The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2013-05-17TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of May 13 -17, 2013 Til,iirnn 1. Letter - Mayor O'Donnell - Shuttle Service Between Downtown Tiburon and Strawberry Village 2. Memo - Scott Anderson - Permit Services Survey Results 3. Petition - Change Procedure for Road Closures to Corinthian Island 4. Notice of Vacancy - Town Councilmember 5. Application to Boards and Commission - Planning Commission - Haraburda 6. Certificate - Town of Tiburon - Wetland of International Importance Agendas &Minutes 7. Agenda - POST - May 21, 2013 8. Meeting Cancellation - Design Review Board - May 16, 2013 9. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - May 22, 2013 Regional a) Great Age - Newsletter - Marin County Commission on Aging - Spring/Summer 2013 * b) Comcast California - January/March 2013 c) Invitation - Marin Conservation League - Business/Environment Breakfast - June 14, 2013 * d) C & L Newsletter - Update on Public Law - Spring 2013 Agendas & Minutes e) None * Council Only DIGET, Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435-2438 - www.ci.aburon.ca.us May 15, 2013 Marin County Transit District Attention: Robert Betts, Senior Planner 711 Grand Avenue, Suite 110 San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Robert: I write on behalf of the entire Tiburon Town Council. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the shuttle service proposed to run between Strawberry Village and Downtown Tiburon. I understand the Marin Transit District Board will consider approval of the new service on May 20, 2013, and I would appreciate this letter being entered into the record. The Town appreciates the thorough and thoughtful process Marin Transit as employed to date in determining the best service for the Tiburon Peninsula. We have been impressed with public involvement in the analysis and decision-making process, and with Marin Transit's obvious commitment to serving our community in the best way it can. We are enthusiastic that the new service will better meet our community's needs. As you know, traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard is a major concern for us; we believe the new shuttle service will offer meaningful relief and viable alternatives for many who now come down the peninsula in a car or who currently use Route 19. The smaller shuttles will be friendlier for users of all ages and the shorter headways will make use of the bus a more realistic transportation option for potential users. What is particularly exciting are the "ferry feeder" routes going into some Tiburon neighborhoods. Reviving (to some degree) this lost service can only help give people more choices to get out of private vehicles when headed to downtown Tiburon to catch a commuter ferry. The reasonable fares, and the potential of coordinating fares with the Blue and Gold Ferry, help all the more. Finally, the service to Redwood High School will also benefit our community. We wish to thank Marin Transit for considering our needs so closely, and for its willingness to take this next step to help solve local and regional transportation problems. We look forward to this collaboration with Marin Transit and intend to work with you to help get the word out and encourage ridership. It is for all of our interests, from reducing traffic to reducing emissions to improving quality of life, that this be a big success. Best regards, 4~~ Emmett O'Donnell Mayor Emmett O'Donnell Mayor Alice Fredexicks Vice Mayor Richard Collins Councilmember Frank Doyle Councilmember Jim Fraser Councilmember Margaret A. Curran Zown Manager cc: Town Council Town Manager Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM utuEST TO. Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development ;i SUBJECT: Survey on Permit Services DATE: May 16, 2013 BACKGROUND In October 2012, the Town commissioned an opinion survey of its permit services function. Satisfaction surveys are one management technique used to gauge performance, find out what an organization is doing well, and potentially discover any system-wide shortcomings or areas where improvement is needed. The Bay Area firm of Godbe Research was retained to prepare the survey, receive and tabulate the responses, and prepare a report describing its findings and conclusions. A mail survey form and cover letter (Exhibit 1) were developed and mailed to all persons who applied for a building permit, residential building report, encroachment permit, zoning permit, or sign permit between September 1, 2011 and August 31, 2012. The survey was mailed to all owners, applicants, contractors, realtors, and design professionals whose names appeared on the permit application forms. After elimination of duplicates, a total of 1,733 survey forms were mailed out on January 23, 2013; 237 were completed and returned while only ten came back as undeliverable. Godbe Research characterized the nearly 14% rate of return as "good" for this type of survey. The survey elicited information on numerous aspects of service encountered during the Town's permit process, both across the board (for all permit types listed above) and specifically for building inspection services. Godbe Research indicates that the level of specificity found in this survey is rarely achieved in government-related satisfaction surveys, where it is more common to have a single question in a survey that relates specifically to satisfaction with permit services. SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS Godbe Research has presented its summary of findings in a memorandum dated May 14, 2013 (Exhibit 2). The "topline" results of the survey are attached as Exhibit 3. The report concludes