Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-09 City Council (15)City Manager’s City of Palo Alto Summary Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Attention:Finance Committee FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: December 9, 1996 CMR:483:96 SUBJECT:Permit Streamlining- Implementation Plan (With Updated Financial Information) REQUEST Staff requests that Council review the report of the Permit Streamlining Process Management Team (PMT) and this report and direct staff to implement those measures deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions: Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance authorizing requests 1 through 5 listed in Table A including Attachment A, and amending the table of organization and Attachment B amending the municipal fee schedule to include 1994 Uniform Building Code (Table l-A). Direct the City Attomey to prepare Ordinances revising the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the items listed in Table B. These items, along with background information and analysis, will be returned to Council by the responsible departments for full discussion at a later date. 3.Direct staff to pursue those items listed in Table C. CMR:483:96 Page 1 of 9 TABLE A ITEMS REQUIRING BUDGET AMENDMENT Increase No.ITEM Department (Decrease 1A.Add 1 FTE Plans Check Engineer (half year funding Planning 41,800 for 1996-97) 2A.Add 1 FTE Hazardous Material Investigator* (half year Fire 39,000 funding for 1996-97) 3A.Increase budget for plan review consultants Planning 60,000 4A.Provide a customer service training program for all Human 12,000 involved in the permitting process Resources 5A. Miscellaneous expenses (furniture, PCS, etc.)Planning/ 14,200 Fire TOTAL 167,000 * Classification still under review. 2B. 3B. 4B. 5B. TABLE B ITEMS REQUIRING MUNICIPAL CODE REVISION ITEM Make hazardous materials permits ministerial and not discretionary. This would eliminate the CEQA process for Hazmat permits Restructure the Use and Occupancy Permit to a Certificate of Use Revise the grading ordinance to reflect the current process Eliminate the encroachment permit for certain encroachments permitted by the UBC Use the Certificate of Compliance process for combining parcels Municipal Code Chapter Title 17 Title 16 and Title 18 Title 16 Title 12 Title 21 CMR:483:96 Page 2 of 9 TABLE C ITEMS REQUIRING DIRECTION No. ITEM 1C.Direct staffto continue participation in the Smart Valley electronic plan submission project 2C.Direct staff to expand the use of the Internet to provide better information to our customers POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations adopted will provide an increased emphasis on expedited permit processing for residential, commercial and industrial customers. They will also provide an increased level of public service. Consistent with previous Council policy, all increased expenses will be 100 percent cost recovery through increased building permit and plan check fees, and placeholders for this program were included in the 1996-97 Adopted Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The staff began working with a fourteen member Permit Streamlining Customer Working Panel (CWP) in February of 1995. The CWP developed a March 1996 report (attached) that contained recommendations in five specific areas. They are: 1.Reduced permit cycle time. 2.Improved customer service. 3.Increased standardization. 4.Effective use of automation. 5.Continuous improvement. Council discussed these recommendations on May 20, 1996 and directed staff to return with an implementation plan to improve the permitting process. Since that time, staz~f formed a Process Management Team (PMT) comprised of key city staff involved in the permitting process, a customer, and a process management consultant. The PMT reviewed each step in the permitting process looking for delay, redundancy and necessary procedures. In all, over sixty improvements to the process were identified and evaluated. The final recommendations are contained in the attached report from the Process Management Team. CMR:483:96 Page 3 of 9 FISCAL IMPACT The recommended positions and non-salary expenditures identified in the PMT Report total $322,000. This includes $161,600 for salaries and $160,400 in non-salary requests. Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Fee Schedule (Table 1A) will allow the building permit process to operate at 100 percent cost recovery. Palo Alto’s permit and plan review fees have not been increased since February 1986 with the adoption of the 1985 UBC. Since that time, the Consumer Price Index has risen by nearly 44 percent. The adoption of the UBC Fee Table 1A will increase total revenue by approximately $463,000.00 per year. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Permit streamlining and related process changes are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. PREPARED BY: Fred Herman, Chief Building Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CMR:483:96 Page 4 of 9 of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report SUBJECT: PERMIT STREAMLINING REQUEST Staff requests that the Council review the report of the Permit Streamlining Process Management Team and this report and direct staff to implement those measures deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Council take the following actions: Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance authorizing requests 1 through 5 listed in Table A including Attachment A, and amending the table of organization and Attachment B, amending the municipal fee schedule. Direct the City