San Dimas City Council
November 14, 2023

CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2023 5:30 PM
SAN DIMAS COUNCIL CHAMBER
CONFERENCE ROOM
245 EAST BONITA AVENUE
A public agenda packet is available for review on the City’s website  www.sandimasca.gov or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected].

Members of the public may observe the City Council meeting live on the City of San Dimas website at www.sandimasca.gov or on KWST Channel 3. To view from the website, select the Watch City Council Meetings blue button from the home page.

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Emmett Badar, Mayor Pro Tem Ryan A. Vienna, Councilmember John Ebiner, Councilmember Eric Nakano, Councilmember Eric Weber
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ORAL COMUNICATIONS
(Members of the audience are invited to address the City Council on any item on this agenda or not on this agenda. Public comment will not be taken during each individual agenda item, except for public hearing items. Comments on public hearing items will be heard when that item is scheduled for discussion. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the legislative body is prohibited from engaging in discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. However, your concerns may be referred to staff or set for discussion at a later date. Each speaker will be limited to speaking once for up to (3) three minutes.)
STUDY SESSION

1. Discussion and Consideration of the Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Report

ADJOURNMENT
Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 394­6216. Early notification before the meeting you wish to attend will make it possible for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102­35.104 ADA Title II].

ADJOURNMENT
Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 394­6216. Early notification before the meeting you wish to attend will make it possible for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102­35.104 ADA Title II].

Copies of documents distributed for the meeting are available in alternative formats upon request. Any writings or documents provided to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public review Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Administration Counter at City Hall and San Dimas Library. In addition, most documents are posted on the City’s website at  www.sandimasca.gov.

Posting Statement:  I declare under penalty of perjury that on November 9, 2023, I posted a true and correct copy of this agenda on the bulletin board in the Civic Center Plaza of City Hall at 245 E. Bonita Ave., San Dimas Library 145 N. Walnut Ave., San Dimas Post Office 300 E. Bonita Ave., Von’s Via Verde Shopping Center 1160 Via Verde Ave., and on the City’s website www.sandimasca.gov/agendas­minutes/ as required by law.

November 9, 2023 Debra Black
Debra Black, City Clerk

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of November 14, 2023
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Subject: Discussion and Consideration of the Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Report
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Matrix Consulting Group conducted a performance audit of the development and permitting process. This staff report presents the final audit report with 38 recommendations for improvement.

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommend that the City Council:
• Review, discuss, and accept the Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Report.

FISCAL IMPACT
Varies. The implementation of the 38 recommendations would require an investment of time, effort, and funding. At this time, there is no estimate of the cost to fully implement all the recommendations. As recommendations are programmed for implementation, City staff will present the appropriate actions and supplemental budgets for City Council consideration.

BACKGROUND
In 2017, Councilmember Ryan Vienna recommended that the City consider implementing performance auditing to complement financial audits, with the goal of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. The impetus for the recommendation stemmed from the City receiving a material finding related to inventory issues at the municipal yard.

Initially, the City budgeted funds to provide training to staff in lean practices; however, it was not until 2022 that the City proceeded to engage professional services for an independent performance audit. The audit followed auditing standards promulgated by the United States Government Accountability Office.

Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Page 2 For the Meeting of November 14, 2023
What is a Performance Audit?
According to the Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards, a performance audit provides objective analysis, findings, and conclusions to assist management and those charged with governance and oversight in improving program performance and operations, reducing costs, facilitating decision making by parties responsible for overseeing or initiating corrective action, and contributing to public accountability.

A performance audit differs from traditional financial audits. In a financial audit, the objective is to provide reasonable assurance that the financial information is fairly presented and provides confidence that a user of this information can make reliable decisions using the information. While the financial audit is a necessary and beneficial activity, it does not lead to improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of a program or activity. This is where a performance audit is better suited to the task.

There are several categories of objectives for a performance audit that enhance accountability over the audited program or activity. Specifically, the relevant categories for this performance audit include the following:
• Program effectiveness and results audit objectives: The objective is to focus on program effectiveness in achieving its goals and objectives and focus on economy and efficiency addressing the costs and resources used to achieve program results. • Internal control audit objectives: The objective looks to determine the mechanisms in place to safeguard assets, comply with provisions of applicable laws and regulations, achieve program goals and objectives, reliably report internal and external information, and ensure efficient and effective operations.
• Compliance audit objectives: The objective is to assess compliance with a specified criterion required from an authoritative source, such as a provision of law or regulations, contract requirements, or grant agreements.

Elements of all three categories listed above are represented in some form in the scope for the proposed audit of development and permitting processes.

The benefits of conducting a performance audit and implementing its recommendations are to provide strong accountability that a program or activity is functioning as intended, is doing so efficiently, and is accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined by the governing body. Some larger cities have internal audit functions, while smaller cities, such as San Dimas, contract out for the service as necessary.

City Council Authorizes Request for Proposal from Qualified Firms to Audit the Development and Permitting Processes
On March 8, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to initiate a performance audit of the development and permitting review and approval processes by developing and releasing a Request for Proposal for a qualified consulting firm. City staff began working on a Request for Proposals as well as a list of firms that could perform the audit.

City Releases Request for Proposals

Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Page 3 For the Meeting of November 14, 2023
On April 25, 2023, City staff sent out the Request for Proposals to six reputable firms known for conducting such audits or reviews. The challenge was not just to find a firm, but to ensure they would perform the audit in accordance with standards.

City Awards a Professional Services Agreement to Matrix Consulting Group On August 8, 2022, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement to Matrix Consulting Group to perform the audit of the Community Development Department’s permitting review and approval process. The 2022-23 City budget included funding for this proposal, so the agreement allocated a total cost with a contingency of $65,186, with an already approved budget appropriation of $80,000.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The City requested this study to evaluate existing services and identify opportunities to improve services. As part of this assessment, the City requested a thorough review of staffing, organizational structure, processes, and technology. The City wanted to identify operational changes that would increase efficiency and improve customer service while continuing to fulfill the City’s regulatory responsibilities.

This audit includes a detailed evaluation of current development review and related operations as well as a roadmap to enhance services. The roadmap contains the identification of organizational, process, and technology improvements and staffing needs. This study was conducted in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book), except for the completion of a peer review. Staff were provided an opportunity to review the draft and provide a response which is incorporated as an Appendix to the report.

Scope and Methodologies
The Matrix Consulting Group’s project team utilized a wide variety of data collection and analytical techniques, including the following:
• Key Issues. Developed an in-depth understanding of key issues impacting key areas of the development review and permitting processes. Conducted multiple interviews with staff representatives from each functional area. Interviews focused on determining roles and responsibilities of staff, levels of services provided, resources available to perform said services, and current or potential issues.
• Current State Assessment. The project team developed a current state assessment that captured staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, workload, and performance metrics for each operational area. This document was utilized as a base point of comparison for future analysis to demonstrate how the changes recommended differed from existing practice.
• Stakeholder Survey and Focus Groups. The project team surveyed past and present customers familiar with the development review process. The survey allowed these customers to share their thoughts on the strengths as well as opportunities for improvement of current processes. In addition, stakeholder focus group meetings were held in person in San Dimas to hear from prior development review customers to gauge their perception of the services provided by the City. The project team also interviewed members of the Planning Commission and City Council.

Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Page 4 For the Meeting of November 14, 2023
• Best Management Practices. A best management practices assessment was conducted.

This compared current department practices to industry standards. The project team focused on best management practices for management and administration, process, staffing levels, organizational structure, policies, and technology utilizations. • Recommendations. Based on the project team’s activities and initial findings, the team analyzed issues, explored alternative service delivery options, and developed recommendations for a more effective process. These recommendations extend to staffing, services, processes, and technology usage with the goal of identifying resource, operational, and organizational needs to assist the City in reaching its goals.

The report is divided into the following chapters:
• Management and Oversight
• Process Evaluation and Improvement
• Technology
• Customer Interaction and Information
• Staffing
• Appendices that include copies of the interim deliverables (current state assessment, best practice assessment, stakeholder feedback summary, and primary business process diagrams).

Each of these sections provides recommendations and insight into City development practices, processes, technology, organizational, and staffing needs to implement the recommendations.

Key Strengths and Challenges
While the focus of this audit was to identify improvement opportunities, it is important to also point out areas where the City is operating well, and to ensure that these strengths are maintained and reinforced. Some of the key strengths of the City’s development review process include:
• The planning division utilizes a cross-disciplinary Development Review Committee to obtain input on all elements of proposed planning projects. • The building permit and encroachment permit review and inspections processes are tracked electronically in Accela, as are some elements of the planning process. • The Building and Safety Division consolidates comments from all review entities before providing them back to the applicant.
• The Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division have a number of detailed handouts related to specific permitting issues available on the city’s web site.

Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Page 5 For the Meeting of November 14, 2023
• The City utilizes contract support to assist when demand is greater than staff can meet and for specialized functions that do not warrant full time internal staff.

The audit also identified a number of key challenges facing the permitting process across planning, building, and engineering. Notable issues include:

Elements of the code need be updated to provide a more predictable regulatory environment for applicants and reduce the demand for code amendments related to individual projects. • The DPRB process, in many cases, is duplicative, creating delays in the review process while providing input that could be obtained from professional staff and/or the Planning Commission. In addition, the role of the DPRB and of the City Council in decisionmaking can lead to less predictability for permit applicants than a process that utilizes primarily professional staff and appointed board members with expertise in different areas of land use.
• A lack of in-house building plans review capacity for large projects leads to delays and some inconsistencies in building plans review.
• Most applications, including site plans and architectural drawings, are submitted on paper and need to be physically routed. Other communities have found significant efficiencies by embracing electronic intake, routing, mark-up, and approval of plans for planning applications, building permit applications, and engineering applications. It should be noted that the City is in the initial process of updating the permitting software system to allow for digital application submittal and review processes. 38 Recommendations for Improvement
Based on the project team’s assessment and analysis, there are several recommendations for each topic covered in this assessment. These are discussed in detail throughout the report (Attachment 1).

ALTERNATIVES
The report is an audit of the applicable activity. The City Council may consider not implementing or delaying implementation of recommendations for a variety of reasons. For example, Recommendation #4 involves a significant investment of resources and cost that will run in the millions. Further, organizational considerations, such as impact on current operations, may also influence how to best implement recommendations. City staff intend to weigh cost, resource investment, and organizational impacts when considering the approach to take when implementing recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Final Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Page 6 For the Meeting of November 14, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Constantin
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Final Performance Audit

2. Study Session Presentation

Development Process Performance Audit
Findings and Recommendations Report

SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA

FINAL REPORT
October 24, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1

2. Management and Oversight 8

3. Process Evaluation and Improvements 18

4. Technology 27

5. Customer Interaction and Information 32

6. Staffing 40
City Response Letter 46
Appendix A: Current State Assessment 47
Appendix B: Stakeholder Survey / Focus Group Results 64 Appendix C: Best Practice Assessment 86
Appendix D: Process Diagrams 98

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 1

1. Project Introduction and Executive Summary
Matrix Consulting Group was retained by the City of San Dimas to conduct a performance audit of the City’s development and permitting review and approval processes. This performance audit included the Community Development Department’s current and longrange planning and building and safety divisions and the Public Works department’s engineering operations as they relate to permitting and private project approvals.

The City requested this study to evaluate existing services and identify opportunities to improve services. As part of this assessment, the City requested a thorough review of staffing, organizational structure, processes, and technology. The City wanted to identify operational changes that would increase efficiency and improve customer service while continuing to fulfill the City’s regulatory responsibilities.

This audit includes a detailed evaluation of current development review and related operations as well as a roadmap to enhance services. The roadmap contains the identification of organizational, process, and technology improvements and staffing needs.

This study was conducted in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book), with the exception of the completion of a peer review. This report was initially provided in draft form to the City Manager and City staff in June 2023. Staff was provided an opportunity to review the draft report and provided a response on October 24 and included at the end of the report on page 47.

1. Study Scope and Methodologies
The Matrix Consulting Group’s project team utilized a wide variety of data collection and analytical techniques, including the following:
• Key Issues. Developed an in-depth understanding of key issues impacting key areas of the development review and permitting processes. Conducted multiple interviews with staff representatives from each functional area. Interviews focused on determining roles and responsibilities of staff, levels of services provided, resources available to perform said services, and current or potential issues.
• Current State Assessment. The project team developed a current state assessment that captured staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, workload, and performance metrics for each operational area. This document was utilized as a base point of comparison for future analysis to demonstrate how the changes recommended differed from existing practice.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 2
• Stakeholder Survey and Focus Groups. The project team surveyed past and present customers familiar with the development review process. The survey allowed these customers to share their thoughts on the strengths as well as opportunities for improvement of current processes. In addition, stakeholder focus group meetings were held in person in San Dimas to hear from prior development review customers to gauge their perception of the services provided by the City. The project team also interviewed members of the Planning Commission and City Council.
• Best Management Practices. A best management practices assessment was conducted. This compared current department practices to industry standards.

The project team focused on best management practices for management and administration, process, staffing levels, organizational structure, policies, and technology utilizations.
• Recommendations. Based on the project team’s activities and initial findings, the team analyzed issues, explore alternative service delivery options, and developed recommendations for a more effective process. These recommendations extend to staffing, services, processes, and technology usage with the goal of identifying resource, operational, and organizational needs to assist the City in reaching its goals.

The report is divided into the following chapters:
• Management and Oversight
• Process Evaluation and Improvement
• Technology
• Customer Interaction and Information
• Staffing
• Appendices that include copies of the interim deliverables (current state assessment, best practice assessment, stakeholder feedback summary, and primary business process diagrams).

Each of these sections provide recommendations and insight into City development practices, processes, technology, organizational, and staffing needs to implement the recommendations.

3. Key Strengths and Challenges of the Organization
While the focus of this audit was to identify improvement opportunities, it is important to also point out areas where the organization is operating well, and to ensure that these are

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 3
strengths are maintained and reinforced. Some of the key strengths of the City’s development review process include:
• The planning division utilizes a cross-disciplinary Development Review Committee to obtain input on all elements of proposed planning projects. • The building permit and encroachment permit review and inspections processes are tracked electronically in Accela, as are some elements of the planning process. • The Building and Safety Division consolidates comments from all review entities before providing them back to the applicant.
• The Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division have a number of detailed handouts related to specific permitting issues available on the city’s web site.
• The City utilizes contract support to assist when demand is greater than staff can meet and for specialized functions that do not warrant full time internal staff.

The audit also identified a number of key challenges facing the permitting process across planning, building, and engineering. Notable issues include:
• Elements of the code need be updated to provide a more predictable regulatory environment for applicants and reduce the demand for code amendments related to individual projects.
• The DPRB process, in many cases, is duplicative, creating delays in the review process while providing input that could be obtained from professional staff and / or the Planning Commission. In addition, the role of the DPRB and of the City Council in decision-making can lead to less predictability for permit applicants than a process that utilizes primarily professional staff and appointed board members with expertise in different areas of land use.
• A lack of in-house building plans review capacity for large projects leads to delays and some inconsistencies in building plans review.
• Most applications, including site plans and architectural drawings, are submitted on paper and need to be physically routed. Other communities have found significant efficiencies by embracing electronic intake, routing, mark-up, and approval of plans for planning applications, building permit applications, and engineering applications. It should be noted that the City is in the initial process of updating the permitting software system to allow for digital application submittal and review processes.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 4

4. Summary of Recommendations
Based on the project team’s assessment and analysis, there are several recommendations for each topic covered in this assessment. These are discussed in detail throughout this report and summarized in the table below. Priorities are provided with each recommendation and range from High (most significant impact to the organization) to low.
# Recommendation Prioritization
Management and Oversight
1 Re-allocate DPRB decision authority to either the Director/Planning staff or to the Planning Commission. Largely technical decisions should be delegated to staff, with more complex decisions assigned to the Planning Commission.

High
2 Eliminate the use of a Study Session for early City Council feedback on potential projects. Instead, conceptual issues should be discussed using a preapplication process and for more complex project a conceptual review at the Planning Commission.

High
3 Delegate some decisions currently made by the City Council to the Planning Commission – in particular, subdivisions and Scenic Highway Overlay Zone.

High
4 Prioritize updating of the city’s zoning code, area plans and general plan and provide adequate resources to ensure that this can be done in a timely manner.

High
5 Eliminate publicly initiated code amendments and instead incorporate public feedback and requests related to the code into the process of staff-initiated code amendments.

Medium
6 Include design guidelines in updated code while allowing staff the authority to review design elements.

High
7 Undertake a project to update all engineering and infrastructure design requirements that are consistent with current conditions and can be communicated clearly to applicants.

High
8 Develop a standardized staff report that incorporates all necessary feedback but eliminates redundant sections and provides clear and concise analysis.

Medium
9 Create and implement a unifying mission for all development and permitting functions and seek buy-in to this mission from elected officials and City management.