that "....the Town of Tiburon is doing a good job providing permitting and building inspection services in terms of almost all dimensions of service...." The report identifies "cost of permit applications" as the area of the relatively lowest satisfaction by respondents when rating aspects of all permit services. The report indicates that "consistency in applying codes and standards" rated relatively lower than the other aspects of building inspection services. The open-ended question seeking opinions and Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM comments regarding ways to make the Town's permit services better yielded a range of responses but no patterns or common themes emerged. The report concludes that none of the response categories appears to achieve statistically significant levels. While there is little comparable survey information available from Marin County or state of California jurisdictions, according to Godbe Research, the Town's services compare very favorably with other local results. RECENT ACTIONS In November 2012, the Town streamlined its Residential Building Report (RBR) process by initiating use of a standardized "checklist form" for these reports. The checklist form appears to have been well-received and helps speed and standardize the RBR process. Staff is of the opinion that the form will enhance uniformity and consistency in applying the building codes during the resale process. Building Division staff is currently updating and expanding the forms, information, and resources available on the Town's website and as informational handouts at Town Hall. This upgrade will include more detailed information on submittal and code requirements, which was the most frequently mentioned item in the open-ended survey question. There is a continuing commitment to providing superior customer service in all the Town's permitting services. EXHIBITS 1. Survey cover letter and form. 2. Summary of Results Report by Godbe Research. 3. Topline survey results. May 16, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Office of the Town Manager January 22, 2013 Dear Tiburon Permit Applicant or Participant: The Town of Tiburon recently commissioned Godbe Research, Inc., an independent and highly regarded research firm, to assist it in evaluating the performance of Town permitting services and staff. Toward this end, Godbe Research developed the attached survey, to solicit feedback from recent customers of the Town's permitting services. We hope you will assist us by completing and returning the brief survey. Please complete and return only one survey. All completed surveys will go directly to Godbe Research and be kept strict confidential. The Town will not receive copies of the individual surveys; Godbe Research will collect and tabulate the surveys and provide the results to the Town in a manner than ensures the anonymity of the respondent. As an incentive to complete the survey, Godbe Research will conduct a random drawing from all respondents who wish to enter and have completed and returned their surveys by the due date. There are five separate prizes of up to $100 each toward a meal at the Tiburon restaurant of your choice. The five winners will be notified by email or phone by Godbe Research after the completion of the survey. Please return your completed survey in the enclosed prepaid envelope by February 12, 2013. Our goal as an organization is to provide the best possible services to the community we serve, and your feedback will assist us in that effort. We sincerely hope that you will take a few minutes to complete this important survey. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Godbe Research staff at surveys@godberesearch.com or 650-288-3031. Thank you very much for your time and participation. Sincerely, Peggy Curran Tiburon Town Manager Emmett O'Donnell Mayor Alice Fredericks Vice Mayor Richard Collins Councilmember Frank Doyle Councilmember Jim Fraser Councilmember Margaret A. Curran Town Manager Enclosures ",7 I~1~HIBIT NO. Town of Tiburon Permit Services Survey The Town of Tiburon is requesting recent permit services customers to participate in an important survey to help provide the best service possible. To insure that all responses are strictly confidential and anonymous, the Town of Tiburon is partnering with Godbe Research, an independent market research company, who will collect and tabulate the results. Godbe Research will keep all your answers strictly confidential and anonymous. Your feedback is greatly appreciated and will help ensure a high level of service for all your future permit service interactions with the Town of Tiburon. If you have any questions, please send an email to surveys _godberesearch.com or call Gayatri at 650.288.3031. We hope you will take a few minutes to complete this survey, and return it by February 12, 2013 to be eligible to win one of five $100 meal prizes good at the Tiburon restaurant of your choice. We look forward to your valuable input! 