HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2020 0115 REG CCSA ITEM 09C CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting Item: 9.C.
of January 15, 2020
ACTION Received report. BY B.Garza.
C. Consider Organizational Assessment of the Community Development Department
by Management Partners, Inc. Staff Recommendation: Receive the report. (Staff:
Karen Vaughn)
Item: 9.C.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director
DATE: 01/15/2020 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Organizational Assessment of the Community
Development Department by Management Partners, Inc.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On April 15, 2019, the City Manager approved an agreement with Management
Partners Inc., to conduct an independent assessment of the functions and processes
within the Community Development Department. Management Partners is a consulting
firm that employs municipal practitioners to evaluate a variety of municipal services and
conduct organizational assessments.
The Community Development Department (CDD) is responsible for multiple City
functions, including:
Planning — Business registrations, administrative permits, development
entitlements, long range planning, environmental assessments;
Building and Safety— Building permit plan checks, permit issuance, inspections;
Code Compliance — Complaint response, compliance with City codes,
inspections, enforcement;
Front Desk/Public Counter — General information, city hall phones, parking ticket
appeals, bus pass issuance, and cashiering functions.
These functions interact directly with the public on a daily basis. The department also
provides the reception and cashiering functions for all of City Hall. Additionally, the City
Manager has directed the transfer of the City's Affordable Housing Program to
Community Development from the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department. In all, Community Development is staffed by nine (9) full-time employees
augmented by contract staffing for Building & Safety (Charles Abbott Associates) and
Planning (Rincon Consultants).
108
Honorable City Council
01/15/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 2
The general purpose of the assessment was to analyze current practices and develop a
set of recommendations aimed toward building more modern, efficient, transparent and
accountable practices. More specifically, the goals were to:
• Analyze the current practices and recommend a framework of development
policies, regulations and procedures;
• Create a team-oriented organization focused on outcomes that serve the
community and stakeholders and provide professional growth for staff;
• Establish a clear development process that is easier to understand and improves
predictability for stakeholders;
• Identify business systems and new technology to improve effectiveness and
efficiency and make information easier to obtain and understand;
• Establish a clear management system that focuses on outcomes, implements
effective internal controls, and allows staff to do their best work;
• Improve the cost center system by making it more transparent and easier to
administer;
• Establish a proactive approach to infrastructure and development-related
improvements through a nexus analysis of future needs and the adoption of
comprehensive development impact fees; and
• Create a spirit of partnership with the community and stakeholders through better
communication and greater transparency.
Management Partners conducted certain specific tasks which helped to inform their
analysis and ultimate recommendations. Beginning with a kick-off meeting in May,
Management Partners:
• Interviewed all CDD staff and other key staff within the City;
• Interviewed several key stakeholders (current and prior applicants);
• Compiled readily available information and data;
• Conducted a process-mapping exercise to visualize the City's current entitlement
process.
Based on the interviews and data, Management Partners prepared a report that outlines
the various issues identified within the department as well as a set of recommendations
(Attachment 1). Of the 34 recommendations, several are currently underway. These
include major initiatives such as the comprehensive update to the General Plan and the
implementation of the EnerGov electronic permitting system as well as several
internal/procedural changes to the Development Review Committee and the way staff
manages development applications. Staff is working to prioritize the full set of
recommendations as outlined in the Draft Implementation Action Plan (Attachment 2)
and anticipates that some of the recommendations will become future objectives to
further implement City Council goals.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
109
Honorable City Council
01/15/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 3
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action is consistent with City Council Strategy 4, Goal 1, Objective 3 (4.1.3):
Conduct an Organization and Management Study of the Community Development
Department to review and analyze the development process and prepare an
implementation plan by December 31, 2019.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report.
Attachment 1: Community Development Organizational Audit Comprehensive
Executive Summary, dated October 2019
Attachment 2: Draft Implementation Action Plan
110
ATTACHMENT 1
/ litifCq;;;;Iftt
%
0 . ,-1-,
zsupw Amp
arrit,Wit
.:::yzabit 110060)
40
0
9 alliw:
AOgq TEO ,
City of Moorpark, California
Community Development Organizational Audit
Comprehensive Executive Summary
December 2019
ManagemenT '
�
Partners 0°I.
111
Management
Partners
December 11, 2019
Mr. Troy Brown
City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr.Brown:
Management Partners is pleased to transmit this Comprehensive Executive Summary
containing the results of our organizational audit of the Community Development Department
and Moorpark's development review process.
We conducted this assessment after reviewing a wide variety of documents and data,
interviewing several City staff and reaching out to key stakeholders who are experienced
customers of Moorpark's development process. Our team spent considerable time onsite to
understand the department and development process, and to observe operations firsthand.
During our time onsite we collaborated with City staff to develop a framework for a revised
development process. This revised process is illustrated in the process map attachments to this
report.
Our report identifies 34 recommendations designed to improve department operations, increase
efficiency, and guide changes in the development process. The recommendations also address
the need for updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance/Map. Additionally,we found
that improving various business systems is necessary to improve staffs' effectiveness and to
ensure the department's work is transparent to stakeholders and the general public.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you and the City of Moorpark.
Sincerely,
2,,,,,,, ,,
Gerald E.Newfarmer
President and CEO
1730 MADISON ROAD•CINCINNATI,OH 45206•513 8615400• FAX 513 8613480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM
2107 NORTH FIRST STREET,SUITE 470•SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95131•408 437 5400• FAX 408 453 6191
3152 RED HILL AVENUE,SUITE 210•COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626•949 2221082• FAX 408 453 61911 12
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
Table of Contents
Overview 2
Stakeholder and Staff Comments 5
Themes from Stakeholder Outreach 5
Themes from Staff Interviews 7
Context for Development 9
Moorpark's Use of Residential Planned Development Permits 9
General Plan, Zoning Status and Use of Development Agreements 10
Development Impact Fees and Exactions 11
Organization Structure and Workload 13
Organization Structure is Typical of Similar Cities 13
Workload 14
Development Review Process 17
Process Mapping 17
Improving the Development Process 18
Business Technologies 22
EnerGov 22
Electronic Plan Review 22
Transition to Paperless System 23
Enterprise Resource Planning Software 23
City Website and Handouts 24
Management System 26
Cycle and Task Times 26
Measuring Performance 28
Standardized Conditions 29
Staff Engagement and Training 30
Use of On-Call Consultants 32
Analytic Capacity 34
Fees, Cost Recovery and Cost Center Management 35
2
113
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
Pre-Application Reviews and Fees 35
Cost Recovery 36
Basis for Calculating Building Fees 37
Implement Surcharges to Recover Business System Costs 38
Workplace Environment 39
Conclusion 42
Attachment A—List of Recommendations 43
Attachment B—Draft Process Maps for Major Discretionary Projects 45
Attachment C—Draft Process Maps for CEQA Review 46
3
114
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
Tables
Table 1. Planning Permitting Workload 14
Figures
Figure 1. Stakeholder Ratings 6
Figure 2. Organization Structure of the Community Development Department 13
4
115
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
Overview
Management Partners was engaged by the City of Moorpark to conduct an
organizational audit of the Community Development Department and
development review process. This section contains a brief overview of the
project, including the City's reasons for initiating the study.
Background. In becoming a city in 1983, Moorpark inherited a substantial
number of entitlements for major development projects that were previously
approved by the County of Ventura. Early leaders found themselves having
to manage around projects they did not approve and applying an ad hoc
system to address issues such as design quality, offsite infrastructure,
community amenities and related matters that typically set apart cities from
counties.
• Ad hoc development review. Moorpark's ad hoc approach to
development review worked for some time;however, the City has
outgrown it because it does not provide a clear process and a
reasonable level of predictability for the development industry, large
and small businesses seeking to locate in Moorpark, and individuals
wanting to upgrade their residential sites. The City's past practices
have also led to a highly siloed organization that reviews
development piecemeal rather than on the basis of comprehensive
land use policies and regulations such as a General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
• Identifying infrastructure requirements. Another challenge with the
current practices is that the City does not have an effective system of
identifying infrastructure and related fees for new development
projects. This means that the infrastructure requirements for new
development must be analyzed piecemeal rather than on the basis of
comprehensive land use policies and regulations.
While the City currently imposes Development Impact Fees (DIFs) on
certain new projects, this is also done on a piecemeal basis due to the
lack of comprehensive land use policies and a nexus-based analysis of
infrastructure needs. This makes managing infrastructure
2
116
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
requirements and fees, as well as the actual improvements,more
difficult for the City. The current practices also make it difficult for
developers to understand the scope and cost of the infrastructure
requirements before deciding whether to pursue a project.
• Delay and uncertainty. The unfortunate by-products of the current ad-
hoc review of development projects and infrastructure requirements
are delay and uncertainty for customers and staff.
Goals of the study. Given its concerns about these issues, the City identified
several goals for Management Partners' assessment, as follows.
a) Analyze the current practices and recommend a framework of
development policies, regulations and procedures;
b) Create a team-oriented organization focused on outcomes that serve
the community and stakeholders and provide professional growth for
staff;
c) Establish a clear development process that is easier to understand,
and improves predictability for stakeholders;
d) Identify business systems and new technology to improve
effectiveness and efficiency and make information easier to obtain
and understand;
e) Establish a clear management system that focuses on outcomes,
implements effective internal controls, and allows staff to do their
best work;
f) Improve the cost center system by making it more transparent and
easier to administer;
g) Establish a proactive approach to infrastructure and development-
related improvements through a nexus analysis of future needs and
the adoption of comprehensive development impact fees; and
h) Create a spirit of partnership with the community and stakeholders
through better communication and greater transparency.
Recommendations. The 34 recommendations identified in this
comprehensive executive summary, when taken as a whole, will position the
City to meet each of the eight goals and apply best practices going forward.
Attachment A provides a summary of all recommendations.
Project approach. Management Partners used a variety of techniques to
inform our assessment. These included reviewing documents, conducting
3
117
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
interviews with key stakeholders and City staff, observing activity at the
front counter, analyzing the methods used to process development projects,
reviewing application forms, analyzing workload volumes, and creating
proposed process maps. We examined areas of responsibilities, overlaps and
interconnections related to staff review of entitlement/permit applications,
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) review and reviewing
compliance with conditions of approval.
Organization of the Document. In addition to this Overview Section, the
remainder of this document is organized as follows:
• Stakeholder and Staff Comments
• Context for Development
• Organization Structure and Workload
• Development Review Process
• Business Technologies
• Management System
• Workplace Environment
• Conclusion
4
118
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
Stakeholder and Staff Comments
This section contains a summary of comments from development
stakeholders and comments from City staff. During the period May through
July 2019, our team conducted interviews with staff members and several
stakeholders to learn their perspectives on operations that are working well
and those that could be improved. We received useful data and information,
good advice about resource documents, as well as candid comments about
impediments to productivity and problems in the work environment.
Themes from Stakeholder Outreach
Management Partners interviewed several stakeholders with broad
development experience with residential, commercial and industrial projects
in Moorpark. City staff assisted by identifying prospective stakeholders, and
Management Partners was solely responsible for the confidential interviews,
with no participation by City staff.
Stakeholders were asked to share comments about what is working well and
what changes they would recommend, as well as to rate the City's
performance on a variety of factors. This technique helped us to gauge the
seriousness of the issues and concerns customers have. The categories and
ratings are illustrated in Figure 1.A rating of 1 indicates poor service while a
rating of 10 means excellent service.
