HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 444-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 444:09
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CENTER AND BUILDING PERMIT
PROCESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As directed by the City Council on June 8, 2009, staff has developed a plan to identify and
implement measures to streamline the Building Permit process. Additionally, staff believes there
are opportunities to further improve service delivery and enhance customer satisfaction at the
Development Center by restructuring staff, integrating new technologies into existing operations
and initiating various customer service enhancements as part of a broader process improvement
strategy. This report identifies the specific near-tenn measures that will be implemented to
streamline the Building Pennit process and recommends that proposals from management or
development services consultants be solicited to support the broader restructuring efforts at the
Development Center.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept this report regarding the Development Center and
the Building Permit process and direct staff to: 1) implement feasible permit process
streamlining measures, and 2) return with a consultant proposal to further evaluate Development
Center restructuring options aimed towards improving service delivery and enhancing customer
service.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on June 8, 2009, during discussion of proposed amendments to the Grading
Ordinance, the City Council directed staff to return with a plan for identifying and implementing
measures to further streamline the Building Permit process. Since then, staff met with
Councilmember Barton to discuss his concerns about the permit process and ideas for permit
streamlining, convened several inter-departmental staff meetings around the topic and met with
staff from other area jurisdictions that operate one-stop permit centers similar to Palo Alto's
Development Center. From the feedback received, staff has developed a plan to implement
several immediate measures designed to simplify the Building Permit process and a strategy for
CMR:444:09 Page 1 of 8
identifying and initiating more fundamental reforms at the Development Center that will further
streamline plan review and permitting processes and improve the overall delivery of services.
DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed activity levels and performance metrics that relate to the building permit
process, evaluated short-term streamlining measures, and prepared a blueprint for potential
restructuring of the Development Center.
Development Center Activity & Performance Levels
The following table summarizes key activity and service performance levels at the Development
Center over the past five years:
FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY 07/08 FY08/09
# Visitors 17,701 16,544 15,459 14,873 14,375
# Building Permit 3,219 3,296 3,236 3,253 3,496
Applications
submitted
# Building Permits 3,081 3,081 3,136 3,046 2,543
Issued
Building Permit $214,957,201 $276,981,25 $298,731,42 $358,864,55 $172,148,
valuation 0 8 7 452
Avg. # days to 24 28 27 23 31
initial plan check
A vg. # days to 94 98 102 80 63
permit issuance
% of Building 69% 78% 76% 53% 75%
Permits requiring
plan check issued
over-the-counter
Based on permit activity data, staff experience and input from Development Center customers,
staff offers the following summary and conclusions:
• Building Permit processing is the primary service that is delivered at the Development
Center. On average, roughly 60% of the visitors to the Development Center require
assistance from and interaction with Building Division staff, as compared to just 28%
with Planning Division staff, 10% with Public Works staff and 2% with Fire Department
staff.
• The decrease in the number of visitors to the Development Center over the five year
period can be attributed to two factors: 1) a change in the method by which visitors are
counted -in prior years, one visitor was counted multiple times if interaction with staff
from different departments was required whereas now, such a visitor is only counted
once, and 2) the reassignment of Utilities Department staff from the Development Center
to Elwell Court in FY 06/07, resulting in a shift of visitors from one location to the other.
CMR: 444:09 Page 2 of 8
• The number of Building Permit applications has remained relatively steady over the past
five years.
• Correspondingly, the number of Building Permits issued has remained relatively steady
until last year when the slumping economy caused a roughly 17.5% decline and a more
than 50% drop in permit valuation. This trend appears to be continuing in the current
year and is not expected to change until both the economy and access to construction
financing improve.
• The average time to issue Building Permits for projects requiring plan review has
dropped by nearly 40% in the past three years. This is due to both an increase in the
number of applications being processed over-the-counter and implementation of an
expedited (3-5 day) review process for simple addition, remodel and commercial tenant
improvement projects. As a result however, the average number of days required for plan
check staff to provide initial plan review comments for the more complex projects has
increased to 31 days. While this is still an acceptable level of performance, staff would
like to reduce the average response time for initial plan review of these projects to
between 20 and 25 days.
• Building Permit applications occasionally do get stuck in the plan review and permitting
processes for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, staffing fluctuations,
implementation of new ordinance and/or code requirements, and lack of inter-
departmental coordination and communication. Additionally, it should be noted that
there has been significant turnover of Building Division staff responsible for the
processing and plan review of Building Permit applications over the past three years and
in the past year alone, two counter and plan check positions out of seven were eliminated
due to budget cutbacks. Despite commendable performance by the limited staff involved
in the issuance of Building Permits, ample opportunities exist to improve service delivery
at the Development Center through a combination of simple, short-term streamlining
measures and longer-term restructuring efforts.