1 Town of Tiburon 1. Approximately, when was the date of your last interaction with the Town of Tiburon's permitting staff (month/year): 2. Over the past 18 months, what type of permit(s) from the Town of Tiburon have you applied for or been involved with? (check all that apply) ❑ Building Permit ❑ Residential Resale Building Report (RBR) ❑ Minor Design Review Permit (Staff Level) ❑ Design Review Board Permit/Variance ❑ Encroachment Permit (Public Works) ❑ Tree Permit ❑ Sign Permit ❑ Use Permit or Precise Plan ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other, please specify: 3. With respect to the Town of Tiburon permitting services, what category of customer best describes you? ❑ Homeowner ❑ General Contractor ❑ Sub-Contractor ❑ Real Estate Broker or Agent ❑ Design professional (architect or engineer) ❑ Other, please specify: 4. How did you interact with permit staff of the Town of Tiburon? (check all that apply) ❑ In person ❑ Telephone ❑ Email 5. Please estimate the total number of interactions between you and the Town of Tiburon permitting staff in the past 18 months? ❑ Never ❑ Only once ❑ 2 to 5 times ❑ 6 to 10 times ❑ 11 to 50 times ❑ More than 50 times 6. Please rate your overall experience with the Town of Tiburon employees in the following aspects of permitting services (other than Building Permit Field Inspection, which is covered separately below). Please note that Town employees do not include special district employees such as fire, sewer, and water; or Police Department employees. Aspects of Service (Please check one for each item.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor NA Timeliness of response(s) in general ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -Competency in handling issue ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Helpfulness ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ability to communicate clearly ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ease of submitting application ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -Accuracy of information provided ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Courtesy and professionalism ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cost of permit application ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Timeliness of resolving problem(s) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Timeliness of building permits plan checking ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Commercial builder/developer ❑ Residential builder/developer Continued on Reverse 7. Please rate the following aspects of the Building Permit Field Inspection services provided by the Town of Tiburon. Aspects of Building Field Inspection Service Please check one for each item. Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor NA Completeness ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Accuracy ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Consistency in applying codes and standards ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Clearly communicated findings ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Courtesy ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Timeliness ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Businesslike demeanor ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments during inspection were appropriate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Stayed focused on the inspection ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ General helpfulness of the inspector ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Helpfulness of inspection in achieving our goals ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Each time you applied for a permit, did you receive adequate information at the front end of the process to complete the permit application? ❑ Always ❑ Usually ❑ Rarely ❑ Never 9. How satisfied are you that you received the information or services you needed during your interaction? ❑ Very Satisfied ❑ Somewhat Satisfied ❑ Somewhat Dissatisfied ❑ Very Dissatisfied 10. During your interactions with permitting staff, were they reasonably accessible and prompt in getting back to you? ❑ Always ❑ Usually ❑ Rarely ❑ Never 11. In your experience, do you believe that the quality of building field inspection services in the Town of Tiburon in recent years has: ❑ Improved ❑ Stayed about the same ❑ Deteriorated 12. In your experience, do you believe that the quality of permitting services overall in the Town of Tiburon in recent .years has: ❑ Improved ❑ Stayed about the same ❑ Deteriorated 13. Is there anything specific you would like to see the Town of Tiburon do to make its permit services better? Do you have any other comments or observations? Drawing Entry Information (Confidential for winner notification only. Information will not be provided to Town of Tiburon) Name: Phone: Email: Thank you very much for completing the survey! Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope to Godbe Research, 1660 So. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 205, San Mateo, CA 94402, or fax back to (650) 288-3021. 1341 { GODBE RESEARCH Crain Insight MEMORANDUM May 14, 2013 TO: Peggy Curran, Town Manager Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Town of Tiburon FROM: Bryan Godbe, President Godbe Research RE: 2013 Permit Services Survey - Summary of the Results o C~ , N~ Ci D MAY 15 2013 PLANNING DIVISION The Town of Tiburon commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a survey to assess satisfaction with the Town of Tiburon's Permit Services. The issues tested included ratings of aspects of the permitting service, aspects of building field inspection, satisfaction with information provided, and whether the service had improved, among other categorical and open-end questions. Conclusions In sum, the survey data suggests that the Town of Tiburon is doing a good job providing permitting and building field inspection services in terms of almost all dimensions of service, particularly when compared to available local data, although most of our satisfaction research tests major departmental level services and rarely drills down to the specificity in this survey. However, a key take-a-way suggests that the respondents have concerns with the "Cost of permit applications" and the "Consistency in applying codes and standards". Both of these issues should be the subject of further investigation by the Town, but of course, could