High

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 5
# Recommendation Prioritization
10 Establish target timeline for all application types with both internal and external deadlines.

Medium
11 As an interim measure until tracking can be automated in the permitting software, track progress against target timelines using a spreadsheet or similar software application. There should be a single spreadsheet on a shared drive that provides data for all Planning, DPW, and Building.

Medium
12 As part of broader implementation of the city’s permitting software, ensure that the system produces regular reports that can measure performance against targets for all application and permit types.

Medium
Process Evaluation and Improvements
13 Standardized the pre-application process to require a submittal of basic information about the project in advance of the meeting, require advanced review of this information by staff, include more staff in the meeting, and provide written comments after the meeting is concluded.

High
14 Institute a specific policy that feedback to the applicant from staff review / DRC meetings should be comprehensive to ensure that additional issues do not arise that could have been identified upon first review.

High
15 Planning Commission and City Council members should seek to provide feedback and make decisions that are consistent with the city code and with the analysis conducted by staff so that applicants are not surprised by new considerations that they would not have been able to predict.

High
16 Institute a specific policy that feedback to the applicant from both Building and Encroachment permit applications should be comprehensive to ensure that additional issues do not arise that could have been identified upon first review.

Medium
17 Within the Building division, a plans reviewer should be charged with reviewing and consolidating comments from all agencies to ensure that comments are consistent with each other.

Medium
18 For all application types, managers should track the number of times a project is resubmitted.

Medium
19 Managers should put into place policies to oversee and reduce revision cycles for all application types. This may include an additional review fee for third and subsequent resubmittals.

Medium
20 The intake and processing of parcel maps should be conducted by a single department.

Low

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 6
# Recommendation Prioritization
21 Formalize the stop work order process, set standardized follow-up activities, and automate the re-inspection process.

Medium
Technology
22 Expand the use of Accela to include electronic means of: accepting plans; routing them to the appropriate reviewers; recording comments and edits from reviewers; and transmitting comments to the applicant for Planning, Encroachment, and Building permits.

High
23 Obtain digital plan review licenses for all reviewers and link to Accela to allow for easier permit tracking and review/mark up.

High
24 Ensure that staff have the hardware needed to review and mark up plans on a screen or using an electronic plan table.

High
25 Ensure all land use records are indexed by property, not by application type.

Medium
26 Utilize the permitting software system as a database to store (or link) historic development files/records with the appropriate address or parcel identifiers.

Medium
Customer Information and Interaction
27 Prepare a comprehensive development handbook that provides clear, user-friendly information on each stage of the development process.

Given staffing and workload considerations, it is recommended that this be resourced outside of the department, either through a contract or by hiring a communications expert on a contracted basis.

Medium
28 Redesign the City’s web site to include an online one stop shop that includes an overview of the development process and links to the various review discipline webpage.

Medium
29 Expand the type of information regarding about the development process and improve consistency in the type and depth of information provided on each discipline’s respective webpage.

Medium
30 Implement an annual customer service survey, the results of which should be used to examine strengths and weaknesses in the permitting processes.

Low
31 Once available, include reports showing the City’s plan review and inspection performance on the web site.

Medium
32 Include a decision-making matrix on the City’s development webpage. High

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 7
# Recommendation Prioritization
Staffing
33 The Planning Division should retain existing staffing levels but focus more on addressing the city’s outdated codes and standards and on enhancing customer communications.

High
34 Convert the contract plans examiner to an in-house position; the current Inspector level of 2 is appropriate.

High
35 Maintain the current allocation of staffing for the development review staff in Public Works.

High
36 Conduct an assessment of Public Works functions to develop an understanding of all their workload and corresponding staffing needs.

Medium
37 Revise the job descriptions of the administrative staff in Planning, Building, and Engineering to that of Permit Tech and cross train the three positions.

Medium
38 Add a temporary technology implementation manager position to spearhead the transition from paper to electronic processes.

High
The following chapters provide the details of the analysis and findings that support each of the recommendations.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 8

2. Management and Oversight
San Dimas’s development-related operations are predominantly centered in the Community Development (Building and Planning) and Public Works departments. Other departments and agencies are also involved in some elements of plan review, inspections, and certificate of occupancy issuance.

The City has a number of Boards and Commissions currently involved in the approval process, including:
• Development Plan Review Board consisting of seven members including representatives from the, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, City Manager, Director of Development Services, Director of Public Works, and one member of the general public. This board reviews new single family and multifamily residences, new office, commercial, institutional, public, industrial, or other buildings, sign programs, additions and modifications to a historic structure, demolition of historic buildings.
• Planning Commission decides conditional use permits and variances and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding other land use applications. • City Council responsible for processing and deciding general plan amendments, specific plan(s) and amendments, text amendments, subdivisions, and specific plans.

Depending on the scope of a project, hearings may be required from one, two, or all three of the above entities.

1. The role of the DPRB and an unusually heavy involvement of elected officials in land use decisions contributes to delays, inconsistencies and unpredictability in the development review process.

San Dimas’s use of a Development Plan Review Board as an entity reviewing items that would otherwise be reviewed administratively (by staff) or as an interim review step for projects going to the Planning Commission and/or City Council is not a typical or common practice. Initially the DPRB was established to provide broader input when there were concerns that decisions by Community Development Director alone did not reflect the broader priorities of the city. However, the DPRB, as now operating, poses a number of challenges:
• The timeline involved for projects is significantly increased, as DPRB hearings require public notice periods. Some projects require hearings (and associated

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 9
public notice periods) with three different entities – DPRB, Planning Commission, and City Council. This process is extending the process by a minimum of two additional weeks and up to four weeks.
• Some decisions that would more typically be allowed at the staff or director level instead require DPRB approval, adding to the required timeline for projects and introducing a level of unpredictability to the process. • DPRB decisions are not always tied back to specific provisions of the zoning code or city plans, and as a result may be seen as arbitrary by applicants. • The DPRB hearing process can be duplicative with the Planning Commission hearing process.
• The DPRB requires additional staff work to create and publish public notices, potentially requiring development of staff reports and presentations, and other work products, that would not typically be associated with an administrative approval.

The DPRB process is required for projects that in most communities can be approved administratively, including new single-family residences, smaller new commercial projects, and tree removal. A review of DPRB agendas and minutes over the past 12 months identified that the majority of projects presented to the board were for one and two-family homes that met existing zoning requirements; tree removals; and sign permits or sign program amendments.

Rather than bringing these projects to DPRB, a more efficient approach would be to ensure clear guidelines for these approvals and allow approval by the Director. More complex projects that currently require DPRB approval and Planning Commission review or approval should be sent directly to the Planning Commission after staff review, eliminating the additional step of DPRB review.

An additional barrier to consistency and predictability is that developers seeking to test the political support for a project may find that this support is not consistent over time or as a project goes through the various required public hearings. In general, planning decisions should be based on sound planning principles and analysis by planning professionals.

Currently, there are several opportunities for political considerations to inject uncertainty and inconsistency into the permitting process.

First, some projects concepts are brought to the City Council early in the form of study sessions. Developers obtain early feedback from the Council on whether a project has

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 10
their support. However, once the project has gone through staff review, DPRB, Planning Commission, and is presented to City Council, the decision-makers may have changed or the review process may have identified new issues of concern. As a result, a process aimed at improving predictability has the potential to do the opposite – provide developers with a sense of confidence in a project that ultimately may get voted down.

A relatively common alternative approach is to combine a more robust preapplication process (discussed in the next section) with a “conceptual review” process that goes to the Planning Commission for initial feedback. While no formal decisions are made with a conceptual review, this does allow the applicant to “test the waters” in terms of the feasibility of a project, without going to the expense of developing a complete and detailed application that may take many months to get through.

The DPRB and City Council include members with little expertise in planning and who may not recognize the importance of consistency and predictability in their decisions, and instead may make decisions on a case-by-case basis without tying them back to planning principles and the city’s code. Department staff also pointed to frequent delays in decision-making when projects were continued several times by various review authorities without a decision being made. Several project examples by stakeholders and City Councilmembers were provided that indicated multiple continuance of application hearings at City Council and ultimate denial of an application. Applications that go to City Council should be limited to legislative items that require City Council approval such as rezoning, specific plans, small area plans, etc. Planning Commission should have ultimate say with regard to other application types that are non-legislative but focus on ensuring compliance with development standards.

Recommendation #1: Re-allocate DPRB decision authority to either the Director/Planning staff or to the Planning Commission. Largely technical decisions should be delegated to staff with more complex decisions assigned to the Planning Commission.

Recommendation #2: Eliminate the use of a Study Session for early City Council feedback on potential projects. Instead, conceptual issues should be discussed using a preapplication process and for more complex projects a conceptual review at the Planning Commission.

Recommendation #3: Delegate some decisions currently made by the City Council to the Planning Commission – in particular, subdivisions and Scenic Highway Overlay Zone.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 11

2. Zoning ordinances and area plans are out of date and out of alignment with prevailing development standards and practices, leading to over-reliance on code amendments and lack of predictable outcomes for developers.

Another major factor behind the lack of predictability of the land use approval process is the fact that the city’s code, area plans, and general plan are out of date. The zoning code has not been comprehensively updated in over 20 years and the General Plan update was adopted in September 1991. As a result, many development plans come with requests for general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, and text amendments, which are ultimately decided by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. Code amendments can be initiated by the public, which is a practice that can lead to even greater inconsistency in the code. While public input regarding areas of the code that should be changed is valuable, to ensure consistency this input should be used as part of the process of staff-initiated code revisions, not designed to accommodate a specific project.

Community Development managers have already identified reviewing and updating the code as a high priority and some of this work is underway, including the creation of a Downtown Specific Plan. It is important that city management and elected officials also recognize the importance of this work in creating a more consistent and predictable process, as well as to ensuring that development in San Dimas is appropriate.

The current code does not provide clear guidance on design and aesthetic issues related to projects, and an advantage cited by some elected officials of the DPRB is the input that DPRB provided in terms of design. Where design and aesthetics are important, greater consistency would be achieved by adopting design guidelines against which staff could analyze potential projects.

Currently some of these design guidelines considered by the DPRB are provided in the municipal code under 18.12.060 – Findings – Standard of Review. This section should be revised so that staff can be responsible for this review.

Supporting the conclusion that the city’s code is contributing to problems with compliance and efficient processing of applications is the stakeholder survey undertaken for this project. In that survey, over 35% of respondents disagreed with the statement “The City’s development code/ordinance is easy to understand.”

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 12

PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neutral /
NA Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
16 The City's development
code/ordinance is easy to
understand.

28.6% 14.3% 21.4% 17.9% 17.9%
In terms of engineering and Public Works input into applications, the department uses the 2009 edition of the “Greenbook” standard specifications for public works construction. However, the department does not produce clear development standards for San Dimas related to less technical issues, such as streetscapes and sidewalk design.

The standards that do exist are outdated, and the department has only updated standards based on new requirements at the state level (for example, related to stormwater and low impact development).

Staff in both Planning and Engineering pointed to the need for, in addition to updated development code, more modern and comprehensive design standards for public infrastructure that could be clearly understood and interpreted by applicants and that would provide a consistent standard against which to review plans.

Stakeholder surveys support this conclusion, with a fully 40% of applicants stating that they “strongly disagree” that the city’s development standards are easy to understand.

ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral / NA Disagree Strongly Disagree
11 The City's development
standards are easy to
understand.

10.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0%
Recommendation #4: Prioritize updating of the city’s zoning code, area plans and general plan and provide adequate resources to ensure that this can be done in a timely manner.

Recommendation #5: Eliminate publicly initiated code amendments and instead incorporate public feedback and requests related to the code into the process of staffinitiated code amendments.

Recommendation #6: Include design guidelines in the updated code and delegate authority to staff to review design elements.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 13
Recommendation #7: Undertake a project to update all engineering and infrastructure design requirements that are consistent with current conditions and can be communicated clearly to applicants.

3. Staff reports should continue to be simplified and standardized.

Over the past few years, the staff reports prepared in support of Planning applications that go before Planning Commission and/or City Council have been shorter than similar reports over the previous decade. Recent changes to the staff reports have resulted in a more streamlined report that presents background information, environmental analysis, and other relevant insight, concerns, and possible conditions in a concise manner.

Reports have been less redundant.

Planning staff should continue to work towards creating more concise staff reports that provide the necessary information for Planning Commission and City Council to make a well informed decision. Secondarily, staff should use their presentation to augment the information not in staff report and to focus on the primary issues of the application and community concerns.

As part of the streamlined approach, a staff report template should be created separately for Planning Commission and City Council. A standardized approach will provide greater consistency in the report and focus on the key points of the document.

Recommendation #8: Develop a standardized staff report that incorporates all necessary feedback but eliminates redundant sections and provides clear and concise analysis.

4. All development review entities should be operating under a single mission.

A key element of effective and efficient development review is a common sense of mission across all review disciplines, whether they are in one department or multiple departments. Creating and communicating such a mission is always challenging within the development review profession because the processes involved cross a number of complex technical areas, aimed at ensuring appropriate development, protecting the environment, maintaining strong infrastructure, and ensuring public safety. The process also can be seen to have multiple “customers” – current and future residents of the city, elected and appointed officials, developers, builders, residents, and others.

Interviews with staff in San Dimas and feedback from employees indicate that staff believe strongly in the mission of their specific technical specialty (for example, ensuring appropriate land uses, protecting the built environment, and ensuring that connections with city infrastructure are of appropriate quality.).

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 14
Management should work with development staff across departments to help ensure that there is an overarching sense of purpose that includes both their specific technical area (e.g., appropriate land use, environmental protection, fire safety, structural integrity) and their role in ensuring that the overall development review process works well. It is also important that this message – the need for both quality and customer service, and the fact that these need not be mutually exclusive – be echoed at the highest levels of the City.

Below is a sample mission statement that was adopted in another community and which served to effectively communicate a unified inter-departmental sense of mission:

Model Development Services Mission
“The mission of the Development Services Department (DSD) is to facilitate appropriate and timely development; deliver a process that is predictable, efficient and understandable to the people who use it; act as a single organization – “One City” – in the delivery of development services; and to protect the quality of public and private infrastructure, the safety and integrity of the built and natural environment, and the livability of the city.” Source: Bellevue, Washington
Important to note in the above sample mission statement is the term “one-city.” Permit applicants know that there are different experts reviewing different elements of their application, but in the end, most assume that each reviewer is speaking for the City overall. Employees should be aware that while they may focus on a specific technical area, the City should speak with one consistent voice when preparing reports, reviewing and commenting on plans, and inspecting projects. If there are conflicts in the comments between two disciplines (for example, landscaping and traffic), it is the City’s job to reconcile these, not the applicant’s responsibility nor the decision makers’ such as the Planning Commission. A unified mission is important for all staff, especially those who are involved in the development process as a secondary function to their primary duties.

Recommendation #9: Create and implement a unifying mission for all development and permitting functions and seek buy-in to this mission from elected officials and City management.

5. Performance targets and reports should be implemented.

In order to properly oversee the permitting process across departments, it is critical that target timelines for reviews be established, enforced across departments, and that they are tracked centrally. Currently the approach to establishing deadlines is inconsistent across departments and divisions and is summarized in the following sections:

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 15
Planning
The Planning Division, in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act, deem an application complete or incomplete within 30 days of submittal. Applicants are told that a hearing is usually scheduled within 3 to 4 weeks after an application is deemed complete and ready for public hearing.

It is both common and good practice for Planning organizations to have internal timelines and to track and report on them regularly. These timelines should be tracked and reported internally and where appropriate shared with the public.

Engineering
Public Works and the Engineering Division have established deadlines for initial reviews and re-reviews: 20 business day turnaround for the first review, 15-day turnaround for the first resubmittal, and 10 for the 2nd resubmittal. The department does not produce any consistent reports on whether these timelines are met, but the staff member who processes the reviews indicated that they typically are met.

Building
Currently, the Building division does follow the model of inter- and intra-departmental review timelines, with targets for initial and re-review of permit applications that set expectations not only for Building reviewers but also for others who are required to review Building applications. Timelines for initial reviews vary from 30 working days for a new commercial or industrial building to 3 working days for a residential solar project.

However, actual timelines for completeness of first and subsequent reviews are not tracked.

Below is a template for timelines that would follow a best practices model.

