Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-08 City Council (14)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Summary Report 7 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: ~QUEST CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment April 8, 1996 CMR:215:96 Building Permit Streamlining - Customer Working Panel Report And Staff Response Staff requests that Council review the attached report of the Permit Streamlining Customer Working Panel (CWP) and this status report. ~COMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council review the attached Customer Working Panel Report, and the staff response contained in this report, and provide staff with comments that should be considered in the development of a final implementation plan to be presented to Council in July, 1996. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed changes, as envisioned, have the potential to provide a significant level of service increase in the pemaitting process. All measures will continue the City policy of 100 percent cost recovery through plan check and permit fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The staff began working with a fourteen member Permit Streamlining Customer Working Panel (CWP) in February of 1995. The CWP is composed of a cross section of those involved in the building permit process. A list of all participants is provided in Attachment "B". It was the task of the CWP to assist staffin identifying issues, delays and redundancy in the process of applying for and receiving a variety of City permits and approvals, and to provide recommendations to improve the permit process. The attached report of the CWP summarizes the recommendations of the panel. This report contains the City staff response CMR:215:96 Page 1 of 10 to all issues raised by the CWP. Staff will develop an implementation plan to present to Council. This report focuses on those items which have policy or budget impacts. FISCAL IMPACT All salary and non-salary related funding impacts will be detailed in the implementation plan. Staffwill also propose related permit fee increases that will continue the Council policy of 100 percent cost recovery for these programs and activities. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Building permit streamlining and related process changes are exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. PREPARED BY: Fred Herman, Chief Building Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:2!5:96 Page 2 of t0 Ciq¢ of Palo Alto Manager’s Report SUBJECT: PERMIT STREAMLINING REQUEST Staff requests that Council review the attached report of the Permit Streamlining Customer Working Panel (CWP) and this status report. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council review the attached Customer Working Panel Report, and the staff reponse contained in this report, and provide staff with comments that should be considered in the development of a final implementation plan to be presented to Council in July, 1996. BACKGROUND Building permit streamlining has received a great deal of focus in the Santa Clara Valley in the past few years. Significant changes have taken place in other j,urisdictions that have become a model for permit processing. At the direction of the City Manager, the staff began working with a fourteen-member Customer Working Panel in February of 1995. The CWP is composed of a cross section of those involved as customers in the permit process. It was the task of the CWP to assist staff in identifying issues, delays and redundancy in the process of applying for and receiving a variety of City building permits and approvals, and to provide recommendations to improve the permit process. This scope of the assignment was broad and included both commercial/industrial and residential building permits. The staff and the CWP agreed to implement, when feasible, administrative improvements as they were identified and not to wait for a final list of recommendations. Those items which have been put in place are separately identified both in the CWP report and also in this report. The attached report of the CWP summarizes the recommendations of the panel. This report contains the City staff response to all issues raised by the CWP. POLIC,Y IMPLICATIONS The recommendations, as envisioned, have the potential to provide a significant level of service increase in the permitting process. All measures will be 100 percent cost recovery through plan check and permit fees. CMR:215:96 Page 3 of 10 DISCUSSION The CWP report contains recommendations in five categories. They are: 1.Reduced Permit Cycle Time 2.Improved Customer Service 3.Increased Standardization 4.Effective Use of Automation 5.Continuous Improvement 1. Reduced Permit Cycle Time Permit processing can be as short as one day Or as long as several months, depending on the size and complexity of the project and the time of year the application is received. During the spring and summer months, the building permit process alone will average anywhere from eight to ten weeks. The large majority of this time is not because a permit is being processed or reviewed, but because it is waiting for its turn to be reviewed. Obviously, this has resulted in many complaints and negative comments from our customers who expect a prompt review of their.project. The CWP report contains recommended target time lines for various size projects that are realistic and in line with targets established by the cities of Milpitas, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. The methods to be employed in meeting these targets are left to the City staff for implementation. It is current policy to expedite projects that are smaller in size such as minor tenant improvements, remodels, single story additions, etc. As a result 74 