be a matter of providing more detailed information about the rationale for the costs or information about the uniformity of the codes and standards. Methodology A printed cover letter and survey were mailed on January 23, 2013 and responses were accepted for 36 days, through February 28, 2013. Survey Parameters: A total of 1723 surveys (1733 mailed; 10 returned as undeliverable), were mailed by the Town of Tiburon and Godbe Research received and tabulated a total of 237 completed surveys for a response rate of 13.76%. Based on the completed surveys, the error rate is plus or minus 5.9%. Respondent Characteristics: The vast majority of the survey respondents had applied for B uilding Permits (70%) within the last 18 months. Additionally, Minor Design Review Permit (22.8°/x), _ Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT NO. Residential Resale Building Report (14.8%) and Design Review Board Permit/Variance (14.3%) applicants were important portions of the sample as well. Furthermore, homeowners (51.9%) were the largest type of customer, followed by general contractors (19.0%) and design professionals (14.8%). Questionnaire Methodology: For questions 2, 3, 4, and 13, multiple responses were accepted and may sum to more than 100. Key Findings Type and Number of Interactions: In a multiple response format, the overwhelming majority of respondents (90.3%) had at least one in person interaction with permit staff. Telephone interactions (54.9%) and then email interactions (29.1%) were also frequent, although at lower levels. Of these interactions, the largest plurality interacted with the permit staff between 2 and 5 times (44.3%), followed by 6 to 10 interactions (26.2%) and 11 to 50 interactions (18.1%). Rating of Experience: The longest question sets in the survey asked respondents to rank the various aspects of the permit services and building permit field inspection services. The various aspects of each are shown below based on the M can Score ranking ("Excellent" _ +4, "Good" _ +3, "Fair" _ +2; "Poor" = 1, and "Very Poor" = 0. Town of Tiburon - Aspects of Permitting Service Very Total W Total Aspects of Permitting Mean Excellent. Good Fair Poor Poor NA Blank Excel + Poor + Ratio: Service Score Good Very x to 1 Poor Courtesy and professionalism 3.02 36.3% 33.8% 16.0% 4.2% 3.4% 1.3% 5.1% 70.1% 7.6% 9.2 Timeliness of response(s) In general 3.00 35.0% 35.4% 18.1% 4.2% 3.0% 1.3% 3.0% 70.4% 7.2% 9.8 Competency in handling Issue 2.87 30.4% 35.9% 17.3% 5.5% 4.6% 1.7% 4.6% 66.3% 10.1% 6.6 Ability to communicate clearly 2.87 29.5% 37.1% 18.6% 4.6% 4.6% 1.7% 3.8% 66.6% 9.2% 7.2 Helpfulness 2.84 31.6% 34.6% 16.0% 8.0% 5.1% 1.3% 3.4% 66.2% 13.1% 5.1 Accuracy of information provided 2.77 23.6% 39.2% 19.4% 5.1% 5.1% 3.4% 4.2% 62.8% 10.2% 6.2 Ease of submitting application 2.71 24.9% 32.1% 21.1% 7.6% 5.1% 5.1% 4.2% 57.0% 12.7% 4.5 Timeliness of resolving problem(s) 2.58 18.6% 33.8% 19.0% 6.3% 7.6% 9.7% 5.1% 52.4% 13.9% 3.8 Timeliness of building permit(s) plan checking 2.58 16.9% 32.5% 21.5% 6.8% 5.5% 11.4% 5.5% 49.4% 12.3% 4.0 Cost of permit' application 2.12 12.7% 22.4% 28.7% 12.7% 12.2% 6.8% 4.6% 35.1% 24.9% 1.4 J As the table above shows, all permitting services aspects received a rating of at least "fair" (mean score of 2.0 or greater) with two ("Courtesy and professionalism" and "Timeliness of response(s) in general") reached the "good" level (mean score of 3.0 or greater). In addition, at least 70 percent of respondents reported a rating of at least "good" for the service aspects "Timeliness of response(s) in general" and "Courtesy and professionalism." At least 60 percent of respondents gave "Competency in handling issue," "Helpfulness," "Ability to communicate clearly," and "Accuracy of information provided" a rating of at least "good." Page 2 of 5 While not shown in the table above, t he service aspects "Timeliness of response(s) in general," "Competency in handling issue," "Helpfulness," "Ability to communicate clearly," "Ease of submitting application," and "Courtesy and professionalism" received higher ratings from design professionals than the other customer types. However, "Accuracy of information provided" garnered higher ratings from both design professionals and general contractors. Godbe Research conducted a general satisfaction survey for Marin County in 2005 and 2007. Those surveys each had a single question with a slightly different scale on the same topic (satisfaction with "Providing building and planning permits"), and a comparison can be made of the ratio of positive (excellent + good) to negative (poor + very poor) scores. For Marin County in 2005 the ratio was 2.6 to 1, w hile in 2007 it was 1.4 to 1. Cl early, all of the ratios calculated for the aspects of permitting services in the Town of Tiburon exceed the level observed earlier for Marin County, with the exception of "Cost of permit services". A good rule of thum b for evaluating satisfaction ratings in general, and one used in much corporate product and service market research, is that negative responses in single-digit percentages constitute an acceptable level. In government services satisfaction research, that threshold is generally negative percentages in the mid-teens. Given these metrics, only the "Cost of permit applications" reached a level of concern in this survey. Town of Tiburon - Aspects of Buildina Field Inspection Services Total = Total = Aspects of Building Field Mean Excellent Good ' Fair Poor Vary NA Blank Excel Poor + Ratio: Inspection Service Score . Poor Good Very x to 1 Poor Stayed focused on the 3.09 28.7% 32.5% 15.2% 2.1% .8% 12.7% 8.0% 61.2% 2.9% 21.1 Inspection Completeness' 2.99 23.6% 37.1% 14.3% 3.0% 1.3% 12.2% 8.4% 60.7% 4.3% 14.1 