Adopted Timeline and Performance Reporting Example
Reviewed by:

Completeness
Review: Initial Review Re-Review
Planning Applications
Administrative /
Director’s Approval
Planning 5 days 10 days 5 days
Multi-Family
Residential
Planning
DPW
Building
10 days Internal: 30 days 20 days
Application
Located in Specific
Plan Area
Planning
DPW
Building
Fire
5 days 20 days 10 days

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 16
Reviewed by:

Completeness
Review: Initial Review Re-Review
Energy Services
Conditional Use
Application /
Variance
Planning 10 days 30 days 30 days
Building Application
Single Family New
Construction
Building
Planning
2 days 15 days 10 days
Single Family
Accessory
Structure
Building
Planning
1 day 15 days 10 days
Commercial New
Construction
Building
Planning
DPW / Engineering
5 days 25 days 10 days
Tenant
Improvement
Building
Planning
Business Licensing
2 days 15 days 10 days
Ideally, the City’s permit tracking software should include the ability to automatically produce reports that track actual performance against targets. However, this feature is beyond the capabilities of the current system as currently deployed, and focusing on performance is a high priority for the City. The Building division currently uses a spreadsheet for tracking these applications, although managers do not systematically prepare performance reports based on the material in the spreadsheet.

For Planning applications, a spreadsheet entry should also be created at the time of permit submittal, and dates entered for key milestones, such as comments received by each functional reviewer, comment letter provided, resubmittal received, etc. unless the software system and work processes can be quickly modified to allow this information to be captured.

Performance should be reviewed monthly by managers of each function, and regularly by the oversight committee. Based on actual versus target timelines managers should examine options to address any shortfalls. Options include:
• Streamlining processes or simplifying reviews,
• Adding resources (staff or contracted), or
• Changing the performance expectations if unrealistic.

These modifications will help the City track and monitor performance of the development process and proactively identify resource needs.

Recommendation #10: Establish target timeline for all application types with both internal and external deadlines.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 17
Recommendation #11: As an interim measure until tracking can be automated in the permitting software, track progress against target timelines using a spreadsheet or similar software application. There should be a single spreadsheet on a shared drive that provides data for all Planning, DPW, and Building.

Recommendation #12: As part of broader implementation of the city’s permitting software, ensure that the system produces regular reports that can measure performance against targets for all application and permit types.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 18

3. Process Evaluation and Improvements
This chapter evaluates the City’s current development review, permitting, and inspection practices and identifies specific improvement opportunities.

Model Approach
The permitting process should be designed in a way that allows for a predictable, consistent approach with the city speaking in a single voice even when reflecting input from a number of different review disciplines (e.g., building, traffic, utilities, stormwater, planning). A “best practice” approach, outlined below, should generally be followed by all divisions, although the complexity may be greater (for example, if public hearings are involved) or less (for example, a permit that requires only one reviewer).

For each permit category, one department or division should act as a single point of contact to ensure that critical issues across the organization are addressed. For example, Planning consolidates input from Public Works, Building, and outside agencies and ensures that approvals and conditions of approval reflect this input. Building similarly is responsible for ensuring that zoning, engineering and other requirements are addressed before the building permit is issued. Any conflicts between comments or perspectives are resolved before comments are provided to applicants so that applicants do not receive conflicting comments.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 19
Current Approach
Pre-Application
San Dimas’s pre-application process is recommended but not required for Planning applications that involve large-scale projects or a new land use that may raise concerns.

For new developments, applicants are asked to submit preliminary architectural plans; for a new use they are asked to provide a description of the business and expected operations. The pre-application materials are distributed to municipal internal and contract staff with potential jurisdiction related to the project. These staff are asked to provide comments either by marking up plans or written letter. The comments are then provided back to the applicant. In some cases, the planner and potential applicant meet in person; in these cases, the planner conveys information from other reviewing agencies.

Planning Application Management
As noted earlier, applications that require entitlement or planning review may involve Director’s Review, DPRB, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. The internal processes for staff review and preparation of a staff report are largely the same for all application types.

Once submitted, applications go through a completeness review, and then are distributed to other departments and divisions for review. The City has a DRC (Development Review Committee) that includes all pertinent staff from Community Development and Public Works, including the contract City Engineer, as well as the Assistant City Manager, Parks and Recreation, and Sheriff’s representative if necessary.

If DRC members conclude that the project needs to be revised, they will send a letter to the applicant providing 90 days to re-submit. If the DRC members determine that the project meets necessary criteria, conclusions from the DRC are used to develop a staff report and recommended conditions of approval and, if a public meeting is required, the project moves forward to the DPRB, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. In some cases, the project will go through multiple review cycles with staff before it is deemed ready to move forward to a public hearing or receives administrative (Director’s Review) approval.

Public Works Permits
Public Works is a reviewer on Planning and Building applications, and also issues Encroachment Permits, which vary widely in complexity from those that can be issued administratively, without review the same day, to permits requiring review by multiple entities requiring days or weeks to issue.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 20
With Encroachment Permits, the applicant may submit electronically or by paper and the lead reviewer will route the plans to anyone who may have jurisdiction. The department assembles feedback and provides a set of consolidated comments to applicants, who resubmit based on the comments provided.

Planning and building applications are also sent to Public Works for their review. These applications are logged into an Excel spreadsheet and then routed to staff. Public Work review disciplines provide comments via email, and comments are sent back to the lead engineer responsible for the project. The Public Works director and the Engineer both participate in Planning’s DRC meetings and provide feedback in that setting as well.

Building Permits
The Building permitting process is coordinated by the building Permit Technician, who receives applications, checks them for completeness, and then routes them to Planning, Public Works, and other agencies as needed, as well as to the building plans reviewer.

Plans are on paper and documents must be date stamped before being manually routed.

San Dimas contracts out most building plans review, although building inspectors do review some small and quick turnaround permit types.

Parcel Maps
Currently the process for approval of final maps involves both Community Development and Public Works – with intake occurring at Community Development, but the maps being issued by Public Works. Both the Tentative and Final maps are reviewed and approved by the City Council.

Analysis and Recommendations

1. The Preapplication process should be modified to increase effectiveness.

The approach communities use on pre-applications meetings varies widely in terms of:
• The level of information required from the applicant, • Whether there is a fee or not for the meeting,
• Whether the meeting is required, strongly urged, or suggested (and if so, for what types of application),
• The level of feedback provided by municipal staff during and after the meeting, and
• Whether written comments are provided.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 21
The model used by San Dimas’s Planning division has some strengths which should be maintained.
• The City does not require detailed, fully engineered drawings at the pre-application phase but instead requires a preliminary site plan which is adequate to allow staff to provide initial feedback and is not costly for the applicant to prepare. • All potential reviewers, across multiple agencies, are asked to review the plans. • Documentation from the applicant may be submitted electronically and is provided ahead of time for staff review.

However, the process can be improved to be more efficient for staff and meaningful for applicants. Below is a list of recommended improvements. • Submittal form should be used for all pre-application meeting requests. The form should be available online and include an outline of the preapplication process including what materials are required or encouraged to be submitted. • Upon receipt of a request, a meeting should be scheduled with the potential applicant and representatives from appropriate review disciplines. This meeting should be held within one to two weeks of receiving the request. (Currently, a meeting is not always held, and it is typically only with a planner.) • Reviewers should be required to conduct a brief review of the plans prior to the pre-application meeting in order to maximize the quality of the feedback that they can provide.
• Upon conclusion of the pre-application meeting, each reviewer should provide basic comments to the planner within one business day.
• Comments should be consolidated into a single communication (electronic through software system or by e-mail) to the applicant that lists basic feedback on any major issues identified by the project. Standard requirements should be shared with the applicant at this time as well.

While this approach may appear more onerous than San Dimas’s current approach, the more formal structure of this process reduces the likelihood of issues arising later in a project that could have been identified before the application was submitted.

Recommendation #13: Standardized the pre-application process to require a submittal of basic information about the project in advance of the meeting, require advanced review of this information by staff, include more staff in the meeting, and provide written comments after the meeting is concluded.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 22

2. The Planning process, including the use of a Development Review Committee, is generally consistent with Best Practice, but transparency and consistency could be improved.

A Development Review Committee consisting of all reviewers provides an opportunity to ensure that input from all reviewers and disciplines is received and processed, that potential conflicts between comments are resolved, and that in communicating to applicants the City is speaking with one voice.

Below are successful elements of an effective DRC process:
• One individual manages the DRC agenda, including invitations. Invitations are sent to all entities who are part of the plan review.
• Reviewers should send their comments to the project manager (or attach to the application in the permitting system when applicable) prior to the DRC meeting.

They must indicate in writing if they have no comments, and if they do have comments, must either attend the meeting or delegate attendance to someone else to ensure their issues are discussed.
• The agenda should be organized from most complex projects to least complex projects. That allows reviewers who are not involved in simple projects to only participate in the portion of the meeting relevant to them. • At the conclusion of the meeting, the application project manager prepares a consolidated set of comments that addresses all outstanding comments, ensuring that none contradict each other.

San Dimas’ process includes most of these elements. That said, in the survey a number of stakeholders were concerned about a lack of consistency and transparency in the reviews their projects received.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral / NA Disagree Strongly Disagree
13 Comments received from different
review disciplines were consistent
with one another.

29.6% 14.8% 25.9% 7.4% 22.2%
14 After resubmittal(s), reviewers
focused on ensuring that comments
were addressed. New issues were not
identified that should have been
identified in the initial review.

29.6% 14.8% 11.1% 14.8% 29.6%
In the stakeholder focus groups, review of application materials / staff reports, and interviews with Planning Commissioners and City Councilors it was noted that Planning

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 23
Commission and City Council have made application decisions that were not consistent with the adopted code or general plan. To help ensure a more consistent and predictable development process, it is important that decision makers (staff, appointed, and elected officials) make decisions that are consistent with the adopted code. All application decisions should align with the current ordinances and standards adopted by the City.

Recommendation #14: Institute a specific policy that feedback to the applicant from staff review / DRC meetings should be comprehensive to ensure that additional issues do not arise that could have been identified upon first review.

Recommendation #15: Planning Commission and City Council members should seek to provide feedback and make decisions that are consistent with the city code and with the analysis conducted by staff so that applicants are not surprised by new considerations that they would not have been able to predict.

3. The Building Plans and Encroachment processes are generally consistent with Best Practice as designed but can be improved.

San Dimas’s Building and Encroachment processes, as documented, follow the best practices model in most ways, and many of the issues identified by this analysis and by stakeholders are more related to technology and heavy reliance on paper than on the process itself.

For Building reviews, the Building Permit Tech is responsible for intake, completeness check, routing of plans, and transmitting comments to the applicant. There is no one in the Building division with the role of reviewing comments from different entities (e.g., planning, engineering, and the building plans reviewer) and ensuring that they are consistent with each other. As a result, the applicant can end up having to play that role of reconciling conflicts. In addition, there does not appear to be a set standard for how comments are provided (e.g., including the code citation with the comment).

Closer oversight of the comments process and of comments provided back to applicants can help avoid confusion and improve consistency amongst reviewers and from one application to the next.

The majority of building plans review is contracted out. This can also lead to inconsistencies in findings and feedback by the Building division and limits the ability of the different divisions and departments to speak with one voice on behalf of the city.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 24

BUILDING APPLICATIONS
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral / NA Disagree Strongly Disagree
9 Comments and corrections
received on my application were
clearly based on the city's building
code or other clear legal
standards.

23.1% 19.2% 15.4% 23.1% 19.2%
10 After resubmittal(s), reviewers
focused on ensuring that
comments were addressed. New
issues were not identified that
should have been identified in the
initial review.

23.1% 15.4% 34.6% 11.5% 15.4%
Modifications are needed to the current policies and approaches to better ensure that initial reviews are comprehensive and complete. Second, a policy should be developed that outlines the approach when issues arise on resubmittal reviews that should have been caught on the first review, that they are addressed appropriately. As part of this policy, it would require that managers audit applications consistently and ensure that both staff and contract reviewers are conducting quality reviews on first and resubmittals. These modifications will help to ensure consistent and quality reviews are completed for the initial and subsequent reviews for each application and reduce the potential for “late hits” in the review process.

Recommendation #16: Institute a specific policy that feedback to the applicant from both Building and Encroachment permit applications should be comprehensive to ensure that additional issues do not arise that could have been identified upon first review.

Recommendation #17: Within the Building division, a plans reviewer should be charged with reviewing and consolidating comments from all agencies to ensure that comments are consistent with each other.

4. Managers should track the number of “revision cycles” associated with all permit types, and seek to limit revisions to one or two at the most.

The current data available on San Dimas Planning, Encroachment, and Building permits does not allow for an analysis of how many times an application is re-submitted before receiving approval. The need to better track this is noted in the previous chapter. In all cases, the goal should be to limit resubmittals by ensuring that the first round of comments is comprehensive and that comments provided include enough information for the applicant to address the issue.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 25
In some cases, the resubmittals are due to factors beyond the city’s control. For example, a change related to stormwater may then lead to other changes that require comment.

Or, the applicant may not have submitted enough detail initially for a review to be complete. Finally, some applicants re-submit without addressing all comments.

In order to determine whether there is an issue with resubmittals, and what the source of this issue is, the information needs to be tracked and examined by managers. They can then institute policies to prevent reoccurrence of resubmittals where these were not necessary:
• When comments and corrections are being sent to the applicant for the second time, a manager should review the comments to see if the issues identified in the second review stem from an incomplete initial review or from another issue. • If an applicant consistently resubmits plans without addressing comments, require a meeting with all reviewers (in person or virtual) to discuss before moving forward with the review. For example, this requirement may be relevant after the third total submission.
• Develop an approach so managers can track the reasons for resubmittals proactively and address frequently reoccurring issues.

Recommendation #18: For all application types, managers should track the number of times a project is resubmitted.

Recommendation #19: Managers should put into place policies to oversee and reduce revision cycles for all application types. This may include an additional review fee for third and subsequent resubmittals.

5. The Parcel Map Process should be modified.

As mentioned previously, parcel maps (tentative and final maps) are issued by Public Works but are submitted to Community Development (tentative applications) and to Public Works (final map). This approach aligns with best practice as the department who is responsible for issuing the final approval is the department who intakes the application.

Tentative and final maps are unique because they are two distinct steps for what is generally a continuous process for final map approval. To reduce the confusion for applicants in the paper environment, the tentative and final map submittal should with the same department. In the future, as a new permitting software solution is implemented, the submittal portal should be the same and the embedded workflow would be routed to the appropriate issuing department to facilitate the review.

Recommendation #20: The intake and processing of parcel maps should be conducted by a single department.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 26

6. The Building Stop Work order process is inconsistent and requires better follow up
During staff interviews, the stop work order process was discussed. Staff indicated that when a stop work is issued, there are challenges with staff proactively following up on the work order to ensure compliance or resolution of the issue. It is important for staff to monitor work on sites where a stop work order was issued. Inconsistent follow-up can lead to challenges with gaining compliance or ensuring that the violation is not expanded.

With the future implementation of a more robust permitting software system, a stop work order workflow can be created in the platform and automate follow-up inspections. In the interim, Building Inspectors and other relevant staff should formalize the stop work order process and incorporate more proactive follow-up. An interim step may be the use of an online calendar (e.g., Google or Outlook calendar) for standardized re-inspections based on the adopted process. The ultimate goal should be to incorporate the stop work order process into the new permitting software platform and automate follow-up and next step actions.

Recommendation #21: Formalize the stop work order process, set standardized followup activities, and automate the re-inspection process.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 27

4. Technology Analysis
This chapter evaluates the use of technology in the development process.

1. Overview of current technology systems and optimal functionality.

San Dimas has purchased and partially implemented a software system (Accela) that is considered one of the “best in class” in the management of permitting processes. The system is only partially implemented, with many functions that could be undertaken using Accela remaining paper-based.

San Dimas’s Public Works utilizes Accela for Encroachment permits, and also has BlueBeam for specific plans review, but only for internal projects, not for any part of the permitting process. BlueBeam is a system that allows users to look at detailed site drawings, architectural drawings, and engineering drawings, mark them up electronically, compare versions, and super-impose mark ups from different reviewers.

High-performing permitting organizations deploy technology in a way that provides quick and easy access to information for reviewers, inspectors, and staff across all divisions and departments involved in the permitting process. They also allow permit applicants to interact with the process smoothly, and easily access needed information electronically.

The below table outlines how a permit process works with full software deployment.

Best Practices in Permitting Technology Utilization
Process Step Best Practices
Intake The applicant submits a full application electronically, including all attachments. Documents that require an engineer or architect stamp or seal are affixed with an electronic stamp or seal. The full record including site plan and supporting documents are either attached or linked to the permit record in the tracking system. Upon acceptance of the application, the applicant can pay initial fees electronically through the permit hub.

Distribution
and Review
Plans are electronically routed to plans reviewers who mark-up documents on-line. Reviewers of different disciplines can see each-others’ comments and mark-ups. Any written comments / reports are electronically attached to the application record.

Reviewers can electronically access any permit history on the project, including past permits issued, conditions associated with prior approvals, and special conditions associated with the property.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 28
Process Step Best Practices
Comments
to Applicant
The applicant is notified via e-mail when comments are available and can follow an electronic link to see comments and (where relevant) marked up plans. Alternatively, the software may email the applicant the comment letter and marked up plan set.

