San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments Summary of Trouble in Paradise
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 21 findings
F1
Applicants are often startled by Woodside’s strict regulatory environment and don’t like government regulation in general.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Many applicants are accustomed to being catered to and getting their way in life.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Applicants' desires for equal treatment lead many to feel that, despite complex and differing details, if it is allowed for one party, then it should be allowed for others.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Town is unsympathetic to contractors and owners who fail to play by the rules. The Grand Jury found that applicants’ perceptions are sometimes justified because:
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Not all staff members are equally knowledgeable or share the same standards. As one experienced resident put it, “it’s all in who you talk to.”
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The permit process often takes years, which is both expensive and tiresome. In the 1980's the Town rewrote the building code to preserve the Town's character. These rules made it very difficult to build. Nonetheless, almost everyone agrees that the rules aren't so bad. What concerns many residents, applicants, contractors, and other building professionals is how the rules are interpreted and enforced. Certain 5 situations are not clear-cut; they require interpretation and judgment, such as in the following conditions:
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Expand the number of building projects where permits are issued quickly and inexpensively by creating a FastTrack permit process. Projects that qualify for FastTrack permits must be carefully defined to: free staff to address more complex projects, minimize the number of residents who build without permits, and provide adequate safety and respect for community standards. The staff should be trained to implement the expanded process and be empowered to handle cross-functional issues and approve qualifying plans on behalf of all departments.
R7
Update the Town’s database of building codes, maps, and pamphlets. An updated geologic map should be prepared, the Town hazards map completed, and the municipal code revised to correct discrepancies between the old and new maps. The municipal code should be revised to incorporate current state regulations, clarify existing language, include the new hazards map, and add other changes as necessary. July 26, 2006 The Honorable Stephen M. Hall Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 RE: 2005-06 GRAND JURY REPORT – TROUBLE IN PARADISE: THE WOODSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Dear Judge Hall: The Town of Woodside received a copy of the above captioned Grand Jury Report on July 18, 2006, and the staff has studied the report and recommendations contained therein. On behalf of the Town Council, I would like to offer several comments and responses. First, the Town Council greatly appreciates the efforts of the Grand Jury and the care it took to provide a balanced and well formulated set of recommendations. The many months that the members of the Grand Jury spent on its investigation and on checking and rechecking its facts and conclusions prior to the issuance of the report clearly demonstrate the dedication of the citizen volunteers who take on the responsibility of serving on the Grand Jury. Second, the Town Council is in substantial agreement with the seven recommendations of the Grand Jury that are included in the report. Many of these recommendations are already in the Town’s work plan for 2006-07. Several of the recommendations provide expansions of or enhancements to the work plan. We appreciate the thoughtfulness of the recommendations and the Grand Jury’s efforts to develop recommendations that compliment and enhance the recommendations of the Town’s Management Partners’ 2005 report. On behalf of the Town Council, I would like to extend our thanks for an opportunity to respond to the work of the 2005-06 Grand Jury. Please do not hesitate to call our Town Manager, Susan George, should you require any further information. Sincerely, Deborah Gordon Mayor Town of Woodside
F7
Many undeveloped lots are difficult to build on, and finding ways to build on these lots within the existing code is subject to judgment.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
One controversial area that is left to Engineering Department interpretation is whether new construction is a rebuild of an existing structure or a new development. A rebuild allows the applicant to grandfather less restrictive standards and is generally preferred by applicants.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Applicants often intentionally prepare their plans so their submittals will be interpreted in the least restrictive manner. When the staff feels plans are deceptive, they respond with extra caution. Some applicants who perceive arbitrary outcomes are afraid to complain because they fear retribution. The Grand Jury considers that their fear is understandable because the same staff may remain on the job for a long time, and applicants may need additional permits in the future. There is a feeling among many residents that one is better off proceeding without a permit and begging for forgiveness if caught. It is a calculated risk, but thought to be cheaper, faster, and hassle-free. D. Permit Process Some building projects are effortless. For instance, it is possible to quickly obtain permits to replace a roof, build a fence, or rebuild a window. Some activities don’t require permits; however, most projects demand an arduous, long, and complex process. Some applicants employ facilitators to help them through the planning process. Facilitators are in demand when the process is so burdensome that applicants need help. There are, however, unintended consequences to the actions of some