Businesslike demeanor 2.96 27.4% 32.5% 13.5% 7.2% .8% 11.4% 7.2% 59.9% 8.0% 7.5 Courtesy 2.95 29.5% 29.1% 15.6% 2.1% 4.6% 11.4% 7.6% 58.6% 6.7% 8.7 Timeliness 2.95 26.2% 34.2% 15.2% 4.2% 2.1% 11.0% 7.2% 60.4% 6.3% 9.6 Accuracy 2.83 23.6% 30.8% 16.9% 5.9% 3.0% 11.4% 8.4% 54.4% 8.9% 6.1 General' helpfulness of the 2.82 25.7% 27.4% 17.3% 6.3% 3.4% 12.7% 7.2% 53.1% 9.7% 5.5 Inspector Comments during 2 80 24.5% 25.7% 20.3% 6.3% 2.5% 13.5% 7.2% 50.2% 8.8% 5.7 Inspection were appropriate . Clearly communicated 77 2 23.2% 25.7% 24.1% 7.2% 1.3% 11.0% 7.6% 48.9% 8.5% 5.8 findings . Hetpfulness of inspection in 2 72 22.8% 26.6% 18.1% 5.5% 5.1% 12.7% 9.3% 49.4% 10.6% 4.7 achieving your goals . Consistency in applying ' 59 2 23.6% 24.5% 16.0% 6.8% 8.9% 11.4% 8.9% 48.1% 15.7% 3.1 codes and standards . The respondents rated all of the building permit field inspection services higher than "fair' (mean score of 2.0 and greater). Additionally, at least 60 percent of respondents rated "Completeness," "Timeliness," and "Stayed focused on the inspection" at least "good" (mean score of 3.0 or greater). More than half of the respondents also rated "Accuracy," "Courtesy," "Businesslike demeanor," "Comments during inspection were appropriate," and "General helpfulness of the inspector" as at least "good." The same comparison can be made with Marin County with respect to the aspects of building fiel d inspection services. All of the ratios calculated for the aspects of building permit field inspection services in the Town of Tiburon exceed the level observed for earlier Marin County. Again, Page 3 of 5 government services satisfaction research, suggests that threshold negative percentages in the mid-teens is acceptable, and in Tiburon's case, the only one at that level is "Consistency in applying codes and standards". Adequacy of Information: The next questions asked respondents if they received adequate information when they applied for the permit and if they were satisfied with the information or service they received. Four-fifths of the respondents indicated that they always or usually received adequate information to complete the permit process, while just 9.3 percent indicated they rarely or never received the information they needed. This is a positive to negative ratio of 8.6 to 1, which, again for specific government services, is good. Compared to corporate product market research, this is a very positive finding, as most companies are very pleased when the negative response is limited to single digits. Further, four-fifths also indicated they were satisfied with the information or service received, and 13.5 percent were dissatisfied. While the dissatisfaction is slightly higher in this case, the positive to negative ratio is 6 to 1, which for government satisfaction ratings is still good. Accessibility and Promptness: The next question asked respondents if the staff were reasonably accessible and prompt in their interactions with customers. In this case 84.8 percent of the respondents indicate that perm itting staff were always or usually accessible and prompt in their interactions, while only 8.5 percent indicating rarely or never - a 10 to 1 ratio. In this context, a positive score of 80 percent or greater for any specific municipal services is a good score. Improvement of Services: The final rating questions asked respondents if they felt the quality of building field inspection and permitting services had improved, stayed the same, or deteriorated. With respect to the direction of the quality of Town building field inspection services in recent years, the largest group felt it had "Stayed about the same" at 46.8 percent. Another 18.1 percent felt that it had improved, while 11.8 percent stated they felt it had deteriorated. Nearly one-quarter of respondents did not know or did not render an opinion. Regarding permitting services the findings were nearly identical to that of the direction of building field inspection services seen earlier. The largest segment indicated "Stayed about the same" at 46.8 percent. Additionally, 18.6 percent felt that it had "improved," while 11.0 percent stated they felt it had "deteriorated." Nearly one-quarter of respondents did not know or did not render an opinion. Final Comments: The final question in the survey asked respondents if they had any comments for improving permit services in the Town of Tiburon. The table on the following page shows the coded responses in terms of the frequency (number of respondents in that category) and the percentage. Page 4 of 5 Town of Tiburon - Final Comments (open-ended question) 20 More detailed code requirements 8.4% 19 Expensive 8.0% 18 Process Is too-longtpoor turn around 7.6% Consistency between Inspectors/applying 15 building code 6.3% Unnecessary/frivolouspermits required 12 (simple/small projects) 5.1% Unprofessional/rudelcondescsnding 12 (Inspectors) 5.1% 11 Poor customer service 4.6% 10 Consistency throughout process 4.2% 10 Happy with service 4.2% 8 Onlinelfax applications/payment 3.4% 8 Online/website information 3.4% 8 Rude/condescending (Office staff) 3.4% 7 Over-the-counter approval 3.0% s Unresponsive to phone calls/emalls 2.5% 6 Hours of operation 2.5% Focus on intended visittinspeclion 5 2.1% 4 Helpfulth iendly 1.7% 4 Consistency In permits required 1.7% 4 Negative comments - Fred 1.7% 3 Negative comments - George 1.3% 3 Negative comments - Ann 1.3% 5 Positive comments • George 2.1% 1 Positive comments - Ann .4% 2 No/none/nothing .8% 8 Other 3.4% 94 No answer 39.7% As the data illustrates, "No answer" was the largest response, and all the rest of the responses are in single-digit percentages. Given the 6 percent error rate, it is difficult to conclude that any of these response categories are statistically significant. Conclusions In sum, the survey data suggests that the Town of Tiburon is doing a good job providing permitting and building field inspection services in terms of almost all dimensions of service, particularly when compared to available local data.' However, a key take-a-way suggests that the respondents have concerns with the "Cost of permit applications" and the "Consistency in applying codes and standards". Both of these issues should be the subject of further investigation by the Town, but of course, could be a matter of providing more detailed information about the rationale for the costs or information about the uniformity of the codes and standards. 