Applicant
Resubmittal
The applicant uploads a re-submittal once all comments have been addressed.

Re-Review Reviewers can digitally compare the re-submittal with the original submittal.

All records related to the project and property history can be accessed electronically, avoiding the need to locate / retrieve paper files.

Public
Hearings
A copy of the full application packet can be posted online as part of the agenda for the meeting where this item is being discussed. Because documents are provided electronically, there is no need to scan paper. The software platform can prepare the meeting agenda and compile all relevant information.

Permit
Issuance
The applicant receives a permit or approval letter electronically along with an electronic version of the approved plans and/or any conditions of approval.

Approved plans / approval letter is uploaded to the permit tracking system as record of the final issued permit. All conditions of approval are included in the online record to be checked prior to project completion / sign off.

Inspections The applicant can schedule requests electronically and be notified electronically of the scheduled inspection time. Inspectors can retrieve the approved plans electronically and enter inspection results into the record.

Results are automatically emailed to the customer.

Final
approval /
COO
For final project approval and for projects requiring a certificate of occupancy (COO), reviewers can sign off to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met.

Reporting The system automatically generates management reports and reports for the public that provide meaningful, clear information regarding timelines, workloads, and can be used to compare performance over time.

1. San Dimas can and should establish a plan to implement a fully paperless, integrated process across all reviewing entities in planning, public works/engineering, and building.

While the prospect of moving from a paper-intensive process to paperless appears daunting, many jurisdictions have successfully made this transition and found that the process works more smoothly, communications are improved, timelines are shortened, and customer service is significantly improved.

Frequently, managers and staff who are used to a paper process will argue that the electronic approach is unsuitable for the work that they do. However, the example of

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 29
numerous cities in California and nationally demonstrates that the electronic approach does work, and presents numerous advantages.

The city is currently using Accela for tracking plan reviews (in planning), intake, plan review, and inspections (in building) and most elements of encroachment permits (public works). While other software systems present different advantages and disadvantages compared to the current one, in most cases changing systems is not worth the confusion and upheaval that results. That said, San Dimas will need to work with Accela to dramatically expand the way that Accela is being used and implement the latest software version.

Once fully implemented, the system should have the following capabilities:
• At intake, the applicant should be able to upload all plans and documents directly into the permitting system, at which point a staff member could review these for completeness and “accept” them if complete or request revisions or additional documentation if not complete.
• The staff member responsible for routing plans should be able to do so electronically, so that all application materials are transmitted to the appropriate reviewer. Workflows should be established for the primary application types, so the reviewers are automated.
• The reviewer should be able to review and either mark up the plans or make a list of correction items electronically and then notify the permit tech, planner or engineer in charge of the process that their comments are complete. • The software should consolidate all review comments into a single comment letter.
• The applicants should receive a transmittal with a single consolidated set of comments and/or marked up plans and see what changes are needed. • The applicants should then be able to submit revised plans using the same portal. • The system should calculate payments and accept payments via credit card or ACH. (In some cases of complex calculations, payments required would be manually calculated and then added to the system).
• Any conditions of approval should be linked to the approval letter / resolution (for planning applications) or permit (for building and engineering) and be accessible to inspectors in the field.
• Ability for field staff to access the system via tablet and view all related permit documentation and property history.
• The system should also be used to track the project through the inspections and certificate of occupancy process, with inspections results recorded in the field and available to view by staff and by the applicant or property owner.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 30
For projects that involve public hearing, those involved in the hearing should also receive electronic plans and move away from paper packets.

While some communities have been able to work effectively with plans in PDF format, BlueBeam (or a similar system) would provide much greater functionality. BlueBeam can be linked to Accela to simplify the process of looking at detailed architectural and engineering drawings, and for marking up these drawings and comparing versions from different reviewers. As with Accela, there are other systems that provide similar functionality; however, given that BlueBeam is already in use in San Dimas there does not seem to be a significant benefit to changing the programs.

Recommendation #22: Expand the use of Accela to include electronic means of:
accepting plans; routing them to the appropriate reviewers; recording comments and edits from reviewers; and transmitting comments to the applicant for Planning, Encroachment, and Building permits.

Recommendation #23: Obtain digital plan review licenses for all reviewers and link to Accela to allow for easier permit tracking and review/mark up.

2. Updated hardware may be needed to facilitate the electronic plans review process.

To make the electronic process as user-friendly as possible, all staff hardware should be examined and upgraded. In most cases, two computer screens, at least one of which is 27 inches, is adequate for reviewers. However, given the relatively low cost of hardware the City should be flexible in equipping staff so that they are comfortable reviewing plans on screen.

Recommendation #24: Ensure that staff have the hardware needed to review and mark up plans on a screen or using an electronic plan table.

3. All project records should be organized by parcel.

Currently, access to historical data on properties is difficult because some records (including Planning Records) are indexed by case type, and not parcel or address. This can make it difficult to identify what actions have been taken in the past related to specific properties. As property files are transitioned to electronic format, they should all be indexed by a common property identifier (typically parcel or block/lot). This allows anyone conducting research on a property to obtain the full history of that property – including all planning, zoning, building, and public works applications, permits and inspections related to that property.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 31
Recommendation #25: Ensure all land use records are indexed by property not by application type.

4. Accela should also be used as a database for all development related activity.

In addition to permit tracking, once fully utilized Accela should be a resource for city staff seeking to conduct research on past and current projects. Approved plan sets and other documentation should either be uploaded directly into the Accela software system or linked to Accela by parcel. The City should utilize these features to enhance the availability of historic information and for greater operational efficiencies.

San Dimas does use a document management system (Laserfiche) for some documents related to the development review process. Laserfiche documents can be linked to Accela by building an interface between the two systems. This approach is preferable to having documents (such as Planning Commission resolutions) uploaded separately to two different systems. There should always be one “final” document stored by the city, with multiple gateways to accessing this document.

Recommendation #26: Utilize the permitting software system as a database to store (or link) historic development files/records with the appropriate address or parcel identifiers.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 32

5. Customer Information and Interaction
This chapter focuses on how the City provides information to and interacts with customers of the development process.

1. Current stakeholder perceptions on the public information provided about the development review and approval process are mixed.

Providing applicants with clear information regarding the City’s requirements benefits customers by making the project more predictable and helps staff by reducing errors and omissions in permit applications. The stakeholder survey taken as part of this project indicated that a substantial number of applicants did not believe they had the information that they need to navigate the permitting process. The City should aim for 80% agreement with these statements; currently they are falling far short of this.

Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral / NA Disagree Strongly Disagree

PLANNING
2 I clearly understood what approvals /
permits would be required for my
project.

32.1% 28.6% 17.9% 7.1% 14.3%
3 I clearly understood what information
and documentation I needed to
include in my application.

25.0% 46.4% 7.1% 10.7% 10.7%

BUILDING
2 I clearly understood what approvals /
building permits would be required for
my project.

23.1% 26.9% 11.5% 26.9% 11.5%
3 I clearly understood what information
and documentation I needed to
include in my application.

30.8% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4% 7.7%

ENGINEERING
2 I clearly understood what
Engineering reviews were required
for my application.

20.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0%
3 I clearly understood the Engineering
review process. 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 30.0%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 33
While in most cases more than half of survey respondents believe they understand the requirements for their applications and the permits required, there is clearly opportunity to improve the information available to them.

2. Permitting information is relatively comprehensive but does not provide an overview of the entire permitting process.

The San Dimas website has a broad range of information regarding codes, standards, requirements, and processes. This information is disjointed and it is difficult for an applicant to get the “big picture” of how a project would move through the San Dimas system, from idea through entitlement (planning approval) to construction and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. While some applicants may only need to understand a portion of the process (for example, obtaining an Encroachment permit or a Building permit), for many a broader picture of how the different permit processes interact, and overlap is important to understanding how to interact with the City.

To provide a comprehensive overview of the process, San Dimas should create a Development Handbook that provides a more comprehensive view of the process.

Preparation of such a handbook is often helpful in clarifying processes, not just for applicants but for staff as well.

Below are some strong examples of development handbooks that could be used as a starting point:

Aurora, Colorado
Campbell River, California
Boise, Idaho (Planning only)
Longmont, Colorado
Each of the above handbooks provides a strong model to be followed in San Dimas for creating a similar guide for developers, homeowners, and contractors.

Recommendation #27: Prepare a comprehensive development handbook that provides clear, user-friendly information on each stage of the development process. Given staffing and workload considerations, it is recommended that this be resourced outside of the department, either through a contract or by hiring a communications expert on a contracted basis.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 34

3. All permitting information should be available at a central location on the City’s website.

As is common for many city websites, San Dimas’s pages are organized by department or division and not by function. This can pose a challenge when functions span multiple divisions and departments. Building and Planning are both under one department, but have different pages. Information regarding Public Works and Engineering requirements, are on the Public Works web page but are not intuitive to find.

The following recommendations are made regarding the City’s development related webpages:
• Create a centralized development review webpage. Elements on this webpage should include:
- An overview of the entire development process.
- Link to the comprehensive development guide.
- A development review authority matrix (example provided in subsequent section).
- Narrative for responsibilities of the respective departments/divisions involved in the development review process.
- Link to the City’s GIS system and other pertinent maps. - Webpage link to the City’s adopted ordinances, design standards, and regulations for all disciplines.
- Central fee information (including a calculator for fees that are not automatically calculated).
- Performance reports (when available).
- Frequently asked questions.
• Establish a consistent approach to including application overview information - either within the application PDF or as a separate document. (e.g., flowchart, narrative, or other graphic representation).
• Development staff contact information should be provided on each departmental webpage. Information should include name, title, email address, and phone number.
• Each department’s webpage should provide an overview of the processes that it manages.
• Designate an individual staff member from each development review department to maintain their respective webpage.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 35
• Establish a consistent approach to providing development information links on departmental webpages. Include a consistent depth of information on the primary information page and provide links to secondary sources. • All development webpages should have a link to take the user back to the centralized development webpage.

Incorporating these elements on the City’s website will provide greater information to the public and customers. A strong web presence is important for the City as most individuals will begin their research on the City’s website prior to contacting the City.

Recommendation #28: Redesign the City’s web site to include an online one stop shop that includes an overview of the development process and links to the various review discipline webpage.

Recommendation #29: Expand the type of information regarding the development process and improve consistency in the type and depth of information provided on each discipline’s respective webpage.

3. Communication with customers should be expanded and improved.

Understanding the permitting and inspections process from the perspective of an applicant is critical to addressing roadblocks to a predictable, efficient process.

Collecting regular feedback from applicants and using that feedback when considering how to improve operations, will ensure that time and effort are appropriately allocated.

As part of this study, the consultants conducted a survey to obtain feedback from applicants. San Dimas should implement an annual stakeholder survey, sending it out to all applicants who obtained a permit or approval in the previous year. This survey should ask consistent questions with the goal of improving scores on a number of these, such as:
• Staff provided me with good customer service during the process. • I clearly understood what information and documentation I needed to include in my application.
• The City’s website had the information I needed to prepare a complete application. • Submitting my application was efficient.

Some questions asked in this survey, and that should be asked in subsequent surveys, also set expectations for staff:
• Comments and corrections received on my application were clearly based on the city's building code or other clear legal standards.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 36
• After I resubmitted my application, the reviewers focused primarily on ensuring that comments were addressed. New issues were not identified that should have been identified in the initial review.

The data on the survey undertaken for this project is provided in Appendix B. A similar annual survey could be undertaken in house with a relatively low level of effort using an online survey tool.

Recommendation #30: Implement an annual customer service survey, the results of which should be used to examine strengths and weaknesses in the permitting processes.

4. Performance data and report regarding plan review and inspection functions should be developed and posted.

Upon broader implementation of the Accela system and related reporting capabilities, the City should develop and post public reports that identify the overall timelines for different permit types. This is for the benefit of permit applicants so that they can understand how long a permit typically takes from submission to issuance.

Below are examples of online reports provided by other agencies as an example of the type of information that should be provided on-line.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 37
Source: McKinney, Texas

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 38
Source: Round Rock, Texas
This report should encompass all permit types and review disciplines.

Reports for the public should be produced by Accela, not manually. While it can be fairly time-consuming to design such reports and set them up in the software system as standardized reports, once they are designed there is much less work involved in reproducing them on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. These reports may be set up to automatically generate and email to specific staff.

Recommendation #31: Once available, include reports showing the City’s plan review and inspection performance on the web site.

5. Identify the review disciplines and final decision maker by application on the City’s website.

To make the application review process more predictable, it is important to establish customer’s expectations early on. One opportunity to provide more information to the customer is by putting an application matrix on the City’s development webpage that identifies each review discipline and who ultimately approves or denies the application (e.g., staff, planning commission, city council, etc.). The following is an example of a suitable matrix.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 39
Decision Making Matrix Example
Application Type Issuing
Entity Building Planning Engineering Decision Entity
Subdivision Planning ✓ ✓ ✓ Planning (recommendation)
Council (final approval)
Variance Planning ✓ Planning Commission
Conditional Use Planning ✓ Planning Commission (Final
approval)
Minor renovation residential
site plan
Planning ✓ ✓ ✓ Staff (Director approval)
Construction Commercial Building ✓ ✓ ✓ Building Staff
Construction Residential Building ✓ ✓ ✓ Building Staff
Grading Building ✓ ✓ Public Works Staff
Encroachment Public
Works
✓ ✓ Public Works Staff
Recommendation #32: Include a decision-making matrix on the City’s development webpage.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 40

6. Staffing
This chapter analyzes the staffing needs for the staff assigned to the development review, permitting, and inspection processes.

1. Analysis of the Planning staffing needs.

Planning is currently comprised of a Planning Manager, a Senior Planner, an Associate Planner, an Assistant Planner, a Departmental Assistant, and a Planning Intern.

Accurately estimating workload requirements for processing of planning applications is challenging because even within one application type the number of hours required to conduct the review can vary significantly. Additionally, the wide range of project types and their corresponding complexity can impact the workload associated with each application and this is noted even within single application types. Therefore, the estimated hours required for each application type is used to determine approximate workload hours by application.

The following table lists the number of applications by type for years 2020-2021.

Project Type Description 2020 2021 2022
Landscaping Outdoor planting plans 3 8 11
Projects
Conditional Use Permits, DPRB Reviews,
General Plan Amendments, Lot Line
Adjustments, Lot Mergers, License Permit
Hearing Board Reviews, Lot Line Adjustments,
Lot Mergers, MCTAs, Reasonable
Accommodations, Tentative/Final Maps, Tree
Removals, Zone Changes
69 83 79
Supplemental Request Permanent Signs, Time Extension 21 17 20 Temporary Approval Banners, Special Events, and other Temporary Installations 57 29 36
Zoning Clearance New Business License 217 167 154
Grand Total 367 304 300
The following table outlines the average workload per application type and subsequent staffing needs. The average hours per application type was developed in consultation with City staff and the project team’s internal database that includes time estimates for similar application types from other California communities.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 41
Planning Application Workload Analysis
Application Type
Average
Staff
Hours Per
Application
Average
Applications
per Year
Average
Hours/Year
Landscaping 8 7 56
Project 25 77 1,925
Supplemental Request 16 19 304
Temporary Approval 8 41 328
Zoning Clearance 2 179 358
Total Workload Hours Required 2,971
Staff Availability (75% of scheduled time) 1,560
Staffing Required For Plan Review 1.9
Based on this assessment, approximately 1.9 staff are needed to handle the planning application workload directly related to conducting plan reviews and managing approvals. This calculation is only for time spent on planning applications and does not take into account long range planning efforts, code and plan development, building permit zoning review, and other general work completed by staff (e.g., untracked application reviews, public inquiries, pre-application meetings, etc.).

As noted earlier, San Dimas is urgently in need of greater focus on updating the comprehensive plan, leading special projects, conducting public engagement/outreach, revising the adopted code, ordinances, and standards, etc. The additional staff capacity with the current allocation of planning positions should focus on non-current planning initiatives.

Overall, Planning staff appears adequate to handle existing planning workload, but more focus should be shifted to updating the existing codes and standards, enhancing public information, and transitioning towards an electronic plan review process.

Recommendation #33: The Planning Division should retain existing staffing levels but focus more on addressing the city’s outdated codes and standards and on enhancing customer communications.

2. Analysis of Building Division Staffing.

San Dimas currently has one building and safety manager, one permit technician, one senior building inspector, one building inspector, and one building intern. While the Building and Safety manager and the building inspectors conduct some plan review, most plans review work is contracted out to a private entity.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 42
Building Plan Review Workload Analysis
Plan Review Type 2020 2021 2022
Average
(’20 – ‘22)
Hours /
Review
Total
Hours
Required
Over the Counter 639 548 689 625 0.25 156
Plan Check 279 436 460 392 4 1,567
Total Plan Review Hours 1,723
Staff Availability (75% of scheduled time) 1560
Staffing Required For Plan Review 1.1
The above analysis indicates that there is adequate workload for one full time plans reviewer. For operational reasons, it is generally better practice to have a plan reviewer in-house if workload supports it. The in-house reviewer will provide greater consistency, closer coordination with other departments, and improved communications with building inspectors, often at a lower cost than a full-time contracted reviewer.