Summary of comments. Stakeholders felt that the best aspects of the
department's service were the helpfulness and accessibility of staff, although
there was a wide range of opinions. Stakeholders more consistently said that
complexity of the development process and getting quality information about
it are problematic.
We would note that stakeholders understood the department was working
hard under new leadership to implement improvements;therefore, their
ratings are retrospective comments on operational policies and processes that
have been in place for many years.
5
119
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
Figure 1. Stakeholder Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ease of understanding Moorpark's development review process
Quality of information about the process
Helpfulness of staff
Accessibility of staff
Time it takes for staff review and comments
Consistency of staff's comments and code corrections
Overall experience with Moorpark's process
Consistent themes emerged from the stakeholder interviews regarding the
development review process, as noted below.
• Building and Safety plan check and inspection services are highly
regarded.
• It was difficult to get a meeting scheduled to resolve high-stakes
technical matters. That is changing for the better under the current
administration.
• Previously it took too long for City staff to follow up on important
matters and staff did not convey a sense of urgency. Stakeholders
said that the current administration is sensitive to this issue and
appears to be committed to addressing it.
• The status of entitlement and condition compliance sub-processes
were difficult for customers to understand. The ambiguity made it
harder to explain the status to investors and property owners.
However, the current administration is implementing a permit
tracking system to address this and other challenges.
• No one on staff exhibited ownership or overall responsibility for
the management of the process.
• The development review process was not predictable and "11th
hour" surprises for applicants had become the norm.
• The civil engineering review of projects has relied too heavily on
the judgment and technical acumen of a single contractor to the
City.
6
120
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
• There is a perception that some of the City's contractors slow up
the technical review of projects when there are disagreements
about plans and drawings.
• Customers believe that the engineering contractor's time and costs
are not well managed, which is important because those costs are
passed on to customers.
• Reconciling developer deposits for entitlement/permit processing
and condition compliance can take several months to a year or
more because the City is missing (or has inaccurate) details.
• Customers are given no direction or assistance from staff when
their projects require them to deal with other departments or
outside agencies.
Management Partners has found that,in conducting many development
process studies, it is common for differences and misunderstandings to arise
between staff and the development community. However, these conflicts can
be unsettling, and they can affect the customer/staff relationship. More
important, the conflicts can affect an organization's ability to improve and
move forward.
An annual meeting with local leaders of the development community would
be one way to provide an open opportunity to customers to work
collaboratively with staff to address thorny issues, policy and regulatory
goals and professional roles. This could help to clear the air and improve
understanding on both sides.
Recommendation 1. Conduct annual meetings with local
development community leaders to obtain feedback about
the development review process and identify steps for
continued improvement.
Themes from Staff Interviews
A consistent theme from the staff interviews was a desire for change to a
more traditional development review process based on best practices. A
comment we heard that was reflective of many staff comments was "What's
taking so long? Show us the way—we are ready."
Themes arising from the staff interviews included:
• There is good team spirit despite challenges of the past, and there are
areas within the department(and City organization) where
communication is effective.
7
121
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
• The Building Division and its processes are viewed by staff as
working relatively well, with a high level of service (e.g., plan check
and inspection turnaround timeframes).
• Technology in the department has been inadequate and there have
been significant delays implementing new business systems such as
EnerGov. IT support is inadequate for staff to do their jobs efficiently.
Some examples included "the City website is unfriendly", "wireless
internet in City Hall does not work well", and "tasks such as ordering
a new keyboard are too complicated".
• Moorpark is a small community where people know one another;
relationships are easy to develop but also problems are easily
magnified.
• The Community Development Department was characterized by
some staff as having been"in a rut."
• The development process is perceived as arcane. An example noted
by several staff was the City's reliance on development agreements
for so many projects which adds complexity,reduces predictability
for applicants and delays the overall development process.
• There is a high degree of dissatisfaction(and some finger pointing
among staff) about the cost center system of collecting developer
deposits and charging staffs' time against project accounts.
• Staff members have not had adequate training and what they have
had has lacked focus.
• The prospect of change in the organization has been met with a little
resistance. Such resistance is common in the change process, in
Management Partners' experience, and it will require commitment
and follow to help those who may not embrace change easily.
• Some silos exist which can hinder the ability of the organization to
work efficiently between departments. This is a common challenge
for cities, in Management Partners' experience.
8
122
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
Context for Development
This section summarizes the historical context for the development
processes in effect today, where the City is with its General Plan and
zoning status, and development impact fees.
Moorpark's Use of Residential Planned Development Permits
In 1983, the development pattern for Moorpark's 12.8 square miles was
thought of in"thirds."
• One-third of the City had already been built out for a population
of approximately 8,000 residents,
• Another one-third was covered by county-approved and vested
subdivisions yet to be developed, and
• The remaining one-third was left for future consideration.
The middle one-third (approved,undeveloped subdivisions) was the
focus of attention during the first year of incorporation. City leaders
wanted higher quality development(site layout, design and building
materials) than had been approved by the county. Community members
wanted visually appealing streetscapes and landscaped medians and, in
some cases,reduced density of development.
To achieve these objectives, the City invited developers to either
renegotiate and modify the Residential Planned Development(RPD)
permits that accompanied the vested subdivisions or start over under
Moorpark's undefined standards and process which were to take effect at
the one-year anniversary.
9
123
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
Developers were concerned with starting over, so almost every RPD
project was renegotiated with the City. This experience framed future
expectations, especially related to negotiating for exactions and public
benefits in development agreements as they relate to community benefit
exactions that would not be subject to the Mitigation Fee Act.1
General Plan, Zoning Status and Use of Development
Agreements
The General Plan and zoning ordinance need to be updated, and the use
of development agreements limited to only those projects that truly
warrant such an extraordinary entitlement.
• The Moorpark General Plan is today more of a series of resolutions than a
comprehensive vision of the community's future. Moreover, the Land Use
Element and Circulation Element are 27 years old;the Open Space
and Conservation and Recreation Element are 33 years old; and the
Noise Element is 21 years old. Fortunately, the Housing Element is
only about five years old;however, it will require updating in 2021
pursuant to state law.
• The Zoning Ordinance is largely the same as was inherited from Ventura
County at the City's incorporation, with several mandated provisions tacked
on. Additionally,the Zoning Ordinance includes a few requirements
that were adopted by the City of Moorpark(e.g., lighting regulations,
hillside management, revised sign regulations, accessory dwelling
units,newspaper racks and telecommunication transmitters and
receivers).
1 Development agreements are a type of land use approval or permit that give cities
latitude to advance their land use policies.A development agreement also gives cities
more flexibility in considering conditions and requirements,including how public
benefits associated with the project may make the project more desirable and worth
approving.In exchange for this latitude,flexibility and the public benefits,a developer is
typically granted more assurance that,once approved,their project can be built.A
development agreement is a contract;therefore,it requires consent of both city and
developer.However,because it is a contract,it allows a city to negotiate the terms of the
agreement including the exactions and public benefits provided by the developer.
10
124
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
• Today, almost all medium- to large-sized development projects in Moorpark
require a General Plan Amendment and/or a Zoning Ordinance amendment.
The City encourages a developer seeking such modifications to negotiate a
development agreement. While a development agreement requires
consent by both parties, the City controls the process and timing.
Moreover, for projects of this nature, there is no set process with
benchmark timelines, other than legally required public notices, the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),
and procedures for public hearings and appeals.Development
agreements are powerful tools in the land use approval process in
California. However, our experience is that most cities use them for
unique projects and situations and not as the norm, which is what has
happened in Moorpark.This is one of the reasons for Moorpark's
unpredictable development process and inability to review projects
efficiently.
On one hand, Moorpark's planning and development framework has
given the City broad discretion regarding the timing and decisions for
major development projects. On the other hand, the framework is
regarded by customers as unpredictable, or as a stakeholder commented,
"You can't see the goal posts, let alone the 50-yard line."The current process
favors negotiation over a set,predictable process based on established
community standards and requirements set in policy that developers can
see and understand.
Making the development process more predictable and timely for
customers and more efficient for staff will require City leaders to adopt a
more traditional framework for guiding and regulating land use. This
would start with updating the General Plan to ensure it expresses the
City Council's vision and goals for Moorpark. The Zoning Ordinance
(and perhaps the Zoning Map) should then be updated so that they serve
to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Recommendation 2. Conduct a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Map.
Development Impact Fees and Exactions
Once the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are updated, it will be
important to identify the types of infrastructure improvements that will
be necessary to support the development envisioned in the policy
documents. This involves preparing plans for future infrastructure and
improvements and determining what they will cost.
11
125
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
Through a nexus study, the costs for the new infrastructure and
improvements would be apportioned to new development based on
project impact and need.
These steps will obviate the need for reliance on development agreements
to ensure infrastructure and improvements are incorporated into new
development projects.
Recommendation 3. Conduct a nexus study to
determine the infrastructure and
improvements required to serve new
development and analyze their costs in
relation to new development projects.
Once a nexus study is completed, City leaders should establish a system
of impact fees.
Recommendation 4. Adopt impact fees based on
the nexus study.
12
126
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
Organization Structure and Workload
This section provides Management Partners' observations about
organization structure and workload. Overall, we believe the way in
which the department is structured and staffed is appropriate for the
workload, except for the need for analytic capacity on staff. We address
that in recommendation 26 below.
Organization Structure is Typical of Similar Cities
The Community Development Department has three divisions, which is
typical of departments in similar cities.
Figure 2. Organization Structure of the Community Development Department
Community Development
Director
(10 FTE)
Administration Planning and Code Compliance Building and Safety
(3 FTE) (5 FTE) (1 FTE)
Functions Functions Functions
Administration California Environmental Quality Building inspection(contract)
Budget Act Permitting
City Council liaison Code enforcement Plan check(contract)
Housing Development review Public counter
Planning Commission liaison
Public counter
The structure and classification system and the positions are typical of
community development departments in similar cities.
• The department is comprised of nine full-time-equivalent(FTE)
positions, which at first appears relatively small but seems
appropriate given that the building function is provided through
13
127
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
contract with the consulting firm of Charles Abbott Associates,
which provides their own staffing.
• Code compliance staffing is limited but the services are provided
internally under the auspices of the Planning Division.
• There is one FTE code compliance technician II position.
• The span of control is adequate as well.
Historically, staffing levels in the department appear to have been kept
relatively lean. Further, we understand the City has only rarely engaged
planning consultants to keep up with workload demand. However, the
current workload appears to be somewhat light compared with other
planning and development agencies, and staffing appears to be adequate
for workload.
Workload
Management Partners reviewed the case volume by permit types for
three fiscal years ending in FY 2018-19. Table 1 provides the volume of
permits processed during this period. These data show a general decline,
but we hesitate to call this a trend because it is based on a limited time
period.
Processing these permits is a large part of the Community Development
Department's work. However, a similar workload is anticipated during
the current fiscal year budget as in FY 2018-19.