facilitators. For instance, facilitators that challenge the process actually slow it down. Their challenges discourage flexibility by causing the staff to apply rules rigidly to all applicants. The quality of submittals has much to do with the speed of issuing permits. Applicants’ submissions vary widely in quality, both in completeness and understanding of the requirements. Many applicants, contractors, and architects find it difficult to deal with the bewildering number of regulations that can affect a design. Many applicants need substantial assistance to understand all the requirements. Conclusions Woodside is a small rural town, with a small staff. The terrain is difficult to build on, projects are often very complex, and the rules are strict by design. People are unhappy with the development review process in many cities in the County, but in Woodside there 6 is a persistent clash of cultures. On one hand, some applicants do not always respect and often question intentions of the staff. On the other hand, the staff does not always produce a level of customer service that precludes applicants’ questioning their motives. Woodside’s development review process tends to be a series of fragmented activities by each reviewing department. Everyone is looking at the trees; nobody is surveying the forest. Because the process is not well coordinated, submittals occasionally fall between the cracks and deadlines are missed. This causes the effectiveness and credibility of the process to suffer. Procedural changes, however, must balance the desire for a less daunting process with the need for good science and safety.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
All departments should help applicants understand building constraints and develop plans that meet them.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
Ensure that the Director of Planning and Building, Director of Engineering, and Town Geologist develop appropriate procedures and materials to continually improve the development review process.
R6
Ensure that communication between development staff and applicants starts early and expedites the permit process. Each applicant should receive a planning packet that contains, at a minimum: • A description of the building review process and relevant town ordinances • A description of geologic, seismic, and geotechnical hazards in the Town • A description of the technical peer review process • Recommendations for selecting technical consultants • A description of necessary elements for required reports
F11
One person should be accountable for the operation of the entire development review process. This individual should be a building and planning professional. The upcoming retirements of both the Town Manager and Town Engineer/Deputy Town Manager affords a unique opportunity to restructure the Town’s staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Restructure Town management by placing one knowledgeable person in charge of the entire development permit process. Hold this person accountable for the successful operation of the development review process, including the development of long-range planning, staff training, and customer satisfaction.
F12
Departmental directors should train and then trust their respective staffs to handle problems with a minimum of backup. Training is essential for the staffs to routinely handle the difficult tasks found in Woodside. Planning demands discretion, interpretation, and judgment. Unfortunately, the exercise of these principles often results in applicants developing perceptions of random outcomes or favoritism. The Grand Jury found that although the staff makes an effort to be consistent without compromising the Town’s guidelines and ordinances or compromising safety, there are good reasons why these perceptions persist:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Implement a continuing training program to ensure that all Planning and Building Department employees and development review engineers are well qualified to help applicants understand relevant constraints and develop plans that meet them.
F13
Rules are applied inconsistently due to errors in judgment of relatively inexperienced people. Inconsistencies foster the perceptions of favoritism or capriciousness.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Some applicants push the envelope, disregard the rules, or are purposefully deceptive. Such behavior naturally leads the staff to a more cautious, more deliberate process.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Many applicants do not get what they want, and without knowledge of all the details surrounding other permits, feel that the code is applied inconsistently. The Town frequently deals with facilitators who challenge the development review process. This produces unintended consequences. It creates an environment that minimizes flexibility by encouraging staff to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Common sense is replaced by bureaucratic process. Without give and take, the process becomes more detailed, more deliberate, and more costly. The Town has commissioned studies of the permit process. The Town Council lauds the resulting reports, but sometimes the recommendations are not implemented. For instance, the recommendations of the Kaplan Report were respected, but there is no evidence that the Town has made a significant effort to implement them. The Grand Jury is gratified to find that the recommendations of the Management Partners, Inc. report are being implemented and monitored. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Create a complaint board where disgruntled applicants can have their concerns addressed.
F16
All departments should help applicants understand building constraints and develop plans that meet them.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
Ensure that the Director of Planning and Building, Director of Engineering, and Town Geologist develop appropriate procedures and materials to continually improve the development review process.