Short-Term Permit Streamlining Measures
Staff has identified several short-term measures that should help to streamline the Building
Permit process. These include:
• Encouraging more pre-submittal meetings with applicants to resolve issues of code
interpretation, submittal requirements, plan review expectations, and processing
questions, etc. The more informed that applicants and staff can be about a project when a
Building Permit application is submitted, the more thorough the application materials will
generally be, thereby increasing the likelihood for a quicker initial plan review and
eventual issuance of the Building Permit.
• Assigning appropriate initial plan review times for Building Permit applications. As
noted above, staff has created an expedited (3-5 day) review time for simple projects and
attempts to perform as many over-the-counter plan reviews as possible. Staff will
explore creating additional assigned review times for other categories of projects, such as
one and two week reviews, but may be limited by the abilities of other
departments/divisions to meet these deadlines. Further, staff will examine the assigned
444:09 Page 3 of 8
times allotted for second and subsequent plan reviews, along with plan revisions, in an
effort to reduce the overall time for plan check approvals and permit issuance.
• Publishing clear plan check guidelines to assist architects, designers, engineers,
contractors and applicants with understanding what the expectations of plan check staff
are for various types of projects and to promote consistency amongst plan check staff
when they perform plan reviews. Similarly, written protocols for outside (3fd Party) plan
review consultants are being developed to promote greater consistency among the firms
that are authorized to provide these services and to improve the quality of plan checking
overall.
• Redlining comments on plans rather than creating lengthy plan check correction letters.
To the extent plan check staff can correct a set of plans by incorporating redline
comments on them, then the re-submittal of some plan sets may be avoided thus allowing
Building Permits for those projects to be issued sooner.
• Reducing the number of plan sets required for Building Permit submittals. Staff believes
that certain city departments/divisions can review the same plan set, thus reducing paper
waste and ultimately, cost to applicants.
• Reducing the number of plan sheets by referencing the city's standard details and
requirements on-line. Again, staff believes that paper waste and applicant costs can be
reduced through simplifying plan sets by eliminating standard information that can
otherwise be accessed on-line or in other formats. Examples of these include stormwater
pollution prevention requirements, tree protection guidelines, Public Works and Utilities
Standard Details, etc.
• Committing to Accela protocols. Accela is the application and permit tracking database
used by the City and is accessible to applicants on-line through Velocity Hall, which
allows applicants to monitor the progress of their projects during the plan review,
permitting and construction phases. It is used by Building, Planning, Green Building,
Fire, Public Works, Utilities and Code Enforcement staff. Unfortunately, there are
inconsistencies with how staff from the various departments and divisions use Accela, so
a renewed commitment to certain standard protocols is in order. These include entering
data thoroughly, providing complete contact information of the staff assigned to each
project, entering plan review comments in a consistent format, updating project status
information whenever it changes and entering approvals when appropriate.
Staff believes most of these measures can be implemented at little cost within the next six
months.
Blueprint for a New Development Center
Beyond the short-term streamlining measures noted above, staff believes that significant
opportunities to improve service delivery at the Development Center and ultimately, the entire
customer service experience, exist and can be realized through a more holistic restructuring
effort that better integrates development review and permitting services and coordinates the
activities of all the staff providing them. Currently, applicants seeking Building Permits are
forced to deal with many different staff from various departments and divisions spread
throughout the city. Applicants have no single point of contact, which is especially significant
because inter-departmental coordination is lacking. Further, staff productivity is diminished due
CMR:444:09 Page 4 of8
to the amount of time and effort spent routing and tracking application materials rather than
actually processing permits and communications between applicants and the city are inconsistent
and occur in many different formats. The result is that applicants are, in many instances, forced
to act as Project Managers to navigate the city's processes rather than being treated as customers.
With this in mind, staff has conceived a "Blueprint for a New Development Center" as a plan to
identify and initiate process improvements and restructuring that could lead to better service
delivery, staff utilization and customer service at the Development Center.
The Blueprint contains the following five elements, which are described in further detail below
and are outlined in presentation format in Attachment A:
1. Convene a Development Center Focus Group
2. Solicit staff input
3. Evaluate the organizational structure of the Development Center
4. Implement technology upgrades
5. Identify and implement customer service enhancements
Development Center Focus Group
The Focus Group would be comprised of roughly a dozen architects, engineers and contractors
who frequently use the Development Center. As frequent customers, these individuals are best
positioned to offer the type of constructive feedback that will inform management staff about
how well services are being delivered at the Development Center and areas of strengths and
weaknesses. Presumably their experiences with other Permit Centers will also shed light on best
practices occurring elsewhere that could be implemented at the Development Center. The Focus
Group can assist with establishing performance metrics, assessing existing practices,
recommending process improvements and defining success indicators. It can also help to
interpret the results of the ongoing customer survey that is available to all Development Center
customers. It is envisioned that the Focus Group would meet quarterly and that it could
eventually evolve into a type of Development Center Advisory Committee.