Table 1. Planning Permitting Workload
Permit Type Number of Permits Processed
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Accessory Dwelling Units 5 8 2
Administrative Permits 14 8 6
Appeals 0 0 0
Certificates of Compliance 2 0 1
Commercial Planned Development 0 1 0
Conditional Use Permits 2 3 2
Film Permits 4 6 2
General Plan Amendments 0 1 0
General Plan Amendments Formal
Initiation 0 1 0
Historic Preservation Certificates 1 0 0
Home Occupation Permits 69 61 36
14
128
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
Permit Type Number of Permits Processed =ND
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 F 018-19
Industrial Planned Development 2 0 0
Lot Line Adjustments 1 0 0
Open House Sign Permits 74 65 43
Permit Adjustments 7 3 1
Parcel Maps 2 1 1
Pre-Applications 2 1 1
Residential Planned Development 0 1 0
Sign Permits 33 18 7
Temporary Use Permits 26 27 9
Variances 0 0 0
Zone Changes 0 1 0
Zoning Clearances 518 383 81
Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5 4 1
Source:Moorpark Community Development Department
There are 15 mid-to large-scale residential projects currently under
entitlement/permit review, along with three industrial projects planned.
The 108-room Fairfield Hotel is also under construction and inspections
for condition compliance are underway.
The Building and Safety Division's workload for FY 2017-18 totaled 1,257
permits with a total project valuation of$54.3 million. By comparison,
workload for FY 2018-19 decreased to 863 permits with a valuation of$9.6
million.
A special meeting of the City Council was conducted on May 29, 2019 to
introduce the City Manager's proposed budget for FY 2019-20. A
summary of anticipated near-term development projects was provided
and is reproduced below for context about the trends and scale of work
being conducted by staff members throughout the City organization and,
in particular, the planning, civil engineering, affordable housing and
landscape sections of the Community Development, Public Works and
Parks and Recreation departments.
On the development side, the City Council can anticipate a number
of residential development projects to come before you during FY
2019/20 that will add new residents, new infrastructure to support
residents, as well as increased sales and property tax revenue. These
projects include a proposed 69-unit townhome project on Los
15
129
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
Angeles Avenue (Green Island Villa/Grand Moorpark) and another
60-unit townhome project on Everett Street (Chiu). Due to the
relatively low number of residential units these projects may bring,
the proposed budget does not propose the addition of new service
levels; conversely no services are proposed to be reduced.
16
130
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Development Review Process
This section outlines Management Partners' analysis of Moorpark's
development process. Also included are an analysis and
recommendations for best practices that will help the department to
enhance services and improve outcomes.
Process Mapping
To fully understand each step in the City's development process,
Management Partners prepared process maps. Our work began with a
day-long process mapping session with 12 staff members in May 2019.
Our goals in facilitating this session were twofold.
• Identify the current process steps. Documenting the existing process
is important because it helps to form the baseline to identify gaps,
redundancies and other problems in the current system, and to
illustrate changes needed for improving efficiency.
The process mapping exercise was useful in clearly showing that
the City does not have a uniform, identifiable process that could
be documented in process maps. The system in Moorpark, can
best be described as "ad hoc" where each project is processed
independently, and the steps, sequence and requirements can
change from one project to another. This non-uniform approach
defeats the objectives of predictability, clear and efficient
timeframes, and the ability for staff to provide clear guidance for
applicants. Our attempt at mapping the current process enabled
us to understand what we had heard from stakeholders and staff
in our interviews.
• Identify tangible ways to improve predictability and timeliness of the
development review process. These outcomes require an efficient
workflow, multiple ways for customers to access relevant data
and information, clear communication and feedback from staff,
and better overall customer service.
17
131
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Management Partners was able to focus on this second objective
of process mapping. Staff members were eager to challenge the
status quo, question existing methods, and discuss the various
forms,notices and the timing of the process. The discussions with
staff also included a review of the pre-application, development
review and condition compliance sub-processes.2
Our review of the development process in Moorpark resulted in two sets
of process maps, one set for major discretionary development projects
and the other for CEQA review.
Improving the Development Process
Management Partners has several recommendations regarding improving
the development process below.
Uniform development process needed. Management Partners observed
activity at the public front counter,heard suggestions from staff, and
reviewed application forms to understand how staff process applications
currently. We also examined areas of responsibilities, overlaps and
interconnections related to staffs' review of entitlement/permit
applications, CEQA review and reviewing compliance with conditions of
approval.
The process maps we created will serve as a foundation for establishing a
clear and uniform development review process. The department should
review the process maps annually to keep them current by making
refinements, as necessary. We suggest this review be conducted as part of
an annual omnibus process outlined below and addressed in
Recommendation 9.
Recommendation 5. Establish a uniform
development review process,using the
process maps as a foundation.
2 As mentioned previously,most large development projects in Moorpark have been
processed with development agreements,each having a unique set of conditions and
requirements.In contrast,the conditions and requirements in most cities tend to be more
standardized and,therefore,easier to understand and predict for applicants and easier to
enforce for staff.
18
132
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Establish project manager. Each customer needs a single point of contact
that can help him/her understand and navigate through the process in a
straightforward and timely manner. Customers we interviewed voiced
the complaint that they were often referred to other departments or
outside agencies, and when that happened, they were confused and lost
time.
A better approach is for each applicant to have a staff member designated
as project manager. The project manager would be a sort of"air traffic
controller," owning the flight path and trajectory for the project. Planning
staff should serve as project managers, with accountability built into their
job classifications and annual performance reviews.
One simple but effective way to standardize a workflow is to develop
checklists identifying key process steps and requirements. Checklists are
a tangible way to train staff and to serve as handouts to guide customers.
The checklists should be reviewed each year to ensure they are current
with policy changes, State law modifications, and process improvements
made by the City.
Recommendation 6. Establish the role of project
manager for each project that includes a
discretionary application.
Recommendation 7. Prepare comprehensive
internal checklists by project type for staff
members and applicants. This should also
involve an annual review of the checklists which
could be done as a part of the omnibus review
process by the Development Review Committee.
Recommendation 8. Communicate the steps of
the development review process, standards
and deposits/fees in a Development Review
Handbook that is provided to customers.
Conduct annual policy updates. The California Legislature periodically
enacts new regulations that affect land use policies, as well as imposing
new procedural requirements and practices. Instituting an annual
practice of reviewing Moorpark's development policies, codes and
procedural changes along with implementing changes imposed by the
State would ensure that all elements of the City's development policies tie
together.
19
133
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Doing this at a set time each year will give policymakers and the
community a comprehensive picture of major issues. As an example, the
City of Encinitas conducts a comprehensive overview of its community
development function each spring, side-by-side with the state-required
Annual General Plan Report. The timing of this session gives Council
members an opportunity to prioritize and budget what staff work is to be
conducted on policy, code, process and fee matters as well as timing of
such work.
Recommendation 9. Establish an annual
omnibus process for adopting and updating
land use policies,regulatory code standards,
programs, and administrative processes,
including the procedures for managing the
cost center program.
Expand role of Development Review Committee (DRC). An effective
development review process requires regular communication and
coordination between staff from various disciplines involved in a
complex series of tasks.
Moorpark has a staff-level Development Review Committee (DRC)
whose role it is to inform the City Council,Planning Commission and
City Manager about the technical merits of development projects that
require discretionary review. This role could be expanded to include an
interdepartmental staff review of pre-submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition compliance phases of development
review. As the DRC's role is expanded, it will also be important to
ensure clarity about the project manager's duties in relation to the DRC.
Our process maps indicate what we view as an appropriate role for the
DRC.
In addition to reviewing individual development projects, we believe the
DRC should lead the annual omnibus process for reviewing and
reporting to the City Council on updates to legislation, policy,
procedures, programs and related matters. As a practical matter, this
process will be overseen by the Community Development Director, who
should also have the authority to delegate certain tasks to other
departments.
Recommendation 10. Expand the role of the
Development Review Committee to cover the
pre-submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition compliance
20
134
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
phases of development review, and oversee
the annual omnibus review process.
Another concern we heard during the process mapping session is that not
all pertinent staff members are part of the Development Review
Committee,nor are they involved early enough in the technical reviews.
DRC membership should be expanded to include staff who can provide a
review of integrated waste management, stormwater and affordable
housing.
Recommendation 11. Expand membership of the
Development Review Committee to include
coverage of integrated waste management,
stormwater and affordable housing.
After the department implements this new development process, and
works with it for some time, it would be appropriate to examine the
process further and identify additional ways to improve it.
21
135
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
Business Technologies
This section summarizes our recommendations regarding technology,
intended to increase efficiency of the development process.
EnerGov
The City purchased the EnerGov land management system and its web-
based portal to help streamline reviews and allow staff and customers to
access the status of development projects and plan review comments.
Expectations for a quick and smooth implementation of this system were
dashed after the contractor substituted personnel responsible for system
roll-out, the City was late in delivering process information, and the
implementation budget was depleted.
Now back on track under the guidance of the City Manager's Office, staff
plan for the EnerGov system to be operational by late 2019. One of the
outstanding matters is to ensure the process steps and workflow
contained in the EnerGov system are consistent with the steps and
workflow in the City's revised development review process.
Recommendation 12. Complete the configuration,
beta-testing and roll-out of the EnerGov
system. In so doing, provide licenses for staff,
conduct staff training,publicly announce a launch
date, and provide a user-friendly guide on the
City's website for access to and use of the system.
Recommendation 13. Embed the process steps
and workflow identified in the process maps
within the EnerGov system.
Electronic Plan Review
Staff expressed interest in implementing other business systems that
would allow customers to use electronic tools such as Blue Beam or
Adobe Pro to submit applications and plans electronically. Most of these
tools provide for two-way electronic forwarding of technical drawings
22
136
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
and reports,red-line mark-ups on plan sets, as well as the electronic
archival of such, at a considerable savings of paperwork, time, cost and
space. Management Partners' experience and working with many public
agencies has convinced us that use of these technologies in local
government is a "when"not"if" proposition.
Recommendation 14. Procure and integrate an
electronic application submittal, distribution
and plan review business system.
Transition to Paperless System
Many large and small cities throughout California are currently engaged
or have recently completed transitions to a paperless development review
process. Examples are Encinitas, Carlsbad, Newport Beach, Roseville, and
Folsom. Paperless systems cannot be implemented overnight. They
require a deliberate and programmed transition for both staff members
and customers. To be successful, the transition needs to break long
established behaviors of working with paper in exchange for the
efficiencies from electronic tracking, communication and archiving.
Implementation of the EnerGov system must first be completed, as would
the transition to an electronic plan review system. We also see the move
to a paperless system for development review as a "when" not"if"
proposition. Implementing a paperless system would require staff
training, the validation of electronic signatures, the provision of electronic
kiosks for customers, as well as integration with outside agencies.
Examples are Caltrans,Ventura County Fire Protection District, Ventura
County Watershed Protection District and Wastewater District.
Recommendation 15. Develop a timeline for
future transition to a paperless development
review system.
Enterprise Resource Planning Software
The City Manager's Office is overseeing an enterprise resource planning
(ERP) project, which will integrate multiple business functions such as
planning, finance,human resources and procurement through
technology. The use of an ERP system has become common in local
governments for business efficiency and as a way to innovate, given
limited staffing resources that are typical among smaller cities.
Recommendation 16. Plan for continued
investment in system upgrades and ERP
23
137
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
integration of business systems. Particular
attention needs to be provided to the
integration of the EnerGov system with the
Geographic Information System and digital
application submittal and plan review software.
City Website and Handouts
A variety of guides, application forms and checklists are available on the
City's website and at the public front counter. The various resolutions
that comprise the General Plan and the Zoning Code are also posted
online.