Currently, building inspectors conduct an average of 10 inspections each day per an inspector, in part because they are also involved in plan review, responding to applicant questions, conducting research, and coordinating certificates of occupancy. With an inhouse plans reviewer, the inspectors could feasibly increase to 13 to 15 inspections per inspector each day. The following table summarizes the staffing needs for Building Inspectors assuming an average of 13 inspections conducted each day per building inspector, with inspectors working 220 days per year.

Building Inspection Workload Analysis
2020 2021 2022 Average
Building Inspections 4,686 5,852 5,970 5,503
Avg Daily Inspections per Inspector 13
Total Workdays Required 423
Annual Workdays Available per Inspector 208
Inspectors Needed 2.0
A total of two inspectors are needed based on an average of 13 inspections completed per inspector each day and inspectors do not perform plan review. As noted in the above analysis the current staffing level is appropriate given current workload.

Recommendation #34: Convert the contract plans examiner to an in-house position; the current Building Inspector level of 2 is appropriate.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 43

3. Many Public Works staff are involved in the development process both as a primary and ancillary responsibility.

The Public Works department has eight staff directly involved in various elements of the permitting and development review process. These include:
• The DPW Department Director
• The engineering manager
• An associate engineer
• An assistant engineer
• A public works inspector
• An engineering intern
• An administrative aide
• A senior administrative analyst
In addition, the city has a contract engineer who is in the office on a part-time basis and is involved in the review of development and infrastructure projects.

In addition to reviewing some Planning and Building permits, the department issues approximately 300 encroachment permits per year, and conducted an average of 1,468 inspections in the past three years (with a low of 900 in 2020 and a high of 1,802 in 2021.

The below table estimates how much inspection time is required for this volume of inspections.

Public Works Inspection Staffing Analysis
2020 2021 2022 Average
Engineering 900 1,892 1,612 1,468
Avg Daily Inspections per
Inspector 13
Total Workdays Required 113
Annual Workdays Available
per Inspector 208
Inspectors Needed 0.54
Public Works staff involved in the development process are also extensively involved in other projects, including internal capital improvement and transportation planning projects. For most of the staff outlined above, private development accounts for a

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 44
minority of their total workload. Because their work includes functions outside of private development (for which data were not provided) it is not possible to do a full assessment of staffing adequacy for these specific jobs. Data for non-development review activity was not provided as these functions and workload were not evaluated as they are outside of the scope of work for the development review audit. To fully understand the workload and corresponding staffing needs for Engineering staff in Public Works, it would require an additional study that focused on engineering functions and broader Public Works operations and staffing needs.

Recommendation #35: Maintain the current allocation of staffing for the development review staff in Public Works.

Recommendation #36: Conduct an assessment of Public Works functions to develop an understanding of all their workload and corresponding staffing needs.

4. The number of administrative staff across the three functions is appropriate but the staff should receive more cross-training
There are currently three administrative staff involved in permitting processes: a departmental assistant in Planning, a Building Permit Tech in Building and Safety, and an Administrative Aide in Public Works. These staff members perform some functions outside of the permitting process.

Because many processes involve multiple disciplines and departments, best practices recommends that permit techs and administrative staff develop a good working knowledge of the processes of all departments, even if they continue to specialize in one area. In San Dimas, the administrative staff are not extensively exposed to the permitting processes of other departments and divisions. To address this, the city should implement a process of cross-training Permit Technician positions to facilitate the intake, review, and permit issuance process for Building, Planning, and Public Works and ensure that these processes are consistent. Permit technician duties for all three divisions should be incorporated into appropriate job descriptions to ensure that staff are trained appropriately to support Planning, Building, and Public Work public counters.

Recommendation #37: Revise the job descriptions of the administrative staff in Planning, Building, and Engineering to that of Permit Tech and cross train the three positions.

5. The City will temporarily need additional staffing capacity to oversee the transition from paper to electronic permit processing.

The need to transition away from paper and more fully use the Accela system and an electronic plan review program will be a significant work-load item, and currently no staff

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 45
involved in the permitting processes in San Dimas have the authority, knowledge, time, or mandate to make this happen. In many cases, cities find it beneficial to bring in a shortterm employee who can act as project manager / coordinator amongst different divisions and with IT and the software vendor. The person leading this initiative will need to understand the permitting process and the technology and act as a liaison with the city’s IT department. While the person in this position does not need to be an IT specialist, they must be comfortable with technology and able to lead a change effort in the organization.

Recommendation #38: Add a temporary technology implementation manager position to spearhead the transition from paper to electronic processes.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 46
Director of Administrative
Services
Michael O’Brien
Director of Community
Development
Henry K. Noh
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Scott Wasserman
Director of Public Works
Shari Garwick
245 EastBonitaAvenue ∙San Dim as∙California91773-3002 ∙(909) 394-6200 ∙Fax (909) 394-6209  sandimasca.gov City Council
Emmett Badar, Mayor
John Ebiner, District3
Ryan A. Vienna, Mayor Pro Tem - District4
Eric Weber - District1
Eric Nakano - District2
City Manager
ChrisConstantin
Assistant City Manager
Brad McKinney
City Attorney
JeffMalawy
October 24, 2023
Aaron Baggarly, AICP
Matrix Consulting Group
8022 Providence Road, Suite 500-106
Charlotte, NC 28277
Re: Development Process Performance Audit
Dear Mr. Baggarly,
The Community Development Department has read and reviewed the Development Process Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations Report (Dated October 22, 2023) and agree with the 38 recommendations within the report.

Sincerely,
Henry K. Noh
Director of Community Development

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 47
Appendix A: Current State Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
This current state assessment outlines the organization, structure, and staffing of the development and permitting review and approval processes in the City of San Dimas, California. The information contained in the current state assessment has been developed through a series of interviews conducted at all levels of the organization, including managers, supervisors, and line-level staff, from the various development review departments.

The primary objective of the current state assessment is to document the current approaches utilized by the various development related entities in providing services.

There is no analysis or findings contained in this document. Instead, this interim deliverable focuses on documenting the following items:
• The organizational structure of the various operations within the project scope. • The roles, responsibilities and service delivery approaches for each functional review discipline.
• The organizational composition and allocation of staff assigned to the development review, permitting, and inspection processes. • Overview of historic workload by functional areas.
• General process overview of the development review and permitting process. • An overview of the public information available related to the permitting process and requirements.

This document will serve as a summary of the current state of staffing allocations and duties and processes utilized. This will allow us to compare recommendations developed for the final report to the current state and demonstrate the impact of the proposed changes. This current state assessment was accurate as of March 2, 2023.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 48
2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Community Development Department is the primary conduit of development activities in the City of San Dimas. The Department oversees Planning, Building and Safety, Code Compliance, and Housing. The Code Compliance and Housing Divisions are excluded from this study. The Department aims to guide the physical development of the community in order to meet the present and future needs of its citizens. The department reviews, permits, and inspects new construction and development within the City.

1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE
The following chart outlines the organizational structure of the Community Development Department:

Development Services Department Organizational Structure (Development Review Only)
Community Development
Director
Planning Manager
(1)
Senior Planner
(2)
Associate Planner
(1)
Planning Intern
(1)
Building & Safety Manager
(1)
Senior Building
Inspector
(1)
Building Inspector I
(1)
Building Permit Tech
(1)
Building Intern
(1)
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Departmental
Assistant

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 49

2. STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The following table details the number of staff, by position title, for the Community Development Department whose jobs are related to the city’s permitting and approval processes. (Code Compliance and Housing are omitted.) The table also summarizes the major duties of each position. The duties listed are representative of the primary role of the position and are not intended to encompass all duties performed at the level of detail of a job description.

Position Title
Authorized
Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities
Director 1 • Oversees all activities across planning, building review and inspection, code compliance, and housing. and economic
development. Oversees CBDG/Home grant programs.

Senior Administrative
Analyst
1 • Provides general administrative support to the director and the department.
• Answers phone and responds to questions from the public. • Drafts minutes, assists with public notices, agenda packets, agenda posting.
• Scans new applications.
• Provides back up counter and permit tech support.

Current and Long
Range Planning
Planning is responsible for intake, review, and analysis of planning applications, including routing these applications to other departments as needed, consolidating comments, preparing for public hearings, and developing conditions of approval.

Planning Manager 1 • Oversees long range planning and entitlement process. • Undertakes long range planning projects.
• Assists with larger and more complex planning projects.

Senior Planner 2 • Manages larger and more complex planning projects. • Guides the text amendment process.

Associate Planner 1 • Routes planning applications and review plans for land use issues, prepare memos.
• Reviews building permit applications for zoning compliance • Assigns plan check for building permits.
• Reviews applications for special events.

Departmental
Assistant
1 • Staffs front counter, answers telephones, and intakes planning applications. Provides backup support to Building Permit Tech.

Planning Intern 1 • Provides general support to the planning manager and planners, including reviewing a variety of less intensive application types, and assisting customers with zoning
related questions at the counter and over the phone.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 50
Position Title
Authorized
Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities
Building and Safety Building is responsible for intake and review of building permit applications, including routing these to other agencies as needed.

Building and Safety
Manager
1 • Oversees the operations of the Building division. Provides guidance on complex code issues. Supervises the contract plan review process. Supervises building.

Permit Technician I 1 • Responds to questions from the public regarding permit requirements and processes.
• Intakes building applications and route them as needed. • Calculates and collects fees. Compiles comments and
provides to applicants.

Plan Reviewer
(contract)
1 • Reviews building permit applications for compliance with the building code.

Senior Building
Inspector
1 • Conducts review of building permit applications for compliance with building code. Responds to questions from the public regarding code issues. Conducts inspections
associated with building permits. Issues correction notices and conducts re-inspections where necessary.

Building Inspector 1 • Conducts plan review for smaller projects. (Other projects are sent to contract reviewer.)
• Conducts inspections associated with building inspections.

Building Intern 1 • Assists with the intake of building applications, assists with over the counter plan check, and conducts research.

3. CONTRACTED SERVICES
The following are contracted services associated with the Planning and Building Permitting processes:
• RJM – Landscape Plan Checking
• Architerra – Landscape Plan Checking
• Yowanto Engineering – Lighting Plan Checking
• RKA Consultants –Building Plan Checking and Inspection services CSG Consultants – Building Plan Checking services

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 51
3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Public Works Department encompasses two divisions, Engineering and Public Works. All functions associated with permitting and land use for private development are overseen by the Director or under the Engineering division. The department conducts engineering review for planning and building applications, and also issues encroachment permits.

1. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE
The following chart outlines the organizational structure of the Public Works Department, focusing on only those positions that are involved in the permitting process.

Public Works – Development Related Organizational Structure (development review functions only)
Director
Engineering Manager
Associate Engineer
Assistant Engineer
Public Works Inspector
Engineering Intern
Public Works Manager
Public Works Operations
Administrative Aide Senior Administrative Analyst

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 52

2. STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The following table details the number of staff, by position title, for Public Works Department staff involved in the development process and summarizes the major duties of each position. The duties listed are representative of staff’s role in the development process and are not intended to encompass all duties performed at the level of detail of a job description.

Position Title
Authorized
Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities
Public Works Director 1 • Oversees the development review process for Public Works staff and contractors.
• Involved in the review of development applications such as final maps, lot line adjustments, entitlement applications, encroachment permits, etc.

Engineering Manager 1 • Conducts plan review for planning and building permits as well as complex encroachment permits
• Oversees consultant plan review work
• Participates in DRC (Development Review Committee)
meetings
• Refers issues to traffic safety committee
Associate Engineer 1 • Conducts plan review for planning and building permits. • Participates in DRC (Development Review Committee)
meetings if needed.
• Reviews more complex encroachment permit applications • Reviews CIP projects.

Assistant Engineer 1 • Conducts plan review for planning and building permits • Reviews the majority of encroachment permits
• Assists with planning and specifications for capital
improvement projects
Public Works Inspector 1 • Conducts inspections for private development and capital improvement projects
Engineering Intern 1 • Assists with engineering tasks as needed.

Administrative Aide 1 • Takes in applications routed from Planning and Building that require Engineering review.
• Logs applications into Sharepoint spreadsheet
• Takes in encroachment permit applications and lots into Accela. Issues certain permits instantly.
• Assists with inspection requests.
• Responds to general requests from residents and
businesses.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 53
Position Title
Authorized
Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities
Senior Administrative
Analyst
1 • Responsible for assisting environmental services and stormwater staff with applicable reporting requirements. (e.g., BMP and MS4 annual reports) and the creation of
standards.

3. CONTRACTED SERVICES
The City Engineer is a contracted service provided by RKA (which also provides building plans examiner services). The Engineer is located on-site part time and provides approximately 8 hours per week of support to San Dimas. They conduct detailed engineering review of applications routed from Planning and Building and coordinates with staff within the engineering department on reviews.

The City Engineer is a licensed traffic engineer, but additional traffic engineering services are also contracted by the department.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 54
4 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
The City Manager’s office is involved in the development review process to varying degrees. The City Manager or their designee which is the Deputy City Manager in this case and the City Clerk are involved in the development process. The following table summarizes their respective roles in the process.

Position Title
Authorized
Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
1 1
• Tasked with reviewing staff reports prior to City Council meetings.
• Involved in the review of ordinances and resolutions. • Participate in pre-application and staff review meetings for high priority / sensitive applications and projects.

City Clerk 1 • Works with staff to finalize staff reports, developing resolutions and ordinances for City Council.
• Helps facilitate the public notice process for City Council meetings and preparing meeting agendas and packets.
• Ensures that resolutions and ordinances are signed by Mayor and/or other officials.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 55
5 TECHNOLOGY
The following list summarizes the technology and software solutions used in the development review, permitting, and inspection processes.

Accela Automation – used to track building and engineering permits and inspections. Planning applications are partially tracked in the system.

Bluebeam (engineering only) – used for review and markup of plans.

GoGov – citizen complaint module
GovClarity – GIS program used to review property information.

Laserfiche version 10.4 – used for final retention of official city documents, including permits, plans, correspondence, agendas, minutes.

PrimeGov – provides agenda management for commission and council.

Sharepoint – used to store documents related to projects.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 56
6 WORKLOAD AND PROCESS
The following section provides general information regarding the development review and permitting processes and historic workload. Also, information is provided regarding established processing timelines for each division. As part of this audit, we will conduct process mapping workshops to diagram the primarily development review and inspection processes for the City.

1. Workload
This section provides an overview of the historic workload for Planning, Building, and Public Works related to the development process.
(1) Planning
Planning has had 100 total projects for each of the past 3 years, although a large number of these are relatively minor (for example, zoning clearances for business license approval). The workload by type of project is provided below:

Planning Projects 2020 – 2022 (table)
Project Type Description 2020 2021 2022
Landscaping Outdoor planting plans 3 8 11
Projects
Conditional Use Permits, DPRB Reviews,
General Plan Amendments, Lot Line
Adjustments, Lot Mergers, License Permit
Hearing Board Reviews, Lot Line Adjustments,
Lot Mergers, MCTAs, Reasonable
Accommodations, Tentative/Final Maps, Tree
Removals, Zone Changes
69 83 79
Supplemental Request Permanent Signs, Time Extension 21 17 20 Temporary Approval Banners, Special Events, and other Temporary Installations 57 29 36
Zoning Clearance New Business License 217 167 154
Grand Total 367 304 300

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 57
Planning Projects 2020 – 2022 (bar chart)
The following table shows how the workload over the past three years has been allocated by staffing position.

Senior
Planner
Assistant
Planner
Associate
Planner
Housing
Admin Aide
Planning
Intern
Dept.

Assistant Not Known
Landscaping 1 1 1 2
Project 4 10 16 12 19 1
Supplemental
Request 1 2 7 5 5
Temporary
Approval 2 4 3 4 5 13
Zoning
Clearance 5 58 28 39 49 0 1
Total 12 75 54 61 79 13 4
(2) Building
The Building Department has issued an average of 1,025 permits per year over the past three years. Of these, an average of 392 per year require plan check, while 625 per year are issued over the counter.

Building Permits Issued 2020-2022 (table)
Application Type 2020 2021 2022 Total
Over The Counter 639 548 689 1,876
Plan Check 279 436 460 1,175
Not Indicated 3 4 19 26
Total 921 988 1,168 3,077
2 16
5 17
60 2
25 6 6
61 1
21 9 8
61 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Landscaping Project Supplemental
Request
Temporary Approval Zoning Clearance
2020 2021 2022

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 58
Building Permits Issued 2020-2022 (bar chart)
On average, the Building and Safety division conducted 5,503 inspections per year over the past three years. The following table provides the total number of inspections by inspection result.