percent of all building permits are issued within ten working days. Consequently, the larger projects such as new residences, major tenant improvements, new bt~dings and substantial additions are delayed. Palo Alto currently employs two building permit plan checkers. In addition to their plan review responsibilities they also assist applicants at the public counter, handle the Express or "over-the-counter" plan reviews and answer general code questions on the telephone. The Express plan review service is currently available only during the morning hours. The CWP recommends extending the Express service to the full work week. Staff concurs with this recommendation and has identified the solution as a staffing issue, which will require additional staff review. The CWP report also recommends increasing the use of contract plan reviewers for the Inspection Services Division during peak periods. The peak period would be defined by the City as any time the staff cannot complete the plan review within the CWP recommended target lime lines as specified in the last item in Table 1 below, and not be limited to five days as recommended by the CWP. An analysis of third party plan review in 1995-96 indicates that our clients spent in excess of $135,000 in contract plan review at their option, to expedite the plan review process. This issue will also be addressed in the implementation plan. CMR:215:96 Page 4 of 10 All recommendations contained in Reduced Permit Cycle Time are summarized in Table 1 below: TABLE 1. REDUCED PERMIT CYCLE TIME Panel Recommendation Concurrently process ARB and building permits Use contract plan checking for peak periods and whenever queue time exceeds 5 days Allow subcontractor permits by fax Look for oppommities to increase over counter permits and ARB staff approvals Eliminate CEQA review for hazmat permits Look for opportunities to combine or eliminate number of permits required Eliminate Sign & Fence Permit Combine encroachment/street opening permits Eliminate encroachment permit for projections allowed by UBC Eliminate requirement to receive building permit prior to issuance of demolition permit Expedite plan review Less than 3000 sq.ft -same day Less than 30 min.- same day Less than 10000 sq. ft. - 10 days max all others - 30 days max Status / Staff Response In place June 1995 Concur with peak periods and when target time lines cannot be met Implemented in 1995 On going review of policies and practice Under review Ongoing review of policies and practices. Process Management review is underway. Eliminated, November 1995 Permits cannot be combined but process will be streamlined to avoid duplications. Un&rre~ew Adopted byCouncfl, November 1995 Targets for industrial and commercial projects, similar targets for residential projects to be developed. CIvIR:215:96 Page 5 of 10 2. Improved Customer Service Quality customer service is a high priority for all of our customers and staff. A slow process may be tolerated but an unpleasant experience is never forgotten. Training is a key element in providing quality customer service. A training program specifically directed at individuals involved in the permitting process is being developed. For the first time, allindividuals involved in the permitting and approval process will be in one room at the same time participating in this training program. The Human Resources Depm-maent is taking the lead in implementing this program. The "One Stop Permit Center" is the concept where all departments involved in the permitting process are in one readily accessible location. The cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara have implemented the concept and received high marks from local industries, businesses, and residents. Palo Alto initiated the beginnings of a partial permit center in 1986. Since that time representatives of building, planning, fire and public works have been available daily from 8:00 AM until Noon on the fifth floor. The lack of representatives from all involved deparllnents or divisions has prevented many permits from being issued over the counter. The key departments/divisions not represented currently are hazardous materials (Fire) and Utilities. Space does not exist on the fifth floor as currently configured to incorporate these representatives in the Center. Staff will continue to look for the oppommity to create a fi~ One Stop Service Center in the future. Options that will be reviewed include relocating the Permit Center to another area of the Civic Center, another City facility, or to a leased space. Until such time as the space needs can be resolved, staff will endeavor to have the process fimcfion for the customer in the current location as a One Stop Center, to the extent possible. Knowing and understanding the requirements of the process is an essential part of permit streamlining. Handouts and brochures need to be simple and straightforward. If the applicant knows the submittal requirements, the process will move at the optimum pace. A development review manual has been prepared to guide commercial/industrial applicants through the permit process and will be available by the end of April, 1996. A similar manual is also available for residential applicants. The implementation plan will address other issues regarding improved communications with customers. Credit cards are currently used for payment offaxed permits only. The Revenue Collection Division is in the process of expanding this service to include the Building and Planning counter, the Golf Course, and their own collection activities. CMR:215:96 Page 6 of 10 TABLE 2. IMPROVED CUSTOMER SERVICE Panel Recommendation Communicate customer service philosophy and shared vision throughout organization Invest in customer service training Provide for "One Stop" Permit Center Allow