Attorney to prepare Ordinances revising the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the items listed in Table B. These items, along with background information and analysis, will be returned to Council by the responsible departments for full discussion at a later date. 3.Direct staff to pursue those items listed in Table C BACKGROUND In February of 1995, City staff began meeting with a fourteen member Customer Working Panel (CWP). The CWP is composed of a cross section of those involved as customers in the permit process. In April of 1996, the CWP transmitted their report to the City Council for review. The report contained recommendations in five main categories. They were: 1.Reduced Permit Cycle Time 2.Improved Customer Service 3.Increased Standardization 4.Effective Use of Automation 5.Continuous Improvement CMR:483:96 Page 5 of 9 On May 20, 1996, the City Council discussed the issues contained in the CWP report and directed staffto remm to the Council with an implementation plan to improve the Palo Alto permit process. Many improvements to the permitting process were made as a result of the work of the CWP. Those items that did not have budget impacts or require extensive changes to the Municipal Code were implemented as they were identified and evaluated. These improvements to the process included: Concurrent process ARB and building permits. Use of fax for subpermits. Eliminated the sign permit. Eliminated the fence permit. Eliminated the requirement to obtain a building permit prior to a demolition permit. Established a billing account for major clients. Increased availability of ARB staff. Created a development review committee for large projects. Prepared a utility load check list. Implemented a standardized reroofmg application. Permit status is available on the Internet. Implemented a partial one-stop center. Following Council’s direction, the staff formed a Permit Streamlining Process Management Team. The team consisted of key staff from all departments involved in the permitting process,, a customer, and a process management consultant. The report of the Process Management Team (PMT) is attached. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations adopted will provide an increased emphasis on expedited permit processing for residential, commercial and industrial customers. They will also provide an increased level of public service. Consistent with previous Council policy, all increased expenses will be 100 percent cost recovery through increased building permit and plan check fees. DISCUSSION The attached report of the PMT provides the background for the proposed improvements to the permit process. The key elements are contained in Tables A through C. They are: CMR:483:96 Page 6 of 9 TABLE A ITEMS REQUIRING BUDGET AMENDMENT Increase No.ITEM Department (Decrease) 1A.Planning 41,800Add 1 FTE Plans Check Engineer (half year funding for 1996-97 2A.Add 1 FTE Hazardous Materials Investigator* (half Fire 39,000 year funding for 1996-97) 3A.Increase budget for plan review consultants Planning 60,000 4A.Provide a customer service training program for all Human 12,000 involved in the permitting process Resources 5A.Miscellaneous expenses (furniture, PCS, etc.)Planning/ 14,200 Fire TOTAL Manager 167,000 * Classification still under review. 2B. TABLE B ITEMS REQUIRING MUNICIPAL CODE REVISION ITEM Make hazardous materials permits ministerial and not discretionary. This would eliminate the CEQA process for Hazmat permits Restructure Use and Occupancy Permit to a Certificate of Use 3B.Revise grading ordinance to reflect current process 4B.Eliminate encroachment permit for certain encroachments permitted by the UBC 5B.Use the Certificate of Compliance process for combining parcels Municipal Code Chapter Title 17 Title 16 and Title 18 Title 16 Title 12 Title 21 CMR:483:96 Page 7 of 9 No 2C. TABLE C ITEMS REQUIRING DIRECTION ITEM Direct staff to continue participation in the Smart Valley electronic plan submission project Direct staff to expand the use of the Intemet to provide better information to our customers The other recommendations contained in the PMT report (Tables 1 through 5) do not require additional resources or services. They will be implemented as soon as possible. ALTERNATIVES The Council could elect to not add additional resources to the permitting process. Those items that do not require funding or special assistance would be implemented. CMR:483:96 Page 8 of 9 FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Fee Schedule (UBC Table 1A) will allow the building permit process to operate at 100 percent cost recovery. Palo Alto’s permit and plan review fees have not been increased since February 1986 with the adoption of the 1985 UBC. Since that time, the Consumer Price Index has risen by nearly 44 percent. The adoption of the UBC Fee Table 1A will increase total revenue by approximately $463,000.00 per year. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Permit streamlining is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Staff will implement those measures approved by Council. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Ordinance Report of the Process Management Team Report of the Customer Working Panel cc:Customer Working Panel CMR:483:96 Page 9 of 9 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION, TO AMEND THE TABLE OF ORGANIZATION, AND TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE, FOR THE PERMIT STREAMLINING PROGRAM. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 24,1996 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1996-97; and WHEREAS, the 1996-97 Adopted Budget included in the General Fund City Manager’s Contingency Account, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in funding, as the preliminary estimated cost for the implementation of the Permit Streamlining program, and projected revenues of $250,000 from the fee changes associated with the program; and WHEREAS, it has now been determined that the costs to implement the program, will require funding of $167,000 for staff, contract services, equipment and supplies for the remainder of the fisca! year for the Planning, Human Resources and Fire Departments; and WHEREAS, the projected revenues must be reduced by $83,000 to reflect less than a full year of the program at full cost recovery; and WHEREAS, the addition of two new, regular full time equivalent staff positions is required to implement an efficient Permit Streamlining program (a Plan Check Engineer in Planning and a Hazardous Materials Investigator in the Fire Department); and WHEREAS, due to the timing of the program, only six months of funding is required for the new positions in 1996-97; and WHEREAS, City Council authorization is required to amend the 1996-97 budget, the 1996-97 Table of Organization (Exhibit A), and Municipal Fee Schedule (Exhibit B) as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SE~TION.....I. The sum of One Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($167,000) is hereby transferred from the General Fund City Manager’s Contingency Account and appropriated as follows: (a) (b) (c) To the Construction Review/Project Monitoring functional Area of the Planning Department: $109,000, of which $41,800 is allocated to salaries and $67,200 is allocated to non-salaries To the Employee Development/Worklife functional area of the Human Resources Department: $12,000, which is allocated to non-salaries To the Environmental & Safety Management functional area of the Fire Department: $46,000, of which $39,000 is al!ocated to salaries and $7,000 is allocated to non- salaries SECTION 2. Projected revenues in the Planning Department are hereby reduced by $83,000. This amount is, accordingly, subtracted from the Genera! Fund City Manager’s Contingency Account. SECTION 3. This transaction has no impact on the Budget Stabilization Reserve. SECTION .~. The attached Table of Organization as amended to reflect changes shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference is hereby approved. SECTION 5. The attached Municipal Fee Schedule as amended to reflect changes shown in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference is hereby approved. SECTION 6. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the appropriation of funds does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmenta! impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 8. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Deputy City Manager, ASD EXHIBIT A TABLE OF ORGANIZATION - GENERAL FUND Adopted Budget 1996-97 Changes FIRE DEPARTMENT Assistant Fire Chief Battalion Chief Chief Off- Emergency Operations Control Account Specialist Coordinator, Environmental Protection Deputy Fire Chief Executive Secretary Fire Apparatus Operator Fire Captain Fire Chief Fire Fighter Fire Inspector Fire Marshal Hazardous Materials Investigator (1) Hazardous Materials Specialist Office Specialist TOTALS The Fire Department is authorized two position slots to accommodate persons on a disability pay status. 0.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 30.00 26.00 1.00 46.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 122.00 1.00 1.00 PLANNING Administrator. Zoning Assistant Building Official Assistant Planning Official Associate Planner Building Inspector Building Inspector Specialist Building/Planning Technician CDBG Coordinator Chief Building Official Chief Planning Official Chief Planning Official Chief Transportation Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjusted Budget 1996-97 0.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 30.00 26.00. 1.00 46.00 4.OO 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 123.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 EXHIBIT A TABLE OF ORGANIZATION - GENERAL FUND City Traffic Engineer Code Enforcement Officer Coordinator, EnvironmentaI Protection Dir., Planning & Community Environment Engineer Executive Secretary Mgr., Dvpmt. Monitoring & Ping Projects Managing Arborist Office Assistant Office Specialist Planner Plans Checking Engineer Senior Planner Staff Secretary Supervisor, Building Inspection TOTALS Adopted Budget Adjusted Budget 1996-97 Changes 1996.97 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ] .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0,00 3.50 3.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 43,00 1.00 44.00 Classification is subject to further review. City of Palo Alto PERMIT STREAMLINING PROCESS MANAGEMENT TEAM REPORT September 30, 1996 INTRODUCTION Background In February of 1995 City staff began meeting with a fourteen (14) member Customer Working Panel (CWP). The CWP is composed of a cross section of those involved as customers in the permit process. In April of 1996 the CWP transmitted their report to the City Council for review. The report contained recommendations in five main categories. They were: 2. 3. 4. 