However, the City's website needs updating. Searching for a routine
question, such as the process for securing a sign permit,requires multiple
steps rather than the industry standard of"1-2-Click." It was noted by a
staff member that it is easier to obtain a copy of the Zoning Clearance
form by using the Google search engine instead of the City's website.
Another interviewee remarked, "Redesign it so we don't have to flip through
several pages to figure out the City's submittal requirements."
Changes that should be considered include replacing the department's
webpages with application guides and checklists by type of project,
readily available to the user on the website. The guides and checklists
should cover items such as:
• Zoning requirements;
• Lot split/subdivision requirements;
• Sign permit requirements;
• Process steps;
• Fees (including a fee calculator);
• Staff contacts;
• Method to track an application, such as an applicant's use of the
EnerGov system; and
• Other helpful resources.
The Development Review Handbook, which was previously
recommended (Recommendation 8), should also include these additional
materials. Further, implementing these changes would require assigning
responsibility to a staff position to update the website and handout
materials on a semi-annual schedule. This would ensure that customers
have the most current information on processes,requirements and public
access points to data, information, public notices and project status.
24
138
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
Recommendation 17. Update the website to focus on
providing application guides and other electronic
information, such as the Development Review
Handbook.
25
139
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
Management System
Managing a community development department well requires a variety
of technical skills, an ability to provide clear direction to staff and a
commitment to being accessible and providing good service to customers.
Tools in the form of systems, policies, timeframes, procedures,
performance measures, analytic capacity, and other checks and balances
are also needed for effective management. We call these collective tools
the management system.
This section focuses on the various components of the department's
management system.
Cycle and Task Times
The State's Permit Streamlining Act provides benchmark standards for
processing of development projects. However, discretionary projects
involving a legislative decision(such as General Plan Amendments,
Zoning Code/Map modifications, and development agreements) are
exempt from these timeframes. Many projects in Moorpark, including
virtually every large project, involve one or more of these legislative
actions.
It may appear that having no time standards is an advantage to the City
because staff and policymaker review of projects is not constrained by
deadlines. However, lack of time standards can lead to unhappy
customers, dysfunctional systems, and inefficient work.
The lack of established time standards, or cycle times, contributes to
staffs' inability to advise customers about what to expect and how long
things will take. Improving Moorpark's development process will require
setting timeframes and managing the work within them.
Cycle times and task times. Implementing and managing timeframes in
a development process also requires differentiating between cycle and
task times. This is important because the development process in most
cities is iterative, starting when a customer submits an application and set
of plans. Staff then review what was submitted,preparing and sending
26
140
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
comments to the customer explaining the changes to the project that are
necessary. A new cycle begins again when the customer revises plans and
resubmits them for further review. Obviously, limiting the number of
cycles of review is critical from a time management standpoint.
Our experience is that cities should aim to complete the development
process after two cycles of review. This is impeded in Moorpark by
several factors, as follows:
• Imprecise or unclear General Plan or Zoning Code policy that
leads customers to submit projects that are not in compliance.
• Lack of information that helps customers understand the review
process and a city's requirements.
• Inaccessible (or a lack of) staff to answer questions promptly.
• Lack of or unclear policies and procedures that leave staff
uncertain about how to advise customers. (A related problem is
inconsistent implementation of policies and procedures by
different staff members or for different projects.)
• Lack of onboarding or training for staff about the entire
development process.
• Unclear applications and submittal requirements that do not
provide a comprehensive list of what is necessary when projects
are submitted.
• Lack of communication with customers (website,informational
materials,public counter, telephone) about which city department
is responsible for what review task.
• Ineffective internal coordination of the reviews by various
departments (e.g., where one or more departments do not conduct
a thorough review which results in a customer getting "last-
minute" or piecemeal comments).
Limiting the number of review cycles is a key step in improving the
development process. Another key step is to clearly identify and tightly
manage task times. Of course,by task we refer to one of the numerous
discrete steps in each review cycle. Examples of tasks might include:
• Circulating plans to the various reviewing departments after the
project has been submitted;
• Reviewing the development plans;
• Consulting with external agencies (e.g., school district, Caltrans);
• Conducting an environmental review pursuant to CEQA;
• Determining whether significant off-site improvements will be
necessary;or
27
141
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
• Reviewing the type of construction to identify major building
code problems.
Need to set realistic timeframes. Managing tasks requires setting realistic
timeframes for each staff member to complete their portion of the review
and ensuring all staff members are conducting their reviews
concurrently. The project manager discussed earlier in this report is the
key to keeping a project on schedule because their role is to analyze,
communicate and coordinate with City staff and the customer.
The following are other timeframes that should be established.
• Completeness task time. The Permit Streamlining Act requires
determinations on application completeness be made within 30
days of application submittal.
• Tenant improvement cycle time. Establish a cycle time for review
of office/commercial tenant improvements of 20 calendar days.
• Discretionary project cycle time. Establish cycle times for review
of all other discretionary development projects within 45 calendar
days of the application completeness determination.
• CEQA cycle/task time. The CEQA process should run
concurrently with discretionary project review but recognizing
that CEQA review involves separate statutory timeframes for
public review and comment.
Recommendation 18. Establish cycle and task
times for the entitlement review of
development projects. Track timeframes and
share results with staff on a monthly basis.
Measuring Performance
The EnerGov platform is capable of producing data that will allow the
department to prepare management reports that measure cycle times and
other metrics by project type (e.g.,residential tract development,
commercial or industrial development, infill or revitalization of highway
corridor centers, etc.),by permit type (e.g.,Use Permit, Tentative Tract
Map, etc.),by geographic area of the city, as well as by staff position or
department. The system can also provide workload data for purposes of
strategic planning,budgeting, and deploying staff resources.
Using EnerGov data to measure performance will require programming
and formatting of standardized reports. Some land management systems
require these standardized reports to be created through third-party
28
142
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
software such as SAP's Crystal Reports software.Department leaders
should confer with the City's IT staff and the EnerGov vendor to clarify
how this standardized reporting will be accomplished.
Department leaders will need to identify the types of metrics and reports
it needs to allow a continual assessment of the development review
process and department operations. Examples of typical metrics are
shown below.
• Percent of DRC reviews completed within the timeframe goal;
• Average number of days required to complete DRC reviews;
• Number of projects submitted with discretionary applications;
• Average number of review cycles conducted for:
a. discretionary projects, and
b. plan check;
• Average number of days from discretionary application submittal
to action by the Planning Commission and City Council;
• Total number of plan check submittals;
• Average number of plan check resubmittals;
• Average number of days required to complete plan check reviews;
• Number of building permits issued;
• Number of building inspections performed;
• Percent of building inspections performed within timeframe goal;
• Number of customers served:
o By telephone, and
o At public counter;
• Number of code enforcement cases filed;
• Average number of days for inspection after code enforcement
cases are filed; and
• Average number of days to resolve and close code enforcement
cases.
Recommendation 19. Establish a system of
performance reports and metrics to analyze
the development process and Community
Development Department operations.
Standardized Conditions
All discretionary entitlements in Moorpark include a 47-page list of
standard conditions of approval. Standard conditions and checklists are
effective because they ensure that important requirements or steps are not
overlooked, and they help to ensure consistency from one project to
another.
29
143
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
However,many of the standard conditions in Moorpark may not be
applicable or scaled properly to their respective projects. Nonetheless,
they are required pursuant to City of Moorpark Resolution 2009-2799.
Several of the conditions in the City's list recite regulatory requirements
already built into the development review process through state and local
laws,making them unnecessary. Further, we understand these standard
conditions can be confusing and costly for stakeholders. Worse, the
conditions could constitute an overreach when misapplied to mid-sized
projects, and this could be a "deal killer."
A best practice is to have a scalable list of standard conditions of approval
that staff can choose from which are relevant to the development project
at hand.
Recommendation 20. Edit the standard conditions
to remove redundant requirements that
appear in state or local laws.
Recommendation 21. Amend Resolution 2009-
2799 to clarify that standard conditions of
approval are to be applied and scaled
commensurate with each development project.
Staff Engagement and Training
It is evident that Moorpark has quality, committed employees at every
level of the organization who are supportive of and even eager to begin
using new approaches to improve the development process and the
department. It is also clear the department has effective leadership.
Engaging staff in implementing changes, and in their professional
development, will be important to the success of improved development
processes.
The Community Development Department's prior focus has been on
project review rather a broader approach that emphasizes timeliness,
clarity, predictability and customer service. The narrower project review
approach led to lack of coordination and a perception by customers of
30
144
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
little sense of urgency.3 Management Partners notes that the only process
that had some structure in Moorpark was related to CEQA, and that was
due to State mandates. A "start-to-finish" type of project management
was not evident.
Under the new processes recommended in this report, staff at all levels of
the department will need to participate in the workflow and ownership of
their assigned development projects.
Key ingredients will include the following:
• Expanding staff roles to include anticipating pinch-points in the
process, greater problem-solving with one another and the
customer, and actively working to keep forward momentum for
projects at each step of the development review process.
• Enhancing an understanding of the customer's perspective that
each project is important and urgent to that customer.
• Moving from working on parts of a project to managing for
project outcomes.
• Obtaining new skills in analytical methods and strategic
approaches to workflow management, as well as skillful use of the
business systems that can assist the staff team.
• Conducting annual performance reviews that are focused on
professional development, establishing goals for the coming year,
clarifying expectations, and identifying what will be most helpful
for each staff person's success.
With regards to performance evaluations, we learned that they have been
inconsistent or even overlooked within the department in the past. This is
not particularly unusual in organizations,but it is a missed opportunity.
The timing for the annual performance evaluations can be set in a variety
of ways, such as based on the employee's anniversary date, or all
evaluations conducted at the same time once a year. The latter timing can
be useful as a way to clearly incorporate the department's goals and
3 Urgency implies a priority,where something is important enough to warrant swift,
persistent and earnest action.However,it is not the same thing as emergency,which is
characterized by a need for immediate,drop-what-you-are-doing action.
31
145
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
expectations into individual performance goals and evaluations so that
there is meaningful feedback to each employee in a way that reflects on
the progress of the entire team and its goals for the coming year.
Regardless of the schedule,the important thing is for the department to
provide a structured, annual performance evaluation for each staff
member. Additionally, staff members should be provided regular,
specific feedback to support their success, along with training, coaching
and support.
Recommendation 22. Conduct annual evaluations
for each member of the department. Goals
established in performance evaluations should
identify specific ways for each team member to
advance the department's efforts to improve the
development process and customer service.
Recommendation 23. Provide customer service
training that emphasizes workflow
management. The annual performance review
is key to setting expectations for behavioral
norms, particularly as the department's culture
transitions to become more team-oriented and
outcome-focused.
Use of On-Call Consultants
Many cities use on-call contractors to assist with specialized tasks or to
assist during periods of peak workloads. The Community Development
Department has started doing this in two important ways.
1. The department has established on-call contracts with two
environmental firms to prepare CEQA reports for the City. Developer-
prepared environmental documents are no longer accepted for
processing,which was an important step by the City. Having on-
call contracts reduces the time required for the CEQA review.
2. The department has established an on-call contract with an estate
advisory firm to perform economic and related analysis as a part of
reviewing projects where development agreements are proposed. Again,
having this firm under contract allows the department to be
nimbler in responding to development proposals.