Soliciting Staff Input
This is a fundamental best practice that needs to be institutionalized and should include staff
from all departments and divisions that are either already delivering or could be envisioned to
deliver services at the Development Center. The intent is to provide a forum for staff to focus on
Development Center operations and identify process improvements. Smaller work teams could
also be formed as needed to develop and implement pilot programs that would drive
organizational change.
Evaluate Development Center Organizational Structure
The purpose of the Development Center should be re-evaluated given how development
priorities in the city and the regulatory framework that impacts development have changed since
it originally opened. If it is expected that the Development Center should operate as a true one-
stop permit center, then the proper mix of staffing and services that should be provided at the
CMR: 444:09 Page 5 of 8
Development Center needs to be identified and put into place in order to meet that expectation.
Presently, there is no single source of management oversight at the Development Center so the
staff there is not always working towards common objectives. The evaluation may include any
or all of the following:
1. Consideration should be given to creation of a Development Center Manager who would
be given the authority for all Development Center operations along with the
accountability for results.
2. An Office Coordinator who, among other things, could act as an ombudsman for
applicants who run into difficulties would be a significant customer service enhancement
and should also be considered.
3. Certain staff, such as Technicians who currently operate in three separate divisions,
should be cross-trained to better balance workloads and minimize the number of han doffs
between departments that applicants currently must endure.
4. The question of whether the Utilities Department should have a presence at the
Development Center needs to be re-examined since CPAU has an integral role to play in
most building projects and applicants naturally expect to interact with them at the
Development Center. The Development Center could also be a venue for promoting
Utilities resource conservation programs as part of a broader Green Building program
that should operate there.
S. The city might consider creation of a separate Development Services Enterprise or
Special Revenue Fund to account for all development related revenues and expenditures.
This could relieve pressure on the General Fund by ensuring that all direct and indirect
development related services are fully paid for by development fees and that the general
taxpayer is not subsidizing the costs of development in any way.
Evaluation of these structural changes is likely to require additional funding or other resources,
such as retention of a management or development services consultant. If Council directs, staff
will return to Council in February with a consultant proposal to undertake such an analysis,
geared to begin implementation of recommended changes by July 1, 2010.
Technology Upgrades
Given the number of staff working at the Development Center, the diversity of operations and
the amount of record-keeping and data management that occurs, the Development Center should
have a dedicated Technology Support person. Beyond maintaining existing systems, the Tech
Support staff would be charged with identifying and implementing new technologies to improve
customer service and staff productivity. Examples of this include applications for on-line permit
submittals and plan reviews, on-line payment systems, self-help kiosks, electronic plan vaults,
etc.
Customer Service Enhancements
There are a number of other customer service enhancements that have been suggested over the
past few months, which should be explored for implementation at the Development Center.
These include:
CMR:444:09 Page 6 of 8
• Real-time appointment based plan reviews for certain types of projects that would allow
applicants to obtain all plan review comments in one scheduled visit
• Increased self-help capabilities that would allow applicants and visitors to the
Development Center to conduct business without having to wait for or interact with staff
• Adjusting the hours of operation to ensure that staff has dedicated blocks of time to
process permit applications and perform related work without interruptions
• Creation of an Applicant Bill of Rights that would set forth customer service expectations
• Improved and increased marketing, messaging and branding of services provided at the
Development Center
• Use of social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter to better communicate with
Development Center customers
• Creation of a Building Official or Development Center Manager blog on the
Development Center website to communicate relevant information and promote new
services as they become available
Conclusions
The Development Center is a valuable city resource that provides critical professional and
technical services to thousands of customers annually. While it generally functions well, there
are opportunities to improve staff productivity and the delivery of services, which ultimately will
lead to improved customer service and satisfaction. The opportunities exist in the form of short-
term streamlining measures and longer-term restructuring efforts. Staff is committed to
implementing the short-term measures and has formulated a plan for pursuing the longer-term
restructuring based on direction that the City Council may provide. Staff is also prepared to
report periodically to the City Council on the progress made towards implementation of these
recommendations.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No resource impacts are anticipated for implementation of the short-term process improvements
identified. Potential restructuring of the Development Center, technology upgrades and some of
the customer service enhancements outlined, however, cannot be evaluated and implemented
with current staff resources. Staff expects that such an evaluation could be conducted by a
management or development services consultant at a cost of between $30,000 and $45,000 over
a 90-day period. The costs of implementing program recommendations would be outlined in the
study. Staff would return to the Council in early 2010 with a contract intended to result in
implementation of recommendations by July 1,2010.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The actions recommended in this report are consistent with City Council direction and
Comprehensive Plan policies to streamline the development review process.
