County planning, building division under fire County planning, building division under fire (May 25, 2005)

** High turnover, lack of training, and insufficient use of technology hamper service to people seeking permits, report says.

By Marion Softky

Almanac Staff Writer

Anyone who's ever taken out a permit to add a deck or grade a driveway loves to grumble about the local building department, the bureaucrats, and all the regulations.

In response to such complaints, the San Mateo County's Civil Grand Jury recently focused on the efficiency and adequacy of services provided by the Current Planning section of the county's Planning and Building Division.

A March report describes a department where high turnover and lack of training result in long delays and a stressful environment for customers and staff alike.

The report recommends more and better training of planners, better use of technology -- including faxes and the Web site -- and better communication with applicants and the public.

At the same time, a planning and building task force, headed by supervisors Rich Gordon and Adrienne Tissier, is winding up a similar investigation. The task force, which includes seven public members, expects to issue a report in June.
More cost, less service

Spurred by its fiscal crunch, the county hiked building and permit fees close to 100 percent over the last two years. The supervisors want permits to pay for themselves so there will be no drain on the county's general fund.

"We heard a lot of vociferous complaints from customers saying that we were raising fees as the service deteriorated," Supervisor Gordon told the Almanac.

The Current Planning office processes applications for building and development permits for the 80 percent of the county's geographical area not in incorporated cities. This includes areas such as Menlo Oaks, North Fair Oaks and Los Trancos Woods, as well as Skyline and the entire Coastside -- except for Half Moon Bay and Pacifica.

Numbers suggest the scale of the operation:

** Last year the office handled 14,000 customer inquiries, and issued 2,400 building permits, according to the grand jury.

** The office is authorized to have nine planners, but three have resigned in the last year, according to Interim Planning Administrator Jim Eggemeyer. As a result, each planner handles a caseload of 70 to 80 permits.

"In most jurisdictions, a caseload of 30 is considered high," said Mr. Gordon.

"It's almost a revolving door for planners," he added.

The grand jury described the results: "Long delays for permits, frustrated customers, and frazzled employees."
Lack of training

Marcia Raines, the county's director of environmental services, which oversees the Planning and Building Division, knows she has a problem.

"I understand where they're coming from," she told the Almanac. "We're looking at everything right now."

One serious difficulty is finding time for more training when planners are overworked with current projects.

"Training is not staying on an equal footing with the demands of processing permits," she acknowledged.

Mr. Gordon added: "It is very, very clear the department does not have adequate resources." He did not say whether the county would or could find additional money in its upcoming budget.
More authority

The department is in the process of trying to implement the grand jury's recommendations, including a formal training program, said Mr. Eggemeyer, who replaced long-time Planning Administrator Terry Burnes, who retired last fall.

Meanwhile, Ms. Raines has changed the manager's position from a planning administrator to a community development director; with increased authority and status.

A planning administrator has run the division since 1986. In that year, David Hale, the county's last official "planning director," resigned.

"I don't want just a planning director," Ms. Raines said. "I want someone who can work across disciplines."
Complex regulations

Ms. Raines said she hopes to address another basic problem mentioned by the grand jury: exceedingly complex development regulations contribute to misinformation, misunderstanding, and frustration of staff and applicants alike.

Ms. Raines wants to assemble a team to tackle the complex task of simplifying the regulations and making them user-friendly.

The division covers more than just current planning, she noted; it includes long-range planning and code enforcement.

"We need to have a team approach," she said.
Critique

Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills, who has been watching the county planning department for at least 30 years, agreed that the department is "in bad shape."

The county's biggest problem is not enough planners, Ms. Roberts said.

"Each planner has up to 100 cases," she said. "The normal load in a city is 10 to 12. With no net county cost, there is no fiscal reason to have such inadequate staffing."
How to get permit information

Applicants and the public have several avenues to get information about permits and projects from the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division.

People can communicate with the office via telephone, fax, e-mail, and online. Some permit business can be transacted by these methods without actually standing in line at the desk in the planning office in County Office Building, 455 County Center, second floor, (corner of Hamilton Avenue and Bradford Street) in Redwood City.

The contact information is:

** Phone: 363-4161. A phone tree allows callers to connect with different people and offices. In addition, inspections can be scheduled automatically by calling 306-8415.

** Fax: 363-4849

** E-mail: plngbldg@co.sanmateo.ca.us

** Web site: co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning

The Web site has several sections that can be helpful to applicants, including information on permits, zoning and public meetings.

A 27-page Development Review Users Guide describes the application process and regulations.

An Online Permit Center allows applicants to complete at least part of the process online.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.