Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF ENTITLEMENT/DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING x Review and Asses sme ,� of Entitlement/ Develap r�e, n t Processing Activ' it.le'S' . pity of Huntington Beach, CA } by FrAj ZUCKEK bYbTIE S s Review and Assessment of Entitlement/Development Processing Activities City of Huntington Beach By Zucker Systems FF AA 1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 260-2680 www.zuckersystems.com paulL&7u ckersystems.com February 2007 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... I B. POSITIVE FINDINGS ............................................................................................. I C. KEY PRIORITY AREAS .........................................................................................2 1.INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION................................................................2 2. APPLICATION AND PERMIT TIMELINES...................................................................2 3. ONE-STOP-PERMITTING..........................................................................................4 4.TECHNOLOGY .........................................................................................................4 II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY...............................................................7 A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE..............................................................................7 D. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................7 E. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................9 III. ISSUES RELATED TO SEVERAL FUNCTIONS........................................15 A. OVERVIEW......................................................................................................... 15 B. FEES................................................................................................................... 16 C. HANDOUTS ........................................................................................................ 18 D. INTER-DEPARTMENT COORDINATION............................................................... 18 E. ONE-STOP-PERMITTING/CO-LOCATION ............................................................25 F. TECHNOLOGY....................................................................................................31. IV. BUILDING DEPARTMENT............................................................................43 A. POSITIVE FINDINGS ...........................................................................................43 B. PROFILE ..........................................................................................................43 C. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................50 D. PROCESSING ISSUES...........................................................................................57 E. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU...............................................................................57 V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ..........................................................................61 A. POSITIVE FINDINGS ...........................................................................................61 Huntington Beach, California i Zucker Systems B. PROFILE.............................................................................................................61 C. POLICY ISSUES...................................................................................................64 D. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................65 E. PROCESS ISSUES ................................................................................................67 VI. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT................................................................81 VII. ENGINEERING SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION...........................83 A. POSITIVE FINDINGS ...........................................................................................83 B. OVERVIEW......................................................................................6.................. 83 C. POLICY ISSUES...................................................................................................89 D. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES.................................................................................91 E. PROCESS ISSUES .............................................................................................. 100 VIII. EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS...............................................................ill IX. CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS.......................................................................115 A. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ........................................................................... 115 B. Focus GROUPS................................................................................................ 117 C. CUSTOMER SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 119 List of Tables Table I Table of Recommendations............................................................................ 10 Table 2 Cost Revenue for Development Activities—2004-2005................................ 16 Table 3 Suggested Performance Standards..................................................................24 Table 4 Web Site Features—Building Department.....................................................38 Table 5 Web Site Features—Fire Prevention Division ...............................................39 Table 6 Web Site Features—Planning Department.................................. Table 7 Web Site Features—Public Works Department(Engineering and Transportation)...............................................................................................41 Table 8 Building Division Staff...................................................................................45 Table 9 Total Permit History .......................................................................................48 Table 10 Building Only Permit History.......................................................................48 Table I I Total Plan Review History............................................................................48 Table 12 Building Plan Review History......................................................................49 Table 13 Building Plan Review- Over the Counter Verses Intake.............................49 Table 14 Building Permit Valuation............................................................................49 Huntington Beach, California ii Zucker Systems Table 15 Square Footage of Building Permits Issued..................................................50 Table 16 Average Square Footage Per Building Permits Issued.................................50 Table 17 Plan Review Cycle Times Data from 4-1-2005 through 3-31-2006 ............52 Table 18 Staffing Time Allocations.............................................................................53 Table 19 Average Processing Time.............................................................................54 Table 20 Suggested Processing Time Targets Per Cycle ............................................55 Table 21 Positions and Responsibilities for Current and Advanced Planning............62 Table 22 Permit History 2001 —2005..........................................................................64 Table 23 Sample Permit Processing Times .................................................................78 Table 24 Total Hours Required for Processing and Staff Required............................79 Table 25 Engineering Services Positions and Responsibilities................................... 84 Table 26 Transportation Positions and Responsibilities (partial)................................85 Table 27 Entitlement and Permitting Activity.............................................................87 Table 28 Public Works Development Reviews...........................................................89 Table 29 Hours Per One Unit of Activity—Engineering Division..............................97 Table 30 Distribution of Available Hours—Engineering Division.............................98 Table 31 Hours Per One Unit of Activity—Transportation Division..........................99 Table 32 Distribution of Available Hours—Transportation Division....................... 100 Table 33 Timelines for Public Works Review of Planning Entitlements—2006...... 103 Table 34 Engineering Processing Times...................................................... 108 .............. Table 35 Transportation Division Processing Times 10/03/05 to 8/28/06................ 109 Table 36 Number of Employees Responding to Questionnaires............................... 111 List of Figures Figure 1 Methodology Overview...................................................................................7 Figure 2 Building Department Organization ...............................................................46 Figure 3 Planning Department Organizational Chart..................................................63 Figure 4 Development Review Committee Flow Chart ..............................................73 Figure 5 Relation of Staff for Review of Private Development Projects to Entire Public Works Department..............................................................................81 Figure 6 Organization Chart for Engineering Services ...............................................85 Figure 7 Organization for Transportation....................................................................86 Figure 8 Public Works Process for Planning Entitlements........................................ 102 Figure 9 Building Permit Process Related to Public Works...................................... 104 Figure 10 Customer Survey Responses..................................................................... 121 Huntington Beach, California iii Zucker Systems List of Appendices Appendix A Persons Interviewed .............................................................................. 125 Appendix B Employee Short Questionnaire.............................................................. 129 Appendix C Employee Long Questionnaire.............................................................. 133 Huntington Beach, California iv Zucker Systems I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. BACKGROUND This study was initiated by the City Administrator's Office for review, assessment and recommendations for improvement of the entitlement/development processing activities from project submittal to building permit issuance. B. POSITIVE FINDINGS We found many positive findings in the course of this study. Some of note include: ■ Overall staff is dedicated to providing quality service. ■ Management is dedicated to improving the organization and processes. ■ The City is making major gains in technology for permitting. ■ Staff in Building and Planning are cross trained. ■ Building issues a high percent of permits over the counter. ■ The City budget includes performance standards for permitting. ■ The quality of Engineering reviews is generally high. It should be noted that much of our research was conducted during a change in Planning Department management as well as some changed appointments to the Planning Commission. We have attempted to edit our draft report to reflect these changes. Recent improvements have included: ■ Creating a Planning Department check-in log. ■ Allowing planners more than 15 minutes if needed to serve customers at the counter. ■ No longer requiring Administrative planning permits to be forwarded to Administration. ■ Sending Design Review Board packets a week in advance of the meeting. ■ Adding the Project Planners direct phone number and email address to the Notice of Filing letters. The goal for this study is continuous improvement and thus we found a number of areas where the City can better meet the needs of policy makers and customers as well as staff. Huntington Beach, California 1 Zucker Systems C. KEY PRIORITY AREAS This report includes one-hundred seven (107) recommendations for improving the City's entitlement/development processing activities. While all the recommendations are important, we believe the following four key areas or groupings require the highest priority. 1. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION Findings The biggest complaint from customers is the lack of coordination between departments. Each department focuses on its own functions, often at the expense of the others. Departments tend to too easily suggest that the customer's problem is being caused by another department. The customer does not care which department is the problem, they see the City as a whole. Recommendations The City recently created a Development Services Team headed by a Deputy City Administrator. We suggest that this team be the focus to address the inter- departmental coordination issues (Recommendation 7). Specific suggestions include: ■ The team should meet weekly or bi-weekly; Recommendation 8. ■ The Development Action Team of operational managers should be formalized; Recommendation 9. ■ The possibility of merging the Building and Planning Departments should be explored; Recommendation 10. 2. APPLICATION AND PERMIT TIMELINES Findings Customers complain about the length of time the City takes to process various applications and permits. Long timelines can be very costly to the applicant and also delay additions to the City sales and property tax or services desired by the citizens. They can also be a frustration to the homeowner who simply wants to remodel or add a bedroom. Although the departments have set timelines for various activities and some of these are included in the budget document, many of these are not met. For example: ■ Building meets their 15-day target roughly 50% of the time. ■ Planning's time appear to be roughly twice those that we recommend. Huntington Beach, California 2 Zucker Systems ■ Engineering meets the 21 days needed for Planning roughly 50% of the time. They meet the 15-day review times for Engineering plans roughly 25% of the time. Recommendations Our basic recommendation for meeting timelines is for all functions to have standby consultants available to handle extra work when timelines cannot be met. While consideration could be given to adding more staff, it appears that the workload may be gradually decreasing and thus, we believe use of consultants is a preferred choice. Specific suggestions to help meet timelines include: ■ Establishing of common turnaround processing times for all functions; Recommendation 11. ■ Setting plan review targets based on project complexity; Recommendation 17. ■ Add or re-assign an inspection position to the Building Department office staff; Recommendation 34. ■ Shortening Building Department plan check time targets; Recommendation 35. ■ Evaluating management reports regarding timeline issues; Recommendation 64. ■ Planning Department review of building plans within five working days or less; Recommendation 71. ■ Planning Department processing of 95% of reviews within established benchmarks; Recommendation 72. ■ Planning Department setting of goals for reviews; Recommendations 73 and 74. ■ Public Works Department use of more consultants as needed to meet performance goals; Recommendations 82 and 93. ■ Transportation Division monitoring of review times and use of consultants as necessary; Recommendations 101, 102, and 103. ■ Engineering Division completion of 90% of planning reviews within 14 days; Recommendation 92. Huntington Beach, California 3 Zucker Systems 3. ONE-STOP-PERMITTING Findings The national trend for development review is called One-Stop-Permitting. In this system, all related departments are co-located and the various processes are integrated. This system is helpful for the customer since they can transact their business in one location. It is also helpful to staff by facilitating inter-function communication. Huntington Beach has co-located Building and Planning on the third floor. However, Fire is on the fifth floor and Business Licenses and Public Works are on the first floor. Some of the functions require additional space. Additionally, City Hall will be undergoing a seismic retrofitting which may be an appropriate time to consider a one-stop center. The first floor of City Hall would be a good location to be expanded for such a customer service oriented center. In order to provide sufficient space, some expansion of the building would likely be necessary. This would have an added advantage of the customers not having to use the elevator to get to the permit center. Recommendations: In Recommendations 19 and 21, we suggest the creation of a One-Stop Permit Center. 4. TECHNOLOGY Findings The City has made good progress in a variety of technology areas. These include the purchase of a permitting system (City View), continued evolvement of the GIS system, placing items on a City web page and beginning document imaging. IS Business Systems staff are in the process of rewriting ("improving") components of the City View permitting system to include: improved speed of processing, wireless laptops for field inspectors, inclusion of City GIS components and web interface for e-government permitting. Once these improvements are made, the system will be expanded to include Public Works. The document imaging project currently includes the City Clerk and Public Works. The Building Department will be added in 2007. These indicate the City's commitment to technology. To reinforce the importance of these actions we have included a variety of recommendations documenting the approach. Recommendations Recommendations for improving technology include: Huntington Beach, California 4 Zucker Systems ■ Improving City View and installing it in Public Works Department; Recommendation 22. ■ Web enabling the permit system; Recommendation 23. ■ Beginning some internet permitting; Recommendation 24. ■ Using document imaging programs for all development related departments; Recommendation 29. Huntington Beach, California 5 Zucker Systems Huntington Beach, California 6 Zucker Systems II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This study was initiated by the City Administrator's Office for review, assessment and recommendations for improvement of the entitlement/development processing activities from project submittal to building permit issuance. The RFP for the study was issued February 27, 2006 with a deadline for submittal of March 20, 2006. Interviews were held May 11, 2006. Zucker Systems was selected for the contract with a contract dated July 2006. Zucker Systems staff spent time in Huntington Beach July 26 and 27, August 8, 22, 23 and 24 and October 2. D. METHODOLOGY Zucker Systems used a proprietary well-tested, integrated methodology for this study, as shown in Figure 1. We brought our extensive experience to the study, worked closely with City staff, and solicited input and observations from customers and policy makers. The methodology is built on interrelating records, observations, and interviews. Each is necessary for valid studies. National research has shown that each one of these three—if relied upon exclusively—can be subject to substantial error. For example, record systems are often found to be as high as 50% in error or the wrong things are measured. We used observations and interviews to verify records. Records and interviews were used to verify observations. Records and observations were used to verify interviews. Each group of people, shown in Figure 1, was an important part of the process. Figure 1 Methodology Overview Consulting City Staff Experience I Observations Operational Jr� Recommendation Analysis �( and Action Plan Records ► Interviews I Customers Policy Makers Huntington Beach, California 7 Zucker Systems Specific activities conducted for this study included the following: Customer Input ■ Three customer focus groups totaling 10 people. ■ A mail survey to 285 current applicants for development approvals or permits. ■ Meeting with chairman of the Planning Commission. ■ Meeting with chairman of the Design Review Board. Policy Maker Input ■ Separate interviews with the Mayor and five of the six City Council members. Staff Input ■ Meeting with City Administrator. ■ Group meetings with 27 managers and staff who also completed a short anonymous questionnaire. ■ A long employee questionnaire completed by 15 staff members of the staff who had also completed the short questionnaire. ■ Individual interviews with people listed in Appendix A. ■ Various meetings with staff to discuss issues and processes. Meetings, Observations and Research ■ Review of the planning and permitting systems. ■ Review of forms,handouts,policies, files, and ordinances. ■ Observation of staff at work. ■ Observation of the public counters and reception areas. ■ Tour of City offices. ■ Observation of one Design Review Board meeting. ■ Observation of one Planning Commission study session. ■ Review of tape of Planning Commission meeting. ■ Attendance at Planning Division staff meeting. ■ Review of draft report by various Executive Staff. Huntington Beach, California 8 Zucker Systems E. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This assessment found many exemplary features within the entitlement/development processing activities as well as a number of areas where improvement is possible. The areas of strength are described in the sub-sections of the report. Opportunities for Improvement Problem areas and opportunities for improvement are described throughout this report. What we consider to be five key areas, or themes, are discussed in the Executive Summary; the first chapter in this report. Table 1 summarizes the 107 recommendations and opportunities for improvement made throughout this study. To assist the reader, each summarized recommendation is cross-referenced to the page on which the supporting text appears. Although all of these recommendations are important, each was given a priority number in order to help the City with implementation. There are 32 Priority 1 recommendations; 57 Priority 2 recommendations and 18 Priority 3 recommendations. We assume that existing staff will implement many of the recommendations and the cost generally should be absorbed through greater efficiency. To further help the City and departments in implementation, we have also coded all the recommendations. "Phase One Actions" are recommendations which we believe should be completed in the first nine months. "Phase Two Actions" we believe should be completed within 18 months. There are 89 Phase One Action recommendations. Some of these are given Priority 1, 2 or 3. However, that does not mean that only the Priority 1 recommendations should be addressed. There are 18 Phase Two Action recommendations. The departments should develop a detailed implementation plan with time targets for all recommendations. For each recommendation, we also indicate a Responsible Department for implementation. While the above priorities and action schedules should help the City with its Implementation Plan, it's essential to initially focus on the five key priorities discussed in the Executive Summary. Huntington Beach, California 9 Zucker Systems Table 1 Table of Recommendations ResponsibilityRecommendation - _, .- City Administrator and 1, Agree on an implementation plan Directors of Building, Fire, 14 1 X Planning and Public Works Department ISSUES IMPACTING ALL FUNCTIONS 2. Establish City approach to fees City Council 17 2 X 3. Consider changing approach to Building Permit fees Building and Safety Director 17 2 X 4. Adjust Engineering fees for projects that don't proceed City Engineer 17 3 X 5. Examine fees for working without a permit Deputy City Administrator 18 3 X 6. Prepare a simplified flow chart and description of Development Services Team 18 1 X process 7. ddress inter-departmental coordination issues Development Services Team 20 1 X 8 Development Services Team to meet weekly or bi- Development Services Team 21 1 X eekl 9. Formalize the Development Action Team Development Services Team 21 1 X 10. xamine merger of Building and Planning Departments City Manager and Development 21 2 X Services Team 11. Establish common turnaround processing times for all Development Services Team 21 1 X unctions 12 Integrate the Building and Planning Receptionist Building and Safety Director 23 2 X unction and Planning Director 13. Deploy common customer tracking log for Planning& Building and Safety Director 23 3 X 3uilding and Planning Director Integrate customer processes between Planning& Building and Safety Director 14. uildin and PlanningDirector 23 3 X 15, reate separate processing line for projects that can be Building and Safety Director 23 2 X rocessed quickly and Planning Director 16. Establish same performance standards among Development Services Team 24 1 X reviewinq departments 17. Revise plan review targets based on project complexity Development Services Team 24 1 X Clarify roles between Economic 18. Development/Redevelopment and the operating Development Services Team 25 2 X e artments 19. onsider creation of a One-Stop Permit Center City Council 26 1 X 0. Conduct detailed analysis of space needs City Administration 26 1 X 1 Development related departments to begin discussions Development Services Team 31 2 X bout One-Stop Permitting Center 2. Improve City View and install in Public Works Information Services 32 1 X Department 3. Web enable the permit system Information Services 33 1 X Department 4. Add features for Internet permit system Information Services 33 1 X Department Huntington Beach, California 10 Zucker Systems ResponsibilityRecommendation - Information Services Department to communicate timing Information Services $, and strategy on City View to development related Department 33 2 X departments (, Conduct cost benefit for storage mediums Development Services Team 35 2 X 7, Archival systems to be Web enabled Information Services 35 2 X Department $, Archive plans after permit issuance Development Services Team 35 3 X Document imaging programs for all development Information Services 9. departments Department and Development 35 1 X Services Team p, Resolve email questions raised by staff Information Services 36 2 X Department 1. Address GIS concerns Information Services 36 2 X Department 2, Review time sheet system Information Services 37 3 X Department Information Services 3. Expand City web site Department and 41 2 X Development Services Team BUILDING DEPARTMENT Building and Safety Director, 4, Add inspection position to the office staff City Administrator and City 52 1 X Council $. Adopt new performance standards for plan check Building and Safety Director 55 1 X 6. Develop workload monitoring report Building and Safety Director 56 2 X 7, Require staff to enter actual hours for permits Building and Safety Director 56 2 X $, Establish Building Department customer feedback Building and Safety Director 56 3 X 9. Require technical staff to be certified Building and Safety Director 57 3 X IRE PREVENTION BUREAU p, Co-locate plan reviewer with building Development Services Team 58 2 X 1 Incorporate fire prevention function into expedited Division Chief/Fire Chief 58 3 X review process 2, Create expedited over the counter review process Division Chief/Fire Chief 59 2 X PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3, Require large scale projects to have early project review Principal Planner,Current 65 2 X Planning 4 Director to meet with Planning Commission and City Planning Director 66 2 X ouncil members 5. ontinue monthly publication schedule for newsletter Planning Director 65 3 X (. Increase communication to other departments Planning Director 66 2 X 7. Develop in house training program Principal Planner,Advance 66 2 X Planning Planning Director,City $, Provide adequate training budget Administrator and City 66 2 X Council Huntington Beach, California 11 Zucker Systems ResponsibilityRecommendation . , . 9 ontinue to address any Planning Department staff Planning Director and City 67 2 X morale issues Administration p. Develop Planning work program Principal Planner,Advance 67 2 X Planning 51. my accept quantitatively complete applications Principal Planner, Current 67 2 X Planning Principal Planner,Current 2. Revise code requirements letter Planning and Development 68 2 X Services Team 53. ode requirements letter to include appeal language Principal Planner,Current 68 2 X Planning Serve 95%of counter customers within 15 minutes or Principal Planner,Current 4' ess Planning68 2 X 5 Include direct dial phone numbers and email on staff Administrative Assistant 69 2 X usiness cards 56. Revise membership of Design Review Board City Council 69 2 X 57. Reaffirm scope and authority of the DRB Planning Director 70 2 X 58. Update DRB submittal guidelines Principal Planner,Current 70 2 X Planning Make distinction between design guidelines and design Principal Planner,Current 59. requirements Planning70 2 X p. Revise requirements for DRB approval Principal Planner,Current 71 3 X Planning 1. Case file on Planners desk within 2 days of application Principal Planner,Current 71 2 X Planning 2. reate Development Review Committee Development Services Team 73 1 X 3. Establish threshold for DRC review Development Services Team 74 2 X Principal Planner,Current 64. Prepare management reports from City View Planning and Information 75 1 X Services 65. Fvaluate management reports re deadline issues Principal Planner,Current 75 1 X Planning 6. Eliminate most Planning Commission study sessions Planning Commission 76 2 X 7. More training for the Planning Commission Planning Commission and 76 2 X Planning Director 8. Assist Planning Commission in decision making Planning Director 76 2 X 9. ounter Supervisor to perform all Building Plan Checks Associate Planner 77 2 X p, Scale back Counter Supervisor duties as needed Principal Planner,Current 77 2 X Planning 1. Review building plans in 5 working days or less Associate Planner 77 1 X 2. Process 95%of reviews within benchmarks Principal Planner,Current 78 1 Planning 3, Set goals for specific process reviews Principal Planner,Current 78 1 X Planning 74. Set process goals for all review types Principal Planner, Current 79 1 X Planning 26. planning ssign mentor to new staff Planning Director 80 2 X Manager and Director not to directly handle Planning Director and 80 2 X ny cases Plannin Mana er Huntington Beach, California 12 Zucker Systems Responsibility# Recommendation _,a. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. Develop guidelines for exactions City Attorney,City Engineer 90 1 X and Principal Civil Engineer $. Establish guidelines re reasonableness of staff review City Engineer and Principal 90 2 X Civil Engineer 9 mend ordinances to allow reasonable staff City Attorney,City Engineer 90 2 X interpretations and Principal Civil Engineer 80. Update ordinances and policy documents City Engineer and Principal 91 2 X Civil Engineer 81. Review standards for remodels City Engineer and Principal 91 3 X Civil Engineer City Engineer, Principal Civil 82. Use consultants to meet performance standards Engineer and Transportation 92 1 X Manager 83 onsultants for major studies to defend work at Principal Civil Engineer and 92 3 X earin s Transportation Manager 84 Engineering to give high priority to scanning&indexing Principal Civil Engineer 93 2 X ecords $. Increase size of desks for Plan Checking Principal Civil Engineer 93 3 X 6 Principal Civil Engineer to limit plan reviews to 25%of Principal Civil Engineer 94 2 X ime 87 ontinue one landscape architect and supplement as City Engineer and Principal 95 2 X eeded with consultants Civil Engineer 88 Examine water consultant's work to assist in setting Principal Civil Engineer 95 2 X staffing levels for Water Review 89 Monitor Engineering Technicians functions to set Principal Civil Engineer 96 3 X staffing level Monitor transportation reviews to meet review targets. 