On-call contracts are sound practices because a department this size (in
fact, even much larger departments) would seldom have among their
staff the special expertise these firms offer. Using these experts ensures
32
146
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
quality analysis and representation for the City of Moorpark.
Additionally, the cost of this expert assistance can be recovered through
fees, reimbursement agreements, and similar arrangements.
Other steps can be taken. Additional measures could also be considered,
such as the following.
• Hiring consultants to assist with updating building permit and
development impact fees would also ensure a high-quality
analysis and that the costs and impacts on the community are
being properly addressed.
• Engaging on-call contract with a planning firm(s) that provides
project-processing help is another good approach for addressing
periods of peak workload, rather than incurring the cost of hiring
staff for the peak, which is not affordable for most cities. Having
consultants on call allows the department to use the resources
when workload warrants it. The cost of these on-call services can
also be recovered from the applicants who benefit from the
service.
Recommendation 24. Expand consulting services
to include additional on-call economic and
planning casework assistance, as well as
services to analyze building permit fees and
development impact fees.
The City of Moorpark uses an engineering consultant to provide various
civil engineering services including participating in the development
review process. Unfortunately, the management of these services was
roundly criticized by stakeholders. The criticism centered on lax
oversight by the City's consultant,particularly in the areas of cycle times
and cost containment.
Management Partners is not able to advise whether stakeholders'
perceptions regarding the contract engineering services are valid because
such an assessment is beyond our scope of work. However,it is clear
these matters are considered problematic by the stakeholders we
interviewed. Other complaints from stakeholders are that the engineering
function is not managed effectively and that there is a lack of
responsiveness to customers. These concerns warrant further review by
City staff.
33
147
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
Recommendation 25. Conduct a focused
assessment of the civil engineering program,
including on-call engineering services.
Analytic Capacity
The system changes needed to improve the development process, and the
technology being implemented now or planned, will require additional
analytical capacity in the department. Additionally, the accounting
functions required within Community Development need additional
capacity. The lack of a position to provide this capacity means that the
director and managers are responsible for the various analytic tasks, and
time available for customer issues, complicated development projects and
overall management is strained.
Among the tasks needing attention are the following:
• Collecting and analyzing data, and tracking performance;
• Preparing the budget;
• Managing the cost center system;
• Ensuring proper accounting of various developer funds;
• Coordinating the department's efforts with other departments,
especially the Finance Department;
• Problem solving issues from customers or staff, such as those
about deposits; and,
• Assisting with implementing improvements to the development
process.
Problems with accounting and monitoring. We understand that requests
of an administrative or financial nature usually take a backseat to other
important work in the department. For example, an accounting inquiry
from a customer (or staff member) about a deposit account can take quite
some time to answer. We heard of instances where this took as long as
one year. A related problem pertains to the commingling of developer
funds used for improvements required by conditions of approval or
mitigation measures.
The cost center system was assigned to the Finance Department at some
point in the past. This is understandable at first blush since the cost center
system is an accounting function. However, after examining it further we
think this may have been misguided.
While Finance staff are typically skilled at accounting and monitoring
financial records, doing so for the Community Development Department
is particularly complicated because of the numerous projects, complex
34
148
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
timeframes,infrastructure requirements, conditions of approval and
several other variables. These factors complicate the accounting tasks.
Further, the Community Development Department is responsible for two
types of accounts: development processing deposit accounts and impact
fee or condition of approval funds used for various improvements or
requirements. Each project may have one account of the first type and
another account of the second type.
It would be difficult for Finance staff to spend the required time learning
and monitoring all the requirements and project variables in addition to
their regular work. Our experience is that effective community
development departments often have a dedicated analyst position to help
meet these needs yet maintain thorough accounting records consistent
with finance guidelines.
The department does not have an effective system for managing the types
of analytical, administrative and accounting challenges discussed above.
We believe a central problem is that there is no one single person
responsible for this work. Creating an analyst role in the department
would address this matter.
Recommendation 26. Create an analyst position in
the Community Development Department.
Fees, Cost Recovery and Cost Center Management
We understand there is a plan to conduct a study of administrative
processing fees in the near future. We have found wide variability in
development review fee schedules throughout California,both by region
and by purpose, such as incentivizing developers to seek pre-submittal
review of projects. While the City's fee consultant will provide analysis
and specific recommendations,we offer some best practices and broad
recommendations below.
Pre-Application Reviews and Fees
The department's website identifies two types of pre-submittal reviews.
"Pre-Submittal Review" is focused on discussing City requirements
before plans are prepared. It appears this process is free. "Pre-
Application" is a process where applicants can meet with and obtain
feedback from various City representatives. The fee for Pre-Application is
$1,400. Both processes are scheduled by appointment.
Early review of projects is good for customers and City staff because it
establishes clear communication at the beginning of the development
35
149
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
review process. It also discourages ill-conceived concepts from being
submitted and then languishing in the review process. Making this
process easy, fast and cheap is in everyone's interest.
However,having two similar processes is confusing and unnecessary.
Combining them into a single process would simplify things for
customers and staff. Of course, the department could continue offering
other informal consultations on request.
Some cities provide pre-application reviews on a regular schedule. The
advantage is a standardized process, timeframes and stakeholder/staff
expectations. It also helps address the problem of departments coming to
a pre-application meeting unprepared.
Recommendation 27. Combine the two pre-
application reviews into a single process and
determine whether they will be conducted on
request or on a regular schedule.
Recommendation 28. Establish a nominal (or no)
fee for pre-application review.
Cost Recovery
The cost of most of the work of the department is recoverable through
processing fees (e.g., fees for building permits, conditional use permits,
variances, zone changes, general plan amendments, and subdivisions).
However, it is common that cities are not able to recover certain types of
expenses because they cannot be attributed to new development.
The key is to build an understandable fee schedule that encourages
efficient service delivery and fee transparency. Establishing a cost
recovery policy is a recommended first step.
The principle of cost recovery is that the individuals or businesses who
receive a benefit from a city in the form of entitlements should bear the
cost of providing those services. When development review fees do not
recover a city's costs, the result is that the cost burden is shifted
elsewhere, typically to the General Fund. The result of artificially low
development review fees is that other taxpayers subsidize new
development.
City Council policy. Cost recovery begins with a City Council policy that
establishes the intent to recover the City's full cost of providing services
to development applicants, and whether some (or no) project types
should be subsidized. For example, some cities subsidize permit costs for
36
150
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
project types they want to attract, such as affordable housing,because
they deem them important for the community's general welfare.
Recommendation 29. Develop and recommend an
appropriate cost recovery policy to the City
Council.
Recovering external costs incurred by the City. Moorpark has a complex
system for reviewing project compliance with conditions of approval,
mitigation measures,infrastructure requirements, and subdivision
agreements. Some but not all costs for this work can be recovered
through projects' cost center accounts. However, the City needs to ensure
that other costs, like consultant-related civil engineering costs and staff
preparation of Subdivision Improvement Agreements, are also recovered.
Cities can also incur other external costs for processing development
projects. Examples of these include costs for consultants to prepare
environmental documents, prepare third-party economic analysis, or
provide other technical or legal assistance.
Some cities enter into reimbursement agreements with applicants to
recover these costs. Another approach is to wait until the City receives a
proposal from the consultant and then require the applicant to deposit
the entire amount with the City in advance. Whichever option Moorpark
chooses, a clear and well-documented reimbursement process will be
useful when projects involve additional costs.
Recommendation 30. Prepare a policy and
procedure related to reimbursement of all
external City costs.
Basis for Calculating Building Fees
Moorpark, like most cities in California,has a series of building fees to
cover the cost of plan check, issuing permits and obtaining an inspection.
Cities typically use one of two basic approaches for calculating these fees.
• Project valuation, or
• Analysis of time/motion.
Project valuation is an approach that sets fees based on the cost to build
the project. To ensure uniformity, cities typically use project valuation
data published by a well-accepted authority such as the International
Code Council(ICC).
37
151
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
The second approach is what Moorpark is using now. It is a more
detailed analysis of the actual work involved in issuing a permit,
performing a plan check, or conducting an inspection. This method then
multiplies the average hours required for the task by the fully burdened
rate of the employees performing the tasks. Moorpark's other entitlement
fees are rooted in this time/motion method because a developer pays for
the time staff spend to process their project.
The project valuation method is a simpler approach, and is widely used,
but can be less defensible because the relationship between a project's
cost and the task performed by the staff member(s) is not linear. In
contrast, a time/motion method is more complex to set up but can be
more accurate because it studies the actual work performed and
determines the fee on this basis.
As previously recommended, the City should seek the advice of a well-
qualified building permit fee consultant.
Recommendation 31. Determine whether
building fees are to be calculated on the basis
of project valuation or the estimated time for
completing each task.
Implement Surcharges to Recover Business System Costs
Cities incur substantial costs to procure, manage,license and update
business systems and policies such as land management systems (e.g.,
EnerGov), geographic information systems, general plans, and zoning
ordinances. Other miscellaneous business systems also include recording,
imaging and archival services related to maintaining public records. Since
these systems and policies exist to guide and support new development,
a significant portion of their costs can be recovered through application
and permitting fees.
A common way of recovering these costs is to establish surcharges on
each permit, approval or entitlement the City issues. In this way, the City
will recapture the costs incrementally over time and have sufficient
funding to offset large cost outlays to update these systems in the future.
Of course, these surcharge funds must be segregated for accounting
purposes to ensure they are spent for the intended purposes.
Recommendation 32. Establish a system of
surcharges on permits, approvals and
entitlements to recover costs of business
systems and policy documents.
38
152
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
Workplace Environment
The most prominent face of Moorpark City Hall is the small, 10-foot wide
public counter in the portable, dimly lit building that houses the
Community Development Department and portions of the Public Works
and Parks and Recreation departments. This is the public's only access to
City Hall because other departments and offices are located behind
locked gates.
There are a number of issues related to the current physical space,
including:
• The facilities are small and uncomfortable in terms of reviewing
large plan sets with customers and doing the other work of the
Community Development Department;
• The public queueing space is inadequate for the volume of users
during peak times in the morning;
• Public restrooms are located three buildings away and down a
hill;
• The portable building is accessed by a steep ramp from the
parking lot that may not meet the standards of the Building and
Safety Division it houses; and,
• Noise attenuation is a problem.
By comparison,the internal operating departments, Administration,
Human Resources, Finance,IT, City Clerk and the City Manager's Office
are housed in a well-lit, air conditioned and nicely furnished modern
office building next door. This building,however, is inaccessible to the
public, despite the fact that it provides 40-feet of front counter space,
substantial queueing space and restrooms adjacent to the unused front
counters.
Moreover, all City Hall walk-in customers are directed to the Community
Development front counter. All telephone calls are also directed to the
Community Development Department, and specifically to an
administrative assistant who is seated next to the public counter. During
lunch and breaks, other administrative staff in the portable building
39
153
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
provide backup relief for the primary staff who handle these tasks.When
asked about this situation, staff members explain it as a vestige of frugal
times to avoid layoffs.
This workplace environment is not conducive to a contemporary business
model that provides comfortable,business-like facilities for customers
and staff and multiple, direct points of public access to services at City
Hall.
Since our assessment was focused on the Community Development
Department and the development review process, we will focus on how
the inadequate facilities impact customers and staff in terms of providing
a business-friendly environment. In fact, most cities strive to create "one-
stop" centers for permitting with facilities and amenities designed around
the customer. These factors should be considered as Moorpark weighs its
facility needs in the future.