5. Reduced Permit Cycle Time Improved Customer Service Increased Standardization Effective Use of Automation Continuous Improvement On May 20, 1996 the City Council discussed the issues contained in the CWP report and directed staff to return to the Council with an implementation plan to improve the Palo Alto permit process. This report, prepared by a team of city staff members and a customer responds to the May 20, 1996 Council assignment. Purpose Throughout Silicon Valley permit streamlining has become an important issue for local government. Local industries have pressing needs for processing permits in a prompt manner. The phrase "time to market" is seen and heard in the news media and in correspondence. The economic vitality of Palo Alto is important to both the public and private sectors. In the residential community high housing and land costs force individual home owners and developers to place a high level of effort in processing permits and constructing their houses as fast as possible. In addition, our customers have a right to expect the best service we can provide in a cost efficient manner. Palo Alto’s permitting process has been viewed by some of our customers as overly burdensome, too complicated, and at peak construction times of the year as too slow. The process also contains elements that are unpredictable. The customer wants a process that is easily understood, customer friendly and predictable with established time lines. A significant increase in construction activity has also led to increased delays in the permitting process. The construction valuation for fiscal year 1995-96 was 62 % over the previous fiscal year. In the current calendar year there is an 83 % increase over the same period last year. PROCESS In 1995, staff from various cities including Palo Alto, Cupertino, Milpitas and San Jose attended a process management workshop sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. As a result of the workshop, it was recommended that Palo Alto should conduct an in-depth review of the development/building permit process. In developing the implementation plan the staff worked with the process management consultant (N. K. Howery & Associates) who presented the workshop. Funding for Palo Alto’s review was provided by three major local corporations (Hewlett Packard, Varian Associates, and Loral). The consultant, though unfamiliar with governmental permitting processes, is an expert in designing and evaluating systems for effectiveness and efficiency. Representatives of each department (Appendix A) involved in the permitting process participated fully. Departments included Planning, Public Works, Utilities and Fire. In addition, a customer (Brad Lopacinski of Varian Corporation) was added to the implementation team to provide the special insight from the other side of the counter. The beginning steps involved flow charting the permitting process in the "as is" condition (Appendix B). Each step in the process was scrutinized by the team to determine if it was necessary, did it add value, could it be eliminated, and other such questions. Data was collected on active current projects to determine the cycle and process times (Appendix C). Cycle lime is the total time a project is moving through the system. Process time is the actual time spent reviewing or working on the project. We confirmed our suspicions that cycle time far exceeds the process time for regular plan checks. The exception being over-the-counter plan reviews where the cycle and process times are identical. The team interviewed other jurisdictions searching for new ideas in the permitting process. A standard set of questions was asked of each contact person to guarantee consistent responses. Jurisdictions interviewed included Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Sonoma, San Mateo County, Walnut Creek, Livermore, Danville and Redwood City. Many of these jurisdictions either have or are in the process of streamlining their own systems. In the course of this review over sixty suggested improvements to the permitting process were identified and evaluated by the team. Many of these were simple fixes that did not have budget or policy impacts and have been or are in process of being implemented. Other items do require amendment to the budget or require changes to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Tables 1 through 5 are the focus of the implementation plan. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. REDUCED PERMIT CYCLE TIME There are currently three plan review paths that a project can take. They are: Express or Over-the-Counter Green Tag Regular Which path is determined by the size and complexity of the project. Projects such as small tenant improvements, residential kitchen and bathroom remodels typically fall into the Express path and are issued over the counter. This Express or over the counter plan review is available only in the morning hours. Slightly larger projects that may contain structural modifications to the building are often processed as a green tag. Green tagged projects are issued in ten working days or less. A new residence or commercial building and substantial additions and alterations to existing buildings fall into the regular permit process. During the peak construction season the cycle time for these projects is typically eight to ten weeks. Seventy-four (74) percent ofPalo Alto’s projects fall into the Express or Green Tag pipelines which results in significant delay for the regular permit process as staff works to process the smaller projects. Because of the necessity to expedite the construction phase of the project applicants frequently choose to hire an independent third party plan review agency. While this may reduce the cycle time for their project the applicant incurs the additional expense of the third party plan checker. The CWP recommended specific target cycle times for various projects. These are: Projects