Building Inspections 2020-2022
2020 2021 2022 Average
Approved 2,509 2,958 3,393 2,953
Cancelled 256 302 333 297
Correction 920 1,400 1,344 1,221
Denied 567 779 565 637
Partial Approval 412 402 322 379
Not Indicated 22 11 13 15
Grand Total 4,686 5,852 5,970 5,503
(3) Engineering / Public Works
Public Works and Engineering review some Planning and Building permits and issue approximately 300 encroachment permits per year. The department also conducts inspections for private development projects related to traffic, drainage, erosion, and public infrastructure. The department has conducted a total of 4,404 inspections over the past three years, the most frequent of which are site inspection, traffic control, and final inspections for Public Works issues.
3 4 19
639
548
689
279
436 460
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2020 2021 2022
Not Indicated Over The Counter Plan Check

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 59
Public Works / Engineering Inspections 2020 - 2022
Inspection Type 2020 2021 2022 Grand Total
1235: Site Inspection 173 633 685 1,491
1000: Traffic Control 249 440 301 990
2000: PW Final 71 376 297 744
1025: Asphalt 115 118 101 334
1010: Sidewalk 66 80 51 197
1004: Compaction 60 40 25 125
1045: NPDES 13 67 43 123
1002: Bedding 39 19 16 74
1014: Curb/Gutter 23 22 29 74
1012: Driveway Approach 23 9 18 50
1040: Striping 5 19 14 38
1030: Manhole/Valve
Adjustment 12 12 8 32
1145: Container Placement 3 19 8 30
1120: Other NPDES 10 10 3 23
1006: Forms 10 10 20
1008: Encasement 6 3 5 14
1016: Finish Surface 6 7 1 14
1007: Rebar 5 1 6
1035: Digalert Markings
Removed 4 1 5
1070: Inlet Protection 3 2 5
1075: Fiber Rolls 5 5
1018: Pressure Test 1 1 2
1020: Asphalt Overgrind 1 1 2
1050: Concrete Washout 2 2
1115: Street Sweeping 1 1 2
1110: Riprap 1 1
1990: Plan Check 1 1
Grand Total 900 1,892 1,612 4,404

2. Processes
This section includes an overview of the various development review processes for each functional area.
(1) Planning
The Planning Division takes the lead on all planning applications. This includes organizing pre-application meetings, conducting intake of applications, routing these applications

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 60
out to applicable departments and divisions, and then consolidating comments to the applicant so that they can prepare a consolidated re-submission. For projects requiring notice and a public hearing, the Planning Division manages this process.

The required authority for Planning application varies depending upon the type of application.

Planning applications are generally reviewed within 30 days as identified through the Permit Streamlining Act. Other Planning application types follow other various state defined processing times.
(1.1) Administrative / Staff Approval
Small scale development projects, such as cantilever decks; large second story decks; monument signs; satellite dishes; and other similar development. (1.2) Design / Development Plan Review Board
Board consists of six members including representatives from Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, City Manager, Director of Development Services, Director of Public Works, and one member of the general public.

New single family and multi-family residences, new office, commercial, institutional, public, industrial, or other buildings, tree removal of four or more trees, sign programs, additions and modifications to a historic structure, demolition of historic buildings. (1.3) Planning Commission
Decides conditional use permits and variances. Provides recommendations to City Council for maps, MCTAs, Zone Change and general plan amendments. (1.4) City Council
Responsible for processing and deciding general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, text amendments, subdivisions, and specific plans. They may also be responsible for deciding other special applications such as the Scenic Highway Overlay Zone.
(1.5) License and Permit Hearing Board
The license and permit hearing board is responsible for reviewing and determining applications for live entertainment, arcade games, ambulance drivers and operators, and billiards. They may also review other pertinent license and permitting applications.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 61
(2) Building
The Building division follows a similar approach, taking in building permit applications and then routing them to other divisions based on the type of application. Some permit types may be issued over the counter and are only subject to inspection.

For routed plans, permit techs in the division receive comments from all reviewers and consolidate them into a single letter that is provided to the applicant.

The Building division does not track actual timelines in the permitting software or by spreadsheet but does have target timelines for plan review depending upon the type of project.

Project Type Submittal Target
New Commercial/Industrial First Check 25-30 Working Days Additional Checks 15-20 Working Days
Tenant Improvement First Check 15 Working Days
Additional Checks 10 Working Days
New Custom Home First Check 20-25 Working Days
Additional Checks 15-20 Working Days
House Addition First Check 10-15 Working Days
(over 1500 sf 20-25 days) Additional Checks 10 Working Days Home Remodel First Check 10-15 Working Days
Additional Checks 7-10 Working Days
Grading First Check 25-30 Working Days
Additional Checks 15-20 Working Days
Retaining Walls First Check 10-15 Working Days
Additional Checks 5-10 Working Days
Patios First Check 7-10 Working Days
Additional Checks 3-5 Working Days
Pools First Check 7-10 Working Days
Additional Checks 3-5 Working Days
Solar (Res, roof mount) First Check 3 Working Days
Solar (Comm or Res Ground) First Check 10 Working Days
(3) Engineering
Plans are either routed to Engineering from Planning or Building; or, for Encroachment permits, submitted directly to DPW.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 62
Certain encroachment permits are issued by administrative staff with no review required.

Others may require review for stormwater impacts, impacts on city infrastructure, traffic, and compliance with city engineering standards. Plans are taken in by administrative staff and then routed to the contract city engineer and to engineering staff. Comments are consolidated into a single document before being provided to the referring agency (building, planning) or the applicant.

Engineering’s timelines are as follows:

Submittal Target
First review 20 business days
Second review 15 business days
Third review 10 business days

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 63
7 PUBLIC INFORMATION
Both the Planning and Building and Safety divisions as well as the Public Works department have web pages as well as printable handouts providing basic information regarding what requires a permit, what the application process is, and what must be included in the application.

The Planning Division has information on the following:
• The zoning code, including a downloadable zoning map and links to the municipal code.
• A link to the City’s general plan.
• Informational brochures on the roles of different boards and commissions, as well as specific requirements related to ADUs, CEQA, Conditional Use permits, and other types of application.
• An application form that is in “PDF Fillable” format and checklists for what is required to be provided for different types of applications. • An FAQ section with answers to common questions received from residents and businesses.
• Additional pages on high interest issues such as tree preservation, water efficient landscaping, historic preservation, and design standards. • A copy of the approved fee schedule related to development projects.

The Building and Safety Division has the following:
• Downloadable permit application forms (not fillable). • List of codes enforced in San Dimas.
• Handouts (34 in total) providing guidance and checklists on requirements related to specific projects, (such as Accessory Dwelling Units, bathroom remodels, changes of occupancy), as well as information on when a permit is needed. • Handouts specific to residential rooftop solar.
• A simple flow chart on the plan review process.

Public Works / Engineering have the following:
• A PDF fillable permit application form for encroachment permits. • A copy of the engineering fee schedule.
• A list of standard conditions associated with encroachment permits. • Information on how to request an inspection.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 64
Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback Analysis
The City of San Dimas engaged the Matrix Consulting Group to perform an audit of its development review process. Part of this study featured an opportunity for external stakeholders – i.e., those who had sought permits from the City – to provide feedback on the process. To this end, the project team developed a stakeholder survey with input from key City staff. This report features the results of this survey alongside analysis and key findings developed by the project team.

1. Survey Background and Key Findings
SurveyMonkey was used as the distribution platform, using an email list of 1,054 prior customers of the Department provided to the project team by City staff.

The survey opened on March 9, 2023 and closed on March 29, 2023. The breakdown of respondents are as follows:

Count
Initial Invites 1,054
Invites Opened 652
Invites Unopened 256
Invites Bounced 120
Recipients Opted Out 26
Total Responses 55
As the table above shows, the survey received responses from a total of 55 unique participants. The table also breaks down the number of potential respondents that opened the survey invite versus those that did not. A total of 120 survey invites bounced – mostly due to accounts no longer existing. A further 26 potential respondents had opted out of SurveyMonkey emails entirely. The response rate for the individuals who received the stakeholder invite was 6.2%.

1.1. Key Findings
The following key findings were discovered as part of the project team’s analysis of the survey results:
• Positive Responses: The multiple-choice section of the survey featured question banks related to multiple functional groups involved in the development review process: Planning, Building Plan Review, Building Inspections, and Engineering.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 65
With the exception of Engineering, responses to each question bank were more positive than negative. Statements that received the highest level of agreement pertained to customer service and how well the City makes applicants aware of fees, materials, and the general process involved with their application. • Engineering: As mentioned above, Engineering received less positive feedback compared to other groups. Some of the lower-rated statements in this question bank related to the helpfulness of staff and the consistency of the review process – especially in the case of subsequent reviews of an application. • Time: Lower agreement ratings were common across all groups regarding the time it took to process an application. This was also cited as a possible service improvement by multiple respondents in the open response section. • Website: The information available on the City’s website consistently received high neutral ratings of 30% - 40% regardless of the responding group. While neutral does not necessarily mean negative, it can be interpreted to mean that improvements could be necessary. Overall disagreement for this statement ranged from 24% - 34% depending on the section.
• Open Responses: Customer service and the overall development review process were cited as both the most common strengths and opportunities for improvement by respondents in the open response section. This somewhat contradictory sentiment is also highlighted by the levels of strong disagreement towards these categories within the multiple-choice section (though customer service specifically received high levels of agreement overall).

2. Respondent Demographics
While the survey was anonymous, respondents were asked to respond to a variety of statements to allow the project team insight into the demographic makeup of respondents.

2.1. Demographic Questions – All Respondents
What is your role in interacting with the permitting
and inspection process? Responses
Architect 14.6%
Builder 5.5%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 66
What is your role in interacting with the permitting
and inspection process? Responses
Business Owner 20.0%
Contractor 16.4%
Developer 7.3%
Engineer 5.5%
Homeowner/Landowner/Tenant 41.8%
Landscape Architect 0.0%
Planner 0.0%
Other (please specify) 12.7%
How frequently do you interact with the City’s
permitting and inspection process? Responses
Several times per month 18.2%
Several times per year 14.6%
Once or twice per year 27.3%
Less than once or twice a year 40.0%
When was your most recent interaction with the
process? Responses
Within the last 12 months. 72.7%
Greater than 12 months ago. 27.3%
What type of permits do you typically seek from the
City? Select all that apply. Responses
Building Plan Review and Permits 70.9%
Building Inspections 41.8%
Engineering / Civil / Site Design 23.6%
Fire Plan Review, Permits and Inspections 20.0%
Planning and Zoning 49.1%
As noted by the tables above, the most common respondent type was Homeowner/Landowner/Tenant, representing 41.8% of all respondents. Those that identified as “Other” specified the following roles:
• Retail Agent (2)
• Real Estate Agent (2)
• Owner/Builder
• Land Surveyor
• Project Engineer

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 67

72.7% of respondents had interacted with the process within the last 12 months. It was also more common for respondents to interact with the City less than once or twice a year (40% of respondents).

Lastly, it was most common for respondents to have interacted with the building plan review and permitting process, with 70.9% of participants indicating having sought this service. Planning and zoning and building inspections were the second and third most common interaction respectively.

3. Multiple Choice Questions
Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements related to the service provided to them during their most recent interaction with the development process. This section was split into two question banks: one for building application review/permitting and another for building inspections. Respondents were able to provide their level of agreement for each statement, using the following options: “Strongly Agree/Agree” (SA/A), “Neutral” (N), and “Strongly Disagree/Disagree” (SD/D). Note: tables throughout this section are formatted to highlight the largest numbers within the table. The darker the shade of blue, the higher the percentage.

3.1. Overall Development Review Process and Comparatives The survey began by asking respondents to compare the level of service they have recently received from the City to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were also asked to compare the City of San Dimas to other municipalities they may have worked with:

If you have interacted with the City over a period of
time, has your over interaction been better today than
they were pre-pandemic? Responses
Yes 56.4%
No 43.6%
Compared to other municipalities where you have
done business, would you say that the development
review and permitting process in the City of San
Dimas is: Responses
Easier than in other municipalities 19.6%
About the same as other municipalities 39.2%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 68
More difficult than other municipalities 41.2%
Those that had indicated that working with San Dimas was “more difficult than other municipalities” were asked to identify communities that they felt as though had better processes. These are listed below:

Brea Los Angeles
Cerritos Norwalk
City of Industry Ontario
Claremont Orange
Colton Placentina
Costa Mesa Rancho Cucamonga
Covina Riverside
Glendora Santa Ana
Hesperia Santa Fe Springs
LA County Upland
La Verne Ventura
Long Beach West Covina
Respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement towards a variety of statements related to the development review process. Respondents could select strongly agree/agree (SA, A), strongly disagree/disagree (SD, D) or neutral (N). A total of 34 respondents provided input into this section, summarized by the table below:
# Statement SA A N D SD
1 The process is predictable. 14.7% 23.5% 26.5% 17.7% 17.7% 2 The amount of time taken to process my
application was acceptable. 14.7% 23.5% 23.5% 11.8% 26.5% 3 The City met its time commitments for
processing my application. 14.7% 23.5% 29.4% 8.8% 23.5% 4 Staff were responsive. 26.5% 29.4% 23.5% 8.8% 11.8%
5 The City speaks with "one voice" when
processing applications and permits and
conducting inspections.

14.7% 29.4% 26.5% 17.7% 11.8%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 69
Overall agreement (SA/A combined) was higher compared to disagreement (SD/D) and neutral (N) responses across all statements. Statement #4, which focused on the responsiveness of staff, received the highest level of overall agreement and the highest level of strong agreement. The two statements that related to the time it took to process and complete and application (#2 and #3) received the highest level of strong disagreement.

3.2. Planning
One question bank focused specifically on the service respondents received during the planning process. This section received a total of 28 responses. # Statement SA A N D SD
1 Staff provided me with good customer service
during the planning process. 28.6% 32.1% 10.7% 7.1% 21.4% 2 I clearly understood what approvals / permits
would be required for my project. 32.1% 28.6% 17.9% 7.1% 14.3% 3 I clearly understood what information and
documentation I needed to include in my
application.

25.0% 46.4% 7.1% 10.7% 10.7%
4 I clearly understood the timeline associated with
the review process for my project. 17.9% 21.4% 17.9% 25.0% 17.9% 5 I clearly understood who had the decision
making authority for my application. 32.1% 25.0% 7.1% 25.0% 10.7% 6 I clearly understood what fees would be required
for my project. 25.0% 35.7% 17.9% 10.7% 10.7%
7 Staff was helpful in explaining what I needed to
do and how to accomplish it. 25.9% 25.9% 14.8% 18.5% 14.8% 8 The City's web site had the information I needed
to prepare a complete application. 16.0% 24.0% 32.0% 12.0% 16.0%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 70
# Statement SA A N D SD
9 Submitting my application was efficient. 30.8% 23.1% 11.5% 11.5% 23.1% 10 The initial review of my application was
complete and comprehensive. 30.8% 19.2% 23.1% 7.7% 19.2% 11 After receiving comments, I clearly understood
what I needed to revise on my application to
achieve compliance with adopted codes and
ordinances.

33.3% 11.1% 22.2% 18.5% 14.8%
12 Comments and corrections received on my
application were based on the City's
development code or other legal standards.

29.6% 14.8% 25.9% 14.8% 14.8%
13 Comments received from different review
disciplines were consistent with one another. 29.6% 14.8% 25.9% 7.4% 22.2% 14 After resubmittal(s), reviewers focused on
ensuring that comments were addressed. New
issues were not identified that should have been
identified in the initial review.

29.6% 14.8% 11.1% 14.8% 29.6%
15 The time it took to process my application was
appropriate. 22.2% 11.1% 22.2% 7.4% 37.0%
16 The City's development code/ordinance is easy
to understand. 28.6% 14.3% 21.4% 17.9% 17.9%
Responses across all statements were more positive than negative with multiple statements received strong agreement ratings exceeding 25%. The only statement where overall disagreement was higher than agreement was statement #15. 44.5% of respondents indicated that they felt as though the time it took to process their planning application was too lengthy. One statement - #14 - received equal levels of agreement and disagreement, indicating a more mixed experience in regards to comments received upon resubmittal.

While sentiment was largely positive overall, it is worth noting that several statements that otherwise received positive sentiment had strong disagreement ratings of 20% or higher. These statements related to customer service (#1), the efficiency of the submittal process (#9), and the consistency of the review process (#13 and #14). While the sample

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 71
size is small, this trend may indicate some level of inconsistency in service delivery. For instance, some projects may be receiving a less through initial review, resulting in new issues being found upon resubmittal (#14).