R6
Ensure that communication between development staff and applicants starts early and expedites the permit process. Each applicant should receive a planning packet that contains, at a minimum: • A description of the building review process and relevant town ordinances • A description of geologic, seismic, and geotechnical hazards in the Town • A description of the technical peer review process • Recommendations for selecting technical consultants • A description of necessary elements for required reports
F17
One person should be accountable for the operation of the entire development review process. This individual should be a building and planning professional. The upcoming retirements of both the Town Manager and Town Engineer/Deputy Town Manager affords a unique opportunity to restructure the Town’s staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Restructure Town management by placing one knowledgeable person in charge of the entire development permit process. Hold this person accountable for the successful operation of the development review process, including the development of long-range planning, staff training, and customer satisfaction.
F18
Departmental directors should train and then trust their respective staffs to handle problems with a minimum of backup. Training is essential for the staffs to routinely handle the difficult tasks found in Woodside. Planning demands discretion, interpretation, and judgment. Unfortunately, the exercise of these principles often results in applicants developing perceptions of random outcomes or favoritism. The Grand Jury found that although the staff makes an effort to be consistent without compromising the Town’s guidelines and ordinances or compromising safety, there are good reasons why these perceptions persist:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Implement a continuing training program to ensure that all Planning and Building Department employees and development review engineers are well qualified to help applicants understand relevant constraints and develop plans that meet them.
F19
Rules are applied inconsistently due to errors in judgment of relatively inexperienced people. Inconsistencies foster the perceptions of favoritism or capriciousness.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Some applicants push the envelope, disregard the rules, or are purposefully deceptive. Such behavior naturally leads the staff to a more cautious, more deliberate process.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Many applicants do not get what they want, and without knowledge of all the details surrounding other permits, feel that the code is applied inconsistently. The Town frequently deals with facilitators who challenge the development review process. This produces unintended consequences. It creates an environment that minimizes flexibility by encouraging staff to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Common sense is replaced by bureaucratic process. Without give and take, the process becomes more detailed, more deliberate, and more costly. The Town has commissioned studies of the permit process. The Town Council lauds the resulting reports, but sometimes the recommendations are not implemented. For instance, the recommendations of the Kaplan Report were respected, but there is no evidence that the Town has made a significant effort to implement them. The Grand Jury is gratified to find that the recommendations of the Management Partners, Inc. report are being implemented and monitored. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Create a complaint board where disgruntled applicants can have their concerns addressed.
Conclusions 6
-
CL1 Page 7All departments should help applicants understand building constraints and develop plans that meet them.
-
CL2 Page 7One person should be accountable for the operation of the entire development review process. This individual should be a building and planning professional. The upcoming retirements of both the Town Manager and Town Engineer/Deputy Town Manager affords a unique opportunity to restructure the Town’s staff.
-
CL3 Page 7Departmental directors should train and then trust their respective staffs to handle problems with a minimum of backup. Training is essential for the staffs to routinely handle the difficult tasks found in Woodside. Planning demands discretion, interpretation, and judgment. Unfortunately, the exercise of these principles often results in applicants developing perceptions of random outcomes or favoritism. The Grand Jury found that although the staff makes an effort to be consistent without compromising the Town’s guidelines and ordinances or compromising safety, there are good reasons why these perceptions persist:
-
CL4 Page 7Rules are applied inconsistently due to errors in judgment of relatively inexperienced people. Inconsistencies foster the perceptions of favoritism or capriciousness.
-
CL5 Page 7Some applicants push the envelope, disregard the rules, or are purposefully deceptive. Such behavior naturally leads the staff to a more cautious, more deliberate process.
-
CL6 Page 7Many applicants do not get what they want, and without knowledge of all the details surrounding other permits, feel that the code is applied inconsistently. The Town frequently deals with facilitators who challenge the development review process. This produces unintended consequences. It creates an environment that minimizes flexibility by encouraging staff to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Common sense is replaced by bureaucratic process. Without give and take, the process becomes more detailed, more deliberate, and more costly. The Town has commissioned studies of the permit process. The Town Council lauds the resulting reports, but sometimes the recommendations are not implemented. For instance, the recommendations of the Kaplan Report were respected, but there is no evidence that the Town has made a significant effort to implement them. The Grand Jury is gratified to find that the recommendations of the Management Partners, Inc. report are being implemented and monitored. 7
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Town of Woodside
Town