of less than 3,000 square feet - Same day Plan review process time of 30 minutes or less - Same day Projects of less than 10,000 square feet- 10 days max All others - 30 days max The CWP also recommended that the over the counter service be available to the customer eight hours a day, five days a week. 4 In order to implement these recommendations additional resources are necessary in the Inspection Services Division (ISD) and in the Fire Department. An additional plan checker in ISD and a Hazardous Materials Investigator has been requested and is included in the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO). The ISD plan checker will be dedicated to the public counter and will enable the other plan checkers to devote their time to the larger more complex projects. The total annual cost for this position is $83,600 in salary and benefits and $1,200 in non salary expenses. In addition, a one-time expenditure of $6,000 is requested in 1996-97 for non-salary start-up costs. All costs will be recovered through the proposed building permit fee increase. The proposed Fire Department position is for a Hazardous Materials Investigator who will be available for the public counter for one stop plan checks on a full time basis. The person in this position will be capable of addressing both fire protection and hazardous materials as they relate to plan review for small and large projects. This capability will enable the fire department to provide back up coverage in lieu of consultants and allow the Hazardous Materials Investigator to concentrate the time and effort required for complex and sophisticated projects. The total annual cost for this position is $78,000 in salary and benefits and $1,000 in non salary expenses. There is also a one-time request of $7,500 in 1996-97 for non-salary start-up costs. In order to meet the goal of processing all permits in a maximum of thirty days, additional contract plan checking services will be necessary for the peak construction periods. The current funding in ISD for outside plan checking services is $20,000. It is recommended that this fund be increased to $80,000 a year. Again, this cost would be recovered through permit fees. Item Have plan checkers at the counter In / Out box for plan distribution TABLE 1 REDUCED PERMIT CYI Description Devote 1 FTE to Express permits for Building and Fire Each deparlanent will pick up and drop off plans in the plan check area ~LE TIME Implementation Date 1/1/1997 8/96 Comments Contained in this request Complete Require a standard plan size Reduce the plan reviews by Public Works-Water Quality Reduce the plan reviews by Fire Reduce the plan reviews by Utilities Reduce the plan reviews by Planning Reduce the plan review by Public Works-Engineering Eliminate CEQA review for Hazmat permits Decrease QC review on outside plan reviews Decrease QC review on outside Fire plan checks Assign flood zone screening for certain projects to counter staff Make handling and packaging plans quicker Identified categories that could be reviewed by ISD. Identified the categories that will be reviewed by ISD Eliminated certain projects that were previously reviewed by electric and WGW Identified the categories that will not require planning review Identified the categories that do not require PW review Title 17 currently requires CEQA review for all Hazmat permits Reviewing a percentage of outside plan checks will reduce cycle time Reviewing a percentage of outside plan checks will reduce cycle time Obvious non substantial improvements could be screened by counter technicians 9/1/96 1/1/97 8/15/96 8/1/96 Spring 1997 Spring 1997 Spring 1997 11/1/97 11/1/97 Winter 1996 Implement with checklist Training needed for ISD Complete Complete In process- training for ISD Need wri~en procedure Requires ordinance change to T 17 Need prequalified contractor to accomplish Need own contractor to accomplish Recommenda- tions being developed 6 Increase the number of plans that are approved over the counter Each department could transfer their own comments on the final sets of plans Eliminate Use and Occupancy Permit Consolidate grading permit Eliminate the encroachment permit for certain encroachments permitted by the UBC Consolidate certain encroachment and street opening permits Establish turn- around times for various review steps A definition of the types of plans that could be approved over the counter needs to be developed Each department would be responsible for "packaging" their own comments. This would free up the counter technicians for other duties The ordinance could be revised to create a Certificate of Use administered by the planning division The grading ordinance should be revised to reflect the current process Items such as awnings, oriel balconies, and bay windows are permitted to overhang public property by the UBC Work in the public R-O-W is subject to both permits in some situations. Some are not necessary Endorse the recommendation of the CWP Fall 1996 9/1/96 Spring 1997 Spring 1997 Spring 1997 8/15/96 Fall 1996 Resources needed to implement Complete Municipal Code revision required; contained in this request Municipal Code revision required Legal analysis and Municipal Code revision required Done Resources required, plan checker& contract services 7 Increase budget for contract plan review Use a Certificate of Compliance process for combining parcels Increase the projects that receive Staff (as opposed to ARB approval) Extend Express Plan Review to every week day, eight hours per day Increase availability of ARB staff Extra plan review help is necessary for peak periods Title 21 could be amended to allow this process where less than five parcels are involved Design guidelines could be written to insure that staff completely considers the areas of ARB concern Endorse the recommendation of the CWI’ Another 0.5 FTE has been added to serve the ARB for a total of 1.5 FTE Fall 1996 Spring 1997 9/15/96 Winter 1996 3/1/96 Resources requested Municipal Code revision required On 9/15/96 ARBagenda Additional resources required (Plan check position) Complete 2. IMPROVED CUSTOMER SERVICE Customer service is an obvious and significant component of any system that deals with people as customers. For the past several years the City Manager and Senior Management have placed a high emphasis on customer service. Negative views of the city can be a result of how we interact with our customers, rather than whether or not we approve their plans or even how long the process takes. Customer service covers a broad range of recommendations. It includes training for all staff, improved informational materials, a one stop permit center, simplification of the process and employee empowerment. Customer service training is a high gain item for reasonable cost. All employees involved in the permitting process need to possess excellent communication and problem solving skills. In addition they need to be empowered to make day to day decisions at the point of first contact. A committee consisting of three members of the PMT and five members of the front line staff representing all departments involved in the permitting process comprised a customer service / empowerment team. The charge of the team was to identify subject areas for which customer service would be essential. Subject areas were identified with input from both management and staff related to issues which were perceived as obstacles to optimum customer service and employee satisfaction. The following subject areas were identified as primary training needs: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Effective communication skills Problem solving / option management Conflict resolution Interdepartmental coordination Empowerment Time and personnel management The members of the team are currently working with the Human Resources Department to develop a definitive training plan. The goal is to implement the training program for essential personnel during the first quarter of 1997. A request of $12,000 is included to provide this customer service training . The team will also develop a methodology to measure the effectiveness of the training program. Informational materials include all forms of media that can assist our customers in understanding and getting through the permit process. These range from simple counter handouts and checklists to the recently completed development guide. This guide is intended to show the project applicant exactly what they will need to submit, where to go and who to contact for more specific information. The guide is the first document to present the entire development process in one location. It is also available on Palo Alto’s Internet home page. Currently each department and division involved in the permitting process have various materials available for the general public. They have all been individually developed and are not consistent in format or design. Some are nothing more than copies of various codes and standards. Standardizing and simplifying complicated regulations into consistent basic language will better prepare the applicant for the permit process. The better prepared the applicant is when they enter city hall, the easier and faster it will be to process their project. The goal is to communicate permit process information in an understandable format from preapplication to project approval through construction. It is recommended that $27,375 be directed at standardizing the format and simplifying informational materials for our customers. A partial one stop permit center was initiated in Palo Alto in 1986. Since that time ISD, Planning. Public Works and Fire Department staff are available in the morning hours from 8 AM to Noon. Missing from the center are staff from Utilities Department, Water Quality Control Plant, and the Fire Department’s Hazmat Division. Space for these agencies’ representatives and for improving customer service does not exist on the fifth floor of the Civic Center. The ideal one stop center would have all departments represented at one location, an abundance of counter space, a conference room(s), a self help area, and adequate waiting space. The ideal center should also be easily accessible to the public and have adequate parking. The current Civic Center tower floors do not contain adequate floor space for a full one stop center unless only those directly involved in the process were located there. This would be the Building and Planning counter technicians, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities plan checkers, and necessary backups and support staff. It would split divisions and portions of departments on different floors. This is not the ideal solution but is one option available at this time. Other options could be to complete the build out of the Police Department second floor or to locate to another facility. These and other options can be reviewed as part of a feasibility space study. An estimated $45,000 is requested to perform this feasibility study. Until an ideal solution can be found the team is recommending that those agencies that are currently located on other floors of City Hall or in other facilities be on a five minute response time to the permit center. This would give the customer the impression of a one stop center with minimal wait time. All departments have committed to honoring the five minute call for staff located within City Hall. TABLE 2 IMPROVED CUSTOMER SERVICE Item Invest in customer service training Create a central one stop permit center Description Develop a training program for all involved in permitting process All permitting functions in one location Implementation Date Winter 1997 Long term Comments A customer service team has been created and is working with HRD Direct staff to pursue a true one stop center I0 Create a self help area Provide conference room(s) at counter Have a receptionist who can assist applicant and locate appropriate staff Identify a maximum "wait time" goal. Have staff on a five minute counter call Cross train plan review staff on requirements of other depts. Consolidate fee collection with a cashier at the counter Reduce complexity of Hazmat fee system Set up a billing account for major clients for Fire Dept fees Provide aids for the customer to better prepare their submittal Allow for plan review of projects with applicant A receptionist/cashier would assist the customer and provide better public service Waiting time at the counter should be documented and tracked 5 minute response for agencies not located in the permit center Inform all staff of basic requirements for all applications Combine a cashier/receptionist at the one stop center Changes to the fee system could make the process simpler for applicants Allow large companies to be billed for service Long term Long term Long term Winter 1996 Winter 1996 Winter 1997 Long term Fall 1996 Summer 1996 Include with one stop center Include with one stop center Include with one stop center and investigate the use of volunteers Establish a goal of 20 minutes maximum for service Departments committed to 5 minute response Include with program being developed for training Include with one stop center Recommendations are being developed Complete 11 Allow for credit card payment for all permits Create a checklist for plan submittal requirements Develop and distribute a development guide Develop standard traffic plans for applicants Have a central contact point for all inspection requests Consolidate inspections Assign a project inspector for large, complicated projects Use of credit card for fees will improve service A checklist would help the customer submit a complete package Inform large project developers of the entitlement and permit processes. Train PW-Engineering staff on traffic procedures for street opening permits Have all inspection requests (bldg, fire, PW, etc.) be at one contact point Some inspections performed by Fire could be handled by ISD Having one contact person for large projects would improve commtmication and tracking of conditions Fall 1996 Fall 1996 Fall 1996 Winter 1997 Long term Fall 1996 Fall 1996 Complete Draft has been prepared and is in use Completed Standard plans are being developed and training is necessary Include with one stop center Inspections have been identified and training is necessary Complete 3. INCREASED STANDARDIZATION Customers, whether they be contractors, designers, or corporate facilities managers have had fi-ustrating experiences in dealing with multiple jurisdictions. Forms, submittal requirements, fees, code interpretations, etc. are a few of the differences encountered. Standardizing the process as much as possible will eliminate errors and surprises that result in project delay. 12 Unique requirements are often the result of a one time problem that gets resolved by a new rule or process. There is a tendency to make sure that the problem never happens again, even flit means penalizing everyone else forever. The process must be consistent but be able to deal with the exception.. Flexibility must be a part of the overallprocess. Every municipal building division or department performs plan checks and issues permits. How they do it is rarely identical. For the past several years uniformity has become the focus of local building official organizations. Palo Alto participated in the uniform code amendment process and is and will remain active in the uniform code interpretation committee. Other areas of standardization include the development of a common permit application form and an acceptable computer aided design (CAD) package. Utilities has also developed a new standardized plan detail sheet that can be attached to any residential or nonresidential project package. This will negate the need for a designer to investigate the details and incorporate them in their own drawing sets. TABLE 3 INCREASED STANDARDIZATION Item Strive for tmiform code interpretations Standardize permit application form Develop standard utility detail sheet Description Publish interpretations for all jurisdictions All jurisdictions to utilize the same form Prepare a standard detail sheet to attach to drawings Implementation Date Fall 1996 Winter 1997 Winter 1996 Comments First batch of uniform interpretations is ready for publication Draft has been circulated for review Draft has been completed 13 4. EFFECTIVE USE OF AUTOMATION Any process can be automated. However, automation will not improve a bad or incomplete process. There is a 1995-96 CIP project for a new permit tracking system. An RFP was sent to a number of vendors but selection will not be made until the process improvement plan has been approved and implemented. It is hoped that a system can be selected by the Spring of 1997. Permit status is available from Palo Alto’s home page on the Intemet. It is updated on a daily basis and gives the inquirer information on which departments their project has cleared and if their permit is ready for pick up. In the future, additional information will be included. Smart Valley is a consortium of several cities in the valley that are developing standards for electronic submission and review of construction plans. Although it is not a short term project the technology is available to make this a reality in the near future. A demonstration of electronic plan submittal and review took place on September 25, 1996 and received a great deal of media coverage. TABLE 4 EFFECTIVE USE OF AUTOMATION Item Acquire a new permit tracking system Provide permit status on the Internet Participate in electronic plan submission Description Would allow the city and applicant to know the exact status of review Allow applicants to fmd out when their permit is ready Work with Smart Valley in development Implementation Date Spring 1997 Summer 1996 Long term Comments CIP approved, RFP issued, Vendor selection required Complete Technology available, many issues to be resolved 14 Provide facilities for video conferencing Would allow people at several locations to discuss plans and share documents Long Term Technology available. Expensive and limited use at this time for all but large (corporate) customers. 5. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Continuous improvement is an important part of process management. The review and refinement of the process in question is measured and evaluated on an ongoing basis. It is planned to hold periodic meetings with our customers to determine the effectiveness of improvements as they are implemented. The customer service team that is designing the training program will also be measuring the results of the training. Customer satisfaction surveys will be conducted to provide additional reactions to the improved permitting process. These surveys will take place at the completion of randomly selected projects and include single family residential as well as industrial and commercial. TABLE 5 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Item Hold customer group meetings Cycle time Conduct customer satisfaction surveys Description Measure effectiveness of improvements Continuously track permit cycle time for established targets Receive feedback from customers after project is complete Implementation Date Spring 1997 Spring 1997 Spring 1997 Comments CWP will coordinate and schedule On going measurement Customer training team will coordinate 15 6. COST RECOVERY The building permit and development processes are designed to operate at full cost recovery. The CWP recognized in their discussions that maintaining full cost recovery would be part of the Implementation Plan. Palo Alto’s permit and plan check fees are at the low end of the scale compared to other jurisdictions in the valley. The current fee table has not been increased since the adoption of the 1985 Uniform Building Code in 1986. Adoption of Table 1A of the 1994 Uniform Building Code will enable the Building Permit Process to remain at full cost recovery. 16 Attachment A PROCESS MANAGEMENT TEAM Norm Howery, N.K. Howery & Associates Fred Herman, Process Owner Sheila Lee, Team Leader Brad Lopacinski, Varian Project Manager Mike Baird, Building Inspection Phil Bobel, Public Works-Regional Water Quality Control Plant Roger Cwiak, Water Gas & Waste Water Lisa Grote, Planning Jim Harrington, Public Works-Engineering Doris Maez, Fire Nick Marinaro, Fire Tomm Marshall, Electric Dave Matson, Public Works-Engineering Larry Starr, Utilities 17 Attachment C CYCLE TIME vs. PROCESS TIME Process T~e Res Express Comm Express Res Green Tag Comm Green Tag Res Regular Return Days* Comm Regular Number 39 I3 25 15 8 Building Permit Process Cycle Time 20 Minutes 26 Minutes 4.4 Days 5.4 Days 48.5 Days 19.3 No Data Process Time 20 Minutes 26 Minutes 1 Hour 40 Minutes 1 Hour 17 Minutes 6 Hours 17 Minutes No Data Res = Residential Comm = Commercial / Industrial * Remm days is the time from first plan review until second submittal 18 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 opportunity 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. ¯Industry In today’s global marketplace, and especially in Silicon Valley where the ability to move technology products to market quic "kly 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 persona! 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 of Palo Alto’s permitting customers highlight the need to: 1) communicate 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: ¯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 ¯Common sense is a standard by which decisions are made ¯Customers take responsibilir,.~ 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 man__v of the recommendations are underway, those already implemented are preceded by a check mark (’4). ~ 1. Reduced permit cycle time Concurrently process Architectural Review Board and building permits Use contract plan chec "king for peak periods and whenever "queue time/shelf time" exceeds 5 days ~/ Allow sub permits (reroof, electrical, plumbing, etc.) by fax ¯Look for oppommities 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 ,1 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 su~,eys ¯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 trac’king 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 interact ¯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 Triantafyllou Jeff Vaillant Maurice Werdegar Steve Cohen Charles Holman Curtis Feeny Anthony Matisi City Staff Phil Bobe! 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