0. Increase staff or use consultants in timelines cannot be Transportation Manager 99 1 X et City Engineer, Principal Civil 1. Develop staff training program Engineer and Transportation 100 2 X Manager 2 Change Engineering Services objective to complete Principal Civil Engineer 103 1 X 0/o of planning reviews in 14 days 3Allocate additional resources or consultants to meet Principal Civil Engineer 103 1 X planninq review timelines 4. Enter building square footage at time of application Building and Safety Director 105 1 X $. Building to calculate Orange County Sanitation fees Building and Safety Director 105 2 X (, Consider re-naming grading plans to engineering plans Principal Civil Engineer 105 3 X 7. Screen applications for completeness Principal Civil Engineer and 106 2 X Transportation Manager $, Reduce counter time for engineers Principal Civil Engineer 107 2 X City Engineer, Principal Civil 9, onsider expedited engineering service with a fee Engineer and Transportation 107 3 X Manager 100.Revise engineering staff monitoring systems Principal Civil Engineer 107 2 X 101 ransportation Division should meet timelines 90%of Transportation Manager 109 1 X he time 102Monitor permit review times Transportation Manager 109 1 X Huntington Beach, California 13 Zucker Systems ResponsibilityRecommendation IL 0. , . 103 Ilocate resources as necessary to meet transportation Transportation Manager 109 1 .X imelines EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS 104.Managers in development departments to discuss Development Services Team 113 2 X ana ement concerns 105,Managers in development departments to increase level Development Services Team 113 2 X f dele ation Review negative responses to employee questionnaire City Engineer, Principal Civil 106•n Public Works Engineer and Transportation 114 3 X Manager CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS 107.Review customer questionnaires Development Services Team 120 F2 I X Before the City begins implementing this study, we suggest that it take the following action. 1. Recommendation: The City Administrator and relevant Department Heads should review the study and agree on an implementation plan, which should include: ■ An agreed-upon timetable and work program ■ Costs estimates and method of funding ■ Confirmation by the Mayor and the City Council Huntington Beach, California 14 Zucker Systems III. ISSUES RELATED TO SEVERAL FUNCTIONS A. OVERVIEW Development Services Departments (Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works) regulate construction activity relative to compliance with established codes and regulations, but also need to function as facilitators of construction activity. In the last twenty-five years, government regulatory control has increased greatly. The number of regulatory controls is so extensive that if not enforced with discretion, the speed at which development could occur would be cost prohibitive. The proper application of regulations is very challenging because not all regulations are applicable in all situations. It is very important to know the intent of the regulation to obtain compliance. Some regulations benefit society as a whole and should be enforced uniformly. Other regulations may only pertain to certain situations and therefore should be enforced selectively. Deciding which regulations are applicable creates a very challenging environment for development services staff. Staff must be capable of discerning the intent of a rule in order to be capable of applying only applicable aspects of the regulation while maintaining consistency in application. This necessitates heavily investing in staff training and having sufficient staffing levels to allow sufficient processing time for project discernment to occur. To facilitate rapid processing, internal processing procedures that encourage staff to exercise independent judgment should be promoted. Staff should possess the ability to recognize when a customer is experiencing dissatisfaction with the direction being given, and established processing procedures should promote alternative solutions. Processing procedures should have as few steps as possible, which necessitates the elimination of intermediate transactions. Processes that require multiple staffing expertise to complete review should be integrated to occur concurrently and, if possible, to occur simultaneously in a single setting, which necessitates establishing integrated interdepartmental review processing. Local regulations and policies which a community has direct control over should be routinely evaluated in terms of return on investment to assess if the process is accomplishing sufficient value to warrant the added delays and increased cost that added processing generates. Processes that are very subjective in nature should be codified into objective design standards so that all customers know what the intended objectives are. Local policies and regulation should be periodically reassessed in light of current state, national and global concerns as well as technological and scientific findings. Huntington Beach, California 15 Zucker Systems The world is going through a greatly accelerated change process that will culminate in many economic, ecological and societal changes within the next fifty years. Cities need to reassess what is important in order to sustain our current standard of living. Current design guidelines should be reevaluated and changed to support sustainable cities for the future. B. FEES It is important to realize that development/permit fees are a very small part of the total construction cost. Delays in construction schedules or time invested to obtain.permits are the most costly. When establishing budgets or assessing proper fee assessments, the total cost of obtaining service must be assessed, which necessitates looking at costs incurred by customers, not just internal cost of delivering service. For example, when assessing the value of deploying an online permit issuance system, the greatest savings is incurred by customers not having to drive to City Hall during business hours and waiting in line to be served. Therefore, focusing solely on the cost of internal staff processing compared to cost of automation will provide an inadequate assessment of cost savings. The time invested to obtain City approvals will be passed along to the end consumer, hence low service fees do not equate to lower incurred costs to the end customer. Delays in getting plans approved, permits issued or inspections performed will have the greatest cost impacts. Inadequate staffing levels or delays in acquisition of staff or other needed resources due to a lack of revenue flow or expenditure of revenue is counter productive. Proper staffing levels and highly trained staff must be maintained to ensure rapid response to the construction industry's timetables. Fees in California for development applications are increasingly set at 100% of cost recovery, including in some communities' external overhead charges. Building and Engineering fees are often at 100% but it is not unusual to see Planning fees at 50% or less. Huntington Beach's experience for 2004/05 is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Cost Revenue for Development Activities—2004-2005 %Cost Recovery %Cost Estimated in Fee Department Expenditure Revenue Recovery Stud Building $3,259,375 $3,772,035 116% 91% Fire(budget) $1,276,100 $710,029 56% 56% Planning(total budget) $2,242,785 $1,092,560 49% 84% Public Works(private development only) $1,249,475 $1,115,499 89% 93% ' This is the budget amount developed in the fee study. Actual expenditures is likely to be less. Huntington Beach, California 16 Zucker Systems The development functions had a new fee study completed dated September 2005 and based on the adopted 2004/05 budget and staffing information. The estimated percent of cost recovery is shown in Table 2 and ranges from 56% to 93%. The study suggests changes to the City's cost recovery policy which would increase revenue by $1,525,663, bringing overall cost recovery to 82%. The decision as to the level of cost recovery the City wishes to use is a policy and political decision. We suggest the following approach: ■ For new construction and subdivisions, most developers are more than willing- to pay increased fees for increased service. Cutting 30 days or more out of a process is more financially valuable than the extra fee cost. ■ For small permits, such as a new water heater or minor remodel, true costs are often seen as high and can discourage potential applicants from even applying for a permit. Some communities tend to subsidize these fees with the General Fund. It used to be that communities charged extra fees for the large projects to subsidize fees for the smaller projects. The California Attorney General and recent court cases have determined that, without a vote of the people, this approach is not legal. 2. Recommendation: The City Council should establish the City's approach to fees using the guidelines outlined above. In reviewing the City fees, we note that many of the Building fees are based on the value of construction. Although this was once the favored way to set Building fees, many communities are now using a combination of fixed fees and fees based on the square footage of buildings. This approach is considered to have a better relation to actual City costs to provide the service. 3. Recommendation: The City should consider changeing the approach being used to set building permit and inspection fees. Some Engineering fees are set at the end of a project. However, if a project doesn't proceed, the fee is not collected. The system should be adjusted to avoid this problem. 4. Recommendation: Engineering fees should be adjusted to collect fees for projects that don't proceed. Staff suggests that the fees for working without a permit should be increased to discourage this practice. For example, the Public Works fee is only $140 making it cheaper to break the rules than to follow them. Huntington Beach, California 17 Zucker Systems 5. Recommendation: All departments should examine the fees being used for working without a permit and suggest possible changes. As part of this study the City asked that we compare some of the Planning fees to surrounding communities. This work is underway and will be furnished to the City as a separate report. C. HANDOUTS The various permit and development departments have a variety of handouts that can assist the customer. One of these documents is a 39-page handout called, "How to do Business in the City of Huntington Beach." While a useful document for some customers, the document tends to show how complicated and disjointed permitting can be and can be frightening for the casual user. What is needed is a concise flow chart and description of the core processes that can be useful for the one-time user. 6. Recommendation: The City should prepare a simplified flow chart and description of the City's key development process. D. INTER-DEPARTMENT COORDINATION Overview The City of Huntington Beach has no formal coordinated or consolidated Development Review process, which is unusual for a City of its size. While the Planning Department takes the lead on most development projects because they are the initial point of contact, many departments are ultimately involved with the review and approval of projects. In order for the Development Review process to function efficiently, all departments need to work on improving service delivery and all departments need to dedicate appropriate staff to Development Review. Currently, this does not appear to be the case. Because all departments are equal and the Planning Department does not exercise control over other departments, direction for this type of change in priorities should come from the City Administrator. In order to obtain approvals and permits to proceed with construction, applicants need to obtain approvals from numerous internal developmental review functions, (Building, Fire, Planning and Public Work), and sometimes outside agencies such as (The Orange County Health Care Agency, Schools, and Regional Water Quality Control Board). In order for each department to operate at full efficiency they need the cooperation of each other. All review functions should form cooperative partnerships, adopt the same review response targets, have comparable staffing levels Huntington Beach, California 18 Zucker Systems to meet established targets, and create processing teams that work together. If one department is the bottleneck that is preventing permit issuance from occurring, all departments have a responsibility to identify the issue and help that department solve their processing problems. The Deputy City Administrator may also need to be involved in addressing the problem. Shifting staff assignments to areas of greatest activity and utilizing contractual services when excess workloads occur, should be utilized to meet service targets. Each review partner needs to prioritize staffing distribution based on each other's needs. Team work and cooperation between Huntington Beach's various functions involved in processing private development plans can be improved. The lack of team work was noted by customers and was also recognized by many of the City's managers and staff. Departments may perform well within their individual functions, but they have difficulty doing their work due to the timelines or responsiveness of other functions. In the process, the customer gets caught in the middle. The Departments have raised a number of issues including: ■ Public Works may not pass on information to Planning that may pertain to a planning action and may bring up issues just before a meeting of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council. ■ Planning may not always pass on information that is needed by Public Works. ■ Certain Building Permits also require Public Works review but it is not clear whether Public Works or Building should contact the applicant or owner and thus the customer may have additional costs or be surprised before the Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy is issued. ■ Public Works assumed they had three weeks for review of Planning permits but lately has been told two weeks. ■ Many staff don't understand what other staff do and many staff say they are too busy to try to find out. ■ There is generally a lack of respect between functions and a lot of finger pointing rather than mutual problem solving. ■ The Building Department will determine per the Uniform Plumbing Code whether or not an upsize to the water meter will be required. At times, this determination has been left to the very end, prior to final inspection, and then Engineering has to explain to the applicant that they have to upgrade their meter. ■ There are multiple reviews required within Public Works including engineering, landscape, transportation, and water. At times reviews may also Huntington Beach, California 19 Zucker Systems be required by design, environmental, maintenance or utilities. This can create coordination issues within Public Works as well as the other departments. ■ At times there is a lack of communication between the Planning and Economic Development/Redevelopment functions. Some staff of operating departments are not always appreciative of the special character of economic development or redevelopment projects. This can create problems for the developer when the two Departments are not in agreement. Problems can occur if the departments do not agree on timelines or are not staffed to meet the timelines. Problems can also be created if one department decides to fast track a project when the others do not. The result is that the underperforming department is then labeled as a bottleneck. Some suggest a partial solution to the coordination issues is for the City to return to a prior organization where the Building and Planning functions were in the same Department. We generally favor this organizational pattern. However, we have seen merged departments that still operate as two individual and separate departments. We have also seen separate departments that work well together. Merging the departments can raise a number of personnel issues that are outside the scope of this study. However, we do believe this option should be considered. In another attempt to address these issues, a group of Department Directors involved in the development activities have regrouped as the Development Services Team (DST) headed by the Deputy City Administrator. This group was intended to primarily address strategic level issues but could spend too much time addressing specific projects. Evidently, the initial intent was to meet weekly; however, the reality has been closer to once a month. Given the issues and the need to provide a focus to implement this report, a weekly or at least bi-weekly meeting should be scheduled, particularly during implementation of this plan. In addition to the DST, it would be useful for the mid-level staff in each department to meet to work on systems and operational relationships. The City has had such a groups called the Development Assistant Team (DAT) consisting of mid managers. This group used to meet as a joint development review team but in recent years this practice has not been formally used. While all projects don't require this joint review, it can be very helpful for large and mid-sized projects. 7. Recommendation: The DST should address the inter-departmental coordination issues raised in this report. They should also be the focus for report implementation. 8. Recommendation: The DST should meet either weekly or bi-weekly. Huntington Beach, California 20 Zucker Systems 9. Recommendation: The DAT should be formalized and meet on a more routine basis. 10. Recommendation: The City Administrator in cooperation with the DST should examine the potential to merge the Building and Planning Departments. 11. Recommendation: The various departments should establish common turnaround process times and prioritize staffing allocations to meet time lines. Customer Processing The Building and Planning Departments are co-located on the 3rd floor of City Hall and share a contiguous customer service counter. The Building Department Permit Center processes between 80 and 120 customers per day and Planning processes 50 to 100. The Building Department utilizes a customer log-in sheet that identifies the type of service needed, (obtain permit, plan submittal, plan review questions, meet with someone or an appointment) which allows orderly processing of customers based upon order of arrival and also facilitates directing customers to the appropriate staff for processing. Building has four primary counter staff; one supervisor and three part time interns to process customers. One Building Engineer is generally assigned to help process plan intakes, and to answer construction related questions. If the project being submitted for plan review is determined to be simple in nature, the review will be done at the counter while the customer waits. If the number of customers waiting to be served becomes excessive, Building will have plan-check staff wait on customers to reduce wait times. The Building Department's processing methodology appears to be working very effectively. During the course of the study, the Planning Department currently did not utilize a check-in log but has now implemented such a system. The receptionist directs customers to a single counter staffing position unless more than three customers are waiting, at which time a second staff position is called to the counter to help reduce processing times. The receptionist on the 3rd floor is staffed by Planning, is only trained in Planning processes, and directs customers to the building counter if the service needed is Building related only. Planning typically does one to two reviews per Building Plan Review submittal. The initial review is to determine if zoning requirements are met for single family residential projects or that the proper entitlement permits have been obtained for commercial, industrial or multifamily Huntington Beach, California 21 Zucker Systems projects. In the last year approximately 1,000 projects were submitted for Building review which is approximately four to five planning reviews required per day prior to customers being sent to Building for processing. Planning will do a second review on projects during the Building Review process if an architectural review is needed or a conformance review is required. The processing procedures established appear to work well but assuming that the long term goal is to create a one-stop permit processing operation, the following adjustments should be considered to help prepare for the establishment of one-stop processing: 1. Initial customer interface for Building and Planning should be at a central receptionist station that has knowledge of all development review processing procedures. The receptionist needs to be cross trained in all processing procedures A receptionist should be capable of providing customer direction for all departments, be able to perform simple processing functions, make sure all appropriate processing forms are given to customers and assistance in completing forms. Currently the most qualified position to perform this function would be a Building Permit Technician, which, if staffed on a rotational basis, would provide trained backup as well. 2. There should be a common method of greeting, logging, tracking and processing customers. The current customer log-in sheet used by Building works well to identify service needed and to direct the customer appropriately, but does not record counter wait times. Planning's new system does record wait time. These types of tracking system should be deployed at the receptionist station and used by both Planning and Building. When a customer tracking system is used across departments, it necessitates making it an electronic log so that multiple staff can view the log simultaneously. There are numerous customer tracking systems available today that can be purchased to accommodate this function. This would not only help in rapidly directing customers but also provide statistics on customers served by processing function or staff positions, wait times and transaction processing times. This is valuable in making management decisions on staffing needs or assessing performance levels. 3. Customers should not have to go to multiple counters for processing or wait in multiple lines. They should be directed to a single counter where all review staff are brought to them. Ultimately a one-stop facility should be designed and constructed to meet Huntington Beach's processing needs where review staff from Building, Fire, Planning, Public Works and cashiering are all located together. Until that can occur, the following is recommended; Direct customers that require Planning review prior to Building review to the Building counter adjacent to the Planning counter where a Planner, Permit Technician and a Plan Check engineer would wait on the customer sequentially. Huntington Beach, California 22 Zucker Systems 4. Customer processing can take anywhere from a few minutes to over an hour. The simple permit transactions that do not require plan review are rapid. Plan intakes and issuance of permits associated with plans consume more time. Currently, all customers are processed in order of arrival; therefore a simple customer transaction can take a long time to obtain a few minutes of service. Many jurisdictions have created multiple processing lines based on customer transaction times to eliminate this problem. Therefore, transactions should be identified by associated processing times and segregated into different processing lines. Transactions that have prolonged processing times or require multiple staffing reviews, are best processed by appointment so that customer wait times can be minimized. 12. Recommendation: Integrate the receptionist function between Planning and Building and cross train staff to facilitate processing. 13. Recommendation: Deploy a common customer tracking log for Planning and Building. 14. Recommendation: Integrate customer processes between Planning and Building. 15. Recommendation: Segregate customer transaction based on time required to provide service. Identify which transactions can be processed quickly and create a separate processing line for these transactions Plan Review Performance Standards and Expedited Review The Building Department's existing established plan review completion target is 15 business days from submittal to completion of review for 85% of large or complicated plan checks. Plumbing, mechanical and electrical plan checks, 95% in 10 business days. Re-submittal are to be completed for 70% in five business days. The Building Department does 50% of their plan reviews over the counter and many second and third reviews are done over the counter, as well. This is excellent service. The Public Works Department uses cycle times of 15 working days for first review, 10 days for second review and 5 days for three or more reviews. The same type of expedited review service being used by Building does not exist in Fire,Planning or Public Works. Huntington Beach, California 23 Zucker Systems From a customer perspective, it is important that the various review functions work on similar performance schedules including differential review times for each review cycle. When possible, each function should also take advantage of expedited reviews. Therefore, we believe that some adjustment is needed in establishing reduced targets by project complexity and additional cycles of review and that all review partners should adopt the same performance standards. 16. Recommendation: Establish the same performance standard among all review partners (Building, Fire, Planning, Public Works) for projects that are under review for construction permits. 17. Recommendation: Establish revised plan review processing targets based on project complexity and review cycle as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Suggested Performance Standards Working Da s 18,Cycle 1 2"d Cycle 3`d Cycle New Construction 15 10 5 Residential Add/Alts 10 5 3 Commercial Major TI's 10 5 3 Smaller Projects 5 4 3 Economic Development/Redevelopment It is not unusual in cities to have conflict between the economic development/redevelopment functions and the operating departments. The operating departments tend to see economic development/redevelopment projects as just another development. However, these are often projects the City has established a policy intent and thus,we believe, deserve and require special attention. Likewise, it is important that economic development/redevelopment projects respect that the operating departments have legal mandates which can impact the projects' processing. Early consultation on projects can help in this regard. The Planning and Economic Development Departments have many interactions and rely upon each other for projects within redevelopment project areas; therefore their working relationship needs to be strong. Meetings between the directors and staff of the two departments will foster a strong working relationship. Also an understanding and appreciation for the roles the departments' play is important. Planning Huntington Beach, California 24 Zucker Systems understands the City codes and the CEQA process, while the Economic Development is the City's development arm and thus a cooperative partnership is needed to move projects forward. Since there have been staffing changes in both Planning and Economic Development/Redevelopment, the relations between these functions appear to be improving. There have also been project coordination issues between Public Works and Economic Development. Nonetheless, it would be useful for the departments to memorialize working relations. The DST covered earlier could take the lead on this task. 18. Recommendation: the DST should work to clarify operational relations between Economic Development/Redevelopment and the operating departments. E. ONE-STOP-PERMITTING/CO-LOCATION The national trend for cities and counties that process private development approvals is the so called "One-Stop-Permitting" approach. There are a variety of approaches using this label,but most include the following features: ■ All related staff is co-located within one facility and when possible on one floor. For Huntington Beach this would include Building, Business Licenses, Fire (Plan Review), Planning, and part or all of Public Works. This approach provides convenience for the customer since they often need to contact more than one of the functions. Another benefit is for staff who need to relate, often on a daily basis, to staff in the other functions. Co-location can foster improved understanding and communication. ■ There is generally one common receptionist to assist customers as well as a unified cashier. ■ Sit down counters are often used and sometimes both stand-up and sit down counters are used. Sit down counters provide disability access, as well. ■ A number of conference rooms are readily available for individual and group meetings. ■ There is a self help and waiting area where customers can use computer terminals to access data and permits and review maps, reports and handouts. ■ Intake and processing is carefully coordinated between functions. Huntington Beach's current offices for development and permitting activities do not meet most of the features outlined above. However, it appears that with some adjustments to current City Hall first floor uses and what appear to be several obvious Huntington Beach, California 25 Zucker Systems possible expansions to the first floor, a one-stop-center could be created. This would have the added benefit of permit customers not having to use the elevators to get to the third floor. A detailed analysis of space needs and building alternatives should be completed to examine this alternative along with the cost/benefits. The City Hall is about to be retrofitted for seismic issues. Additionally, some thought has been given to remodeling part of the third floor. The potential for creating a one- stop-center on the first floor should be an integral part of any discussion on these two issues. 