Interpreting neutral responses can be challenging in that it relies on making assumptions based on the context provided by the statement. Generally speaking, neutral can mean that the respondent is truly neutral towards the statement, unfamiliar with that aspect of the process (using neutral in lieu of “N/A”) or leaning slightly positively or negatively towards the statement. It can also sometimes signal inconsistency depending on how often a respondent interacts with the process – perhaps sometimes the customer service provided by staff is better or worse depending on the day. As shown in the table, seven statements received neutral response rates higher than 20%. The highest neutral rating was attributed to statement #8. 32% of respondents felt neutral about the usefulness of the website in providing relevant information.
(1) Analysis by Respondent Type
Using the information provided in the demographic section of the survey, the project team analyzed response trends based on the role each respondent identified as. To do so, average agreement and disagreement was calculated for each respondent group based on three categories: Customer Service (statements #1, #7, and #15), Education (#2-#6, #8, and #16), and Processing (#9-#14). Respondent groups that did not provide any responses to this question bank are excluded from the following charts.

41.7%

11.1%

38.9%

43.3% 41.7%

0.0%

54.2% 55.6%

77.8%

38.9%

28.3%

50.0%
100.0%

37.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Customer Service
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 72
As shown by the table above, Builders and Engineers had the highest average levels of disagreement towards statement related to the customer service they received during the planning process. Conversely, homeowners and contractors were more inclined to be positive.

In terms of customer education (or how well the applicant understood the process), engineers and builders were again more negative. Unlike the previous chart, other respondent groups were notably more inclined to agree with these statements than disagree.

45.2%

23.8%

50.5%

31.4%

42.9%

14.3%

60.3%

45.2%

61.9%

34.3%

28.6%

32.1%

85.7%

31.7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Education
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 73
Finally, when it came to the process itself, engineers and builders were again more likely to disagree with each statement. Homeowners were more positive, and other respondent groups had close agreement/disagreement groupings.

3.3. Building Plan Review and Permitting
Another question bank featured statements related to the building plan review and permitting process. This section received a total of 26 responses, summarized in the table below:
# Statement SA A N D SD
1 Staff provided me with good customer service
during the building process. 34.6% 26.9% 11.5% 11.5% 15.4% 2 I clearly understood what approvals / building
permits would be required for my project. 23.1% 26.9% 11.5% 26.9% 11.5% 3 I clearly understood what information and
documentation I needed to include in my
application.

30.8% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4% 7.7%

46.7%

5.6%

36.1% 36.7%

33.3%

0.0%

55.6%

42.6%

72.2%

41.7%

36.7%

50.0%
100.0%

35.2%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Process
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 74
# Statement SA A N D SD
4 I clearly understood the timeline associated with
the review and approval process for my project. 24.0% 16.0% 28.0% 16.0% 16.0% 5 I clearly understood the steps of the
review process for my project. 26.9% 30.8% 19.2% 11.5% 11.5% 6 I clearly understood what fees would be required
for my project. 26.9% 34.6% 19.2% 11.5% 7.7%
7 The City's web site had the information I needed
to prepare a complete application. 8.0% 24.0% 44.0% 8.0% 16.0% 8 Submitting my application was efficient. 26.9% 38.5% 11.5% 7.7% 15.4% 9 Comments and corrections received on my
application were clearly based on the city's
building code or other clear legal standards.

23.1% 19.2% 15.4% 23.1% 19.2%
10 After resubmittal(s), reviewers focused on
ensuring that comments were addressed. New
issues were not identified that should have been
identified in the initial review.

23.1% 15.4% 34.6% 11.5% 15.4%
11 The time it took to process my building permit
application was appropriate. 19.2% 23.1% 19.2% 15.4% 23.1% All but one statement in this section received higher overall agreement compared to disagreement. Statements #1, #6, and #8 all received agreement ratings exceeding 60%.

This indicates that a majority of respondents felt as though they received good customer service, understood the required fees for their application, and felt that the submittal process was efficient.

Statement #9 had an even split between overall agreement and disagreement. This statement related to the clarity and pertinence of comments and corrections identified during the review process.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 75
Statement #11 received the highest level of strong disagreement from respondents.

23.1% strongly disagreed with the time it took to process their application.

Again, the quality of the information available on the City’s website received a high level of neutral responses – 44% in total. Similarly, 34.6% were neutral towards the statement that dealt with the likelihood of staff finding new issues upon subsequent reviews of their application. As noted in the prior section, this could be indicative of inconsistencies service delivery that are worthy of further exploration. (1) Analysis by Respondent Type
Like the last section, the average agreement and disagreement for each question category was calculated for each respondent type. Respondent groups that did not provide any responses to this question bank are excluded from the following charts.

Most respondent groups had positive sentiment towards the customer service experience throughout the building plan review and permitting process. Architects and builders were more inclined to respond to these statements negatively.

30.0%

16.7%

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

59.1%

50.0%

66.7%

40.0%

33.3%

25.0% 22.7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business Owner Contractor Developer Homeowner Customer Service
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 76
Again, most respondent groups were likely to indicate that they understood the steps, fees, and review groups involved in their application. Architect and business owners were slightly less likely to agree, while most builders were inclined to disagree.

A notable difference in the responses to this group of statements is the high level of average disagreement from homeowners. This group was the most likely to indicate

40.0%

22.2%

36.7%

47.2%

58.3% 58.3%

46.7%

66.7%

45.0%

19.4%

29.2%

23.2%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business Owner Contractor Developer Homeowner Education
Agree Disagree

46.7%

22.2%

40.0%

50.0%

41.7%

33.3%

46.7%

55.6% 53.3%

22.2%

33.3%

66.7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business Owner Contractor Developer Homeowner Process
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 77
negative sentiment towards the submittal and review process. Contractors and developers were more positive than others, and architects were evenly split on average agreement/disagreement.

3.4. Building Inspections
Another question bank featured statements related to building inspections. This section received a total of 22 responses.
# Statement SA A N D SD
1 The City did a good job at communicating what
inspections were required. 31.8% 36.4% 18.2% 0.0% 13.6% 2 My inspection was completed the next day. 14.3% 38.1% 33.3% 0.0% 14.3% 3 It was easy to request and schedule an
inspection. 28.6% 33.3% 23.8% 0.0% 14.3%
4 Inspectors dealt with me using a positive
approach of "here's how to get your
work approved".

28.6% 19.1% 28.6% 4.8% 19.1%
5 If deficiencies were identified during an
inspection, inspectors indicated the applicable
code section.

27.3% 13.6% 36.4% 9.1% 13.6%
6 The inspector showed up when expected. 36.4% 27.3% 18.2% 4.6% 13.6% 7 Inspectors were fair and consistent in applying
the codes and regulations to my project. 38.1% 19.1% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 8 The process to obtain the certificate of
occupancy for my permit was efficient. 14.3% 23.8% 38.1% 4.8% 19.1%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 78
# Statement SA A N D SD
9 If my project was inspected by different
inspectors the process was well coordinated
and comments from inspectors did not
contradict each other.

18.2% 22.7% 27.3% 13.6% 18.2%
10 Staff provided me with good customer service
throughout the inspection process. 36.4% 22.7% 18.2% 4.6% 18.2% Statements within this section also received mostly positive ratings from participants.

Respondents were most likely to indicate that they understood which inspections were required (#1), found it easy to schedule an inspection (#3), and that inspectors showed up on time (#6). These statements all received an overall agreement rating of 60% or higher.

The statement with the highest disagreement rating was #9. 31.8% of respondents felt as though coordination between inspectors on the same project was not sufficient. This statement received 40.9% agreement overall.

Three statements received neutral ratings exceeding 30%. These related to the when the inspection was completed (#2), the inspector’s ability to identify reasons for deficiencies (#5), and the process of receiving a certificate of occupancy (#8). (1) Analysis by Respondent Type
Like the last section, the average agreement and disagreement for each question category was calculated for each respondent type. Respondent groups that did not provide any responses to this question bank are excluded from the following charts.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 79
Average agreement was high across most respondent groups, with contractors, developers, and homeowners having the highest levels of agreement. Disagreement was higher for builders and engineers.

Regarding the inspection process, contactors and homeowners were more inclined to agree than disagree, while sentiment was split for architects. Other respondent groups 40%
20%
54%
50%
53%
0%
60%
33%
47% 46%
25%
33%
100%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Customer Service
Agree Disagree

36.7%

6.7%

44.0%

50.0%

26.7%

0.0%

50.0%

36.7%

60.0%

48.0%

25.0%

66.7%
100.0%

25.1%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Process
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 80
were more inclined to have a negative response, with builders, developers, and engineers having the highest levels of average disagreement.

3.5 Engineering
The final multiple choice question bank focused specifically on Engineering’s involvement in the development review process. This section received a total of 10 responses.
# Statement SA A N D SD
1 Engineering staff (including consultant)
provided me with good customer service
during the review process.

20.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0%
2 I clearly understood what Engineering reviews
were required for my application. 20.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0% 3 I clearly understood the Engineering review
process.

30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 30.0%
4 Internal Engineering staff was helpful in
explaining what I needed to do and how to
accomplish it.

20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.0%
5 Consultant Engineering staff was helpful in
explaining what I needed to do and how to
accomplish it.

20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.0% 30.0%
6 The initial review of my application was
complete and comprehensive. 20.0% 30.0% 10.0% 0.0% 40.0% 7 After receiving comments on my application, I
clearly understood what I needed to revise on
my application to achieve compliance with
adopted codes and ordinances.

20.0% 40.0% 10.0% 0.0% 30.0%
8 Comments and corrections received on my
application were based on the City's
development code or other legal standards.

10.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 40.0%
9 After resubmittal(s), reviewers focused on
ensuring that comments were addressed. New
issues were not identified that should have
been identified in the initial review.

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 30.0%

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 81
# Statement SA A N D SD
10 The time it took to process my application was
appropriate. 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 0.0% 40.0%
11 The City's development standards are easy to
understand. 10.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0%
Statements related to the engineering process received the highest overall levels of disagreement across all question banks. Six statements had higher levels of disagreement than agreement, and two more were evenly split.

The statements that received a higher positive response rate related to the applicant’s understanding of the engineering review process (#3), the comprehensiveness of their initial review (#6), and the clarity of the comments received on their application (#7). It is worth noting that despite the higher level of agreement towards statement #6, 40% of respondents strongly disagreed.

Statement #8 had the highest level of overall disagreement. 50% of respondents felt that the comments/corrections they received were not based on clear development code or other legal standards.

While the number of respondents for this section is low, the higher levels of strong disagreement indicate a need to further explore opportunities for improvement within this process, specifically in regard to bolstering the clarity, efficiency, and consistency of the process.
(1) Analysis by Respondent Type
Like the last section, the average agreement and disagreement for each question category was calculated for each respondent type.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 82
All respondent groups (besides architects, where sentiment was split) were more likely to indicate disapproval of the customer service provided during the engineering review process. Average disagreement was highest among engineers, builders, and contractors.

33.3%

0.0%

25.0%

0.0%

18.8%

0.0%

25.0%

33.3%

75.0%

66.7%

75.0%

31.3%
100.0%

50.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Customer Service
Agree Disagree

44.4%

11.1%

33.3%

0.0%

41.7%

0.0%

41.7%

33.3%

66.7% 66.7%

50.0%

25.0%
100.0%

41.7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business
Owner
Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner
Education
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 83
Architects and developers were more likely to indicate that they had a good understanding of the engineering review process compared to other respondent groups.

Average disagreement was highest among engineers, builders, and business owners.

Architects, developers, and homeowners were the only respondent groups to indicate a high level of approval towards statement related to the overall engineering review process. Negative sentiment was overall slightly lower, however, indicating a higher level of positive/neutral responses compared to the two prior groupings. Business owners and engineers again had the highest levels of average disagreement.

4. Open Responses
The final section of the survey featured three open-response questions. Two asked respondents to identify up to three strengths and three weaknesses, while the final question asked participants for any additional comments, questions, or concerns.

4.1. Strengths
18 respondents provided a total of 30 examples of what they would consider to be the development review process’ greatest strengths. The project team categorized responses into different categories, such as customer service, process, response time, etc. A summary of how often each category was mentioned by respondents is represented in the table below:

66.7%

25.0% 25.0%

12.5%

50.0%

25.0%

50.0%

25.0%

58.3%

75.0%

37.5%

31.3%

75.0%

43.8%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Architect Builder Business Owner Contractor Developer Engineer Homeowner Process
Agree Disagree

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 84
As shown by the table, the provision of customer service is one of the process’ most positive attributes. These comments generally emphasized staff’s attitude and general communication skills. Similarly, eight comments highlighted the skillset, attention to detail, and overall knowledge possessed by the staff they have interacted with. The other most common response category related to the process – specifically the ease of the submittal process and the time it took to process and application.

4.2. Opportunities for Improvement
18 respondents provided a total of 40 potential changes that could enhance the development review process’ overall quality of service. These comments were again grouped into similar categories and summarized via a graph, shown below:
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Customer
Service
Staff skills Process N/A Hours Location

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 85
Process changes and customer service improvements were the two most common categories. For process related changes, respondents indicated a need to improve turnaround times in the permitting process. Multiple of these comments suggested the implementation of a purely over the counter plan check process for small projects. Other suggestions included better collaboration between entities involved in the process, better use of technology (specifically for sending materials for review) and adding some flexibility to the process. Comments that fell under the customer service category cited a perception of poor attitude among some staff involved in the process.

Other categories included information – providing additional education resources to applicants ahead of their application; staff skills – providing staff with better training on the process; and staffing – increasing staff levels assigned to the process.

4.3. Additional Comments
Finally, respondents were able to provide any additional comments, concerns, or questions to the project team via open response. A total of 15 additional comments were received.

These comments were mostly reiterative of the two prior open response sections and were primarily focused on the process, customer service, and staff knowledge. Three comments noted that they have seen improvements in the process within the last few years, while one also noted the positive attitude of staff. The remaining comments highlighted a need to reduce processing times, provide better training to staff and customers, and to increase the predictability of the development review process. 15 15
4 3
2 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 Customer
Service
Process N/A Information Staff Skills Staffing

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 86
Appendix C: Best Management Practices Assessment

1. Introduction
This best management practices assessment represents an important step to report on initial key findings and opportunities related to the development and permitting review and approval processes in the City of San Dimas, California. In order to make the assessments of operational strengths and improvement opportunities, the project team utilized a set of best management practices outlining effective operational practices against which to evaluate the various operations and processes of the development process in the City of San Dimas. The best management practices criteria are based on the project team’s experience in conducting hundreds of development review assessments across the United States. The best management elements have been developed based on feedback from high performing communities, the project team’s experience as local government practitioners, and are tailored specifically to each client’s needs. We have used this list and expanded as new practices have been developed in the industry.

Collectively the best practices consist of best practices and recommended practices for efficient and effective service delivery in the development and permitting review and approval service area. These practices were developed based upon recommended approaches of relevant professional associations (such as the American Planning Association, International Code Council, etc.) and our firms extensive experience evaluating high-performing development review operations nationwide. This assessment enables the project team to summarize current operations by identifying current strengths in the operational practices and gaps or potential areas of improvements that will be further analyzed in later phases of this engagement.

The diagnostic assessment is one of several tools that will be used to identify recommended reforms. Following completion of this analysis, it will be used along with information obtained from stakeholder surveys and workshops, feedback from the City, and data analysis by the project team to develop a final set of recommendations.

2. Key Strengths
Although the diagnostic assessment is designed to identify improvement opportunities, it is also an opportunity to identify existing strengths of the current processes. Some of the key strengths of the City’s development review process include:

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 87
• The planning division utilizes a cross-disciplinary Development Review Committee to obtain input on all elements of proposed planning projects. • The building permit and encroachment permit review and inspections processes are tracked electronically in Accela, as are some elements of the planning process. • The Building and Safety Division consolidates comments from all review entities before providing them back to the applicant.
• The Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division have a number of detailed handouts related to specific permitting issues available on the city’s web site.
• The city utilizes contract support to assist when demand is greater than staff can meet and for specialized functions that do not warrant full time internal staff.

These are just a few examples of strengths of the current operations and where the City is currently meeting best practices.

3. Key Opportunities for Improvement
The comparison of the City’s current approach to best management practices also identified some improvement opportunities. Notable issues include:
• Elements of the code should be updated to provide a more predictable regulatory environment for applicants.
• The DPRB process, in many cases, is duplicative, creating delays in the review process while providing input that could be obtained from professional staff and / or the planning commission. In addition, the role of the DPRB and of the City Council in decision-making can lead to less predictability for permit applicants than a process that utilizes primarily professional staff and appointed board members with expertise in different areas of land use.
• A lack of in-house building plans review capacity (large projects) leads to delays and some inconsistencies in building plans review.
• Most applications, including site plans and architectural drawings, are submitted on paper and need to be physically routed. Other communities have found significant efficiencies by embracing electronic intake, routing, mark-up, and approval of plans for planning applications, building permit applications, and engineering applications.

