE) Degree-of-Agreement Statement 2b. I believe the workload within my 'PROGRAM AREA' is equally divided among my co-workers. 2c. I believe the workload within DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is equally divided among my co-workers. 6c. The current compensation process rewards me for higher than average levels of performance. 9d. I believe that Carlsbad's codes, policies, and procedures are up to date and provide for effective and efficient delivery ol services. 3d. I believe the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS is an efficient, well-run process. 6d. Given the level of staffing within my 'PROGRAM AREA,' the goals and objectives of the 'PROGRAM AREA' are achievable. 3b. There is an effective flow of information between management and staff within DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA. 2a. Overall, I believe the decision-making in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA is consistent. 4d. Clear, written policies and procedures are in place to assist me in the performance of my job responsibilities. 9c. Overall, the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's computer tracking systems address our project tracking needs. 2.38 2.43 2.46 2.70 2.88 2.92 3.05 3.08 3.12 3.18 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 1 1 2 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 1.41 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.15 1.50 1.00 1.26 1.21 1.10 This information is presented graphically on the following page. Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 23 IP*& £ £ CliSSIt IHS9MB IK o- ox OD so-M-Mo PQ CJI J911KilU03 5.VSI\ SJAS A30 »U - '3ft >i! 0) »rrjd MI we sojnpo>ojd pu UOIJBUUOJUI jo A\oy aApaajys UB si s3Ai)33Jqo PUB sjeoS sqj I-H3M '}U3ioyj3 ire si SDAS A3Q 'Pi ?iq jqj spjBAvai ssaooad uocsuadiuoo si VSW DAS 'A3Q «? pEopjaoM sip- IV K'VUOOHd, -<«J «jqii«piJO|j|Jo.w3ifi D f00 oIW Q *•5 <uI ro C. OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS The survey continued with 8 open-ended questions in which the respondents were asked to state briefly their opinions and suggestions. Citygate reviewed and categorized the responses to determine the recurring themes. Shown below is a list of each open-ended question followed by a frequency count table showing the number of times a theme was mentioned in the order of most frequently mentioned theme to least frequently mentioned theme. Minor or non-applicable themes were excluded. Since a respondent could cover more than one theme in his/her response, it is likely that the total frequency count exceeds the total individual responses to a question. 13. | What do you believe are DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's best accomplishments? 12 Responses I Response Frequency The quality of the projects approved Customer service Employee and customer satisfaction High quality planners with vision All permit employees in one, comfortable} [location |Any effort to make things simpler Permits Plus 2 7 Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 25 1 mown tmm IK iWhat do you believe are the primary reasons for complaints about DEVELOPMENT 14.1 SERVICES MSA? 14 Responses Response Insufficient staff for timely action Frequency Engineering too slow and cumbersome with! regulations and review Lack of consistency in decisions Work load too high causing delays in project review Development Services lacks team spirit Approval process takes too long Not getting comments back in a timely (manner (Grading inspectors are remote (Customers not getting desired answers Lack of clear roles, responsibilities, authorities within the group Improper workload distribution [Management Unnecessary grading permits required Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 26 jWhat resources (computer technology, staff, equipment, training, etc.) could improve 15.1 process timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, and customer services? 14 Responses I Response Frequency More staff to handle workload Proper/better training and cross-training for specific job descriptions Project tracking system accessible in all departments Consistent/better software platforms across all users Performance measures for each job to assist management in evaluating employees More willingness of staff to assist in other (areas when needed. Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 27 E £ CMf HOTB UC I If you were responsible for the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS (i.e., the j 16. i staff reviews) tomorrow morning, what step(s) would you take to improve operations? j 12 Responses P"Response Update/improve the zoning code and adhere to it Insist that Engineering make their comments within required time Require consistent use of forms/software Re-establish 'support teams' concept, permitting planners to plan, etc. Require improved coordination between MSAs Insist upon good teamwork Require consistent interpretation of standards Frequency 3 I i 2 2 2 2 2 1 !Make all review personnel report to same] (manager (Redesign systems to eliminate unnecessary) jand duplicative forms/provide consistency j Make on-line systems usable by all Cross-department counter review personnel [with a Development Services Manager (insist that managers manage and assist jwhen workload requires it (Develop 'norms' for all jobs [Create multi-discipline 'project teams' that (concentrate on one area of the City. I fcraft fascists ut Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 28 (When there are additional staff recommendations after an initial approval has been made, 17.1 what do you believe is the main reason for this situation? 14 Responses I Response "Fluid" projects change during approval process affecting earlier reviews Review staff missed something on first or even second review Managers reviewing late in project rather than at beginning, combined with lack of communication between departments Things overlooked due to time pressure to process applications Applicant did not properly specify project Policy has been changed To improve the project (appearance, etc.) Lack of understanding their job Lack of accountability for missing things Frequency 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 (Project issues not adequately defined at; iearlier reviews [Lack of training in properly applying) (regulations [Interference from higher up (City! |Manager/City Attorney) based on citizen; icomplaint. Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 29 JDo you believe that there are areas where the customer or "user" of the DEVELOPMENT [SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS could assist with process timelines and effectiveness? If 18.jyes, list those areas. 13 Responses I Response Provide all the information specified on the planning check list with the application Clearer definition by applicant of project (intent, use, etc.) Resubmit in a timely manner Realize that things may be done differently in Carlsbad and not take argumentative approach as to how projects are processed elsewhere Codes and regulations should be clearer to generate more complete applications. Frequency 6 4 2 1 1 (Equal treatment of all/Arguing will notj (change the outcome. If staff provided project processin (schedules with expected dates, it would} lalert applicant to subsequent steps (Customers should follow the code; do not (attempt to circumvent it. [Customer should speak to City with one {voice, not applicant, consultant, architect,! letc. crait I5S9CHIB IK Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 30 iWhat are DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MSA's greatest challenges that prevent your ! i operation from having the "most" effective and efficient DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ! 19.1 REVIEW PROCESS? i 11 Responses Response Frequency Getting enough staff and clerical support foi the workload Providing better code and policies To get everyone on same page as to what is- good customer service Required decisions from other departments cause delays for entire project Overcoming scattered resources Reducing redundancy in forms/bureaucracy Uneven workload balancing and subsequent} resentment by staff [ Inconsistent management providing no clear) vision; act in crisis mode j Need to revamp and simplify systems,! policies, procedures into coherent process I Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 31 I I cncffl BJXIflft IX 20. (What other suggestions or recommendations do you have? 12 Responses Response More staff Unfair distribution of workload: too much for proven good workers; too little for slackers More training in-house/Cross-training between departments Need to expedite the rewriting of the municipal code Understand that co-workers deserve 'customer service' treatment also Don't lower Carlsbad's standards to those of lesser cities Better compensation for staff Frequency 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 [of leadership skills [Need increased accountability for manage- jment [Management should deal more with tactical! issues, not so much on strategic issues and! [projects that dilute resources | (Better service to the public; less us-themj jmentality between City and public [Staff should stop playing the blame game (internally and work together "IPi" £ !crait rasecwts.«Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 32 D. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Finally, the respondents were asked to categorize themselves in several demographic categories. No response was required. The result of that data collection follows. [From the list below, please select the primary 'PROGRAM AREA' ini Mltmb4.rof 21.! Which yOU WOrk. | Responses Ratio Building Planning Housing & Redevelopment Code Enforcement Economic Development GIS Engineering Land Development Fire Prevention 12 T*tol 25 16% 48% 20% 4% 8% 0% 0% 4% 100% 22. | How long have you worked for the City of Carlsbad?Number of Response Responses j Ratio Less than 1 Year 1 to 5 Years 5 to 10 Years More than 10 Years 11 25 12% 28% 16% 44% 100% Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 33 "PI" 1 £crart tfsxm'i IK I How long have you worked within DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) Mufflberof 1 ResB&ns 23.! MSA? i Responses ! -P"Ratio Less than 1 Year 1 to 5 Years 5 to 10 Years More than 10 Years 22 18% 23% 23% 36% 100% 24. What is your job function?Number ofResponses ResponseRatio Non-Supervisory Staff Supervisor Manager (PROGRAM AREA) 16 Other, Please Specify T***!24 67% 25% 0% 100% E. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Shown below are the salient positive and negative findings based on analysis of both the closed- end statements and open-ended questions. Most Positive Feelings of Employees + Employees feel they have the necessary skills to do their jobs and that it is clear to them what their role is in the process of the larger task that is to be performed. + They believe that service to the public is strongly emphasized both in their "program area" and in the Development Services MSA as a whole. Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 34 + They indicated that performance evaluations have been received in a timely manner and according to schedule. 41 They believe that they have sufficient resources to complete their work, such as office space, computers, etc. 1 + They generally find that they have adequate decision-making authority in processing an application, approving a permit, or assisting a customer in another way. I ^ They indicated that they seek and receive sufficient training to effectively complete their job responsibilities. 1 + Finally, they believe the City of Carlsbad has an effective process for listening to citizen or customer concerns and that customer inquiries are responded to promptly. I Most Negative Feelings of Employees 1 + The survey respondents as a whole strongly disagree that the workload, both within their 'program area' and within the larger Development Services MSA, is equally divided among their co-workers. 1 + They disagree with the statement that the current compensation process rewards them for higher than average levels of performance. 1 ^ They do not believe that Carlsbad's codes, policies, and procedures are up to date and provide for effective and efficient delivery of services. + Further, they do not believe that the Development Services review process is an I efficient, well-run process or that given the current level of staffing within their 'program area,' that the goals and objectives of that program area are achievable. 1 + Overall, they do not believe there is an effective flow of information between management and staff within the Development Services MSA or that decision- making within the MSA is consistent. 1 + They indicated that clear, written policies and procedures are not in place to assist them in the performance of their job responsibilities. 1 + Finally, they believe that the Development Services MSA's computer tracking system does not address the project tracking needs of the operation. "Pi Appendix D—Employee Survey—page 35