19. Recommendation: The City should consider the creation of a one-stop permit center on the first floor of City Hall. 20. Recommendation: The City should conduct a detailed analysis of space needs and building expansion alternatives in order to create a one-stop permit center. Plan Review Processing for Building Permits The Building Department takes in building plans for all review functions (Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works) and files them in a central plan storage room located in the Building Department. Three sets of building plans (architectural and structural) are required and two additional sets each of sub-trade plans are required if plumbing, mechanical or electrical reviews are needed. At the time of submittal, each. department is notified through the City View automated permit issuance system that a review is pending. Fire reviews all new projects, commercial industrial projects and residential additions over 200 square feet. Public Works reviews all new projects, commercial industrial projects and residential additions if over 400 square feet. Planning reviews all projects. The three sets of building plans are separated, one for Building, one for Fire, one for Planning and Public Works which share a common plan set. Each department accesses their own plans, completes their respective review, and either approves the project or generates corrective comments. Correction comments are rolled up with the departmental plan set and re-filed in the building plan storage room. Each department notifies the applicant independently regarding the completion of their review. If corrections are required, all three building plan sets and two sub-trade plan sets, if applicable, must be located and returned to the applicant. Once the applicant makes corrections, the original five plan sets and five revised plan sets are resubmitted for the second round of review. Once the plans have been approved by all required review departments, one approved set is given to the applicant for construction and Huntington Beach, California 26 Zucker Systems inspection, one set is routed to the County and one set is retained in Building until the project has been completed. The current process is allowing concurrent review to occur but is very labor intensive requiring the separation and re-gathering of plan sets multiple times. Also, corrective notes generated by each reviewer are not integrated, requiring the applicant to look at three separate sets of plans to see all corrections required. Concurrent review is predicated on allowing all reviews to occur simultaneously, thus reducing total processing time as apposed to sequential review processing where each subsequent review cannot start until the prior one is completed. Concurrent review processing is a preferred method, but unless reviews are actually coordinated, the review processes do not occur at the same time and review comments are not integrated, which sometimes results in conflicting direction being given. Organizations will struggle with the dilemma of trying to determine if there is better efficiency in having all reviewers work sequentially off the same plan set eliminating the segregation and reassembly of plans, or is it better to provide each reviewer with their own plan set so that they can gather plans in bulk and work independently. In comparing the two processing methods, the desired goal is to minimize the amount of processing labor that is needed to complete the review processes. When one analyzes the processing times incurred, it will often be discovered that for most projects more time is invested in locating and filing plans, getting oriented to the plan design, contacting, communicating and resolving issues with an applicant that is not present, than the actual review time required. Therefore, the ultimate solution to eliminating excessive processing steps and improving efficiencies may be to create a one-stop review process where concurrent review actually occurs while the applicant is present. Proper Alignment of Staff to Create a One-Stop Center Organizational alignments should be looked at by functional interface needs to service customers, not departmental affiliations. To facilitate inter-departmental coordination the best model places all development review staff in the same location. If it is feasible to co-locate all development review staff in the same location it is important to identify which review functions need to be placed in close proximity of each other to facilitate customer service. Once organizational alignments are looked at by functional interface needs to service customers rather than departmental alignments the appropriate location of staffing is derived by review function and not by departmental affiliation. The first task to accomplish in determining proper staffing alignments is to identify all service functions performed by each department. If review overlaps exist, (multiple departments reviewing the same elements), a determination should be made as to which department should be the lead to eliminate redundancy of review. If many Huntington Beach, California 27 Zucker Systems service functions are being performed within a single department by multiple staff, a determination is made to see if consolidation of review functions can occur. Service functions that are exclusive to a department can be separated from those that require interdepartmental interfaces to complete. The identified service functions that require interdepartmental interfaces are the ones that need to be placed in close proximate to each other in a one-stop processing center. Exclusive processing functions can be dealt with in segregated locations. Based on the interdepartmental processing services identified,, it should be determined how many staff positions are required to provide customer service in a single visit. The resulting staff needed from this analysis are the staff members that need to be co-located. Planning has an equal number of staffing positions assigned to Long Range Planning and Implementation. Implementation has the responsibility of making sure development projects conform to the General Plan and meet the community's needs, through the administration of entitlement permits. A small subset of Implementation staff are needed to process entitlement permit applications or to ensure that building projects conform with zoning requirements and/or approved entitlement permits. This smaller subset of staff is what would be allocated to a one-stop permit center. Public Works has the majority of its staff assigned to managing the City's infrastructure, and a smaller group of staff processing private development projects. Among the staff that are dealing with private development permits the vast majority are needed for review of grading plans. A small portion of the private development function in Public Works is needed to facilitate building permit issuance. The portion of staff needed to facilitate building permit issuance would be the staff needed in a one-stop center. The remaining Public Works customers are exclusive to Public Works and hence could be segregated. However, given the many specialists in Public Works, co-location of all the engineering staff would be desirable. Having only one engineering staff represented co-located with Building Department plan review staff was tried in the past and was unsuccessful. The Fire Protection Bureau's review function has the responsibility of reviewing projects during the entitlement process relative to fire access issues and water supply, performing a joint review with the Building Department to address site access, existing and hazardous material issues, completing plan review and inspections for systems permits, and oversight of hazardous material installations, and completing annual inspections on multiple housing and commercial uses. Because systems and hazardous materials permits are dealt with by a small specialized group of subcontractors there is almost no interface needed between this review staff and the other development permit processes. The line fire staff administer the annual inspection process and hence this function needs no interface. Only one individual in the Fire Protection Bureau is actually assigned to interface with Building, Planning and Public Works and this individual should be assigned to the one-stop operation. Huntington Beach, California 28 Zucker Systems After analyzing the functional interface needs of each department the following conclusions are typically reached. ■ Only a few staff from Planning are needed to facilitate the Building review process as discussed in Chapter V. ■ Only one staff position from Fire is needed to facilitate the Building and Planning review process. ■ A small subset of Public Works review processes are aligned with the Planning review process and even a smaller subset is needed to facilitate the Building review process. If workload and staffing assignments were done based on customer service needs, and staff were physically located in close proximity to other staff needed to provide the service, a one-stop permit center that aligns staff based on customer service needs rather than departmental affiliation could be created. Expedited Plan Review Once review service functions have been identified, practical processing times needed by staff to complete review can be defined. Review services that can be preformed in one hour or less, should be processed through a coordinated express plan review process. There are many plan reviews that can be done within an hour with the designer present if conducted in an isolated environment void of interruption. Having the designer present during the review, speeds up the process by facilitating orientation to design and helps to locate information on plans quickly. It also simplifies communication and provides the ability to resolve problems immediately. It reduces processing time by eliminating the need to file, locate, re-file, relocate and return plans to the applicant. From past experience, a well-managed express plan review operation is far more efficient and more productive than the regular intake and review process. To facilitate express plan review processing an appointment system should be established where projects can be screened to determine if they meet established criteria and to determine what reviews will be needed. An express review process should not be limited to a single departmental review process. Projects that require multiple departmental reviews can be scheduled and performed at the same time as long as staff with sufficient backup is assigned to the process. In most jurisdictions the screening process is done by permit specialist staff that are knowledgeable regarding reviews required. Expedited review does not need to be limited to projects that require only one hour to complete. Some jurisdictions have deployed multiple levels of express review Huntington Beach, California 29 Zucker Systems processing that have no project limits. The basic principle of express review processing is that no shelf time exists, i.e. the review process begins at submittal and continues uninterrupted until completed. The key to administration of an express review process is scheduling. Instead of taking projects in continuously and filling them in queue waiting to be reviewed, they are scheduled for intake and processing based on productive capacity. The Building Department currently does a considerable amount of over the counter plan review, but has not codified this review process into a formal plan review service and can only process projects that require a single planning review. To create an integrated expedited review functions, the Engineering, Fire, and Planning Departments need to be incorporated into the process in order to ensure all necessary reviews are completed during a single appointment. A one-stop permit center is the ideal system to facilitate an expedited review service. The one-stop model brings all necessary City review staff to the customer who remains in a single location. One-stop permit centers can be based on either sequential processing or concurrent processing but both provide all review services in a single customer visit. With sequential processing, staff is rotated to the customer based on priority of approvals required. Generally Planning review is first, then Building, and then Fire and Public Works. With concurrent review, all necessary staff needed to grant approval meet with the customer at the same time. Both review models work best when all required review staff are located in close proximity to each other to allow rapid access. The concurrent model generally requires an additional designated space that is large enough to facilitate a group review process. The concurrent model has the advantage of allowing review staff to share concerns with respective designers in a single meeting, which facilitates conflict resolution more rapidly. Many cities will offer both models, utilizing sequential processing for small projects and concurrent processing for larger projects where coordination issues are more of a concern. Expedited review programs work best when formalized into an integrated process that entails the following: ■ Identify the parameters of simpler projects that can be reviewed in a one hour time period. Typically, smaller residential addition or alteration projects or smaller commercial tenant improvement projects fit well into this category. This review process can be conducted concurrently or sequentially quite effectively. The Building Department indicates that they currently follow this approach. ■ Identify the parameters of larger projects where multiple reviewers and designers are required that can be processed in half a day. Huntington Beach, California 30 Zucker Systems ■ If staffing is available, even large projects that take multiple days can be processed in this method. If existing staff is not sufficient and local consultants are available they can be utilized to facilitate the process. ■ Codify the established criteria of the different project types into published handouts delineating qualifying criteria for projects that qualify for expedited review. ■ Establish an appointment system to control and facilitate processing customers in an orderly sequence that incorporates a screening process to ensure only qualifying projects are scheduled and placed in the correct processing line. ■ Assign interdepartmental personnel (Fire, Planning, Public Works) to staff appointments to facilitate the review process. ■ The designer or designated individual for the applicant familiar with the project are required to attend the review process to facilitate conflict resolution immediately. 21. Recommendation: The development related departments should begin discussion about creating a one-stop permitting center and may wish to begin some modest experiments in that regard. Issues could include: ■ Determine which staffing from each department is essential to facilitate processing customers in a one-stop center. • Realign staffing locations based on service needs rather than departmental functions. ■ Develop a multi-level integrated expedited plan review process. F. TECHNOLOGY City View The City acquired the City View permitting system with the intent of having all development related departments on the system. Installation was initially completed over the past two years in Building and Planning but with a number of problems. Information Services has been reluctant to roll out the program in other departments until it is soundly in place in Building and Planning. Information Services is also working on integrating City View with GIS and using broadband for real live up-dates in the field for filed computers. Public Works is desirous of utilizing the system but has been told that the project is on hold until the newer version of City View is available or until the initial implementation in Building and Planning is complete. Huntington Beach, California 31 Zucker Systems A number of features and up-grades would be helpful in City View including: ■ A faster system; staff indicates that City View is very slow. ■ Installation in Public Works will require a staff person assigned for this purpose. The intent is that the staff person currently assigned to set up the system in Building is to help all departments in implementation of City View. ■ A variety of Public Works functions should be incorporated into the system if possible including: ✓ Automated Overload Permits ✓ Automated Grading Permits ✓ Automated receipts ✓ Various plan check logs ✓ Improved method of calculating fees IS Business Systems staff are in the process of rewriting ("improving") components of the City View permitting system to include: improved speed of processing, wireless laptops for field inspectors, inclusion of City GIS components and web interface for e-government permitting. Once these improvements are made, the system will be expanded to include Public Works. The document imaging project currently includes the City Clerk and Public Works. The Building Department will be added in 2007. These indicate the City's commitment to technology. To reinforce the importance of these actions we have included a variety of recommendations documenting the approach. 22. Recommendation: The City View system should be reviewed for possible improvements and installed in Public Works. The first phase of implementation of this system was to deploy the system internally for City staff to process permits. The first phase is still going through some implementation growing pains and has not been fully completed. The second phase is intended to make the system available over the internet. By doing simple permits that do not require plan review via the Internet, customers will be able to obtain permits without City assistance. Internet, view-only access to the permit system database will allow customers to check status of projects. Web enablement also makes remote access to data easier. Proper use of the Internet will save customers' time and money and make operations more efficient and cost effective. The Building Department is very desirous of this functionality and it can also be used by the other departments. Huntington Beach, California 32 Zucker Systems 23. Recommendation: The Information Services Department should help the development departments to web enable the permit system ASAP. Once an Internet software solution has been determined and is in the process of being implemented the following should be made available to customers for self-service via the Internet. ■ Simple permits that require no plan review ■ The ability to submit applications for permits and to receive simple plan submittals electronically ■ Access to electronic archived documents ■ Access to GIS maps 24. Recommendation: Integrate the above features into the Internet deployment of the permit system. 25. Recommendation: The Information Services Department should communicate with the development related departments as to the timing and strategy for full deployment of City View. Document Imaging Huntington Beach has selected SIRE Document Solutions by Alphacorp for the City- wide document archival system. Public Works is beginning a document imaging program including designation of one staff person who will be devoted to this task using the system. Similar approaches should be expanded to handling files in Building, Fire and Planning. Electronic access to plans and files is a great assist for both staff and customers. The Building Department indicated that they are also desirous of converting their paper documents and plans into an electronic format. Currently all plans are received in paper format and plans are retained on site until construction has been completed and then are archived via microfiche. Section 19850-19853 of the California Health and Safety Code requires Building Departments to maintain certain building plans during the life of a building. This section also gives limited protection to the designer of the plans by establishing a protective procedural requirement that must be followed prior to duplication of plans while allowing open access for viewing. Most documentation created or possessed by a Building Department is considered public information and different types of information have different retention requirements. Huntington Beach currently has a Huntington Beach, California 33 Zucker Systems document retention schedule that contains a retention and deletion schedule based on the type of data being retained. Development services departments possess an enormous volume of data and the management of this data is key to cost containment. The newest term that deals with this subject is Information Lifecycle Management, (ILM). This term is used to describe the management of data from its creation through deletion based on established retention schedules. Current law is careful to not stipulate any specific required storage medium. The predominate forms of archival being used today are paper, microfilm, microfiche, or electronic. The key to determining which storage medium is appropriate is based on the following factors: ■ Volume of data to be retained and storage capacity needed. ■ Need/desire for concurrent access to data. ■ What speed to access to the data is needed. ■ Length of retention period for the data being retained. ■ Ease of generating redundant archival to protect documents in case of a disaster. ■ Desirability of automatic deletion of records at the end of the retention period. ■ Ease of migrating documents to newer technological formats. ■ Long term costs (cost benefit analysis) of the different options available. A cost benefit analysis is not easy to accomplish because many of the benefits obtained through utilization of modern technology are externally obtained by customers, which is difficult to measure. The basic elements to consider when performing a cost benefit analysis are the following. ■ Does system provide redundant backup of documents and associated cost of providing redundancy? ■ How much space is allocated to plan and permit file storage and what is the cost of the space? ■ How many staff positions are allocated to retrieving plans and permit files and what is the cost? ■ How much staff time is wasted waiting for plans or permit files to be made accessible? ■ What types of delays are incurred by customers waiting for plans or permit files to be made available? ■ What are the estimated costs incurred by the construction industry in resolving construction problems that are related to delayed access to plans and permit files? Huntington Beach, California 34 Zucker Systems ■ How many plans or permit files are not available immediately, temporarily misplaced or lost? ■ Are the plans and permit documents that are legally required to be maintained deteriorating? Jurisdictions having completed a cost benefit analysis are increasingly instituting electronic archival systems because of the small storage space required, rapid document availability, elimination of lost or misplaced documents, ease of document management, ability to provide redundant protection of information, ease of customer access to documents, and the ability to review documents over the internet. 26. Recommendation: Departments should conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine which storage medium is best to meet their particular storage needs prior to implementation. The Building Department indicates that it has completed this task. 27. Recommendation: All archival systems should be capable of being Web enabled. 28. Recommendation: Once an electronic archival system has been established, archive plans immediately after permit issuance. 29. Recommendation: Adopt a document imaging program for all the development related departments and functions. Email Email has become an extremely important part of providing good public service as well as for staff efficiency. City staff has a variety of complaints related to the City's email system including: ■ The need for a global command to delete messages. ■ The policy requiring deletion of emails after 90 days. ■ The amount of email space allocated for some positions. It appears that some of these issues may be related to the City's email system but others may relate to the lack of staff training or familiarity with system features. The Information Services Department indicates that email issues are covered in Administrative Regulation 605. It would be useful to have these issues addressed in a staff memo or staff training in changes to the system. Huntington Beach, California 35 Zucker Systems 30. Recommendation: The email questions raised by staff should be addressed either by changes in the system or by creating and circulating email procedures and guidelines specifically addressed to these issues. Geographic Information System (GIS) GIS systems have become a central feature to effective entitlement and permitting systems. GIS was started in Public Works 10 years ago and was transferred to Information Systems (IS) three years ago. Information Services is an appropriate location for the central focus for GIS technology and programming that can relate to all City departments. However, it is also appropriate that the responsibility for certain layers of data rest within other operating departments. Easy access to GIS data by the departments is essential. Larger departments in many communities have a GIS specialist outplaced from the IS function assigned exclusively to that department. Public Works funds over 50% of the GIS operation and IS has now placed a GIS employee with a remote workstation in Public Works to provide more responsive service for Public Works needs. Although we could not undertake a comprehensive review of the City's GIS program, staff relayed the following concerns: ■ The current GIS system tends to be very slow. ■ Layers that should be added include: ✓ Public improvement/street data ✓ City tree inventory ✓ Traffic signal and street light locations ■ There should be easy GIS access for customers and citizens over the Internet. ■ The City Atlases need to be up-dated and fully transferred to GIS. ■ There are problems getting "as built" information in and out of the system. ■ New data should be in the system no later than one month after a project has been completed. 31. Recommendation: The Information Services Department should review and address the GIS related concerns raised in this study. Huntington Beach, California 36 Zucker Systems Time Sheet System Some staff members consider the KRONOS Time Sheet System in need of improvement. The drop-down table lists only the last five jobs for which time was entered, yet some staff use 10 to 15 different jobs. If a system were in place to repeat jobs from the previous week, it could save staff data entry time. 32. Recommendation: The KRONOS Time Sheet System should be reviewed for,possible improvements. Web Site The City's Web Site is an essential feature in providing good customer service to applicants and citizens related to the development process. Proper information on the Web Site can save staff time in answering customer questions and customers can access the data 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Tables 4 to 7 indicate current features of the City's system and additions which we feel should be added. Key areas include: ■ Customers should be able to apply for simple permits through e-government applications. This could include: ✓ Simple Building Permits including electrical, plumbing, mechanical, roofing and similar items ✓ Haul Route Applications ✓ Temporary Use Permits ✓ Obstruction Permit Applications ■ Specific additions to the Web Site should include: ✓ Public Works Standards ✓ Steps for Grading Plan preparation ✓ Water Facilities Standards ✓ Public Works Standard Plans ✓ Water Division Standard Plans ✓ Landscape Standard Plans ✓ Flowcharts for the Development Review/Plan Check Process ✓ Engineering Standards Huntington Beach, California 37 Zucker Systems Table 4 Web Site Features—Building Department On Web Site Features Yes No Overview description of Department X Main phone number, address and hours X Automated email contact feature X Organization chart X Staff names and titles X Staff direct phone lines and email addresses X Pictures of staff X Codes(10) X Descriptions of processes and applications(partial) X X Applications and forms(copy only) X Submit applications and forms by email X Tracking of permits X Various GIS maps X E-government permits X Use of credit cards X Standard plan details(5) X Useful phone numbers X List of fees X Useful links X Frequently asked questions X Huntington Beach, California 38 Zucker Systems Table 5 Web Site Features—Fire Prevention Division On Web Site Features Yes No Overview description of department X Main phone number, address and hours X Automated email contact feature X Organization chart X Staff names X Staff titles X Staff direct phone lines and email addresses X Pictures of staff X Codes X Descriptions of processes and applications X Applications and forms X Submit applications and forms by email X Tracking of permits X Various GIS maps X E-government permits X Use of credit cards X Standard plan details X Useful phone numbers X List of fees X Useful links X Frequently asked questions I X Huntington Beach, California 39 Zucker Systems Table 6 Web Site Features—Planning Department On Web Site Features Yes No Overview description of department X Main phone number, address and hours X Automated email contact feature(awkward) X X Organization chart X Staff names and titles X Staff direct phone lines and email addresses X Pictures of staff X General Plan X Specific Plans X Ordinances X Design Guidelines X Descriptions of processes and applications(partial) X X Applications and forms(copy only) X Submit applications and forms by email X Tracking of permits X Various GIS maps X E-government permits X Use of credit cards(forms must be faxed) X Frequently asked questions X List of fees X Useful links X Major project lists and status X Planning Commission description & meeting schedule X Names of Planning Commissioners X Planning Commission agendas X Planning Commission action agendas X Planning Commission minutes X Planning Commission staff reports X Huntington Beach, California 40 Zucker Systems Table 7 Web Site Features—Public Works Department (Engineering and Transportation) On Web Site Features Yes No Overview description of department X Main phone numbe, address and hours X Automated email contact feature(awkward) X X Organization chart X Staff names and titles X Staff direct phone lines and email addresses X Pictures of staff X Codes(some) X X Descriptions of processes and applications(partial) X X Application for plan checking (copy only) X Submit application by email X Tracking of permits X Various GIS maps X E- overnment permits X Use of credit cards X Standard plan details X Useful phone numbers X List of fees X Useful links X Frequently asked questions X 33. Recommendation: The City's website should be expanded to include the features shown in Tables 4 to7. Huntington Beach, California 41 Zucker Systems IV. BUILDING DEPARTMENT A. POSITIVE FINDINGS The following are positive findings for the Building Department: ■ Staff is very dedicated to their jobs and is very focused on providing quality customer service. ■ Staff is cross trained allowing manpower resources to be shifted to services areas of greatest demand. ■ The Division has combination inspection that operates efficiently. ■ Staff is well educated and possesses all necessary skills internally to resolve code issues. ■ Staff is friendly and cordial with customers. ■ The approximately 50% of over the counter plan reviews being accomplished is excellent. ■ Certifications have been required for many job classifications and staff has done a good job in becoming certified. B. PROFILE Authority The Building Department is under the direction of the Director of Building and Safety who reports directly to the City Administrator. The Building Department enforces the following Codes: ■ 1997 Edition ICBO Uniform Administrative Code ■ 2001 California Building Code ■ 2001 California Plumbing Code ■ 2001 California Mechanical Code ■ 2004 California Electric Code ■ 2005 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards ■ 2001 California Historical Building Code ■ 2001 California Fire Code ■ 2001 California Code For Building Conservation ■ 1997 Edition Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Huntington Beach, California 43 Zucker Systems ■ 1997 Edition Uniform Housing Code ■ 1997 IAPMO Edition Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code ■ 1997 Edition IAPMO Uniform Solar Energy Code Basic Functions The Building Department performs the following basic functions: ■ Accepts applications for Building Permits and issues permits. ■ Conducts plan check for building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing permits. ■ Conducts inspections using combination inspections for all construction. ■ Maintains Building Permit files. ■ Issues Certificates of Occupancy Organization Under the direction of the Building and Safety Director there are currently 31.5 budgeted full time positions, six contract inspectors and several part-time college interns. Table 8 shows actual current staff positions and classifications and Figure 2 shows the organizational structure. Huntington