CMR: 444:09 Page 7 of8
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations contained in this report do not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act that requires environmental review.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Blueprint for a New Development Center Presentation/Summary
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 444:09
-2J1tuy i01dvJ kLL
6CIL Larry I. Perlin, PE
Chief Building Official
C1t:uJ~
C . W·lr 04
Page 8 of 8
Blueprint for a New
Development Center
It's about more than streamlining the
permit process
Why a New Development Center?
o Better integration of services
o Improved staff productivity
o Market sustainability programs
o Communications & outreach
o Full cost recovery
o Enhanced customer service
ATTACHMENT A
1
Who our customers are
FY 08/09 -14,375 visitors
590/0
III Building
• Planning
II Public Works
II Fire
OJ Green Buildin
Building Permit Activity Levels
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-
~ ---Building Permit
Applications
i -.>-Building Permits
Issued
2
Plan Check Performance
120 90
00
100
70
80
g 60
50 _ A'IIQ, # days to 1st response
~ _ A\tJ. # days to permit issuance!
40 -+-% Plan Checks orc
40 30
20
10
FY 041Q5 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07108 FY Oat09
Conclusions
o Building Permits drive activity at the DC
o Building Permit applications have remained
steady over past 5 years
o 75% of Building Permits requiring plan check
are issued over-the-counter
o Avg. time to issue Building Permits has
dropped 40% in past 3 years
o Avg. time for initial plan check response has
remained steady over past 5 years
o Permit applications occasionally do get stuck
3
More conclusions
Despite adequate performance by
limited staff involved in the issuance
of permits, there are opportunities to
significantly improve service delivery
at the DC through a combination of
simple, short-term fixes and longer-
term restructuring.
Short-term simple fixes
o Encourage pre-submittal meetings
o Assign appropriate review times
o Publish plan check guidelines
o Redline comments whenever possible
o Reduce # of plan sets
o Reference standard plan sheets on-line
o Commit to Accela protocols
4
Accela protocols
o Enter data thoroug h Iy
o Enter staff contact information
o Enter plan review comments
o Enter plan review status
o Enter approvals
Remember -Applicants rely on Accela
via Velocity Hall
DC Restructuring
o Currently, applicants seeking
Building Permits are forced to
deal with too many different
staff from too many different
City Departmentsji:>ivisions,
spread throughout the City
o Applicants have no single point
of contact to rely upon
o Considerable time and effort is
spent routing plans rather than
processing plans
o Comments are inconsistent and
come in many different formats
o Inter-departmental
coordination is lacking
5
The Blueprint
1. Convene DC Focus Group
2. Solicit staff input
3. Evaluate DC organizational structure
4. Technology upgrades
5. Customer service enhancements
DC Focus Group
o Comprised of frequent architects and contractors
o Review survey results
o Establish goals, assess existing practices, recommend
process improvements, define success indicators
o Meet quarterly or semi-annually
o Morph into a DC Advisory Board
6
Solicit staff input
o Institutionalize
o Form workgroups as needed to
implement process changes
Evaluate DC organizational structure
o What is the purpose of the DC? A one-stop shop or an
office annex to City Hall?
o Consider need for DC Czar or Development Services
Manager
o Need staffing authority to go with accountability for
results
o Consider DC Office Coordinator (Ombudsman)
o Cross-train staff (e.g. Technicians) to balance workload
o Determine whether CPAU is in or out
o Consider separate enterprise fund for DC to realize full
cost recovery
7
Technology upgrades
o Need dedicated tech support
o Accela v360
o On-line permit applications
o On-line plan submittals
o On-line payments
o Self help kiosks
Customer service enhancements
o Adjust hours of operation
o Real-time appointment based plan reviews
o Increased self-help capabilities
o Applicant Bill of Rights
o Applicant Ombudsman
o Assign CPAU Customer Service Rep
o Solicit continued customer feedback via surveys
o Marketing, messaging and branding
o Improved networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc.
o CBO Blog
8
Summary
"We can't solve problems by using the
same kind of thinking we used when
we created them." -Einstein
9