The above items are not in alignment with best practices and indicate challenges that impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes and operations related to development review, permitting, and inspection activities. The project team will expand on these and other issues in subsequent analysis and in the draft and final reports.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 88

4. Diagnostic Assessment
This section provides an initial overall assessment of current operations and processes and identifies initial opportunities for organizational and operational improvements. The assessment is presented in a checklist format. The checklist identifies whether current practices do or do not meet the target.

The issues identified in this review will be analyzed further by the project team, leading to the development of the draft and final report. This analysis will primarily focus on the development review operations of Planning, Public Works, and Building within the City of San Dimas.

This diagnostic assessment of best practices is broken down into the major subsections of: Management and Administration; Customer Information and Interaction; Processes; and Technology Utilization.

Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
Management and Administration
The City has goals, objectives, and
performance measures for permitting
activities.
✓ ✓ Some targets in the planning
process (e.g., timelines for
review and re-review) are
unclear and should be
clarified. Many applications
fall under the 30-day
completeness review
mandated by the State.

There is a clear point of accountability
(either an individual or a team) for
ensuring that the process is efficient
and predictable and to address issues
as they arise.
✓ ✓ The City should identify and
create a point of
accountability for the entire
development process by
following a project manager
model, especially for more
complex projects.

For Planning applications, the
assigned planner facilitates
application oversight.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 89
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
Department managers and City
Management routinely review
performance (speed, efficiency) of
the permitting process.
✓ There is no monitoring across
all development review
functions – it is primarily
conducted on the individual
manager level. The City
should create a more
consistent monitoring
framework.

Managers and staff have access to
clear and accurate reports showing
current workload, timelines, and other
measures of performance.
✓ Reports are inconsistent and
do not cross disciplines. The
City should develop a single
reporting system that spans
all permit types and reviewing
divisions. Ideally,
standardized reports should
be generated in Accela and
reviewed by managers on a
monthly basis.

The City has access to adequate
resources to conduct complete and
timely reviews covering all disciplines.
✓ Based on the information
provided by the City, it
appears that most internal
deadlines are met, but that
efficiencies could be
achieved by simplifying
processes. Process
efficiencies would result in
enhanced turnaround times.

The City has backup plans in place in
the event of absence or departure of
key staff.
✓ Planning, DPW, and Building
all have multiple staff who
are equipped to conduct
necessary reviews.

The City has additional resources that
it can deploy in cases of unusually
heavy workload or high-priority
projects.
✓ While in-house Building
capacity is limited, overall, the
City has the ability to deploy
more staff on high priority
projects where needed.

Alternatively, contracted
resources are available.

Customer satisfaction with each
phase of the development process is
monitored.
✓ The City should put in place a
process to assess customer
satisfaction with their
experience in terms of
predictability, timeliness, and
customer service.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 90
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
The current zoning ordinance and
small area plans are up-to-date and
align with prevailing development
standards and practices.
✓ The zoning code has not
been comprehensively
reviewed and updated in over
20 years. Staff have recently
embarked on updating key
challenges with the code, to
better align with current
development practices in the
region.

Customer Education
The City provides easy-to-understand
and attractive guides to the planning,
building permit, and inspections
process.
✓ Individual pages for Planning,
Building, and DPW have some
detailed information, but it is
not available in one place and
does not provide a clear
overview of the permitting
process.

The City web site includes a virtual
“one stop shop” that provides an
overview of all permitting
requirements and links to permitting
requirements by department or
division.
✓ Information is highly
segregated.

All development staff are available at
a single easy to access location.
✓ All internal staff are located
at City Hall. Building and
Planning staff share a public
counter. DPW is in close
proximity, along with the
Cashier, to other
development review staff.

Fee schedule is published and
regularly updated.
✓ ✓ The fee schedule is currently
being updated and the
current schedule is available
online.

The City reaches out to the business
and development community through
periodic communications.
✓ Greater outreach to the
development community
would assist in guiding city
operations and improving the
quality of applications to the
city.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 91
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
The City regularly obtains input from
the business and development
community on issues related to
development review and permitting.
✓ Additional dialogue and
outreach would be beneficial
to focus more on continuous
improvement and less on
responding to complaints.

The City’s policies/website clearly
identify what applications are subject
to administrative approval
(administrative) versus require DPRB,
Planning Commission, and/or City
Council approval.
✓ Some information is available
on what applications require
DPRB versus administrative
approval, but it is not easily
decipherable to a typical
applicant.

The City provides clear and
comprehensive checklists identifying
all items required to be submitted for
each application type.
✓ Detailed checklists are
available for each type of
application.

Application forms are available online
and can be filled out electronically.
✓ ✓ Planning applications are
fillable. Building applications
must be printed out and filled
out by hand. Encroachment
and some applications that
don’t require fees can be
filled in electronically and
submitted by e-mail.

The City’s long-term plans and land
development code are available
online.
✓ They are accessible through
the Community Development
webpage.

The City’s adopted ordinance,
regulations, and design standards are
available and up-to-date online.
✓ Materials are online but many
would benefit from updating.

The City has a dedicated webpage
that identifies major on-going
development projects.
✓ Current development projects
and associated
environmental information
are provided on the city’s web
site.

Informational brochures for small
development projects, particularly
ones that are relevant to
homeowners, are available and in
multiple languages.
✓ Information explaining the
end-to-end process for small
projects should be added.

Processes

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 92
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
Permit technicians are certified by the
International Code Council (ICC).
✓ Certification is required within
one year of date of hire.

Permit technicians review
applications for completeness at time
of submittal.
✓ Building and Planning intake
staff check to ensure. that
applications are complete
before acceptance.

Plans are routed only to
departments/contractors for whom
the project is relevant.
✓ Development staff routed
plans only to reviewers who
previously had comments. If
major changes occurred, then
all reviewers are routed the
revised application.

Certain basic permits are available
instantly with no review requirement.
✓ Several building permits are
issued over the counter.

Expedited process is available for
simple projects, such as minor
interior renovations.
✓ The City generally follows a
first in / first out approach for
projects.

Staff uses a case management
approach for larger projects.
✓ In most cases a Planner
initially assigned to a project
manages that project through
all stages of the review. For
large building permits, the
Permit Technician facilitates
the application through the
process.

Applications provide sufficient
evidence / documentation for staff
(or the relevant approval authority) to
successfully review the submittal and
make a decision.
✓ Based on a review of
application submittal
requirements, reviewers
should be able to review
application submittals
sufficiently.

Preapplication meetings are held for
major projects.
✓ ✓ Preapplication meetings are
only with Planning staff and
do not include other
disciplines.

The PC and/or CC study
session process allows
applicants to discuss the
project with both bodies prior
to submission.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 93
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
Review timelines are posted on the
City’s website.
✓ There is no clear information
communicating timelines on
the web site.

Expedited building plan review
services are provided.
✓ Expedited services are not
provided but may not be
needed if turnaround times
are met.

Resubmittal review turnaround times
are quicker than new applications.
✓ ✓ Building is the only division
that has quicker resubmittal
timelines. Other divisions do
not have clear policies related
to turnaround times for initial
versus resubmitted
applications. Resubmitted
applications are reviewed in
the same order they are
received.

Adopted review timelines are met
consistently.
✓ Timelines are established
internally for building permit
applications, but are not
tracked systematically, so
there is no way to assess
performance.

A formal internal Development Review
Committee is responsible for
ensuring that plans address all City
requirements.
✓ DRC is effective at
communicating City
requirements, but the DPRB
and other elected/appointed
bodies may make outcomes
less predictable. DRC does
not include county Fire or law
enforcement representation.

All review comments are incorporated
into a single comment letter, reviewed
for consistency and conflicting
requirements, and distributed to the
applicant by project manager.
✓ Comments are consolidated
for planning, building, public
works applications.

Project review / comment letters
provide reference to the review
checklist and / or code reference.
✓ Preliminary review and plan
check comments do not
consistently refer to codes or
checklists.

Plans are reviewed concurrently to
avoid delays.
✓ All applications are generally
reviewed concurrently.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 94
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
For re-submitted plans, reviewers
focus on ensuring that comments
have been addressed, not issues that
should have been brought up in initial
review.
✓ ✓ Application letters did not
indicate there were any
issues. In the stakeholder
survey, for Planning
applications responses were
split on whether this was an
issue or not. For Engineering,
40% of stakeholder
responses indicated this was
a concern.

Approval authorities for planning and
zoning permits are clearly stated and
simple permits are approved
administratively.
✓ ✓ A partial table exists in the
DPRB section of the
municipal code.

The City could more clearly
identify the approval body by
improving the information on
applications and the website.

Many minor applications are
approved by staff.

Applicants can track their permit
application online.
✓ No status information is
available electronically.

Staff reports are thorough and include
recommendations on actions.
✓ A review of sample reports
indicated they provide an
overview of the application,
supporting documentation,
conditions of approval (if
necessary), and other
relevant project information.

Staff reports are succinct but
provide adequate
information.

Customers are given an approximate
time to expect their inspector.
✓ Morning or afternoon
inspections can be requested,
and they are provided a 2
hour window.

Applicants can request inspections
up to 5 p.m. on the day before the
requested inspection and next day
inspections are available for 100% of
requests.
✓ Target is next day inspections
but during times of heavy
workload or staff absence
these may not be guaranteed.

Inspections are available to
be scheduled several days in
advance.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 95
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
An online inspection request system
is utilized to receive inspections with
linkage to the permit information
system.
✓ Inspection requests must be
called in and scheduled with
staff. Staff indicated they are
initiating the process to
convert to an online request
system.

Combination inspectors are used to
reduce the need for duplicate
inspections at a single project.
✓ Inspectors are cross trained
and certified.

Each Building Inspectors conduct
between 12 and 18 inspections per
day.
✓ ✓ Number is lower (18 for 2
inspectors), but inspectors
have other duties including
plan review, so current
number may be realistic.

The City charges a re-inspection fee
to encourage builders to make sure
work is complete and ready to inspect
at time of inspection.
✓ ✓ Reinspection fee is not
commonly utilized but is an
available option.

For Certificate of Occupancy
Inspections, all applicable inspectors
complete the inspection at the same
time.
✓ Difficulty coordinating
inspections with outside
agencies (Fire and Health)
can delay Certificate of
Occupancy inspections.

Technology
Applicants can apply, pay for, and
receive permits, some instantly, using
an online portal.
✓ All building and planning
applications are paper based.

DPW encroachment permits
may be submitted through
email.

Staff have recently begun the
process to transition to online
services.

The permit software system can
calculate the appropriate plan check
and permitting fees.
✓ Fees are determined by the
system, but the collection of
fees is not through the
system.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 96
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
Applicants can look up status of a
permit, including comments from
reviewers online or using the
software.
✓ Currently no public portal
related to permitting exists.

Permit tracking software is used to
manage the permit intake, review, and
issuance process as well as related
inspections.
✓ ✓ The software system tracks
the issuance of building
permits and inspection
results. The current planning
and building application
process is paper based and
the system is not consistently
utilized to manage the
application process.

All plan review comments are entered
into the system and available to other
reviewers, permit techs, and
applicants (via the front end).
✓ Review comments are
directly on the plan set or a
separate sheet. Comments
are not stored on the
permitting software system.

The permitting system electronically
routes applications to all reviewers,
who can also electronically approve,
disapprove, and provide comments.
✓ There are no digital plan sets
associated with building and
planning applications.

The City is moving towards a
paperless system for all stages of
permitting and development review.
✓ Preliminary discussions have
been held to move towards a
digital process.

The permitting system generates
clear, user friendly reports on
permitting activity which can be
posted to the internet.
✓ No report mechanism
currently exists.

Development staff has access to
applicable GIS layers.
✓ Staff have access to internal
and county GIS data.

The general public can look up zoning
information, flood zones, and other
pertinent information using Web GIS.
✓ GIS information should be
available to the public online.

Inspectors enter inspection results
and correction items in the field via
tablet and have it instantly available
and viewable online.
✓ ✓ Inspectors result the
inspection in the field.

Inspection results are not
accessible online.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 97
Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target
Does Not
Meet Target
Improvement Opportunity /
Notes
One software system is utilized for all
permitting and functions in the City.
✓ ✓ Accela is used in addition to
Excel for development review
and permitting functions.

The full functionality of
Accela is not utilize and there
are significant opportunities
to expand the use of the
software system for the
intake, routing, and process
management for all planning
and building application
types. Accela can be used as
a development application
and permit database that can
store plan sets and
comments.

Internal staff training is provided on
new features within the permitting
software system.
✓ There is no formalized
training program for Accela
offered by the City.
.

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 98
Appendix D: Process Diagrams

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 99
Applicant submits
application at
building counter
(1)
BPT intakes
application
(2)
Planning input
required?
Planning reviews
application
(3)
Applicant revises/
resubmits
BPT reviews app. For
completeness
(4)
Complete?
BPT inputs permit
application info into
Accela
(6)
Permit #
Generated
Fees and
invoice
generated
BPT verifie
s
ownership and/or
contractor info
(5)
Applicant fills out/
signs doc with legal
info
(7)
BPT prints invoice for
applicant
(8)
Applicant pays fees
at cashier
(9)
BPT prints permit and
inspection job card
(10)
Applicant
receives permit
(11)
Approved?
Over the Counter Permit Process (Current)
Applicant Building Permit Technician (BPT) Planning
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
A
A
No

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 100

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 101

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 102

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 103

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 104

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 105

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 106

Development and Permitting Review and Approval Processes Audit San Dimas, CA Matrix Consulting Group 107

Development Review Audit

SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT 2

2 1. Goals of the Audit

2. Key Findings and Issues

3. Key Recommendations
AGENDA
Development Review Audit Findings
and Recommendations

SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA

Goals of the Assessment
3 Evaluate the current development
review service model and services.
1 Identify process improvements and
efficiencies.
2 4 Analyze and identify technology.

Develop process improvement plan
to enhance service opportunities.
5 Review workload, performance goals,
and staffing needs.
3

Key Findings and Issues (1)
4 • Cross-disciplinary development review committee exists and used extensively in Planning process.
• Robust customer service information is provided in hard copy and online. • Permitting software (Accela) is used to various degrees, but primarily only by Building.
• Application process is primarily paper based.
• Technology implementation is needed to improve operational efficiencies. .

Key Findings and Issues (2)
5 • Contract support is utilized to supplement workload demand and staff expertise. • The DPRB process is duplicative and creates additional delays in the Planning process.
• The zoning code and design standards need to be updated to align better with current development trends and allow greater flexibility. • Planning Commissioners and City Councilors should be equipped to make more consistent decisions to align with City policies, regulations, and initiatives. .

Recommendation Categories
6 1 Management and Oversight
2 Process Evaluation and Improvement
Customer Information and
Interaction
4 5 Staffing
3 Technology

Key Recommendations: Management & Oversight (1)
7 • Re-allocate DPRB decision authority to Director / Planning Staff or Planning Commission.
• Eliminate the use of Study Session for early City Council feedback. • Delegate some decisions made by City Council to Planning Commission. • Prioritize updating the City’s zoning ordinance, area plans, and general plan. • Include design guidelines in updated code.
• Update engineering and infrastructure design requirements. • Eliminate publicly initiated code amendments.
.

Key Recommendations: Management & Oversight (2)
8 • Establish target timelines for application review.
• Performance metrics should be tracked and reported.
• Develop standardized and streamlined staff reports.
• Create and implement a unifying missions for development and permitting functions.
.

Key Recommendations: Process
9 • Standardize the pre-application process and feedback approach. • Equip Planning Commission and City Council to make decisions that are consistent with City code and guiding documents.
• Building plan review staff should consolidate all review comments into a single letter.
• Establish policies that oversee and reduce review cycles and hold applicants accountable for quality work.
• Intake and processing of parcel maps should be conducted by a single department.
• Formalize the stop work order process.
. Page 126 – 130
Key Recommendations: Technology
10 • Expand the use of Accela to all departments.
• Transition to digital submittal and review process.
• All reviewers should be equipped with appropriate software and hardware. • Modifying land use record indexing process.
• Utilize permitting software as development database to store or link to historic development records.
.

Key Recommendations: Customer Information & Interaction 11 • Prepare a development handbook.
• Redesign the City’s website and create a virtual ”one stop shop” • Implement annual customer service survey.
• Incorporate performance dashboard on City’s website.
• Provide an application decision-making matrix on City’s website. .

Key Recommendations: Staffing
12 • Planning staffing levels are appropriate. Transition focus to updating codes, plans, and standards.
• Convert contract plans examiner into in-house position. All other Building position allocations are appropriate.
• Maintain current allocation of development review staff assignments in Public Works. Revise administrative staff job descriptions to Permit Technician title and cross train positions in Building, Planning, and Engineering. • Add a temporary technology implementation manager to focus on transition to digital process.
.

13 Questions and Discussion