for credit card payment Status / Staff Response Strong commitment from City Manager throughout organization In preparation Under review Currently used for fax permit only. Will be expanded as soon as possible Set up billing account for major clients In place for Inspection Services and Planning/not yet in place for Fire and Hazmat Assign Account Manager for large / complicated construction projects Extend Express plan review hours to every week day, 8 hrs. a day Increase availability of ARB Staff Conduct customer satisfaction surveys Create development review committee on large projects Create utility load check list Provide self-help area Evaluate all current handouts - update for clarity, ease of use, etc. Provide customer directory - who to call, when and why Develop customized "how to " guides / checklists In process for coordination and communication. (Used for the Genencor project) Additional resources required. Will be addressed in the implementation plan Implemented new hours, June 1995 Will implement random surveys Implemented in 1994 (Project Review Committee) Check list has been prepared and now in use Lack of space, will address with one stop permit center Will be included in the implementation plan. Draft has been prepared and will be included with development manual Some have been prepared and are in use. Others are being developed CMR:215:96 Page 7 of 10 3. Increased Standardization Palo Alto staff are active participants in the Peninsula Chapter of the Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Permit Streamlining Committee. Current activities include the standardized code interpretations and development of detailed requirements for plan submittal. Items which have been completed include the model code amendment program where over 400 amendments from 27 jurisdictions were eliminated and a uniform reroofing permit application was developed and is in use. TABLE 3 INCREASED STANDARDIZATION Panel Recommendation Strive for standardization of building code, interpretations, application forms Participate in Silicon Valley UBC and interpretation Program Status/Staff Response Standardized reroofing form in use. Strong participation in model interpretation committee Very active participation in uniformity programs at the local, state, and international levels 4, Effective Use of Automation Responses have recently been received to an RFP for an automated permit tracking system funded in the 1995-96 CIP process. Staff is in the process of reviewing the submittals and will return to Council within the next six months for contract approval. The new permitting system will allow all involved in the process to electronically transfer status, conditions, comments and holds on projects. Palo Alto has been involved in a demonstration program developed by Andersen Consulting Inc. that simulates on line permit application, plan review, fee payment, and issuance of a permit over the Internet electronically. The demonstration includes transmitting construction plans in CAD (Computer Aided Design) file format, being plan checked on a computer terminal, and a correction notice being sent back to the designer utilizing "E" mail. Although the technology currently exists, it will still require a significant amount of resources as well as the education of designers and plan checkers to implement in the near future. Permit status on the Internet, accessible through Palo Alto’s Home Page, is in the final stages of testing. Once in place, the permit applicant will be able to receive information as to which departments their project has cleared, if there are any holds, and if their permit is ready to be picked up. It is also hoped that this electronic information sharing will reduce the voluminous number of telephone inquiries for permit status received on a daily basis. It is planned to have the information updated on a daily basis to provide quick and accurate information. CMR:215:96 Page 8 of 10 Public Works has developed an Intemet site which provides flood zone information for all sites in the City. Standard plans and specifications for Public Works construction has also been adapted to the Intemet and will soon be available on line. TABLE 4 EFFECTIVE USE OF AUTOMATION Panel Recommendation Use technology for improved processing and tracking of permits Eliminate redundancy and increase accuracy of data Move toward electronic permitting, on line submittal, processing and tracking Provide permit status on Intemet Seek customer feedback along the way Participate in Smart Permitting Project Status / Staff Response Permit tracking system in selection phase All processes will be reviewed in detail as part of Process Management Program Demonstration product has been developed by Andersen Consulting. Staff will continue to work towards this goal Status will be accessible through the Home Page in the near future. Final design is in process The CWP and other interested parties will be utilized as much as possible, in addition to the random customer surveys. Staff has been involved since the beginning and will continue to participate 5,,Continuous Improvement On March 22, 1996, key staff members representing each Division!Department involved in the permitting process began a training program on Process Management techniques. Developed by the private sector as a tool to expedite production, the methodology can be adapted to any process. Each part of the permitting process will be flow charted ~d examined for potential for improvement. It is estimated that the project will last for the next six months. Staff will hold periodic meetings with the CWP and other interested parties to evaluate improvements as they are implemented. In addition, customer service surveys will be created and distributed on a random basis to all customers. Continuous feedback will be solicited as a means to keep the improvement process moving. CMR:2t5:96 Page 9 of 10 Staff wishes to thank the members of the CWP for their dedication and assistance over the last year. It has been a very productive spirit of cooperation between the government and private sector. TABLE 5. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Panel Recommendation Flow chart current process and look for reduction and elimination of process steps Train key staff on use of Total Quality Management tools and methodologies Promote and reward "continuous improvement" Status / Staff Reply This is a major part of the Process Management program Training began March 22, 1996 Agree. ALTERNATIVES The Council could decide to either retain the current permitting process or not concur with specific recommendations suggested by the CWP. FISCAL IMPACT All salary and non-salary related funding impacts will be detailed in the implementation plan. Staff will also propose related permit fee increases that will continue the Council policy of 100 percent cost recovery for these programs and activities. ENVIRONMENTAL ....ASSESSMENT Permit streamlining and related process changes are exempt in the California Environmental Quality Act. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Following the direction of the Council, the recommendations with fiscal impacts will be included in an implementation plan and returned to the Council in July, 1996. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment "A" - Customer Working Panel’s Permit Streamlining Report Attachment "B" - Participants’ List CC: Customer Working Panel CMR:215:96 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT "A" varian®. March 21, 1996 Ms. June Fleming City Manager City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Dear June, Enclosed please find the report to City Council, prepared by the Permit Streamlining Customer Working Committee, for the April 8th meeting. The Committee drafted this report to reinforce the accomplishments made to date, outline what we feel are key goals to pursue in the future, and, perhaps most importantly, emphasize the need to continue to identify opportunities which will make the permit process more efficient for everyone involved. In order to meet the goals outlined, fundamental changes will have to be made to some of the current processes. We hope that our report will help demonstrate to the Council and to City Management that their customers are in full support of the improvement process and are willing to assist, in whatever way necessary, to help make these changes a reality. The Committee wishes to thank you, once again, for the support you have demonstrated for the permit streamlining process. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff to help make the City of Palo Alto one of the benchmarks in efficient permit processing and excellent customer service. Sincerely, son cc: Members of Permit Streamlining Committee Varian Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 10800 Palo Alto, California 94303-0883 U.S.A. 415/493-4000 Telex 34-8476 Report to Palo Alto City Council Prepared by the Permit Streamlining Customer Working Committee March 1996 Introduction The Permit Streamlining Customer Working Committee (see attached) has been meeting with Palo Alto staff since February 1995 and appreciates the oppommity to be heard -- and to be part of the solution. This report: 1) identifies the key issues, priorities and concerns facing customers of Palo Alto’s permitting processes; 2) sets a shared vision and philosophy for moving forward; 3) recommends changes to the current process; and 4) encourages continuous improvement. Customer Perspectives -- Why is Permit Streamlining Important? All "permit customers" are important to the economic vitality and quality of life in Palo Alto. They do, however, have special needs and concerns. o Industry In today’s global marketplace, and especially in Silicon Valley where the ability to move technology products to market quickly determine a company’s success, expedited permit processes are an important factor in "time to market." This is true for a major expansion, a new facility, or more likely in Palo Alto, a tenant improvement that impacts a new product launch. Permit delays are time delays and time is money. In addition to lost revenue, there is impact to market share -- and technology products that do not arrive first, may have no reason for arriving at all. Retail and Business Services Retail and business services provide the needed products and services for business and residents in Palo Alto. This segment is less likely to have the technical expertise and financial resources of a large industrial or commercial customer as they embark upon an addition or tenant improvement. For that reason they may require more assistance, on less complicated permits, while having less money to weather time delays and permit costs. ¯Residents Housing costs in Palo Alto and in Silicon Valley are very high and impact the region’s ability to attract and retain the "brainforce" that sets this region apart from any other. Residential customers are usually the least technically prepared to make their way through the permitting process and are impacted the most on a very personal level. Thus, any added cost and/or bad experience at City Hall impacts their quality of life and attitude toward local government. As outlined above, the special requirements and contributions ofPalo Alto’s permitting customers highlight the need to: 1) comrnunicate clearly about the "how to"; 2) simplify the process; 3) improve turn around time; and 4) create a customer-friendly atmosphere. Guiding Philosophy and Shared Vision The following captures the Committee’s guiding philosophy and shared vision