Beach, California 44 Zucker Systems Table 8 Building Division Staff Number Classification Positions Responsibilities Reports To City Building Director(BID) 1 Oversees Building Department Administrator Prin Adm.Analyst 1 Departmental Admin support BD Admin Asst 1 Admin support BD Permit&Plan Review Permit& Plan Check Manager Oversees plan review& permit (PCM) 1 issuance BD Plan Check Engineers 4 Review&approve plans PCM Contract Engineer 1 Review&approve plans PCM Permit Supervisor(PS) 1 Supervision of permit counter PCM Minor plan review& permit Senior Permit Tech 2 issuance PS Permit Tech 2 Permit issuance PS Interns 3 PT Counter support PS Inspections Inspection Manager(IM) 1 Manages inspection services BD Supervising Inspectors(SI) 3 Supervision of general inspections IM Building Inspectors 6 General inspections SI Plumb Mech Inspector 1 Plan review& inspections IM Electrical Inspector 1 Plan review&inspections IM Contract inspectors 6 General inspections SI Supervising Inspectors(COSI) 1 Supervision of C of O issuance IM Building Inspector 1 Inspection of C of O issuance COSI Interns 2 PT C of O Admin support COS[ Huntington Beach, California 45 Zucker Systems Figure 2 Building Department Organization Director Permit&Plan Checker Administration Inspectors Permit&Plan Principal Inspection Check Manager Administrative Manager Analyst Combination Inspectors Permit Senior Depart. Supervising tBuilding Supervisor Analyst Part - Bung Inspector Time Specialty Plan Check Inspectors Engineer Senior Permit Technician Principal g Plumbing& 1:1::�pector Mach.Inspector Plan Check Engineer Permit PHnTd al 4 Technician p Building Building Eiectncal Inspector Inspector Inspector Plan Check Engineer Permit Certificate Technician of Occupancy Building Building Inspector Inspector [Cotract Plan Building Chac College Intern Inspector Part Time Building Building Inspector Inspector Counter Services Part Time Inspector Building Building Acting Plan Inspector Inspector Check Engineer. College Intem Building Building Senior Permit Inspector Inspector Technician College Intern Part Time Permit and Plan Review Activity Tables 9 through 16 lists permit and plan review history over the last 5 years. The total number of permits issued in the last year has declined by 7.8% and plan reviews have declined by 8.7% while the total square footage of projects being permitted has increased slightly. There is no direct correlation between valuation assessments and workload activity, hence the increase in valuation by 15.9% has no major significance on workload but does of course have an impact on revenue in a valuation based fee system. While there is no direct correlation, the increased values may have at least some effect on workload. There is correlation between square footage of projects and Huntington Beach, California 46 Zucker Systems workload activity in that the amount of time invested to complete reviews does increase slightly based on square footage increases. The relationship of gross activity levels to actual workload impacts are not directly relational, in that the time required for processing (permit issuance, plan review and inspection) of projects is a variable based on the type of projects being processed. It is possible to have a decline in gross activity levels and an increase in workload demand if shifts in activity occur toward projects types that are more labor intensive. The opposite is also possible. Gross activates can increase and workload can drop based on project type shifts. In looking at significant permit activity project-type shifts, new multifamily and new single family home activity has declined, while residential alterations have increased. The most significant square footage change in project types is relative to an increase in size of a few new commercial buildings, which would reflect some increase in workload even with lower volumes. From past experience, the most labor intensive product type is residential alterations, which has increased by almost 30%,reflecting a higher workload per volume of activity. Therefore, even though activity levels have declined, workload appears to have remained constant or may have even increased slightly. Without more refinement in the data provided it is not possible to reach any conclusive assessment of workload impacts relative to activity levels. To accurately assess workload impacts based on activity levels the average processing times per project type must be tabulated to determine if shifts in activity will result in higher or lower workload impacts. The application of this analysis is dealt with more comprehensively later in this report in the plan review staffing assessment section and under monitoring workload. In looking at activity levels overall, one very significant item that is revealed is the level of over the counter plan reviews that are being accomplished. The efficiency in processing a plan review over the counter is higher than any other plan review processing method utilized. The fact that the Building Department has been processing approximately 50% of their plan reviews through this method is very commendable. Huntington Beach, California 47 Zucker Systems Table 9 Total Permit History Total Permits 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Building Permits 5,429 5,540 5,744 5,643 5,107 Electrical Permits 2,304 2,111 2,397 2,508 2,476 Plumbing Permits 1,849 1,861 2,134 2,328 2,194 Mechanical Permits 1,5031 1,3311 1,5651 1,603 1,433 Total 11,0851 10,8431 11,8401 12,0821 11,210 Percentage Change 1 -2.20%1 9.20%1 2.00% -7.80% Table 10 Building Only Permit History Building Permits 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Multiple Dwellings 39 27 38 13 3 Single Dwellings-Attached 4 6 0 0 0 Single Dwelling s-Detached 258 86 138 136 67 Residential-Alterations/Additions 614 672 7931 830 1,075 Commercial-New 13 17 31 18 19 Commercial-Alterations/Additions 240 219 236 265 297 Industrial-New 3 8 3 8 1 Industrial-Alterations/Additions 21 23 23 28 21 Swimming Pools 184 191 2211 201 216 Miscellaneous 4,014 4,247 4,192 4,075 3,357 Demolitions 391 44 691 691 51 Subtotal 5!4291 5,5401 5,7441 5,6431 5,107 Percentage Change 2.00%1 3.70% -1.80% -10.50% Table 11 Total Plan Review History Total Plan Check 01/02 02/03 03104 04/05 05106 Building Plan Check 2,437 2,298 2,579 2,333 2,105 Electrical Plan Check 12-Nov 264 294 363 389 Plumbing Plan Check 8-Jun 154 171 293 266 Mechanical Plan Check 1 1821 1471 1671 2641 234 Totall 3,0961 2,8631 3,2111 3,2531 2,994 Percentage Chan gel -7.50%1 12.20%1 1.30% -8.70% Huntington Beach, California 48 Zucker Systems Table 12 Building Plan Review History Building Plan Check 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Over the counter 1,125 1,162 1,165 1,101 1,112 Overnight 901 992 1,200 1,106 977 Reduced Fee Overnight 411 144 214 126 16 Subtotal 2,437 2,2981 2,579 2,3331 2,105 Percentage Change -5.70% 12.20% -9.50% -10.08% Table 13 Building Plan Review- Over the Counter Verses Intake Building Plan Check 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Over the counter 1,125 1,162 1,165 1,101 1,112 Total Overnight intake 1,312 1,136 1,414 1,232 993 Percentage of Over the counter, 46% 51% 45% 47% 53% Table 14 Building Permit Valuation Building Permit Valuation 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 New Construction 122,766,669 58,794,491 127,829,973 76,994,061 93,688,395 Remodel 68,106.625 64,679,989 84,881,288 92,575,864 102,764,495 Total Building Valuation 190,873,2941 123,474,4801 212,711,2611 169,569,9251 196,452,890 Percentage Chan gel -35.30%1 72.30% -20.30%1 15.90% Huntington Beach, California 49 Zucker Systems Table 15 Square Footage of Building Permits Issued Square Footage New 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Residential 789,922 484,630 255,780 Commercial 928,735 210,172 821,252 Industrial 236,048 447,803 60,730 Total 1,954,705 1,142,605 1,137,762 Square Footage Additions Residential 261,814 317,985 422,137 Commercial 25,532 85,858 11,937 Industrial 1,029 16,932 11,427 Total 288,375 420,775 455,501 Total Square Foota a 2,243,080 1,563,380 1,583,263 Percentage Change 1.30% Table 16 Average Square Footage Per Building Permits Issued Square Footage New 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Residential 4,488 3,253 3,654 Commercial 29,959 11,676 43,224 Industrial 78,683 55,975 60,730 Residential 1 3301 —383f 393 Commercial 108 324 40 Industrial 1 451 6051 544 C. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES The Huntington Beach Building Department as currently organized is providing excellent customer service. They are very customer oriented, have reasonable staffing levels that are well trained to allow rapid processing of customers plus staff are cross trained to allow shifting resources to areas of greatest service demand. The Building Department has proper goals regarding future direction and is actively pursuing implementation. As a result this report is intended to provide information that may be of value in the pursuit of achieving their future goals and to offer suggestions as well as some recommendations that may be beneficial. Huntington Beach, California 50 Zucker Systems Counter Staffing The Building Department does not have statistical data on customer wait times or transaction times and therefore it is not possible to analyze the performance of this section based on statistical data. Acceptable targets for processing customers is generally around 90% of customers seen in less than 20 minutes and 100% seen in less than one hour. Based on staff interviews, wait times do sometimes exceed one hour and is associated with absenteeism, vacations, sick leave or lunch breaks. Because of the lack of available data it is not possible to reach verifiable conclusions, but based on information provided by staff and observing heavy customer volumes, the Building Department's ability to process counter customers appears to be matched well with current deployment of counter staffing levels, but only when all staff is present. The peak customer demand periods are currently supplemented with increased staffing from plan check by calling on plan check engineers. Having a plan review engineer assigned to the counter to provide plan review expertise and to answer technical code questions is a good use of resources. Balancing staffing to customer volumes by utilizing plan check staff is beneficial in lowering counter wait times, but can have detrimental effects on plan check turnarounds if plan review staffing levels are not adequate to compensate for the time allocated to counter duty, which has been problematic in the past. One area that should be considered for adjustment is the lack of an inspector presence at the counter. Many customer questions arise daily that are best addressed by an inspector. Currently, these questions are directed to inspectors, but this generates delays in providing service and also involves office staff functioning as messengers, creating inefficiency. An inspector presence in the office could provide a valued service added to customer processing and could augment plan review. Inspectors are typically very well equipped to review residential alteration and addition plans because of their awareness of plan related issues that result in construction problems. Most jurisdictions have inspectors assigned to the office on a rotational basis,because doing plan review improves inspection skills and inspecting improves plan review skills. Therefore, we think the department should explore adding an inspector to the office staff to help in plan review and customer processing. The scope of this review did not include review of the inspection section and therefore it is not possible to speculate on the impact of moving an inspector to the office. It is very possible that an additional inspector position would be needed, as the counter operation does currently experience excessive wait times during peak demand periods and staffing shortages due to absenteeism, which this added position would help to improve. Huntington Beach, California 51 Zucker Systems 34. Recommendation: Add an inspection position to the office staff. It may be possible to accomplish this through a re-assignment. Plan Review Staffing The staffing analysis performed for plan review compares staffing needed to staffing availability. The number of staffing needed is tabulated based on the following: ■ Number of plan reviews performed by project type and review cycle. ■ Average hours of review time per review cycle and project type. ■ Divided by working staff hours available. ■ Results in staffing positions needed. The Table 17 below was created based on actual data provided. The "# of data column lists the number of projects reviewed by product type per cycle of review for the time period listed. The reason for selecting the time period was to facilitate being able to capture an entire year's worth of data. The "Time" column was created from the average hours entered by staff per project type per review cycle. Table 17 Plan Review Cycle Times Data from 4-1-2005 through 3-31-2006 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle 4th Cycle >4 C cles #of Time #of Time #of Time #of Time #of Time Total Time CM 23 6.5 18 4.5 15 4.0 12 3.0 11 2.5 354.00 C-MISC 214 2.5 138 1.5 39 1.3 10 2.0 4 2.0 968.75 I-MISC 12 2 8 3 5 2.5 1 60.50 IN 2 2.0 2 2 4 1.75 15.00 MFR 21 2 14 2.25 2 1.5 2 1 .0 80.50 R-MISC 181 1 23 1.0 1 304.00 SFR 502 2.5 392 1.5 120 1.5 33 1 1.5 15 1.5 2095.00 Total Time 3877.75 Hrs Available 1832.00 Staff 2.10 Available staff hours as calculated by the Human Resources Department averaged 1,832 for the Building Department staff. This was calculated by deducting holidays, vacation days and sick leave from the annual paid hours. Since staff is not exclusively assigned to a single function, the time allotted to all functions performed must be tabulated to calculate the number of staff available for plan review. The number of staff available is tabulated based on the following: ■ Time allocations by service function. Huntington Beach, California 52 Zucker Systems ■ Information is translated into staffing positions. Table 18 Staffing Time Allocations Hours Hours Hours Hours per Wk per Wk per Wk per Wk Allocation of Staff Time 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Plan Review 17.50 17.50 14.50 2.50 Breaks 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Phones 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Counter/Plan Review 5.00 5.00 8.00 30.00 Email 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Code research 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Inspector Questions 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 3rd party review 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 Pre-submittal meetings 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Entitlement reviews 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Meetings 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Training 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Inter-departmental 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 OTC Meetin on resubmittals 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Special Assi ment 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Total 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Productivity Calculation Plan Review 43.8% 43.8% 36.3% 6.3% 1.3 Breaks 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 0.3 Phones 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.1 Counter/Plan Review 12.5% 12.5% 20.0% 75.0% 1.2 Email 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1 0.1 Code research 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.1 Inspector questions 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 1.3% 0.1 3rd party review 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 0.3 Pre-submittal meetings 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.2 Entitlement reviews 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.1 Meetings 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.2 Training 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.1 Inter-departmental 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0 OTC(Meeting on resubmittals 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0 0 0.2 ,Special Assignment 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.1 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4.4 Huntington Beach, California 53 Zucker Systems By comparing the staffing needed based on time required to complete reviews (2.1 positions) to the staffing availability to perform plan reviews (1.3 positions), a shortage of.8 positions is revealed. This storage is primarily filled by utilizing outside contractual plan review services that augment internal staffing storages. During fiscal year 2005-2006 contractual services preformed 13.75% of the plan reviews in number and represented an equivalent of .5 staff positions of in-house labor. The .5 staff positions was calculated based on average processing times per project type expended in-house, times and number of projects completed by contract services, minus one hour per project completed to cover in-house review and processing time. The use of outside contractual plan review services requires internal staff to still manage the project and to do a cursory secondary review to ensure no major issues have been overlooked, which does consume time. Therefore it is important to maintain internal staffing levels sufficiently to account for the oversight function. Once this has been accounted for, staffing levels compared to workload demand are slightly low, which is reflected in the divisions ability to meet turnaround targets. In addition to looking to contract services, the City might also examine the use of retired employees. Additionally, if development activity continues to diminish, it may be possible to supplement plan check staff with building inspectors. Plan Check Turnaround Performance The Building Department currently has a plan review turnaround target of 15 business days for 85% of complicated projects, 5 business days for 90% of smaller projects and 5 business days for 70% of re-submittals. Table 19 lists the average turnaround times in business days per cycle of review per product type for fiscal year 2005-2006. Table 19 Average Processing Time Da s Between Submittal Date and Date Complete 151 C cle 2"d Cycle 3`d Cycle 4`h Cycle >4 Cycle CM 25.8 7.7 13.3 15.3 20.90 C-MISC 17.6 6.2 4.5 5.2 7.20 I-MISC 15.6 9.5 2.4 IN 5.6 1.2 MFR 28.8 9.7 4.4 R-MISC 5.0 4.0 SFR 16.71 6.7 6.7 4.2 14.10 As can be seen both the average and median exceeded the 15-day target for the I" cycle. The re-submittal target of five days was also exceeded for 2"d, 4 h and >41h cycles. Huntington Beach, California 54 Zucker Systems By looking at actual data for fiscal year 2005-2006 we calculated that the 15-day target was met only 48% of the time. For second reviews, only 49% met the five-day target. For third reviews, only 60% met the five-day target. It should be noted that there were 1987 plan review cycles listed for this time period and only 1130 had completion dates posted, therefore the percentages tabulated only reflect the data that could actually be analyzed. In Table 20 below, we indicate suggested changes to the performance standards. We normally set targets at 90 or 95% of performance targets. Additionally, we believe that normally the time of review should decrease for each additional cycle of review because the time required to perform a recheck should be substantially less. Table 20 Suggested Processing Time Targets Per Cycle Pro osed Standard Current 3rd Cycle and Category Standard 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle above 85% in 15 90% in 15 90% in 10 90% in 5 working Complicated Projects business days business days business days days 90% in5 90% in5 90% in4 90% in3 Smaller Projects business days business days business days business days 70% in 5 Re-submittals business days If the reduced processing targets listed above are applied to the actual turnaround times that were posted, the data will reveal an even greater shortfall in meeting targets. Considering that current staffing levels are out of balance with workload, staffing needed (1.7 positions), and staffing availability (1.3 positions),performance levels are not unreasonable and are actually better than would be expected. If improved performance levels are desired, and we believe they should be, additional staffing will be needed to improve performance. If the recommendation to add an inspector position to the office is pursued, this should be adequate to provide the additional staffing that is needed. 35. Recommendation: The City should adopt new time targets for building plan check as shown in Table 20. Huntington Beach, California 55 Zucker Systems Monitoring Workload Developing a "Works in Progress Liability Report" is an excellent way to determine resource allocation. It can accurately measure staffing resources needed, workload backlogs and provide valuable information in making management decisions. A Works in Progress Liability Report requires tracking processing times in progress, which the City's automation system already does, but it also requires all staff to actually enter workload data, which is not universally being done. If utilized properly, the Plan Review Manager will know where the greatest workload demands are and where potential backlogs will exist before they occur. The report is generated based on the following: ■ Track processing times by project categories. ■ Assess average processing time per project category for completed projects. ■ Multiple projects in process (uncompleted) by average processing times per category. ■ Subtract number of hours already allocated to projects in process. ■ The remainder is Works in Progress Liability. ■ Divide each liability total per section by average daily productive staffing hours available, producing workload backlog in number of days. ■ If workload backlog exceeds performance targets, shift staffing to area of greatest backlog or send work out to contractual services. 36. Recommendation: Develop a workload monitoring report. 37. Recommendation: Require all staff to enter actual hours being expended for processes that are being tracked. Customer Input and Feedback The Building Department has a customer survey form that is utilized to obtain customer feedback. The Building Department has not established customer feedback groups to partner with, however, which is an excellent forum to obtain customer input in drafting policies,procedures and processing timelines that meet customers' needs. 38. Recommendation: Establish customer feedback groups to provide guidance in establishing processing procedures and timelines to facilitate the construction process. The Chamber of Commerce, construction organizations, and a committee with a cross-section of the community are acceptable focus group participants. Huntington Beach, California 56 Zucker Systems Certification of Staff One of the best tools to ensure that Building Division staff has learned and continues to maintain their knowledge skills is to require them to become certified in the areas relative to their assigned duties. Huntington Beach has required certifications for many of the Building job classes and staff has done an excellent job in becoming certified, some of the best we have seen in our studies. D. PROCESSING ISSUES Plan Review Status Inquires Currently, a customer can check on the status of their plan review via a telephone voice response system (IVR). IVR compared to Internet access is a very cumbersome method however it will likely continue to be the choice for customers who are not comfortable with the web or do not own computers. The Building Department fully recognizes this reality but is also desirous of developing a web interface to their plan review database for customers to use. We believe the development of an Internet interface is definitely the proper direction to be moving toward and encourage City Management to be supportive of whatever is needed to accomplish this. 39. Recommendation: Continue working toward Internet deployment for building permits. E. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Authority The Fire Prevention Bureau is under the direction of a Division Chief/Fire Chief reporting directly to the Fire Chief, who reports directly to the City Administrator. The Fire Department enforces the 2001 California Fire Code. Basic Functions The Fire Prevention Bureau performs the following basic functions: ■ Provide preliminary project reviews. ■ Perform building plan checks. ■ Perform inspections of fire suppression systems and soil remediation projects. ■ Approve project addressing for emergency response dispatch. Huntington Beach, California 57 Zucker Systems ■ Administer the City's used oil grant. ■ Maintain a data bank on soil remediation and methane mitigation. ■ Perform annual inspections. The Fire Prevention Bureau (FPB) personnel are located on the 5th floor of City Hall. The relationship between Fire and Building appears to be working very well. The FPB has one staff member assigned to review construction plans for proper exiting, emergency vehicle access, and soil remediation with structural protection. This position also participates in the planning review process and provides site access recommendations during the entitlement process. The current individual assigned to this function has a good background to provide this review service and is assigned on a long-term basis to provide this function. Historically in Huntington Beach, the plan review staff assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau came from the line and were assigned on a rotational basis. The skills and knowledge needed to be a line fire fighter and a Fire Protection Engineer are very extensive but are not usually transferable. It generally takes line fire staff several years to become proficient in doing fire prevention plan reviews. Line fire personnel are not hired to be Fire Protection Engineers and most would not elect to fill this position. Consequently, rotation of staff was utilized in the past to fill the position, which resulted in constant training occurring and low productive efficiency. The current assignment to this position is a more permanent one by a staff member who does have a good background to provide plan review and hence is working well. If this should change in the future, a good approach utilized by other jurisdiction is to civilianize the fire protection position and hire a Fire Protection Engineer to fill the position. Fire Protection Engineers are trained in plan review and fire inspections and have selected this job duty as their career. The perspective that Fire brings to the review process is predominately site access, exiting systems from the building and fire prevention systems or alert systems needed. The Fire review is a very integral part of the building review process and should be fully integrated into the building review process. If possible, this position should be co-located with Building review staff and should be incorporated into the expedited review process being recommended. 40. Recommendation: If possible relocate the Fire prevention plan reviewer to be co-located with the Building Department. 41. Recommendation: Incorporate the fire prevention function into the expedited review process being recommended. Huntington Beach, California 58 Zucker Systems The FPB also does plan reviews, issues permits and inspects fire suppression and notification systems (alarms, and sprinklers). Building currently does the plan intake and collects fees for the Fire system plan reviews. Having Building perform this function creates unnecessary customer handling by Building and provides no value added because Building does not possess expertise in this area. Fire and Building have already come to this conclusion and therefore are in the process of transferring the systems intake process to Fire. In many other jurisdictions, Fire not only deals with the review and issuance of systems permits directly but does the review in an expedited over the counter process. Therefore, we are recommending that Fire look into the possibility of providing this functionality. 42. Recommendation: Create an expedited over the counter review process for Fire system permits. Huntington Beach, California 59 Zucker Systems Huntington Beach, California 60 Zucker Systems V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. POSITIVE FINDINGS Through our interviews and observations we made a series of positive findings relating to the Planning Department. These findings would indicate a strong chance of success for implementation of the recommendations contained herein. ■ Staff is dedicated to providing quality customer service. ■ Staff is cross trained and is able to complete both current and advanced planning jobs. ■ Staff is well educated and informed of current trends in the planning field. ■ The Department has a Mission Statement, Customer Service Goals, and Customer Service Standards. B. PROFILE The Planning Department has four divisions: Current Planning which is responsible for zoning implementation; Advanced Planning which is responsible for the general plan and long-range issues; Code Enforcement and Administration. However, it should be noted that Code Enforcement and Advance Planning are not part of this study and Administration is only included to the extent that they handle permit processing. The Department provides staff support to the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board, the Environmental Board and the Environmental Assessment Commission. Authority The Planning Department operates under authority of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the Huntington Beach General Plan and California State Planning Law. Organization Table 21 indicates specific positions and responsibilities for the Current and Advanced Planning Divisions. Huntington Beach, California 61 Zucker Systems Table 21 Positions and Responsibilities for Current and Advanced Planning No.of Position Positions Responsibilities Provides leadership to the Planning Department working with the City Administrator,other departments and community to address planning issues and create a vision for the community,and is designated as the Zoning Administrator. Reports to the City Council and the City Administrator,but is Director of Planning 1 hired by the City Council. Responsible for day-today management of the Planning and Code Planning Manager 1 Enforcement functions. Reports to the Planning Director. One Principal Planner is responsible for Current Planning and one for Advanced Planning.These positions are responsible for the daily management and leadership within their respective divisions.The Principal in Current Planning also staffs the Planning Commission.The positions report to the Director of Planning.The Principal in Advance Planning is also Principal Planner 2 assigned the duties of the Zoning Administrator. The position is responsible for research in the Advanced Planning Division. Senior Planner 0.5 Reports to the Principal Planner for Advanced Planning. There are three positions in Advanced Planning and four in Current Planning.These positions are responsible for processing land use applications and advanced planning work such as ordinance updates and the Housing Element update.One of the Associate Planners also supervises the public counter and performs plan check duties.The positions report to the Associate Planner 7 Principal Planner in their respective division. 3 Two in Current and one in Advanced.The positions are responsible for {2 vacancies, 1 processing land use applications,staffing the counter and answering general Assistant Planner in each division) questions.They report to the Principal Planner of the respective division. This position is responsible for contract administration,budget preparation and serves as webmaster for the Department website.Reports to the Senior Analyst 1 Principal Planner for Advanced Planning. Sevres as the administrative support to the Director,prepares Planning Administrative Commission agendas,formats Commission staff reports,prepares public Assistant 1 hearing notices and meeting minutes.Reports to the Planning Director. These positions perform Planning plan checks verifying setbacks and Plan Checker compliance with approved plans.These positions report to the Principal for (Zoning) 2(Part-time) Current Planning. Totall 17.5(FTE's) In summary there are six planners dedicated to processing Current Planning applications, with one vacancy; 5.5 staff in Advanced Planning work, with one vacancy; two FTE's dedicated to zoning/planning plan checking; two staff performing administrative duties; and two staff dedicated to strictly management — the Planning Director and the Planning Manager. The Director of Planning is also designated as the Zoning Administrator. He can delegate this function and it is currently delegated to the Principal Planner for Advanced Planning. We believe that this structure is appropriate and workable. Figure 3 below shows the organizational chart for the Planning Department: Huntington Beach, California 62 Zucker Systems Figure 3 Planning Department Organizational Chart Director of Planning Administrative Assistant Planning Manager Advance Planning Current Planning Principal Principal Planner Planner Senior Planner Associate Assistant Associate Planner Planner Planner Assistant Associate Assistant Associate Planner Planner Planner Planner Senior Analyst Associate Plan Checker Associate Planner (part time) Planner Plan Checker Associate (part time) Planner Activity Overall activity level has decreased from 509 total applications in 2001 to 457 applications in 2005, a decease of 10.2%. It should be noted, however, that application activity spiked in 2003 at 601 applications. Table 22 below shows the permit history from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005. Huntington Beach, California 63 Zucker Systems Table 22 Permit History 2001 -2005 5 Year Avg, Median Total , 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 No.of I Processing Processing Applications Time Time Application Type Administrative Permit n/a n/a n/a 21 18 19.5 7.0 136.5 Appeals PC&CC 2 0 1 4 8 3.0 14.0 42.0 Certificate of Compliance 1 3 2 2 0 1.6 4.0 6.4 Coastal Development Permit 23 32 28 17 20 24.0 24.0 576.0 Conditional Use Permit ZA&PC 75 72 65 52 45 61.8 38.0 2348.4 Design Review Board 66 56 621 51 36 54.2 10.0 542.0 Entitlement Plan Amendment 11 14 ill 12 8 11.2 24.0 268.8 Environmental Assessment 10 13 10 12 8 10.6 45.0 477.0 Initial Plan/Zoning Review 4 10 31 26 17 17.6 3.5 61.6 Lot Line Adjustment 2 9 13 8 15 9.4 6.5 61.1 Preliminary Plan Review 11 2 6 3 1 2.6 8.5 22.1 Sin limited and program) 6 8 6 21 13 10.8 7.5 81.0 Sign(temporary) 165 192 186 163 138 168.8 1.25 211.0 Site Plan Review 2 1 3 2 1 1.8 36.0 64.8 Special Permit 0 7 0 2 2 2.2 16.0 35.2 Temporary Activity/Use Permit 62 53 68 72 70 65.0 5.0 325.0 Tentative Ma Parcel&Tract 13 10 9 91 5 9.2 55.0 506.0 Time Extension 21 19 17 17 9 16.6 3.5 58.1 Variance 17 15 24 10 8 14.8 22.0 325.6 Zoning Compliance Letter 28 27 59 36 35 37.0 2.5 92.5 Total 509 543 601 540 457 5 30.0 ai': 6241.1 %change year-to-year, n/a 5.90% 9.80% -9.60% -14.60% Draft 9/28/06 C. POLICY ISSUES Pre-Application The Planning Department, like all public agencies, is in a service industry where assisting the customer is the key to success. While this high level of service must be balanced against available staff resources, the Planning Department should not be limiting the amount of time they spend with customers, nor should they charge for that service. During the course of this study, Planning had a policy of spending only 15 minutes with a customer at the counter. This policy has now been rescinded and we support the new approach. Some customers and staff from other departments thought Planning charges for pre-application review but this is not the case. The Department does have a system where an applicant can request a more formal review with a few at the applicant's request. Huntington Beach, California 64 Zucker Systems Our experience has been that the more information applicants and the public have during the early stages of a project the better the overall process progresses. Planning is a complicated and somewhat subjective practice and accurate information cannot be disseminated quickly. There are alternatives to limiting the amount of time a customer is assisted at the counter such as requiring appointments for large scale projects. 43. Recommendation: Applicants for large scale projects should make an appointment to have their projects reviewed. D. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Communications Communications and the flow of information are keys to the effective operation of an organization. There are a variety of forms of communication ranging from face-to- face meetings, memos, a-mails and newsletters. The Planning Department should strive to communicate effectively with elected and appointed officials, applicants and other constituents inside and outside the organization. Currently, the Department uses a variety of communication methods; publication of a two-page newsletter for major projects, internal memos and meetings between the Acting Director and individual Council Members and Planning Commissioners. Meetings between policy makers, the Commission and staff are necessary so that there is an understanding and appreciation of each others' positions. Through these meetings the Planning Commission and the City Council can begin to align themselves so they speak and respond on a more consistent basis. Communication between Planning and others improved considerably during the course of this study. We have several suggestions for the newsletter including producing and distributing it on a regular monthly basis, staff handling featured projects should be identified with contact information, and the City's home page should be linked to the most recent edition of the newsletter. The newsletter might also be expanded to discuss other planning and zoning issues such as code amendments. 44. Recommendation: The Director should continue to meet regularly with the Planning Commission and City Council Members. 45. Recommendation: The Planning Department should continue to publish the major projects newsletter and strive to meet a monthly publication schedule. The newsletter should also include the name and contact information for the project planner. Huntington Beach, California 65 Zucker Systems 46. Recommendation: The Planning Department should continue to focus on internal communications and ensure responses to requests for information from other departments. Professional Development/Training Historically, the Planning Department has had a robust training budget. However, not all of the training monies have been used. In the past, the Department has also conducted its own in-house training program. While staff appears to be keeping up with current trends, the field is changing rapidly and what the community wants and expects is also changing rapidly. We suggest that a staff person be assigned to develop an in-house training program and also to assure that staff is receiving proper training through outside vendors and conferences. The Principal Planner for Advanced Planning is probably the logical person to perform these duties because Advanced Planning is the equivalent of the research and development function of the Planning Department. We normally recommend that 2% of the Department's personnel budget be set aside for training. In FY 05/06 2.3% was available for the entire Department and 1.5% for the Planning Division. For 06/07 these budgets were reduced to 1.5% and 1.2% since the budgets had not been spent in the prior year. However, City Administration is committed to supporting a good training program. 47. Recommendation: The Principal Planner for Advanced Planning should be assigned to develop an in-house training program. 48. Recommendation: The Director should utilize the resources.available for training and annually request a training budget that assures staff are able to attend outside training courses as needed. Staff Morale Through our interviews and observations it became apparent that the Planning Department was suffering from low morale. Planning had experienced a sudden change in top management and lost several key people in the last several months. Staff was looking for reassurance from City Administration and the new interim departmental leadership that planning as a function still matters in the City. It appears that this issue has improved substantially since we conducted our research do to the change in Planning Department leadership. The Department has conducted a staff retreat and City Administration is aware of the issue. Huntington Beach, California 66 ,Zucker Systems 49. Recommendation: The Interim Planning Director and City Administration should continue to work to improve staff morale in the Planning Department. Work Program The Planning Department, and the Advanced Planning Division in particular, should develop a work program that establishes project goals and measurable objectives, timelines that include milestones, and an allocation of resources. Unless the objectives are specific and measurable it is not possible to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the Department. Resource allocation should include both the amount of staff hours necessary to complete the project and the cost of outside services (consultants). Ideally, the work program should be adopted by the City Council either as part of the budget process or as a separate item. In the absence of a work program neither the public nor the Council understands what projects the Department is working on, which is why the Department can become overburdened with new projects and additional studies directed by the City Council. 50. Recommendation: A complete work program containing goals and measurable objectives, timelines and milestones, and resource allocation should be developed. The work program should be adopted annually by the City Council. E. PROCESS ISSUES The following sub-sections address an array of planning process issues ranging from accepting applications to the Zoning Administrator. This section has been arranged alphabetically for ease of use. It should also be understood that many process issues impact other departments because of their respective role in the review and approval of development projects. Accepting Applications Applications should be screened at the counter and only those applications that are quantitative complete, which means they contain the correct number of plans and studies, should be accepted for processing. This assures that once accepted applications can be evaluated and processed in a timely manner in compliance with the California Permit Streamlining Act. 51. Recommendation: Counter staff should only accept applications that are quantitatively complete. Huntington Beach, California 67 Zucker Systems Code Requirements Letter The Planning Department prepares a letter known as the "Code Requirements Letter," which is a compilation of code requirements, City policy and opinions related to land use applications. Applicants, however, often cannot determine the source of the requirements, or how the requirements can be appealed. That lack of clarity has caused confusion for applicants and staff. These letters could be extremely helpful to applicants, but we would recommend that there be better citations given in the letters. All departments should review their list of conditions, policies and opinions and note the appropriate authority. Additionally, the Code Requirements Letter should describe how applicants may appeal the various requirements contained in the letter, noting the different processes for appealing a City policy versus appealing a code requirement. In some cases an appeal would require a separate variance request where others might be appealed directly to the Department Director. 52. Recommendation: Revise the Code Requirements Letter to indicate the source of the requirement (e.g. municipal code, City policy, etc.). 53. Recommendation: The Code Requirements Letter should also include language regarding the appeals process for the various requirements. Counter Operations Planning staff is assigned specific counter shifts throughout the week. A weekly schedule is developed with a primary staff person and a back-up person when there are more than three customers waiting. When we did our research, the Department did not maintain records of the number of counter visits or average customer wait times. For this report, however, staff did a two day sample of the counter on September 26 and 27. During that two day period there were 100 customers who visited the counter with an average wait time of eight minutes, but 23 customers, or 23%, waited more than 15 minutes with the longest wait being 32 minutes. The Department should establish a goal that 95% of the customers are served within 15 minutes, even during the lunch hour. It should be noted that the Department now maintains records for counter visits and wait times. 54. Recommendation: 95% of the customers should be served within 15 minutes or less, even during the lunch hour. Huntington Beach, California 68 Zucker Systems Contact Information The public needs to be able to contact staff directly, particularly in cases where they are working with an assigned Project Planner. But most of staffs' business cards do not have direct phone numbers and not all cards have e-mail addresses. All business cards should contain the direct phone number, e-mail address and the general Planning Department phone number. Additionally, this same contact information should be posted on the City's website. 55. Recommendation: Direct dial phone numbers and E-mail should be printed on staffs' business cards and posted on the City's website. Design Review Process Design Review is an important issue to Huntington Beach residents and City officials. The City Council adopted Design Guidelines in September 2000 that defined design requirements for various land use types and guidelines for 16 specific areas of town. Huntington Beach also has a five member Design Review Board consisting of one Planning Commissioner, two At-Large Members, the City's Landscape Architect in Public Works, and the Director of Planning. In our experience it is unique to have staff serve on a Design Review Board. More typically the Design Review Board is comprised of five to seven members appointed by the City Council. Membership is also limited to those in the design profession, although it is not unusual for a business owner to also serve on the Board. Currently, in Huntington Beach, there are two licensed landscape architects on the board, one at- large member and the Public Works representative. However, there are no provisions in the Municipal Code stating that members of the Board have formal training in design. We believe this a shortfall of the current code that should be addressed. 56. Recommendation: Membership on the Design Review Board should be revised such that there are five members appointed by majority vote of the City Council and that at least four members should be from the design professions. Staff should not have membership on the DRB. Based upon our interviews and observations there also seems to be some questions about the scope of authority of the DRB. Chapter 244 of the Municipal Code clearly outlines the scope of review as follows: ■ The arrangement and relationship of proposed structures and signs to one another and to other developments in the vicinity; ■ Whether that relationship is harmonious and based on good standards of architectural design; Huntington Beach, California 69 Zucker Systems ■ The compatibility in scale and aesthetic treatment of proposed structures with public district areas; ■ The adequacy of proposed landscaping, parking spaces, driveways, potential on-site and off-site parking and traffic impacts, and other potential impacts upon the environment; ■ Elements of design affecting the performance characteristics of the proposed development; and ■ Whether energy conservation measures have been proposed and the adequacy of such measures, including, but not limited to, the use of active and passive solar energy systems. There should also be a clear distinction between Design Guidelines, which are permissive and Design Requirements, which are mandatory. 57. Recommendation: The scope of authority for the DRB should be reaffirmed. The DRB might also consider drafting a mission and purpose statement. 58. Recommendation: Update the DRB submittal guidelines such that members can evaluate projects based upon their full scope of review as outlined above. 59. Recommendation: DRB members and staff should make a clear distinction between design guidelines and design requirements. DRB approval is required for all projects within a Redevelopment Project Area, within applicable specific plan areas designated by the City Council, and for all projects abutting or adjoining Public/Semi-public Districts (PS). The PS District includes parks, cemeteries and commercial uses within the Coastal Zone. Because this zoning district is so broad in its land uses and location within the City this has also created some unusual situations for projects requiring DRB approval. These requirements have lead to some situations where a new sign or a sign replacement in a Redevelopment Project Area needs DRB approval, but a new shopping center outside a project area does not require DRB review. Additionally, small projects within the PS zone require DRB approval where larger projects outside the PS zone are exempt from DRB approval. Many cities require DRB approval based upon project type or size (e.g. new residential projects or additions over 1,500 square feet, or new commercial uses) as well as location (e.g. downtown area, along major arterials, or within 1,000 feet of the Huntington Beach, California 70 Zucker Systems shoreline, etc.). Huntington Beach should reevaluate the applicability requirements for DRB approval under section 244.02 and develop a more refined and rational approach to the thresholds. 60. Recommendation: The applicability requirements for DRB approval should be reevaluated and the applied based on project size or location within the City. Examples would be residential additions of more than 1,500 square feet or new commercial of more than 5,000 square feet. Development Review When an application is accepted by the Counter Planner they log the application into City View and calculate application fees. The system generates an e-mail alert to the Principal Planner for Current Planning so the case can be assigned. Concurrently, the Counter Planner puts the physical application and plans in the Principal Planner's in- box. Within one day of being accepted, the case is assigned to a Project Planner and the Administrative Assistant generates a letter to the applicant and property owner notifying them that the application was received and informing them of the Project Planner's name. At the time of our research, the notification did not include the Project Planners direct phone number or e-mail address. This has now been changed. Overall, this is a good process. The application and plans are forwarded to an intern who creates a case file within 3-5 days of the application being accepted. The case file is given to the Project Planner who generates an e-mail for other departments that need to review the plans as part of the Development Review process. We would suggest that the case file be created and given to the Project Planner within two calendar days of the application being filed at the counter. This allows the internal review of the application to begin sooner. 61. Recommendation: Case files should be on the Project Planners' desk within two calendar days of the application being accepted. Current policy allows reviewing departments 21 calendar days to review and comment on a project. There are two issues with the internal review process, however; many departments miss the 21-day review deadline, and we believe 21 days is too long. The project review and comment period should be reduced to 14 calendar days. At the conclusion of the 14-day review there should be a meeting involving all reviewing departments and the applicant. Only by getting all the parties involved with the review of a project together, face-to-face, can the issues be resolved. It is common to have different code requirements in conflict with each other. For instance, Planning might want street calming and Public Works wants an increased turn radius or street width. Staff meetings are essential to resolve these matters before a project is Huntington Beach, California 71 Zucker Systems approved. While the City currently has an optional Development Action Team (DAT) for large-scale projects, development review meetings should be scheduled for most projects. The City should establish a threshold (e.g. all new residential units and any new non-residential construction) for projects requiring a Development Review Committee meeting. A coordinated DRC should include: ■ The DRC should be chaired by the Principal Planner for Current Planning, ■ All, departments involved with the review of projects complete review within 14 calendar days of receiving the project from Planning, ■ The DRC meeting should be held within 21 calendar days of an application being filed, ■ Each department should assign a representative to the DRC who has the authority to negotiate with other departments or the applicant on policy issues and Conditions of Approval, ■ Department representatives should come to the DRC meeting with written Conditions of Approval, ■ The Project Planner should act as the Project Manager assuring that all departments meet the review times and have draft Conditions, ■ The DRC should meet twice monthly to review projects exceeding the threshold, and ■ Applicants should be invited to the DRC meetings. Following the DRC meeting, applicants should receive a letter from the Project Planner summarizing each department's concerns. Applicants would make appropriate revisions to their plans and studies and submit the revised plans and reports to the Project Planner. If all corrections were complete, the project would be deemed complete and scheduled for a hearing. The DRC meeting would replace the current DAT meetings. Figure 4 below is a suggested flow chart for the revised project review process. Huntington Beach, California 72 Zucker Systems Figure 4 Development Review Committee Flow Chart Application accepted at counter ro 0 m Case File given to case planner Plans routed to reviewing departments fD O m �c N Development review committee meets to review application Application deemed complete Exempt from CEQA N Initial study prepared and circulated m Public review and Project approval comment CECA document prepared Notice of public hearing prepared and mailed Staff Report prepared including CEQA mitigation Public hearing conduted Decision on project 62. Recommendation: A Development Review Committee (DRC) should be established based upon the features outlined above. Huntington Beach, California 73 Zucker Systems 63. Recommendation: A threshold that requires DRC review for all projects above a certain size (e.g. all new residential units and all new non- residential construction) should be established. Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) development projects are subject to environmental review unless they are exempt from the CEQA requirements. For projects that are not exempt, staff will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), which determines the project's potential impacts of the project. An EA is a checklist that determines a project's potential impacts in a variety of areas ranging from air quality, to water quality, to traffic and transportation, to public services. At the conclusion of the EA, staff determines if a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. In Huntington Beach, EA's are normally completed by the Project Planner and this is a system we support, because the Project Planner knows the project in the greatest detail and are best suited to determine if potential environmental impacts exist. This is also more efficient than having a separate environmental planner become familiar with and review the project as is practiced in some communities. The City has two bodies that review environmental documents: the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) and the Environmental Board. The EAC is a staff committee consisting of a representative from the City Attorney's office, Public Works, and the Principal Planner for Advanced Planning. The EAC reviews all EA's and other environmental documents for completeness and accuracy before they are circulated for public comment. Subsequently, the Environmental Board which is a nine-member Board appointed by the City Council reviews the same environmental document during the public comment period. Most projects that require an EA are also subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission; and the Commission is the body that ultimately approves the EA. In most California cities, the Project Planner prepares the EA and the related ND or MND and makes a recommendation directly to the Planning Commission, without going through two intermediate reviews. However, given the environmental litigation and other environmental concerns in the City, the current system appears to work well for Huntington Beach. Permit Tracking The Planning Department uses a commercially available permit tracking software known as City View. While we were not specifically asked to evaluate the program or its usefulness, we do have some general observations. Huntington Beach, California 74 Zucker Systems ■ The program is only as useful as the data entered and currently data entry is spotty, at best. Not all departments are routinely using the system and not all staff involved with project reviews are entering their review dates. ■ The system can be an effective management tool for monitoring the overall permit processing functions. One of the benefits of having a permit system is generating management reports that measure whether deadlines are being met and pinpointing where snags exist in the system. Weekly and monthly reports should be generated showing median processing time, percent meeting performance standards and which permits are not meeting timelines. ■ If used effectively, City View can replace the other tracking systems currently being used by the Planning Department to monitor and schedule projects. There are at least two paper tracking systems set up in MS Word that are redundant of the data tracked by City View. 64. Recommendation: Weekly and monthly management reports should be generated by City View indicating projects that have met deadlines and projects that have exceed deadlines. 65. Recommendation: The management reports should be evaluated to determine why projects are missing established deadlines. Planning Commission During preparation of our report we were able to attend a Planning Commission Study Session, which is required for all projects requiring Commission action. Many cities employ use of study sessions for selected projects based either upon size or the sensitive nature of the project. Some Commissions have a brief study session immediately preceding the regular meeting simply to help clarify the agenda and alert staff to specific concerns. We have not seen any city employing study sessions for all projects. This appears to be an inefficient use of staffs time because it requires preparation of a report. The Commission also must be certain that questions asked during the study sessions do not include comments that would prejudice them from hearing the matter at the public hearing. Study sessions are a burden to the applicant who must attend the meeting and to affected parties who want to hear all of the proceedings. We observed the August 22, 2006 study session in person and then viewed the video tape of the September 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting at which two of the same items were discussed at public hearing. The two cases we followed were: 1) Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 06-04 (Target Department Store) and 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 06-20 (Ponderosa Steakhouse). From our observations it Huntington Beach, California 75 Zucker Systems appears that the study session did nothing to expedite the public hearing. For the Target Store the Commission was confused about the exact nature of the request even though staff had presented a very clear report at the study session and then again at the public hearing. Further, the Commission was unclear about the direction from the City Council even though staff defined the scope of their review at both the study session and the Commission meeting. Commissioners appeared not to be listening to staff or to each other when questions were asked and answered. In the Ponderosa Steakhouse case the Commission received a detailed history of the site at the study session and the public hearing but many of the same questions were asked more than once. While the Ponderosa case was not as drawn out as the Target case, the study session did not appear to clarify any issues for Commissioners. We would strongly recommend that the study sessions be eliminated for all projects except those of significant size or impact upon the community. Further, Planning Commission training appears to be necessary. 66. Recommendation: The practice of Planning Commission Study Sessions should be eliminated except for projects of significant size or impact to the community (e.g. projects in excess of 25,000 square feet, or more than 10 dwelling units, or having impact to a broad section of the City). 67. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should attend training sessions sponsored by the League of California Cities or the American Planning Association. The Planning Department and City Attorney should also conduct initial and annual training sessions for Commissioners. The Planning Director has a role to play during the Planning Commission hearings, which includes synthesizing Commission comments and crafting alternatives for the Commission to consider. Staff leadership is critically important to the efficient operation of the meetings. Without staff guidance the meetings can become lengthy and unproductive. 68. Recommendation: The Planning Director should continue to work to assist the Planning Commission in the decision making process. Planning Plan Check After an entitlement has been approved by the Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, the DRB, Planning Commission or City Council, detailed construction drawings are submitted for Building Plan C. The Planning Department plays a role in the review and approval of construction drawings by performing a consistency Huntington Beach, California 76 Zucker Systems review. Consistency review ensures that the plans submitted for construction conform to the approved entitlement. The Conformance Review could be performed by the Case Planner because they have the greatest familiarity with the project, by a Planner dedicated to perform the conformance review, or even by the Building Plan Checker as part of their review. Huntington Beach has a Planner dedicated to perform the Conformance Reviews, but when plans are submitted for re-check there are two other part-time Plan Checkers that perform the re-check function. Having two or three different Planners involved in the review of plans is very inefficient. When projects are handed-off from one Planner to another there is a learning curve during which the new Planner is reviewing the case file and talking with the initial Planner. Introducing more individuals into the process slows down the Plan Check Process and continuity is lost. We like the concept of a Planner dedicated to performing all the project consistency review checks because there is greater consistency across all projects. But we see no value or benefit in having a part-time contract planner doing re-checks. Currently, the Planning Counter Supervisor is performing the initial Planning plan check, processing new cases and taking shifts at the public counter. The duties of the Counter Supervisor should be evaluated and scaled back if necessary, so the position can perform the initial Planning plan check and the re-checks. 69. Recommendation: The Counter Supervisor should be assigned the duty of performing all Planning plan checks and re-checks. 70. Recommendation: The Counter Supervisor duties should be evaluated and scaled back if necessary so the position can perform all Planning plan checks. Currently, the Planning plan check process takes five to 10 days to complete, but the Building Department policy allows for a 20-day review. There is no need for these long timelines. We would recommend that the policy be revised to indicate that the initial Planning plan check be completed within five working days and that subsequent re-checks be completed within two working days. 71. Recommendation: The initial Planning plan check should be completed within five working days and re-checks should be completed within two working days. Huntington Beach, California 77 Zucker Systems Review Times City View is not currently being used to run reports showing review times, so for this study staff had to collect data on the overall project review times by physically reviewing files. This is not our preferred method of data gathering because the sample sizes are very small and can therefore be influenced by a few unique projects. However, we believe that even with a small sample size, trends can be noticed and general conclusions can be drawn by the physical review of files. The Table 23 below shows the results of a sampling of six files reviewed by staff and the average and median processing times for three application types. It should be noted that these dates include both the City review time and the applicant's response time. City review time may include Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works. Times are from submission date to action. Table 23 Sample Permit Processing Times Sample Permit Processing Times Permit Type Average Time Median Time Administrative Permits 41.7 days 34.5 days Conditional Use Permits 134 days 89 days Design Review Applications 43.7 days 41.5 days We believe these processing times are too long and they should be significantly reduced. We would suggest the following goals: Administrative Permits be considered within 21 calendar days, Conditional Use Permits be approved or denied within 45 calendar days, and Design Review applications be approved or denied within 30 calendar days. In order to meet these timeframes all departments will need to align their resources to make development review an important issue and management will need to closely monitor the system. 72. Recommendation: Benchmarks should be established for all application types. Once established 95% of all permits should be processed to meet the benchmark. 73. Recommendation: We would suggest the following goals: 95% of Administrative Permits should be reviewed and approved or denied within 21 days, Conditional Use Permits should be reviewed and approved Huntington Beach, California 78 Zucker Systems or denied within 45 days and design review applications should be reviewed and approved or denied within 30 days. These times are all in calendar days and are triggered when the application is deemed complete. 74. Recommendation: The Planning Department should review all permit types and set time goals for all processes. In order to achieve the goals, agreement will be needed with all reviewing functions or departments. Staffing Levels As part of our analysis we examined staffing levels to determine if the Department has adequate Planning staff. To complete this analysis we asked staff to estimate the median number of hours required to review and approve each of the major planning application types. Using the average number of Planning permits over the last five years and the median processing time in hours for each type, we arrived at the total number of hours to process all planning applications. That total was converted into the number of full-time equivalent planners (FTE's)needed to handle the average number of permits. To arrive at FTE's we took the number of productive staff hours (after subtracting vacation, holiday, sick and training time) minus the number of hours spent working on matters unrelated to processing applications, estimated to be 30%, to arrive a total number of hours available for processing. Table 24 below shows the total hours required for processing and number of staff required. Table 24 Total Hours Required for Processing and Staff Required Hours Available Hours Total Staff Needed' Total Hours Total Hours for Case Required for to Process Required for Available per Processing per other Work per Applications 2001 -2005 Processing Planner Planner Planner (FTE's 5 Year Average 1 6241 1 1715 1 1200 1 515 1 5.2 Planners There are a total of six FTE's performing case processing,however, there is currently one vacancy and there are a number of new staff members. It will take a few months for the new staff to come up to speed. To help new staff transition into their positions they should be assigned a mentor to help them understand the City's processes. We have also noted that the Planning Manager has a project caseload that he handles. This practice should be eliminated because it conflicts with the time he needs to manage the Division. We believe the management duties of monitoring the system and addresses systemic and strategic issues must be handled to improve overall organization. Huntington Beach, California 79 Zucker Systems 75. Recommendation: New staff should be assigned a mentor for a period of six months. 76. Recommendation: The Planning Manager and the Director of Planning should devote all of their time to providing management and leadership to the Planning Department and should not directly handle any planning cases. Website The Departmental website is maintained and updated by Department staff. As part of our study we reviewed the City's website for content and usability. Our website recommendations for all departments are shown in the section on technology. Huntington Beach, California 80 Zucker Systems VI. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Public Works Department is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public facilities and infrastructure within the City of Huntington Beach. The Department performs several community-based functions, such as maintenance of sewer,parks, streets, transportation, and water operations. Public Works is a large department consisting of 255 staff positions. It is organized in four primary divisions of Engineering, Maintenance Operations, Transportation and Utilities. Only two of the Divisions, Engineering Services (eight staff positions) and Transportation (17 staff positions) directly relate to Entitlement/Development Processing Activities. Engineering consists of 24 staff positions organized in four sections: Capital Projects, Construction, Engineering Services and NPDES. Engineering is lead by the City Engineer. The Engineering Services section is the primary section that relates to Entitlement/Development Processing Activities. It includes eight of the 24 employees in the Engineering Division or 33 percent. Transportation consists of 17 staff positions organized in three sections: Signal and Lighting Maintenance, Engineering, Sign and Marking Maintenance. It is lead by a Transportation Manager. Only three of the employees in the Engineering section of Transportation generally deal with Entitlement/Development Processing Activities. The same employees may also review capital projects. In summary, only 11 of the 255 Public Works staff positions (4.3 percent) directly relate to processing private development. Figure 5 Relation of Staff for Review of Private Development Projects to Entire Public Works Department Engineering Services 3% Remainder of Public Works41 Transportation 96% 1% Huntington Beach, California 81 Zucker Systems Huntington Beach, California 82 Zucker Systems VII. ENGINEERING SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION A. POSITIVE FINDINGS Areas of strength in Engineering Services and Transportation include: ■ Quality of entitlement review and plan checking is generally high. ■ Plan checklists are used for many reviews. ■ Good internal communication. ■ Employees attempt to meet timelines within staffing constraints. ■ Employees heavily participated in providing questionnaires and comments for this study. ■ Lacking City View, staff has created a number of their own permit monitoring systems and reports. B. OVERVIEW Authority Public Works along with the Engineering and Transportation Divisions operate under the Municipal Code, Title 2.56. The Code, among other things includes: ■ Develop, facilitate, and maintain a Community Facilities Element of the City's General Plan for ample and sufficient master plans for sewers, flood control, water,public facilities and landscaping. ■ To provide and maintain engineering services in accordance with applicable state and City codes, criteria, standards,rules and regulations. ■ To ensure all construction within public rights-of-way and private streets in planned developments complies with contractual obligations and adopted City standards. ■ To provide and facilitate a safe, efficient, smooth, orderly flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the streets and highways of the City. ■ To provide and ensure landscape plan check, inspection, design and maintenance services pursuant to adopted City standards. Other relevant Municipal Code sections include: ■ Title 10 Vehicles and Traffic. Huntington Beach, California 83 Zucker Systems ■ Title 12 Streets and Sidewalks. ■ Title 14 Water and Sewer. Organization Tables 25 and 26 indicate specific positions and responsibilities for Engineering Services and Transportation as related to review of private development projects. Figures 6 and 7 show the organizational structure. There are eight budgeted positions that review private development in the Engineering Services Division plus currently three consultants. There are three positions in the Transportation Division that spend at least part time reviewing private development applications. In addition to these positions, a Principal Civil Engineer in NPDES spends 25% of time on development related activities for the Water Quality program. As shown in Figure 5, these 11.25 positions are a small 4.4% of the large Public Works Department consisting of 255.3 positions. The eight positions in Engineering Services that handle private development projects are 33.3% of the staff of 24. The three positions in the Transportation Division are 17.6% of the staff of 17. Table 25 Engineering Services Positions and Responsibilities Position Title Staffing Level Responsibilities Principal Civil Engineer 1 Manages the Division.Reports to the City Engineer. Reviews entitlement projects and reviews plans. Reports to the Associate Civil Engineer 2 Principal Civil Engineer. Reviews landscape for entitlement projects, reviews landscape plans and landscape inspection.Works on both private development projects and capital projects. Reports to the Landscape Architect 1 Principal Civil Engineer. Reviews entitlement projects for water service and conducts water modeling for both City and private projects.Reports to the Civil Engineering Assistant 1 Principal Civil Engineer. Plan Checker, position Assists with plan checking and fee calculations. Reports to the vacant 1 Principal Civil Engineer. Issues permits at the counter and answers engineering questions. Engineering Technician 2 Reports to Principal Civil Engineer. Consultant Plan Checker 1 Reviews plans as needed.Reports to the Principal Civil Engineer. Reviews entitlements for water and plan checks in the absence of the Engineering Technician or for overflow work. Reports to the Consultant for water 1 Principal Civil Engineer. Assists as authorized for overflow work. Reports to the Consultant for landscape 1 Landscape Architect. ::�l Huntington Beach, California 84 Zucker Systems Table 26 Transportation Positions and Responsibilities (partial) Position Title Staffing Level Responsibilities Transportation Manager 1 Manages the Division. Reports to the Director of Public Works Reviews entitlement projects and reviews plans. Reports to the Associate Traffic Engineer 1 Transportation Manager Engineering Traffic Assists in review of plans. Reports to the Associate Traffic Technician 1 IlEngineer. Figure 6 Organization Chart for Engineering Services City Engineer Principal Civil Engineer Associate Associate Civil Civil Engineer Engineer Landscape Civil Architect Engineering Assistant Engineering Engineering Technician Technician Plan Checker PW Huntington Beach, California 85 Zucker Systems Figure 7 Organization for Transportation Director of Public Works Transportation Manager Associate Engineering Traffic Traffic Engineer Technician Activity The activity for Engineering Services and Transportation can primarily be divided into two types of reviews. One is the review of entitlement activities being processed by the Planning Department. The second category consists of a variety of construction drawings that may be required by City codes, entitlements or construction policies. The number of activities per permit type for Fiscal Year 2004/2005 is shown in Table 27. Huntington Beach, California 86 Zucker Systems Table 27 Entitlement and Permitting Activity Service Number Service Name 12004/2006 Volume ENGINEERING SERVICES 706 hour Eng 83 Review Planning Entitlements 540 hour Transp Attend DRC Meetings 1 Add'I Resi Parking Permit 10 2 Aerial Photos 15 3 Banner Hanging- Main Street 25 4 Storage Bin Permit 40 5 Bond Reduction 2 6 Copies of Plans&Specs 350 7 Delinquent Shut Off Fee 400 8 Delinquent Water Tag 1000 9 Dock Constr Pln Rev/Insp 20 10 Encr Permit(Expired) 30 11 Encr Permit(None) 10 12 Encroachment Permit 400 13 Excessive Plan Chk>3(per sheet) 200 14 Lndsc Pin Chk: Comm/MFD per sheet 20 16 Lndsc Pln Chk: SFD 43 17 Lndsc Pin Chk: Tract 3 18 Final Parcel Map Check 10 19 Final Tract Map Check 6 20 GIS/Survey Fee 1600 21 Grading(0-300 cu yds) 16 22 Grading Pin Chk(10001-200000 cu yds) 7 24 Grading(301-,5000 cu yds) 43 25 Grading(5001-10000 cuyds) 4 26 Grading(ea add'I 10000 cu yds) 1 27 Hardscape Inspection 25 28 Hardscape Plan Check 25 29 Hydrant/Air Vacuum Damage Repair 1 30 Illegal Storage Bin 20 31 Illegal Refuse Bin Impound 20 32 Lndsc Insp: (ea add 1,000 sf) 100 33 Lndsc Insp: (-1,000 sf) 20 Huntington Beach, California 87 Zucker Systems Service Number Service Name 12004/2005 Volume ENGINEERING SERVICES 41 Lndsc Insp: Resi (str tree only) 5 42 Obstruction Permit 60 43 Parking Permit Rep[ Fee 10 44 Pennants 200 50 Private Water Pressure Testing 1 51 Cash Bond Processing 2 52 Publ Impr In (after hours) 25 53 Pub[ Impr Inspection(per visit) 800 54 Publ Impr Plan Chk:All Others 35 55 Publ Impr Plan Chk: SFD 25 56 PW Re-Inspection 40 57 Recordation Fee 50 58 Recycling Bin Permits 2 59 Resi Parking Permit 360 60 Resi Street Tree Request 20 61 Same Day Turn-On Svc(after hours) 50 62 Same Day Turn-On Svc(reg hours) 150 63 St Wtr Insp: Commercial High 80 64 St Wtr Insp: Industrial High 40 65 St Wtr Insp: Industrial Low 100 66 St Wtr Insp: Industrial Medium 40 67 St Wtr Permit Maint Inspection 30 68 Steet Vac: Full Vacation 1 69 Str Light Pin Chk: per sheet 2 71 Temp Meter Rental Proc& Repl 60 72 Temporary Parking Permit 10 73 Traf Control Pln Chk:per sheet 15 74 Traf Signal Pln Chk: per sheet 1 75 Traf Signs&Str Pln Chk: per sheet 5 77 Utility Encr Permit 800 79 Weed Abatement 165 80 Wide/Overwt Load: Field Verif 1 83 Planning Support 1(706 84 Counter&Telephone 1 85 City Projects 1 86 Capital Projects 1 87 All Other Non-Fee 1 90 Resi St Tree Illegal Removal 1 91 Fire Hydrant Flow Analysis(1st run) 20 92 Fire Hydrant Flow Analysis(each add'I run) 20 93 Street Vacation Summary 5 94 Lot Line Adjustment J 10 Huntington Beach, California 88 Zucker Systems We were unable to obtain comprehensive year-by-year activity levels for Public Works, but did obtain some data to use for analysis. Table 28 show the number of development reviews (Planning Department Reviews) by calendar year from 1999 to 2005. Activity substantially dropped off in 2004. The average from 1999 to 2003 was 240 reviews per year. The average for 2004 and 2005 was 118 or roughly a 50% drop in activity. It appears that there will be an additional substantial drop in activity for 2006. Table 28 Public Works Development Reviews %Change From Year Number Prior Year 1999 303 2000 233 -23.10% 2001 223 -4.30% 2002 215 -3.60% 2003 224 4.20% 2004 114 -49.10% 2005 121 1 6.10% 59 to 9/11 2006 Year end estimated at 79 -34.70% C. POLICY ISSUES Mission According to staff questionnaires, the official mission of the Department of Public Works is: "To provide, design and construct the public facilities that serve the community and maintain and operate those facilities effectively and efficiently, on a continuous basis, to enhance the quality of life in Huntington Beach and protect public health and safety." Some staff members described the mission of the Engineering Services Section as: "Providing quality and timely customer service in the processing and review of developments." "Quality service which is accessible, courteous, responsive, timely and equitable and is given in the spirit of professionalism." Huntington Beach, California 89 Zucker Systems These are all reasonable statements that can provide an overall framework for the review of private development plans and permits. However, what appears to be needed is agreement on the function at a more operational level. Three issues have surfaced in our research as follows: 1. Exactions There has been confusion in the Public Works Department relating to how exactions are handled. The City Attorney, as well as recent national and state court actions has addressed the need for a "nexus" in any exaction. Some feel the City has not been consistent in the handling of exactions and in some cases may have asked for exactions that exceeded the nexus requirement. Additional clarity on how to handle the nexus issues is necessary for staff to operate efficiently and effectively. 2. Quality and Reasonableness of Reviews It has been suggested that some staff members are conducting reviews that can be considered too detailed or nit picky. Since streets and other infrastructure will become City owned and maintained, a competent review is necessary. However, if staff is too rigid and lacks a problem solving approach, this can have a negative impact on productivity as well as processing timelines. Huntington Beach is generally considered a City with active policy makers, citizens and applicants which can lead to staff tending to overanalyze. 3. Interpretations Some staff feel that codes and policies are not written in a manner that allows staff any leeway of interpretation or application to a specific property with conditions that require pragmatic redesign to meet site conditions. In any engineering review, there is a need to apply the adopted standards to actual field conditions. There is simply not a way to write standards that will apply to all circumstances and thus some interpretation is often required 77. Recommendation: The Engineering Services Section management along with staff, the City Engineer, and City Attorney, should develop specific guidelines as to the application of exactions. 78. Recommendation: The Engineering Services Section management along with staff and the City Engineer should develop specific guidelines as related to the reasonableness of reviews. This can reduce the amount of staff time spent on each application. 79. Recommendation: The Engineering Services Section management along with staff and the City Engineer should develop amendments to ordinances and policies that allow reasonable staff interpretations. Huntington Beach, California 90 Zucker Systems Ordinances and Policy Documents Clear and up to date ordinances and policy documents are an essential part of an effective organization. This is particularly true for organizations that have had staff turnover, need for staff training, and use consultants. All of these factors relate to Huntington Beach's review of private development projects. According to staff, the following documents need updating: ■ General Plan Circulation Element (high priority and underway). ■ Water Division Manual needs up-dating. As requirements change the Manual has not been updated. ■ Undergrounding Ordinance needs to be changed and clarified as noted in several recent development projects. ■ The Standard Plans document needs to be up-dated. For example, the City is using the Cal Trans Standard for Handicap Access Ramps but has not adopted them in the Plans document. Additionally, there are standards in the document that are not industry accepted such as the requirement to concrete encase PVC pipe. ■ The penalty for grading without a permit should be increased. 80. Recommendation: The Public Works Department should give high priority to updating its ordinances and policy documents. Staff has suggested that a major remodel and a new house should be treated in a similar manner. Issues were also raised in relation to how tenant improvements (TI) are handled." These are policy issues that go beyond the scope of this study. However, given the nature of many remodels and Us in Huntington Beach, a modification of the current policy or approach appears reasonable. 81. Recommendation: The Public Works Department should review the way standards and reviews are handled for remodels and tenant improvements versus new construction. D. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Consultants Many communities use consultants as a supplement to staff in order to meet performance standards. Staffing is set at a base level and then consultants are used to Huntington Beach, California 91 Zucker Systems handle any peak loads or whenever performance standards are not met due to vacancies, vacations, sick leave, or other causes. The Engineering and Transportation Divisions have used a variety of consultants to supplement staff, including six currently under contract. Staff and management generally have a negative view toward the use of consultants. Complaints include: ■ The quality of the work may be poor. ■ It takes too much time to have consultants become familiar with the City's policy or approach. ■ Staff still needs to spend time on quality control. While these are legitimate concerns, proper management of consultants can respond to all of these issues. If a consultant produces substandard work they should not be hired again. Developing relations with consultants over time can reduce the amount of time needed to be familiar with City policies and also reduce the amount of time for quality control. This has been proven by one consultant whom Engineering has been using for eight years. We were told that the City requires a new solicitation of consultants every three years. This can create problems for projects that extend beyond three years. In these cases, an exception should be made to the policy allowing the consultant to continue through to completion. Processing development projects may present more of a challenge for consultants than the use of consultants for capital projects. One approach could be to increase the use of consultants for capital projects, freeing more City Engineering staff for development processing. 82. Recommendation: Engineering and Transportation should use consultants as necessary to meet performance standards. The approaches being used to manage consultants should be improved. At times, consultant's work must be defended by staff before the Planning Commission or City Council. For complex assignments, we suggest the consultant come to the meeting to directly defend their work. 83. Recommendation: Consultants for major studies should attend Commission and Council meetings and present their work and respond to questions. Huntington Beach, California 92 Zucker Systems Files The Engineering Division has numerous files and has had a file retrieval and archive problem. Part of the problem is that this function has not been adequately staffed. However, a Records Clerk position has been approved and this should assist in correcting the filing problems. Additionally, the Engineering Division is embarking on optical imaging systems with the initial effort dedicated to scanning and indexing record drawings and maps. This will then expand to project document files. This is an excellent direction for the Division and care should be taken that these resources are not allocated to other Division needs. 84. Recommendation: The Engineering Division should give high priority to scanning and indexing of records. Flex Time All eight employees in Engineering Services work on flex time schedules starting the day at 7, 7:30 or 8 a.m. and ending at 5, 5:30 or 6 p.m. This allows taking every other Friday off. Three of the employees are off on Timecard Friday and five are off on Pay Day Friday. Although this occasionally presents a concern for customers, it is a useful employee benefit and in today's labor market, a reasonable approach. Office Space The private development engineering related staff support the desirability of co- locating Building, Engineering, Planning and Transportation as described in the section of this report addressing all functions. An additional issue directly impacting the engineers is that many of the standard desk sizes used in the Public Works offices are not of sufficient size for plan checking large engineering drawings. While current space constraints appear to preclude a short term solution, the need for more space should be recognized in future City space planning. 85. Recommendation: Public Works Department space planners should factor in the size of desks and tables needed for engineers to conduct plan checking of large engineering drawings. Staffing Analysis — Engineering Division Staffing analysis for Engineering review of planning entitlements and plan review and approval is a complex topic. The small number of positions and single functions positions makes it difficult to use position averages. Some staffing needs are also Huntington Beach, California 93 Zucker Systems impacted by the level of staff training and experience. We had several primary sources of data for this analysis. The recently completed City Fee Study provided an estimate of the amount of time needed for certain positions by activity as shown in Table 29 and summarized in Table 30. For some positions we also had questionnaires completed for the Human Resources Division where staff estimated their time spent on various activities, also shown in Table 30. Finally, we conducted staff interviews. Based on the data and our research we can make the following observations. ■ Principal Civil Engineer (management) This position supervises seven positions plus consultants. This is an important position and the span of control is reasonable. The fee study indicates the need of 124 hours from this position for building plan reviews and 360 hours for planning reviews. This total of 484 hours results in 28%of the available 1,747 hours. While this amount of time on specific plan reviews and planning reviews may be reasonable, it is at the edge of what should be required for this position. It is essential that at least the other 72% of time be available for management, training and policy development. We suggest that no more than 25% of the Principal Civil Engineer's time normally be used for the review function. 86. Recommendation: The Principal Civil Engineer should spend no more than 25% of time on building plan reviews and planning reviews. ■ Landscape Architect This is a one-person position that handles capital projects,planning reviews and plan reviews. The fee study estimated the need for 146 hours in planning reviews and 507 hours in plan reviews. This total of 653 hours is 37%of the available 1,747 hours. The estimates used in the HR survey indicate roughly 490 hours for these services which is reasonably close to the fee estimates. The HR survey indicates 5% of time or 87 hours devoted to the Design Review Board. If this Board is restructured as recommended in the Planning section of this report, these hours could be devoted to other activities. The Landscape Architect believes this position is understaffed. Others we interviewed wondered if the City needs a full time landscape architect. It is difficult for us to arrive at a recommendation on this matter since we are not reviewing the Landscape Architects extensive work on capital projects. We do feel a City the size and complexity of Huntington Beach would normally require at least one Landscape Architect and perhaps even supplemented by outside consultants. As such, we support this one position and recommend that if workload is too extensive, some of the work on capital projects be given to outside consultants. Huntington Beach, California 94 Zucker Systems The proper placement of this position in the City's organizational structure has also been raised. The position was once in the now Public Works Department's now defunct Park, Tree and Landscape Division. Some suggest that the position be placed in the Planning Department since much of the activity relates to planning. However,the fee study indicates only 146 hours or 8% on Planning Reviews plus the 5% on Design Review. The remainder of the time primarily relates to Public Works capital projects. Although the position could operate in either department, the current placement in Public Works appears to be the best choice. 87. Recommendation: The City should maintain one Landscape Architect position and supplement staffing with consultants as may be needed for capital projects. ■ Civil Engineering Assistant (water analysis) The Civil Engineering Assistant positions work on the water analysis of plan reviews and also the City's water modeling. This function appears to have been included in the fee analysis as a Senior Plan Check Engineer. The study indicates 1,342 hours or 75% of the position's time is needed for permit reviews. According to the HR questionnaire, 79% of this positions time is devoted to permit reviews. The Civil Engineering Assistant feels that this position may be understaffed. The function has a consultant working on Mondays and Thursdays for overload work. The current Assistant is on maternity leave and the function will be backfilled with a consultant. This should allow the Division management additional data in order to undertake a more detailed analysis of the function. 88. Recommendation: Work of the water consultant should be examined to determine the appropriate staffing level for the review of water requirements and water modeling. ■ Engineering Technicians (permitting and public counter) The Division includes two Engineering Technicians for permitting and public counter work. The fee study shows a variety of activities resulting in full time work for these two positions. Recently, one of the positions has been at least partially re-assigned to fill in for the vacant Plan Checker position. As is documented elsewhere in this chapter, there is a problem in meeting the acceptable timelines for engineering plan reviews. One issue impacting the plan review engineers is the need to spend time at the counter. While some counter time will always be required, it would be useful to attempt to limit the counter time as much as possible and delegate additional function to the Engineering Technicians. The Division will need to continue to monitor the Huntington Beach, California 95 Zucker Systems current experience with the temporary assignments to determine if two full time positions are needed for this function. 89. Recommendation: Continue to monitor the Engineering Technicians functions to determine the appropriate staffing level for these functions. ■ Associate Civil Engineers The Division includes two Associate Civil Engineers who conduct the bulk of the planning and permit reviews. Given the amount of the workload,these two positions have been supplemented by a consultant for the last 10 years. Currently,the consultant is working full time. The fee study indicates the need for 3,060 hours for these two positions in handling permit and planning reviews. However, the HR questionnaires indicate roughly 2,077 hours are spent on permit and planning reviews. This would indicate a shortage of 983 hours. This extra work has been absorbed by a part-time consultant. However, this function has not been able to meet the acceptable turnaround times for reviews as shown elsewhere in this section of the report. In order to handle workload, the consultant is now working full time. This situation should be monitored to see if, with the use of a full time consultant, timelines can be met. If not, we suggest that additional consultants be used as necessary to meet timelines. Given the likely continued reduction in activity, we do not recommend adding additional staff positions. Recommendation 90 discusses the approach to hiring consultants. Huntington Beach, California 96 Zucker Systems Table 29 Hours Per One Unit of Activity-Engineering Division Sr.Plan Activity Prin.Civil Assoc.Civil Checker En .Tech Land.Arch Aerial Photos 0.42 Storage Bin Permit 0.25 Bond Reduction 0.50 10.00 Copies of Plans and Specs 125.00 Dock Constr.Pin. Rev/lnsp. 0.08 0.58 Encr Permit Expired 0.29 Encr Permit None 0.29 Encroachment Permit 0.33 Excessive Plan Chk(per sheet) 1.00 0.83 Lndsc Pln Chk:Comm/MFD per sheet 1.08 2.50 Lndsc Pln Chk:tract 1.80 6.80 Final Parcel Map Check 0.25 17.50 Final Tract Map Check 0.25 17.50 Grading(0-300 cu ds) 15.00 5.50 0.50 Grading Pln Chk(100001-200000 cu ds) 33.50 38.50 0.25 3.50 Grading(301-5000 cu ds) 0.25 17.50 6.00 0.50 Grading(5001-10000 cu yds) 0.25 23.00 5.75 Grading(ea add'I 10000 cu ds) 0.25 1.00 Hardscape Inspection 0.25 Hardscape Plan Check 3.00 6.00 3.00 Illegal Storage Bin 0.33 Lndsc Insp:(ea add 1,000 sf) 2.00 Lndsc Insp: Resi(str tree only) 0.50 Obstruction Permit 0.25 Cash Bond Processing 0.25 0.50 Publ Inpr Insp(after hours) 0.17 Publ Impr Plan Chk:All Others 0.25 20.00 12.25 3.00 PW Re-Inspection 0.08 Recordation Fee 0.25 1.50 Utility Encr Permit 0.25 Planning Support(total hours) 360.00 100.00 146.00 Street Vacation Summary 0.50 8.00 Lot Line Adjustment 0.50 5.00 Huntington Beach, California 97 Zucker Systems Table 30 Distribution of Available Hours—Engineering Division Assoc. Assoc. Sr.Plan Eng. Eng. Land. Function Prin.Civil Civil Civil Check Tech Tech Arch. Total Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Projects 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Counter&Telephone 48 135 135 360 900 900 40 Other Non-Fee 1,293 135 135 98 475 475 1,107 Sub Total 1,413 270 270 458 1,375 1,375 1,147 Permits 99 1,480 1,480 1,342 425 425 507 5,758 Planning Reviews 288 50 50 0 0 0 146 534 Sub Total 387 1,5301 1,530 1,342 425 425 653 •Permits and Planning- 21.50% 85% 85% 75% 24% 24% 36% •Permits and Planning Shown on HR Surveys 62% 57% 79% Staffing Analysis - Transportation Division Staffing analysis for Transportations review of planning entitlements and plan review and approval is a complex topic. The small number of positions and single functions positions makes it difficult to use position averages. Some staffing needs are also impacted by the level of staff training and experience. We had several primary sources of data for this analysis. The recently completed City Fee Study provided an estimate of the amount of time needed for certain positions by activity as shown in Table 32 and summarized in Table 33. For some positions we also had questionnaires complete for the Human Resources Division where staff estimated their time spent on various activities, also shown in Table 31 and 32. Finally, we conducted staff interviews. Based on the data and our research we make the following observations. ■ Timing of Reviews As shown in Table 35,the Transportation Division has not been meeting the acceptable timelines. The solution to this could be a combination of closer monitoring of timelines, increased efficiency of reviews and increased resources devoted to the reviews. These resources could come from a re- distribution of staffing within the Division or supplementing staff with consultants. ■ Associate Traffic Engineer The Fee Study showed the need for 900 hours for permit and planning reviews. However, the HR study indicated only 35% time going to permits and planning reviews or 611 hours. ■ Traffic Technician The fee study showed the need for 885 hours for permit and planning reviews Huntington Beach, California 98 Zucker Systems which is 49% of time for this position. However, the HR study indicated 57% for this position which would result in 995 hours. ■ Number of Staff The Transportation Manager believes that one good P. E. and a Technician should be sufficient for the reviews. However, the Division has had difficulty in filling positions as well as having staff who wants to review permits. The fee study showed a need of 1,755 hours for these two positions. If each person worked roughly half time on permits and planning, it should be sufficient for staffing. 90. Recommendation: Once staff is trained and stabilized for the transportation review of permits and planning, management of the unit should review if staffing can meet the acceptable timelines. If not, additional resources from the rest of the Division or consultants should be utilized to meet the timelines. Table 31 Hours Per One Unit of Activity—Transportation Division 2004/2005 Tran Assoc.Traffic Activity Activity Manager Eng. Traffic Tech Storage Bin Permit 40 0.25 Bond Reduction 2 0.25 Excessive Plan Chk over 3 per sheet 200 1.5 Grading(0-300 cu yds) 16 2.5 4 Grading Pln Chk 100001-200000 cu ds 7 7 7.5 Grading(301-5000 cu ds) 43 3 5.5 Grading(5001-10000 cu yds) 4 6 8.5 Grading(ea addl 10000 cu ds) 1 1.75 2 Illegal Storage Bin 20 0.25 0.25 Obstruction Permit 60 1 Publ Im r Plan Chk:All Others 35 4 6.17 Publ Im r Plan 25 2.5 5.5 Street Vac: Full 1 4 Str Light Pin 2 5.25 7.75 Temporary Parking Permit 10 0.5 0.5 Traf Control Pin Chk:per sheet 15 7.25 4 Traf Signal Pin Chk: per sheet 1 12.25 13.5 Traf Signs&Str Ph Chk:per sheet 5 4.75 8.5 Wide/Overwt Load: Field Verif 11 1 Planning Support total 1 360 180 All Other Non-fee total 1 540 915.17 Huntington Beach, California 99 Zucker Systems Table 32 Distribution of Available Hours—Transportation Division Assoc.Traffic Function Tran Manager Eng. Traffic Tech Total Other Non-Fee 540 0 915 1,455 Permits 0 720 885 1 1,605 Planning Reviews 360 180 0 540 Sub Total 360 900 885 Total goo.-I 900 * 1800 1 4,500 % Permits and Planning 40% 100% 49% % Permits and Planning 20% 35% 57% Shown on HR Surveys or 349 hours or 611 hours *Based on a half position Training Some staff in Engineering is relatively new and the need for additional training in both Engineering and Transportation is recognized both by management and the employees themselves. Staff has indicated that there has been no formal training and all entitlement/development work has essentially been "on the job" training. It has also been noted that it would be useful for employees to be cross-trained in various aspects of engineering and transportation. Finally, it would be useful if employees had increased knowledge about the functions of related departments. Although the need for additional training is acknowledged, staff and management have not felt that, given the workload and staffing levels, that time is available for the training. However, once staffing levels and positions are stabilized, management should develop specific and methodical training programs and approaches. As a rule of thumb, we suggest that 5% of employees' time be set aside for training. 91. Recommendation: The City Engineer, Principal Civil Engineer and Transportation Manager should develop a training program for the staff working on private development project reviews. An initial goal of 5% of employees' time should be established. E. PROCESS ISSUES Public Works work on private development projects can roughly be divided into the three areas of: Huntington Beach, California 100 Zucker Systems 1. Review of Planning entitlement projects. 2. Review of certain engineering aspects of building permits. 3. Engineering plan checking. These engineering requirements are often set as conditions of entitlements or simply required by the City codes and development standards. Each of these processes is discussed below. 1. Planning Entitlements The process for Public Works portion of Planning Entitlements is shown in Figure 8. Normally there are at least four specialty reviewers in Public Works: the Associate Civil Engineer (box 3), Water (box 5), Traffic (box 6) and Landscape (box 7). When appropriate or needed, some projects are also reviewed by Design (box 8), Environmental (box 9), U (box 10), and Maintenance (box 11). Public Works holds a Monday morning internal review meeting (box 12) where any conflicts between the specialty functions and Department direction can be reviewed. When Planning distributes to Public Works (box 2) they set the expected time for comments back (box 14). The normal desired time for review is 21 calendar days which normally results in 15 working days. However, sometimes Planning sets other target dates. A review of data from 12/6/05 to 7/13/06 indicate that due dates were set at an average of 18.3 days and a mean of 20 days. Due dates ranged from 1 to 26 days. A review of data from 12/6/05 to 7/13/06 reveals an actual average time for reviews of 22.8 calendar days with a medium time of 22.5 days. The range of review times was 4 to 58 days. However, only 43% of reviews met the 21-day processing goal. Huntington Beach, California 101 Zucker Systems Figure 8 Public Works Process for Planning Entitlements 1.Application received by Planning 2.Planning distributes plans to Public Works (Associate Civil Engineer) 3.Associate Civil Engineer either handles review or gives to another Associate Civil Engineer 4.Distributed with review to other Public Works functions To these 4 only if needed 5.Water 6.Traffic 7.Landscape 8.Design 12.Monday intra- g.Environmental department decisions as needed 13.Memo with 10.Utility conditions Comments 11.Maintenance 14.Completed and sent to Planning (Associate Civil Engineer) Development Advocacy 15.Team Meeting (only some projects) 16.Planning completes and takes to required hearing The Public Works process is similar to that used in many communities and is relatively straight forward. However, possible improvements could include: ■ Some of the reviews and distribution of data take place on hard copies. An attempt should be made to handle as much of this as possible by Email or electronic transfer. Once City View is installed in Public Works, this should facilitate how data is handled. ■ Having as many as eight separate reviewers in Public Works is too many. Some attempt is being made to cross train the Associate Civil Engineers to Huntington Beach, California 102 Zucker Systems handle additional parts of the process. For most projects, we believe a review by an Associate Civil Engineer, Traffic and Landscape should be sufficient. The other reviews would only be needed for special problems. ■ Although a Development Advisory Team may meet on the project at a time of pre-application, there is no formalized process for inter-departmental review during the actual entitlement process. While such review is not needed for all projects, it should be included for major projects as discussed in the Planning Department chapter of this report. ■ In order for Planning to meet our suggested 21-day planning timelines, it is necessary for Public Works to meet a 14-day timeline. Table 33 shows the recent timelines for the Associate Civil Engineers in Public Works. As can be seen, even the 21-day goal is met only 22 to 65 % of the time. We believe the goal should be to meet this time line 90% of the time. Table 33 Timelines for Public Works Review of Planning Entitlements—2006 Actual Calendar Days Goal in Est. Calendar Mean Median Meeting Days Low High Average Average Goal 21 4 58 22.8 22.5 43% 92. Recommendation: The Engineering Services Division should consider changing its objective to complete 90% of all reviews for planning cases within 14 calendar days. 93. Recommendation: The Engineering Services Division should allocate additional resources as necessary to meet the timelines for planning reviews or bring in outside consultants as needed. 2. Building Permits The process for Public Works review of building permits is shown in Figure 9. The need for Public Works review may be triggered in two ways. If the developer has not yet completed their conditions that came from the entitlement process, the building permit cannot be issued until these conditions have been cleared. Other building permits require Public Works review based on the square footage (over 400 sq. ft.), adding bedrooms, need for water meter up-sizing or other criteria. Huntington Beach, California 103 Zucker Systems Figure 9 Building Permit Process Related to Public Works 1.Application Received by Building [2-Permit techs set up I-,- Nature of Permit 3.Distributed 4.Building 5.Public Works 6.fire 7.Planning 8.Engineering tech determined if any Public Works permits need review Determine Inflow as necessary 9.Grading plans 10.Water review 11.Traffic review 12.Laundry review 13.Orange County Sanitation Fees 14.Plan check process 15.Meter up-grade 16.Inspection fees 17.Plan review 18.Connect to city view 19.Building permit issued A number of issues relate to this process as follows: ■ The initial notice to Public Works from Building is simply a listing of permits on City View with no data. Building sends a list of permits they feel may require review. Experience indicates that roughly 85% of those sent actually require review. Huntington Beach, California 104 Zucker Systems ■ An Engineering Technician in Public Works reviews the list to determine what, if any, Public Works review is required (box 8). The Technician pulls up a screen on City View to look at required data. Since he does not have a set of plans, this data is the basis for a decision. However, Building tends not to enter data that would be needed for the analysis until a plan checker is working on the plan. Thus, the Technician delays review for a week or two pending the required data being entered. If the data were entered at intake, Engineering review could take place earlier. ■ The Orange County Sanitation District fees (box 13) were once calculated by Building, but Engineering took them over due to a concern about too many errors. A more integrated process would have this review being completed in Building. Additional guidelines or training may be necessary to return this function. ■ Although Public Works may specify a water meter upgrade, the actual calculations for this are completed in Building. Customers complain that they are told about the need for a meter upgrade as a surprise too late in the process. Building agrees that this is not a good process and is working on a process that will provide any requirements up front. ■ Engineering reviews are set for 15, 10 and five working days depending on the review cycle. As can be seen in Table 36, plan reviews seldom meet these timelines. ■ At one point, the Public Work Technician was located near the Building counter. However, this did not prove to be effective since the Technician only reviews building permits an hour or two a day and spend the rest of the day routing plans for Public Works or designing capital projects. ■ Grading Plan review (box 9) is actually a review of all engineering aspects and as such the title is misleading. A better title might simply be Engineering Plan review. 94. Recommendation: Building should enter the building square footages and data on new bedrooms at the time of application. 95. Recommendation: Consideration should be given to having Building calculate the Orange County Sanitation Fees and determine the need for a water meter u-grade earlier in the review cycle. 96. Recommendation: Consider renaming Grading Plan Review to Engineering Plan Review. Huntington Beach, California 105 Zucker Systems 3. Public Works Plan Check Process The plan check process in Public Works is a complex process involving three departments (Fire, Planning, and Public Works), as well as four divisions within Public Works (Engineering, Landscape, Water, Traffic). Additionally, some plans require review by Maintenance or the Building Department. Processing timelines have been set at 15 working days for first check; 10 for second check; and five for third check or more. As can be seen the various tables below, these timelines are seldom met for either Engineering or Traffic although Traffic comes closer to meeting timelines than does Engineering. Timelines for the other review functions were not calculated. These timelines can accumulate due to the need for multiple plan check cycles. Time is also required for the applicant to correct plans. Complete Plans Staff suggest that plans submitted to Public Works are often incomplete. When this happens it clutters up the workload and extends the timelines. Additional screening of applications at the time of submittal can partially resolve this problem. This will require good checklists of what is required for a complete submittal and training of intake staff. Substantially incomplete plans should not be accepted. 97. Recommendation: Public Works should revise its intake process to screen out most incomplete plans. Counter Engineering has two Engineering Technicians that serve the front counter. They issue certain permits, pull plans, answer questions, distribute handouts and sign off on some permits. When issues arise beyond their level of expertise or a customer needs to speak with an engineer, the engineer will come to the counter. At times there are so many interruptions that the engineers lack sufficient uninterrupted time to complete their plan reviews. The engineers also have a similar problem with telephone call interruptions. Several possibilities exist to address this problem such as: • The Engineering Technicians could be trained to answer additional questions. ■ An Engineer of-the-Day system could be developed so that only one engineer would be on call each day. This could require additional cross training of engineers. ■ Engineers might be available by appointment only, for example two hours per day. ■ Engineers could group phone calls to be returned before lunch or at the end of the day. Huntington Beach, California 106 Zucker Systems 98. Recommendation: The Engineering staff should meet to develop an approach to the counter and blocking out concentrated time for plan review activities. The Principal Civil Engineer should lead this effort. Expedited Service Staff complain that there is too much shifting of priorities with pressure from vocal owners, applicants, developers and City officials to process some plans out of sequence. If staffing and resources are set to meet suggested performance standards, the need for this type of expediting should be reduced. Additionally, many communities provide for an expedited service where the applicant can pay extra fees for staff overtime or the use of consultants. 99. Recommendation: The City should consider an expedited service where applicants are willing to pay an extra fee. There is confusion at the staff level concerning project priorities from other City departments. Projects that are being sponsored for economic development or redevelopment purposes have been given special policy importance by the City. As such they should not be considered as simply another project, but may require special attention. The approach to this topic is discussed in Chapter III. Processing Timelines for Engineering Division Engineering has established processing standards as 90% of first development plan check within 15 business days. The goal for second checks is 10 days and third check five days. These would result in calendar days of 21, 14 and seven. While there is no comprehensive reporting or monitoring of these times, we were able to make some calculations from a variety of spreadsheets that staff maintain. These results are shown in Table 34. As can be seen in the table, Engineering meets the timelines from 0% to a high of 67%. As a generalization, timelines are met less than a fourth of the time. Although some additional monitoring of timelines, training, and overall efficiency can improve the performance, it is obvious that the Engineering functions are understaffed. The solution is to add engineers or increase the use of consultants. Since it appears that the amount of development activity in Huntington Beach is decreasing, the preferable approach would appear to use consultants to meet timelines. 100.Recommendation: The Engineering Division's data monitoring systems should be revised to make it easier to monitor meeting timelines. Huntington Beach, California 107 Zucker Systems Table 34 Engineering Processing Times Actual Calendar Da s Goal in Est.% Calendar Mean Median Meeting Activi Date of Data Da s Low Hi h Average Average Goal Parcel Map Plan Check (consultant) 10/04 to 6/06 1stCheck 21 9 167 54 32 29% 2nd Check 14 14 32 23 23 25% 3rd Check 7 3 14 8 7 67% Final Tract Maps (consultant) 1st Check no data 21 2nd Check 14 14 21 1 18 18 50% 3rd Check 7 1 7 28 18 18 50% Lot Line Adjustment 2/05 to 6/06 1stCheck 21 11 91 34 30 27% 2nd Check 14 1 49 22 20 44% 3rd Check 7 7 103 48 39 17% Improvement Plans (Non-Tract 11/04 to 5/06 15 3 70 27 19 45% Plan Review Log 5/04 to 5/06 1 st Check 21 10 79 42.7 39 24% 2nd Check 14 1 6 79 26.7 21 1 33% 3rd Check 7 1 48 13.3 7 63% 4th Check 7 8 21 15.9 18 0% 5th Check 1 7 1 9 5 5 50% 6th Check 1 7 6 6 6 6 100% Processing Timelines for Transportation Division Processing times for the Transportation Division are shown in Table 35. The following items are on interest: • The Transportation Divisions Budget Objective is to complete 80% of all plan- checks within stated project schedules. This goal is met 50% to 100% of the time. However, we generally recommend that the target be set at 90% or 95%. ■ Only 15% of plan check requires three or more checks and this is considered reasonable performance. ■ Performance seems to drop off for 3`d, 4`h and 5th checks. It may be useful to monitor the timelines for these checks. Huntington Beach,California 108 Zucker Systems ■ It may be possible within the Transportation Division to assign additional staff resources to meet timelines. Should this not be possible, outside consultants should be hired to meet timelines. Table 35 Transportation Division Processing Times 10/03/05 to 8/28/06 Actual Calendar Da s Goal in Est.% Calendar Mean Median Meeting Activity Percent Da s Low High Average Average Goal 1st Check 55.5% 21 0 121 13.1 10 85% 2nd Check 25.0% 15 0 114 11.5 8 81% 3rd Check 12.0% 71 0 34 7.7 6 66% 4th Check 1.0% 7 3 22 11.2 10.5 50% 5th Check 1 1.0% 7 0 80 41 41 75% 6th Check 1 1.0% 7 01 7 3.751 41 100% Planning Reviews 1 211 01 1211 14.36 131 88% 101.Recommendation: The Transportation Division should consider changing its objective to complete 90% of all plan checks within stated project schedules. 102.Recommendation: The Transportation Division should increase the monitoring of permit reviews to meet its Budget Objectives. Particular attention should be given to 3rd, 41h and 51h checks. 103. Recommendation: The Transportation Division should allocate additional resources as necessary to meet the timelines or bring in outside consultants as needed. Huntington Beach, California 109 Zucker Systems Huntington Beach, California 110 Zucker Systems VIII. EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS Two confidential questionnaires were completed by many of the employees in the relevant functions. A short, closed-ended questionnaire (shown in Appendix B) was completed at a staff meeting by 27 employees and collected by the consultants. The raw scores and tallies of this survey are also shown in Appendix B. A longer, eight page questionnaire (shown in Appendix Q was completed by 15 of the 27 employees who completed the short questionnaire and mailed or emailed to the consultants in San Diego to assure confidentiality. Information obtained from these questionnaires was essential to our analysis. The number of questionnaires returned is shown in Table 36. In most of our studies, only half of the employees that complete the short questionnaire take the time to complete the long questionnaire. Table 36 Number of Employees Responding to Questionnaires Average Response Number of Number of Short to Short Questions With Number of Long Function Questionnaires Questionnaire Averages Under 3.0 . Questionnaires Building Department 2 4.16 1 1 Public Works/Engineering Department 6 1 3.34 9 8 Management of relevant departments 10 3.06 13 0 Planning Department 9 3.69 0 4 The short questionnaire also asked employees to list pet peeves and give suggestions for improvements. These comments were used as part of our analysis for this report. The short, closed-ended questionnaire consisted of a series of statements to be rated by the respondents. Responses were tallied and averaged and the raw scores are displayed in Appendix B. The statements were designed to elicit the mood and feelings of each employee about overall Division or Department excellence. For each of the 28 questions, the employee was asked to respond as follows: 1 — Strongly Disagree 4— Somewhat Agree 2 — Somewhat Disagree 5— Strongly Agree 3 —Neutral 6—Not Applicable Generally, the higher the rating (i.e., 4's and 5's) the better the employee perceives the subject area and the more excellent the Division or Department. Huntington Beach, California 111 Zucker Systems We've conducted this survey in many Building, Planning and Engineering Departments and Divisions. Generally, a score below 3.0 is an indication of issues that need to be addressed. We like to see average scores in the high 3's and 4's. We believe that the scores give a reasonably accurate assessment of the employee's view of their Division or Department. The Building Department had the highest average score at 4.16; however this represented only two employees. The nine Planning Department employees had a high average score of 3.69 followed by Public Works/Engineering at 3.34. Much to our surprise, the managers' average score was the lowest at 3.06. This is a reverse of what we generally find. It is common that managers believe their organization is performing better than do the employees. Questions with average scores below 3.0 are discussed below. Building and Safety Although only two questionnaires were distributed and returned, the only question below 3.0 was Question 14 concerning having an efficient records management system which was answered 2.0 by both employees. The records management system is discussed elsewhere in this report. Management Management had the lowest scores of all the responders. Thirteen (46%) of the questions were scored below 3.0. In responding to these questions, we asked the managers to respond in relation to the entire City, not just their Department. Overall, we found these responses quite troubling. They focus on three areas: 1. Managers Responsibilities Questions 1 and 2 address problem solving. Question 4 suggests that concern for employees is given lip service. Question 7 addresses the lack of training. Questions 8 and 9 address the lack of good communication. Question 11 addresses risk taking and Question 12 the organizations mission. Finally, Question 14 addresses inadequate records management systems. These are all issues that should be central to management responsibilities and the low scores should be a matter of concern at the City's highest levels. 2. Time To Manage Six of the 10 managers responding to Question 16 indicate that they do not have enough time to do their work. Only two indicated that they do have enough time. Most of these managers have adequate staff so that they should be able to delegate operational tasks and spend more time on the manager responsibilities outlined in point 1 above. Huntington Beach, California 112 Zucker Systems 3. Permit System Questions 23, 24 and 25 all relate to problems with the City's permit system. Solving problems with the permit systems should be high on the managers' list and it appears that managers have given inadequate attention to this important subject. However, this study has been undertaken to assist in this area. As with the Time to Manage topic, it may indicate that managers need to increase their level of delegation to focus on management responsibilities. 104.Recommendation: The managers involved in the permit system need to meet as a group with the Deputy City Administrator to discuss what appear to be serious permit system concerns. It may be useful to have a facilitator for this meeting. 105.Recommendation: The managers involved in the development departments should all increase their level of delegation and focus on the management concerns listed in the employee questionnaires. Planning Given what appeared to be the problem with the planning process in Huntington Beach, we were surprised at the high average score of 3.69 which is higher than we normally receive for this function. Eight of the nine employees who responded also had individual scores exceeding 3.53 with two exceeding 4.29. Only one employee had a low average score of 2.29. There were only two Questions below 3.0. Question 28 suggesting that field inspections are not undertaken in a consistent manner had an average score of 2.67. This study is not designed to examine inspection issues. Question 24 asking if permit review is undertaken in a consistent manner had an average score of 2.88. This issue is addressed elsewhere in this report and is a central Huntington Beach concern. Public Works All of the six Public Works employees that answered the questionnaire had individual scores of 3.0 or higher. However, nine of the 28 questions had average scores below 3.0. Areas of concern included: ■ Management Issues Questions 1, 4, 8, 9, 14 and 23 were scored below 3.0 and address management issues. Question 1 addresses not identifying problems quickly. Question 4 suggests concern for employees is given lip service. Question 7 suggests there is inadequate training. Question 8 suggests that management does not discuss objectives, programs and results with employees regularly. Question 14 addresses lack of an efficient records management system. Question 23 Huntington Beach, California 113 Zucker Systems indicates that permitting processes are too complex and burdensome on the applicant. These are serious issues that need management attention. ■ Staffing Five of the six employees responding to Question 16 said they did not have enough time to do their work. They all scored the question 1.0 which is the lowest score possible. Comments on staffing will be made elsewhere in this report. ■ Permit Review Low scores for Question 21 indicated that turnaround times for permits are not being met. Additionally, low scores for Question 25 indicate that permits are not reviewed in a timely manner. These responses correlate to our other research and issues will be addressed elsewhere in this report. 106.Recommendation: The managers in the related Public Works functions should review the low employee responses to Questions 1, 4, 8, 9, 14 and 23 and devise a strategy to address employee concerns. Huntington Beach,California 114 Zucker Systems IX. CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS In today's environment, governmental performance is measured by customer satisfaction. In order to determine City performance, we used several techniques consisting of interviews with the Mayor and City Council members, three customer focus groups, and a mail surveys to applicants. This Chapter includes customer comments for improving the City's entitlement/development processing activities. The intent of this customer input was to elicit views and opinions on positive and negative aspects of activities and to seek ideas for change that will improve and enhance the process. However, as would be expected, the focus was on perceived problems. In considering the results, the reader must bear in mind that, unlike documents and statistics, the views expressed by individuals are subjective and may reflect personal biases. Nonetheless, these views are at least as important as objective material because it is these people, with their feelings and prejudices, which work with or are often affected by City activities. A second important consideration is that in analyzing the material, it may not be as important to determine whether a particular response is "correct" as it is to simply accept a response or try to determine why customers feel the way they do. Tom Peters, the noted management consultant, has said that in relation to customer service, "perception is everything." In other words, perception is reality to the person holding the perception. It should be noted that the purpose of this chapter is to report on the customer input so that the reader of the report can view the comments as customer perceptions without our editing. These comments are not the conclusions of the consultants. Using our methodology as described in Figure 1 and Section B of Chapter,II, the customer comments are taken as one form of input to be merged by input of others and our own judgment. Our specific response is in the form of the various recommendations included in this report. A. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL We met the Mayor and five City Council members in individual confidential meetings in order to gain a perspective on the governmental direction for the City. There were not unanimous opinions on all topics, but a few points of interest follow. Consistency Customers are often told what to do and then when they come back are told something else or told things they should have been told the first time. There is a lack of consistency among staff. Huntington Beach, California 115 Zucker Systems Economic Development There is a need to get Planning and Economic Development together. Fees There is concern that some of the City fees may be too high compared to others. The goal is full cost but some reductions could be in order for homeowners. Historic Resources Board There should be a formal agreement that the Board reviews Demolition Permits. Organization Some feel things were better when Building, Planning and Redevelopment were in the same Department. It would be useful to have all permitting located on the first floor. Planning Most of the complaints seem to relate to Planning. Planning Commission Planning conditions may be too general and sometimes the Commission looks at too much. There have been problems with some of the appointments. Policies ■ Are all the policies really needed? ■ Vague policies and policy conflicts should be corrected. ■ There is need for design guidelines related to mansionization. ■ There should be more flexibility for mixed use. Processes The process should be simple, fair and equitable. You should not need to be an expert to get through. Processing Time All Council Members are concerned about processing taking too long. The delays cost the City sales tax and property tax revenue. Huntington Beach, California 116 Zucker Systems B. Focus GROUPS Ten people who had been applicants in the City's entitlement/development processing activities met on August 8, 2006 in three separate meetings for two hours at the Huntington Beach Library. The meetings were held in confidence and no staff members were present. The groups included an architects, consultants, developers, realtor and planners. A number of the members had been previous City employees. Focus group comments are included below. Topics are arranged in alphabetical order. Overview Issues include: ■ There is a fundamental lack of coordination between the functions. They are not on the same page. Departments are territorial. ■ Conditions on the projects are too robotic and do not match the project you are working on. ■ The Subdivision Committee used to be good and addressed the entire project. Now they only talk about the tract map and it is a waste of time. ■ Some feel the City Manager does not want Department Heads to make decisions. Staff needs to know that they can make decisions. ■ Staff lacks a customer service attitude — the passion for the City is no longer here. Staff plays good defense,but there is no offense. ■ Every time the City tries to streamline,things get worse. Building Department Concerns for the Building function included staff being poor at returning phone calls and slow timelines for tenant improvement plans. Design Review Board After approval by the Zoning Administrator the customer thinks they are done but then they still have to go to the Design Review Board. The goal would be to streamline the process. Economic Development No one knows what Economic Development does and there is little coordination with other departments. Huntington Beach, California 117 Zucker Systems Fire Department Fire has begun to work better with Building but at times they still come in at the 11Ih hour with new conditions. Planning Commission The current Planning Commission is considered poor. They need to be educated as to their authority. There is too much grandstanding and they should not be on television. Planning Department Concerns about the Planning function included: ■ Staff is being micro-managed. They are afraid to make decisions so they just go by the book. The customer wants the planner's professional opinion about the project. ■ An early review by Planning is desired. ■ Projects go to a planner staff meeting and the goal appears to be to pick holes in the project. ■ Too much detail is asked for at the early stages of a project. ■ The process takes too long. ■ The 30 day completeness letters always arrive two days after the 30 days. ■ Minor changes in a project often take too long to process. ■ Some customers will avoid some planners who are known to create problems. ■ Under Specific Plans the Planning Director has authority, but the Director does not want to do anything without City Attorney agreement. Policies ■ There are too many Conditional Use Permits. ■ There is a need for good policy guidelines. ■ Conditions are too boilerplate so staff can interpret them any way they want. Public Works Public Works is considered to have numerous problems including: ■ May be understaffed. ■ May be too specialized. ■ There is a lack of backup staff—only one person handling landscaping. Huntington Beach, California 118 Zucker Systems • When plans are circulated, Public Works comments are too generic. ■ You used to be able to do a Rough Grading Plan early on based on the tentative map but now a full Grading Plan is required. ■ Building plan checks have been outsourced which solved the timing problem but now the hold up is in Public Works. Staff Schedules The staff flex time schedules and the part time planners create problems for the customers. C. CUSTOMER SURVEYS A mail survey was used in this study to obtain applicant customer input. The survey was sent to 285 applicants for entitlement/development processing activities. Thirty one surveys were returned with bad addresses so 254 surveys actually went to applicants. Thirty-six surveys were returned for a return rate of 14.2%. This is near our normal return rate of 15%to 25%. The overall response to the surveys is shown in Figure 11. Question 12 through 25 were designed so that checking a"Strongly Agree" or "Agree" category is a sign of a satisfied customer. A "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" is a sign of a dissatisfied customer. The percentages shown in the margins to the right indicate the percent of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the question statement. The "Not Applicable" category was excluded from this calculation. Normally, when negative responses of "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" exceed 15%, the responses indicate an area of possible concern. Less than 15% normally indicates this category of question is satisfying the customers. Percentages higher than 15% but below 30% are areas that should be examined for possible customer service concerns. Negative percentages of 30% or higher indicate areas needing early attention since roughly one third or more of the customers have concerns about service. Some believe that only customers who have complaints will return a survey of this type. While it is likely that customers with problems may be more likely to return the surveys, our experience with this and dozens of similar surveys indicate that they still produce valid information. For example, we've worked in other communities where the negative responses seldom exceeded 15%. It should also be noted that a survey of this type is not a scientific, statistically controlled sample. Nevertheless, when high numbers of respondents express concerns, they are indications of problems that need to be addressed. Huntington Beach, California 119 Zucker Systems The questionnaires also asked applicants to indicate suggestions and areas for improvement. Twenty-seven of the 36 respondents provided suggestions which we used as part of our analysis. 107.Recommendation: City staff should review the customer questionnaire and determine areas where they can be responsive to customer concerns. Huntington Beach, California 120 Zucker Systems Figure 10 Customer Survey Responses 1.Please check affft types of deve]opmeea actions you love applied fitr thron&the city dnninng the past 13 n meths. ® +in�.Pkmang Permit ®nae perm t ®Bwmft Permit ® Leading Pew =Coastal Developmuttr Peon$ ® Initial Plan,Zmft Review ®c diti.n Use Pa ® Lot Lim Adjws ®Design Review Boad 8w&g Cw9ha nce Letts ®nv nachmft Penn$ ®ad-(list) 2.Please indicate what the pew or gVmw l was fmr. ®Na v single f mihP ®New cmnmacial or indasuial TM"ild ®Rmw&l o dddidan to single ® Remodel or tenze impnmana .to ®Duple dial m inrhrstrial building ®New rmrIIifamwy,dwenmr/cmtdalpLm ® Sign ®Remodel or addition to etnrhz ne7y ® Nbemitrattorwaik(pkimbi ng,f me, dmnJng+m doIPUD laadscipi ng,electiical,snedwtical) ®Offiff(list) 3.Please indicate how affmyvuwasis with the city's deakTmalreview mndp1m duchi ngpancess. ® ©ne time use aftbe developme a review and plan clucking promess ® Fh%iaz user cffthedevalepmerttnviewaedphn ducking pavicess S Y k -f �, 3 4.Iuindastandthe City's Develops.Review and Plan Check processes.They in strdetbmud and not un necessarily cambasmne or camplex in the fixations of. Banding 4 15 1 6 2 3 29� Fire 6 12 4 k 2 4 21% Planning 6 13 3 a 9 1 a% Pubiic'3PMk5filtgineerang 4 a 5 a 5 5 43% 5.l4` m making an applicaiian,I have gaw&Uy ftmd the City aff to be responsive and helpful in the Amcdaw of: B1efing a 1 14 4 a 1 3 1 110A Fire 6 r13 0 1 4 day Planning g 3 5 a 0 n% P�nlic Woks 5 6 2 5 3 24% 6. Staff provides prmmptfeedbaek on incmnplate submin3s in the fm d1cm af- Building 8 1 9 a j 4 2 Foe 6 a 11 1 1 4 $% Pl w&c 12 6 6 5 6 0 13101 Pabiu WaaksAft%gineering 5 L a @ 1 4 1 5 1 5 3194+ Huntington Beach, California 121 Zucker Systems Figure 10 Continued h y r a y } e s I 13.11mikom Beach is just as fir aidpractical in its applicatian afrepilatians as ad=wighbming cities in the Amcd +s of 3 13 4 6 1 4 26% F% 21% PkMft 5 10 3 7 B 1 45% Public WmUsAFiM*erJng 3 9 6 4 4 5 31% 14.SUEwas cmatevus Am the tnctims c Buildft 6 15 4 0 1 2 4% F d% Plmning 14 1 1 4 0 160A Public WeaksAF]iginening 9 9 3 2 2 4 16% 15.The cm dhians of apptvti+al or plsr►cbeck crereecticm 9plied to my project were reasonable and justified 8ffir the functian of. Bt ildtng 8 1 11 3 3 3 3 190A pin B I 2 2 2 4 16% PlMft 10. 9 3 4 6 1 UVA Public WdUs/Eh&we ing 6 9 4 3 4 4 27% 16.The naff ufthe city were easily accesshle vdun Ineeded assistance inresoluft prablaw in the ftutians cf- BmIding 6 15 2 3 1 3 15% PIM 5 10 7 2 1 4 12% PlMft 10 14 1 2 5 0 22% Public WaktARMXwermWTraMr 4 12 4 2 5 5 24% 17.I>ounrlIke handouts supplied by the city to be usdd and itmnstiva in explafrdngtheregate aft Imustmeafortbe depabnots af: Building 6 1 4 1 8 2 1 1 1 7 1d45 nha 4 3 11 2 1 7 1d45 Plarming B 7 B 3 2 3 1B4b Public Wa s 5 4 9 2 2 7 1®46 18.Inspectm rrely fx3nd rams u►the field during Earatniction that shmrld hwa been cmi&dm*gthe plan chcckingpmcess firm On daport nuft of- BwAirw 6 B 3 2 4 6 Fire 3 11 4 1 2 7 14% Plaraft 6 8 3 2 4 6 2VA Public W wUsAFii&ea W/7W& 3 11 4 1 2 7 14% 19.The city's webske prawides ccmpreh<nsM and useful it ion in the fimctians of. Baild r g 4 9 10 1 1 5 80% Ph Plarmag 4 9 10 2 1 2 3 15% Public W caksAiIWnanarg/Tret6c 3 5 12 2 1 2 5 17% Huntington Beach, California 123 Zucker Systems Figure 10 Continued 20.The Plamatg C—issuer traded me tiiiriyr. 5 11 a 2 2 a 15% 21.The Plamittg Cturanissiun m ers wares eotntamis&ring the bearing. 5 11 a 2 a D 6% 22.The City Cmwil trued me fkirly. 2 a a a 1 14 GOrb 23.The City Camrrl mambas were tmatemrs dram the heair g. 2 a a 1 D 14 646 24.ILnmdthe itTafretmthe Plamft Ctamnissirn and City CmmrilnsEW in the heai ymcess. ®Yes ® No 25.Was yma applirtiirm»hitttatrzly ap;nmd4 2® Yes Q No 26.Fina depaimatts or dhdsitms at mast itiwDk%d at developmetn review end plan thecli ttg in The City of Hrmtingtmt Beach.They are Buildietg,Fee,Plaatiog,and Public Wb&sJFYtgin ukC. rymr experienced camdausimpavble w between any two depubnEws or divisimts,please list thembeluw. Cou dnftimt problems between end Courdtiati pmblEms benwan uLd CQmrdiruaimt ymblerns between and 27.Please addanyceauruzu to suggastims you rW have that will itnpaave ma process as rmnem_er service.PIwe givens ad 1Mst cmidem. Huntington Beach, California 124 Zucker Systems Appendi* x Persons Interviewed Huntington Beach, California 125 Zucker Systems Building Department Ross Crammer, Director Beverly Braden,Principal Administrative Analyst Gerald Caraig, Permit & Plan Check Manager Phillip Chuor, Sr. Permit Tech Michele Diaz, Permit Supervisor Eric Haghani, Plan Check Engineer Jason Kwak,Plan Check Engineer Daniel Lee, Plan Check Engineer Edward Lee, Plan Check Engineer Jean MacLyman,Permit Tech Jasmine Tavakoli, Permit Tech City Administration Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Paul Emery, Deputy City Administrator City Attorney Jennifer Mc Grath, City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill, Deputy City Attorney Design Review Board Ed Kerins Tom Livengood, also Planning Commission Kristin Stilton Fire Department Lee Caldwell Planning Commission Bob Dingwall, Chair Planning Department Scott Hess, Acting Director Mary Beth Boeren, Principal Planner Chris Davis, Senior Analyst Herb Fauland,Principal Planner Jane James, Senior Planner Jason Kelley, Associate Planner Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Rick Ramos,Associate Planner Huntington Beach, California 126 Zucker Systems Cathy Salcedo, Adm. Assistant Ron Santos, Associate Planner Rami Talleh, Associate Planner Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Public Works Department Robert F. Beardsely, Director Eric Charlonne, Construction Manager Linda Daily,Principal Analyst Travis Hopkins, City Engineer Dave Webb, Deputy Director Public Works Department—Engineering Services Terri Elliott, Principal Civil Engineer Steve Bogart, Associate Civil Engineer Chuck Davis, Landscape Architect Lilli Hernandez, Civil Engineer Associate Eric Powell, Engineering Technician John Von Holle, Engineering Technician James Wagner, Associate Civil Engineer Kris Winchack, Plan Check Consultant Public Works Department—Transportation Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager Bill Janusz, Traffic Engineer Huntington Beach, California 127 Zucker Systems Huntington Beach, California 128 Zucker Systems Appendl*x Employee ort Questionnaire Huntington Beach, California 129 Zucker Systems City of Huntington Beach Review & Assessment of Entitlement/Development Processing Activities EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE Department Name o Note the word 'organization" in the questionnaire will be described before you fill out the questionnaire. In the boxes below, enter the appropriate number for each statement according to this guide. 1 — Strongly Disagree 4 — Somewhat Agree 2 — Somewhat Disagree 5 — Strongly Agree 3 — Neutral 6 — Not Applicable 1. This organization seeks to identify problems quickly. [ ] 2. When problems are identified, this organization moves quickly to solve them. [ ] 3. This organization has an effective process for listening to citizen or client concerns. j ] 4. The concern for employees in this organization is more than lip [ ] service. 5. Good service is the rule rather than the exception in this organization. [ ] 6. Managers in this organization encourage and advance new ideas from employees. [ ] 7. We have a strong emphasis on training in this organization. [ ] 8. Management in this organization discusses objectives,programs and results with employees regularly. [ ] 9. There is free and open communication in this organization between all levels of employees about the work they are performing. [ ] Huntington Beach, California 130 Zucker Systems 10. Employees in this organization treat citizens with respect. [ ] 11. This organization encourages practical risk-taking and supports positive effort. [ ] 12. This organization has a clear sense of what its programs are trying to accomplish. [ ] 13. We do our jobs very well in this organization. [ ] 14. We have an efficient records management and documentation system in our organization. [ ] 15. I am satisfied with the type of leadership I have been receiving from my supervisor in this organization. [ ] 16. I have enough time to do my work as it needs to be done. [ ] 17. I am kept abreast of changes that affect me. [ ] There is good teamwork and communication between the different 18. divisions or departments conducting entitlement/development [ ] processing activities in the City. 19. I understand the entitlement/development processing activities as [ ] related to our organization. 20. I am aware of standard turnaround times in our organization for entitlement/development processing activities as communicated by my [ ] supervisor. 21. I am able to meet standard turnaround times for entitlement /development processing activities as communicated by my supervisor. [ ] The City has a coordinated entitlement/development process. [ ] 22. 23. Entitlement/development processing activities in the City are not unnecessarily complex nor burdensome on the applicant. [ ] 24. Entitlement/development processing activities in the City is [ ] undertaken in a consistent manner. Huntington Beach, California 131 Zucker Systems 25. Entitlement/development processing activities are reviewed in the City [ ] in a timely manner. 26. It should be the policy of the City and its employees to assist any applicant in completing his/her application, see that it is complete as soon as possible, and process it without undue delay. [ ] 27. It should be the policy of the City to make the entitlement /development processing activities as pleasant and expeditious as [ ] possible. Please briefly answer the following: 28. Please list any "pet peeves" or concerns about your job, division, department or the City. 29. Please provide at least one suggestion or recommendation for improvement related to your job, division, department or the City. Huntington Beach, California 132 Zucker Systems Appendi* x Employee on • • Questionnaire Huntington Beach, California 133 Zucker Systems City of Huntington Beach Review & Assessment of Entitlement/Development Processing Activities Employee Name Job Title Department Division The following questionnaire is an important and essential part of the study being conducted by Zucker Systems. The study is aimed at improving effectiveness and efficiency for the City's entitlement/development processing activities Your ideas and thoughts are essential to the process. This questionnaire will supplement other work being undertaken by the consultants. Please complete this questionnaire and return it in a sealed envelope to Zucker Systems, 1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92108-3415 no later than a week from today. Take your time in answering the questions and be as complete as possible. You are encouraged to include attachments or examples. If you wish, you may email your response to paul&,,zuckersystems.com. You may obtain an email version from Your comments may be merged with others and included in our report; however, the consultants will not identify individuals in relation to specific comments. Your responses and comments will be held in confidence. Thank you for your help. Paul C. Zucker,President,Zucker Systems What do you see as the major strengths of the City's entitlement/development processing activities, the things you do well? What do you see as the major weaknesses of the City's entitlement/development processing activities what can be done to eliminate these weaknesses? What important policies, services or programs are no longer pursued or have never been pursued that you feel should be added? Do you feel any of the City's ordinances, policies, plans, or procedures should be changed as related to your work? If so, list them and explain why. Huntington Beach, California 134 Zucker Systems Are there any programs, activities or jobs you would eliminate or reduce and why? How would you describe the goals or mission of your Department/Division? What would help you perform your specific duties more effectively and efficiently? What problems, if any, do you experience with Division or Department records or files and what should be done to eliminate these problems? (Please be specific) Are there any problems in providing good service to your customers? If so,please list them and give us recommendations to solve these problems. Do you feel that the processing of plans and plan checking should be shortened, sped up or simplified? If so,what do you suggest? What suggestions do you have for improving internal communication in your Department or Division? Do you have any difficulty in carrying out your functions due to problems between other departments or divisions? If so, please explain and provide suggestions on how to correct these problems. Have you received sufficient training for your responsibilities? If not, please comment and indicate areas you would like more training. What functions are you currently handling manually that you believe could or should be automated? (Please be specific.) What functions that are currently computer-automated need improvement? List your suggested improvements. What problems, if any, do you have with the telephone system and what would you suggest to correct the problems? Huntington Beach, California 135 Zucker Systems What problems, if any, do you have with the email system and what do you suggest to correct these problems? Do you have all the equipment you need to properly do your job? If not, please list what you need. Please provide comments concerning good or bad aspects of the City's organizational structure for entitlement/development processing activities. Provide any suggestions for improvement or changes. Do you use consultants or should consultants be used for any of the entitlement/development processing activities or any of the related functions in your Department or Division? If you use consultants for any of the entitlement/development processing activities, what problems, if any, do you experience with these consultants and what would you recommend to correct this problem? Please list the major tasks or work activity you undertake and provide a rough estimated percentage of your time for each task. The percentages should total 100%. If appropriate, relate your time to specific types of entitlement/development processing activities. Task Percent If you are short of time to do your work, what changes would you recommend to correct this problem? Are the relations between office staff and field staff working well? If not, what would you recommend to improve them? What additional handouts to the public or changes to existing handouts to the public would be helpful? Huntington Beach, California 136 Zucker Systems What changes if any would you recommend for the City's website or e-government applications? What changes, if any, would you recommend in relation to the City's GIS program? List any other topics you would like the consultants to consider, or other suggestions you have for your Division, Department or City. Take your time and be as expansive as possible. Note: We will interview most, but possibly not all, staff. If you would like a confidential interview we will try to do so. Let us know by phone, email or in person. Also, feel free to call us at 1.800.870.6306 or email to paul@zuckersystems.com to discuss any concerns or provide recommendations. When calling, ask for Paul. Huntington Beach, California 137 Zucker Systems 0 A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, DPA, City Administrator FROM: Paul Emery, Deputy City Administrator DATE: February 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Entitlement/Development Processing Report Attached please find a copy of the Review Assessment of Entitlement/Development Processing Activities report completed by Paul Zucker of Zucker Systems. This report is the culmination of many months of work by staff and the consultant reviewing existing procedures and processes as well as interviews with relevant stakeholders. A City Council study session is scheduled for March 5, 2007, at 4:00 pm in Room B-8 in City Hall. Paul Zucker of Zucker Systems will be presenting his findings and be available to answer any questions. Should you have any questions prior to the City Council study session, please contact me directly at (714) 536-5482. c: Planning Commission Design Review Board Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Ross Cranmer, Director of Building and Safety Scott Hess, Acting Director of Planning Duane Olson,Fire Chief Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development �J Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems 2007 LIAR -2 PM 11: 03 y� es NU a , r a 77 116 f yrtems ,3 3� Objectives of the Evaluation ' Assessment and recommendations for improvement of the entitlement/development processing activities from project submittal to building permit issuance ' Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems Methodology Consulting City Staff Experience OperationaljRecommendation '4 Analysis _ &Action Plan f .. Customers Policy Makers [f ti Mg ca rf Specific Activities Three customers focus groups A mail survey to 285 ' Meetings with City Administrator Interview with the Mayor and five City Council Members 27 staff meetings and questionnaires E Al Observations, reports, interviews 2 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems Areas of Strength ; ^ Staff dedicated to quality service City making gains in technology Staff in Building and Planning cross-trained A Building issues a high percent of permits over the counter Budget includes performance standards Quality of Engineering reviews Mkk I i Improvements During Study s. Planning Department check-in log Allowing planners more time to serve customers No longer requiring administrative planning permits to be forwarded to administration [ Design Review Board packets a week in advance 3 of meeting, F . Adding direct phone number and email address to the Notice of Filing letters f 75 \ uMerSyMerns 3 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems I 107 Recommendations # Recommendation Responsibility City Administrator and 1. gree on an implementation plan Directors of Building,Fire, 14 1 X Planning and Public Works i•.': De artments I ISSUES IMPACTING ALL FUNCTIONS 2. Establish City approach to fees City Council 17 2 X 3. Consider changing approach to Building Permit fees Building and Safety Director 17 2 X4. y Adjust Engineering fees for projects that don't proceed City Engineer 17 3 X �- 5. Examine fees for working without a permit Deputy City Administrator 18 3 X 6. Prepare a simplified flow chart and description of Development Services seam 18 1 X process 7. Address inter-departmental coordination issues Development Services Team 20 1 X ` Development Services Team to meet weekly or bi- 8' weekly Development Services Team 21 g2x 9. Formalize the Development Action Team Development Services Tea City m Manager and Development 21 s 10. Examine merger of Building and Planning Departments Services Team 21 !I! er Systems l r W, E Four Key Opportunities for Improvement j 3.... 1. Inter-Departmental Coordination 2. Application and Permit Timelines y:. 3. One-Stop Permitting 4. Technology J 4;_ mFT ZUa kerSySt 4 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems IF 1. Inter-Departmental Coordination E ; i Findings — Lack of coordination between departments — Focuses on its own functions, often at the E; expense of the others — Suggest that the problem is being caused " by another department s, E j.. 1. Inter-Departmental Coordination a Recommendations E " " — Development Services Team should 9E meet weekly or bi-weekly — Development Action Team of operational managers should be formalized E ; — Explore merging the Building and Planning Departments s { zucker Systems 5 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems 2. Application and Permit Timelines Findings j — Length of time to process various applications and permits E ; — Examples: • Building meets their 15-day target roughly 50% of the time • Planning's time roughly twice what we recommend • Engineering meets the 21 days for Planning roughly 50% of the time • Engineering meets the 15-day review times for Engineering plans roughly 25% of the time 77' duckerysemsy r 2. Application and Permit Timelines e Recommendations — All functions to have standby consultantsk available to handle extra work when timelines cannot be met y I\ 1V "N' �....................f , / Zucker Systems 6 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems 2. Application and Permit Timelines Specific suggestions — Common turnaround processing times for all functions — Targets based on project complexity — Add or re-assign an inspection position to the Building Department office staff — Shorten building plan check targets — Planning Department processing of 95% within established benchmarks — Engineering Division completion of 90% of planning reviews within 14 days Ucic�r Ss�ems ' �e 3. One-Stop Permitting .:y Findings — National trend is one-stop-permitting l E — Building and Planning is on the third floor — Fire is on the fifth floor — Business Licenses and Public Works are on the s first floor 7 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems «; q • s, 3. One-Stop Permitting Recommendations E €3 — Creation of a One-Stop Permit Center y f E 4. Technology Findings — City has made good progress including • Permitting system(City view) • Evolvement of the GIS system • Web page • Beginning document imaging 777 ,,., 8 Huntington Beach Presentation by Zucker Systems a ' 4. Technology Recommendations — Improve City View 4 I y — Install City View in Public Works I — Web enable the permit system — Some internet permitting — Document imaging for all development departments N f y; 9