Recommendation 33. Conduct a facility needs
assessment to determine options for relocating
development review functions to City Hall, or
remodeling facilities to provide a modern and
workable office environment.
New counter schedule needed. The Development Services front counter is
open to customers on Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
for a total of 45 hours per week. The schedule does not provide downtime
to process paperwork or enable staff to accomplish other assigned tasks.
Moreover, the schedule does not afford attendance by all staff at
department-wide meetings and/or job-specific trainings,unless closure of
the public counter is authorized by the City Manager.
Many cities establish public counter hours that recognize the need for
mobilization and demobilization time in the morning and late afternoon.
Although large organizations may find coverage from other departments
or divisions for staff meetings, training and other important
administrative functions, this is often not possible in smaller
organizations.
Our experience is that the early morning hours are typically the most
valuable to contractors and others seeking permits so opening the public
counter at 8:00 a.m. could work so long as it closes early in the afternoon
for demobilization. For instance, closing the counter at 4:00 p.m. would
provide staff time to close out files, finish recordkeeping tasks and other
functions so they can start the next morning focused on that day's work.
40
154
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
Recommendation 34. Develop a counter schedule
that provides time for mobilization and
demobilization each day, as well as time for
meetings,training and other important
administrative functions.
41
155
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Conclusion
The City of Moorpark is in a transitional period of change that includes
efforts to improve the City's development review process and to ensure
the Community Development Department's structure, staffing and
operations are optimized for the future.
The City has an opportunity to move from its current ad hoc
development review and land use system to one that is grounded in
policies that allow for predictability, consistency, timeliness and clarity
for development applicants. The current approach to development makes
providing information to customers difficult if not impossible.
Technology investments are underway, and more are planned, and more
system improvements will be needed to create an efficient development
process review system. Practices over the years have resulted in staff
members having a narrow scope of responsibilities, which complicates
their ability to assist customers effectively and impedes having a well-
integrated and coordinated development system across the organization.
It also works against professional development, which is critical in
maintaining top talent and keeping staff well trained.
Improving the development process will require establishing a
comprehensive framework of land use policies and regulations by
updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance/Map. With these
policies and regulations in place, the process maps prepared by
Management Partners will serve as a foundation for establishing a clear
and predictable development process.
Implementing the recommendations in this report will take time and
budgetary resources. City leaders, along with the enthusiasm and
dedication of staff, can establish a high-functioning development process
that customers appreciate, staff feel part of, and the community benefits
from.
42
156
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Attach men — List -f Recommendation
Recommendation 1. Conduct annual meetings with local development community leaders
to obtain feedback about the development review process and identify steps for continued
improvement.
Recommendation 2. Conduct a comprehensive update to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Map.
Recommendation 3. Conduct a nexus study to determine the infrastructure and
improvements required to serve new development and analyze their costs in relation to new
development projects.
Recommendation 4. Adopt impact fees based on the nexus study.
Recommendation 5. Establish a uniform development review process,using the process
maps as a foundation.
Recommendation 6. Establish the role of project manager for each project that includes a
discretionary application.
Recommendation 7. Prepare comprehensive internal checklists by project type for staff
members and applicants.
Recommendation 8. Communicate the steps of the development review process,standards
and deposits/fees in a Development Review Handbook that is provided to customers.
Recommendation 9. Establish an annual omnibus process for adopting and updating land
use policies,regulatory code standards,programs, and administrative processes,including
the procedures for managing the cost center program.
Recommendation 10. Expand the role of the Development Review Committee to cover the
pre-submittal, condition and mitigation measure setting, and condition compliance phases of
development review, and oversee the annual omnibus review process.
Recommendation 11. Expand membership of the Development Review Committee to
include coverage of integrated waste management, stormwater and affordable housing.
Recommendation 12. Complete the configuration,beta-testing and roll-out of the EnerGov
system.
Recommendation 13. Embed the process steps and workflow identified in the process maps
within the EnerGov system.
Recommendation 14. Procure and integrate an electronic application submittal, distribution
and plan review business system.
Recommendation 15. Develop a timeline for future transition to a paperless development
review system.
Recommendation 16. Plan for continued investment in system upgrades and ERP integration
of business systems.
43
157
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Recommendation 17. Update the website to focus on providing application guides and other
electronic information, such as the Development Review Handbook.
Recommendation 18. Establish cycle and task times for the entitlement review of
development projects. Track timeframes and share results with staff on a monthly basis.
Recommendation 19. Establish a system of performance reports and metrics to analyze the
development process and Community Development Department operations.
Recommendation 20. Edit the standard conditions to remove redundant requirements that
appear in state or local laws.
Recommendation 21. Amend Resolution 2009-2799 to clarify that standard conditions of
approval are to be applied and scaled commensurate with each development project.
Recommendation 22. Conduct annual evaluations for each member of the department.
Recommendation 23. Provide customer service training that emphasizes workflow
management.
Recommendation 24. Expand consulting services to include additional on-call economic and
planning casework assistance, as well as services to analyze building permit fees and
development impact fees.
Recommendation 25. Conduct a focused assessment of the civil engineering program,
including on-call engineering services.
Recommendation 26. Create an analyst position in the Community Development
Department.
Recommendation 27. Combine the two pre-application reviews into a single process and
determine whether they will be conducted on request or on a regular schedule.
Recommendation 28. Establish a nominal (or no) fee for pre-application review.
Recommendation 29. Develop and recommend an appropriate cost recovery policy to the
City Council.
Recommendation 30. Prepare a policy and procedure related to reimbursement of all
external City costs.
Recommendation 31. Determine whether building fees are to be calculated on the basis of
project valuation or the estimated time for completing each task.
Recommendation 32. Establish a system of surcharges on permits, approvals and
entitlements to recover costs of business systems and policy documents.
Recommendation 33. Conduct a facility needs assessment to determine options for
relocating development review functions to City Hall, or remodeling facilities to provide a
modern and workable office environment.
Recommendation 34. Develop a counter schedule that provides time for mobilization and
demobilization each day, as well as time for meetings,training and other important
administrative functions.
44
158
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Attachment B — Draft Process Maps for Major Discretionary
Projects
45
159
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 1 of 7)
Project Concept Review
Start
1-
0)a)
Contact City Hal I i
with request to
meet on a concept Submit project Customer has option
description,details- <Do
they request a
project or to request DRC Yes
and drawings for meeting?
modification of a meeting
previously approved review
•roject
I.
i
O
4-3
> •—
•E Assign planning
= c manager team to the
E a) project based on need No
E E and workload
O CP-
V 0L
w
W Quasi-judicial
i
E . Xv
.
Email to customer an I Process continues
application form, on Page 2 for
Does the project checklist,and fee/ Summarize the Communicate results Legislative Actions
L
nerate a folder in Process continues Schedule DRC meeting
_. require a legislative deposit agreement for content of the DRC to customer,City
EnerGov action'or a quasi-judicial on Page 6 . to review concept meetingin EnerGov Manager,Executive
q 1 quasi-judicial land-use project or modification g
. entitlement? entitlement to and update case status Team,and CEDC3 Process continues
customer on Page 6 for Quasi-
ties
uasi-
-
— Judicial Actions
C
C Legislative
CD action
O.
a)
•- V R
ceG
4-3 Conduct first DRC
aJ 4, meeting2
E
O E
O
0 V
CI
1
Legend and Notes
Notes • Blue Boxes indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
'Legislative Actions include General Plan Amendments(GPA),Zoning Code Amendments(ZCA),and/or Development Agreements(DA)
2This is the only DRC meeting that the customer attends. White Boxes indicate an internal City process.
3City Council Community and Economic Development Committee(CEDC) 160
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed
Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 — Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 2 of 7) ... 111.1
_.... _
ormal Initiation of Legislative Process
a)
E
o "-submit application
ril
In Process continues materials,signed
3 agreement and
V from Page 1 deposit
electronically
E
CD
a)
H
11
Issue Notice of Create a summary Upload the decisionCD Email to the
C Upload customer I Receipt of memo,upload it to Schedule public and all hearing Send written,formal Did the City
customer an
CD application I Schedule meeting EnerGov,and email hearing for the full materials into notification to I Council grant Formal Process continues
materials into Entitlement ♦ with the CEDC 1 the NOREA list City Council and EnerGov and notify customer of CityLInitiation of Legislativ Yes—I application form, on Page 3
tiD EnerGov Application 1 about where they inform NOREA list the NOREA list of Council decision I Review ? checklist,and
C
I (NOREA)1 deposit agreement
•— can find it decision
C —
J
ca
E
No
Conduct meeting
N with customer to Process Ends
provide feedback
M about the project
and to hear initial
public comments
[ duct
onCity Council
hearing for Formal _
Initiation of
Legislative Review
J
Notes
'List of recipients could include the City Manager,Executive Team,Development Review Committee, CEDC,and nearby properties.
2City Council Community&Economic Development Committee(CEDC) Legend and Notes
3Should analysis by an outside consultant be required and controlled by the City,a separate deposit agreement will be provided to the • Blue Boxes indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
customer,along with contract details on scope of work.
White Boxes indicate an internal City process.
161
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed
Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 — Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 3 of 7) 1.1
r _.... — — — i.
Entitlement Process (Conformity, Site Planning, Design, Engineering, and Affordable Housing)
111
Submit application
,signed Email supplemental
Process continues information
0 from Page 2 agreement and requested in 30-day
3 deposit letter
V electronically
No
E /IN- Email supplemental
0) r Conduct 30-day1 Upload 1
information and the Email the City
H Upload customer NotifyNOREA list application supplemental 7Reconcile regulatory
p pp pp Upload comments negotiating team
ft documents into about new completeness Is the application information into 45 calendar day conflicts and
p complete? deadline for review into EnerGov comments with relevant
tiD EnerGov submission review to determine EnerGov by next updates
CD to DRC and outside
C completeness business day
CD -\/ agencies —A
toa
'E i
Contact customer by
C
ca email to inform Refer to CEQA
a —Yes customer of process
application
completeness
determination
Y
Cra Email policy and
bp b Review technical comments
tv a) Q supplemental to Planning Manager
CU CU information' Team by 45 calendar
. in
day deadline
� = —
E O
O
V
J
Notes Legend and Notes
'Identify regulatory conformity or conflict,further technical needs,preliminary findings,and draft permit/map conditions. • BI - Bo--s indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
2Include project status,summary of comments,preliminary findings,significant conditions
• White Boxes indicate an internal City process.
162
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed
Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 — Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 4 of 7)
_,... _ _
'econcile Policy, Technical, and CEQA reviews
CO
I- Analyze and
i05 Process continues reconcile policy,
tta from Page 3 technical,and CEQA
CD documents'
a
ca
2
to
a
a
a
ca
E
a, o
a) eli r
a
cC 8 4-3 w Draft permit Email
conditions,findings,
• a Conduct second DRC reLcommendations
� 2 meeting2 and CEQA Mitigation to City Negotiating
:1=1 �21 Monitoring and Team
O E Reporting Program
> o 0
a) O
V
a)
H
t7eo
•a Confer with Planning
CD Manager Team on Process continues
0 project status and on Page 5
II 313 recommendations
0J
0 Z
s
I V
Notes
'Policy and technical comments,draft conditions,CEQA mitigation measures and alternatives,and preliminary findings Legend and Notes
2Reconcile comments,conditions,mitigation measures,alternatives,and findings • 1"=m-(=1 indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• White Boxes indicate an internal City process.