1. It is important to note that the vast amount of government related satisfaction research that Godbe Research has conducted in California, tests major departmental level services and rarely drills down to the specificity in this survey. Page 5 of 5 G E t E RCH Gain nig TOWN OF B 2013 Permit Services Survey opline Report n=237 March T 2013 °d`w m Cw'?13f63i c;i:'IC,J ',ii: ;pF..%,rca%?.: '.JffiC;es, 16(30 So;uth,, Blv,d.. 2,05 Sa?-,. M@0-lo, ""A 94402 Southern , 4695 Fjo~- Ne° vC~d NV (301 `j t- Ver':.1 v N Town i of ?.;u o . Permit ' er,fivF. s Siirvev SURVEY METHODOLOGY Godbe Research was commissioned to conduct a survey to assess satisfaction with the Town of Tiburon's Permit Services. The issues tested included ratings of aspects of service, aspects of building field inspection, satisfaction with information provided, and whether the service had improved, among other questions. Survey Methodology A total of 1723 surveys (1733 mailed; 10 returned as undeliverable), were mailed and delivered by the Town of Tiburon and Godbe Research received and tabulated a total of 237 completed surveys for a response rate of 13.76%. Based on the completed surveys, the error rate is plus or minus 5.9%. The data have not been weighted Mn Scores and Rounding In addition to the percentage breakdown of responses to each question, results for the questions relating to aspects of service (Q6) and the aspects of building field inspection service (Q7), include mean scores. For example, to derive the overall rating of a one of these aspects, a number value is first assigned to each response category (in this case, "Excellent" = 4, "Good" = 3, "Fair" = 2, "Poor" = 1, and "Very Poor" = 0). The number values that correspond to respondents' answers were then averaged to produce a final score that reflects the overall rating of that aspect. The resulting mean score makes the interpretation of the data considerably easier. Responses of "No Answer" (NA) or if the item was left blank were not included in the calculations of the mean scores for any question. Conventional rounding rules are used in this report (.5 or above was rounded up, and .4 or below was rounded down). As a result, the percentages may not add up to 100 percent. < <~~i lam; •~P` ~`v'I<'S~vz . ....v J j,.i:;1u~: %I :,%'(n of ; €t V!l Approximately, when was the date of your last interaction with the Town of Tiburon's permitting staff (month/year): 12 2010 or earlier 5.1% 2 Jan-Jun 2011 .8% 13 Jul-Dec 2011 5.5% 1 20111month unspec. 4% 6 Jan 2012 2.5% 6 Feb 2012 2.5% 4 Mar 2012 1.7% 5 Apr 2012 2.1% 6 May 2012 2.5% 8 June 2012 3.4% 11 July 2012 4.6% 19 Aug 2012 8.0% 12 Sept 2012 5..1 1 14 Oct 2012 5.9% 10 Nov 2012 4.2% 29 Dec 2012 12.2% 15 2012/month unspec. 6.3% 36 Jan 2013 15.2% 5 Feb 2013 2.1% 7 2013/month unspec. 3.0% 16 Don't know year 6.8% r~r},fie};W tC~";~:;€f'C'Ys 2. Over the past 18 months, what type of permit(s) from the Town of Tiburon have you applied for or been involved with? (Multiple responses allowed.) 166 Building Permit 70.0% Minor Design Review 54 Permit (Staff Level) 22.8% Residential Resale Building 35 Report (PBR) 14.8% Design' Review Board 34 Permit7Variance 14.3% 21 Tree Permit 8.9% Encroachment Permit 19 ('Public' Works) 8.0% 5 Sign Permit 2.1% 5 Use Permit or Precise Plan ` 2.1% 2 Lot line Adjustment .8% 28 Other 11.8% 10 Blank/No answer 4.2% 3. With respect to the Town of Tiburon permitting services, what category of customer best describes you? 123 Homeowner 51.9% 45 General Contractor 19.0% Design professional 35 (architect or engineer) 14.8% 20 Real Estate Broker or Agent 8.4% Commercial builder 6 /developer 2.5% 9 Sub-Contractor 3.8% Residential 4 builder/developer 1.7% 9 Other 3.8% 4 Blank/No answer 1.7% r;, i U it:y'' (3" g. ft"e `RP 4. How did you interact with permit staff of the Town of Tiburon? (Multiple responses allowed.) 21 4 In person 90.3% 130 Telephone 54.9% 69 Email 29.1% 12 Blank/No answer 5..1 1 5. Please estimate the total number of interactions between you and the Town of Tiburon permitting staff in the past 18 months? 7 Never ' 3.0% 9 Only once 3.8% 105 2 to 5 times 44.3% 62 6 to 10 times 26.2 % 43 11 to 50 times 18.1% 4 More than 50 times 1.7% 7 Blank/No answer 3.0% 6. Please rate your overall experience with the Town of Tiburon employees in the following aspects of permitting services (other than Building Permit Field Inspection, which is covered separately below). Please note that Town employees do not include special district employees such as fire, sewer, and water; or Police Department employees. Aspects of Service Score Excellent ` Goad Fair Poor Very NA Blank Timeliness of response(s) in general 3.00 35.0% 35.4% 18.1% 4.2% 3.0/° 1.3/0 ° 3.0/° ° Competency in handling issue 2.87 30.4% 35.9% 17.3% 5.5% 4.6% 1.7% 4.6% Helpfulness 2.84 31.6% 34.6% 16.0% 8.0% 5.1% 1.3% 3.4% Ability to communicate clearly 2.87 29.5% 37.1% 18.6% 4.6% 4.6% 1.7% 3.8% Ease of submitting application 2.71 24.9% 32.1% 21.1% 7.6% 5.1% 5.1% 4.2% Accuracy of information provided 2.77 23.6% 39.2% 19.4% 5.1% 5.1% 3.4% 4.2% Courtesy and professionalism 3.02 36.3% 33.8% 16.0% 4.2% 3.4% 1.3% 5.1% Cost of permit application 2.12 12.7% 22.4% 28.7% 12.7% 12.2% 6.8% 4.6% Timeliness of resolving 2 58 18 6% 33 8% 19 0% 6 3% 7 6% 7% 9 5 1% problem(s) . . . . . . . . Timeliness of building permit(s) 2.58 16 9% 32 5/° ° 21 5/° 6 8/° 5 5/° 11 4/° ° 5 5% plan checking . . . . . . . ornpulaUor, of Mean Scores: •$?"Es;~.::€y «7E,.chn-l ,y*,a3, "Very Sew; a.' " = po -1 •and sT ! r ~tE~ = u's -Z ;i~'t'.f"i.