developed over the last year and drives the recommendations that follow: o Safety is never compromised ¯"Time to market" pressures are valued and responded to °Customers feel appreciated and understood °The way in which permits are processed -- a "can do" spirit supported by technology’s tools -- reflect the place in which permits are processed: Silicon Valley ¯City staff is empowered to solve problems and make decisions °Customers value staffs input and guidance and appreciate their attention to safety °The spirit of the law is understood and reflected in decisions o Common sense is a standard by which decisions are made o Customers take responsibility for quality applications and know how to --and want to- -do it right the first time Recommendations The following highlights the Committee’s five priorities for improvement, including recommendations within each area. The Committee believes that the majority of the recommendations improve service to all of Palo Alto’s customers -- industrial, business services, retail and residential. Progress on mann of the recommendations are underway, those already implemented are preceded by a check mark (~/). ~ 1. Reduced permit cycle time Concurrently process Architectural Review Board and building permits Use contract plan checking for peak periods and whenever "queue time/shelf time" exceeds 5 days ~ Allow sub permits (reroof, electrical, plumbing, etc.) by fax ¯Look for opportunities to increase over the counter permits and ARB staff approvals ¯Eliminate CEQA review for hazmat permits ¯Look for oppommities to combine or eliminate # of permits required ~/Eliminate sign permit; fence permit ¯Combine encroachment/street opening permit ¯Eliminate encroachment permit for project allowed by UBC, Ch. 45 ¯Eliminate requirement to receive building permit prior to issuance of demolition permit for building previously used for residential ¯Expedite plan review -- suggested goals of: 1) same day over the counter for projects less than 3000 square feet or any project that requires less than 30 minutes to plan check; 2) "green tag" (less than 10 days) for any project less than 10,000 square feet without Haz Mat or significant structural issues; and 3) 30 days maximum for all other tenant improvement work. ~ 2. Improved customer service ¯Communicate customer service philosophy and shared vision throughout organization ¯Invest in customer service training ¯Provide for "One Stop" Permit Center; if physically/financially prohibitive, look at ways to create the same effect ¯Allow for credit card payments ,]Set up billing accounts for major clients ¯For large/complicated construction projects, assign account manager/ombudsman to service the customer’s needs and champion the success of the project ¯Extend express plan review hours to every week day, 8 hours a day ~/Increase availability of ARB staff ¯Conduct customer satisfaction surveys ¯Create Development Review Committee to provide early input on large projects and follow progress throughout the project ~/Create utility load check list ¯Provide self-help area ¯Evaluate all current handouts -- update for clarity, ease of use, customer friendliness ¯Provide customer directory -- who to call, when and why ¯Develop customized "how to" guides/checklists targeted for diverse groups -- homeowners, small business, large industrial etc. ~ 3. Increased standardization Strive for standardization of building code, interpretations, and permit application forms Participate in Silicon Valley UBC and Interpretation Program ~ 4. Effective use of Automation ¯Use technology for improved processing and tracking of permits -- design a customer friendly system that is seamless and transparent to your customers -- pay close attention to customer screens/forms ¯Eliminate redundancy and increase accuracy of data ¯Move towards electronic permitting -- on-line submittal, internal processing and tracking, distribution of and payment for building permits ¯Provide permit status on internet ¯Seek customer feedback along the way "4 Participate in "Smart Permitting" project ~ 5. Continuous improvement Flowchart current process and look for reduction and elimination of process steps Train key staff on use of Process Improvement tools and methodologies (training scheduled to start 3/22/96) Promote and reward "continuous improvement" Summary and Conclusions The Customer Working Committee is appreciative of Council’s invitation to participate in permit streamlining and of staffs time and willingness to listen, make changes and accept constructive feedback. Progress has been made. However, there is much work yet to be done and the Committee believes the work is important to the economic vitality and quality of life in Palo Alto. We encourage Council’s support in moving forward on the recommendations outlined above. As customer’s of the City’s permitting services, we focused on what was important and why -- the "how" is best left to those who are charged with delivering the services. We look forward to providing input along the way. ATTACHMENT ’B’ Customer Working Panel Chris de Vos Susan Frank Craig French Carolyn Johnson Mark Johnson Roger Kohler Richard Pennington Connie Martinez Demetrios Triantafyltou Jeff Vaillant Maurice Werdegar Steve Cohen Charles Holman Curtis Feeny Anthony Matisi City Staff Phil Bobel Ariel Calonne Ruben Grijalva Lisa Grote Jim Harrington Fred Herman Carol Jansen Sheila Lee Dave Matson Diether Roth Larry Starr Bernie Strojny Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Chamber of Commerce Keenan Land Company Stanford Shopping Center Varian Associates Architect The Minimal Space Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network Space Systems/Loral EPRI Blue Chalk Cafe Jack & Cohen Builders Designer Stanford Management Company CAS Architects