163
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed
Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 — Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 5 of 7)
egotiate Agreements
at
E
0
4-3
in
V
E
CD
a)
H
ft
CD
C
CD
2
toa
a
a
ca
E
CU
H
13D Conduct initial Review customer's
C
'473 I Form team suitable meeting with the economic Negotiate
CD Process continues Identify full range of information and Process continues
based on project customer and agreements with the
+:+ 6rom Page 4 negotiable items conduct2 on Page 6
p description receive customer's customer II 0
economic analysis independent pro
forma
Iii Z
111- V
Notes Legend and Notes
1Check development evaluation,economic development multiplier,public service cost,and tax revenue generation.Note that the City • Blue Boxes
J
recently executed a services agreement with Keyser Marston Associates for economic analysis. indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
2For example,a draft development agreement and/or affordable housing agreement. White Boxes indicate an internal City process.
164
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed
Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 — Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 6 of 7) vill vmm” 1.1
_.. _
'reparation and Conduct of Public Hearings
Process continues
6.from Page 5 for Confer with City LItfInaI
documentsa) LegislativeActions Prepare a ClerktoscheduleUpload all
staff report ofAdjust documents and provide notice Notify NOREA list of comport with the documentsDid the City Council Post the Notice of Process continues
based on City City Councils ♦ approve the YesCEQA Determination
findings and of Planning public hearins rawings,and plan on Page7
tiD Process continues Attorneycomments ctions and email entitlement/maps? with the county
recommendations Commission and City Lsets to EnerGov
c h.from Page 1 forL Council hearings NOREA list
Quasi-Judicial
--
Nr
2 Actions
tiD
C No
C
CD
E Process Ends
i
M Review documents
from Planning
Manager Team and
request adjustments
Las needed
r
a
0
•_
in
E Conduct public
E hearing to
0 determine an
V
tiD advisory
C recommendation
C
C
CD
E
Conduct public
hearing for action
on entitlements/
maps
Notes
'Include Mitigation,Monitoring,and Reporting Program(MMRP),resolutions,and ordinance amendments Legend and Notes
2lnclude project status,summary of comments,preliminary findings,significant conditions • Blu- Bo indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
[ ihiteBox indicate an internal City process.
165
City of Moorpark Community Development Review — Proposed
Management
DRAFT (08/2019) Partners
Map 1 — Discretionary Development Project (Page 7 of 7) 111
— .
Condition Compliance
I
CU Submit deposit Submit applicable
funds,technics
agreement,funds, reports,revised plan
N technical reports,
and plan sets sets,and executable
documents 3
•. r IH
„ I [Draft Subdivision
Coordinate required Are transactions Improvement Upload Subdivision Notify NOREA list of [Work with customer
biO Upload documents and recordable Improvement and City Clerk to Upload all forms
CD into EnerGov revisions with the documents Agreement and Agreement into the Council's record executable into EnerGov Process Ends
C customer email to customer decision
CDL _ involved?' EnerGov documents
L
for work-upL
tiD
C AL
C
C
CD
O.
—V 111
in
4-3
3 I T Conduct DRC Review and Verify that all
0 Conduct technical meeting to share reconcile submittals conditions have
CU> 2 compliance review information and provided by been met by
CD al reconcile conflicts customer customer
4-3
C V .v
CU ix a
O CU No
> 44-+
C) •—
C
F
Determine final
approval of
Improvement
Agreement and
L
lated subdivision
maps
Legend and Notes
Blue Boxes indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
White Boxes indicate an internal City process.
Notes
10EQA Mitigation,Monitoring,and Reporting Plan,permit conditions,easement,property exchange,in lieu funds,subdivision tract
map or parcel map 166
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Attachment C — Draft Process Maps for CEQA Review
46
167
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit Management
Partners
Map 2 — CEQA Review (Page 1 of 4)
—fil I
Determination of Exemption and Initial Study
ca
I . 4.+ Prepare and
C C Prepare administrative
CU CD Create scope fo r the submit revised
a-+ customer and request draft of initial study and _ administrative draft of
c = sign-off from City submit to assigned initial study to assigned
H planner
Q planner
•- O
> V
C
W
V
I
IHire consultant to Is scope N- Email consultant that a
Notify customer thatadequate based on —Yes revised initial study is
End generate an initial study A
project is exempt (paid for by customer) review? needed
L —
E t _ —
No
eaYes + _ — Yes
H
Review application Is the Notify customer that an Communicate additional Review administrative
CU
draft of initial study and
CSA materials to determine project initial study is required requirements to Does initial
ea route to other pertinent Determine what level of
exemption exempt? through the 30-day letter consultant departments study need to be revised environmental review is
O I < (basedoneithercomments Nom
2
_ _ _ — or level of environmental required based on initial
a- review proposed)? study Negative
4A Declaration/
C Mitigated Neg Dec
.—
C (See Page 2)
c Y
)N_
ca
a
What level Environmental
of environmental Impact Report(EIR)
No review is required? (See Page 3)
v
Addendum
to existing EIR
(See Page 4)
cu
.— V
ce EAssigned department staff —
CU
IX Q review materials and I
notify the assigned Review initial study and
4-0 C w planner what i communicate comments
W . 1 environmental studies to assigned planner within
E 4= and documents will be 10 business days
a E
L required,if any L
0 E
cu O
>cu V
a
168
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit Management
Partners
Map 2 — CEQA Review (Page 2 of 4)
Negative Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
I.
C
ca
— Start Milk
c Neg Dec
0
V
I.
C -
r
E
Generate draft Negative Prepare responses to Finalize final responses to
C , Generate the revised Neg comments;prepare
0 Declaration(Neg Dec)or / I comments and send to Dec Mitigation Monitoring
iMitigated Neg Dec(MND) assigned planner
'- Program Documents
C
W — — — — A —
Communicate required Bring Neg Dec to public
changes to consultant hearing during
entitlement process
No
— VE I— _
liv — —
Submit notice of Public Comment Period:
CD Is Neg Dec/MND
CU proposed Neg Dec to Receive public comments Revise responses to public
I—
complete based on Yeses newspaper of record and and forward them to the comments as needed Yes
I- ity staff review? Adopt and certify the
take to County for posting consultantCU document
tto
— —
ra
C No
1. I
Will an EIR be Environmental ilk
Notify consultant that EIR 1
required based on Yes— Impact Report(Ellir No
noted impacts? will be required (See Page 3) File notice of
_ra I determination with the
CCounty
_ r _ _
Review Neg Dec and City Attorney's Office Are
route to other Send comments to reviews responses to substantial changes
departments as necessary consultant public comments needed?
Process Complete
1 I
_ _ _
,,,,,,..
•— V
c, Review Neg Dec and ' Communicate comments
= ° prepare comments to assigned planner
a-+ el 1
el a-+CU — - — —
Et- E
oE
a) o
> V
cu
a
169
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit Management
Partners
Map 2 — CEQA Review (Page 3 of 4)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
ca
0- Start
in EIR
C
o -
V
ea
I
C - —
CD
E Prepare notice of
Generate administrative Revise administrative Prepare responses toGenerate final EIR and
C preparation with project Prepare draft EIR and Generate revised draft EIR
I
o description,known draft EIR and send todraft and send to assigned notice of completion comments and send to IL(with additional analysis) Mitigation Monitoring
impacts assigned planner i planner - assigned planner Program documents
._ p
C _i_
W _1
. -
-i-
1 I
No
Submit notice of Public Comment Period: Take EIR to public hearing
preparation to newspaper Review administrative Take notice of completion Receive public comments Revise responses to public during entitlement
E M of record and take to draft and route to other to County for posting and forward them to the comments as needed 1 process
ca County for posting departments as necessary I consultant No
L
1— i
_ Yes
I-
CU
bA
caIlr — _ _
p Decision maker adopts
VN
and certifies the
2 M Hold scoping and document
tto community meeting with Is EIR analysis Yes—
.-stakeholders adequate?
C
City Attorney's Office Has the
ea reviews responses to consultant provided 2
public comments dequate analysis? File notice of
determination with the
— County
11111
.— V
r
Process Complete
= ° Review administrative
Email comments to
a-+ draft and prepare assigned planner
C CU comments
en
a
of
cu o
> V
cu
170
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit Management
Partners
Map 2 — CEQA Review (Page 4 of 4)
Addendum to Existing EIR
I.
• - Start
. Addendum
V
CD I
C 1
CU
Generate final addendum
C Generate addendum to Generate the revised and revised Mitigation
0 I existing EIR addendum Monitoring Program
I-
•— documents
C
W
Take EIR and addendum
to public hearing during
No entitlement process
I
7 _
Is environmental
ICJ
analysis adequate?
Adopt and certify
7 document
Review addendum and
route to other
departments as necessary
J lk
File notice of
determination with the Process Complete
Communicate with County
consultant
A
•C Review addendum and ' Email comments to
CU I prepare comments assigned planner
C
a-+ A. i
EL
of I
a) o
> V
cu
in
171
ATTACHMENT 2
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan
October 2019
Management
Partners
172
Making the Most of the Draft Implementation Action Plan
Management Partners has developed this draft Implementation Action Plan to assist the Moorpark Community Development
Department with the phasing and scheduling of 34 recommendations. The work involved in implementing the recommendations
must be integrated into the other work of the departments and divisions tasked with their completion, along with appropriate
assignments of responsibility and with identification of specific planned completion dates. The draft Action Plan begins that process
with guidance about a recommended priority assignment. Priority 1 recommendations are those that we believe are the most
important to accomplish without delay or are easy to accomplish. Priority 2 have less importance in the near term or have an added
element of complication to complete or require a significant amount of resources (perhaps internal and external) to assist with
completion. Priority 3 are the least urgent to complete, either because they require action by a third party over which the City has no
direct control, or due to complexity, or their relative importance to department goals.
We suggest that you use this document to prepare a final Action Plan for the City of Moorpark. In doing so, the management team
will need to identify specific target dates for completing implementation.Additionally, you may want to modify the described
activities for implementing an individual recommendation based on internal knowledge of what will be required for completion, or
to adjust the assignment of responsibility based on pending or future workload or other considerations.Prudent implementation of
most recommendations requires "circling back" after the work of completing strategies has begun and fine-tuning the results based
on experience. The step to do that is not spelled out for each recommendation in this document on the assumption that it would be
part of your normal management system.
To turn this draft into the Action Plan you can use to manage implementation, replace the column entitled "Priority" with the
dates for planned completion. A target date can be specific (e.g., September 1) or by month or quarter (e.g., 3Q 2020), as appropriate
to the individual action.
Management Partners remains available to consult with you in this process in whatever way we can be helpful. All of the work to
implement the recommendations is in addition to the normal work of involved city staff. Management Partners can provide extra
capacity to expedite completion of many of the recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact Jay Trevino at 714-926-1515 if we
can be of assistance.Jay can be reached by email at jtrevino@managementpartners.com.
The discipline of successful project planning is basic to successful execution of the work ahead. We hope that you find the draft
Action Plan useful in that regard.
173
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments
1 Conduct annual meetings with local • Identify staff and community leaders who will be 1 Community
development community leaders to invited to attend the meetings Development
obtain feedback about the • Determine and publicize meeting date and location Director
development review process and • Notify stakeholders of purpose and objectives for
identify steps for continued these meetings
improvement. • Appoint responsibility for meeting agenda and note-
taking/distribution
• Set a schedule for meetings to occur annually
2 Conduct a comprehensive update to • Update the General Plan to ensure it supports 2 Community This is a high priority but will
the General Plan and Zoning Council's vision and goals Development take significant time and
Ordinance/Map. • Update the Zoning Ordinance and maps to ensure Director resources to complete.
they serve to implement the goals and objectives of
the General Plan
• Review updates with City Manager
• Communicate updates to staff
• Set up a process to provide regular briefings for
development community
3 Conduct a nexus study to determine • Assign team members responsibility for nexus study 2 Public Works This is a high priority but will
the infrastructure and improvements • Apportion costs for new infrastructure and Director take significant time and
required to serve new development improvements to new development, based on project resources to complete.
and analyze their costs in relation to impact and need
new development projects. • Review results with City Manager and Community
Development Director
4 Adopt impact fees based on the • Collect and review sample/peer impact fee structures 2 Public Works This is the culmination of work
nexus study. • Establish impact fees based on the results of the nexus Director resulting from
study Recommendation 3 above.
• Communicate new fees to staff
1 Priority 1:Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish.
Priority 2:Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete.
Priority 3:Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set-up or to execute.
2 To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation.Where more than one manager is
identified in this column,responsibility should be clarified when the Final Action Plan is prepared.
1
174
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Responsible Comments
5 Establish a uniform development • Review the process maps developed as part of the 2 Community Review of process maps
review process, using the process development process review project Development should coincide with
maps as a foundation. • Establish a clear and uniform development review Director Recommendation 9.
process
• Communicate expectations for the review process to
staff
• Set a schedule to review the process maps annually,to
keep them current and make changes,as needed
6 Establish the role of project manager • Determine which planning staff will take on the role of 1 Community
for each project that includes a project manager Development
discretionary application. • Communicate new roles and responsibilities to Director
affected staff
• Market the new project manager system to the
development community
7 Prepare comprehensive internal • Collect and review sample/peer checklists 3 Planning Manager Though a high priority,this
checklists by project type for staff • Develop a checklist that identifies all key process steps will require completion of
members and applicants. and requirements Recommendation 2 first.Also,
• Train staff on using checklists as a project review of checklists should
management tool coincide with
• Offer checklists to customers,to serve as a project Recommendation 9.
guide
• Set a schedule to review the checklists annually
8 Communicate the steps of the • Draft a Development Review Handbook 2 Planning Manager
development review process, • Review with Community Development Director and
standards and deposits/fees in a City Manager
Development Review Handbook that • Finalize handbook
is provided to customers. • Distribute handbook to all staff for review
• Upload handbook to the department's website and
make hard copies available to customers at the permit
center
2
175
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments II
9 Establish an annual omnibus process • Establish a set time each year to conduct the annual 1 Community This process will be useful
for adopting and updating land use review and updates Development now but become even more
policies, regulatory code standards, • Provide briefing for the City Manager Director meaningful once
programs,and administrative • Communicate the purpose and objectives of the Recommendation 2 is
processes, including the procedures annual comprehensive review to staff completed.
for managing the cost center
program.
10 Expand the role of the Development • Determine what additional responsibilities the 1 Planning Manager
Review Committee to cover the pre- Development Review Committee will take on (i.e.,
submittal, condition and mitigation more phases of development review, annual omnibus
measure setting, and condition process)and prepare draft Charter describing the
compliance phases of development responsibilities of the Committee
review, and oversee the annual • Clarify the project manager's roles and responsibilities
omnibus review process. • Clarify change of duties and reporting relationships of
other affected positions
• Communicate new roles to department staff
11 Expand membership of the • Establish an interdepartmental team to serve on the 1 City Manager
Development Review Committee to Development Review Committee
include coverage of integrated waste • Communicate goals and expectations for the
management,stormwater and committee
affordable housing.
12 Complete the configuration, beta- • Finish the configuration and implementation of the 1 Assistant to the This should be a collaboration
testing and roll-out of the EnerGov new software City Manager with the Community
system. • Provide software licenses to staff Development and Public
• Conduct EnerGov training to staff Works Departments.
• Develop and distribute a user guide
13 Embed the process steps and • Ensure the process steps and workflow that is input 1 Assistant to the This should be a collaboration
workflow identified in the process into EnerGov is consistent with the City's new City Manager with the Community
maps within the EnerGov system. development review process Development and Public
• Provide training for affected staff Works Departments.
3
176
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments
14 Procure and integrate an electronic • Research electronic plan review software options and 3 Community Though the Community
application submittal, distribution other organizations that have implemented such Development Development Director should
and plan review business system. systems(in California that might include the cities of Director be responsible,this is likely to
Auburn, Encinitas, Hayward,Visalia, Roseville, and require approvals by the City
Santa Barbara County;Albany, Oregon;and in Texas, Manager and City Council.
the cities of Plano and Sugarland)
• Review options and costs with the City Manager
• Select and procure the technology
• Prepare user guides for staff and customers
• Hold a training session for staff and customers
• Implement new electronic plan review
• Market these improvements to the development
community
15 Develop a timeline for future • Create a master timeline that estimates completion of 3 Community
transition to a paperless the EnerGov system, electronic plan review,and then Development
development review system. the implementation of a paperless development Director
review system
• Include action items such as validation of electronic
signatures, staff training, electronic kiosks,and
integration with outside agencies
• Review options and costs with the City Manager
16 Plan for continued investment in • Develop integration plan for EnerGov, GIS and related 3 Assistant to the
system upgrades and ERP integration business systems City Manager
of business systems.
17 Update the website to focus on • Assign responsibility for updating the website and 2 Planning Manager This will require coordination
providing application guides and hand-out materials on a semi-annual schedule with IT staff.
other electronic information,such as • Review change of duties with affected positions
the Development Review Handbook. • Organize the department's website with application
guides and checklists by type of project
• Upload the Development Review Handbook and other
electronic materials to provide easy access to
customers
4
177
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments
18 Establish cycle and task times for the • Review sample/peer cycle and task times 3 Community Though a high priority,this
entitlement review of development • Agree upon and document cycle and task times Development will require completion of
projects. • Provide a briefing for the City Manager Director Recommendation 2 first.
• Implement mechanism for monitoring activity
• Establish a procedure to track times and review with
staff on a monthly basis
19 Establish a system of performance • Based on best practices, determine which 1 Community The metrics tracked today will
reports and metrics to analyze the performance measures will be tracked (i.e.,workload, Development change over time as
development process and efficiency, and effectiveness measures) Director Recommendation 2 is
Community Development • Review the list of performance measures with the City completed and related
Department operations. Manager process improvements are
• Set up mechanisms/systems to track and report implemented.
performance measures
• Set a schedule to review and analyze measures on a
regular basis
20 Edit the standard conditions to • Make edits to the standard conditions of approval list 1 Planning Manager
remove redundant requirements to remove redundancies
that appear in state or local laws. • Review edits with department head
• Distribute revised standard conditions to staff and
customers
21 Amend Resolution 2009-2799 to • Confer with the City Attorney and revise the 1 Community
clarify that standard conditions of resolution Development
approval are to be applied and scaled • Provide briefing for the City Manager Director
commensurate with each • Distribute revised resolution to staff and provide
development project. direction about implementation
• Market the improvements to the development
community
22 Conduct annual evaluations for each • Train managers and lead supervisory personnel on 1 Community
member of the department. consistent and effective methods of evaluating Development
performance and empower them to recognize good Director
performance and take action in response to poor
performance,when appropriate
5
178
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments
• Establish performance goals for individual employees
• Determine annual schedule for performance
evaluations
23 Provide customer service training • Develop customer service training materials that 1 Planning Manager
that emphasizes workflow include departmental behavioral norms and
management. performance goals
• Communicate purpose and objectives of the training
to department staff
• Hold training sessions
24 Expand consulting services to include • Determine which additional services the department 2 Community
additional on-call economic and will use consultants for(i.e., analyzing fees, on-call Development
planning casework assistance, as well project processing) Director
as services to analyze building permit • Prepare and circulate a request for qualifications
fees and development impact fees. • Select the appropriate consultants and finalize
contracts
25 Conduct a focused assessment of the • Develop a list of the critical tasks required of the civil 1 City Manager
civil engineering program, including engineering program
on-call engineering services. • Conduct a confidential internal survey of key staff
members to determine strengths and weaknesses of
current operations
• Establish key performance goals for the civil
engineering program and implement methods to
measure success
• Monitor program area for a reasonable timeframe to
determine whether further changes are necessary
26 Create an analyst position in the • Gain budget approval for the new position 1 Community
Community Development • Develop a job description in consultation with Human Development
Department. Resources Director
• Advertise position
• Review and interview top applicants
• Offer position and finalize paperwork
6
179
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments
27 Combine the two pre-application • Combine the two reviews into a single process 1 Planning Manager
reviews into a single process and • Document the new process in a process map
determine whether they will be • Determine whether the reviews will be conducted by
conducted on request or on a regular request or on a regular basis
schedule. • Review streamlined process with department staff
28 Establish a nominal (or no)fee for • Determine whether pre-application reviews will have 1 Community
pre-application review. no fee,or a nominal fee Development
• Modify the fee schedule accordingly Director
29 Develop and recommend an • Review sample/peer cost recovery policies 2 Community
appropriate cost recovery policy to • Based on best practices, establish a cost recovery Development
the City Council. policy that will recover most of the department's Director
work, encourages efficient service delivery, and is
transparent
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Recommend the policy to Council
30 Prepare a policy and procedure • Determine which approach the City will take regarding 2 Community
related to reimbursement of all external cost reimbursements from developers Development
external City costs. • Create a concise document that outlines the City's Director
reimbursement policy and process
31 Determine whether building fees are • Obtain advice from a building permit fee consultant 2 Community
to be calculated on the basis of about the revenue implications of the alternatives Development
project valuation or the estimated • Provide a briefing for the City Manager Director
time for completing each task. • Determine whether the City will use project valuation
or actual costs for calculating building fees
32 Establish a system of surcharges on • Propose a surcharge fee on permits,approvals, and 2 Community
permits, approvals and entitlements entitlements to recapture business systems costs Development
to recover costs of business systems • Gain Council approval Director
and policy documents. • Edit the fee schedule to include the surcharge fees
• Communicate new surcharge fee to staff and
customers
7
180
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec Person
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority' Responsible2 Comments
33 Conduct a facility needs assessment • Consider whether public counter staff and functions 2 Community This will require collaboration
to determine options for relocating could be relocated to City Hall, or if the current facility Development with directors from the other
development review functions to City could be remodeled Director departments whose staff or
Hall, or remodeling facilities to • Assess which options would be most conducive for operations could be affected.
provide a modern and workable assisting customers in a comfortable, professional
office environment. environment
• Determine the feasibility of providing a "one-stop"
center for customers
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
34 Develop a counter schedule that • Evaluate options for counter hours that maintain focus 1 Community
provides time for mobilization and on customers but provide balance for common Development
demobilization each day, as well as administrative functions Director
time for meetings,training and other • Provide a briefing for the City Manager
important administrative functions. • Publicize the new front counter schedule
8
181