=tiEi1s. € and t t~"s e%"3' tXE i}~€~.)•..?(Ti3Y?E 7. Please rate the following aspects of the Building Permit Field Inspection services provided by the Town of Tiburon. Aspects of Building Field Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor Very NA Blank Inspection Service Score Poor Completeness 2.99 23.6% 37.1% 14.3% 3.0% 1.3% 12.2% 8.4% Accuracy 2.83 23.6% 30.8% 16.9% 5.9% 3.0% 11.4% 8.4% Consistency in applying codes 2.59 23.6% 24.5% 16.0% 6.8% 8.9% 11.4% 8 9% and standards . Clearly communicated findings 2.77 23.2% 25.7% 24.1% 7.2% 1.3% 11.0% 7.6% Courtesy 2.95 29.5% 29.1% 15.6% 2.1% 4.6% 11.4% 7.6% Timeliness 2.95 26.2% 34.2% 15.2% 4.2% 2.1% 11.0% 7.2% Businesslike demeanor 2.96 27.4% 32.5% 13.5% 7.2% .8% 11.4% 7.2% Comments during inspection were appropriate 2.80 24.5% 25.7% 20.3% 6.3% 2.5% 13.5% 7.2% Stayed focused on the inspection 3.09 28.7% 32.5% 15.2% 2.1% .8% 12.7% 8.0% General: helpfulness of the 2.82 25.7% 4% 27 17.3% 6 3% 3 4/° 12 7/0 ° 7 2/° ° inspector . . . . . Helpfulness of inspection in 2.72 22.8% 26 6% 18 1% 5 5% 1 ° 5 12 7 ° 9 3 achieving yourgoals . . . . . . i r ¢ y•: r.s.af te3!'; it .,~.~~.1~~iri,; E;¢r':' i er~.`el,y,.,v r.. , 'ST}t t3Vt E.t„ i~{p t::i<~ i}.t ~i'r'i % .q ,.i. .s'sl~r~r S+"i: fi... ~if d.. C~~.. ~ fL nE 8. Each time you applied for a permit, did you receive adequate information at the front end of the process to complete the permit application? 82 Always 34.6% 108 Usually` 45.6% 16 Rarely 6.8% 6 Never 2.5% 25 Blank/NA 10.5% 9. How satisfied are you that you received the information or services you needed during your interaction? 90 Very Satisfied 38.0% 101 Somewhat Satisfied 42.6% 21 Somewhat Dissatisfied 8.9% 11 Very Dissatisfied 4.6% 14 Blank/NA 5.9% 10. During your interactions with permitting staff, were they reasonably accessible and prompt in getting back to you? 84 Always 35.4% 117 Usually 49.4% 16 Rarely 6.8% 4 Never 1.7% 16 Blank/NA 6.8% March 3 Re of Tiburon Pcorn:i. Serl~icesSU'rvev' 11. In your experience, do you believe that the quality of building field inspection services in the Town of Tiburon in recent years has: 43 Improved 18.1% 111 Stayed about the same 46.8% 28 Deteriorated 11.8% 55 Blank/NA 23.2% 12. In your experience, do you believe that the quality of permitting services overall in the Town of Tiburon in recent years has: 44 Improved 18.6% 111 Stayed about the same 46.8% 26 26 Deteriorated 1 56 Blank/NA 23.6% 13. Is there anything specific you would like to see the Town of Tiburon do to make its permit services better? Do you have any other comments or observations? Consistency throughout. process 10 4.2% Consistency between 15 inspectors/appling building code` 6.3% Consistency in permits required 4 1.7% Focus on intended visit/inspection 5 2.1% More detailed code requirements 20 8.4% Unnecessary/frivolous permits 12 required (simple/small projects) 5.1% Process is too long/poor turn 18 around ` 7.6% Over-the-counter approval 7 3.0% Online/fax applications/payment 8 3.4% (_;odbe Research 8 Online/website information 3.4% 19 19 Expensive 8 11 Poor customer service 4.6% 6 Unresponsive to phone calls/emails 2.5% 8 Rude/condescending (Office staff 3.4% Unprofessional/rudelcondescending 12 (inspectors) ` 5.1% 3 Negative comments - George 1.3% 3 Negative comments - Ann 1.3% 4 Negative comments - Fred 1.7% 6 Hours of operation 2.5% 10 Happy with service 4.2% 4 Helpfullfriendly 1.7% 5 Positive comments - George 2.1% 1 Positive comments - Ann .4% 2 No/none/nothing .8% 8 Other 3.4% 94 No answer 39.7% DIGEST Marden N. Plant P.O. Box 986 Belvedere, CA 4 94920 (vm) 415 435 8887 (cell) 415 264 9888 E mail: ukiyoe3319@gmail.com RECEIVED Wednesday, May 01, 2013 City of Belvedere Sandra Donnell, City of Belvedere Mayor 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 Patricia Seyler-Cambell Chief of Police pseyler@cityofbelvedere.org Office: 415 435 3266 The City of Tiburon Peggy Curran, City of Tiburon Mayor 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, Ca 949420 To Whom It May Concern: RE: Road Closures on Corinthian Island MAY 15 2013 TOWN MANhGERS OFFICE TOWN OF °FiBtJRON It is my understanding (from the old Timers), that ever since the invention of the automobile, cars driving in and out of Corinthian Island have managed to access their homes even during periodic road closures. What did the drivers do to egress or ingress on the Island? Instead of driving up Bellevue, the drivers would drive up Tamalpais from the Tiburon side. This method brought the drivers to their homes in a timely fashion. This old system appears to be under severe scrutiny with the City of Tiburon and Belvedere. As it now stands, the City of Belvedere and the City of Tiburon would prefer to post Road Closure notices 48 hours in advance (of the Closure) at the foot of Bellevue Avenue. This not only disallows access to our properties, but it encumbers any and all services that may have been planned that day. This inconvenience could be an Eight (8!) Hour Headache. The residents of Corinthian island hereby request that the Cities of Tiburon and Belvedere change this procedure and require Flagmen stationed at appropriate spots to allow ingress and egress at all times during a Road Closure. Who would pay for these conveniences? The vendor blocking the road would be required to cover the costs of any and all flagmen. This would allow traffic to flow, thereby permitting service vendors and Residents 24/7 access to their homes. The following Residents on Corinthian vote in favour of a flagman (men) permitting unobstructed access to their homes. a Harden N. Plant 'P.O. Box 9 6 Be? v , Cry 94920 (girt) 415 435 888 (cell) 415 264 9888 mail : uk- yoe3319@grail . coo Name Marcel and Liora Houtzager ~'/~eryl l-~a ~c y (qeor9e Van Bozza Address 3 Bellevue Avenue i Sd,,, e cf 1) f 4 . ~=4 r,,~ - ~r wzce,,47~~ Signature 117, ti a-I)P II "je Ic-r- K,4,/5dyL- A,~ dZI A-~~~7- /6)dr 5'oZ 19Lef-r,-7R&,~. Arzj~ j~ R 'Ec_rden r~ . ?