The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-12-10 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Attention:Policy and Services Committee FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: December 10, 1996 CMR:496:96 SUBJECT:Permit Streamlining - Aspects of the Implementation Plan That Require Municipal Code Revisions REQUEST This staff report supplements the December 9, 1996, updated staff report on Permit Streamlining (CMR:483:96). The Permit Streamlining staff report identifies five potential actions that require revisions to the Municipal Code. This report provides additional information on the five items. It is requested that Council provide direction to staff on the suggested Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) revisions detailed in this report. RECOMMENDATIONS A specific recommendation is included for each item in this report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Item 1 B - Making hazardous material permits ministerial, and thus eliminating environmental review of these permits, is consistent with City policy to streamline the permit process. However, the change would eliminate an opportunity for public review of these permits and, therefore, thus may conflict with at least informal City policies on citizen involvement. Items 2B, 3B and 4B would result in updating outdated or redundant City procedures. No conflict with City policies has been identified. Item 5B, using the Certificate of Compliance process for combining parcels, may conflict with community desires for greater public review of certificates of compliance. For this reason, it is recommended that Item 5B be added to an existing City staff assignment rather than being placed in the Municipal Code modification process. CMR:496:96 Page 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The permit streamlining staff report, CMR:483:96, and the Process Management Team Report attached to that report, includes Table B which recommends PAMC revisions in five specific areas. They are: TABLE B ITEMS REQUIRING MUNICIPAL CODE REVISION No.ITEM Municipal Code Chapter lB.Title 17 2B. 3B. 4B. 5B. Make hazardous materials permits ministerial and not discretionary. This would eliminate the CEQA process for Hazrnat 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 Title 16 and Title 18 Title 16 Title 12 Title 21 The following information on the five issues identified in Table B supplements the original and updated Permit Streamlining staff report. Item lB. Issue: Eliminate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for Hazardous Materials Permits. Potential Solution: Modify Title 17 to recognize that issuance of hazardous materials permits is a ministerial act and not discretionary. This would eliminate the need for the CEQA review process. Comments: Palo Alto is one of only two cities in Santa Clara County that require CEQA review of hazardous material permit applications. This review adds time and uncertainty to the application process. Hazardous material regulations are intended to mitigate potential CMR:496:96 Page 2 of 5 impacts and environmental review overlaps the intent of the regulations. Currently, applicants must fill out, and staff must review, a lengthy checklist of evaluation factors to determine if the project is categorically exempt, requires a negative declaration or a full environmental review. Most of the provisions of Title 17 can be codified in the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and decisions regarding the issuance of a hazardous materials permit become a matter of determining whether the project as proposed complies with the fire code. This will make hazardous materials permits consistent with Title 15 (the Toxic Gas Ordinance), the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code, which are considered ministerial actions and not subject to CEQA. Recommendations: Direct staff to process revisions to Title 17 to amend the Hazardous Materials Permit process. Item 2B. Issue: The current Use and Occupancy Certificate (U&O) process is handled by the Inspection Services Division, Planning Division and the Fire Department. Frequently, it is months between the application for a U&O and an inspection or certificate issuance. Potential Solution: Amend Titles 16 and 18 to restructure the U&O to a Certificate of Use. The Certificate of Use would be issued by the Planning Division after verifying that the use is consistent with the zoning Ordinance. The routine use and occupancy inspections currently performed by building and fn’e inspectors would be eliminated. Comments: The primary purpose of the U&O is to verify that the proposed use is consistent with the zoning ordinance. Unless there is a building permit involved, it is not necessary to require a building and fire inspection. The Fire Department engine companies perform routine safety inspections of all commercial and industrial properties making the U&O inspection redundant. Recommendation: Direct the staffto revise the Use and Occupancy Certificate requirements contained in Title 16 to a Certificate of Use in Title 18 (zoning ordinance). Item 3B. Issue: Palo Alto’s grading ordinance currently establishes two identical, but separate, grading processes with responsibility divided between the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer. The current grading ordinance needs revision to create and codify a more understandable, practical and consistent process that will also better ensure that grading CMR:496:96 Page 3 of 5 operations are conducted in a manner that achieves the intent of the City’s grading ordinance. Potential Solution: Change PAMC Section 16.28 to unify the two current processes into one, in which responsibilities are clear and consistent with existing practices. Comments: Staff and customers will benefit in that a consistent, understandable and codified grading permit process will be established. Since the process City staff currently follows is very similar to the proposed process, implementation can be easily accomplished. Recommendations: Direct staff to prepare changes to PAMC Section 16.28 to reflect and codify the current practices. Item 4B. Issue: The UBC allows certain building features such as awnings, marquees and balconies to project over public property. The City requires a separate encroachment permit for the same projections. Potential Solution: The encroachment review could be incorporated into the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review eliminating the encroachment permit requirement for these types of projections over public property. Comments: Projections (e.g., .an awning) extending over the public sidewalk currently go through three processes: ARB review, encroachment permit and building permit. The encroachment review and conditions of approval, if¯ necessary, could be incorporated into the ARB review. This would negate the need for the additional encroachment permit process. Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare PAMC changes to eliminate the current encroachment permit process for improvements subject to the Uniform Building Code and review by the ARB. Item 5B. Issue: The current Certificate of Compliance (C of C) process sometime duplicates other discretionary review processes. Potential Solutions: Title 2 ! could be modified to eliminate duplication of processes when other discretionary entitlements are processed. CMR:496:96 Page 4 of 5 Comments: The merger of lots for commercial sites with existing facilities often requires ARB review as well as a subdivision review in order to implement improvements to existing facilitites. The process is lengthy, costly and duplicative since discretionary review is already required as part of the ARB process. A full analysis of Title 21 will be required to implement this change. Recommendation: Direct the staff to incorporate this item into an existing Council assignment, Item 22 in the Planning Division Work Program, Design Review for lot consolidation and lot line adjustment situations. FISCAL IMPACT Any cost increases will be recovered through permit revenues. decreases in revenue, if some permits are eliminated. EV1RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT There may be slight There is no environmental assessment required for this report. PREPARED BY: Fred Herman, Chief Building Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ,~_d-i/~4~//~, jj!_¢~, KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:496:96 Page 5 of 5