`l an i~ P.O. Bo-,,: 986 bey vede re f C 94920 j ~vm) 415 435 8887 (cell) 415 264 9888 mail: uki voe331 @gmai l . ccm Name Address t,( A, ;IhI3 Signature Ii, 6NI 13o-~leeli-e 4t,,. t7 1 ,-I g k t~~r-~,, Z, A Ly Z- ~.It r r' t C 3 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF VACANCY TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL POSITION: Town Councilmember TERM: Until the November 5, 2013 Special Election QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Must be a registered voter; and 2. Must be a resident of the Town of Tiburon A vacancy has occurred on the Town Council as a result of the untimely passing of Councilmember Richard Collins, on May 8, 2013. At its meeting of May 15, 2013, the Town Council directed staff to seek applicants to fill the Council vacancy until the date of a special election to be held on November 5, 2013. At that time, the voters of the Town of Tiburon will elect a candidate who will serve out the remainder of Mr. Collins' term (until November 2015). The Town Council will interview interested applicants at its regular meeting of June 5, 2013 and may make an appointment at its meeting of June 19, 2013. In any event, an appointment will be made no later than 60 days from the beginning of the vacancy, according to statute. Applicants should provide a letter of interest outlining their qualifications and reasons for interest in the position. Please send letters of interest to: Town Clerk Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920. Notice Posted at Tiburon Toivn Hall and Belvedere/Tiburon Lib7-a7y on May 16, 2013. Notice sent to The Ark newspaper for publication on May 22 and May 29, 2013. cc: Marin Independent Journal D 12 C LEM G T H D E C E ~ V E ","44 - : 1 U 13 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board, Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)435-2438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order (#1 Being the Greatest Interest) #1 PLANNING # PARKS & OPEN SPACE DESIGN REVIEW # RECREATION # HERITAGE & ARTS # DISASTER PREPAREDNESS # LIBRARY # MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING # BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted; Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary. NAME: Joseph J Haranurda 120 Solano Street MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Home: 14 /b Work: 5108744810 rne: Cy~5) t4 -3 S-(-) q?? PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (years) 12 DATE SUBMITTED: May 9, 2-13 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST As a committed resident my wish is to preserve the quit- elegence of the City APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE As president of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce for the last 18 years and as an active Board member for the previous 10 as head of Economic Development I have be0hctive in reviewing issues relating to development and encouraged projects that would increase the quality of life in Oakland and create a business friendly City such as Jerry Brown's 10 K Project. Previously I was associate publisher for the Alameda Newspaper Group, general manager of the Oakland Tribune and a vice president and marketing executive for The Washington Post, Wilmington News Journal and Philadelphia Are publications ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use - - - S `9 / Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Commission, Board or Committee) Date Term Expires: (Date) Length of Term: MAY 2 Fax No. Here> TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Q w Q x ~ Z N ~ w p O 0 0 0 o z o 0 0 U DIGEST V 0 C. E V = GJ It. 5 O > a _ cd -V .a -O = C7 O O 4- r~ ■ r O v v~ n V a~ s tA Q s ~ - ~ O -O ~V A J ~ 0 vl - L W = C O i O > L = u O V) u m N -Q N U- N .0 _ Q1 4-• O w c~ O TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission ' 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 21, 2013 - 6:00 PM Town Hall Council Chambers Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Winkler, Vice-Chair McMullen, Commissioners Feldman, McDermott, and Allen ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up may be referred to Town Staff or placed on a future Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. MINUTES • Approval of Minutes - March 19, 2013 COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING • McKegney Green Use Policy Update SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Dog Walking Permit Program and Associated Municipal Code Amendments: Consider Recommendation to Town Council ADJOURNMENT Agenda - Regular Meeting May 21, 2013 Page 1 Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission G ES- T NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013 HAS BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THURSDAY, JUNE 69 2013 J10 Si DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY DIGEST 9. NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013 HAS BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY