Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARROYO SECO ASSOCIATES - Community Development and Developme APp vVED BY CITY COUNCIL .� Q�CD� T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION C CLtR Kv Date y1_y 19 , 1 9 9� Submitted to: Honorable Mayor & City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato�-'`� Prepared by: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator&W Subject: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OPERATIONAL EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the May 3, 1993 regular meeting, the Council received the Community Development and Development Process Operational Evaluation Study from the consultant who developed the report. Council accepted the report and directed staff to return in July, 1993 with the implementation plan and schedule. Staff was also directed to present the same report to the Planning Commission. The Commission has requested the City Council to have a joint study session with them to have the implementation plan presented by staff. This is scheduled for the study session on July 19, 1993. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council receive and accept the Community Development and Development Process Operational Evaluation Implementation Plan. ANALYSIS: A year ago the City began implementing the MSI fee study. This study analyzed the full cost for the City to provide a service. In the area of development services, the City was continuing to evaluate how the costs and time to provide these services could be reduced and thereby decrease the charges to the customer. The rewriting of Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, along with conducting the Operational Evaluation of the Community Development Department and Development Process, are being done to work towards accomplishing this objective. Staff will continue to explore the permit application processes to further streamline and eliminate unnecessary processing steps and procedures. The City is also continuing to conduct training workshops for City employees on Quality Customer Service to further assure the best possible service to the customer. Because of the importance of business retention and development today, Community Development was the first department selected for the operational evaluation. Future operational evaluations will be done on other City functions and processes. rr __ l� tl Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 49. The chief inspector should restructure the current 76 Agree, based on new computer system. January, 1995 districting of inspection areas to balance workload assignments and to reflect the new organization and continue to refine those zones based on workload distribution. 50. Implement schedule for periodic ride-along of 76 Agree Already implemented supervising inspectors with inspectors to provide for enhanced training and quality assurance. 51. Develop and implement a training program for 77 Agree January, 1995 combination inspection training for all combination inspectors coordinated by the chief and supervising inspectors. 52. Establish a uniform inspection policy for individual 78 Agree September, 1994 inspectors reporting the number of inspections and stops and how to record them on daily inspector worksheets. 53. Establish uniform inspection policy regarding 78 Agree October, 1993 inspectors' morning and late afternoon procedures to return to the office for other assignments and/or to set up the following day's schedule. 54. Require each active permit to be inspected once 79 Agree to modified recommendation. 180 days January, 1995 every 90 days whether or not an inspection is would be the appropriate reinspection schedule. called for. Automation upgrades must be implemented. 55. The Department of Community Development 82 Agree Ongoing should adopt a housing policy which clearly establishes and articulates a vision and focus for all of the city's housing efforts so that housing activities are well organized and orchestrated with measurable results, e.g., number of units built, percent increase in property tax, number of submitted units eliminated, etc. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 56. The organizational framework within which 82 Agree January, 1994 housing activities and program are conducted should be evaluated within 30 days after a Housing Policy is adopted by the city. A realignment of the current organization, the reassignment of some existing activities, and the assignment of new responsibilities should be anticipated. 5 .. The current Planning Division should implement, 88 Agree to modified recommendation. January, 1994 as part of department—wide project, a time Staff will monitor time spent on each entitlement. reporting system. See attached work programs. 58. DCD management should realign the staffing 88 Disagree. To maintain processing times, staff Not Applicable resources currently assigned to current planning. resources should be maintained. This provides the greatest amount of cross training and insures adequate turn around for projects. Three Current Planning positions have been eliminated in the present and past three fiscal.years. 59. Each of the professional staff members assigned 88 Agree July, 1994 to current planning should be provided a personal computer. 60. Planing Division staff evaluate on an annual basis 89 Agree Implemented & ongoing need to modify the current code permit policies. 61. Reorganize the Planning Division counter operation. 90 Disagree. Planners should handle function since Not applicable r they also process application. 62. The Planning position at the counter should be a 91 Agree to modified recommendation. Senior planner June, 1993 full time senior level position. will oversee & coordinate. 63. The DCD should develop a database plan to record 91 Agree. Need new software that is presently not July, 1994 the permit activity for city parcels. budgeted. The Geobase Information System will help with developing a database. 64. The Planning Division, in conjunction with DCD, 92 Agree. Need computer software which is unbudgeted July, 1994 should revise the current filing policy and procedures. r Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule , 65. The Community Development Department should 94 Agree. See attached Mission Statement. Already implemented prepare, with the participation of all staff, a departmental mission statement. Each identifiable organizational unit of the department should utilize the mission statement in the annual budget preparation and annual objectives. 66. The advanced planning section should annually 94 Agree. Staff has already implemented this. Already implemented prepare a list of all special studies and other (see attached entitled, Status Report -Advance in May, 1992 work efforts that it proposes to address in the Planning Goals & Programs 92/93) upcoming year. This work program should then be presented to the Planning Commission for review and to the City Council for adoption into the budget. 67. The Planning Division should establish a policy that 94 Disagree. Use of planners for advanced, current, and Not applicable advanced planning staff will be committed only counter functions provide more effective planning to advanced planning projects except during periods decisions for the community and customers. See #58. of unusually high development activity and then only for limited time frames. 68. All assignments made in the advanced planning 94 Agree. See attached memo on Status Report - Already implemented in section should have completion deadlines. Periodic Advance Planning Goals & Programs. May, 1992 review, by the senior planner at appropriate checkpoints, of progress toward completion of projects is essential to assure timely completion and anticipated work product. 69. The code enforcement section should evaluate 96 Agree. ,One code enforcement position has been July, 1993-Ongoing current staff resources. eliminated in the 1993/94 proposed budget. The city, on its own, is developing the database system which is recommended by the consultant. 70. Revise the current grading plan check process. 101 Agree 71. Revise the current landscape plan check and 102 Agree to modified recommendation. Staff will continue September, 1993 inspection process. to explore modifications to the existing process, but they may not be the same as recommended by the consultant. This will assure more effective coordination on landscape plans. r Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 72. The city projects should be required to meet the 103 Agree. Adoption of Council policy required. January, 1994 same development standard and undergo the review and approval process required of the general public. 73. DCD should modify the current legal services log 105 Agree January, 1994 to incorporate all matters referred to City Attorney's office. 74. DCD should automate and review on a monthly basis 105 Agree. Needs automation. January, 1994 the legal services log. 75. City Attorney, in conjunction with DCD, should 105 Agree July, 1994 examine the feasibility for various code enforcement prosecutorial services. 76. The Finance Department should equip the DCD 106 Disagree. City Treasurer effectively receives Not Applicable with electronic automatic cash registers. payments through pneumatic tubes to provide check & balance on receipt of funds. 77. DCD, in conjunction with the Finance 107 Agree September, 1993 Department, should modify the current Parks and Recreation Fee collection system. 78. The Fire Bureau should monitor plan check 109 Agree July, 1993 turnaround time. r 79. City Clerk and DCD should designate and 109 Agree July, 1993 pre-qualify vendors who provide title research and notification services. 80. Reorganize the department's clerical support 113 Agree to modified recommendation. Staff will January, 1994 function and staffing levels. need to review the clerical support function. to better define proposed changes. There are two less clerical positions in the department thanshown in the operational evaluation report on page #111. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 81. The department should implement a records 114 Agree July, 1994 management program. 82. The department should conduct an adjacency 115 Agree January, 1994 study and allocate space accordingly. 83. The department should implement a controlled 116 Agree July, 1994 access system. 84. DCD request the Personnel Division to undertake 116 Agree. This should be done for both the July, 1994 a reclassification study of the Planning positions. Building & Planning Divisions 85. The Planning Division should establish annual 117 Agree Already implemented training program requirements for each assigned in 1989. staff. 86. The Director, in conjunction with each supervisor, 118 Agree. Requires more coordination with January, 1994 should update employee evaluations and maintain Administrative Services. the city's specified standard for annual evaluation. 87. The department should conduct a skills assessment 119 Agree January, 1994 and develop a training program of staff to more fully utilize the graphics software. 88. The department, as a standard policy, should 119 Agree July, 1993 Planning provide personal computers to each work- July, 1994 Building station in the Planning Division and others where appropriate in Building & Housing. 89. The department should evaluate the cost 119 Agree. Requires additional software. January, 1994 effectiveness regarding the contracting graphics and related services. r Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 90. The City Administrator, in conjunction with the 120 Agree January, 1994 department management, should develop a program to address the issue of communication. 91. The department's management team should 121 Agree Ongoing re-evaluate the number and amount of time spent in meetings. #0519q-59 ' EXHIBIT III-1 Page 6 of 14 25. Identify two to four things your supervisor does that hinder you from doing your job. Housing Building and Safety Planning I Nothing Nothing Nothing Unavailable Delays assigning projects Does not have comprehensive Changes writing style in reports code background Lacks decisiveness 26. What changes would you recommend to correct this? ' Nothing Increase availability Change staff reports to outline Staff meetings style Split Building from planning Daily direction on regular basis Time management 27. What additional things could your supervisor do to help you do your job? Be more accessible Hold regular staff meetings Provide feedback earlier and Add staff more often Delegate responsibilities Discuss goals with ind. employees Place more trust in staff 28. Is there enough communication and feedback between you and your supervisor? Yes Yes Yes No-need more meetings Yes,at my instigation No.Performance evaluation overdue No-need weekly meeting 29. Do you have specific objectives or expectations that have been written down for your position in addition to the official job descriptions? No No No Yes,see attached job description Yes,see attached Would help to have clarification 30. Please list the three most important objectives or expectations for your job, as you understand them. ' EXHIBIT III-1 Page 7 of 14 Enhance neighborhoods in need Enforce codes and ordinances Assist public with information of rehabilitation_ Advise and assist public on planning and codes maint Create and ain decent, Provide leadership Learn as much as possible affordable housing Be of service to the community Provide efficient service Administer housing programs Represent City in fair manner Carry out assigned tasks Schedule,plan,and evaluate Create vision for City work Generate revenues Carry out assigned tasks Process applications quickly and efficiently 31. Are there any problems in providing services to the public? Understaffing Understaffing Lack of public information and Lack of public information and understanding understanding Lack of written policies Lack of support from upper Unclear code management Varied schedules throughout Public does not like service building No Difficult to retrieve information and files No 32. What would you recommend to solve the problem identified in Question 31? More help and support from Weekly meetings managers More staff Stricter enforcement of licensing Increase public information laws effort Simplify code Automation Centralized file with person to maintain r33. What would help to shorten or speed up the processing of development applications Improved public information Automation Automation prior to submission Improved public information More staff prior to submission One-stop shop including all key depts. Centralized information system Improved public information system 34. What would help shorten or speed up the development of general plan elements, ' community plans, or specific plans Preview meeting More staff Consolidated submittal Automation Improved staff training Plan submittal guide 1 ' EXHIBIT III-1 Page 8of14 35. Do you have any suggestions for improving internal communications in the Department? Housing Building and Safety Planning Monthly meeting of all staff Meetings Works fine as is Weekly status report Set procedures More meetings Education about other divs. Upper managers attend staff meetings Education on roles of other staff Common counter Involve building and code enforcement in project reviews 36. What kind of problems occur between sections or divisions in relation to carrying 1 out your functions? Sense of inequality between Lack of cooperation and None planning and building divisions coordination between divisions Unclear duties and areas of and sections responsibility Lack of understanding of roles, Lack of understanding of roles, duties,responsibilities by other duties,responsibilities by other sections,divisions sections,divisions Resentment of building reps. increase for code enforcement Lack of cooperation and coordination between divisions and sections 37. For clerical staff only. Does the non-clerical staff provide you with all you need to complete a job? What can they do to make your job easier? Adhere to clerical deadlines. Provide more complete documents to avoid multiple rounds of revision 38. For non-clerical staff only. Are you satisfied with your clerical support? If not, how do you suggest it be improved? All of housing clerical went to Yes Yes Econ.Dev.Div.in split Understaffed Understaffed Understaffed Filing and copying should be Would like own equipment to tasks for clerical staff relieve workload Own terminal for input ' Work load not spread equitably or efficiently i EXHIBIT III-1 Page 9 of 14 Housing Building and Safety Planning 39. Graphics staff only. Does the non-graphic staff provide you with all you need to complete a job? What can they do to make your job easier? Need better tools Planners should have equipment to do some of own graphics 40. Non-graphics staff only. Are you satisfied with your graphics support? If not, 1 how do you suggest it be improved? Yes Yes Yes Need own terminals and color Understaffed and ill-equipped printers to do own graphics Need terminals to do own graphics Maps are pathetic. Need one full-time person to maintain Inadequate,lack creativity. 41. Administrative staff only. Does the non-administrative staff provide you with all you need to complete a job? What can they do to make your job easier? Need better overview of entire Comm Dev.Dept. 42. Non-administrative staff only. Are you satisfied with the administrative staff support? If not, how do you suggest it be improved? More communication Yes Yes Understaffed and overworked More communication Understaffed and overworked 43. Have you received sufficient training for your responsibilities? If not, please comment. ' Yes Yes Yes Yes,but on my own Yes,but not by City No.When hired,given a truck No in-house training and set loose Would have liked more written guidelines Seminars not reliably available EXHIBIT III-1 Page 10 of 14 I . . Housing — Building and Safety Planning 44. Have you been cross-trained in other areas? Yes,widely Yes,one other section Yes,several other divisions or Yes,all other divisions section Not by this City Yes,program of cross training No between advance and current planning Discouraged from contact,let alone cross-training 45. In what other areas would you like to be cross-trained? Current/advance planning,as Codes and other areas of Computers schedule permits inspection Building division functions Anything relevant to my job Other planning functions Management Management Housing None Have more than I can handle staying current and doing my job 1 46. Would you like more training? If so, in what areas or topics? Use of set-aside funding New codes and technology Computers Real estate development and All fields and areas Specific software finance ADA UBC 1 New Chapter 54 UBC Design issues and alternatives Legal citation New concepts and planning tools Plan Check General Plan Computers. Management Management Nothing 47. What functions are you currently handling manually that you believe could or should be automated? Loan documents services. Daily logs Correspondence and staff reports Budgeted but not spent due to Permit tracking and processing Data analysis split Correspondence and reports Graphics for reports Structural calculations logs Research and information retrieval Zoning code rewrite Codes EXHIBIT III-1 Page 11 of 14 Housing Building and Safety Planning 48. What functions that are currently automated need improvement? List your suggested improvement. Upgrade building div.MIS Upgrade current system Input to UDI Counter system Zoning counter system upgrade GEO BASE WP system obsolete. New photocopier City-wide program for information exchange 49. What problems do you have with telecommunications systems? None None None Connect to terminals for Fax should use plain paper mailboxing 50. What do you suggest to correct these problems? Own transmitter system Plain paper fax 51. What additional equipment, furniture, or space do you need, or feel would be desirable, in order to improve your efficiency and effectiveness? Housing staff all in one location Computer hardware Computer Improved floor plan Modem or networked computer File cabinets 1 PC and access to letter quality system Improved floor plan printer Writing surface in truck. More counter space Better technical reference library 52. Do you feel any of the Department's functions could be effectively contracted out? If yes, list and explain why. If no, explain why not. Only if provably results in No-Contract services out of Yes-EIRs,plan check,clerical, significant cost savings work flow,lack accountability building inspection or major and accessibility projects,Microfilming,Printing. 1 As overload only Yes,General plan rewrite,Vacant None-good work prohibitively Land Use Survey,mandated expensive materials,so planners can focus Maybe on processing requests. Not for code enforcement No. Planning too political EXHIBIT III-1 Page 12 of 14 53. What problems are there in the Department's contracting function? Lack of control Training confidence,background Lack of continuity and My experience limited but very Loss of consistency in plan consistency positive review Response time Liability for City too great. Contracts under bid because of None that I'm aware of lack of timely review by Dept. Lack of standard contract acceptable to consulting firms 54. What should be done to correct these problems? Don't contract inspectors Don't hire contractors Probation Use only one contracting firm Don't accept stamp until plans Bill customers for contracted reviewed time Specify turn around for work and review 55. Do you favor the Department's use of the 9/80 and 4/10 work schedule? 1 Yes 9/80 for entire City only No Either,yes Yes No 9/80 yes 9/80 yes 4/10 definitely for utility savings 56. What problems do these schedules present? Need to educate public Confusion Daycare pickups Currently difficult to schedule Inconvenience to public Inconvenient for public meetings,because of variety of Increases difficulty of scheduling Loss of productivity flex schedules inspections Vacation/sick time None Still hits prime traffic flow ( 57. What do you suggest be done to solve the problems? Have all City Hall employees on Give schedule time and re- On-site day care same schedule evaluate Go with 4/10 for consistency Public information Keep current schedule Public information effort Stay on current schedule 58. Do you believe the Department should be decentralized? No No-need interaction with other No-need close proximity divisions Yes,code enforcement in field Yes.Split off Building function most of time anyway Yes-move housing and code enforcement to free up floor space ' EXHIBIT III-1 Page 13 of 14 ' 59. Do you recommend any change in the way the Department is organized? If so, what changes do you recommend? Code Enforcement more closely Split Building from Housing in Unify Housing function linked with Housing own division Change floor plan-central files, ' One supervising inspector over sequential counter all inspection More hierarchy to allow staff to Eliminate contract planners advance Planning titles made Correct dangerous signage equivalent to those in other Goal setting day once a year cities. Eliminate combo inspectors Increase communication between divisions. Maintain correct ratio of supervisor to subordinates EXHIBIT III-1 Page 14 of 14 1 60. List any other topics you would like the consultants to consider or other ' suggestions you have for the Department or City in relation to community development ' Housing Building and Safety Planning Lack of customer service Need investigation of employee Job titles for planning staff not ' orientation,results in negative rules and unresolved grievances commensurate with duties or public relations,manifests itself other,similar cities. in the political process. Believe Lack of status for Building Compensation is fine,but titles that'Top Management Should function makes inspectors feel add to credibility with public, Drive the transformation. unimportant in eyes of planners from other jurisdictions, management. Little effort to developers,etc. include building staff in policy discussions. Requests for Development of formal intern coordinated Dept.meetings program is big improvement,. ignored. but staff should not ignore the opportunity to have someone eager to learn there to help. Do not appreciate uneven personnel policies or intercession by Department Head at last minute in staff report to ' Commission. Management-all management needs to get on same train. Incremental changes will not work after comprehensive budget reform. Please talk with employees about planning and development issues so planning can be pro-active. Need extensive education for employees and strong public information effort. Planning Division needs Principal Planner. Employee evaluation and supervision in code enforcement seriously off track until just before audit. Expect it to go off track again as soon as audit completed. Inappropriate ' supervision ruining morale of code enforcement staff. 1 1 W. HOUSING AND BUILDING DIVISION This section of our report discusses our review analysis and recommendations ' pertaining to the organization and operation of the Department of Community Development's Housing and Building Division Mission The Housing and Building Division, part of the Department of Community ' Development, is functionally divided into two distinct sections, Housing and Building. The Housing section's responsibilities include developing the City's housing programs emphasizing both affordable housing and neighborhood preservation. The Building section is responsible for examining building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans, issuing building and other permits, and for performing follow-up inspections to ensure that buildings and structures built within the city limits of Huntington Beach are built in accordance with the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Codes, mandated state codes, and local ordinances relating to standards for construction. The Division's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following functions: • Processing and tracking all plan check and permit applications and collecting corresponding fees and charges; • Conducting thorough plan check reviews on all plans submitted to the Division and providing corrections to bring projects into compliance with all applicable code requirements; • Issuance of building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and fire sprinkler permits and scheduling of follow up inspections; • Performing inspections on all projects to ensure projects are built according to approved plans; 1 • Monitoring and reporting of construction activity within the City on a monthly and annual basis; 1 • Microfiching and storage of finaled plans and permits. Personnel from the Division also assist in the planning and review of projects in the conceptual and planning review stages prior to the submittal of plans in the Plan Check and Permitting Process. In this capacity, the Division provides input and guidance to applicants, other Department personnel, and the Planning Commission, as to the impact of projects on the City's housing stock and any ' City of Huntington Beach 30 possible problems that may arise during the planning or construction phases of the project as they relate to structural safety and the other ancillary codes cited earlier. ' Organization ' The Housing and Building Division is currently assigned 26 positions under the direction of the Director/Building Official and then functionally divided into four areas: Permits, Plan Check, Inspection and Housing (as illustrated in Figure IV-1). The Permit Technician, reporting directly to the Director/Building Official, serves as the supervisor of the Permit function over a staff of four permit aides responsible 1 for processing all permits and plans. Under the direction of the Assistant Building Official, the two Senior Building Plans Checkers are primarily responsible for performing plan check activities on building plans that are taken into the Division. The Building Plan Checker and the Plan Check Coordinator primarily staff the building counter located on the third floor in City Hall to field questions from the public, accept plans for internal plan check and to provide plan check services for ' simple projects that can be approved-over the counter without a formal plan check and review. 1 Housing and Buildin Division 2Buildding irector- ing Official AssistanOffi Permits an ec Inspection Housing ' (1)Permit Technician (2)Sr.Bldg.Plan Checkers (1)Housing Rehab.Mgr. (4)Permit Aides (1)Bldg.Plan Chekcer (2)Housing Dev.Specialist (1)Plan Check Coordinator Electrical Plumbing/Mechanical Structural Combination (1 hie nspector (1 ief nspector (1 Sr ie Inspector (1)Chief Inspector (2)Sr.Inspectors (2)Sr.Inspectors (4) .Inspectors ' Figure IVA Housing and Building Division Current Organizational Structure The Inspection function is organized into four specialized groups, each headed by a Chief Inspector who reports directly to the Director/Building Official and is responsible for supervising their respective specialty inspectors. The Chief Inspectors of the Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical groups also have plan check responsibilities for Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical plans respectively, and each Chief carries a small inspection area assignment along with his staff. The Combination Chief Inspector also has plan check responsibilities for mobile homes, pools, spas, and solar plans as well as providing for Certificate of Occupancy City of Huntington Beach 31 inspections. Under each of these specialty groups, two Senior Inspectors (four in Structural) provide their specialty inspection services within designated city zones, ' except in the case of the combination group. As specialty inspectors, the Chief Inspectors and the Senior Inspectors are responsible for providing inspection services only within their particular specialty when visiting the building site to ' inspect projects in progress and to provide for periodic sign-off (or approval) at different stages of project construction including final approval, and to provide correction notices, when necessary, to applicants when a variance exists between the approved plans and the actual construction. The Structural Senior Inspectors will not sign the final approval on a building permit until all other applicable specialty Senior Inspectors have signed their respective permits as final. As illustrated in Figure IV-1, organizationally there are 7 positions that report directly to the Director/Building Official. The role of the Assistant Building Official within the City of Huntington Beach is unique when compared with most cities. Historically, the Assistant Building Official has assumed many of the ICBO activities and city representation that in most cities are in the realm and responsibility of the ' Building Official. This policy was established due to the fact that the Building Official in Huntington Beach is also the Director of Housing and then was further formalized when the Director/Building Official position was vacant for nearly two years during the recent history of the Division. During that time, each of the managers of the various functions established independent working policies and reporting relationship. The resulting vacuum in the hierarchical chain of command and unclear reporting relationships created a lack of a coordinated Divisional mission which cited repeatedly in interviews and employee responses to the questionnaires. RECOMMENDATION 1: Re-Organize the Housing and Building Division into Three Distinct Functional Areas, Each Reporting Directly to the Director/Building Official. In order to eliminate further confusion and to streamline the functional reporting responsibilities of the Division, we recommend that the Housing and Building Division be re-organized. As illustrated in Figure IV-2 on the following page, the Division should re-organize to formally recognize three primary functions including Plan Check and Permitting, Inspection, and Housing. Each function will be supervised by one person reporting directly to the Director/Building Official which will reduce the number of supervisors reporting directly to the Director from seven to three positions and thereby establish clear hierarchical reporting relationships within the Division and between the Director/Building Official and management. The newly created position of Chief Inspector will report directly to the Director/Building Official and will be responsible for supervision and coordination of all inspection functions. Simultaneously, the re-classified positions of ' City of Huntington Beach 32 8 Supervising Inspectors (currently Chief Inspectors) will report directly to the Chief Inspector and assist in the administration of workload distribution, coordinate inspector training, and provide increased direct supervision of field inspectors (which is currently not being done) to enhance quality assurance. Under the new organization chart, the Permit staff under the direction of the Permit Technician will report directly to and take directions from the Assistant Building Official to streamline reporting relationships and to enhance the coordination of the Permit and Plan Check functions. Housing and Building Division (1)Director- Building Official (1)Assistant Offic Building Official an ec I Ins ection Housing Permitting 1)ChiefInspector I(1 ousing Rehab.Mgr. (2)Housing Dev.Specialist permits an CheckCombination 1 ermit ec mcian (2) r. g.Plan Checkers (1 upernecto Inspector MPermit Aides (1)Bldg.Plan Chekeer (2)Sr.Inspector (1)Plan Check Coordinator (4)Inspectors E(I)Supervisffig g/Mechanic Inspector ector Electrical uper_ung nspec or (1),Sr.Inspector Figure IV-2 Housing and Building Division Proposed Organizational Structure RECOMMENDATION 2: Consolidate Plan Check and Permitting Functions into One Functional Area Under the Supervision of the Assistant Building Official. During the course of our study it was revealed that the Division's Permit staff has ' functioned as an independent entity reporting directly to the Director/Building Official. Due to the prolonged vacancy in that position cited earlier, the unit set its own priorities and work methods, when, by original design, it was meant to provide processing and record keeping support for all counter operations administered by the Department including both Building and Planning. In fact, the City of Huntington Beach created distinct position classifications to recognize the unique ' nature of the work performed by the Permit Technician and the Permit Aides instead of using the standard clerical classifications. Currently, the Permit staff provides critical support in the Housing and Building Division's effort to monitor building activity within the City. With regard to current operations it is appropriate that the Permit staff is grouped hierarchically ' City of Huntington Beach 33 8 f funder the Housing and Building Division. However, as discussed in detail under Plan Check, Permit and Inspection Processes, we are recommending a consolidated f public counter and expanded responsibilities for the Permit staff which will include fee collection and processing Planning permits. While these additional duties will have Permit staff performing counter functions related to Planning, the majority of the workload will still be in the scope of the Building section and therefore we recommend that the Permit unit remain under the Housing and Building Division on the organization chart. An alternative to this is discussed later in this report f which could have the Permit unit reporting to the Department's supervisor of administrative functions. Under either scenario, it must be noted that the current direct reporting relationship between the Permit section and the Director/Building Official is inappropriate because it does not correspond to the express support function of the Permit staff. The Permit and Plan Check processing functions are line operations which should be under the supervision of a position below that of the Director/Building Official who should only have direct reporting relationships with those individuals responsible for the three primary functions of Permit and Plan Check, Inspection, and Housing. Therefore, we recommend that as part of the re-organization of reporting relationships within the Division, the Permit staff under the direction of the Permit Technician will report directly to and take directions directly from the Assistant Building Official in charge of the consolidated Plan Check and Permitting f function. The priority of work for the Permit staff will be arranged by the Permit Technician in coordination with the Assistant Building Official. This will also allow for direct supervision and coordination of the streamlined counter intake staff as described in the Plan Check, Permit and Inspection Issues section of this chapter. ' RECOMMENDATION 3: Create a Chief Inspector Position Responsible for the Supervision and Coordination of All of the Division's Inspection Functions. At present, the inspection function is administered and managed by four Chief Inspectors each supervising a specialty group of inspectors. The City of Huntington Beach is one of the few cities which still divide all inspections based on specialty. While specialization is needed in certain circumstances as will be discussed under Inspection Issues, this type of structure is not an efficient use of personnel resources especially when examined from the perspective of inspector workload and duplication of effort. We recommend that the Division re-classify the current Chief Inspector positions as Supervising Inspectors and create and fill a new position as Chief Inspector from the pool of re-classified Supervising Inspectors. The title of Chief Inspector generally designates that position responsible for the coordination and supervision of all inspection activities. The existing Chief Inspector positions are more accurately Section Supervisors or Supervising Inspectors. The new Chief Inspector would f City of Huntington Beach 34 f 1 assume all reporting responsibility for the inspection function, manage workload distribution, work with Supervising Inspectors to coordinate combination inspector training, and enable the Supervising Inspectors to provide increased supervision to field inspectors thereby enhancing productivity and ensuring the quality of field inspection work. The creation of this position would serve to streamline and consolidate the reporting relationships within the Division and serve to formally create a single supervisor over each of the Division's three functions. ' RECOMMENDATION 4: Maintain Current Staffing Levels and Re-Assign Functions and Personnel as Highlighted in Other ' Recommendations. Do Not Increase Staffing Until Signi icant Increases in Construction Activity Warrants Such an Increase. As Vacancies Occur, Do Not Fill Them Unless a Determination is Made that the Workload Warrants the Filling of the Position. ' During the course of our study, we analyzed all of the major services provided by the Housing and Building Division in regards to workload and estimated staffing availability. Our analysis revealed that there are significant opportunities to ' increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Division's operations and reduce current staffing levels. A detailed analysis of the workload for each of the Division's ' major functions is provided below in the sections of this chapter which address Plan Check, Permitting, and Inspection Operational Issues. ' While the Division's Plan Check function for the processing of internal Plan Checks appears to be adequately staffed at the current time, it appears that both the Permit and Inspection functions are currently over staffed and staffing could be reduced or ' re-assigned to other functions within the Department. In addition to these findings, the streamlining of the Plan Check and Permit process and the re- organization of the Inspection function will impact upon the personnel required to ' provide specific functions and the assignment of responsibility for those functions. As is highlighted in the following sections, we are recommending that during the implementation process of the following recommendations, the Division should ' develop methods to closely and accurately monitor all work levels for a six month period and proceed to adjust staffing during and after that period. As vacancies occur, do not fill them unless a determination is made that the workload warrants ' the filling of the position. RECOMMENDATION 5: Increase Workload Monitoring of All Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Activity. During the course of our study we discovered that as a whole, the Division was either under-utilizing workload reports or that for certain functions those reports did not exist in any coordinated format. In order to properly monitor all building City of Huntington Beach 35 activity within the City, track plan checks, permits, and corresponding inspections it is vital that—the Division monitor and record all activities on a daily, weekly or monthly basis as necessary. The City currently prepares monthly reports of building permits and total inspections for State reporting purposes along with daily summary sheets for all inspection activities. However, in discussions with the Division's personnel it is clear that these reports have not been used to monitor workload for the Division's staff. Without this detailed monitoring, it is not possible for the Division's management to consistently determine the proper allocation of personnel resources to specific tasks. Therefore, we recommend that the Division develop formal management reports which capture and report a minimum of the following information on at least a monthly basis: ' Permits: By type, including plumbing/mechanical, electrical, building (all types) and other permits and corresponding valuations. Plan Check: By type, both in-house and counter checked, including turnaround time of all Divisions involved. Inspections: By day, type, inspector and zone or area. Related Issues The recommendations that follow relate to overall management issues that arose during the course of our study during interviews with the Division's staff and as a result of answers to the questionnaires within the Housing and Building Division. RECOMMENDATION 6: The Building Official Should Be More Active Professionally and Attend More ICBO and Other Similar Activities and Should be the City's Primary Representative in the Building Official Organizations. The Building Official Should Also Take a More Active Role in Managing the Day-to-Day Activities of the Building Section. As cited earlier, historical policy and a long term vacancy in the Director/Building Official position led to unique roles and responsibilities for certain positions within the Housing and Building Division when compared with other cities, and particularly in the case of the Assistant Building Official. The Assistant Building Official in Huntington Beach assumes many of the ICBO activities and corresponding code and policy responsibilities normally under the scope of the Building Official. In order to implement recommendations cited earlier, and to enable the Assistant Building Official to properly focus on the reconfigured Permit City of Huntington Beach 36 and Plan Check function, we recommend that the Director/Building Official assume the primary responsibilities as the City's representative to Building Official organizations. Through both the interviews with staff and from responses to the employee questionnaire, it was revealed that there is a general feeling among Building Section staff that the Building Official is not involved with the day-to-day activities and is not aware of the staff's concerns or problems. In order to improve this perception of the Building Official and to have the Section function effectively as a unit, the Building Official must become actively and personally involved in the day-to-day activities. To that end, we recommend that the Building Official undertake the following activities: ' • Initiation of regular staff meetings • Ride alongs with inspectors • Review of plan check corrections • Participation in Building Official organizations • Informal meetings with individual staff. RECOMMENDATION 7: A Building Section Policy and Procedures Manual Should be Implemented and Contain All Administrative and Technical Policies Which Are Approved by the Building Official A review of existing policy and procedures documents relating to the operations of the Housing and Building Division revealed that while written policies currently exist addressing certain procedures, a formal policies and procedures manual does not currently exist for the use of current or new employees. Consequently, there is little or no uniformity as to processes and procedures between inspection groups or staff members. Therefore, we recommend that the Building Official, in coordination with the supervisors of the redesigned functions within the Division, proceed to adopt a formal policy and procedures manual which documents all activities performed by individuals within the Division. This document should be developed with the input of all Division employees and the final policies and procedures should be signed and approved by the Building Official. A copy of the manual should be provided to every employee of the Division and an update procedure be formalized. City of Huntington Beach 37 RECOMMENDATION 8: Regular Division Management and Staff Meetings Should be Conducted to Discuss Division Operations, i New Policies and Procedures, and Coojerative Work Programs. Our review of responses from employee questionnaires revealed that many of the Housing and Building Division's employees expressed concern regarding a lack of communication between all levels of employees within the Division. While our review of Division management policies did reveal that regular meetings did take place within certain functions of the Division, there is currently no practice for holding Division wide meetings for employee questions and answers. In conjunction with earlier recommendations relating to the re-organization of the Division and the development of formal policies and procedures, we recommend that regular Division management and staff meetings should be conducted to discuss Division operations, new policies and procedures, cooperative work programs, and to build a team approach to operations. It is suggested that for the rfirst three or four months these one hour meetings be held every two weeks and then the schedule could go to once per month. Plan Check, Permit and Inspection Processing Issues The Plan Check, Permit and Inspection process in the City of Huntington Beach is administered within the Housing and Building Division with limited inclusion of other Divisions. Once a project has been approved through the planning stage and by the Planning Commission (if necessary) and plans are submitted to the Housing and Building Division for review, the Division will then administer the remaining processes from approval of drawings, permitting, and then through to the construction, final inspection, and certificate of occupancy stages. Plan Check, Permit, and Inspection Process The existing Plan Check, Permit and Inspection processes are illustrated in detail in Exhibit IV-1 on the following pages. Once a project has been approved by the City's Planning Commission in the plan review stage, an applicant will have two years from the date of approval to submit a plan check application with technical drawings to initiate the Plan Check process. Upon arriving on the third floor of City Hall, the applicant will be greeted by a receptionist who will guide the applicant to their first stop. The first step in the Plan Check process will be for the applicant to complete the Plan Check Submittal List and History Form to submit along with their drawings. Once this is complete the applicant begins a three stop process to submit their plans. The applicant first stops at the Zoning counter to receive signatures from a Zoning counter staff person who examines the submittal for completeness. The next step is City of Huntington Beach 38 r rr� r■i r1 s� r +rr �r M "KI M City of Huntington Beach-Existing Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process Phase I-EL&U Check AimLication and Submittal-Biding Plan Check Applicant Leaves Applicant 0 i Prepration Applicant to Computer Assigns Planning Permit&Receipt Permit Aide Gives Counter Number Copy of Cash Receipt Plans-2 Sets (by Auto Sequence) to Applicant (3 if adding Planner Sq.Ft.) examines plans for Computer Calculates Permit Aide Binds i completeness Separate Fees for All materials and If complete, Building and Planning Places in Basket on enters Zoning Plan Check based File Cabinet Plan Check information. on Total Valuation Submittal Signs Submittal List/History List and dates permit Aide Assigns Next A.M.,designated Form Plan Check Number Permit Aide Posts toPlan from Manual Card and Check Log-Copies of Log to Enters into Computer Plan Check Coordinator& Planning Plan Checker 2 Applicant to Permit Aide Prepares Permit Aide Fills Building and Numbers Colored Out Release Slips Counter Plan Check Tags for Other Dept White Residential Notification Building Counter Green-Ind./Comm. Finance Returns Plan Checker or Red n-I Remaining Copies If Plan Check of Cash Receipt Create Manila File Counter Coordinator and Plan Check with Plan Check Plan — — examines plane Form via Chute Number and Bind Check for completeness Computer Prints If complete, Plan Check Form To Permit Technician Signs Submittal for Review-- List a dates Counter Plan Plan Check Release slips put in Checker Reviews Form Customer Pays Boxes for Pick is by Plan Check Fee Departments White-Dept.Copy Permit Aide -Fire Completes -Oil/Methane Gold-Dept./Schoo Cash Receipt -Public Works Blue-Cnty.Asses. -Redevelop. Corrections No Green-Applicant a Required Corrections Pink-Finance Required File and Plans to Asst.B.O.for Review O Plan Checker Plan Checker 3 Writes Stamps Plans as Applicant to Asst.B.O.Reviews Corrections for Approved Permit Package for Assignment Applicant Counter to Building Plan Checker and/or Special Issues Permit Aide Enters All In Chute toTreasurer,Stamp Applicant Informatiom from Plan Check as Paid and File and Plans to Plan Check PP Submittal List Retains P1IIk COPY b Revises Plans _ _ — — — Room and Plan Check Coordinator &Returns to onto Computer Stamps Cash Receipt as Counter Paid and Retains Yellow and Green Copies t) To Phase II-Internal Plan To Phase III- Check Processing Permit Prot in -Building Plan Check City of Huntington Beach-Existing Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase II-Internal Plan Check Processing -Building Plan Check If Plan Check Coordinator Planning is Plan Check Coordinator Files File by Plan Required to _� Places One Copy of Check Number E ne Plans into"Po be Checked" PlanBin for Planning Plan i Checker Plan Check Coordinator Places Rolled and i T Plans into If "Tao be Checked" _ Review by Planning Plan Bin for Building \ Other Checker and File p Plan Checkers \ Departments Si Out is -Signs\ Muir For Review \ Designated Department Building Plan Plan Checker Comes Checker Picks Up \ to Plan Check Room Plans Reviewed Plans and File mq -Signs Out and Action Dated For Review and Recorded on Plans Reviewed Plan Check History On Site Form in File Plans Placed in Plans Reviewed Appropriate and Action Dated "To be Rechecked" and Recorded on Bin Corrections No Corrections Corrections No Corrections Plan Check History � Requi Required Requir Plan Checker Plan Checker Corrections Compiled Plans Stamped Signs Release Signs Release an Standard As Approved No Slip as Slip and Corrections List and Signed by Corrections Corrections Corrections Staples and Written List Plan Checker Required Required Needed and to File If Necessary Staples to File Plans and File Plan Checker Corrected Plans Plan Checker Sends Returned to Corrections Compiled Resubmitted to Plan Check Room Checks that All on Standard Corrections Correction List Plan Check Plan Checker to Applicant Approvals Required List and Written List Coordinator at Sends are ComPlete If Necessary Building Plan Corrections Applicant is Check Counter List to Applicant Notified by Card That Lists any Corrections Wrapped Outstanding Around Plans Department Signatures Needed Plan Checker Mails Corrections to Plans Stamped Applicant Unless As Approved Other Procedure and Signed by is Requested Plan Checker Plans and File Plan Checker Sends Returned to Corrected and CorrectionPla Plan Check Coordinator Correction List L Plan Check Room Pulls File and Plans, or Applicant Picks Up Combines Plumb.,Mech. ��, U n 8c EIS' W1D�with When Microfiche is 04 „"'„ To Phase III- p° Building Set and Prepares tD Cr Permit Processing— — — — — — — — — F1O8bOg for Microfiche Returned,Plan Check Coordinator G rr Place in box for files by Address Pick Up by in Microfiche File 0� Microfiche Company City of Huntington Beach-Existing Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase II-Plan Check Application.Submitttal and Internal Plan Check Processine Applicant -Pl.nib nyr/Mechanical or Electrical Pl n Check Leaves Permit Aide Computer Assigns / Enters All Permit&Receipt Permit Aide Gives White Information from Number Copy of Cash Receipt Submittal List (by Auto Sequence) to Applicant onto Computer © Computer Calculates Applicant to Plan Check based Permit Aide Binds pPermit on Total Valuation All Materials,Enters Counter of Project I Book end Places ing od Appropriate Chief Inspector's Permit Aide Assigns Plan Check Basket Plan Check Number from Manual Card and Enters into Computer Chief Inspector Picks Up Plans and Materials Permit Aide Prepares and Numbers Colored Reviews Plana Plan Check Tags Yellow-Electrical Finance Returns Blue-Mechanical Remaining Copies Green-Plumbing of Cash Receipt and Plan Check No Corrections Form via Chute Corrections Required ::::I Required Computer Prints Plan Check Form Plane Stamped Corrections Compiled As Approved on Standard Corrections Plan Check and Signed by List and Written List Plan Check Fee Form Customer Pays Chief Inspector If Necessary White-Dept.Copy Permit Aide Comply Plans and File Gold-Dept./Schoo Cash Receipt Returned to Corrections Wrapped Blue-Cnty.Asses. Plan Check Room Around Plana Green-Applicant Cash Receipt Pink-Finance White-Applican Applicant Calls to Plumbing! Pink-Dept. See if Permits Are Electrical Ready to be IssuedMechanics Yellow-Finance teen-Treasure Plans and File. Chief Inspector Returned to Sends Applicant Plan Check Room Plans and Correction List In Chute toTreasurer,StampsTo Phase III- Applicant Calls to Corrected Plans Plan Check as Paid and Permit Processing Check Status of Resubmitted to Retains pink Copy Plans Permit Aide at rd M Stamps Cash Receipt as Permit Counter O Paid and Retains Yellow and M C W r. SaZYSa Copies Applicant Picks � c* Up Plans and i q Correction List 0 4. City of Huntington Beach-Existing Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase III-Permit ProcessinLr Permit Aide Places Customer to Permit Form In Chief Inspectors Building Permit Box either Building, Counter Plumb./Mech.or White-Ins Electrical Permit Aide Pulls P•COPY File and Plans Gold-De t/School from Plan Check Blue-Cnty.Asses. Room Chief Inspectors Pick Green-Applicant Up at End of Day Distribute by Permit Aide Verifies Routing District If over _ _ _ Completion and Numbers to 500 Sq.Ft Signatures Individual Inspectors Applicant Takes Also takes Permit Aide Gives As Permit Payment Job Card Individual Inspectors Ga Copy of Plan Receipt for Work Site Hold in Personal Check Form to applicant Permit Aide Inputs Files Awaiting to pay School Board fee Approval Signatures Call For Inspection and Checks for To County iChanges/Adjustments Assessor Slot County Employee in Valuation if Asses Counter Picks Up To Phase -Inspection Applicable Applicant to School Board to Pay Fees School Board To Slot Under Stamps DQM Copy I Counter Computer Prints — — — Building/MechJPlumb. Filled by Alpha /Elect.Permit I Street in File Cabinet with All Paperwork Permit Form Customer Pays Permit White-Ins P•Copy Fee Gold-Dept/School Blue-Cnty.Asses. Green-Applicant Pink-Finance In Chute toTreasurer, Stamps Paid,Retains pink Copy and Returns Form as Validated b� O A iY iP O y O�� M an r s0 art OW go, so s tW r on City of Huntington Beach.Existing Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase IV-Inspection Applicant Calls Permit Aide for _ Inspection If called in by 4p.m then scheduled for Following Day of Future Day if Appointment Directly Input to Computer By Permit Aide I Assigned to Scheduling and Phones Computer Generates Next Day Inspection Add to list any late Schedules By — Calls for Inspection Individual Inspector or Cancellations Areas or Zones By Hand if Applicable I Schedules to Chief Inspectors Designated Permit Inspectors Put Aide Picks Up ISchedules to Area Completed Daily Inspection Sheets I and Zone Inspection Sheets go Posts Finals with Inspectors in Inspection Inspector Initials Sheet Basket in to Computer and IInspectors Room Puts In Binder of Inspector Inspection Sheets Puts Form Inspectors Pull jh"' Back in Copy of Permit Form Personal from Personal Files File Designated Permit I Inspectors Put Aide Picks Up To Designated Permit Perform If Finaled Permit Inpector Copy of Posts Building Aide to Prepare for When Microfiche is I Inspection Signed Off Foxy into po Final Permit Permits to Assessor's — Microfiche _ Returned,Permit as Finaled Finaled Basket Log Sheet Showing Aide files by Address I in Inspectors Room Sorts Permits by Date Finaled Place in box for Type and then Pick Up by in Microfiche File Alphabetically I Microfiche Company I If I _ — Inspection Oth Plan Check Coordinator Than Final of Pulls File and Plans, Corrections Utilities to Left Designated Permit Combines Plumb.,Mech. When Microfiche is Aide &Elect.Drawings with Returned,Plan b M Building Set and Prepares Cheek Coordinator CompanUtility — for Microfiche files by Address tip Posts to Release Place in box for in Microfiche File Cn Log Pick Up by p Microfiche Company "� City of Huntington Beach-Existing Certificate of Occupancy Process Applicant Certificate of / / Leaves Computer Generates Occupancy Application Next Day Inspection Permit Aide Gives whi NoSchedules for White-Dept.Co Copy of Cash Receipt Certificate of y and Green Copy of Occupancy Inspector Yellow-Fire No Application for Green-Applicant Certificate of Occupancy Form to Schedule to Applicant Inspector along with Applicationsi To Zoning Counter for Approval of Use Permit Aide Logs in Certificate of Perform Occupancy Log Inspection Book as Not Signed Approved Approved or Net at Counter Approved Not Zoning Counter Approved Approved Staff Signs Permit Aide Enters Application Not Approved Into Computer as A roved Approved to Schedule for Inspection Inspector Notifies Return Inspection Applicant that Sheet to Designated Approval only _Permit Aide To Permit Aide Application Form to when All Conditions Permit Aide at Permit Counter Planning Office- Permit Aide are Met Inputs Approval Assistant Planner Logs in Certificate Information of Occupancy Log Permit Aide Logs as Approved Applicant Application on Calls Computer Prints Computer Assigned to specific Inspector Certificate of Planner for Research for Oceu an Form Application Signed R&Inspection Customer Pays Approved as Approved and _C of O Fee pp Returned to gA Planner Checks Permit Aide Certificate of Permit Aide Permitted Use Occupancy Completes Cash Receipt Not White-Applicant rovedp ellow-Dept.Copy areenTreasure Greco-Bus.Lice Blue-Fire Planner Calls Pink-Fire Prev. Applicant to Notify. Off White-Fire Co To Fire Application Applicant Applies Department Cash Receipt In Chute to Stops forNecessary To Designated Permit p Finance,Stamps Cash Variance/Conditional Aide to Prepare for Receipt as Paid and Retains Use Permit or Microfiche Yellow and inn Copies Other Permit Place in box for Pick Up by Microfiche Company M Finance Returns See Planning Process aq Remaining Copies M of Cash Receipt When Microfiche is W via Chute Returned,Permit p Aide files by Address in Microfiche File �:.. on to the Building counter where the Plan Check Coordinator or Building Plan Checker will examine plans for completeness. If an application is not complete as specified by either counter, the applicant will be guided as to what is needed for a complete application by both the Zoning and Building counter personnel. If Building signs the submission as complete, the applicant proceeds to the Permit counter, stop number three, where a Permit Aide will formally process the application, enter the information onto the computer, collect the appropriate fees, and generate an official City Plan Check form. If drawings are not required, or if plans can be approved over the counter by both Building and Zoning, the applicant will proceed through the same three stop process and have their plans signed as approved and then be able to proceed directly to Permit process. As noted on Exhibit IV-1, plumbing/mechanical and electrical plans are submitted directly to the Permit counter and processed by the Permit Aides without the first two stops required. Plan check log-in procedures for each type of plan check have been developed by the Division and serve as standard operating procedures for processing plans. Once an application and materials are accepted, a color coded tag is attached to the plans (white - residential; green - industrial commercial; red - sign; yellow- electrical; blue- mechanical; green- plumbing) that includes the plan check number. The plans are then logged into the building, electrical, plumbing/mechanical or solar plan check log book. Electrical, plumbing/mechanical, and solar plans are then directly given to the appropriate Chief Inspector for review. For building plans, a file will be prepared and routing slips completed and then the application is passed onto the Assistant Building Official for preliminary review and to assign the plans to specific Senior Building Plan Checkers or to the Building Plan Checker. From this point forward, the Permit Aides will no longer be involved in the Plan Check process and will only get involved again in the Permit stage. The status of a set of plans is handled by the Plan Check Coordinator. During the plan check process, the plans are stored in labeled shelf racks and files are kept by plan check number in file cabinets in the Plan Check storage room which is organized and maintained by the Plan Check Coordinator. Any plans taken from the storage room must be checked out using a check out card system. As plans are examined by the appropriate reviewers, all actions (approval or corrections) are noted and dated on the appropriate forms in the individual files. The information reported on the forms within the file and on the plan check log book is not always complete and might differ according to the preference of a person reviewing the plans. If applicants call to inquire as to the progress of their plans during the process, the Plan Check Coordinator will pull the file to find out the status of the plans for the applicant. Without an automated time tracking system, the Division does not have the ability to aggressively track the progress of plans through the cycle and follow up when plans are lagging in their progress. The Housing and Building Division typically takes in two sets of plans (unless square footage is being added in which case three sets are required). If plans have 1 been approved over the counter by either the Building or Zoning counter staff but City of Huntington Beach 39 not both, the plans will be kept together. If neither counter staff has signed off, then the sets will be divided and one set will go into the building shelf rack (by type), 1 while the other set is placed in the planning shelf rack for review. Other departments whose review and approval may be required according to the type or size of plan, namely Fire (and Oil and Methane), Public Works or Redevelopment, will receive a Release for Issuance routing slip and then proceed to examine the plans in the Plan Check storage room and sign off or make corrections without removing the plans. Each Division reviews plans for compliance with its respective guidelines, as illustrated below: • Building and Housing examines the plans for compliance with the State's adopted Uniform Building, National Electrical, Uniform Plumbing , Uniform Mechanical, and Uniform Solar Energy Codes and all local requirements as deemed appropriate. • Planningexamines plans for compliance with the Cit 's P P Y Development Code and land use policies as well as adherence with previously discussed Conditions for Approval and other documents as deemed appropriate. • Public Works examines plans for coordination with on- and off- site improvement plans (if applicable) and compliance with other documents as deemed appropriate. • Fire Department examines plans for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and for occupancy types and other documents that may apply as deemed appropriate. • Redevelopment examines plans if they are located within the City's designated redevelopment or neighborhood preservation areas for compliance with local plans and ordinances for development in those areas. Each Division will review the plans independently and either sign the plans as approved or send corrections directly to the applicant (unless they prefer to pick them up in person). The Division has developed standard corrections lists for all types of plans which are used if corrections are made. Under the current process, there is no one responsible for the coordination of correction lists so one mailing can be made to the applicant or that the applicant will receive all comments simultaneously. However, when corrections are mailed out by the individual Housing and Building Plan Checker, they will send a Plan Review Status Card alerting the applicant that other Division's approvals may still be required. This requires that the applicant try to track down the responsible parties in each Division to obtain the status of their plans. For plumbing, mechanical or electrical plan reviews, tracking of plans and turnaround is left solely in the hands of the Chief City of Huntington Beach 40 Inspectors responsible for their respective plans who each have their own policies for notification of applicants and routing of corrected plans to the applicant. Once plans are returned to the Housing and Building Division, if corrections are necessary based on comments from any of the Divisions, the applicant is required to revise the plans and re-submit a new set of plans along with the old corrected set. The plans will then only be checked by Building and Planning and Divisions that did not previously approve the plans. The potential problem with this process occurs in an instance where corrections may have been made by one Division while another Division approved the plans. The corrections to those plans could possibly have a new impact on the approved status of the plans with other Divisions. One other concern related to a lack of a properly integrated plan check processes between Divisions appears to be related to landscape plans which are reviewed by the Planning plan checker. These plans are not routed to the Public Works Department who had lead responsibility for approving grading and landscaping plans at an earlier stage in the development process. The landscape plans submitted to planning may contain substantial changes in elevations and drainage from the earlier approved plans, but there is no coordination between Public Works and Planning to ensure compatibility of approved plans. While the current process may expedite plan check turnaround time because of the independent functioning of the various Divisions involved, it is apparent that the processes could be enhanced to ensure greater coordination in the proper review of plans. Current staff within the Housing and Building Division is available to provide this service in conjunction with altering the routing process of plans. The Plan Check Coordinator, who only approves minor and small projects, is not currently providing this coordinating function in terms of packaging all corrections together although he is responsible for the maintenance and tracking of all plans. When plans are approved by all the Divisions required, the applicant will return to the Housing and Building Division's Permit counter 'at City Hall where a Permit Aide will pull the files and plans, pull up the existing record on the computer and create the appropriate Permit and collect the permit and inspection fees and any others that might apply. The inspector copy of the permit is routed to the Chief Inspectors and then passed on to the area inspectors who will file them in their individual files. The Department copy of the permit is filed separately by address in file cabinets in the Permit Aide area. The applicant has six months from the time of permit issuance to begin construction. As stipulated by code requirements, work must be performed on the project during that time or the applicant must file for an extension. If neither action is taken, the permit will expire and the technical drawings will be destroyed. At present, neither the Inspection nor the Permit staff monitors expiration dates of permits very closely and, in fact, the City currently has approximately 3,000 open expired permits on file. As highlighted earlier, at resent the Cit 's Inspection function is divided into four P Y P groups of specialty inspectors including structural, plumbing/mechanical, electrical, City of Huntington Beach 41 and combination each supervised by a Chief Inspector. During the construction phase of the process, depending upon the type of project, each specialty group of inspectors will perform multiple inspections on the site. Each specialty inspection group conducts inspections for compliance with approved plans following the guidelines set forth below: • Structural inspectors visit the building site to perform required inspections at specific stage of the construction life of the project. Inspections will verify that the project is being built in structural compliance with the State's adopted Uniform Building Code, energy and handicapped codes, and any other documents that may apply. • Plumbing/Mechanical inspectors inspect the site to ensure the use, proper installation, and functioning of approved plumbing or HVAC hardware as approved in the plans and as set forth in the Uniform Plumbing and Uniform Mechanical Codes. • Electrical inspectors inspect the site to ensure the use and proper P P P P installation of approved electrical fixtures and wiring as approved in the plans and as set forth in the National Electric Code. • Combination inspector inspects all spas, pools, mobile home parks and solar installations for compliance with approved plans and use of approved materials or fixtures as set forth in the City's local ordinances and the Uniform Building, Uniform Plumbing, Uniform Mechanical, and National Electric Codes. The Chief Combination Inspector also conducts Certificate of Occupancy inspections. Applicants will call the Housing and Building Division to arrange for next day inspections of their projects. All inspectors record daily inspection activity on their daily inspection sheets which provide a schedule for that day's activity. However, the detail and accuracy of the individual inspectors in recording their activity varies significantly from group to group and between individuals. The record for all inspections is maintained on a daily inspection log which is generated by computer and filed in the Permit Aide staff area. These logs are infrequently, if ever, reviewed to gauge the City's total inspection activity. The structural inspectors will not sign the final approval of a building permit until all other specialty inspectors have signed off their respective permits as final (if applicable). Once all approvals have been signed, the permits are then archived on microfiche for public viewing at the Housing and Building Division's public Permit counter while microfiched plans will be maintained separately in the Plan Check storage room. City of Huntington Beach 42 L Upon final approval of the Building Permit, if applicable, the applicant returns first to the Zoning counter and then to the Permit counter to submit a Certificate of Occupancy Application which is processed by the Division and inspected by the current Combination Inspector. The Uniform Building Code requires that a 1 Certificate of Occupancy be issued prior to occupancy of any building or structure. The Certificate of Occupancy generally covers the entire building and specifies permitted uses. For example, an office building could contain several suites with different tenants, but the Certificate of Occupancy would list the office usage of the building, but not the individual tenant names. Most cities automatically issue the Certificate of Occupancy when the building permit is finaled. There is generally no additional cost for the Certificate of Occupancy as the cost is included as part of the permit fee. The City of Huntington Beach has significantly revised the normal Certificate of Occupancy process. They require a separate Certificate of Occupancy for every tenant space in every building, Planning/Zoning review of applications, and a new Certificate of Occupancy when tenants, usage or ownership changes. The advantage to this processes is that it generates revenue to the City and establishes a re- inspection every time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested which is a code enforcement program. The disadvantages of this process are that the fee ($125) is quite high and does not exist in most other cities, it is questionable whether the program accomplishes anything in newer buildings, and that the process is most likely an unusual surprise to new businesses or owners in the City. Furthermore, the involvement of Planning/Zoning in the review of the application should not be necessary as they have approved or specified the uses allowed during the Plan Check process and all Permits would contain that information. This takes the Certificate of Occupancy process far beyond the process specified in the Uniform Building Code and turns it into a separate code enforcement/regulatory process. In most cities, the Certificate of Occupancy process is handled by the building inspector. When he does the final inspection on new construction or tenant permits, he would process the Certificate of Occupancy. At present, the lone Chief Combination Inspector handles the Certificate of Occupancy inspection responsibilities, however there is no established process requiring the structural inspectors to notify the Chief Combination Inspector when a permit is finaled. Consequently, buildings or tenant spaces may be occupied with no Certificate of Occupancy. RECOMMENDATION9: Streamline Counter Operations and Internal Procedures of the Plan Check, Permit, Certificate Occupancy and Inspection Functions. Our analysis of workload and on-site observations revealed that the division of the application procedure between three distinct counters, a lack of standardized and City of Huntington Beach 43 coordinated application and tracking processes, and over-specialization of the inspection function has led to under utilization of the Division's staff. During the course of our study, our on-site observations consistently revealed a low traffic volume at all counters even at the busier times. This creates a poor public image for the City and the Department from the perspective of making efficient use of scarce resources. We examined the current procedures and found that many of the separate procedures involved in the processing of plans, permits, certificate of occupancy and inspections could be consolidated, streamlined and standardized to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire process and increase the utilization of existing counter staff. Exhibit IV-2 on the following pages outlines in detail our recommendations for streamlining existing processes for Plan Check, Permitting, Certificate of Occupancy, and Inspection. In order to realize increased operating efficiency and effectiveness, we specifically recommend that the Division implement the sixteen "significant" changes listed below and detailed in following recommendations: • Consolidate Counter • Cross Train Counter Staff • Position Cash Registers at Consolidated Counter • Standardize Plan Check Application Procedure • One Plan Check Log Book • Coordinate Release of All Corrections on Plans • Standardize Applicant Notification • Coordinate Certificate of Occupancy and Permit Application Timing • Eliminate Planning/Zoning Review of Certificate of Occupancy • Inspection Record Copy Added to Permit • Filing of Certificate of Occupancy Application with Permit • Permit Aides Store and Pull Permits • Establishment of Permit Tickler File • Notification of Expired Permits • Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Conducted as Part of Final Inspection 1 City of Huntington Beach 44 8 i i an i City of Huntington Beach-Streamlined Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process Applicant Leaves Phase I-Plan Check Application and Submittal Applicant 0 Prepration Applicant to [Counter Staff Gives Plan Check&Permit Copy of Cash Receipt 43�lflddin Super Counter andq Copy of Plan Check Form to A licant Counter Staffer examines plans for completeness. Counter Staff Computer Assigns Computer Calculates If completeenters Zoning Enters All Permit&Receipt Fees for Plan Check Counter Staff Binds information Information from Number based on Total All materials and Signs Submittal Submittal List (by Auto Sequence) Valuation Places in Basket on List and dates for both onto Computer Building and Zoning File Cabinet List/History Form Counter Staff Assigns Plan Check Number Next A.M.,designated from Manual Card and Permit Aide Posts toPlan IEnters into Computer Check Log-Copies of Log to Plan Check Coordinator& Planning Plan Checker Counter Staff Prepares and Numbers Colored Plan Check Tags White-Residential Permit Aide Fills Green-Ind./Comm. Out Release Slips Red Sign for Other Dept. if Yellow-Electrical Notification Counter Blue-Mechanical Plan Green-Plumbing Check Create Manila File with Plan Check Computer Prints Number and Bind Plan Check Form Appropriate Counter Plan To Permit Technician Checker(s)Reviews Plan Check Customer Pays _for Review— Form Plan Check Fee Release slips put in White-Dept.Copy Permit Aide Boxes for Pickaby CompletesDepartments Gold-Dept./Schoo Cash Receipt -Fire No Blue-Cnt .Asses. -OiVMethane Corrections Green A licant -Public Works Required Corrections pp Cash Receipt -Redevelop. Required Pink-Finance White-Applicant Pink-Dept Yellow-Finance File and Plans Plan Checker Plan Checker to Asst.B.O.for Review Writes Stamps Plans as reen-Treasure Corrections for Approved Applicant Asst.B.O.Reviews Package for Assignment Stam Plan Check as Paid to Building Plan Checker A licant and/or Special Issues Reviser Plan for Finance M e and Puts jJ&Copy in Slot & to Stamps Cash Receipt as File and Plans Plan Check Paid and Retains Yellow and Room and Plan Check Coordinator � 0; Green Copies To Phase III- Permit&C of O To Phase II-Internal Plan ~'C Processine Check Processing N City of Huntington Beach-Streamlined Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase II-Internal Plan Check Processing Plan Check Coordinator Files File by Plan Check Number Plan Check Coordinator Places Rolled and Taged Plans into Appropriate-To be Plans Placed Checked"Bin for in Appropriate Plan Checkers 'To be Re-Checked- Bin for Plan Checkers Planning or Plumb./Mach. Other Building or Electrical Departments Plan Checker Plan Checker Plan Checker Picks Up Picks Up Reviews Plans on Corrected Plans Plans and File Plans and File Site in Plan Resubmitted to -Signs Out -Signs Out Check Storage Plan Check For Review For Review Room Coordinator at Building Plan Check Counter Plans Reviewed Plans Reviewed and Action Dated and Action Dated and Recorded on and Recorded on Plan Check History Plan Check History Form in File Form in File Corrections No No Corrections Required Corrections Corrections Required Required Required Corrections Compiled Plans Stamped Plan Checker Signs Plan Checker Signs on Standard Corrections As Approved Release Slip as Release Slip as List and Written List and Signed by Approved and Corrections Needed If Necessary Plan Checker Staples to File and Staples to File Corrections Attached Corrections Attached Around Plans Around Plans Plans and File Ply Returned to Refried Plan Check Room Plan Check Coordinator Plan Check Plan Check 4 r Sends CorrectiD Coordinator Reviews No Coordinator Notifies M File to Determine All Corrections Applicant that To Phase III- to ,.. Corrected Plans PP e* Req Departments Have R uired Permits are Permit Processing or Applicant eq o �J Picks Up Completed Review Ready to be Issued & C [�7 Mae r +r di tM r � M M it r r m City of Huntington Beach-Streamlined Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase IiI-Permit and Certificate of Oc=a_ncv Processing If Applicable Start Certificate of Customer to Counter Staff Gives OccupaAJ2cY Service Counter Green Copy of Permit Aide Application — — _ r _ _ _ _ Application for Logs in Certificate - - - - - - - Counte-Stag' Certificate of of Occupancy White-Dept.Copy — — — — ow Pulls File and Occupancy Form toi Plans from Plan Applicant , Yellow-Fire Check Room , Green-Applicant i IjCojO � Verifies Applicable i _ - Completion and i If over Signatures on Plans , 500 Sq.Ft Permit Form Inputs to Computer Filled by Alpha Approval Signatures Street in File and Checks for Gold-Dept/School To County Cabinet with Permit Aide Gives Changes/Adjustments White-Insp.Copy Assessor Slot All Paperwork qcj Copy of Plan in Valuation if Under Counter Check Form to applicant - - - _ Applicable _ Blue-Cnty.Asses. to pay School Board fee Logs C of O Green-Applicant ' Application on i [in. tion Record County Employee TO � Computer Picks Up Phase N- Counter Staff Gives W . Inspection Applicant to Copy of Cash Receipt School Board to Customer to Applicant Pay Fees _ _� Pays Fees pplicant TakessteSchool Board Permit Payment I,.;ection Stamps G21d Copy Computer Prints Receipt cord Building/MechdPlumb. ork Site /Elect.Permit Form _ _ Noted on File _ _ _ 4G.Id-Dept/&h.] Counter Staff Certificate of r Copy of Permit Completes Occupancy Combined Application Applicant Files Wopy Cash Receipt If Inspections Have for Extension hool White-Dept.Co Filed in Tickler Been Done for 5 Y Months Send Notice to i Asses. Cash Recei t Yellow-Fire Applicant of No Res nse lieant P Approaching Expiration p°PP white-Applicant Green-Applicant from ApplicantFinancetion Reco Pink-Dept. r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � Yellow-Finance , teen-Troas Inspector Visits Site,Leaves No Response No Response- Certified Notice � Notification of Approaching After 15 Days- _ _ Expiration of Expiration Permit Sent Expired and Plans Counter Staff Stamps Destroyed Permit Form as Paid and Retains Pjnk in Slot for M Finance,Stamps Combined Cash Receipt f�D V as Paid and Retains W W. Yellow and Green. O ry ►w h �P lV m s r m r r r r mom m m m w r m m City of Huntington Beach-Streamlined Plan Check,Permitting and Inspection Process(con't.) Phase IV-Inspection Start Applicant Calls — — — -- — — — Inspector Notifies Permit Aide for Applicant that Inspection Appointment Directly Approval only Input to Computer when All Conditions — If called in by 4p.m. are Met then scheduled for By Permit Aide Following Day or Assigned to Scheduling ' Future Day if and Phones Preferred IComputer Generates Return Inspection Permit Aide Computer Prints Daily Inspection Sheet to Designated Inputs Approval Certificate of ISchedules By Permit Aide Information Occu an Form Individual Inspector _Areas or Zones Place Daily Add to list any late Inspection Shee Mailed to Calls for Inspection Not Approved Certificate of ts in Binder of of Cancellations ApprovedA Occupancy Applicant Completed By Hand if Applicable Inspection Sheets White-Applicant ellow-Dept.Copy Permit Aide Pulls Teen-Bus.Lice Inspector Copy of Blue-Fire Permits,Attaches Pink-Fire Prev. to Inspection Schedule I for Designated Area Off White-Fire Co. To Fire Inspectors Schedules to Department Completed Daily Appropriate Supervising Inspection Sheets Inspectors To Business and Permits in If License Basket in Certificate of Inspectors Room Schedules to Area Occupancy for Permit Aide Inspectors Inspection Pick Up Required IPerform Inspection and Record Action Final Ion Daily Inspection Inspectoo Schedule Utilities to Designated Permit If — Aide_— ' Signed Off Calls into Utility If as Finaled Company and Inspection Oth and Posts to Release L - - -- - - Than Final or Approved Log Corrections Left Permit Aide Pulls File and Designated Permit Plans,Combines Plumb., M Inspectors Put Aide Picks Up Mech.&Elect.Drawings b Finam Permit Inspector Copy of Poets Building with Building Set Attaches When Microfiche is Forms into Final Permit Permits to Assessor's Permits and Prepares for Returned,Permit iT Log Sheet Showing Microfiche Aide files by Address Finaled Basket Sorts Permits by Date Finaled — — — — in Microfiche File eq.- in Inspectoss Room Type and then Place in box for Alphabetically Pick Up by ,p Microfiche Company • Coordinated Microfiching of All Documents RECOMMENDATION 10: Consolidate the Three Counters Into One Consolidated Counter and Re-Assign the Receptionist Greeting Duties -or the Department to Counter Personnel and Eliminate the Physical Location of the Greeting Desk. We recommend that the Division and the Department physically re-organize the public counter on the third floor of City Hall. As illustrated in Figure IV-3 below, there are currently three separate counters that applicants must visit during the Plan Check application procedure. Figure IV-4 illustrates our recommendations for counter re-organization. Under this plan, all functions (Zoning, Building and Permitting) are available at one single long counter. In this case, the applicant can simply slide plans down the counter as they proceed through the various check-offs or, as is described below, any of the available counter personnel will be able to fully ' process the Plan or Permit application based upon availability. Zoning Staff Position Zoning n Zoning Staff o Position tPublic Permit Staff Public p, Building Staff Area Position Area n Position 0 R 1 7 � Permit Staff Position Building Building Staff Position Figure IV-3 Figure IV-4 Current Counter Configuration Proposed Counter Configuration In conjunction with the streamlined counter operations cited above, we recommend that the positioning of a desk for greeting duties for the Housing and Building Division and the Department as a whole, be eliminated and the staff currently assigned to that position should be re-assigned to other functions within the Department. City of Huntington Beach 45 iRECOMMENDATION 11: Provide Cross Training for Existing Building, Planning and Permit Counter Staff to Enable All Staff to Process 1 Permit and Plan Check Applications and to Assist Each Other. 1 We recommend that the Division provide cross training for the current Planning, Permit Aide, and Building counter staffs to enable all counter staff to process plans and permit applications. This training should give all staff the ability to determine whether a Plan Check is complete and ready for submission, to log the applications onto the computer, and to collect all applicable fees. Permit staff will once again process and file Planning as well as Building Permits which should be filed under the permit address. Cross training of Permit Aides will not include training to provide counter plan check services which will continue to be provided by a Building Plan Checker or Planning counter staffer as needed. However, the Permit Aides should be able to inform applicants whether either Planning or Building's review is not necessary, in which case they are able to sign the Plan Check Submittal List for the non-required Division. The consolidation of the three counters into one consolidated counter will decrease the number of personnel required to staff this function versus the current staff. Once this streamlined counter process is in place, the Building Official should determine the appropriate number of personnel required to staff this function and proceed to re-assign other personnel as appropriate. The development and administration of the cross training program will be the responsibility of the Assistant Building Official supervising the combined Permit and Plan Check function. RECOMMENDATION 12: Position Cash Registers at Consolidated Counter and Eliminate Procedure of Sending Fees and Applications to Finance While Applicant Waits. Consolidate Procedure to Twice Per Day Either Via Chute or Personal Delivery. Under current operations, when Permit staff process Plan Check or Permit applications, the fees are sent along with the application and Cash Receipt down to Finance via the chute or tube. This creates a delay during which the applicant and i Permit staff is required to wait for the return'of the Receipt and stamped application forms. We recommend that this procedure be eliminated and that the Department position a cash register(s) at the public counter for collection of fees for all items. In conjunction with this, the Permit staff will stamp the receipt and/or application as paid and place the applicable Finance copy of forms in a designated box below the counter. The collected fees, corresponding forms and the cash register tape should be sent to Finance twice per day via chute or hand carried by an employee where Finance will be responsible for review the receipt and accounting for all fees collected. City of Huntington Beach 46 1 RECOMMENDATION 13: Standardize Plan Check Application Procedures for All Plan Check Types and Maintain One Plan Check Lo4 Book. As part of the streamlined Plan Check process as illustrated earlier in Exhibit IV-2, we recommend that the application procedure for all plans, regardless of type, be standardized. Intake will occur at the combined counter, a file will be prepared, a plan check number assigned and the plans entered into a single plan check log book for all plan types and dated, and plans will be sent to the Plan Check Storage Room. This change will eliminate the separate process for the electrical and building/mechanical plans and is critical to enable the Permit Aides and the Plan Check Coordinator to track and monitor plan progress and turnaround as well as ' expiration of all plans. RECOMMENDATION 14: Coordinate Release and Issue of Corrected or Approved Plans From All Departments Involved. In order to synthesize the City's Plan Check review process it should be clearly acknowledged that the Building Section is the lead organization for the intake and processing of plans. As such, the Building section must be responsible for the coordination of all action taken during the review of those plans by all Divisions involved including maintaining organized filing of plans, tracking plan progress, and coordinating all Divisions responses. Therefore, we recommend that Building Section coordinate the release of corrected and approved plans from all departments involved on a particular plan. Under this process, plans would only be released as approved or with corrections only after all departments have reviewed the plans. Any corrections lists generated would be attached to the plans and the Plan Check Coordinator would continually monitor and follow up with Divisions which have not yet reviewed the plans. Once all Divisions have reviewed plans, the Plan Check Coordinator would combine all corrections and contact the applicant to pick up (or receive by mail) the plans and all attendant documents. The Plan Check Coordinator should also review all corrections to determine whether there are any conflicting corrections. If so, any conflicts should be brought to the attention of the Assistant Building Official and resolved before the corrections are returned to the applicant. In order to monitor which Divisions review is still outstanding, we recommend that the Building Section develop a printed manila file folder with check lists and progress reporting spaces for easy tracking and status review of plan progress. All Divisions involved would be required to update their progress on the file folder as action occurs. City of Huntington Beach 47 RECOMMENDATION15: Standardize Plan Check Applicant Notification Processes for All Plan Check Types. ' In conjunction with the standardization of plan check application procedures for all plan check types and the coordination of the release and issue of corrected plans, we ' recommend that the Building Section standardize all plan check notification activity. This is particularly in reference to electrical and plumbing/mechanical plans which should be processed through the Plan Check storage room, a file ' created, and the Plan Check Coordinator be responsible for the release of corrected plans to the applicant to pick up (or by mail). RECOMMENDATION 16: Coordinate Timing of Certificate of Occupancy and Permit Applications. At present, Certificate of Occupancy applications are filed independently from the Permit application. If a Certificate of Occupancy is required, then the lack in the coordination of submittal of applications prevents the Division from streamlining their inspection efforts to enable the inspector conducting the final building inspection to also conduct the occupancy inspection. Therefore, we recommend that if a Certificate of Occupancy application is required, the Division should require that the application be submitted simultaneously with the permit application. This will not only allow for combined coordination of occupancy and final inspection, but will also provide ample time for the Planning Division to review and approve the application in preparation for the final building inspection. RECOMMENDATION 17: Eliminate the Planning/Zoning Review of Certificate of Occupancy Applications. As part of the streamlined Certificate of Occupancy process illustrated earlier in Exhibit IV-2, we recommend that the Department eliminate the required review of Certificate of Occupancy applications by the Planning/Zoning Division. Under existing operations, the Planning Division will either approve an application over the counter or assign it to staff for research before approval. This present method leads to a duplication and repetition of effort on the part of Planning staff. If a building or structure is new and has gone through the Plan Check process, the Planning Division will already have examined the plans and approved the Plan Check application for acceptable uses. The Zoning information will also be included on the issued Permit during the Permit process. Therefore, Planning/Zoning review of a Certificate of Occupancy will be, in some cases, the third review of approved uses on the same project. When a Certificate of Occupancy is approved and issued, the Business License Division receives the Green copy of the Certificate of Occupancy form. In order to ensure that actual tenants intend to use the structure for approved uses, we recommend that when new businesses apply for a license to operate, Business City of Huntington Beach 48 ' License could forward a copy of the Business License application to Planning for review at that time. RECOMMENDATION 18: Revise Permit Form to Include Hard Cody Insection Record. At present, when an applicant submits a permit application they are also required to ' fill out a Job Card for posting at the building site. This is currently done by hand and is leading to a duplication of effort on the part of the applicant and the Division. We recommend that the current Permit form (all types) be modified to include a ' sixth copy which would be a hard copy Inspection Record. The Inspection Record would have all permit information pre-entered from the computer to insure accuracy and would be posted at the job site. With each inspection, the inspector ' will sign the Inspection Record and, upon final inspection, the Inspection Record will be retained by the City and included in the microfiche records for that address. RECOMMENDATION 19: File Approved Certificate of Occupancy Applications with Permits. Once the Certificate of Occupancy application has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, we recommend that the application should be filed along with the Inspection Copy of the permit maintained by the Permit Aide staff. This will enable the Division to maintain all Certificate of Occupancy and permit application materials in one file and readily available as the appropriate inspections are requested. Upon request for a final inspection, the Permit Aide will pull both the Permit and Certificate of Occupancy application for attachment to the appropriate Daily Inspection Schedule. RECOMMENDATION 20: The Inspector's Copy of Issued Permits Should be Filed by the Permit Staff and Permits Pulled When a Call for Inspection is Received. As part of streamlined Permit and Inspection processes, the Permit staff will be assuming new responsibilities for monitoring the status of plans and permits. In order to track permits and eliminate the duplication of the current separate filings of permits in the Permit staff area and the Inspector's room, we recommend that upon the issuance of a permit, the Permit aide will keep the Inspector Copy (white) in their file cabinets filed by address while the Department Copy (gold) is filled by issue date in a tickler file as described in Recommendation 11 below. When an inspection is requested and the inspections for the next day have been cut off, the Permit Aides will pull the Inspectors Copy of the permits and place them with the individual ' Inspector's daily schedule for the upcoming day in the Supervising Inspector's or individual Inspectors slot at a designated area. The responsibility for this re- City of Huntington Beach 49 ' assigned step is critical to the Permit staff's ability to effectively monitor inspection activity and track expiring permits as described in the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION 21: Establish a Permit Expiration Tickler File. We recommend that the Permit Aide staff maintain and monitor a Permit tickler file filed by permit issue date. As cited above, the Department Copy (gold) should be used in the tickler file. When an inspection is called for on a permit, the Permit Aide will pull the Inspector Copy (white) as previously described, and then proceed to move the Department Copy in the tickler file to the date folder with tomorrow's ' inspection date. By using this rotating tickler system, the Permit Aide will be able to monitor which permits have had no activity within the past five months and will thus begin the notification process described below in the next recommendation. RECOMMENDATION 22: The Building Section Should Develop and Implement a Policy for Notifying Applicants about Plans and Permit Expiration. We recommend that the Division develop a procedure for tracking plans and permits from application and processing date through the various interim dates and through the final approval or inspection of a plan or permit. At present while records are available to review the start dates of plans or permits, there is no system in place for monitoring activity of all plans and permits and particularly with regards to the expiration of plan or permits. Both plans and permits are originally good for six months from the application or permit issue date. In that time a plan must be approved unless an extension is requested and an inspection must be called for to keep the permit active. At present, there is no one within the Division responsible for tracking expiring plans and permits and notifying applicants of the impending expiration. While this did not appear to be significant in the Plan Check operation, our review of the Inspection operations revealed that there are currently approximately 3,000 outstanding permits which are past six months and have not been closed out. Many of these construction projects have been completed without the required inspections. This could create potential liability for the City in terms of businesses or residents occupying structures that have not been inspected or finaled. We recommend that the Division establish a monitoring and flagging system, administered by the Permit aide staff, to track plan and permit progress from the original date of submission or permit issuance. In the event that a plan or permit is within one month of expiring without any activity reported, the Permit staff will complete a written notification to the applicant alerting the applicant as to the impending expiration date. If within two weeks of the expiration date no response has been received, one of the two following procedures should be followed: Plans- the Plan Check Coordinator should be notified and he should attempt to contact the applicant by phone and a follow up second and last written notice; Permits- the City of Huntington Beach 50 1 Permit Aide should add the address and permit to the inspector's daily schedule assigned to that area to conduct a stop by inspection and the inspector should leave a door hanger notice and then the Permit Aide should send a follow up second notice. The implementation of this procedure should eliminate the occurrence of outstanding expired permits and provides a prudent public service to applicant and 1 the City. RECOMMENDATION 23: Conduct Certificate of Occupancy Inspection as Part of Final Building Inspection. In conjunction with earlier recommendations regarding the timing and filing of the Certificate of Occupancy application, we recommend that the inspection responsibility for conducting Certificate of Occupancy sign-offs be combined with the final inspection of a project. As cited, upon request for inspection, the Permit Aide will pull both the Inspector Copy of the permit and the Certificate of Occupancy application and attach them to the Inspector's Daily Inspection Schedule. The Inspector assigned to that area will conduct the final inspection and Occupancy inspection simultaneously. RECOMMENDATION 24: Consolidate Microfiche Record Keeping of Finaled Permits, Approved Certificate of Occupancies and ' Construction Plans. At present, the Housing and Building Division maintains two separate microfiche and record keeping functions. The Permit staff is responsible for preparing records and filing microfiche of all finaled permits by address, while the Plan Check Coordinator prepares all plans and file documents from the Plan Check process for a separate microfiche file also kept by address. We recommend that these two processes be consolidated to centralize all historical records and that all records for an address from plans to finaled permits be maintained in one place by address. The ' responsibility for preparing and unifying all documents will be with Permit Aide staff as part of the streamline Plan Check and Permit function. Related Issues-General RECOMMENDATION25: Develop Written Policy Regarding the Required Involvement of Planning or Building Plan Checkers by Plan Check Taupe Specifying when Internal Plan Check is Required. During the course of our study, a review of all Division materials and publications and interviews with Division personnel revealed that there is a lack of clarity regarding the involvement of various Divisions in the plan approval process for City of Huntington Beach 51 ' certain types of plans. While this did not appear to be a major concern, we feel it is important to clarify plan check responsibilities. Therefore, we recommend that the ' Building Section, as the lead organization for plan check, develop a written policy in the form of an employee guidebook that specifically addresses, by type of plan, when a Planning or a Building Plan Checker must review plans and when those plans can ' be approved by signature by either counter without review. An example of this would be, Who has review responsibility for signs? Do they only need Planning Plan Checker review? When do signs also require a Building Checker to review. ' The most commonly cited instances of a lack of clarity appeared to involve fences, block walls, garages, and signs. ' RECOMMENDATION 26: The Building Section, In Conjunction With the City's Data Processing Unit, Should Review and Examine ' Opportunities to Enhance Reorting Capabilities on the City's Existing Computer System to ImProve Plans, Permit and Inspection Tracking Se stem. ' During the course of our study, our observations, interviews and review of related documents revealed that the current automated system used by the Permit counter ' to process Plan Check and Permit applications is being under utilized in terms of detailed input and report generating capabilities. According to the Data Processing unit of the City, every item of information input into the system is potentially ' available for reporting from expired plan checks, issued but not finaled or expired permits, and even utility releases. Our interviews with the Division Permit staff revealed that while they were aware that the system has these reporting capabilities, ' the Division management did not request that type of information. ' As cited throughout this chapter, we are recommending that all functions performed by the Division be monitored from a workload and transactional perspective, and that these reviews be utilized to enable management to make ' efficient use of the Divisions personnel. In conjunction with those issues, we recommend that the Building Section should review and examine opportunities to enhance available reporting capabilities on the Division's and the City's computer ' system. The first step in this process will be for the Building Official, in coordination with all Division staff, to draft a blueprint of critical reports desired including the level of detail and tracking capability. This blueprint will then be reviewed with the Data Processing unit to determine the process to implement the desired reporting processes and capabilities. ' Related Issues -- Mobile Home Inspection Requirements In the near future, the City will also need to develop a program to address the SCalifornia Health and Safety Code (Section 18400.1) which requires that all mobile home parks be inspected once every five years. The first inspection must be ' completed prior to January, 1996. Each mobile home lot, as well as any common City of Huntington Beach 52 1 spaces must be inspected for compliance with applicable codes and standards. An inspection sheet for each lot must be completed and if violations are noted, a ' correction notice must be sent out and followed up with an inspection. Huntington Beach has 19 existing mobile home parks with approximately 3,162 spaces. The cost of the inspection program is to be paid from the fees collected from the annual fee paid for each lot. The State fee is $16 per lot, which raises approximately $50,592 each year. The first inspection program could easily consume ' one to one and one-half man years of time. The City has not yet started the inspection program although the required printed materials have been prepared. Although a work program to comply with the State requirements was developed by the Combination Chief Inspector in 1991, to date it has not been approved or implemented by Department management. RECOMMENDATION 27: Responsibility for Conducting the Mobile Home Inspection Program Should be in the Combination ' Inspection Group and the Inspection Program Should be Included in the Work Program for the 1993-94 Budget and be Implemented as Soon as Possible. Under our proposed organizational structure, we recommend that the responsibility for the implementation and administration of the Mobile Home Inspection ' Program be placed with the Combination Inspection Group. As cited above, the implementation of this program could have a significant impact on the workload for the inspection function and therefore, as part of on-going work monitoring as rrecommended earlier, the Program should be included in the budget for 1993-94 and implemented as soon as possible. The workload generated as part of this program should be included in the Division's review of appropriate inspection staffing levels as cited earlier. Applications and inspection scheduling will be handled in the same manner as permits and Certificate of Occupancy applications and processed by the Division's counter personnel. Availability of Public Information ' The Housing and Building Division provides many public information sheets and sample plans available to applicants on the third floor of City Hall which outline the Plan Check, Permit and Inspection processes. The Division also makes use of the booklets and pamphlets, such as the Help for the Home Builder guide, which describes in detail when and what steps are required in each stage of the process. ' The staff at the public counters also provide information to applicants in person or can answer questions from callers and serve in a positive public relations capacity for the City by guiding applicants through the Plan Check and Permitting process. While most large scale professional developers are familiar with the inspection process and what is required, the typical applicant for a Building Permit today is City of Huntington Beach 53 1 often a home owner or small business owner who is likely to be unfamiliar with the process. Therefore, the Division should continue to strive to enhance its public information efforts regarding inspection as a pro-active measure of public service to the community. ' RECOMMENDATION 28: The Building Section Should Continue to Recine, Update and Improve Public In formation Materials ' Detailing the Plan Check, Permit, and Inspection Process. As cited , the Building Section is successful in its efforts to provide clear and useful information outlining the Plan Check, Permit and Inspection processes to the public. We recommend that the existing public information material should be periodically reviewed and updated to keep up with current practices within the City. We also recommend that Section enhance the current Help for the Home Builder by providing a brief description of the internal .processing of plans including all departments involved and the reason for their involvement as well as projected turnaround times in total and by plan type and size. Finally, the guide should include a breakdown of all applicable fees and how they are applied. 1 City of Huntington Beach 54 Plan Check Operations Issues Our analysis of the Housing and Building Division's Plan Check function revealed that opportunities exist to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of current operations. Responsibilities for the plan check function have been divided between ' the Division's personnel depending upon the type of plan check. All structural building plans are reviewed by either the Senior Building Plan Checkers or the Building Plan Checker while commercial and industrial electrical and plumbing and mechanical drawings are reviewed by the specialty Chief Inspectors. The Division also periodically utilized the services of two contract consultants (BSI and Roger Legget) for plan check during periods of heavier workload volumes. As a whole, the volume of plan check workload has declined by approximately 31% during the past six years. Table IV-1 below illustrates the changing workload for the plan checking staff over the past five years. As illustrated, the plan check workload hit a peak in calendar 1987 and 1988 and has declined since that time. During this 1 period the staffing for the plan check function did not vary. Meanwhile, according to records of payments to contract consultants, utilization of consultant time varied according to volume and was most heavily used in calendar years 1988, 1989 and ' 1990. Percent Plan Check Type 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Change Building 552 678 580 583 536 431 -22% Electrical 514 405 278 334 270 269 -48% Mechanical 180 182 167 225 194 155 -14% Plumbing 176 151 115 152 153 W -28% Solar NA NA N/A 4 9 NA NA Total** 1,422 1,416 1,140 1,298 1,162 982 -31% "Totals Include All Plans Submitted for internal(not over the counter)plan check. 1 Table IV-1 Plan Check Workload 1987 through 1991 It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach is somewhat unique in the manner in which the number of electrical, mechanical and plumbing plan checks ' are recorded. In many cities, electrical plans in many instances for larger single family or commercial additions and alterations and tenant improvements would be submitted as part of the overall plan check submission and not recorded as a distinct electrical plan check. The same is true for a percentage of the mechanical and plumbing plan checks including such items as change outs of existing systems. With this in mind, while these types of plans are accounted for individually in the ' City, the effect of decreased overall plan check volume and changing plan check composition will have the same effect on the electrical, mechanical and plumbing plan check workloads as on the building plan check workload as is discussed below. ' City of Huntington Beach 55 1 i The workload for the plan check staff is a result not only of the total volume of 1 plans submitted, but also fluctuates depending upon the nature and type of plans submitted. In 1987, new buildings (either single family or multi family dwellings and commercial or industrial buildings) accounted for roughly 26% of the building plan check volume. By 1992 that percentage had decreased to 13%, while both residential and commercial additions and alterations increased substantially. It is significant to note that since 1988, as the total volume of plan checks was declining, the nature (type) of those plans was also changing from the more complex, time consuming new structures, to more simple tenant improvements and additions and alterations. Table IV-2 below illustrates the change in the composition of the building plan check workload over the past six years. Percentage Percentage Type of of All Plans of All Plans Building Plan Check 1987 1992 Tenant Improvement 11.2% 13.07. Single Family Dwelling (SFD) 13.4% 7.9% Building (All Types) 5.8% 3.5% Multi Family Dwelling (MFD) 6.7% 1.4% MFD Additions & Alterations 0.2% 0.2% Structures Other Than Buildings 2.4% 11.8% Resid. Additions & Alterations 21.9% 38.5% Comm. Additions & Alterations 7.2% 13.0% Signs 30.4% 10.0% Miscellaneous 0.7% 0.7% Total 100% 100% Table IV-2 Change in Building Plan Check Type 1987 through 1992 It is important to note that the volume of plan checks discussed above does not include over-the-counter plan checks which, in the case of building plan checks, can be substantial. Certain types of simple plans will be approved over the counter by the Building Plan Checker who staffs the public counter approximately 75% of her time. The Senior Building Plan Checkers are also available to provide counter plan check service when their expertise is needed and their estimates of time devoted to ' that task were 6% and 12% of their individual total time. The Building and Housing Division does not currently maintain a log of the volume of over the counter plan check activity and it was not possible to create accurate estimates ' within the scope of our study. However, as cited above, with an increasing volume of additions and alterations there will be and has been a corresponding increase in the volume of counter plan check activity as the projects tend to be smaller and less complex. City of Huntington Beach 56 1 ' Based on the plan check volume of all types discussed above and excluding over- the-counter plan check, we analyzed the plan check workload for the past six years ' and compared that with plan checker availability of staff on hand including the Senior Building Plan Checkers (at 70% availability each recommended as efficient utilization), the Building Plan Checker (at 25% availability), and two specialty Chief inspectors (50% availability each). The Assistant Building Official will also occasionally perform plan check on submitted plans, however due to his extra responsibilities in light of the long term vacancy in the Director/Building Official ' position, his availability is not included in the analysis. Our analysis included allowance for the frequency of one, two, and three re-checks on plans as discussed later under Plan Check-Level of Review. As summarized in Exhibit IV-3 on the following page, it appears that (using the standard 1,800 hour per Full Time Equivalent availability) during the high point of plan check activity in 1987, the City was slightly understaffed to process the plan check workload but since that time has maintained an adequate staffing level and used consultant plan check services to handle any overflow. It is important to note that during the course of our study we were given available projections of large development projects which should be coming on-line within the next year. While these projects do represent a continuous workload, we do not believe that the projects will substantially change the current plan check workload- or have a significant impact on plan check staffing requirements which should be Imaintained at present levels. The shift in the volume and type of plan check workload is also reflected in a decline in total permits issued by the Housing and Building Division. This decline has been particularly notable in the issuance of plumbing and heating permits and impacts upon the inspection workload as will be discussed under Inspection Issues. 1 Table IV-3 below reflects the decline in overall permits over the past six years. Permit Type 1987 1988 1989 19890 1991 1992 Building 4,055 5,425 4,133 4,633 5,129 4,992 Electrical 2,769 2,804 2,678 2,549 2,363 2,422 Plumbing 2,673 2,626 2,642 2,074 1,715 1,372 ' Heating 2,279 2,548 2,407 1,986 1,449 1,424 Yearly Totals 11,776 13,403 11,860 11,242 10,656 10,210 ' Table IV-3 Permit Activity All Types 1987 through 1992 During this six year period, the volume of building permits remained relatively constant but the make up of those permits changed substantially. As illustrated in Table IV-4 on the next page, permits for new buildings (homes, apartments/condos, commercial and industrial buildings) have declined from approximately 10% of all building permits issued in 1987 to 3% in 1992. Simultaneously, while Residential 1 City of Huntington Beach 57 r Exhibit N-3 City of Huntington Beach Housing and Building Division Plan Check Workload and Requirement Analysis -' Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar 1 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Tenant Improvements 62 45 34 50 40 66 •Single Family Dwellings 64 40 18 13 39 31 •Buildings-All Types 28 12 5 6 8 14 •Multi Family Dwellings 32 8 4 6 5 5 MFD Additions&Alterations 1 2 0 3 1 1 Structures Other Than Buildings 13 31 36 42 47 51 Residential Additions&Alterations 121 152 197 208 228 166 Commercial Additions&Alterations 40 50 51 47 63 56 Plumbing 176 151 115 152 153 127 Mechanical 180 182 167 225 194 155 Electrical 514 405 278 334 270 269 Miscellaneous 4 8 4 11 2 3 Total 1,235 1,085 909 1,098 1,050 934 *Less Plan Check Workload Contracted to Consultants Consultant-BSI 19 120 85 55 0 5 Consultant-Legget NA NA NA NA NA NA 19 120 85 56 0 5 ' Volume Projected Including 1,2,or 3 Re-checks Tenant Improvements 99 72 54 80 64 90(1)Re-Check=88%of Plans Single Family Dwellings 103 64 29 22 62 50(2)Re-Check=53%of Plans ' Buildings-All Types 44 18 8 10 13 22(3)Re-Check=24%of Plans Multi Family Dwellings 51 12 6 10 8 9*For caluculation re-checks MFD Additions&Alterations 2 3 0 5 2 2 are consider b2 of previous Structures Other Than Buildings 21 50 58 67 75 82 check. Residential Additions&Alterations 194 244 316 333 365 266 Commercial Additions&Alterations 64 80 82 75 101 90 Plumbing 282 242 184 244 245 204 Mechanical 288 292 268 361 311 248 Electrical 824 649 445 535 433 431 Miscellaneous 6 13 6 18 3 5 Total 1,979 1,739 1,457 1,760 1,683 1,497 ' Boars Required Projected By Volume 666 633 637 706 790 699 Tenant Improvements-(4 bra.) 397 288 218 321 256 359 ' Single Family(8 hrs.) 823 511 229 173 500 396 Buildings All Types(16 bra.) 711 296 136 165 205 350 Multi Family(16 bra.) 823 194 99 156 128 140 MFD.Additions&Alterations-(4 bra.) 6 13 0 19 6 6 ' Structures Other Than Bldgs.(4 bra.) 83 199 231 269 301 327 Res.Additions&Alterations-(4 bra.) 776 974 1,263 1,333 1,461 1,064 Comma. Additions&Alterations-(4 bra.) 256 321 327 301 404 359 Plumbing(2 Hrs.) 564 484 369 487 490 407 1 Mechanical(2 Hrs.) 577 583 535 721 622 497 Electrical(2 Hra.) 1,647 1,298 891 1,070 865 862 Miscellaneous(3 bra.) 19 38 19 53 10 14 Total 6,683 5,200 4,316 5,069 5,250 4,781 Projected FTE Requirement 3.71 2.89 2.40 2.82 2.92 2.66 StafFAvailable ' Plan Examiners(2 at 70%avail.) 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Chief Inspector-Plumb./Mech.(at 5090 avail.) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Chief Inspector-Electrical(at 50%avail.) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Counter Plan Checker(at 25%avail.) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 ' Total 2.65 2.65 2.65- 2.65 2.65 2.65 * Sign plan checks not included in plan check workload,checked over the counter by Building section. ' Additions and Alterations increased from 69% of the total to 85% in 1992, Commercial and Industrial Additions and Alterations declined from 18% of the total to 10% in 1992. This shift reflects the change in plan check volumes noted earlier and further highlights the likelihood of increasing counter plan checks of smaller Residential Additions and Alterations versus larger specialized projects. Permit Type 1987 1988 1989 19890 1991 1992 Multiple Dwelling 1.21% 0.92% 0.29% 0.50% 0.16% 0.16% ' SFD -Attached 1.01% 3.43% 0.44% 0.56% 0.00% 1.04% SFD- Detached 6.27% 12.59% 5.06% 1.40% 1.46% 1.64% Commercial-New 0.57% 0.33% 0.46% 0.24% 0.04% 0.28% Industrial- New. 1.23% 0.52% 0.46% 0.22% 0.06% 0.30% Subtotal-New Structures 10.29% 17.79% 6.71% 2.92% 1.72% 3.42% Comm..- Alter. & Add. 14.34% 10.56% 10.09% 10.08% 8.90% 8.86% Ind: Alter. & Add. 3.50% 2.29% 1.52% 2.29% 1.28% 1.54% Subtotal-Comm..flnd A & A 17.84% 12.85% 11.61% 12.37% 10.18% 10.40% Res.-Add. & Alt. 69.03% 67.06% 78.40% 82.88% 86.36% 84.68% Demolitions 2.59% 2.30% 3.29% 1.83% 1.75% 1.52% Foundations for Multis 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Parking Structures 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Table IV-4 Building Permit Activity All Types 1987 through 1992 As a final measure of the changing nature of the workload within the Housing and ' Building Division's plan check function, we analyzed the average valuation of building permits over the past six years. As illustrated in Table IV-5 on the next page, the average valuation per building permit has declined steadily since 1987. ' The current average of $17,929 is approximately one-half of the average in 1987 while the number of permits have remained relatively constant and in fact slightly increased. Therefore, even without adjusting for inflation, the Division has been processing increasing smaller permits (and plans) for the past three years. While we do not believe that valuation is the best way to measure workload, when used in ' conjunction with other data, it is an accurate indication of the type and complexity of the average permit. ICity of Huntington ton Beach 58 1 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Building Permits 4,055 5,425 4,133 4,633 5,129 4,992 Total ' Valuation(000's) 142,667 253,625 150,143 79,633 73,062 89,501 Average Valuation $35,183 $46,751 $36,328 $17,188 $14,245 $17,929 ' Table IV-5 Average Valuation Per Building Permit ' 1985 through 1991 Plan Checker Workload and Utilization RECOMMENDATION 29: The Building Section Should Establish an Automated Reporting Process that Categorizes Plan Checks by Tupe and Size and Which Tracks Plan Progress. ' The Housing and Building Division should develop and implement an automated system to closely monitor the number and type of plan checks, both internal and over the counter, processed by the Division. This should also include tracking turnaround times by type of plan and also by all different Divisions involved. The format and assignment of responsibility for the reporting of plan check operations should be designed by the Assistant Building Official in conjunction with the ' counter staff who will ultimately provide most of the input of data for tracking Plan Check volume. This monitoring and reporting should be used to evaluate the Division's plan check operations efficiency and effectiveness and the allocation of personnel resources devoted to the Plan Check function. Plan check workload will in large part be ' determined by the type and size of plan checks submitted. As our earlier analysis illustrated, an examination of the type of plan checks submitted revealed that plan check staff had adequate manpower resources to handle the workload and can be ' used to maintain the proper staffing levels in the future. RECOMMENDATION 30: Establish Monitoring of Counter Plan Check Workload Volume by Plan Check Type, Time Provided and Plan Checker. ' As part of the reporting of all Plan Check activity, the Division should begin to immediately monitor the volume of over the counter plan checks. As cited above, 1 with the trend towards smaller scale and typically more simple Residential Additions and Alterations, the volume of over the counter checks is likely to increase. The Division's ability to provide this most direct of customer services is City of Huntington Beach 59 The Operational Evaluation Implementation Plan reviews the 91 recommendations presented by Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. and responds with one of three staff positions. If staff is in full agreement with the Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. recommendation, then the staff recommendation states "Agree" . If staff agrees with part of the consultant recommendation, then the staff recommendation starts with the phrase "Agree to modified recommendation. When staff does not believe a consultant recommendation should be implemented, then the staff recommendation states "Disagree" . There is also a column which provides the date for implementation when appropriate. In the attached Implementation Plan Summary, staff's recommendation agrees with that of the consultant completely or partially in 80 of the 91 original recommendations. The vast majority of the recommendations will be implemented at minimal cost. Some recommendations, such as computer software and hardware purchases, will require an appropriation of funds before they can be. implemented. In the 11 consultant recommendations that staff does not believe should be implemented, they are faulty operationally and/or staff believes that a few errors in the analysis which lead to these recommendations resulted in incorrect conclusions. In the case of these 12 consultant recommendations there is a . respective explanation as to why they should not be implemented. It also should be noted that in the past two years and for the coming fiscal year there have been a total of 5 positions eliminated in the Community Development Department. Some of these reductions are the same that were recommended for elimination by Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. . Many of the recommendations are already implemented as indicated in the column entitled "Implementation Schedule" Many more will be implemented in FY 1993-94 . The last ones should be implemented by the end of FY 1994-95. From the time of the inception of this study, it has significantly challenged all involved to be consistently objective and not take the issues and comments personnally. There have been moments when this has been most difficult to do. The affected staff at all levels of the organization have tried to provide constructive input through the processes provided. It is important to specifically recognize this point since the City now has a work product that will be implemented and will improve the cost and service to the customers of the development service functions. This report focuses on the Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. Action Plan since this is the section of the report that will most benefit the community, customers and the organization. The Implementation Plan prepared by the staff is specifically meant to respond to this section of the report. FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund Balance or Revenues ALTERNATE ACTION: That the City Council amend the Implementation Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Organizational Evaluation Implementation Plan r ORGANIZATIONAL EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Y Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 1. Reorganize the Housing & Building 32 Agree to modified recommendation. There will January, 1994 Division into three distinct functional be three functional areas which will areas, each reporting directly to the be restructured after further analysis. Director/Building Official. 2. Consolidate plan check and permitting 33 Agree to modified recommendation to have closer Ongoing functions into one functional area under coordination among the sections by the division head. the supervision of the Assistant Building Official. 3. Create a chief inspector position responsible 34 Agree to reclassify an existing chief position to Fill position by Mar. 1994 for the supervision and coordination of all of Inspector Manager to oversee the three the division's inspection functions. remaining Principal Inspector positions. 4. Maintain current staffing levels and re-assign 35 Agree. See attached memo from Ross Cranmer July, 1993 functions and personnel as highlighted in other dated June 3, 1993. One Building Inspector position recommendations. Do not increase staffing was eliminated in FY 1991/92. until significant increases in construction activity warrant such an increase. As vacancies occur, do not fill them unless a determination is made that the workload warrants the filling of the position. S. Increase workload monitoring of all permit, plan 35 Agree. Need to identify computer software. August, 1993 check, and inspection activity Request Appropriation November, 1993 Purchase and install software. July, 1994 Implement January, 1995 6. The Building Official should be more active 36 Agree. Primary representative may be delegated Already implemented professionally and attend more ICBO and other similar activities and should be the city's primary representative in the building official organizations. The Building Official should take a more active role in managing the day-to-day activities of the Building section. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 7. A Building section policy and procedures 37 Agree January, 1995 manual should be implemented and contain all administrative and technical policies which are approved by the Building Official 8. Regular division management and staff meetings 38 Agree July, 1993 should be conducted to discuss division operations, new policies and procedures, and cooperative work programs. 9. Streamline counter operations and internal 43 Agree with 9 of 15 recommendations as indicated Ongoing to July, 1995 procedures of the plan check, permit, in the following separately listed recommendations. certificate of occupancy, and inspection functions. 10. Consolidate the three counters into one consolidated 45 Agree to modified recommendation to cross train Ongoing to July, 1994 counter and re-assign the receptionist greeting on routine limited functions duties for the department to counter personnel and eliminate the physical location of the greeting desk. 11. Provide cross training for existing building, planning, 46 Disagree. Will not work because of difficulty Not Applicable and permit counter staff to enable all staff to of tasks and education required and refer to#10. to process permit and plan check applications and to assist each other. 12. Position cash registers at consolidated counter and 46 Disagree. Presently cash is transferred by pneumatic Not Applicable eliminate procedure of sending fees and applications tube to City Treasurer's Office and it provides for to Finance while applicant waits. Consolidate an adequate check & balance. procedure to twice per day either via chute or personal delivery. 13. Standardize plan check application procedures 47 Agree based on purchasing & implementing new January, 1995 for all plan check types and maintain one plan computer system and software. check log book. 14. Coordinate release and issue of corrected or 47 Agree to modified recommendation. The project Ongoing approved plans from all departments involved. planner or the plan check coordinator will take on more responsibility for helping the applicant through the process. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 15. Standardize plan check applicant notification 48 Agree January, 1994 processes for all plan check types. 16. Coordinate timing of certificate of occupancy 48 Agree July, 1994 and permit applications. 17. Eliminate the planning/zoning review of 48 Disagree. The certificate of occupancy for planning Not Applicable certificate of occupancy applications. is for a different purpose than for new construction. 18. Revise permit form to include hard copy 49 Agree to modified recommendation. This requires the January, 1995 inspection record. purchase of software and PCs to implement effectively. Requires an appropriation not presently budgeted. Hard copy will then be available when needed 19. File approved certificates of occupancy 49 Agree January, 1994 applications with permits. 20. The inspector's copy of issued permits should 49 Agree. Requires new computer software and January, 1995 be filed by the permit staff and permits pulled hardware to implement. when a call for inspection is received. 21. Establish a permit expiration tickler file. 50 Agree. - Requires new computer software and January, 1995 hardware to implement. 22. The building section should develop and 50 Agree January, 1994 implement a policy for notifying applicants about plans and permit expirations. 23. Conduct certificate of occupancy inspection 51 Agree. July, 1994 as part of final building inspection. 24. Consolidate microfiche record keeping of 51 Disagree. The current locations have been designed Not Applicable finaled permits, approved certificates of to provide for efficient use by staff. Movement to a occupancies, and construction plans consolidated location would require excessive staff travel. In the future, it is anticipated that the Optical Disc System will eventually provide this capability throughout the department. 25. Develop written policy regarding the required 51 Agree July, 1993 involvement of planning or building plan checkers by plan check type specifying when internal plan check is required. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule , 26. The Building section, in conjunction with the 52 Agree. Requires a year to identify appropriate Aug., 1993—identify needs city's data processing unit, should review and hardware & software and will require an Nov., 1993—request examine opportunities to enhance reporting appropriation of funds. Assumes appropriation appropriation capabilities on the city's existing computer approved in January, 1994. Jan., 1995—implementation system to improve plans, permit and inspection tracking system. 27. Responsibility for conducting the mobile home 53 Agree September, 1994 inspection program should be in the combination inspection group and the inspection program should be included in the work program for the 1993194 budget and be implemented as soon as possible. 28. The Building section should continue to refine, 54 Agree. The flow charts contained in the report will Ongoing update, and improve public information eventually be available to the public to explain the materials detailing the plan check, permit, steps involved in obtaining various permit approvals. and inspection process. 29. The Building section should establish an 59 Agree. Will require an appropriation of funds January, 1995 automated reporting process that categorizes for hardware & software. plan checks by type and size and which tracks plan progress. 30. Establish monitoring of counter plan check 59 Agree Already implemented workload volume by plan check type, time provided, and plan checker. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 31. Establish target utilization of a minimum of 60 Disagree. Although there is validity Not Applicable 70% for plan checkers doing plan check work. to the statement that plan checkers are devoting less than 50% of their time to pure plan checking at their respective work stations, the consultant fails to identify functions that directly relate to plan check. Some of these functions would include; preparation of plan check correction notices, follow thru by explanation either by telephone or at public counter to further discuss or explain these correction notices, time spent at public counter in 'over the counter" plan checking. answering numerous questions to novice owner/ builders, meeting with contractors, engineers, architects, and others unfamiliar with city policies, etc. If all the above activities are taken into consideration, the 70% and above level is being achieved currently. It is also understood that the remaining time spent is being devoted to other plan check related items such as staff meetings, time spent in being fully knowledgeable of new codes, state of the art construction and engineering techniques, consultation with members of staff(inspectionn, etc.) in interpretation of these codes, etc. 32. Supervising inspectors (currently chief inspectors) 60 Agree to modified recommendation. Staff will January, 1994 of the electrical and plumbing/mechanical functions review if all present applications require plan check. should continue to provide electrical and plumbing/ mechanical plan check for commercial/industrial projects and for larger residential (multi-family) projects when appropriate. 33. In cooperation with Public Works, create a 61 Agree September, 1993 coordinated system for ensuring compliance of landscape plans with approved grading plans. , Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule , 34. The Building section should establish time 62 Agree to modified recommendations. Staff will July, 1993 estimates for total turn-around time and notify applicant in writing of optional plan check internal processing time of plan checks service if service time will be exceeded. by plan type. 35. The Housing & Building Division should 64 Agree January, 1994 establish a written internal policy regarding the appropriate service levels provided to customers. 36. The Building section should continue to offer the 64 Agree Ongoing optional plan check track permitting applicants to pay for consultant plan check time. 37. The Housing & Building Division should only use 65 Agree Ongoing contract plan check services in the event of a significant increase in plan check volume and workload. 38. Provide cross training for senior building plan 65 Disagree. Will increase the use of handouts July, 1994 checkers for residential plumbing/mechanical for smaller projects, and the current plancheck and electrical capabilities. requirements for plumbing, mechanical, and electrical will be reviewed. 39. Monitor workload for all permit aides for six 68 Disagree. With the use of more information Not Applicable months after implementation of the reorganization systems, remaining staff is necessary. and consider reducing staff through reassignment or attrition. 40. Cross train permit aides to assist the plan check 68 Disagree. Requires training and education not Not Applicable counter staff in the intake of plan checks possessed by permit aides. They will also be (non-over the counter). used increasingly for automation and permit tracking systems administration. 41. Reorganize the inspection functions under one chief 72 Agree. Same as #3. January, 1994 inspector reporting directly to the Building Official. Arroyo Seco Recommendation Page No. Staff Recommendation Implementation Schedule 42. Establish three inspection groups - electrical and 72 Agree to modified recommendation. Will change January, 1994 plumbing/mechanical inspection groups with one chiefs' title to Principal Inspector and classify the overall senior inspection under a supervising inspector, chief as "Inspection Manager." Same as #1. and all remaining inspectors assigned to the combination group under one supervising inspector. 43. Reclassify existing chief inspector positions to 73 Agree to modified recommendation. Chief Inspector Not Applicable. supervising inspector and four existing senior will be retitled to Principal Inspector but leave inspector positions to inspector positions. existing Senior Inspector title. 44. Introduce two levels of inspectors under the 73 Agree January, 1994 supervising inspector, senior inspector & inspector. 45. Utilize the expanded combination inspection function 74 Agree to modified recommendation. City will have September, 1994 for all residential projects and simple commercial/ limited combination inspections in and through the three industrial tenant improvements and alterations divisions. Will develop combination permit form, and unless otherwise determined by chief inspector all inspectors will be cross trained. (new position). 46. The section should develop and adopt standard 74 Agree September, 1994 inspection workload estimates based on permit volumes and maintain inspection staff levels in relation to those estimates. 47. Utilize current inspection staffing to close out old 75 Agree January, 1995 permits currently on file with city and establish written section and division policies as to how this will be accomplished. 48. Monitor individual inspection workloads and conduct 75 Agree, based on purchasing & implementing January, 1995 a six month review (after implementation of new computer system and software. reorganization) to determine appropriate inspection staffing levels. Ffl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator FROM: Ross Cranmer, Assistant Building Official SUBJECT: GENERAL COMMENTS CONCERNING INSPECTION STAFFING LEVEL (RECOMMENDATION NO. 4) DATE: June 3, 1993 The statement made on page 72 that we are overstaffed by approximately 2.5 inspectors is not accurate due to a number of issues . First the number of man hours available per year is more like 1, 624 hours per person and not 1,800 hours per the report. With ten (10) full time equivalent inspectors (FTE) this allows for 2,030 inspector days per year. In 1992, we performed 30,514 inspections which is an average of 15 inspections per day per inspector. This 15 inspections requires 15 stops which requires travel from one inspection to the next. The statement on page 70 concerning a workload of 20 to 30 inspections could not mean actual stops with travel. Jurisdictions that are not performing tract inspections average 12 - 18 stops a day and our 15 stops per day per inspector is a very reasonable number. Exhibit IV-4 after page 71 is intended to be used as an "estimate" of current and future inspection staff needs. The model has two basic areas that can significantly modify the "estimate" . The number of available man hours is one issue as discussed above and the time required to perform an inspection is another issue. The .33 hours allowed for the inspection of residential additions and alterations is not realistic. In 20 minutes you can not drive from one location to another, locate the area to be inspected, review the plans, provide the inspection and write any corrections . This analysis also does not include any time necessary to explain the correction to the home owner or contractor or both. If this estimate is increased to just 30 minutes we can easily justify our current staffing. If we were to combine this with the number of man hours available issue we could justify an increase in staff based on this table. The last issue that needs to be discussed is workload. The study was done during a recession at our slowest time of year. In contrast, the first four months of this year shows .a 75% increase in evaluation over last year. This surge in activity coupled with our new housing program and new state mandated mobile home inspections can very easily justify additional staff, which is in sharp contrast to the report. RC:jr cc: Mike Adams Pat Spencer (6866d) �- 7G FE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINUON BE TO: RAY SILVER, Assistant City Administrator FROM: DONALD L. WATSON, City Treasurer SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNCTIONS DATE: MAY 18, 1993 I disagree with the findings and recommendations on Issue #4, page 20; Recommendation 77, page 12 of the Exhibit II-I, and Recommendation 12, page 46. The report refers to the Finance Department but it should be the Treasurer's Department. There is no significant impact on the client under the present procedure. The client does not come to the first floor to pay but, as is noted, the documents with payment are sent via pneumatic tube to the first floor. The time required for the physical movement through the tube is measured in terms of seconds. The actual processing is almost immediate and would be no shorter if processed on the third floor. We have had enough experience with permits and checks submitted not being in agreement. This is caught immediately under the present independent validation. At the end of the day, both the Treasurer's office and Community Development must agree on the permit fees and dollars collected. The proposed recommendation would require capital outlays of several thousand dollars; would reduce the checks and balances; and would not significantly improve client service. I do agree that there are not yet adequate procedures for monitoring the collection of Park and Recreation fees. I recommend a check list be established which includes verification that Park and Recreation fees have been paid before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Not covered in the report, but of the same concern, is the Traffic Impact Fee. This fee, though collected by Public Works, has the same potential for being missed as Parks and Recreation fees. This might also be added to the check list. The present system does not put these fees into the accounts receivable system as debts owed to the City. I recommend that this be done so that all monies due the City will be recorded and this will also serve as a check and balance. Memo to Ray Silver Page Two May 18, 1993 Our ordinances need to revoke a certificate of occupancy if the payment of any fee is made with a bad check. DISTRIBUTION: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Lou Sandoval , Director of Public Works Mike Dolder, Fire Chief Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Pat Spencer, Director of Housing and Building Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Bob Franz, Dep. City Administrator/Administrative Services Barbara Kaiser, Dep. City Administrator/Economic Development Ross Cranmer, Asst. Building Official/Structural Engineer COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics hidicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK . ....... .. ... ...... ..... .. .. .. ..... ............... .. . . . ........ (M. WORK PROGRAM STAFF HOURS ACTIVITY 4fdU_RSj PERCENTAGE BUDGETED Cur-rent Planning 9,350 16.57% 6,819 Advance Planning 15,589 27.62% 111)369 Code Enforcement 14,949, 26.49% 105903 Committees 5,420 9.60% 3,953 On-Going Activities 6,449 11.43% 4,703 Zoning Counter 4,680 8.29% 3,413 Planning Division Total Hours* 56,437 100.00% 41,160 Number of Hours Over Budgeted Staff Time 15$277 ,*Note: Assumes 1,960 hours per year for each staff member. Curently 21 staff members for a total of 41,160 hours of staff time per year A=Iiigh Priority B=Medium Priority WORKMINIS C=Low Priority Pagel COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" .7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK ................. ij: i;j�: ............ ................. ...... . ............... ................ .... . ... ........ ... . . .................. ..... PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement Review DA compliance A Pacific Coast Homes RLF 200 Code Amendment No. 92-32 Revise Downtown Specific Plan and Develop a parking master plan A City of H.B. HZ 2,080 TM 13439 Review of conditions A Dahl RLF 40 CA Establish regulations for carts and kiosks B City of H.B. MS 121, Code Amendment No.92-32 Revise Downtown Specific Plan and Develop a parking master plan A City of H.B. HZ 3, TTM 14666/CUP 92-17/CDP 92-14 Mixed use 82 unit/42,000 sq.ft. of commercial C Coultrup Development SH 90 CUP 92-38A, 3813,38C/CDP 92-25 Expand night club, liquor store and restaurant with wine and beer A Coultrup Development SH 24 Code Amendment No. Division 9 rewrite A City of H.B. SP 2,080 CUP review Annual review A Angus Oil MR 25 CUP 87-5,Review Medical use Hold THP,Inc. SP 10 Appeal-SPA 92-5 Driveway relocations Hold, C Kaiser Permanente LP 40 CUP 91-12,Review Church A Presbytery of CA 10 CUP 90-67,CDP 90-47,TTM 14438 639 Condominiums Hold Waterfront SH 100 CUP 91-1,Review Church Hold St. Wilfrids HF 10 CUP 91-44,Review Hazardous Liquids Removal C NESI Group HF 25 CUP 93-12 Extend height of monopole to 50' A Planning Consortium LP 20 CUP 93-1510E 93-20 Cellular antenna to 90'in height A Planning Consaortium JO 20 Appeal UP 92-65 Establish outdoor dining and trash enclosure A Michael Niccole WC 60 Appeal CE 93-11 Retain existing converted garage A Adam Kiernik WC 20, UP 93-31 Newstand A Maxi Taxi WC CE 93-23 Exceed Height for pier restaurant A City of HB im 2t) Ext. of Time-CUP 90-45/CE 91-3 I/TPM 90- Meadowlark commercial buildings A Bolsa Realty RLF 10 CUP 93-13 Second unit in Single Family Residence A Maddim Construction LP 26 Meadowlark DA Annual review for compliance A Nerio SP 10 CA 93-3 Indoor swap meets A Frazer Tremblow im 100 CUP 93-16/CE 93-21/CDP 93-9 Restaurant and parking variance A Frank Alfonso SP 30 CUP 93-5 Meadowlark golf course remodel A American Golf Corp. WC 50 Ext.of Time-CUP 83-16 Church use A Larry Knutsen SP 10 ICUP 93-21/CE 93-26/CDP 93-11 Restaurant with alcohol sales and parking variance 1A Yuh-Hun Wong Wang SP 30, A=High Priority B=Mediurn Priority WORM62.7KIS C=Low Priority Page2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) CUP 93-19 Restaurant A Joe Rivello SP 26 CUP 93-18 Restaurant w/liquor and live entertainment A Carol Moson JM 26 Review-CUP 91-58 Towing yard A Best Towing JM 5 CUP 93-20 Beer and wine sales with restaurant A Richard Rappa JO 26 SSP 93-6 Monument sign A Swain Sign HF 20 Appeal CE 93-13 Reduced setback for playhouse A. Douglas Burroughs WC 20 CUP 93-17 Fitness Center A Donley Bennett Arch. RLF 26 Beach Blvd. Auto Dealer Signage Review Create temporary sign standars C City of HB SP 5^ CUP 93-11 Room Addition to Condo w/special permits A Elizabeth Shafer JM CUP 93-14 Gas station remodel A Edwin Mah SP 26 Code Amendment Affordable housing ordinance A City of HB HZ 200 SSP 92-10 10'freestanding sign and new wall signage A Hummer JM 20 CUP Marina expansion C Joe Stanko SH 26 CUP 92-44 300'communication tower B Dan Brimlow SP 26 PSP 93-1 Master sign plan B Abdulmuti LP 20 CUP 93-7/CE 93-8 Rehab of existing structure with rest.on second floor A Lang Lambert JM 42 CUP 93-9 Library annex A Van Roon Arch. HF 26 CUP 90-60(R) Amend Condition No. Ig of CUP C Mary Harris JO 30 CUP 92-33 Day care for 60 children Hold Great Amr.Learning Ctr SP 26 PSP 92-8 Master Sign Plan Hold Federal Sign Co. SP 15 CUP 92-47,'iTM 14659 285 Unit PRD A Seacliff Partners RLF 80 CUP 92-48,TM 14662 153 Unit PRD A Seacliff Partners RLF 80 CUP 92-49,TM 14661,EA 92-49 306 Unit Multiple Family Residential Project A Seacliff Partners RLF 80 CUP 92-51 To continue horse stable use A Don Felix SP ZC 92-3,EA 92-34 Rezone from TLSP-B to C2 C Jack Ellsworth JM 56 ZC Ellis-Goldenwest Park Site B City of HB HF 200 Fourth Block East Review Conceptual Plan C City of HB SP 10 Meadowlark Dev. Concept Review B Nerio RLF 25 Beach Improvements B City of HB MA 150 Pier Plaza C City of HB MA 150 CUP 87-19,Review 296 room hotel Hold Waterfront SH 15 A=High Priority B=Mediurn Priority WORKPRGI.NU C=Low Priority Page3 CON94UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) CUP 92-7, CDP 92-8. EA 92-10 1 0-slip marina C Hunt. Harbr. Yacht Club JU 35 CUP 90-9,PPSA 90-1,TrM 14215,CDP 90-7 . 500 room hotel and health club Hold Waterfront SH 140 C4 Resorts Affordable Housing Project 28 UnitvReduced Standards B California Resorts RLF 60 SUB TOTAL] 8,2751 ..... ... ------- . .. ...... .. ... ......... ........ ........ ........ ..... ....... X.....X", .. ....... ............... ......... . .. .. . ..... .......... . .. ................. ........ . . ..... .......... ............ ......... .. .............. ............ ...... ... ......... .......... ... ..... .......... ... .............. ......... .. ......... ................... 11 1 1 ......... . ............ ........I ..I ........ .... .........1-111-111111.111111111111-11. .. . .......... ....... .. ....... ...... ....I ........ ....... .....I.. ............ .. ..................... ........ . .... ..... ..... ......... . .... ... .. ... ...... —... .. . ..... ....... ......... ... ..... . ................... .......... PLANNER I STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED I TIME(hr.) UP 93-19 253 unit apartment project A Andover Co. WC 12 UP 9345 8'block wall A Monique Von Lactow WC 2 UP 93-38 Establish Sail Catalina business A Sail Catalina WC 3 UPM93-37 Establish a manager's unit A Beadview WC 2 UP 93-39 Blockwall A Lettie Davis WC 2 CDP 93-9/UP 93-26 S.F.addidtion A Jerry Yates WC 5 UP 9342/CE 93-25 S.F.addition A Jeff Johnson WC 5 UP 93-34 Pony enclosure building A Cash&Associates WC 3 UP 93-35 Remodel Commercial building A Dr.Joseph Giacopelli WC 4 UP 93-12/EA 93-10/CDP 93-8 Reactivate oil well A Dale Armstrong WC 5 UP 93-36/CE93-22 Outdoor patio A Martin Jaconi WC 41 CDP 93-10 Gas pipeline A Union Oil Co. WC AR 93-4 New 10,000 sq. R. industrial bldg. A Ocean Playa Const. WC UP 93-46 Wall in front setback A Robert Munoz WC 2 UP 93-47 TOE A Abdul Memon WC I UP 93-17 Establish car sales lot A Haus Schroeder WC 6 UP 93-30/CDP 93-7 S.F. addition A Richard Anderson WC 5 UP 93-30 Establish a recycling center A Juan Navaro WC I UP 93-9 Expand restaraunt A Juliano Angelo WC 4 UP 9348 TOE A HB Mail JM I ICE 93-28 Reduce Open Space A Marco Perez im 4 A=ffigh Priority B=Medium Priority WORKPRG2.NLS C=Low Priority Page4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) UP 93-51 Add Car sales/increase hours of operation A Paul Wesselink im 4 UP 93-49 Garage remodel and expansion A Bundy-Finkel Arch. im 5 UP 93-53 Health Club Expansion A Jeff Bergsma im 3 UP 93-50 TOE A The Trading Post im 2 UP 93-52 Warehouse to Manufacturing A Carnbro Manuf. Co. im 51 SUB TOTAL 1001 .................... .. . .....-........ .. . ..................... .. .......... ........ ...... ..... ........ .. ............. .. ........ ............ . .......... . . ... ... . ....... ..... .......... . .. ........ .. ........ .. .......... ......... .. . . . ........... ....... .. ........ .. ....... . ....... PLANNER I STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED I TIME(hr.) Affordable Housing Plan A City of HB HZIPS 360 Downtown Affordable Housing Plan A City of HB HZIPS 75 SUB TOTAL I 435 ............................ ............. ........ .. . ...... . .. ..... X. X. ............ ......... ....... . .... .. ..... . .............. .......... .......... ........ ..... ... ... : ... ...... .... . ... ... ..... ....... "No"Issi.03 a ...... .... . .... ... ....... ............ .... ....... ............. ......... ............ 7.. PLANNER I STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(L CUP 92-1, ND 92-7 Wildlife Hospital A Gary Gorman JM 120 CDP 91-9 Three Pier Buildings A City of HB im 20 LCPA 92-3 Zone change for 591 residential units A NESI HF 100 Appeal CDP 91-26 Surfcrest A Surfcrest Partners HZ 300 SUB TOTAL 540 CURRENT PLANNING TOTAL HOURS 9,350 A=High Priority B=Medium Priority WORURG2.XLS C=Low Priority Page5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK EjQQa4W ..... .. ........... .. ................... ................................ . .... .... .. .............. . ........................ ....... .. ...................................... ............ ............... ............... .... .............. ............. .. ........ ........... ......... ................. ......... .. .......... . .. .. ... .. ANN .. .. ....... ............ .. .... .......... ........ ..... .......... ............... .. .. . .... . . . . ... id . ........... STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST/PURPOSE PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) White Hole/Zone Change,Master Plan Changing zoning to comply with General Plan 13 City of HB SH 200 Dwntwn Parking Management Study Prepare study of dwntwn parking in conj. w/master parking plan A City of HB HF 40 GPA 90-1,ZC 90-1 (Specific Plan) Bolsa.Chica.Development Plan A Koll Company LP 1,5001 GPA 90-2, ZC 90-2 Low to Medium-High Density Residential A City of HB LP 5001 EIS/EIR 91-1 Bolsa Chica Development Plan A Koll Company LP 2,C Development Agreement Bolsa.Chica Development A Koll Company LP 2,00u General Plan Update Comprehensive update of the General Plan A City of HB/Envicont HS/BJ 4,000 Safety Element Update Revise and update A City of HB HF/BJ 500 Housing Element Update Five year review A City of HB J0 500 Coastal Element Update Five Year Review B City of HB HSIHF 1,000 Area Inventory/Demographics Brochure City Wide Information Brochure A City of HB BJ 300 Housing Element Status Report A City of HB J0 40 1990 Census Summary Public Brochure B City of HB BJ 80 Vacant Land Survey Identify vacant parcels in city C City of HB BJ/Intern 100 GPA Change from industrial to residential/commercial C McDonnell Douglas J0 300 Visual Preference Survey Assist G-PA C in Design Element B City of HB HS 200 Fiscal Model Revision Update CostlBenefilf Model C City of HB J0 200 Transit Study Coordination with public works C City of BB_HS 50 School Sites Development Planning Coordinate with school districts A City of HB HF 50 Development Monitoring Program Monitor number of units and square footage by use C City of HB HS - Bluff Top Improvements Coordinate with public works dept./County/CAC B City of HB HSIJO — GPC 93-1 Storm drain alignment B City of HB HF 10 Rancho View School Site Review various uses C School District HF 5 Holly Seacliff School Site Proposed school A School District BF/HF 80 Santa Ana River Crossing Study Meet with County bridge crossing C HF 80 Flood Program Update Meet with FFAfA to update regulations C SP 90 Pacific Coast Highway Study Meeting with Caltrons C Caltrans HF 40 School District/CC Meeting Twice a year joint meeting C A//school dist. officials HF 10 Bolsa Chica. Bolsa Chica Development Plan A Koll Company ILP 1 900, A=High Priority B=Medium Priority WOWRGMS C=Low Priority Page6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST/PURPOSE PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) Gill School Site Review Proposed Development C School District HF 10 Annual Report Public information B City of HB HS/BJ 40 TRO Ordinance Reduce Vehicle trips A City of HB BJ 40 GPC 93-5 Transfer property A Redev. Agency BJ 2 GPC 93-6 Transfer Property A Redevl.Agency BJ 2 600 block PCH study Residential to Commercial B City of HB HF 10 Holly-Seacliff Park Dedication study Park dedication A City of HB HF 15 Ellis-Goldenwest School Site study New school site B City of HB HF ' Gill School site Disposition of property A City of HB HF ti_ Downtown Retail Market Analysis Study of downtown market potential A City of HB HF 80 Permit Parking study Coastal Zone permit parking C City of HB HF 5 GPA 91-61ZC 91-71CUP 91-50/EA 91-40 300 unit condo, affordable C Southridge Homes HF 200 GPA 90-6/2C 90-71TPM 90-163 Rezone WR to R2 C Robert Bacon HF 120 Work program Budget A Administration BJ 10 CA 92-21EA 92-18 Transitional housing as unclassified use A Alpha group JO 40 SUB TOTAL 15,549 .:�.:: :: <... ..!..j`:i::::(�.:^::�::(: '. :::.'-:: :.--.._ is:l: ::: ''`::�i::,: J::`: :::j:::i::`:iY:i:::}`}::::'ri::i::i':�i::isi::::::::i:t<:: isi$ii::�: i::::is�i:::i:::.:.�::::\y::.:::i:::::::::.:::.'.::::::::::::::n�::w:.iw:::::::r':<:::.:.::ii.:..�}:•.�:.�:m::.:::n:iv:.:::.�::::::::. .::::. ::::::::::::. f/... � I.�:.R .. .. .... ............. .. ... ... ....... .. ............ ...................n.......................... PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST/PURPOSE PRIORITY1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) LCPA 92-3 Zone Change for 591 Residential Units A NESI HF 4„ SUB TOTAL 40 ADVANCE PLANNING TOTAL HOURS 15,589 A=High Priority B=Medium Priority WORKPRG2.NQS C=Low Priority Page7 CONOVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK ................. . ................... . ........... .. ... ......... x M. PLANNERI STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST/PURPOSE PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED I TIME(hr.) City-wide Housing Survey Determine quality of housing stock A City of HB MS/PS 3,000 Code Enforcement Bail Schedule C City of HB AM 80 Code Enforcement Procedure Manual A City of HB AM 50 Beach Blvd Auto Dealer Signage Review B Various SP 401 Code Amendment Update county required ordinances County MR Citizen Inquuires Various citizen requests A Administration Various 2.) SUB TOTAL 3,235 STAFF TYPE OF COMPLAINT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED IN 1992 AVERAGE HOURS TIME(hr.) Animal Complaint 73 3.5 255.5 Substandard Housing 213 5 1,065 HOP Violation 22 2 44 Noise Code 91 3.5 318.5 Construction with out Building Permit 162 3.5 567 Property Maintenance 805 5 4,025 Sign Code 226 . 3.5 904 Vehicles(inoperable) 512 3.5 Certificate of Occupancies 217 2.5 54,.., Conditions Compliance 51 3 153 Illegal Units/Occupancy 122 3.5 427 Nfisc.Non-Permitted Uses 245 3 735 Illegal Businesses 0 0 0 Misc.Zoning Violations 113 3.5 345.5 2,852 SUB TOTAL 11,174 A=High Priority B=Mediurn Priority WORURGINIS C=Low Priority Page8 CONRvfUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Lipre Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WOR . ......... . . ............ .... ........ .............. . . ...... .... . . ..... .. .... ....... ... ........................... .... ...... ........................ ... .... . ... STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.)l Hassan A SH/MR 200 Paradise Specialties A SH 60 Eskams A W 120 Heinen A AS 40 Zagustin A MR 120 SUB TOTAL 540 CODE ENFORCEMENT TOTAL HOURS 14,949 A=High Priority B=Medium Priority WORKPRG2.NIS C=Low Priority Page9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics hidicate"Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION ......... ...... RK P ................ .—.... ...... . ...... ................ ................................................... ................. ........... ....... .. . .......... ......... .. ........ .. ....... . . ....... .. . ...............................X:... ...... ...... . ..................... ...... ............... ... .. ................ ... .................................. ..:.. ... ............ . ......... ...... . .......... .. ....... ...... . .............. ..... ... ... . ......... . . .. . .. ...... . ....... ...... .. .................................... .............. ........... ......... ............... ... ................. ....................... ........ ..... .. ..... ..... . ...... ............ ... 1. .... ........—1-111,11,111'. ......... I IPLANNER STAFF COMMITTEE JINFORMATION I PRIORITY I JASSIGNED ITIME(hr.) ASCON(XESI)Ad Hoc Committee As Needed(Might) A HF 30 q A QMD Committee As Needed C BF 36 Bolso Chica CAC Monthly(Night) A LP 36 Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park CAC As Needed C J0 60 Business Development Team As Needed C HZISH 481 Cart-Kiosk Committee As Needed A MA/MR Chamber of Commerce Comm. Devip. As Needed C XMIHZ 15 Cities Forum As Needed to coordinate with adjacent cities B HS 24 O.C. Technical Advisory Committee As Needed B BJ 25 Design Review Board Twice a Month(day) A Sm 600 Environmental Board Second and Fourth Thursday(night) A J0 100 Environmental Assessment Committee As Needed A JO 1,200 Florida/Utica Task Force As Needed A MR 228 GIS Coordination Committee As Needed B BS 200 GPAC Twice a Month(Night) A HS/BJ/LP 150 Holly-Seacliff Task Force Weekly B RLF 96 League of Cities/O.C.Affordable Housing Comm. As Needed B HZ 60 Natural Communities Conserv.Planning Prog. As Needed B J0 60 Oakview Task Force As Needed(night) A MV 2081 Planning Commission Twice Monthly(night) A HZISH/MA 8001 Project Review Wednesday(day) SH Redevelopment Committee As Needed B MA RHNA Subcommittee As Needed A BJ 20 Santa Ana River Crossing City-County Comm. As Needed HF 20 SC4G Committee As Needed-Technical Advisory Committee B BJ 60 Subdivision Committee As Needed SH 96 Zoning Administrator Every Wednesday(day) MS/WC 192 City Council Twice a Month(night) A MA/HZ 180 COMMITTEES TOTAL HOURS 5,420 A=ffigh Priority B=Mediutn Priority WORURGIMS C=Low Priority Page10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate"Below the Line Itents" 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK EaOGB,,& ............ 7" ... ... I . .. .......... A. PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION INFORMATION PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) Air Quality Models B J0 .20 Angus Oil Utilization Monitoring B MR 192 Annual Department Newsletter B HS 60 Annual Report 1992 in Preparation A HS 1001 Archeological C JO Certificates of Compliance As Needed B WC 20 Certif.of Occup./Final Project Inspections As Needed A Plan. Staff 60 City Administrator's Status Report B HS 12 Coastal Commission Applications A SWRLF/HF 200 Demographics Library c BJIHF 10 Development Agreement Monitoring -Holly Seacliff A RLF 30 -Meadowlark C 5 -Waterfront C SH 15 Edison Underground Districts B J0 10 Environmental Assessments A Plan. Staff 600 File Consolidation C Plan. Staff 300 Final Map Review A WC 100 Fiscal Impact Models B I JO 101 Flood Programs(Appeals) B -1 Flood Program Community Rating System C SP General Plan Conformances B BJ/JO 25 Graphics Preparation/Mapping A BS 1,500 Grants/Legislation B HZ 10 Intern Program B RLF 100 ,LAFCO/Anne-xations C IHS 01 A=Mgh Priority B=Mediurn Priority WORKPRG2.,XM C=Lolv Priority Pagel COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Italics Indicate "Below the Line Items" 7/1/93 ' PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION INFORMATION PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) Land Use Management Computer Program In Progress B HS 20 Library/File Maintenance C JO 10 Mitigation Monitoring Program A Plan.Staff 100-500 NCCP(Nat. Comm. Conserv. Prog.)Status B LP 30 NESI Site Clean-Up Plan Monitoring A HF 50 New Construction Records B BJ/Intern 0 Photography B BS 500 Plan Checking(Zoning,Landsc.,Grad.,Signs) A SM Public info.Handouts/Planning Documents B JM SCAG Monitoring Bi-Monthly Status Report C BJ 0 SCAQMD Monitoring Bi-Monthly Status Report C BJ 0 Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Monit. C Unassigned 0 Survey Reports C JO/WC 0 Traffic Model Monitoring C JO 0 Urban Development Inventory B BSISP/Inter 300 Zoning Counter A Plan, Staff 4,680 NESI Development Agreement Monitoring A BF 20 ON-GOING ACTIVITIES TOTAL HOURS 11,129 ON-GOING ACT.MINUS ZON.COUNT.MIS. 6,449 PLANNING DIVISION TOTAL HOURS 56,437 A=High Priority B=Medium Priority WORKMG2.`QS C=Low Priority Page12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93 , PLANNING DIVISION ............... .................... . .. . ........................ ... . .. . ................ .......... NIF -M , . . ....................... . .............................. .... ..... . ..... ... .... ... . . ............................... 0i .... ......... .......... .. ....... . .........: - ... ............ . ... ....... .......... ................................ .. .... ........ . .................. .. .................................. .. )................................. . ........ ..... .... ....... ............................. E E EM ... . .......... X . .. . ...................................... .... ... .. ..*. ............... ................ wx WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITY HOURS I PERCENTAGE Current Planning 890 9.75% Advance Planning 23,9751 32.60% Code Enforcement 3,170 34.73% Committees 1,230 1 3.48% On-Going Activities 862 9.44% Planning Division Total Below the Line Hours 9,127 100.00% A--ffigh Priority B=Medium Priority BELOWLNINIS C=Low Priority Pagel COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORrA EZQQZatA .. .......... ....... ..................................- .... .... . ....................... ................ .............. ......... .... .................. ............................ ........... .... ... .... .. .......... NMP L NE ........... . ..... ....... . .......... .... .. .... ......... ...... . . . ............ ............ . ...... ..... . ..... ......... ..... LPLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT I ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) CUP 90-60(R) Amend Condition No. Ig of CUP C Mary Harris J0 30 Conceptual Plan Meadowlark Golf Course Remodel C City of HB SH 10 Fourth Block East Review Conceptual Plan C City of HB SP 20 Beach Improvements B city of HB AM 150 Pier Plaza C City of HB AM C4 Resorts Affordable Housing Project 28 Un1tvReduced Standards B California Resorts RLF 00 CUP 92-7. CDP 92-8. EA 92-10 10 slip marina C Hunt. Harb. Yacht Club JM 35 SUB TOTA 455 ........ .. ..... .............. .. ...... . ...... .. ... ...... ........... ...... ..4,............ . A. . . ...... . .......... .......... ....%.1.... ...... PLANNER STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST PRIORITY I APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) Affordable Housing Plan A City of HB HZIPS 360 Downtown Affordable Housing Plan A City of HB HZIPS 75 SUB TOTAL _435 ........... ...... .......... ....... ............................ .............. ............... NO BELOW THE LINE ITEMS CURRENT PLANNING TOTAL HOURS 990 A=High Priority B=Meditun Priority BELOWLNIXIS C=Low Priority Paget COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93' PLANNING DIVISION W.044 PBQQB6!4 im,,. .... ... ..I... ......... .... ........ .......... ... ...... .............................................. ...................... ............ ............ .... ...... . . . ..... . ... . . . ...... .... .. . . ..... .... . . ............ . ...... .. ........... ... ... .. . .. ... ... ..................... ........... .. ....... ................ .................... ............... ... . ...................... . .. .. .. ...................... ..................... U� ................ . ............................. ....... ...... .................. ......... ................. ........ ......... .... ...... .................. . . ... .. ....... ............. .....P. ........ ......... ........... ..................... ..... .......W........ .................. ..................... ................ ..................... STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST/PURPOSE PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED I TIME(hr.) CA 92-Z E4 92-18 Transitional housing as unclassified use Hold Alpha Group J0 40 GPA 91-6.ZC 91-7.CUP 91-50,EA 91-40, TT 14 14590 300 Unit Condo Affordable C Southridge Homes HF 200 GPA 90-6. Z4 90-7. TPM90-163 Rezone from WR to R2 C Robert Bacon HF 120 Coastal Element Update Five Year Review B City of HB HSIHF 1,000 Area Inventory/Demographics Brochure City Wide Information Brochure A City of HB HFIBJ 1990 Census Summary Public Brochure B City of HB HFIBJ 80 Vacant Land Survey Identify vacant parcels in city C City of HB GC 100 GPA Change from industrial to residential/commercial C McDonnell Douglas J0 300 Visual Preference Survey Assist G-PA C in Design Element B City of H8 HS 200 Fiscal Model Revision Update Cost/Benefit Model C City of 11B. J0 200 Transit Study Coordination with public works C City of HB HS 50 School Sites Development Planning Coordinate with school districts A City of HB HF, 50 Development Monitoring Program Monitor number of units and square footage by use C City of HB HE 70 Bluff Top Improvements Coordinate with public works dept. B City of HB HSIJO 30 Rancho View School Site Review various uses C School District HUFF 5 Santa Ana River Crossing Study Meet with County bridge crossing C HF 80 Flood Program Update Meet with F&W to update regulations C SP 90 Pacific Coast Highway Study Meeting with Caltrans C Caltrans HF 40 School District/CC Meeting Twice a year joint meeting C All school dist. officials HF 10 Gill School Site Review Proposed Development C School District HF SUB TOT 2,975 A=ffigh Priority B=Medium Priority BELOWLNINM C=Low Priority Page3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK ERQQ3AM ............ .............. ............................ ...................... ........ ............ ........... ... .................. . ........ ....... . .... ..... ...... . ....... ..=..-, .. . ..... ................. ...... ..... .......... ....... . ........... . :..... ...... .. .......... .. .................. . . ...... .... ..... ........ .. .................... ........ .... ...... .......... . .. . . ... ....... . ... ....... ............... ..... ....... ..... .................... NO BELOW THE LNE ITEMS ADVANCE PLANNING TOTAL HOURS 2,975 A--High Priority B=Meditun Priority BELOWLN2.'.%aS C=Low Priority Page4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93 - PLANNING DIVISION WORK EZQQaaU ...........-............... ................... . . .................. ................................ ...........X............................... .. ...... .......... ................ ....................... ........... . ............ ii�ii:'V: M .31E .......... .ET...��: T EIN ............... ... MO. ............ .........- PLANNER I STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION REQUEST/PURPOSE PRIORITY 1 APPLICANT ASSIGNED I TIME(hr.) City-wide Housing Survey Determine quality of housing stock A City of HB MS/PS 3,000 Code Enforcement Bail Schedule C City of HB MR 80 Code Enforcement Procedure Manual A City of HB MR 50 Beach Blvd.Auto Dealer Signage Review B Various SP 40 SUB TOTAL 3,1/0 .... .... .. ......... .. ....... . .......... ...... ... .......... .::...... .. . .. ... . ....... ... .... ............ ................... .... . ......... X. ... ......... NO BELOW THE LINE ITEMS CODE ENFORCEMENT TOTAL HOURS 3,170 A=High Priority B=Medium Priority BELOWLN2.XLS C=Low Priority Page5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORK PBQQB4W ........... ....... ..........-- .......... .......... ....... ............--....... ...... .......... . ............... .......... ........................................... ........... ........ ..... .................... .... ...........--.......... .............. ............... ..... ............... ......... .................. ........ . inx .......... .... ..... ..... . . .... ...XX. . ..... .. . ................... .. ... .. ......... .......... ......... . .... . ................ ......................... ........ ........... ........... ........... mm" .............. . .... ............ ....... ..... . . ....... .... ... . .. . ........ ........... ............. .. . . ............. ............ ............. ........... ...... PLANNER STAFF COMMITTEEINFORMATION JPRIORITYI 1ASSIGNED I TIME(hr.) A SCON(NEST)Ad Hoc Committee As Needed(Night) A HF 30 A QAfD Committee As Needed C BF 36 Bolsa Chica CAC Monthly(Night) A LP 36 Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park CAC As Needed C J0 60 Business Development Team As Needed C HZISH 48_ Chamber of Commerce Comm. Devip. As Needed C AMIHZ Cities Forum As Needed to coordinate with adjacent cities B HS ,41 0.C. Technical Advisory Committee As Needed B BJ 25 Environmental Board Second and Fourth Thursday(night) A J0 100 Florida/Utica Task Force As Needed A MR 228 GIS Coordination Committee As Needed B BS 200 League of Cities/O.C.Affopdable Housing Comm. As Needed B HZ 60 Natural Communities Conserv.Planning Prog. As Needed B J0 60 Oakview Task Force As Needed(night) A MV 208 RHNA Subcommittee As Needed A BJ 20 Santa Ana River Crossing City-County Comm. As Needed B HF 20 SLAG Committee As Needed-Technical Advisory Committee B BJ 60 COMMITTEES TOTAL HOURS 1,2301 A=ffigh Priority B=Medium Priority BELOWLNINIS C=Low Priority Page6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/1/93 PLANNING DIVISION WORS..pzOQ&& ........................................................ . . ...... . .......... Tx . . S . 1............ IPLANNERI STAFF PROJECT/APPLICATION INFORMATION PRIORITY APPLICANT ASSIGNED TIME(hr.) Air Quality Models B J0 20 Annual Department Newsletter B HS 60 City Administrator's Status Report B HS 12 Demographics Library C BJIHF to Edison Underground Districts B J0 File Consolidation C Plan.Staff 300 Flood Program Community Rating System C SP 80 Grants/Legislation B HZ 10 Land Use Management Computer Program In Progress B HS 20 Library/File Maintenance C J0 10 Mitigation Monitoring Program A Plan. Staff 100-500 NCCP(Nat. Comm. Conserv. Prog.)Status B LP 30 New Construction Records B BJllntern 0 Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station MoniL C Unassigned 0 Urban Development Inventory B B nter 300 ON-GOING ACTIVITIES TOTAL HOURS 862 PLANNING DIVISION TOTAL HOURS 9,127 A--ffigh Priority B=Medium Priority BELOWLNIXIS C=Low Priority Page7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MISSION STATEMENT To create a partnership between the City and its residents in order to provide the public with tools and resources for planning and developmei which reflect their needs and values. To strengthen, coordinate and expedite the Department of Community Development ' s responses to community issues and requests for assistance. To foster cooperation and consensus among diverse interests within the community, and to ericourage the constructive settlement of disputes involving residents, the City and others . To encourage and facilitate better communication between the citizens and the City and to educate the public about the function of Community Development . To: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director From: Hal Simmons, Senior Planner Date: May 12 , 1993 Subject: ADVANCE PLANNING GOALS/WORK PROGRAM The recent audit of Community Development states that Advance Planning does not have a properly focused goal statement or work program. To the contrary, such a program was put together for the section in June 1992 . Attached is a reprint of the Advance Planning Goals/Programs Statement for 1992/93 . Also attached is a status report showing where the section is in accomplishing its goals for the year. A review of the status report will show that the section has. achieved a high rate of success in accomplishing its goals and completing the programs identified. The third item attached is an outline document entitled "What is Advance Planning - Visioning For the Future of the City" . This was prepared for the Advance Planning Section in June 1992 in order to assist the planners in developing a focused knowledge and understanding of the principles and practices of the Advance Planning section. WHAT IS ADVANCE PLANNING? VISIONING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY I . BUILT FROM KNOWLEDGE OF A. Historic, Current and Projected Conditions - Annexation history - Growth rate - Growth influences - Acreage/area - Population characteristics - Housing characteristics - Jobs/industry characteristics - Geologic/geographic characteristics - Regional factors B. How City Functions - Sewers - Drainage - Water - Circulation - Police - Fire - Parks - Taxation - Municiple law C. Business Economics - Market analysis principles - Land value principles - Labor force principles - Target population principles - Shipping, transportation, access - Competition principles D. External Conditions and Influences - Demographics - Land use patterns - Transportation system - Economics - Laws and programs - Environmental E. Planning Law - Planning and Zoning laws - CEQA - General Plan Guidelines - Government Code - Redevelopment law F. Planning Principles - Jobs/housing balance - Transportation access - Relationships between uses - Open space - Recreation access - Diversity versus homogeneity II . GENERATES AND ANALYZES A. Ideas and Issues For Public Policy - Land use mix - Transportation modes - Schools and open space - Density - Affordable housing - Economic development - Environmental quality III . COMMUNICATED THROUGH A. General Plan - All of the elements B. Special Studies - Schools report - Growth management report - Mobilehome report - Whitehole report - Oil report series C. Individual Advocacy - Project review - Public committees - Speaking engagements - Discussions with Commissioners IV. IMPLEMENTED THROUGH A. Zoning Code - Development standards B. Special Programs - Housing programs - Impact fee programs - Grant programs C. Design Guidelines - Ellis/Goldenwest - Downtown D. Project/Environmental Review - Conditions - Mitigation measures I STATUS REPORT - ADVANCE PLANNING GOALS AND PROGRAMS - 92/93 The following is the 1992/93 Advance Planning Goal and Program statement, with an accompanying status report of where the Advance Planning staff is in attaining the various goals and completing the programs identified: 1 . MAINTAIN AND UPDATE THE GENERAL PLAN Programs: - Staffing and assistance to Envicom in Update Status - Staff has spent approximately 2,000 hours assisting Envicom in GPAC meetings, public work shops, promotional activities, document review, model coding and other requirements of the General Plan update. - In-house update of Housing Element Status - Staff worked with the Housing Section to complete the mandated Housing Element update (at risk units analysis) and it has been accepted by the State HCD. - In-house completion of the Safety Element Status - Staff completed this document and it was submitted to Envicom for incorporation into their format for the larger General Plan update. - Processing of General Plan Amendment requests Status - No requests were filed in the past year, but we have maintained contact with McDonnell Douglas regarding resubmittal of their amendment request. 2. PREPARE AND PROVIDE PLANNING INFORMATION Programs: Prepare City Information Brochure Status - A very detailed 90 page Community Profile was completed by staff. A Graphics Designer has been retained to prepare artful covers and section dividers for it. Pending approval of the City Purchasing Department, 1, 000 copies will be printed and made available for sale to the public. - Prepare 1990 Census Summary Status - This was done as a section of the Community Profile referenced above. - Prepare Vacant Lands Inventory Status - This was assigned to a new planner who was transferred to our section from another department. He had insufficient skills to complete the project and was subsequently transferred to another department. It has been reassigned and is now nearing completion. - Monitor housing, commercial and industrial construction. Status - A computor spreadsheet and work program were prepared and an intern is compiling the data. This task will be ongoing. - Monitor retail sales and employment trends. Status - These trends were identified in the Community Profile. - Prepare a CEQA Guidelines handbook. Status - A detailed CEQA Guidelines Handbook has been prepared and distributed to all of the planners for their use. - Speak to civic groups such as Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, Home Council , and to City boards and commissions. Status - Staff has conducted numerous speaking engagements to the above-mentioned groups, as well as other groups. Speaking assignments have been spread among all of the section members. Maintain planning documents in print. Status - Staff has inventoried and reprinted all of the important planning documents. 3. PROCESS ADVANCE PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS Programs: - Process General Plan Amendments, Zone changes, Code Amendments, Precise Plans of Street Alignment, General Plan Conformances, Environmental Assessments, and other entitlements. Status - No General Plan Amendments or Zone Changes were filed, but Advance Planning staff did process in a timely manner every other entitlement request which was submitted. This included a number of very complex environmental assessments. 4 . PARTICIPATE IN REGIONAL PLANNING Programs: - Monitor and participate in SCAG/SCAQMD Status - Staff has attended meetings and workshops for TDM planning and TRO adoption. Staff also maintains files of SCAG documents and plan updates. - Prepare summaries of SCAG/SCAQMD plans. Status - Staff has prepared an Issue Paper regarding the Trip Reduction Ordinance which will be required of the City to adopt. - Prepare any SCAG/SCAQMD related ordinances. Status - No ordinances have been required, but staff is preparing a program for a Trip Reduction Ordinance which must be adopted in December 1993 - Establish forum with adjacent cities. Status - Staff has not pursued this program. 5. ADVOCATE AND PREPARE SPECIAL STUDIES Programs: - Continue to staff Bolsa Chica Planning. Status - Staff has spend approximately 2, 000 hours on this task and continues to keep one planner assigned on a nearly full time basis. Staffs ' role in this project will change as a result of the shift in responsibility to the County. - Continue to coordinate Linear Park planning. Status - Staff worked with the County in adoption of the Linear Park Conceptual Plan and has maintained contact regarding the pending detailed site planning effort. - Continue -to study school closure issue. Status - Staff has maintained knowledge of the issues and has briefed the GPAC, the Planning Commission and the City Council as appropriate. - Continue to update the Traffic Model . Status - No updates were requested by Public Works, but staff spent considerable time coding land use data for the General Plan Update traffic model analysis. - Update Fiscal Impact Model . Status - Staff has not pursued this task due to lack of funding availability. - Prepare Transit Study. Status - Staff determined that Public Works was already preparing such a study. As such, we have only monitored and reviewed their .work on this task. - Other studies as needed or deemed appropriate. Status - Staff has prepared numerous analyses for items such as the Mitigiation Monitoring, Housing Goal Status, Housing Buyer List, Park Acquisition, NESI Hazardous Waste Monitoring, Downtown Market Analysis, Downtown Parking Study, Downtown Lot Consolidation and others. The need for these studies came about after the section' s initial goal setting took place. Staff responded to these items, worked them into the work schedule, has completed some and is still working on others of them. Work .on these items has not significantly detracted from our ability to meet our other goals. 6. PROMOTE STAFF EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Programs: - Allow all staff members to attend APA, League of Cities and other workshops and conferences. Status - All of the Advance Planning section staff members have attended workshops and conferences during the past year which have enhanced their knowledge of planning. - Submit projects to APA for awards. Status - .Advance Planning staff has submitted the CEQA Guidelines Handbook for a 1993 APA Planning Award in the Planning Implementation catagory. REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION May 3, 1993 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ` `3 19". Prepared by: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator&" • G�0..,c EITY CL.P Subject: Presentation of Community Development and Development Services Operational Evaluation Report Consistent with Council Policy? [X1 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: On July 9, 1992, the city requested proposals from qualified firms to perform an operational evaluation on the Community Development functions. A committee comprised of then Mayor-Silva, Councilmember Winchell, the City Administrator and the Assistant City Administrator interviewed the best qualified firms of the nine which submitted proposals. Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. was recommended to the full Council and was approved. The operational evaluation contract was awarded at the October 19, 1992 Council meeting. Recommended Action: (1) That the City Council receive and review the presentation by Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. which summarizes the findings and recommendations of the operational evaluation. (2) Also that the Council direct staff to review the findings of the report and if raP„+t 6se.0 th& e..'J CoaNai1 + P1Aaxiad1 017 pr a p•ded i Mr1e rNaa7i7i on o f *� a pp*o p ris7a. Ya Its . Analysis: The project manager for Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. is Nick Conway who will present the report to the City Council. At the time of the MSI fees study completion, the city committed to two actions to assure that the customers of development services received the best services at the least cost. In addition, for the past two years the city has been engaged in the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance (Division 9) which includes streamlining the regulations through which applications must go for approval. This will result in time and cost savings to the customer. This project is being completed by existing staff after initial tasks were performed by a consultant, resulting in a substantial savings to the General Fund. C PI O 5/85 • ;Page —2— v A-May 3, 1993 The two tasks which staff is overseeing to effectively implement the MSI study are to provide the best quality customer service available and review our development services systems and processes. In terms of customer services training, originally $25,000 was budgeted for this purpose; however, the training will be done for $9,900 during the months of May and June of 1993. Approximately 90 City Hall frontline employees who daily interface with the customer will be involved in this training. The third project to be done to improve the service quality and reduce the time and cost to the applicant was the operational evaluation of primarily the community development function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the city's community development functions and fee collection procedures. Since the Community Development Department serves as the lead on most of these tasks, the consultant would focus particular attention on this department. One of the tasks of this study was to interview the City Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and members of the community that are stockholders in the development services provided by the city. Funding Source: General Fund. Attachment: Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. Final Report. MTU:RRS/pf r 1 ' Department of Community Development Final Report CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • April 26, 1993 1 i Arroyo Seco Associates,Inc. � e e 1 . .._Mnment April 26, 1993 Mr. Ray Silver Assistant City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 1 2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Department of Community Development Organization Study Dear Mr. Silver: We are pleased to submit our final report with reference to the above mentioned subject. The report responds directly to the scope of work and objectives outlined in your July 7, 1992 Request For Proposal (RFP) and our August 14, 1992 submittal. The Department of Community Development plays a pivotal role in the City's development process. Our review noted the Department is fortunate to have employees who are dedicated professionals committed to providing efficient and effective service. In that regard, the Department is providing a high level of client services to applicants. involved in the Department's regulatory and enforcement processes. Our analysis noted opportunities exist to enhance the efficiency of the City's case processing and inspection services. These enhancements can be accomplished through: improved administrative and management systems; cross training and utilization of staff; and enhanced productivity and accountability. I Implementation of those changes recommended in this report will strengthen a much needed management direction and supervision of this organization, thus enabling both the City and the Department to reallocate its limited resources and maintain desired service levels. The Department of Community Development also plays a leadership role in shaping the future of the City. Through its advance planning function, the Department works with the City's policy leaders in identifying community needs and trends and endeavors to incorporate their desires into regulatory policies and ' procedures. Our study noted that responsibility and accountability for this proactive function is unclear and has been given a lower priority than the Department's case processing function. This displacement is particularly ' noteworthy since funds and staffing resources have been allocated by the City to address strategic issues. 127 North Madison Avenue,Suite#22 o Pasadena,CA 91101-1750 1 (818)564-8700 ®Fax: (818)564-1116 The challenges currently confronting the City with respect to land use planning and maintenance of quality of life standards are real and significant. Since the City has responded by allocating a sufficient level of resources to address the challenges, the cornerstone to the City's future success now rests with proper and consistent leadership, both policy and administrative. rWe look forward to discussing our report in further detail. To arrange for that meeting, please contact Mr. Nicholas Conway at (818) 564-8700. Sincerely, AA A Arroyo Seco Associates, Inc. NTC:jga Attachment: Final Report i 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................8 III. STAKEHOLDERS.....................................................................................27 IV. HOUSING AND BUILDING DIVISION..................................................30 V. PLANNING..............................................................................................83 VI. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL.........................................................................98 VII. INTEA-DEPARTMENTAL........................................................................110 EXHIBITS Follows Page jEXHIBIT II-1 ACTION PLANS....................................................................26 EXHIBIT III-1 DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS......29 EXHIBIT IV-1 PLAN CHECK WORK FLOW SCHEMATIC..........................38 EXHIBIT IV-2 PLAN CHECK REVISED WORK FLOW SCHEMATIC..........44 EXHIBIT IV-3 PLAN CHECK STAFFING ANALYSIS...................................57 EXHIBIT IV-4 INSPECTION STAFFING REQUIREMENTS...........................71 EXHIBIT V-1 PLANNING PERMIT STAFFING ANALYSIS.........................86 EXHIBIT VI-1 PUBLIC WORKS PLAN CHECK TURNAROUND................100 I 1 1 I. INTRODUCTION This chapter of our report discussed the study s background, the specific scope and ' objectives, the methodologies we employed, and a summary of our findings and recommendations. Study Background Since its incorporation in 1909 as a small seaside 200,000 agricultural community 180,000 with an estimated 160,000 48% population of 900, the city 140,000 of Huntington Beach has 120,000 seen enormous growth in 1800',000 913% its residential population °0 and change in its 40,000 commercial and industrial 40,000 0 20,°000 123%° 38% 1% land uses. 0 119% 107% 0 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 After a dramatic growth spurt in residential Figure 1-1 population between 1960 Population Growth and 1980 (Figure I-1), Huntington Beach Huntington Beach grew only a modest 5 percent in the 1980's and, during the last three years, has ' maintained a constant population. 2,500,000 220/6 And while the City's growth rate has leveled off 2,000,000 <: and the City has matured, 36% the same isn't true in the 1,500,000 surroundingcounty Y 102% (Figure I 2 The areas 1,000,000 _> 226% adjacent to the City are 500,000 g P continuing to develop and 65% 7 o 13 expand and are 1 % r 8 ° experiencing a ll therowt h 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 pangs that go all along with it. Figure I-2 Population Growth Orange County 1City Huntington Beac h 1 Reflecting the City's modest population $250 ' growth, the volume and nature of building $200 activity changed' Rolling Average markedly in the last $150 decade. After hitting a !a $100 peak in 1988 (Figure I-3), building activity has ' $50 gone down sharply. At the same time, the $o nature of the building S S S ffi '8 7- S SL IZ activity with the City 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 930 h a s changed Figure I-3 significantly. Today the Value of New Construction number of applications Huntington Beach involving tenant improvements and commercial and industrial uses represent 65 percent of the Department's direct workload. The City's permitting, regulatory and inspection functions, tied as they are to the cyclical nature of development, have thus undergone a variety of changes. The City department that performs these functions, the Department of Community Development (DCD), has felt the impact in many ways. _ $12,000 Throughout this period of population and building $10,00o fluctuation, the City has ' $S,000 nonetheless shown a consistent and steady growth $6,000 in land values (Figure I-4), a growth reflecting a strong $4,000 real estate market and $2,000 desirability of community, a $o quality projects and good planning 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93• That good planning has to Assessed Valuation Figure I come from the Department Huntington Beach o f C o m m u n i t y Development, the agency whose mission, role and responsibility is to oversee and coordinate the planning and regulating of construction and land use within the City. First the rapid residential growth within the City, then the rapid growth around the City, along with the changing nature of the City's growth and building activity — all have affected City government and made DCD's job more challenging. And while City of Huntington Beach 2 DCD's workload, providing complex, costly services to the citizenry, has fluctuated widely, the quality of their work must remain high. Complicating DCD's tasks of planning, processing, permitting and regulating land use and building activities are quality of life concerns — major issues in virtually ' every urban, suburban and rural community in the United States today. Thus, DCD's job, having to take into account these issues, is increasingly complex, controversial and rife with long-term implications. The current political, economic ' and social environment, both within and around the community, shapes the day- to-day operations of the Department, even as the fluctuating workloads and changing nature of projects do. Questions have been raised during the past year regarding the Cit 's costs in providing planning and regulatory services, as well as DCD's effectiveness in achieving its stated mission, goals and objectives. There have been questions too about the adequacy of internal controls over the collection of developer fees for future works or projects. Given the complexity and the importance of the City's planning function, the City Administrator and the City Council requested that a study of this function be conducted by an outside, independent consultant. City of Huntington Beach 3 Scope p The scope of the study encompassed all organizational entities, functions, and positions within the Department of Community Development as shown in Figure I-5, below. This Department currently has 50 employees assigned to its two tdivisions: Housing and Building and Planning. Department Deve of Community Development (ODtr.d.r a)Admla A.d. (OWord Pr— (OOfBo A",,11 (I)Pr(A)D.pt Aid. Houdng& JDWI—xim Building Division s)lLrt BO HAd.>ta.8ue 1)H 8m.••V R Pr(�LAI plan PI—Inng PlAdvance eeg Bnro�icammt Hooalog Chock Impaction Pmmlta (1)Br.Pla®� (UBt.PLttma (lYir.Pl.tmv LA 1)Bp t,DOY' aPPUBC�uai B. Mpmat(1)A—FL— (!)A—Flamm (I)EMir.O®or (I)A.d.PI-0 (OA..t.Ph--V (4)C.d.W.r.mmt 1)H.uduou R.b.b. (1)BW1diag Pl.n (UP.rmit Aid. (1)Pl.00i1Md. (7)PI.no-s Aid. Ome.r•• btuga' Cbsk.r (HPl.ntdaa T.rh.' (.HPr Pl.adni (>)C.d.Fyr.Tr.mr• 1)II—Lag B.b.b. (1)Pl.n Cheek IWam.V (.6)Pr l.t.• A.L.-•V cwdi.w" �mphlca Electrical gtnta ural Plan Check (1)Cbi.t 1)Pl.m.r .o(I)Br.Pl 1 Dr.NoI Ch.rkm (S r r d 1 SMMMO-M I Combination 1 (4 lo.�pad.r la.P•ao • .Podtim ni.atd W Ca.mudl�Dn l.pmmt I1.pt dW.doptlm d le02-0 budget. ••lndadr o»(U mntr.a wplgsfuadd ibnu�b CDBC(rrAC1)Db.djd.dp.ciU.4. V -Puttim pr.ausslyrwut ' Figure I-5 Huntington Beach Department of Community Development Organization The general responsibilities and functions performed by these two divisions include: field inspection, plan check and permit issuance, uniform building code ' enforcement, current and advance planning, environmental assessment, zoning code enforcement, and environmental enforcement. While we reviewed all of the Department of Community Development's operations within this scope, we focused our analysis on the identification and assessment of Department's mission, goals, and objectives and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided in support of their attainment. In that regard, primary emphasis was paid to those functions relating to client service and case processing, including applicant informational material, applicant submittal process and turnaround time, compliance checking, inspection and code enforcement, cash collection, internal controls, and the interrelationships with City of Huntington Beach 4 t other City Departments and units, including Finance, Fire, Public Works, City Clerk and Attorney. In focusing on the case processing and regulatory side of the Department's activities, we reviewed the current organization structure, staffing requirements, the approval process for permits and applications, case status, update procedures, budgeting and work methods, policies and procedures, as well as other ' internal systems of operation and communication. In addition to case processing , the study focused on the "softer" aspects involved in the Department's services, including clarity in direction, the adequacy and accountability of resources allocated to support the City's advanced and current land use planning endeavors, and its environmental assessment practices. ' Objectives In undertaking this study, we set forth the following objectives: • Document and analyze internal operating systems, procedures, and related workload for the respective units and, where appropriate, make recommendations that will enhance departmental effectiveness in meeting its stated mission and objectives; ' • Involve the Department's management at all levels, line employees, and clients served in working with the consultant to assess the organizations strengths and weaknesses; • Provide realistic and implementable recommendations to help the Department improve its overall effectiveness and meet its stated goals and objectives. Each resulting recommendation should be identified with an anticipated date for implementation, a responsible party, and estimated cost/savings; 1 • Evaluate and determine the or functionalJ personnel- resources for the major units and organizational structure best suited to the delivery of Building and Planning services to the City of Huntington Beach; ' Assess the cost-effectiveness of departmental operations and recommend areas where cost savings, cost avoidance, and/or improved productivity can be accomplished; ' Assess the cost effectiveness of departmental operations and recommend areas where cost savings, cost avoidance, and/or improved productivity can ' be accomplished. ' City of Huntington Beach 5 8 Approach / Methodologies In undertaking and completing this study, we utilized a variety of methodologies to collect and analyze data in achieving the study objectives discussed above. These methodologies include, but are not limited to: Group Interviews Group Interviews were held with each organizational unit within DCD. The purpose of these group interviews was to ' provide the employee the opportunity to discuss their issues and concerns regarding the respective units operations and/or the City's overall Development process. One-on-One One-on-one interviews were conducted with: all current and Interviews immediate past members of the City Council and Planning Commission; various members of City management including the City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator, City Attorney, Fire Chief, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, various division heads with the City's Public Works Department; Director of Community Development; Planning 1 and Building division heads, and each supervisor within the community development department; representatives from various homeowner and civic organizations, business community and developers. Employee A detailed questionnaire.was issued to each employee in DCD. Questionnaires The questionnaire took approximately one hour to complete and was reviewed in detail with employees at various orientation sessions. 77% of the employees completed and ' returned the questionnaires for analysis and summarization. A follow-up orientation meeting was held to review the results of the employee questionnaire. Workload/Service All data regarding the nature and scope of activities and Level Data volume of work performed by the functions under study was 1 collected from existing data. In numerous instances, the data was compiled from manual records/logs maintained by the Department. In every instance, the data collected and analyzed ' in this report was research and verified for accuracy with the appropriate parties. In selected instances, employees were requested to record their activities during the study period. ' Those instances are so noted in our report where appropriate. On-site Field On-site field observations were conducted of each of the Observations organizational units activities. This included conducting "ride along" with the Department's building inspectors. ' City of Huntington Beach 6 1 Self-Reporting In these instances where data was not available regarding service level/workload, employees self-reported for specific periods, all tasks and volume of work performed. ' City of Huntington Beach 7 8 L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our review focused on the City's development process and the organization and operation of the agency responsible for it, the Department of Community Development (DCD). We solicited input from the organization's Stakeholders and analyzed the organization and operation of the DCD and its two Divisions: Building and Housing, and Planning. In addition, we analyzed the services provided by other City Departments in support of the City's development process. We have organized this summary to reflect the chapters in the main body of this report and major the issues and findings of those chapters. Also we have presented in Exhibit II-1, which follows this summary, a listing of all recommendations. This listing includes their page numbers in this report, staff members responsible for implementation, the critical factors for success, and the attendant costs and benefits of the recommendation. CHAPTER I — STAKEHOLDERS ' A stakeholder is defined as anyone who has a stake or vested interest in the success of the City's Development Process. That includes City Council and Planning Commissioners, developers, tax payers, residents — including property owners and renters — business community, neighborhood and community organizations, and other City Departments and employees. : 6176�i1C79:::::::. ;con Raddaiu O Ca... ......rgamzaUbiu �P?Y:.. reajiaWiE�:�icmci #.; ;`Employees;:>; ::iii::;. ..:.::.:::.:::• .......a . City:Gcanell::::: Each of these stakeholders plays an important and specific role in the City's Development Process. And as Stakeholders they often have firm beliefs and perspectives regarding the City's organization and delivery of development and ' related services. These beliefs are be based on specific experiences or perceptions formed in dealing with DCD. ' City of Huntington Beach 8 ' The following are major issues that surfaced relating to Stakeholders. ISSUE #1 — Entitlement In many communities in Southern California, particularly coastal, the design ' review and public review processes often extends the approval process for development projects out over a year's time. There do not appear to be any major ' concerns regarding Huntington Beach's entitlement process which is perceived to take in most instances 3-4 months to complete. ISSUE #2 — Case Processing A number of issues were raised by stakeholders regarding both the efficiency and ' effectiveness of the Department's case processing functions. Unnecessary time delays in case processing, recurring plan checks requirements, inadequate and contradictory information given at the public counter, and duplication and unnecessary time delays for inspection and approval were issues frequently cited by interviewees. Overall, there was a generally held belief both within the Department and outside that the City could do a better job in processing and approving clients once they have been approved for development. This view was supported in our analysis of the City's current service delivery system ISSUE #3 — Leadership ' Another aspect mentioned frequently by stakeholders was the focus, leadership capabilities and responsiveness of the Department to various policy issues related to overall land use within the City. Almost all individuals agreed that the Department should provide the framework in which issues can be identified, debated and resolved. There was a general consensus that the Department is not exercising a proactive leadership role and providing the needed framework on a consistent basis. The Department management has demonstrated that responsibility on specific issues, but does not maintain that consistency in all endeavors. Based on our interviews with Department management, there exist significant differences of opinion regarding the role and responsibilities of the Department vis-a-vis leadership and direction. Clearly this is a significant issue that manifested itself in many different ways throughout the course of our study, and must be resolved between DCD, City Council and City Administration. ' ISSUE #4 — Communication Inadequate and poor communication was frequently cited both within the city ' family and by those outside as being a major impediment in the City's Development process. It clearly is a significant issue that manifested itself in a number of ways ' City of Huntington Beach 9 ' throughout the course of the study and was examined in a number of different perspectives— ISSUE #5 — Employees Almost all of the Department's Stakeholders believe the City is fortunate to have a group of talented, dedicated and hard working employees providing planning and ' building services. Department employees are for the most part long tenured and experienced professionals. They appear to be strongly committed to providing effective client services. Our survey noted several department-wide trends including: • Need and desire for stronger management, supervision and leadership. e • Blurred lines of responsibility. • Limited levels of accountability. • Desire for improved training. • Room for greater use of technology. Desire for improved communication and feedback. Many of the above mentioned issues identified by the employees were also cited by the various constituent Stakeholders. City of Huntington Beach 10 8 CHAPTER II —HOUSING AND BUILDING DIVISION ' The Housing and Building division, which performs three major functions — Plan Check and Permitting, Inspection, and Housing — is responsible for: overseeing and administering development, commercial construction and improvements on private property within the community; processing development documents in a lawful, fair, consistent and expedient manner while maintaining high standards for health, safety and aesthetics; serving the community by providing safe buildings to the public through efficient plan check, permitting and inspection services; identifying residential properties throughout the City in need of rehabilitation and assisting the property owners in securing loans and grants to make improvements. 1w ing and Bulld' Dlv131on Uvaetm BuUdi�Omeal tides. dhy mnw Permit Mdr aao Sl)BId. :a Ch kar (R)Houm .8pau�.11F (1)PL-Cheek C—d- (()) m ar.laa tm. (])>�. anon (i1 n i (1 fftj As shown in the figure, the Building Division is divided into distinct sections. ' Issues identified include: ISSUE #1 - Organization • Organizational reporting relationships are unclear and lack hierarchical order for management of the Division's three principal functions, namely Plan Check and Permitting, Inspection, and Housing. For example, there is no single supervisor responsible for the Inspection function. The Assistant Building Official is responsible for many duties typically assumed by the Building Official while the Building Official has direct supervision for seven staff members including the clerical staff/permit aides. • No coordinated Division Policies and Procedures Manual exists. One is clearly needed. • An overall lack of clear direction from management is cited frequently b g q Y Y employees. They mention the infrequency of Division management -staff meetings and the lack of systematic workload monitoring of permit, plan check and inspection function. City of Huntington Beach 11 1 ISSUE #2--Case Processing ' • The layout at the public access counter is inefficient, requiring stops at three different stations to submit plans. The fact that there is limited cross-training of personnel at the three stations adds to the problem. • Application procedures are not standardized. Plan check application PP P PP procedures are different according to the plan types. • Each department involved in the issue of corrected plans contacts the P applicant directly to notify of results and notification processes are not `. standardized between departments. • Certificate of Occupancy application is submitted and filed separately from permit applications and requires separate inspections. • Planning/Zoning reviews Certificate of Occupancy applications and often require the internal processing of applications even though they may have approved projects and Zoning in the planning process. • Hard copy job card is not part of the permit form and requires a duplication of applicant and City staff time to fill in. • The inspector's copy of issued permits is filed by the individual area inspectors. At present, there are approximately 3,000 outstanding open expired construction permits still in City files and there is no formal process for notifying applicants about permit expiration. • While the Division currently maintains two separate microfiche record keeping files of permits and plans, at the same time it under utilizes current automated and reporting capabilities. • The City has not yet implemented its Mobile Home Inspection Program which is required to be in place by with first inspections completed by January of 1996. ISSUE #3 — Plan Check • Plan check application volume has decreased by approximately 31% since 1987. The size and scope of typical projects has also decreased along with the corresponding valuation. • The Building Section does not currently monitor in-house and over-the- counter plan check workload volume by plan check type, time provided and plan checker. City of Huntington Beach 12 • Senior Building Plan Checkers. reported less than 50% of their actual time available is spent specifically processing plan checks, the remainder of their time being consumed by various other tasks. • There is no coordinated program in place to provide for cross checking between the Planning Plan Checker and the Public Works department to ensure compatibility of landscape plans with approved grading plans. • Plan check staff reported that much of their time is consumed providing very P P g Y high levels of personal service to small builder/homeowners walking them through the plan check process. This appears to be due to conflicting direction from management both within and outside the Department as to the appropriate level of service to be provided. ISSUE #4 — Permitting Operations • The number of all types of permits processed has remained relatively constant with only a small decrease, while the number of plumbing and heating permits has significantly decreased. • Staffing levels in the Permit section appear high when compared with the number of transactions processed by the unit on a daily and yearly basis. ISSUE #5— Inspection Issues • The inspection function is staffed b four distinct specialty groups of P Y P Y g P inspectors, a specialization which appears to have led to underutilization of existing staff in all four groups. • Individual Inspectors workloads vary significantly by geographic area and specialty. There is little monitoring of Inspector workloads on an individual or group basis. Nor is there any system in place to monitor the total number of visits to single building sites by various specialty inspectors, leading to frequent overlapping visits by multiple inspectors. • As there are currently only two classifications within the inspection function, Chief Inspector and Senior Inspector, employees feel that there is little career track opportunity. • There is currently no established written policy with regard to what inspectors record on their daily inspection sheets as stops or inspections conducted. • Chief Inspectors are not currently conducting ride along supervision with Senior Inspectors. City of Huntington Beach 13 8 1 ISSUE #6 — Housing Issues • There is inefficiency inherent in the fact that housing responsibilities are split between two departments. • Substantial amounts of rehabilitation funds remain unused. This may be owing to the apparent lack of a comprehensive approach and citywide focus that leverages all available housing programs to meet identified City objectives. CHAPTER V—PLANNING DIVISION The Planning division has three organizational units — Current Planning, Advanced Planning and Code Enforcement — and a wide range of duties and responsibilities including: D: ..... Advanced Code Current Planning Enforcement Planning • Ensuring the preparation, adoption, administration and enforcement of the City's General Plan and all regulatory matters related thereto; • Providing technical assistance and staff support to City Council, Planning Commission and citizens regarding all matters relating to land use and quality of life issues in the City; • Providing research and technical assistance relating to the promulgation and enforcement of rules, regulations and other matters legislated by other agencies that directly and/or indirectly impact land uses and/or quality of life Nfor the citizens of Huntington Beach; • Reviewing applications, conducting research and insuring compliance with radopted rules and regulations; ' • Conducting field inspections to insure compliance with adopted City rules and regulations governing land use and operations; While Advanced Planning is generally more policy oriented, Current Planning is focused on the implementation of plans and programs. However, in municipalities with separate advanced and current planning working groups, it is common for staff crossover to occur where the policy group works on implementation programs and City of Huntington Beach 14 vice versa. This is true in the City of Huntington Beach and thus for the purposes of this report these two functions and units are discussed separately. ISSUE #1 - Current Planning Our analysis indicates the number of applicants seeking approval for various regulated uses within the City has declined 18% during the last three years. Despite this decline, the proportional mix of the type of permits and uses sought has remained relatively constant with more than 70% of the Division's work involving six major areas: Temp Sign 23%, Use Permit 13%, C.U.P. 10%, Variance 10%, Environmental Assessment 8%, and D.R.B. 7%. • Our analysis indicates approximately 6,142 current staff hours, or a minimum of 3.2 FTE, are required to successfully process the current caseload. This current staffing hour requirement is approximately 36% below that required two years ago despite only an 18% reduction in actual caseload volume. The significant decrease in staffing time is directly attributable to the reduction in the number of the more time consuming cases involving Environmental Reviews, Zone Change and General Plan Amendments that were required as part of the Holly Sea Cliff and Bolsa Chica projects. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the City's Current Planning staffing of 4 FTE (1 Senior and 3 Planning Assistant, Associate Aides). is sufficient to handle current caseload and additional work that may result from appeals and other special project assignments. • The Division has processed most cases within 30-45 day period. Given the public notification requirements and the sequencing of regularly scheduled meetings (Planning Commission and/or Zoning Administrator) the days in process are within generally accepted industry standards. More importantly, due to the public hearings requirements and public notification time frames, these windows could not be improved upon significantly regardless of the allocation of additional resources ISSUE #2 - Technology • The staff reports both within Long Range and Current Planning are written long-hand, sent to word processing for input, returned for edit and finalized. As discussed later in this report, the current system is highly inefficient for both the professional staff and the DCD's clerical staff and ultimately causes unnecessary delays in case processing . Our analysis indicate 70% of the text processing activities performed by clerical staff in support of this function involve the use of standard format, and citation/reference of standard text. This would indicate the majority of documents prepared by planning staff are relatively short (4-5 pages) and have limited new text input. Limited text processing and research citations should be done directly by the case planner. City of Huntington Beach 15 This is not an unreasonable expectation and is generally accepted within the professional circles. Our interviews with staff indicate a strong desire to have this flexibility. It appears that for a variety of reasons the City has been reluctant to invest the funds necessary to provide this technology to the professional staff. Our on-site observations noted several staff members are utilizing their personal PC to expedite their work. 1 ISSUE #3 - Planning/Zoning Counter • The Planning/Zoning counter, a six foot section of the DCD's public counter located on the third floor, provides a variety of planning and zoning information services including answering phone calls related to cases, flood information and other miscellaneous information. In addition, the Planning/Zoning counter provides direct customer assistance in reviewing and approving plans, responding to. issues related to existing cases and matters pertaining to certificate of occupancy permits. • Our analysis of the self reporting logs maintained by staff, indicates the Planning/Zoning counter is handling approximately 28 calls per day or 3 per hour and providing direct client service (walk-in) to approximately 35 people per day or 4 per hour. In addition to these services, the Planning/Zoning counter through the services of the Senior Design Plan Checker provided 350 plan checks during 1992: (150 plan checks that were routed via the Building Division; 100 over-the-counter plan check approvals; and another 100 plan check for signs). Based on our analysis, the current volume of plan check results in less than two plan checks a day. It is important to note that the caseload records maintained by Current Planning indicate a significantly higher caseload than that reflected in the plans being processed and fees collected by the Building Division. In addition to supporting the planning counter plan check workload, the Senior Design Plan Checker also provides plan check and coordination with Public Works for grading and landscaping, which add 98 and 45 plan checks respectively to the current plan check workload. ISSUE #4 -Advanced Planning • The purpose, focus, work program and products of Advanced Planning are not well defined. This is of concern since without a defined focus, combined with accountability, some measure of the staff's efforts and effectiveness is ' lost. Further, there does not appear to be a good understanding, outside of the Department, of what projects staff is working on; or that what they produce is a necessary ingredient for good decision making by the City Council or Planning Commission. City of Huntington Beach 16 • Despite the lack of clarity, the DCD has allocated a significant level of resources to this critical function of the city planning efforts. ISSUE #5 — Code Enforcement Case Load • Our analysis of the Department's workload indicates that Code Enforcement, (CE), responsible for enforcing the Zoning, Municipal and Uniform Housing Codes, has experienced a 75% increase in the number of cases being reported for inspection. It is of interest to note that despite the significant increase in volume, the caseload mix has remained relatively constant during this growth period. • Our analysis of the inspection logs indicates the majority of the units field inspection hours are spent responding to residential complaints and that commercial and industrial complaints account for 1/3 of the Division workload. ISSUE #6 — Code Enforcement Staffing • The Code Enforcement section is a highly organized unit whose output includes up-to-date policy and procedural manuals that assist employees in executing assigned duties and responsibilities; and monthly management reports indicating the number of complaints filed, number of complaints closed, number of inspections performed overall and by each inspector. These manuals and reports' reflect good solid management practices that stand in marked contrast to those subscribed to by the Department's other units. Based on current workload, the Code Enforcement function requires 3 FTE to maintain desired level of service in performing field inspections. City of Huntington Beach 17 CHAPTER INTE - PARTMENTA C ER IV — R DE L The City's development process includes and is dependent upon the efficient organization and delivery of support services from a variety of other City departments including City 'Attorney's Office, Public Works, City Clerk, Fire and Finance. Throughout the course of this study a number of concerns were expressed repeatedly by DCD management and staff regarding inefficiencies and lack of responsiveness by these departments in ensuring the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the City's development process. Pubis Works »C`Gtaks S�h:A?? y .... ........ ............ _`111........ . .... ......... ................ .................. . .................. ... ....................... ... ... ........... .......... ISSUE #1 — Plan Check • The Public Works Department is responsible for Plan Checking and inspecting all grading and landscape work undertaken both on private property and in the public right-of-way. Our analysis indicates the number of plans being submitted for off-site plan check has declined slightly while the value of the projects under review has doubled. It is important to note that the significant increase in project valuation is directly attributable to the plan checks submitted for off-sites associated with the Holly-Sea Cliff subdivision. While these plans have, in total, a significant dollar value due to the nature of the project (Tracts and Models etc..), it did not have a proportional increase on the Department plan check workload. If you isolate this major project from the total valuation, the value of the other plans being submitted have remained relatively constant. During this same period, turnaround time for off-site plan check services has been reduced from 13 to 8 work days for first check and approval. The reduction in turnaround time reflects an increase of the level of service due to reduction in workload volume. ' • The relatively quick turn-around time for off-site plan check is consistent with the nature of the workload in DCD's building plan check. Moreover, the relatively quick turnaround time is consistent with and for the most part above those typically found in other cities. • The number of plans requiring recheck is also a measure of the Department's effectiveness. Our analysis indicates approximately 50% of the plans submitted require at least one recheck, with the subdivision and water sections accounting for the single largest source of plan rechecks. Given the City of Huntington Beach 18 nature of subdivision plan check, that is to be expected. However, it appears that the percentage of water division rechecks is excessive and should be examined. Although the turnaround time for each recheck is within acceptable limits, continued rechecks extend the overall time frame for the Public Work Department plan check service. • Grading plans, like the off-site plans, are submitted to the Public Works department for initial review and routed to a number of units for review and comment. DCD reviews the submitted grading plans (rough and final) for compliance with the Zoning Code, and any other terms and conditions that may have been imposed on the applicant during the entitlement process. DCD's comments are relayed to Public Works for review and approval. The permit is prepared by Public Works, sent to DCD for signature, and upon return executed and issued to the applicant. The application and a set of plans are retained in Public Works and filed according to permit number. Reduntantly, a second set of plans and copy of permit is sent to DCD where it is filed by street address but not cross referenced with Public Works grading permit number. The Public Works inspectors are responsible for inspecting and signing off at the completion of grading according to approved plan and permit. • Landscape plans which involve the location of plants and materials on the graded site are submitted to DCD. DCD checks the plans for land use compliance and routes the plans for approval to the Public Works Department's Landscape division. The City's Landscape Architect and staff, located in the Public Works Department, check the plans and return comments to DCD for review and approval. Reduntantly, copies of the approved plans are maintained by both Public Works Landscaping and DCD. The Public Works Department is responsible for inspecting the applicants compliance with the approved landscape plan and compliance with previously approved grading plans. 1 ISSUE #2 — Capita Improvements • These projects are administered in the City's Public Works Department which performs both plan check and inspection services which are typically performed by DCD. The City's Capital projects have large valuations and require staff time and resources to plan check and inspect. The City's current policy is that City public works projects are not required to pay fees to comply with the same codes and development requirements as private applicants. During interviews with City staff and confirmed during our on-site field observations there are a number of inconsistencies between the City's policies and procedures relating to City capital improvements and those standards applied to citizens and private applicants. City of Huntington Beach 19 ISSUE #3 — Legal Services • The City Attorney's office responds to requests for service from all city departments including DCD. Our analyses of the DCD request for legal services records indicates that their requests for legal services has remained relatively constant both in volume and nature over the last three years. Those requests typically include, but not limited to, reviewing grant deeds, CC & Ws, resolution ordinances and/or opinions pertaining to specific issues, and various contracts. • Our analysis indicates turnaround time for the requested materials has remained constant and appears to average between 2 and 3 weeks from time of request to receipt of response. Given the nature of work being requested and the competing demands for the City Attorney's limited resources, it appears a reasonable level of service is currently being provided by the City Attorney's Office to support the DCD's efforts. ISSUE #4 — Finance ' • Finance is responsible for insuring the proper policies and procedures are in place to safeguard the collection of cash, insure the proper fees and charges are being charged and paid by the various clients of the City's development services. The Finance Department is located on the first floor of City Hall within close proximity to the Public Works Department and serves as the central cashier for City Hall facility. DCD is located on the third floor of City Hall and is physically separated from the Finance Department. No cash is collected by the DCD staff. All applicant's bills are computed, and sent along with check and/or cash via pneumatic tube to the Finance Department cashier on the first floor. Funds are recorded and deposited and receipts are returned via pneumatic tube. The DCD Planning Aide at the third floor counter receives the deposit and returns it to the applicant. At the conclusion of each day, DCD staff balance their records for permits issued and fees charged and provide that data to the Finance Department for their internal reconciliation to the revenue collected and posted. This separation of duties and cash handling responsibilities is unnecessary and has a significant negative impact on the efficiency of the Department's Public Counter and its services to clients. • The City imposes and collects a variety of fees and charges to support the delivery of desired development services. Our review noted that overall the City has the proper systems, policies and procedures to insure the timely and accurate computation and collection of fees. However, our review did note the collection of Parks and Recreation fees are often deferred until a later phase of project's construction and there are not adequate procedures for City of Huntington Beach 20 monitoring the collection of fees and verifying that a Certificate of Occupancy is not-issued or final inspection performed until payment is received. ISSUE # 5 — Fire Department tOur review noted the Fire Department vis-a-vis the Building Department has clearly defined areas of responsibility for the various plan check and inspection services. Typical overlapping areas of responsibility and points of dispute between Building and Fire units in other communities have been previously resolved and are not an issue in this community. Turnaround for the Fire Department plan check was 29 days for 1992. This turn around time is excessive and well above generally accepted standards. The time delay was due to personnel staff vacancies caused by promotion and reassignment within the Department. That issue had been resolved. Our review of the current records indicate the turnaround time for plan check has been declining and should be within acceptable levels within the month. ISSUE #6 - Public Notification • The City Clerk is responsible for issuing notification of public hearings to property owners within a specified radius regarding public hearings. Applicants are required to submit a listing of affected property owners who must be notified of the public hearings as part of the application process. Some applicants have chosen to contract for this service while others have utilized DCD's planning counter staff to guide their efforts in conducting the research. It appears the City Clerk has experienced problems with the property listings submitted by various vendors. Aside from the embarrassment, the failure to insure proper notification of affected property owners presents a significant liability to the City, causing hearings to be delayed while re-notification and advertising takes place. City of Huntington Beach 21 I 1 CHAPTER VII INTRA-DEPARTMENT ' DCD is a direct client service organization, a labor intensive, paper-rich environment and totally reliant upon the technical knowledge, training and capabilities of both professional and support staff for the efficient and effective dealing of its service. In that light, we examined the Department's internal organization and operation with regard to clerical support, classification compensation and evaluation of staff, space utilization, public information/contact, application of technology and internal communication and cooperation. `z ?ethnology':;; �?ia!u!dr7tmei_ S'iur e 3'F i3:iE�Etiy; `C13b.1fh ti c . " yeB''`;' PCiformanoe;:�valup Hpn: 6:AppralsSl>E:P; ISSUE #1 — Clerical Support • Our analysis of the Department's clerical workload noted overall there is a relatively limited production of documents on a daily basis. The Department's clerical staff members are providing on average 18 typed pages (includes memos, letters, reports with new text and revision of existing text) a day per clerical position. Assuming a four-hour-a-day typing workload, this production approximates 30 words typed per minute by each operator. This production includes new input and existing text. • Our analysis also indicates an under utilization of the Department's Central Word Processing (CWP). The CWP was intended to provide high speed typing services relative to inputting text for large multi-page documents. As would be expected given this objective, CWP should have the highest document production among the various clerical workstations. However, our analysis indicates the average report 'being typed in CWP is 4-5 pages, including new and existing text . When measured over an eight hour work period this production approximates 45 typed words per minute. This production is well below that expected in a high volume centralized typing pool and the technical capabilities of the staff. In follow-up discussions with staff, it was noted that approximately 50% of CWP time is spent on special projects which do not require high speed word processing skills. The significant amount of the operators time spent on low typing volume City of Huntington Beach 22 activities raises questions regarding both the need and effectiveness of the central word processing function. • Our analysis of the Department's clerical output clearly indicates a significant imbalance exists between the workloads for the various clerical support staff. For example, the Administrative Secretary, who performs a wide variety of other duties in addition to typing, has a typing and document production twice that of the Department's other clerical staff, and not too far below that ' found in CWP. ' ISSUE #2 — Records Management • A critical element of the Department's service delivery system is the availability of accurate and historical data regarding various decisions pertaining to uses and/or parcels in the City. Our review noted that every unit within the Department has its own policies and procedures for filing and record retention. Most of this is not documented and there is little, if any, cross referencing of files. There are numerous instances of duplicate files. Moreover, our review noted that significant differences exist among the units with respect to the policies and procedures followed to insure the files' completeness, accuracy and availability. We encountered several instances where files could not be located and/or had incomplete data. ISSUE #3 — Office Space/Signage • The location and use of space has a significant impact on overall communication and efficiency of a working environment. The net effect of this quilted patchwork of office space allocation results in a tremendous amount of foot traffic — staff transferring back and forth across the floor to speak with supervisors and/or colleagues in another location within the ' office. • In addition to the inefficient use of space, the current signage directing clients to specific areas within the Department's public space is difficult to read and ineffective. Moreover, informational materials are available but poorly located, and due to their presentation often obscured. During the course of our study, it was noted that the Department has undergone numerous public signage changes in attempts to improve public access and service. Although we were not able to observe the prior methods, it is apparent that the current approach is not achieving the desired outcome. ISSUE #4 — Classification • The Classification and compensation ff 1 of staff is an essential element in the Department's overall ability to attract and retain professional staff. It was City of Huntington Beach 23 1 noted during our interviews with staff and confirmed that inconsistencies exist-regarding the classification designation assigned to entry level and mid- management staff. For example, Planning Aides in Huntington Beach are required to have a college degree and perform professional related tasks, while in other cities the classification is used to distinguish a lower level functioning position in the organization. Similar anomalies exist for Planning Assistant classification as well. • The Department has a policy which permits planners to transfer between Advanced and Current Planning sections. This policy has many positive features. It allows cross-training which results in more knowledgeable ' planners. It provides variety so as to eliminate boredom or staleness due to doing too much of the same thing. And it allows for a more versatile organization with experienced and capable staff members available who can handle both types of assignments. ISSUE #5 - Continuing Education • Division does not have a specific target or requirement for on-going professional training and development of its professional staff. Aside from the internal training policies pertaining to on-the-job training, our analysis of the Division's training records indicates funds are provided and staff does attend outside training and development. However, there is no overall linkage of the training provided and the Department's current and projected work program. This is an important and essential element in maintaining ' the desired quality of professional services. ISSUE #6 - Employee Feedback/Evaluation • The City's personnel rules and regulations require that an annual written evaluation be performed on the employee's anniversary date of appointment. That evaluation is a prerequisite for advancing to a higher step in the salary schedule. Our analysis of the Department's personnel records indicate 71% of the employees are at the fifth and highest step within their respective pay range. This large percentage is indicative of a senior and long tenured work force and raises further questions about employee concerns for timely feedback and direction. Our review noted more than 50% of the Department's employees at the E step have not had a written evaluation during the last twelve months. There are several instances where L Departmental employees have not received evaluations in years. Moreover, many evaluations completed as part of a salary step adjustment were processed late requiring the Finance's Department to compute separate checks for back pay. Lack of timely and consistent feedback and evaluation negatively impacts employee morale and raises significant questions regarding levels of accountability throughout the organization City of Huntington Beach 24 ISSUE #7 -Technology • Text processing, filing and record retrieval and graphics are activities that P g g g P account for more than 50% of the specific work tasks performed by staff. During the course of our study, we were told repeatedly by DCD management that the absence of computers and other technology was the single largest contributor to the Department's inefficiency. Our analysis noted that, contrary to that belief, additional computers would not automatically solve the problem under the present system. The Department lacks the basic ' direction in the use of technology as evidenced by limited policies and procedures and manual systems that would be likely candidates for automation. The acquisition and assignment of PC's for every employee and ' the networking of these units for word processing and case tracking logs should be more than sufficient to address the Department's immediate informational needs. ISSUE #8 - Communication • Interviews with individuals both inside and outside of the Department cited communication, or the lack thereof, as one of the most significant issues impacting the Department's organization and operations. Adequacy of interpersonal communications is one of the most difficult facets of an organization to evaluate. It is not something that can be quantified and listed in a chart/graph upon which conclusions can be drawn that, say, 10 letters, 2 memos and 1 monthly staff meeting will result in good communication. Communication is elusive and problems growing out of poor communication present themselves in many different guises. However, the absence of a clearly defined set of goals and objectives for the Department; the lack of systems to insure accountability for allocating resources; blurred lines 1 of responsibility, and limited employee evaluation are illustrative of an overall lack of communication by management personnel. • During the course of this study, we noted in our interviews with stakeholders and in surveys of Department employees that communication was cited as a major problem. We personally encountered similar problems relating to communication in our dealings with DCD's management — problems with poor communication, no communication, and deliberate attempts at misinformation. ' ISSUE SS #9 - Meetings 1 • We noted during our review of the Department's management logs and had it confirmed during our on-site observations throughout the course of the study that a disproportionate amount of management time is spent attending City of Huntington Beach 25 r , various meetings. The issue is not so much the number of meetings, but the purpose and content vis-a-vis those in attendance. Frequently all three or a combination of the Department Head, Planning Director and Building Official will attend the same meeting where the presence of one should be more than sufficient to address the matter at hand and communicate the results to other 1 appropriate staff. For example, we attended numerous meetings where DCD management was in attendance that were not productive and thus necessitated further meetings. Our on-site observations and our interviews with employees both indicated that Department management and supervisors spend limited amounts of time focused on the Department's products and services. The shortcomings.of the organization as analyzed and discussed in this report are directly attributable to management's lack of focus and attention. 1 1 City of Huntington Beach 26 1 r� �r r r rr r� r rr r r rr r �r r� rr rr �r rr r PA City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Recommendation . Benefits Responsibility 1. Re-Organize the Housing and Building Division into 32 DCD Director • Clear organizational hierarchy Cost: N/A Three Distinct Functional Areas,Each Reporting Housing&Building which reflect the Division's Benefit: Establishment of clear reporting Directly to the Director/Building Official. Director/B.O. primary functions• relationships and supervisors responsible for three primary functions. 2. Consolidate Plan Check and Permitting Functions into 33 Housing&Building • Reorganization of reporting Cost: N/A One Functional Area Under the Supervision of the Director/B.O. relationships and clarified Benefit: Coordination of support function Assistant Building Official. Assistant B.O. mission for Permit unit. in step with overall Plan Check and Permit Section mission. 3. Create a Chief Inspector Position Responsible for the 34 Housing&Building • Establishment of new position Cost: Incremental salary increase in Supervision and Coordination of All of the Division's Director/B.O. and re-classification of existing proportion to increased Inspection Functions. Chief Inspector positions. responsibility. Benefit: Consolidation of Inspection function under one supervisor. 4. Maintain Current Staffing Levels and Re-Assign 35 DCD Director • Monitoring workloads. Cost: N/A Functions and Personnel as Highlighted in Other Housing&Building Benefit: More efficient use of existing staff Recommendations. Do Not Increase Staffing Until Director/B.O. resources and possible reduction Significant Increases in Construction Activity Assistant B.O. of resources through staff Warrants Such an Increase.As Vacancies Occur,Do reduction if appropriate. Not Fill Them Unless a Determination is Made that the Workload Warrants the Filling of the Position. .5 Increase Workload Monitoring of All Permit,Plan 35 Housing&Building • Creation of procedures and logs Cost: Staff time to develop procedures Check and Inspection Activity. Director/B.O. to record all activity. and track time. Assistant B.O. Benefit: Accurate reflection of actual activity levels and required staffing required. 6. The Building Official Should Be More Active 36 Housing&Building • Increased role as Budding Cost: N/A Professionally and Attend More ICBO and Other Director/B.O. Official. Benefit: Increased focus on Building issues Similar Activities and Should be the City's Primary which absorb the majority of the Representative in the Building Official Organizations. Division's time and resources. The Building Official Should Also Take a More Active Role in Managing the Day-to-Day Activities of the Building Section. .� o ,.., w ►-+ City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Recommendation Responsibility 7. A Building Section Policy and Procedures Manual 37 Housing&Building • Policies and Procedures Manual. Cost: Staff time to coordinate and Should be Implemented and Contain All Director/B.O. develop. Administrative and Technical Policies Which Are Assistant B.O. Benefit: Establishment of standard policies Approved by the Building Official and procedures available for easy reference by all staff. 8. Regular Division Management and Staff Meetings 38 Housing&Building • Regular Schedule of Staff Cost: N/A Should be Conducted to Discuss Division Operations, Director/B.O. Meetings Benefit: Improved Division communication New Policies and Procedures,and Cooperative Work Assistant B.O. • Participation of Housing& and participation of all staff. Programs. Building Director/B.O. Opportunity for exchange of ideas. 9. Streamline Counter Operations and Internal 43 Assistant B.O. • Implementation of streamlined Cost: Time and training in Procedures of the Plan Check,Permit,Certificate of Chief Inspector procedures. implementation of new procedures. Occupancy and Inspection Functions. Benefit: Improved utilization of counter staff and standardization and simplification of processes. 10. Consolidate the Three Counters Into One 45 Assistant B.O. • Rearrangement of Public Counter. Cost: Negligible,using existing Consolidated Counter and Re-Assign the Receptionist Planning Director resources. Greeting Duties for the Department to Counter Permit Technician Benefit: Improved utilization of counter Personnel and Eliminate the Physical Location of the staff and standardization and Greeting Desk simplification of processes. 11. Provide Cross Training for Existing Building, 46 Assistant B.O. • Cross training program and Cost: Staff time. Planning and Permit Counter Staff to Enable All Staff Planning Director implementation schedule. Benefit: Improved utilization of counter to Process Permit and Plan Check Applications and to Permit Technician staff. Assist Each Other. 12. Position Cash Registers at Consolidated Counter and 46 Assistant B.O. • Purchase of equipment and Cost: $15,000 in equipment. Eliminate Procedure of Sending Fees and Applications Planning Director training of staff. Benefit: Improved staff productivity and to Finance Wile Applicant Waits. Consolidate Permit Technician client service. Procedure to Twice Per Day Either Via Chute or Personal Delivery. Czi O ,..� W FJ r r r r M r r r r r r w r r r r m r m LM City of Huntington Beach JdU Development Review Process Action Plan # Recommendation Page Assigned Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits Responsibility 13. Standardize Plan Check Application Procedures for 47 Assistant B.O. • Standardization of Plan Check Cost: N/A All Plan Check Types and Maintain One Plan Check Permit Technician Procedure Benefit: Standardized application Log Book. • Establishment of Plan Check Log procedure provides improved Book customer service and single log book provides accessible count for workload and tracking. 14. Coordinate Release and Issue of Corrected or 47 Assistant B.O. • Coordination of timing from all Cost: N/A Approved Plans From All Departments Involved. Plan Check Coord. Divisions. Benefit: Single mailing of connections with all comments included in single package. Increased customer service to client. 15. Standardize Plan Check Applicant Notification 48 Assistant B.O. • Standard notification procedures Cost: N/A Processes for All Plan Check Types. Plan Check Coord. for all plan types. Benefit: Improved client service. 16. Coordinate Timing of Certificate of Occupancy and 48 Assistant B.O. • Acceptance of C of A application Cost: N/A Permit Applications. Permit Technician with Permit application. Benefit: Eliminates delay between inspections and C of O and allows inspectors to approve C of O during final inspection.. 17. Eliminate the Planning/Zoning Review of Certificate 48 Assistant B.O. • Elimination of required Planning Cost: N/A of Occupancy Applications. Planning Director review of C of O. Benefit: Elimination of duplicative and unnecessary task and reduction in time required to process application. 18. Revise Permit Form to Include Hard Copy Inspection 49 Assistant B.O. • Hand Copy Inspection Reord. Cost: Cost to revise existing form. Record. Permit Technician Benefit: Inspection Record located at site will be an official City document with all applicable Permit information. 19. File Approved Certificate of Occupancy Applications 49 Permit Technician • Newfilingprocedum Cost: N/A with Permits. Benefit: Single location of all permits or applications related to one project or address. rD w o ,.., w r+ w w � w w■ w w �w �w w ■� w w w iw ■w w w w City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Responsibility# Recommendation Page Assigned Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 20. The Inspectors Copy of Issued Permits Should be Filed 49 Permit Technician • New filing procedure. Cost: N/A by the Permit Staff and Permits Pulled When a Call for Benefit: Assigned responsibility of filing Inspection is Received. with Permit staff in coordination with Tickler File. 21. Establish a Permit Expiration Tickler File. 50 Permit Technician • Establishment of Tickler File. Cost: N/A Benefit: Establishes system to track permits nearing expiration. 22. The Building Section Should Develop and Implement a 50 Assistant B.O. • Establishment of Expiration Cost: Staff time to implement and Policy for Notifying Applicants about Plans and Plan Check Coord. Notification policy and approval administer policy. Permit Expiration. Permit Technician of Building Official. Benefit: Improved customer service and elimination of possible build up of backlog of expired permits or plans. 23. Conduct Certificate of Occupancy Inspection as Part 51 Chief Inspector • Revised procedure for conducting Cost: N/A of Final Building Inspection. C of O inspection. Benefit: Elimination of need for two separate trips and coordination in timing of two compatible functions. 24. Consolidate Microfiche Record Keeping of Finaled 51 Assistant B.O. • Single Microfiche location. Cost: N/A Permits,Approved Certificate of Occupancies and Permit Technician Benefit: Single location for all records Construction Plans. related to address or project. 25. Develop Written Policy Regarding the Required 51 Assistant B.O. • Policy and Procedures Manual. Cost: N/A Involvement of Planning or Building Plan Checkers by Benefit: Clarification of internal policies Plan Check Type Specifying when Internal Plan Check and responsibility for sign off for is Required. specific plan types. 26. The Building Section,In Conjunction With the City's 52 Assistant B.O. • Blueprint of Critical Reports Cost: Staff time to develop specifications. Data Processing Unit,Should Review and Examine Permit Technician desired. Benefit: Enhanced reporting and work Opportunities to Enhance Reporting Capabilities on tracking capabilities. the City's Existing Computer System to Improve Plans, Permit and Inspection Tracking System. w ►•+ City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Assigned # Recommendation Page Responsibility Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 27. Responsibility for Conducting the Mobile Home 53 Housing&Building • Adoption and approval of Cost: Staffing of inspection function at Inspection Program Should be in the Combination Director/B.O. Mobile Home materials. approximately 1.5 FTE in year one. Inspection Group and the Inspection Program Should Chief Inspector Benefit: Established compliance program to be Included in the Work Program for the 1993-94 address State requirement. Budget and be Implemented as Soon as Possible. 28. The Building Section Should Continue to Refine, 54 Housing&Building • Updated Public Information. Cost: Printing and production costs. Update and Improve Public Information Materials Director/B.O. Benefit: Improved customer services and Detailing the Plan Check,Permit,and Inspection Assistant B.O. community relations. Process. Chief Inspector 29. The Building Section Should Establish an Automated 59 Assistant B.O. • Spreadsheet software for Cost: Purchase price for software Reporting Process that Categorizes Plan Checks by automated program. package. Type and Size and Which Tracks Plan Progress. Benefit: Ability to track changing workload and plan progress relative to staffing levels. 30. Establish Monitoring of Counter Plan Check 59 Assistant B.O. • Counter Plan Check Log. Cost: N/A Workload Volume by Plan Check Type,Time Provided Benefit: Ability to track counter plan check and Plan Checker. traffic and set appropriate staffing levels. 31. Establish Target Utilization of a Minimum of 70%for 60 Assistant B.O. • Assignment of other tasks must be Cost: N/A Plan Checkers Doing Plan Check Work. minimized to maximize plan check Benefit: Increased utilization of Plan time availability. Checker time on task. 32. Supervising Inspectors(Currently Chief Inspectors)of 60 Supervising • Continuity of responsibility for Cost: N/A the Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical Functions Inspectors of Plumbing/Mech.and Electrical Benefit: Continuity of responsibility for Should Continue to Provide Electrical and Plumbing/Mech. Plan Check. Plumbing/Mech.and Electrical Plumbing/Mechanical Plan Check for and Electrical Plan Check. Commercial/Industrial Projects and for Larger Functions Residential(Multi Family)Projects When Appropriate. 33. In Cooperation with Public Works,Create a 61 Assistant B.O. • Established policy for Review of Cost: N/A Coordinated System for Ensuring Compliance of Planning Director Landscape Plans. Benefit: Quality assurance of coordinated Landscape Plans with Approved Grading Plans. review of Landscape plans. �r w �-+ r rr rr �r rr rr rr rr rr r� rr rr rr rr rr rr rr r� r City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Assigned # Recommendation Page Responsibility Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 34. The Building Section Should Establish Time Estimates 62 Assistant B.O. • Adoption of Internal Plan Check Cost: N/A for Total Turn-Around Time and Internal Processing Time guidelines. Benefit: Ability to internally track turn- Time of Plan Checks by Plan Type. around time performance and hours required per plan check types. 35. The Housing and Building Division Should Establish 64 Assistant City Written internal policy adopted Cost: N/A a Written Internal Policy Regarding the Appropriate Administrator and approved by both the Asst. Benefit: Establishes clearly defined Service Levels Provided to Customers. DCD Director City Administrator and the DCD customer service levels for line Housing&Building Director. personnel in the administration of Director/B.O. the Division's functions. 36. The Building Section Should Continue to Offer the 64 Assistant B.O. • Maintain current policy. Cost: N/A Optional Plan Check Track Permitting Applicants to Benefit: High levels of customer service. Pay for Consultant Plan Check Time. 37. The Housing and Building Division Should Only Use 65 Assistant B.O. • Tracking of plan check workload Cost: Staff time to develop written Contract Plan Check Services In the Event of a and development of written policy. Significant Increase in Plan Check Volume and policy for using outside Plan Benefit: Ensures full utilization of in-house Workload. Check services. staff. 38. Provide Cross Training for Senior Building Plan 65 Assistant B.O. • Training program and schedule. Cost: Staff time,support materials. Checkers for Residential Plumbing/Mechanical and Supervising Benefit: Enhanced Plan Checker ability to Electrical Capabilities. Inspectors of process Plans containing basic Plumbing/Meth. plumbing/mech.and electrical and Electrical elements. Functions 39. Monitor Workload for All Permit Aides for Six 68 Assistant B.O. • Tracking of all work load. Cost: N/A Months After Implementation of the Re-Organization Permit Technician Benefit: Ability to assess appropriate and Consider Reducing Staff through Re-assignment or staffing levels and possible cost Attrition. savings through reduced staffing. CrJ 40. Cross train Permit Aides to Assist the Plan Check 68 Assistant B.O. • Training program and schedule. Cost: Staff time,support materials. Counter Staff in the Intake of Plan Checks(Non-over Plan Checker Benefit: Increased utilization of existing the Counter). Plan Check Coord. staff and enhanced customer o, Permit Technician service. W s r r r r ■■� r r r r r � � r r ■� �■r r� � PAM City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Responsibility# Recommendation Page Assigned Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 41. Re-organize the Inspection Function Under One Chief 72 DCD Director • Creation of new position. Cost: Incremental salary increase over Inspector Reporting Directly to the Building Official. Housing&Building existing Chief Inspector Director/B.O. compensation levels. Benefit: Single coordinating supervisor over one of the Division's three primary functions. 42. Establish Three Inspection Groups-Electrical and 72 DCD Director • Reorganization of inspection Cost: N/A Plumbing/Mechanical Inspection Groups with One Housing&Building function. Benefit: Enhanced utilization of existing Senior Inspector Under a Supervising Inspector,and Director/B.O. staff and reduction in overlapping All Remaining Inspectors Assigned to the Combination visits to single sites. Group Under One Supervising Inspector. 43. Re-Classify Existing Chief Inspector Positions to 73 DCD Director • Re Classify Positions Cost: N/A Supervising Inspector and Four Existing Senior Housing&Building Benefit: Each inspection group headed by Inspector Positions to Inspector Positions. Director/B.O. single supervisor reporting to Chief Inspector and establishment of inspection career track. 44. Introduce Two Levels of Inspectors Under the 73 DCD Director • Create new inspector Cost: N/A Supervising Inspector,Senior Inspector and Inspector. Housing&Building classification. Benefit: Establishment of inspection career Director/B.O. track. 45. Utilize the Expanded Combination Inspection 74 Chief Inspector • FomnationofCombination Cost: N/A Function for All Residential Projects and Simple Inspection Group. Benefit: Enhanced utilization of existing Commercial/Industrial Tenant Improvement and staff and reduction in overlapping Alterations Unless Otherwise Determined b Chief PP g Y visits to single sites. Inspector(New Position). 46. The Section Should Develop and Adopt Standard 74 Chief Inspector • Development and adoption of Cost: Staff time to develop estimate Inspection Workload Estimates Based on Permit inspection workload estimates model. Volumes and Maintain Inspection Staff Levels in model. Benefit: Ability to estimate appropriate Relation to those Estimates. inspection staffing levels and staff t7i accordingly. 4 r� O �..� W 1� �r r r r r ® r ■r �r r� �r r r r r �r rr rr r City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Assigned # Recommendation Page Responsibility Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 47. Utilize Current Inspection Staffing to Close Out Old 75 Chief Inspector • Develop policy for closing out of Cost: Chief s time to develop policy. Permits Currently on File with City and Establish expired permits. Benefit: Eliminate backlog of open expired Written Section and Division Policies as to How this permits and minimize possible Will Be Accomplished. liability to city and structure occupants. 48. Monitor Individual Inspection Workloads and 75 Chief Inspector • Tracking of all work load. Cost: N/A Conduct a Six Month Review(After Implementation of Benefit: Ability to assess appropriate Re-Organization)to Determine Appropriate staffing levels and possible cost Inspection Staffing Levels. savings through reduced staffing. 49. The Chief Inspector Should Restructure the Current 76 Chief Inspector • Workload monitoring and Cost: N/A Districting of Inspection Areas To Balance Workload establishment of redrawn Benefit: Equal distribution of workload Assignments and to Reflect the New Organization and inspection zones. amongst all combination Continue to Refine Those Zones Based on Workload inspectors. Distribution. 50. Implement Schedule for Periodic Ride-Along of 76 Chief Inspector • Regular schedule of supervisor Cost: N/A Supervising Inspectors with Inspectors to Provide for ride-alongs. Benefit: Enhance supervision and training Enhanced Training and Quality Assurance. of inspectors and quality assurance. 51. Develop and Implement a Training Program for 77 Chief Inspector • Trainingprogramand Cost: Staff time,training materials, Combination Inspection Training for All Combination Supervising implementation schedule. certification costs Inspectors Coordinated by the Chief and Supervising Inspectors Benefit: Licensed combination inspectors Inspectors. for greater utilization of inspectors personnel and the elimination of the need for specialty inspectors for the majority of projects. 52. Establish a Uniform Inspection Policy for Individual 78 Chief Inspector • Development of written policy. Cost: Staff time to develop policy. Inspector Reporting of the Number of Inspections and Supervising Benefit: Accurate reporting of inspection Stops and How to Record Them on Daily Inspector Inspectors workloads for activity monitoring. rrl Worksheets. CR 00 0 w i-► r� �s r �r r sr r ar r� r r� rat r� �r ■r r� �r rr it City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Assigned # Recommendation Page Responsibility Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 53. Establish Uniform Inspection Policy Regarding 78 Chief Inspector • Development of written policy. Cost: Staff time to develop policy,' Inspectors'Morning and Late Afternoon Procedures Benefit: Enhanced staff utilization and to Return to the Office for Other Assignments and/or accountability. to Set Up the Following Day's Schedule. 54. Require Each Active Permit to be Inspected Once 79 Chief Inspector • Conduct inspections. Cost: Inspector time to visit sites. Every 90 Days Whether or Not an Inspection is Called Benefit: Ensures building being done in For. accordance with proper procedures,avoids costly corrections,eliminates the growth in open expired permits. 55. The Department of Community Development should 82 Assistant City • Housing Policy adopted byCity Cost: Possible cost involved($25- adopt a housing policy which clearly establishes and Administrator Council and Planning 50,000)in hiring a consultant to articulates a vision and focus for all of the City's DCD Director Commission conduct a study and formulate housing efforts so that housing activities are well recommendations for specific organized and orchestrated with measurable results, Housing Programs. e.g.,number of units built,percent increase in property Benefit: Enhanced cost-effectiveness of tax,number of submitted units eliminated,etc. funds allocated to existing programs. 56. The organizational framework within which housing 82 Assistant City • Adoption of Housing Policy. Cost: N/A activities and program are conducted should be evalu- Administrator Benefit: Greater coordination of City's ated within 30 days after a Housing Policy is adopted DCD Director personnel and resources dedicated by the City. A realignment of the current organization, to Housing. the reassignment of some existing activities,and the as- signment of new responsibilities should be anticipated. 57. The Current Planning Division should implement as 88 Planning Director • Development ofFomtisand Cost: N/A part of Department-wide project a time reporting sys- CCD Director Management Commitment. Benefit: Accountability for resources tan. allocated tri 58. DCD management should realign the staffing resources 88 DCD Director • Project Reporting System. Cost: N/A I currently assigned to current planning. City Administrator Benefit: Cost Containment of case processing fees. Increased productivity. T 0­4 w i� r rr rr r ar r rl � r M M M M M M r M M M Ma City of Huntington Beach Fam Development Review Process Action Plan Responsibility# Recommendation Page Assigned Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 59. Each of the professional staff members assigned to cur- 88 Planning Director • Purchase of hardware and Cost: $30,000 (3,000 staff). rent planning should be provided a personal computer. software Benefit: Improved efficiency and effectiveness. 60. Planning Division staff evaluate on an annual basis 89 Planning Director • Adoption of Zoning Code Cost: Limited Staff Costs. need to modify the current Code a permit policies. Revisions. Benefit: Improved Reduction of current workload. 61. Reorganize the Planning Division Counter operation. 90 DCD Director • Implementation of Counter Cost: N/A Planning Director Reorganization discussed in Benefit: Savings of 1.5 FTE position Section III. currently assigned to this function. 62. The Planning position at the counter should be a full 91 Planning Director • Reorganization of the Planning Cost: Incremental increase in salary. time senior level position. Counter. Benefit: Improved client servicing and reduction of plan check workload. 63. The DCD should develop a database plan to record 91 Planning Director • Availability of Personal Cost: $25-50,000 Hardware and the permit activity for city parcels DCD Director Computer and software. software staff costs. Director of Benefit: Improved information retrieval Administrative and reduced liability. Services 64. The Planning Division in conjunction with DCD 92 DCD Director • Adoption of Records Management Cost: N/A should revise the current filing policy and procedures. Planning Director Program. Benefit: Improved records retention and retrieval. 65. The Community Development Department should pre- 94 DCD Director • Adoption of Mission Statement Cost: N/A pare, with the participation of all staff,a departmen- Planning Director Benefit: Clear direction,focus and tal mission statement. Each identifiable organiza- City Council accountability for resources. tional unit of the Department should utilize the mission statement in the annual budget preparation City Administrator and annual objectives. 66. The Advanced Planning Section should annually pre- 94 DCD Director • City Council adoption of Cost: N/A pare a list of all special studies and other work efforts Planning Director Planning Work Program. Benefit: Clear policy direction and that it proposed to address in the upcoming year. This Planning accountability for planning .� M work program should then be presented to the Commission resources. Planning Commission for review and to City Council for adoption into the budget. City Council o o ,.., w %+ r r r r r r r m r r m -M r r r r r r ar r City of Huntington Beach Development Review Process Action Plan Responsibility# Recommendation Page Assigned Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 67. The Planning Division should establish a policy that 94 DCD Director • City Administrationenbricement Cost: N/A advanced planning staff will be committed only to ad- Planning Director of approved Work Program. Benefit: Improved staff productivity and vaned planning projects except during periods of un- accountability for planning usually high development activity and then only for direction. limited time frames. 68. All assignments made in the advanced Planning 94 Planning Director • Project Account system Cost: N/A Section should have completion deadlines. Periodic Benefit: Improved staff accountability for 3 review,by the Senior Planner at appropriate FTE;s. checkpoints,of progress toward completion of projects is essential to assure timely completion and anticipated work product. 69. The Code Enforcement Section should evaluate current 96 Planning Director • Adoption of staffing yardsticks. Cost: N/A staffing resources DCD Director Benefit: Reduction of 1 FPE($45,000 salary) annually. 70. Revise the current grading plan check process. 101 Public Works • Approval of Transfer of duties Cost: N/A Director and responsibilities to Public Benefit: Improved Accountability for DCD Director Works. Grading Plan Check and inspection. 71. Revise the current landscape plan check and 102 City Administrator • Approval of Transfer of duties Cost: N/A inspection process. Public Works and responsibilities to Public Benefit: Improved Accountability for Director Works. Landscaping. DCD Director 72. The City projects should be required to meet the same 103 City Council • Adoption of Council Policy. Cost: Possible increase in project costs. development standard and undergo the review and ap- City Administrator Benefit: Equity in application of standards. proval process required of the general public. 73. DCD should modify the current legal services log to 105 DCD Director • Modification of theDCD's Cost: N/A incorporate all matters referred to City Attorney's policies and procedures. Benefit: Improved Accountability. office. ao 74. DCD should automate and review on a monthly basis 105 DCD Director • Purchase of Lotus or Excel Cost: N/A .� the legal services log. spreadsheet software. Benefit: Improved Accountability. o, w f+ City of Huntington Beach JFBU Development Review Process Action Plan ResponsibilityAssioned # Recommendation Page n Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 75. City Attorney in conjunction with DCD should exam- 105 City Attorney • City Council adoption of Cost: N/A ine the feasibility for various Code Enforcement DCD Director Alternative Citation Process. Benefit: Expediting prosecution of prosecutorial services. violations. 76. The Finance Department should equip the DCD with 106 Finance Director • Pumhaseof equipment and Cost: $15,000 equipment. electronic automatic cash registers DCD Director training of staff. Benefit: Improved staff productivity and client service. 77. DCD in conjunction with the Finance Department 107 Finance Director • City Council Policy. Cost: N/A should modify the current Parks and Recreation Fee DCD Director Benefit: Improved internal controls and Collection System. Parks&Recreation collection of cash. Director 78. The Fire Bureau should monitor plan check 109 Fire Chief • Adequate staffing resources. Cost: N/A turnaround time. Benefit: Improved turnaround time. 79. City Clerk and DCD should designate and pre-qualify 109 City Clerk • RFPforsevia- Cost: N/A vendors who provide title research and notification DCD Director Benefit: Elimination of vendor's poor services. Purchasing Director performance. 80. Reorganize the Department's Clerical Support 113 DCD Director • Staffing Analysis. Cost: N/A function and staffing levels. Benefit: Reduction of 1 FTE(30,000) annually. 81. The Department should implement a Records 114 DCD Director • Implementation of clerical Cost: N/A Management Program. reassignments Benefit: Improved record location and retrieval 82. The Department should conduct an adjacency study 115 DCD Director •si a Study. Cost: N/A and allocate space accordingly. Benefit: Improved space utilization. 83. The Department should implement a Controlled 116 DCD Director • Reassignmertofspace Cost: N/A Access.System Benefit: Improved security. 84. DCD request the Personnel Division to undertake a re- 116 DCD Director • Classification Survey. Cost: N/A classification study of the planning positions. Panning Director Benefit: Improved employee morale. Personnel Director ^' o ,.., " �..� w �-+ �r r ■r r� � r r r r r �■■� r r r r r as �r r CA City of Huntington Beach ItU Development Review Process Action Plan Responsibility# Recommendation Page Assigned Critical Success Factor Anticipated Costs and Benefits 85. The Planning Division should establish annual train- 117 DCD Director •Trainingnog:am Cost: N/A ing program requirements for each assigned staff. Planning Director Benefit: Improved staff productivity. 86. The Director in conjunction with each supervisor 118 DCD Director • Adhere to Personnel Policy. Cost: N/A should update employee evaluations and maintain the Benefit: Improved communication and City's specified standard for annual evaluations. accountability. 87. The Department should conduct a skills assessment 119 DCD Director • Implementation of Training Cost: Tuition of training program($2- and develop a training program of staff to more fully Program. 4,000). utilize the graphics software. Benefit: Improved employee productivity and utilization of technology. 88 The Department,as a standard policy,should provide 119 DCD Director • Appropriation of Fund Cost: $25,000 personal computers(PC's)to each workstation in the City Administrator Benefit: Improved staff productivity and Planning Division and others where appropriate in case processing time. Building and Housing. 89. The Department should evaluate the cost-effectiveness 119 DCD Director • Cost Accounting analysis of Cost: N/A regarding the contracting graphics and related ser- specific service.. Benefit: Possible cost reduction. vices. 90. The City Administrator in conjunction with the 120 City Administrator Interpersonal skills and Cost: N/A Department management should develop a program to communication training Benefit: Improved organizational efficiency address the issue of communication. and effectiveness. 91. The Department's management team should re-evaluate 121 DCD Director • Time Managenenttraining. Cost: N/A the number and amount of time spent in meetings. Benefit: Improved employee productivity. M w w w �-+ i III. STAKEHOLDERS i This chapter of our report discusses our review analysis and recommendations ' pertaining to the organization and operation of the Department of Community Development's Stakeholders. ' Organization A stakeholder is defined as anyone who has a stake or vested interest in the success ' of the City's Development Process. As shown in Figure I-1, that includes City Council and Planning Commissioners, developers, tax payers, residents — including property owners and renters — business community, neighborhood and community ' organizations, and other City Departments and employees. Business ;. Cornmuru€y. ..' Community Residents....... . Or 'a izatibn ......................... ..... .......... ...:..,, -........, . ...:. :::, irnt ........................... .. :.:.::.::.:;.: :.;: :::: .....::::::: AX ::::::::::. :::. Em 10:. ee.....:: :: PY. .... :. Developers Plane g :..Commission Cxty Goun.. Figure III-1 Department of Community Development ' Stakeholders Each of these stakeholders plays an important and specific role in the City's Development Process. And as Stakeholders they often have firm beliefs and perspectives regarding the City's organization and delivery of development and related services. These beliefs are based on specific experiences or perceptions formed in dealing with DCD. An organizational study of this nature must be conducted within the contextual ' framework of its stakeholders which shape the organization's operating environment. To gain this understanding and perspective we conducted one-on- one interviews with representatives from each of the constituent groups that City of Huntington Beach 27 comprise the organization Stakeholders. This includes each current and immediate past members of the city Council and Planning Commission and a representative ' sample of individuals from the development and business community and various neighborhood and community organizations. ' Entitlement There do not appear to be any major concerns regarding the City's entitlement process which is currently estimated to take 3-4 months to complete. Regulation and Inspection A number of issues were raised by stakeholders regarding both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's case processing functions. Unnecessary time delays in case processing, recurring plan checks requirements, inadequate and contradictory information given at the public counter, and duplication and ' unnecessary time delays for inspection and approval were issues frequently cited by interviewees. Overall, there was a generally held belief both within the Department and outside that the City could do a better job in processing and approving clients once they have been approved for development. This view was supported in our analysis of the City's current service delivery system Policy Leadership Another aspect mentioned frequently by stakeholders was the focus, leadership capabilities and responsiveness of the Department to various policy issues, social economic, etc., that impact overall land use within the City. Almost all individuals agreed that the Department should provide the framework in which issues can be identified, debated and resolved. There was a general consensus that the Department is not exercising a proactive leadership role and providing the needed ' framework on a consistent basis. The Department management has demonstrated that responsibility on specific issues, but does not maintain that consistency in all endeavors. Based on our interviews with Department management, there exist ' significant differences of opinion regarding the role and responsibilities of the Department vis-a-vis leadership and direction. Clearly this is a significant issue that manifested itself in many different ways throughout the course of our study, and must be resolved between City Council and City Administration. Communication Inadequate and poor communication was frequently cited both within the city family and by those outside as being a major impediment in the City's Development process. It clearly is a significant issue that manifested itself in a number of ways ' City of Huntington Beach 28 % throughout the course of the study and was examined in a number of different perspectives throughout the study. Employees ' Almost all of the Department's Stakeholders believe the City is fortunate to have a group of talented dedicated and hard working employees providing planning and building services. A detailed questionnaire was distributed to each employee in the Department. 40 employees (77%) submitted responses. A summary of those responses is presented in Exhibit III-1. Department employees are for the most part long tenured and experienced professionals. They appear to be strongly committed to providing effective client services. Our survey noted several department-wide trends including: ' o Need and desire for stronger management, supervision and leadership. ' • Blurred lines of responsibility. • Limited levels of accountability. • Desire for improved training. ' o Room for greater use of technology. • Desire for improved communication and feedback. ' Many of the above mentioned issues identified by the employees were also cited by the various constituent Stakeholders. City of Huntington Beach 29 EXHIBIT III-1 Page 1 of 14 Staff Questionnaire Responses by Division 1. What do you see as the major strengths of the City's Development review process? Housing Building and Safety Planning Land use and build out for Good Staff,professional and Good staff,professional and aesthetics of City accessible accessible Good results Good results Good internal communication Good internal communication Process itself is good and has good results Service is fast and inexpensive 2. What do you see as the major weaknesses of the City's Development review process? Lack of coordination between LeadershipLeadership P Departments Inefficient process Inefficient process Review process at counter weak Poor public information Inappropriate supervision Lack of communication Lack of automation 3. What do you feel can be done to eliminate the weaknesses listed above? One-stop counter,with non- One-stop counter One-stop counter rotating staff Revise workflows Revise workflows Improved inter-departmental More interdepartmental More interdepartmental coordination meetings meetings Improve public information More automation effort Improve public information Increase information flows to an effort from Council and Commission Increase information flow to and from Council and Commission 4. What do you see as the major strengths of the Community Development Department as a part of this process? Strong professional belief in Purpose of work Purpose of work work Good staff Good staff Fairness Fairness Timeliness Timeliness EXHIBIT III-1 Page 2 of 14 5. What do you see as the major weaknesses of the Community Development Department as a part of this process? Housing Building and Safety Planning ' Timeliness Leadership Leadership Customer service orientation Public relations Lack of automation Lack of automation Code/ordinances Codes/ordinances Inappropriate supervision Staffing levels Divisional organization Timeliness 1 6. What do you feel can be done to eliminate the weaknesses listed above? ' Reorganize counter staffing Reorganize Department Reorganize counter staffing Improve public relations effort Improve communication to and Improve communication to and from Council/Commission from Council/Commission Increase public relations efforts Increase public relations efforts Increase/improve automation Increase/improve automation Update General Plan, ' ordinances,policy memos Enforce personnel policies Reorganize work flow/work ' loads 7. What programs, activities, or jobs would you eliminate or reduce in the ' Department? Increase accountability None None ' Change nature of B.O.position Change nature of B.O.position Eliminate contract staff Maintain current level of Merge or change inspector supervision in code enforcement positions Move addressing to Fire Dept. 8. What important services or programs have been cut from the Department or are ' not being pursued due to budget or other considerations that you feel should be added? ' Add staff to Housing function Automation Automation Put all of housing functions in Professional staff Professional staff one Dept. Clerical staff Clerical staff Training None ' Comprehensive filing system t EXHIBIT III-1 Page 3 of 14 9. Do you feel any of the City's ordinances, policies, or plans in relation to your ' functional duties and responsibilities should be changed? Housing Building and Safety Planning ' Housing needs to be Reorganize Division No. reconsolidated Clarify personnel and functional General Plan and City ' policies ordinances need to be updated and clarified. 10. How would you describe the goals or mission of the Community Development Department? ' Enforce City Ordinances and Ensure quality of life Ensure quality of life policies Protect public health and safety Promote public health and safety Create and maintain affordable Carry out assigned tasks Promote public welfare and ' housing Help the public economic base. Unclear Carry out assigned tasks Work quickly and efficiently 11. How would you describe the goals or mission of your Division? Maintain housing stock Serve and protect public Serve and protect public ' Administer housing programs Carry out assigned tasks Carry out assigned tasks Help public Help public Work quickly and efficiently Work quickly and efficiently 12. Do you have any written policies or procedures that guide your work? ' Yes,City and State policies and UBC,other codes,specific General Plan,ordinances,codes regulations ordinances Procedures Manual Procedures Manual Yes Memos No No 13. Are Department policies and procedures distributed and discussed with you? Yes,by Div.supervisor Yes,by supervisor Yes,by supervisor Yes,by others Yes,by others ' Distributed but only occasionally Distributed but only occasionally discussed discussed No No 1 EXHIBIT III-1 Page 4 of 14 14. Do you have any"pet peeves" about policies or procedures you would like to share? Housing Building and Safety Planning Splitting of block grant function. Lack of policy direction, Lack of policy direction, Housing function needs to be re- consistency consistency consolidated in one Dept. Fairness Do not take pro-active planning Work processes/work flows role Inaccessibility of information. Not consulted about needs at reference material budget time 15. What suggestions would you make for performing your specific duties more effectively and efficiently? Increased teamwork Computer software,database, Computer hardware network Computer software,network Additional staff Automate work processes and Improve Inter-Departmental flows communications Comprehensive policy and Include Division early in process procedure manual Publish and enforce consistent Increase feedback and policies and procedures accountability ' Improve work area Improved public information effort 16. What kinds of problems occur between other City departments and the Community Development Department that impact your work? Friction between CDD and Econ. Lack of communication and Lack of communication with Dev.Depts. cooperation with other key other key Dept.s Departments Lack of support from other key Lack of communication with Departments planning division Long waits for work from other Departments Lack of coordination with building division 17. What changes would you recommend to solve these problems? Consolidate housing function in More inter-and intra- Increase communications with one department Department meetings other Departments on Provide more staff Department Head level Counter time for Fire personnel Contract out printing Clarify and enforce consistent Educate Departments on policies and procedures planning process 1 EXHIBIT III-1 Page 5 of 14 18. What problems do you see in relation to the Planning Commission or City Council? Housing Building and Safety Planning Do not understanding concept of Unfamiliar with codes, Lack of understanding of affordable housing development process planning process Lack of support for inspectors' Too little time in study sessions determinations to discuss large projects No communication of reasons for decisions Inconsistent decisions 19. What would you recommend to correct these problems? Education Education Education Direct communication Separate Council and Redev. Clear information to Agency Council/Commission on codes Encourage questions from CC to planners Feedback after meetings 20. Are you responsible for keeping any records or files? Rehab.Loan Program files Those related to my tasks No Those relating to tasks I Those relating to my tasks supervise Those relating to tasks I No supervise Those relating to tasks my supervisor does ' 21. What problems, if any, do you experience with Department records? Missing and misfiled records Missing and misfiled records Missing or misfiled records File room and location Missing microfiches Need more file space Files not maintained Lack of consistency in files Many files for same material No central file location No computerized file index or records 24. What does your supervisor do to help you with your job? Advises,directs,and supports Advises,directs,and supports_ Gives direction,makes Provides benefit of experience Provides benefit of experience suggestions,provides feedback Available for consultation Available for consultation Provides training Helps with difficult ' Nothing decisions/interpretations Allows me to make own decisions 1 vital to the Division successful public orientation. The efficient over-the-counter plan check--operations should be a priority for Division management and the ' effective delivery of this service will only be possible if the volume of this operation is monitored and then appropriately staffed. ' RECOMMENDATION 31: Establish Target Utilization of a Minimum of 70% for Plan Checkers Doing Plan Check Work. According to the self reporting of time devoted to various tasks during their day, the Senior Building Plan Checkers, who are the primary plan checkers for the in-house plans, reported only 43% and 31% of their respective time devoted to either a first plan check at their desk, re-checks, and revisions to drawings. The remainder of their time was devoted to other various support tasks. In conjunction with the re- organization of the Permit and Plan Check function under the direction of the Assistant Building Official with reduced ICBO responsibilities, we recommend that the Division establish target utilization of at least 70% for the Senior Building Plan ' Checkers to do plan check work on in-house processed plans. A lower rate of utilization for these individuals calls into question the assignment and distribution of related plan check work to the Senior Building Plan Checkers versus the Building ' Plan Checker and Plan Check Coordinator who staff the public counter. RECOMMENDATION 32: Supervising Inspectors (Currently Chie'f Inspectors) of the Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical Functions Should Continue to Provide Electrical and ' Plumbing/Mechanical Plan Check for Comm erciallndustrial Projects and for Larger Residential (Multi Family) Projects When AUpropriate. ' As a result of the re-organization of the Inspection function of the Housing and Building Division, the existing Chief Inspectors (reclassified to Supervising Inspectors) over the Plumbing/Mechanical and Electrical groups will have reduced supervisory responsibility in terms of number of inspectors under their direct supervision and will also be relieved of some of the management and reporting responsibilities that will shift to the new Chief Inspector. This restructuring will allow the Supervising Inspectors to continue to provide Plan Check services for large commercial/industrial and multi family projects. The responsibility for the Plan Check within these specialties should be provided solely by the Supervising ' Instructors and not delegated to the existing Senior Inspectors under their particular specialties. City of Huntington Beach 60 1 RECOMMENDATION 33: In Cooperation with Public Works, Create a Coordinated System for Ensuring Compliance of Landscape Plans with Approved Grading Plans. At present, the Plan Check of grading plans is administered by the Public Works Department with no involvement of the Housing and Building Division. However, as part of the overall Plan Check function administered by the Housing and Building Division, the Division takes in landscape plans for projects which are ' reviewed by a designated plan checker from the Planning Division. During the course of our study, it was revealed that there is currently no coordination of these two separate but related plan check activities. According to interviews with City and ' Department staff, we were made aware that there had been instances in which grading plans had been approved in Public Works at one point early in the project, and then landscape plans were submitted and approved which substantially altered ' the originally approved grading plans which led to improper drainage of those building sites. ' While it was not possible within the scope of our study to examine the frequency of such occurrences, it is a potential problem that warrants immediate attention. We recommend that Departments of Community Development and Public Works cooperatively develop a system to coordinate related project plans on a single project site and to provide for mutual oversight of both the grading and landscape plans by both Departments. The proposed system would provide for reporting of projects including cross references of Public Works and Housing and Building Division numbering of related projects and require the signature of representatives of both departments on the relative plans. Turnaround Time — Plan Check When a building plan check is accepted for internal plan check at the Building Counter, the applicant is given an approximate turnaround time in calendar days based on the current back log of plans previously submitted. The ability of the plan check staff to meet that goal will depend not only on there own efficiency in processing plans but also on the other Divisions involved as outlined in the Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Process Issues section of this chapter. During the course of our study, it was necessary for the consultant to develop the ' data relating to the turnaround time of the City's Plan Check process. While limited data was available from the plan check log book, the dates for plan check completion were not uniformly filled out by all staff involved and therefore it was necessary to take a 20% sample from actual building plan check project files still on hand in the Plan Check room which was not readily available for Plumbing/Mechanical or ' Electrical plan check. This kind of information is vital if a Division or the Department hopes to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of its plan check operations. Our analysis of the total turnaround time for the Plan Check process, ' from initial submittal through first, second and third re-check or approval, is City of Huntington Beach 61 iillustrated in Table IV-6 below. These numbers include a percentage of plans that were counter approved by Building but were brought in-house for only a planning ' plan check (typically Signs) or for only a building plan check (typically Residential Additions and Alterations). The average total turnaround time for the entire process only takes into account time that the plans were with the City. Submission Building Planning Fire Oil Methane Original 13 5 29 3 3 Submission First Re-Check 4 5 NA NA NA Second Re-Check 3 6 NA NA NA Third Re-Check 2 7 NA NA NA Table IV-6 ' Average Turnaround Time of Building Plan Checks Sample 1992 A sample of 20% of the total volume for 1992 building plan check revealed that the Division is meeting reasonable turnaround times for plan check. The only exception to this performance appears to be Fire, although some of this delay was due to the re-assignment of plan check responsibility within the Fire Department. During our sample it was brought to our attention that larger projects such as tracts could take considerably longer. However, upon further investigation we found that 1 while some tracts could take up to one month'to process, the majority of projects were processed in a timely manner. Turnaround time for consultant projects was not available for 1992 due to the low use of consultant plan check services for that period. RECOMMENDATION 34: The Building Section Should Establish Time Estimates for Total Turnaround Time and Internal Processing Time of Plan Checks by Plan Type. The Housing and Building Division should establish total turnaround time limits and internal processing times for plan checks based on the nature and size of the project plans submitted in conjunction with the monitoring of plan check types as discussed earlier. Current policy dictates that all plans be processed in order of submission as a matter of equitable service to applicants. This is a matter of policy A for the City and the Division to dictate, but in no case should Plan Check total turnaround exceed 15 business days. Many Department of Community Developments throughout Southern California have developed and adopted total target turnaround times for the plan check process for utilization as a management tool to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of their plan check operations. While we acknowledge that each project will vary according to complexity and size and that not every project ' City of Huntington Beach 62 1 submitted will fit the time parameters, we do feel that it is appropriate to establish a internal processing times by type and size. We recommend that the Housing and Building Division develop standards and establish targets as relates to what is a reasonable expectation for internal processing times for different types of projects (even if only for internal performance monitoring). Many cities and private firms that contract with cities to provide plan check services have adopted similar targets for plan check types as listed below and we recommend that the Division adopt these standards as guidelines and strive to achieve these targets: • Single Family Dwelling 6-10 hours • Commercial/Industrial Buildings 14-18 hours • Multi Family/Condominiums 14-18 hours • Plumbing/Mechanical 4 hours • Electrical 4 hours • Tenant Improvement (formal) 2-4 hours • Tenant Improvement (counter) 1/2 hours • Miscellaneous 1-6 hours Table IV-7 1 Recommended Internal Plan Processing Guidelines Level of Review and Customer Service Duringthe course of our stud it was repeatedly expressed that while the workload Y P Y p in terms of plan check has declined over the past several years, the effort required to process plans has increased by 50% due to a number of factors. Primary among these factors were two, namely that due to the recession and the trend towards smaller I type projects such as Residential Addition and Alterations homeowners were doing more designing on their own without professional architects or engineers assistance and that therefore the quality and proper preparation of plans was sub-standard, and secondly that it was unwritten City policy to walk the applicant/homeowner through the process to the greatest degree possible. The resulting impact on the Plan Check staff was increased frequency of re-checks and increased amounts of time spent with applicants explaining, and at times, walking them through the entire process. This impact is borne out by the frequency of re-checks illustrated in Table IV-8 on the following page. As illustrated, again using our 20% sample of building plan checks sighted earlier, of all plans originally submitted and not counter approved, 88% required a first building re-check while 57% required planning re-check. When we consider the nature and type of these plan checks as discussed earlier, it is apparent that re-check has become quite substantial in terms of workload for the Plan Check staff. On larger projects, particularly commercial, industrial, and Single Family Dwellings, for new construction we expected and found repeated re-check cycles. City of Huntington Beach 63 Section Percent Percent Percent Percent ' Checking of Plans of Plans of Plans of Plans Building (0) Re- (1) Re- (2) Re- (3) Re- Plans Checks Checks Checks Checks ' Planning 43% 57% 36% 20% Building 12% 88% 53% 24% Table IV-8 Frequency of Re-Check of Building Plan Checks Sample 1992 ' RECOMMENDATION 35• _The Ho using and Building Division Should Establish a Written Internal Policy Regarding the Appropriate Service Levels Provided to Customers. ' As part of the development of an overall policies and procedures manual for the Division as discussed earlier, the Building Official in conjunction with the Assistant Building Official and Plan Check staff should develop written internal policies ' which specifically address the level of service and types of help that Plan Check staff should provide for applicants in the Plan Check process. This policy should be shared with the Director of the Department and City Administration in order to agree to target service levels as a joint effort. Once these policies are adopted, they should be published as part of public information hand outs available to applicants through the Housing and Building Division. ' Contract Services — Plan Check ' RECOMMENDATION 36: The Building Section Should Continue to Offer the Optional Plan Check Track Permitting Applicants to ' Pay for Consultant Plan Check Time. At present, the Housing and Building Division offers applicant an alternative plan ' check process which enables the applicant to pay a higher price for plan check review with a guaranteed speedier turnaround. This option is valuable to developers or applicants of large scale projects that cannot afford costly delays. As icited earlier, while turnaround time does not appear to be a significant issue at present, the Division's policy of first in, first checked can delay a project for even a ' few more days. Therefore, we recommend that the Division continue to offer their optional plan check track to applicants for the foreseeable future unless overall plan check volume were to drop so low as to underutilize in-house staff. ' City of Huntington Beach 64 RECOMMENDATION 37: The Housing and Building Division Should Only Use Contract Plan Check Services In the Event of a ' Significant Increase in Plan Check Volume and Workload. ' Plan check staffing levels appear to have been adequate for the time considered for the purposes of our study as illustrated earlier in Exhibit IV-3. Due to the decline in plan check volume and the trend in both plan check and building permits towards smaller, less time consuming projects, we recommend that the Division only engage contract plan check services in the event of a significant increase in plan check volume. It appears that current staff can and, with the implementation of re- organization discussed previously, handle current workload and any increase in the near future. 1 Training— Plan Check RECOMMENDATION 38: Provide Cross Training for Senior Building Plan Checkers for Residential Plumbing/Mechanical and Electrical Capabilities. The division of Plan Check duties between the re-organized Permit and Plan Check ' function and the Inspection function will continue to be a slightly awkward operation for processing plans within the City. While based on current workloads ' and staffing levels, we recommend that the re-classified Supervising Inspectors continue to provide Plumbing/Mechanical and Electrical plan check services, we also recommend that the Division establish an eventual goal of consolidating, to the ' degree possible, the Plan Check function under one unit. To achieve this goal we recommend that the Building Official, in coordination with the Assistant Building Official and the Plumbing/Mechanical and Electrical Supervising Inspectors, develop an aggressive technical training program for cross training the Senior Building Plan Checkers in the plumbing/mechanical and electrical disciplines to be able to handle basic plans in those specialties. City of Huntington Beach 65 Permittin O erational Issues g P The Permit Section of the Housing and Building Division is primarily responsible for the timely and accurate processing of permits and plan check applications. The section is supervised by the Permit Technician over a staff of four Permit Aides. ' Each Permit Aide is assigned specific reporting roles and responsibilities as well as providing counter staffing services. In addition to the sections responsibility for ' processing permits and plan checks, they also provide the following services which include, but are not limited to: *Microfiche preparation and record keeping of finaled permits *Processing mail-in permits •Updating the Assessor's Log ' *Scheduling Inspections for all Inspection Groups •Posting final permits •Processing and typing Certificates of Occupancy ' •Loging and reporting Utility Releases *Researching and looking up microfiche records *Researching status of project questions from applicants •Preparing and maintaining daily and monthly reports of permits and inspections. ' While these services are vital to the efficient operations of the Division, we found that the current staffing level for the Permit staff is high when compared with other cities in our experience and also with respect to the workload in terms of permits and plans. During the course of our study, we discovered that the volume of activity and the resulting workload of the Section's staff was not being currently monitored. Furthermore, many of the reports and logs prepared by Permit staff ' were not being examined on a regular basis or used as important management information. In order to assess the bulk of the current workload for the Permit staff we analyzed the number of plans and permits processed and inspections scheduled by the Permit ' staff based on volume during the past six years. As illustrated in Table IV-9 on the following page, according to volumes of plans processed during the last six years the Section was only required to process less than one plan per hour as a whole Section. Table IV-10 illustrates that when we look at the same production count for permits, the staff was required to process a high of 6.7 in 1988 or slightly more than one per person per hour. Finally Table IV-11 illustrates that number of calls processed per hour for inspection scheduling has remained fairly constant but only reached a high of 21 calls per hour at the peak of inspection activity in 1987 through 1989. 1 City of Huntington Beach 66 1 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total Plans Processed 1,422 1,416 1,140 1,298 1,162 982 Plans Processed per Day* 5.7 5.7 4.6 5.2 4.7 3.9 Plans Processed Per Hour** 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 *Based on 249 days of City operation(365 days less 104 weekend days less 12 holidays) **Based on 8 hour day of counter operations. Table IV-9 Plans Processing Workload 1987 through 1991 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total Permits 11,776 13,403 11,860 11,2f12 10,656 10,210 Permits Processed per Day* 47.3 53.8 47.6 45.1 42.8 41.0 Permits Processed Per Hour** 5.9 6.7 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.1 *Based on 249 days of City operation(365 days less 104 weekend days less 12 holidays) "Based on 8 hour day of counter operations. Table IV-10 Permit Processing Workload 1987 through 1991 Average Average ' Calendar Calls for Calls Calls Year Inspection Per Day Per Hour 1987 42,289 170 21 1988 41,035 165 21 1989 42,451 170 21 1990 39,208 157 20 1991 32,849 132 16 1992 30,514 123 15 ' Table IV-11 Number of Calls for Inspections Processed 1987 through 1992 As cited earlier under the discussion of Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Process Issues, we are recommending the streamlining of the intake function which will impact upon the workload of the Permit staff by expanding their duties to include the processing of fees and Planning permits. Furthermore, with the re-organization of the Division and reporting relationship, the Permit Section will become part of the combined Permit and Plan Check Section under the direction of the Assistant ' City of Huntington Beach 67 Building Official. The implementation of these recommendations will significantly change the individual roles and responsibilities of the existing Permit staff. RECOMMENDATION 39: Monitor Workload for All Permit Aides for Six 1 Months After Implementation of the Re-Organization and Consider Reducing Stag through Re-assignment or Attrition. In conjunction with recommendations regarding the re-organization of the Division and the streamlining of the Permit and Plan Check intake process, the Division should immediately begin to monitor workload volumes for the permit staff for all services currently provided by the staff. The Permit Technician, in coordination with the Assistant Building Official, should develop report forms to monitor all activities and summarize those reports on a weekly and monthly basis for review. We recommend that after this reporting has been in place for six months, the Division management should review workload reports , in conjunction with the Permit Technician, develop specific policies regarding responsibilities for each reporting and record keeping function. At the completion of this task, the Division management should re-examine staffing requirements for the Permit staff. If appropriate, the Division should reduce staff through attrition or re-assignment until such time as significant increases in workload warrant re- addressing the staffing levels. RECOMMENDATION 40: Cross train Permit Aides to Assist the Plan Check Counter Staff in the Intake of Plan Checks (Non- over -the -Counter). As cited earlier in recommendations relating to streamlining intake procedures, we recommend that the Division provide cross training for the Permit Aide staff to process Plan Check applications. This training will give Permit Aides the ability to determine whether a Plan Check is complete and ready for submission. Cross training will not include training to provide counter plan check services which will continue to be provided by a Building Plan Checker. However, the Permit Aides should be able to process and sign an application as complete. This recommendation should be implemented in conjunction with earlier recommendations recommending cross training for the counter staff of Plan Check to be able to process Plan Check and Permit applications as well. The development and administration of the cross training program will be the responsibility of the Assistant Building Official supervising the combined Permit and Plan Check function. City of Huntington Beach 68 8 Inspection Operational Issues P P ( Our analysis of the Housing and Building Inspection Operations revealed that significant opportunities exist to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of current operations. The Inspection function is organized into fours specialized groups, each headed b a P g P g P , Y Chief Inspector who reports directly to the Director/Building Official and is responsible for supervising their respective specialty inspectors. The Chief Inspectors of the Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical groups also have plan check responsibilities for Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical plans respectively, and each Chief carries a small inspection area assignment along with their staff. The Combination Chief Inspector also has plan check responsibilities for pools, spas, mobile homes and solar plans as well as providing for Certificate of Occupancy inspections. Under each of these specialty groups, two (four in Structural) Senior Inspectors provide their specialty inspection services within designated city zones, except in the case of the combination group. As cited earlier, the City of Huntington Beach is one of the few cities to still maintain distinct specialty inspectors. The City and the Division must have a clear understanding of the cost of providing such comprehensive inspection coverage. The current policy is designed to, and succeeds in, controlling quality assurance of construction within the City. However, based on existing workloads and the frequency of multiple overlapping visits to a building site, the re-organization of the Inspection function towards greater use of combination inspectors could reduce the resources required to staff the Inspection function and provide additional flexibility in making staffing assignments. At present, there is no uniform reporting system to record the number of inspection visits to individual sites by the various inspectors. During the course of our study, our ride-along observations repeatedly revealed frequent overlaps as multiple inspectors simultaneously visited a single building site. Such overlaps consume a considerable amount of the Division's time and resources. As we examine the inspection function, it is important to note that there is a clear relationship between the number of plan checks submitted, the number of permits issued and the number of inspections required. The number and types of plan checks submitted will determine the number and types of permits issued on those plans, and that will consequently affect the number and type of inspections requested. The impact on requests for inspection will lag behind plan check submittals and permit issuances. Therefore, if plan checks submittals have declined and become smaller in the size of the project, and the number of permits issued on those plans has decreased and are increasingly dominated by Residential Additions ' and Alterations, then these trends will be a good indicator of the future inspection workload and staffing needs. ' City of Huntington Beach 69 1 As shown in Table IV-12 on the below, while there has been a slight decline in the number of all permits issued since 1988, the number of inspections has decreased I significantly by 28%. This is primarily due to the increasing frequency of plans and permits issued for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Additions and Alterations as cited earlier which require fewer inspections than new buildings. Calendar Permits Inspections Avg.Insp. Year Issued Performed Per Permit 1987 11,776 42,289 3.59 1988 13,403 41,035 3.06 I 1989 11,860 42,451 3.58 1990 11,242 39,208 3.49 1991 10,656 32,849 3.08 1992 10,210 30,514 2.99 Table IV-12 Number of Permits Issued,Inspections Performed, and Average Inspections Per Permit 1987 through 1992 As shown in Table IV-13 below, while inspection workload in terms of total inspections (all types) has declined over the past six years, the average number of inspections conducted each day by each inspector has also declined since 1987. It ' should be noted that while the average inspections per day per inspector was 17 in 1987, that average is still considerably below the average inspection workload found in most other cities which is typically between 20 to 30 inspections per day. During this time period, the number of inspectors has remained constant with the exception of temporary vacancies. Average Total Inspections Calendar Inspections Inspections Per Day Per Year Performed Per Work Day Inspector 1987 42,289 163 17 1988 41,035 158 17 1989 42,451 165 17 1990 39,208 152 16 1991 32,849 127 13 ' 1992 30,514 118 12 Table IV-13 Average Inspections Per Day Per Inspector 1987 through 1992 In order to compare actual inspection loads for individual inspectors and between inspection groups, we analyzed the actual daily workloads per inspector for all inspectors taken from their daily inspection sheets for all of Calendar 1992. Our analysis revealed that daily inspector workloads vary significantly between ' inspector groups and by inspector. However, for all groups their collective and City of Huntington Beach 70 individual inspection workloads were still significantly under the daily average found in most cities as cited earlier. Figure IV-5 below illustrates the variance in average daily inspector workloads by inspection group. Rolling Average 15 Daily Inspections Per 10 Inspector ' 5 0 1/2/92 2/14/92 3130/92 5/11/92 6/23/92 8/5/92 9/17/92 10/29/92 12/15/92 o Building/Structural Mechanical/Plumbing ---16 Electrical Figure IV-5 Comparison of Rolling Average Daily Inspector Workloads by Inspection Group 1992 Finally, we examined appropriate staffing levels for the City's entire inspection function (all types) based on a simulation model which projects staffing needs for combination inspectors based on the volume of building permits issued. While this M model does not specifically include electric or plumbing/mechanical permits, the average number of inspections per building permit type reflects the average number of all types of inspections required by type of permit including electric or plumbing/mechanical inspections. Although this model is not an exact projection, it does provide a valuable management tool for assessing staff size and productivity. Exhibit IV-4 on the following page presents the projected total inspection staffing needs based on actual building permits for the past six years. It is important to note that the number of permits illustrated is substantially higher than the actual number of permits issued due to the inclusion of the number of units for new single family and multifamily dwellings and new commercial or industrial buildings to give full credit for- all inspections that may be conducted on a single permit. As highlighted in Exhibit IV-4, it would appear that the inspection staff was understaffed in 1988 when the volume of permits issued dictated a need of ' approximately 12.84 inspectors and the City was working with an effective staff of 10.0 inspectors (4-0.5 FTE Chief Inspectors/8 Senior Inspectors). As permit volume has decreased and the nature of permits has changed, the projected level of staffing has significantly dropped to a projected 7.21 in 1992. According to the model, the City of Huntington Beach 71 r r �r rr �r r �r �r rr �r ar r� rr rr err �r r rr �r City of Huntington Beach Housing and Building Division Inspector Stang Analysis Standards for Estimations 1880 Building Proi. Building Proj. Building Proj. Building Proj. Building Proi. Building Proi. Avg. Hours Available Permits Insp. Permits Insp. Permits Imp. Permits Insp. Permits Insp. Permits Insp. No. Req. Man Hor- Type of Inspections 1987 Req. 1988 Req. 1989 Req. 1990 Req. 1991 Req. 1992 Req. Insp. Insp. (85%, Single Family Units* 514 2.41 1,098 5.15 229 1.07 91 0.43 74 0.35 . 134 0.63 15 0.5 1598 Res.Additions&Alterations 2,807 3.48 3,638 4.51 3,241 4.02 3,840 4.76 4,387 5.44 4,245 5.26 6 0.33 1598 Multiple Residential Units** 433 2.03 311 1A6 270 1.27 180 0.84 79 0.37 19 0.09 15 0.5 1598 Demolitions 105 0.13 125 0.16 136 0.17 85 0.11 89 0.11 76 0.10 4 0.5 1598 CommJ Ind.New Buildings 73 0.41 46 0.26 38 0.21 21 0.12 5 0.03 29 0.16 18 0.5 1598 CommJ Ind. Additions& Alterations 723 1.36 697 1.31 480 0.90 573 1.08 517 0.97 521 0.98 6 0.5 1598 Totals 4,655 9.82 5,915 12.84 4,3941 7.64 4,790 7.33 5,1511 7.261 5,0241 7.21 *Single Family Dwellings include the total number of units for both attached and detached. **Multi Family Dwellings include the total number of units. Cr C inspection staff is now overstaffed by approximately 2.5 inspectors. Our findings were further confirmed through ride along observation which revealed light to I moderate inspection loads. With the present decrease in workload, the inspection staff is not being utilized in an efficient and effective manner and the recommendations that follow address this situation. Organization RECOMMENDATION 41: Re-organize the Ins ection Function Under One Chie Inspector Reporting Directly to the Building Official. The an g re-organization of the Housingd Building Division into three distinct functions will have the most direct impact on the Inspection function. At present, the four Chief Inspectors report independent of one another and directly to the Building Official. Policies and procedures for each of the specialty inspection groups is determined independently by each of the Chiefs. Consequently, there are substantial differences between the groups and their inspectors in terms of workload, reporting of inspection activities, and assignment of other duties. Furthermore, with four Chief Inspectors there is no single supervisor to monitor the City's overall inspection function, workload and policies and procedures. We recommend that as part of the Division re-organization the Inspection function should be re-organized under the newly created Chief Inspector position as described in the Section/Division Issues part of this chapter. The Chief Inspector will be responsible for the management and operations of all inspection functions provided by the Division and have reporting responsibility to the Building Official. In conjunction with this recommendation, the Division should simultaneously implement the recommendations that follow below relating to the changing of the existing Chief Inspector titles and the introduction of two classes of inspectors. RECOMMENDATION 42: Establish Three Inspection Groups- Electrical a n d PlumbinglMechanical Inspection Groups with One Senior Inspector Under a Supervising Inspector, and All Remaining Inspectors Assigned to the Combination Group Under One Supervising Inspector. While we are recommending a shift in the City's current inspection policy towards one of combination inspectors, we do acknowledge the need to maintain specific electrical and plumbing/mechanical expertise for larger projects and particularly for new commercial and industrial structures. Therefore, we recommend that under the supervision of the new Chief Inspector, the Inspection function should be re- organized into three inspection groups- Electrical, Plumbing/Mechanical and Combination. The Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical inspection groups under the direction of a Supervising Inspector should have only one Senior Inspector. City of Huntington Beach 72 The new Combination group also under the supervision of one Supervising Inspector should have two Senior Inspectors and Four Inspectors as illustrated earlier in Figure IV-2. The numbers of Senior Inspectors and Inspectors should be established in the budget and promotions of Inspectors to Senior Inspectors would only occur when there is a vacancy or a substantial increase in inspection workload. The timing of this transition should take approximately six months and the completion dates for re- classifications and cross training, as discussed below, should be developed in a cooperative effort by the new Chief Inspector and the Building Director. RECOMMENDATION 43: Re-Classify Existing Chief Inspector Positions to Supervising Inspector and Four Existing Senior Inspector Positions to Inspector Positions. We recommend that the four existing positions of Chief Inspector should be re- classified as three Supervising Inspector positions over the three inspection groups and one position eliminated (replaced by Chief Inspector position) as part of the re- organization of the Inspection function. Simultaneously, the Division should re- classify four existing Senior Inspection position as Inspectors. The re-classification of position titles should not be accompanied by salary adjustment and appropriate changes should be made to the step scale to maintain current pay levels for the ' people currently in those position. However, with each vacancy in a position, the salary scale should be adjusted to reflect four inspection salary levels. RECOMMENDATION 44: Introduce Two Levels of Ins ectors Under the Supervising Inspector, Senior Inspector and Inspector. At present all inspectors (not including Chief Inspectors) within the Division carry the title of Senior Inspector. We recommend that the Division introduce two levels of inspectors under the newly re-classified Supervising Inspectors- Senior Inspector and Inspector. At present there is no career path within the Inspection function except from Senior Inspector to Chief Inspector. With the re-organization of the Division, the new classification of Supervising Inspectors, and the introduction of the Inspector class, the Division will establish a four tiered career path for aspiring ' inspection professionals. City of Huntington Beach 73 RECOMMENDATION45: Utilize the Expanded Combination Inspection Function for All Residential Projects and Simple Commercial/Industrial Tenant Improvement a n d Alterations Unless Otherwise Determined by Chief Inspector (New Position). In conjunction with recommendations relating to the cross training of inspectors that is discussed below, we recommend that the newly established Combination i group be utilized as the primary inspection group to handle all residential projects, new or other, and simple commercial and industrial tenant improvements. The policy for what type of permit or project requires review by the specialty groups should be developed by the new Chief Inspector in coordination with the Supervising Inspectors over the specialty groups. ' While implementation timing is estimated to take approximately six months, the shift toward Combination Inspectors should begin immediately. Our review of current licenses held by existing inspection staff revealed that at least three staff members are currently licensed as combination inspectors. These individuals should begin the immediate transition towards combination inspections and be involved in the design and implementation of the cross training program along with the Supervising Inspectors of the specialty groups. Staffing and Service Level RECOMMENDATION 46: The Section Should Develop and Adopt Standard Inspection Workload Estimates Based on Permit ' Volumes and Maintain Inspection Staff Levels in Relation to those Estimates. As cited throughout this chapter, the City has experienced declining workloads in all areas of the Housing and Building Division, and this is particularly true in the case of the inspection workload. The Division needs to react to this change in workload now and in the future. Approaches to estimating appropriate inspection staffing levels vary from city to city with no agreed upon best method. However, efforts at developing a staffing model as illustrated in Exhibit IV-4 go a long way towards 1 providing a useful tool for approximating staffing needs. This model was developed and has been applied to our work with other cities and we feel that it is a fair, albeit conservative, reflection of what the staffing needs for inspection are at present. We recommend that the Housing and Building Division staff begin to use this model for the purposes of projecting total inspection staffing needs in the present and in the future. As cited earlier, the lag time between permit issuance and inspection requests would enable the Division to predict with some accuracy the approximate staff they will need to process the inspection workload. ' City of Huntington Beach 74 i i ' RECOMMENDATION 47: Utilize Current Inspection Staffing to Close Out Old Permits Currently on File with City and Establish Written Section and Division Policies as to How this 1 Will Be Accomplished. During and after the implementation period for re-organization of the Inspection 1 function, we project that the overall inspection workload will continue to be below typical inspector workloads found in other cities based on our model. Therefore, we recommend that the Division establish a systematic process to close out existing 1 open permits as cited earlier which have passed their expiration date and assign that workload to existing inspectors. The new Chief Inspector should assign these permits by zone to inspectors who will be responsible for updating the status of 1 those permits and taking appropriate action to close out the permit. This may include contacting the owner or builder and examining past inspection records available at the City and the building site. The Permit staff will be responsible for 1 providing clerical support in this effort. This program should be a priority for the Division for reasons of establishing accurate records of existing structures and to minimize the public and City's liability in these matters. 1 RECOMMENDATION 48: Monitor Individual Inspection Workloads and Conduct a Six Month Review (After Implementation of Re-Organization) to Determine Appropriate Inspection Staffing Levels. The Permit staff currently maintains daily inspection logs which provide information regarding the number of scheduled inspections for each inspector and ' by each specialty group. These schedules can be cross referenced to individual inspector daily sheets to capture any unscheduled inspections in order to capture all inspections performed. These existing reports should be used to monitor inspection workloads on a daily, weekly and monthly basis by individual inspector which is not currently being done with any regularity. We recommend that the new Chief Inspector review these documents for the next six months, which will include inspection activity related to closing out old expired i permits, and use this information to monitor the appropriateness of current staffing levels. As cited earlier, using our inspection staffing model from Exhibit IV-4 it appears that the inspection function is currently overstaffed by approximately 2 inspectors. While there is no specific number of inspections that is uniformly used to signify a full inspection load, particularly on a day by day basis, our experience with other cities has shown that most inspectors carry inspection loads of between 20 to 30 inspections per day average over time, and in some cases the average is considerably higher. If, after six months, average inspection loads remain at current City of Huntington Beach 75 i levels, the Division should consider reducing the inspection staff in accord with the results of the workload monitoring and using the staffing model. Workload Distribution RECOMMENDATION 49: The Chief Ins ector Should Restructure the Current Districting of Inspection Areas To Balance Workload Assignments and to Reflect the New Organization and Continue to Refine Those Zones Based on Workload Distribution. In order to minimize non-productive travel time and make efficient use of the Division's limited resources, the new Chief Inspector should continue to use a system of geographic inspection zones with the City of Huntington Beach. The City is currently divided into five structural inspection "areas", three electrical inspection "groups" and three plumbing/mechanical "zones". In conjunction with the structuring of a large Combination pool of inspectors, we recommend that the Division should create seven geographic Combination inspection areas which will each be staffed by one member of the Combination Group. These areas will be rotated on a six month basis for maximum exposure to different building types and zoning areas for the Combination inspection staff. The Supervising Inspector and Senior Inspector of the specialty inspection groups will service the City at large and be available to assist the Combination Inspectors. The Chief Inspector should periodically assess the configuration of these areas based on building activity and inspection workloads to ensure equal distribution of work. On a daily basis, a brief morning or end of day meeting to review schedule of inspections of each inspectors workload should be informally held to minimize overflow of inspections in a particular area on a given day. jSupervision RECOMMENDATION 50: Implement Schedule for Periodic Ride-Along of Supervising Inspectors with Inspectors to Provide for Enhanced Training and Quality Assurance. During the course of our study, our observations and interviews revealed that the existing Senior Inspectors out in the field were rarely, if ever, receiving ride-along supervision from their managers (Chief Inspectors). In certain instances, the Chief Inspectors will meet a Senior Inspector at a building site if a problem arises but there is currently no schedule for periodic ride-along supervision. Supervision is an important part of ensuring quality control and career development and education of the field inspectors. City of Huntington Beach 76 With the restructuring of the Inspection function, most of the non-supervisory functions currently administered by the Supervising Inspectors (current Chief Inspectors) will become the responsibility of the new Chief Inspector with the exception of plan check activities of the Supervising Inspectors over the Electrical and Plumbing/Mechanical groups. Therefore, we recommend that the Supervising ' Inspectors of each group should immediately develop a schedule for periodic ride- along with field inspectors on at least a monthly basis. The specialty Supervising Inspectors should also establish a schedule of ride along with Combination tinspectors as part of the Division's effort to cross train all inspectors. This increase in supervision will help to achieve the standardization of inspection techniques among inspectors and, in particular, provide combination inspection training in the ivarious specialty areas for all inspectors. Training — Inspection ' RECOMMENDATION 51: Develop and Implement a Training Program for Combination Inspection Training for All Combination ' Inspectors Coordinated by the Chief and Supervising Inspectors. ' As part of the transition towards Combination inspectors, the adequate training of inspectors in cross disciplines will be critical to ensuring the continued quality assurance of the City's inspection function. The current in-house expertise in each ' of the specialty inspection areas, including structural inspection, provides the Division with a tremendous asset in their efforts to begin the cross training and transition process. We recommend that the new Chief Inspector set as the top priority the immediate development of a six month transitional training program for all inspection staff. As a first step in the cross training process, the new Chief Inspector, in coordination with the three Supervising Inspectors should develop a preliminary schedule of critical requirements needed to begin providing instruction to inspectors in new disciplines. This schedule should include certification requirements and test dates, identify study materials, schedule in-house training sessions for each discipline conducted by the Supervising Inspectors, schedule opportunities for ride along ' between different existing specialty inspectors with one another to provide for a sharing of expertise and practical inspection experience regardless of job classification, and finally provide internal testing of training progress and target dates for each step in the process. The current workload levels should allow for adequate time available for training for the inspectors. City of Huntington Beach 77 Related Issues —Inspection RECOMMENDATION 52: Establish a Uniform Inspection Policy or Individual Inspector Reporting of the Number of Inspections and ' Stops and How to Record Them on Daily Inspector Worksheets. As part of our analysis of the individual inspector workloads we examined inspector records from the daily inspection sheets. This examination revealed that each inspector was filling out their daily activity in their own unique way. In various cases, some inspectors would provide full or no details of the results of all inspections, full counts and totals or no count or totals of inspections, and inspection totals including counting such things as no entry, car washing, or gas stops as inspections. ' In an effort to accurately assess the inspection workload as discussed above, we recommend that the new Chief Inspector develop a uniform policy for recording inspections of all types which will include when to count something as an inspection or multiple inspection, as may be the case with a plumbing permit to final five units in a multi family dwelling. Once this policy is adopted, the Chief Inspector should conduct a training session with the entire inspection staff to implement the new reporting procedure. RECOMMENDATION 53: Establish Uniform Inspection Policy Regarding ' Inspectors' Morning and Late Afternoon Procedures to Return to the Office for Other Assignments and/or to ' Set Up the Following Date's Schedule. During the course of our study, we observed that inspectors hours began at 7:30 a.m. but very often they did not leave the office until 8:30 a.m. We also observed that many of the inspectors would return to the office more than an hour before the end of the day. This may be due to the decreased workload as has been previously discussed, however it is further reflection on the need for the new Chief Inspector to closely monitor inspector workloads. ' In light of these observations, we recommend the a Division policy be established requiring inspectors to leave the office by 8:00 a.m. (with the exception of days during which morning staff meetings may periodically interfere). Inspectors should return to the office for office assignments when their field activities are not adequate to keep them busy. It is not acceptable to go home during the day, spend time working out, or on other non job related activities as was revealed to us during our ' interviews with the Inspection staff. If the inspectors do have a full work load, they should return to the office approximately :45 minutes before the end of the day to City of Huntington Beach 78 1 complete any daily reporting requirements as may be required and to prepare documents for the next day's inspections. 1 RECOMMENDATION 54: Require Each Active Permit to be Inspected Once Every 90 Days Whether or Not an Inspection is Called For. In order to avoid the continued increase in the number of outstanding expired permits as cited earlier, we recommend that the Section and Division adopt an inspection policy which requires each active permit to be inspected once every 90 days whether or not an inspection is called for. The administration and tracking of ' the time between inspections will be the responsibility of the Permit staff.as part of their newly designed plans and permit tracking program described earlier in recommendations in the Permitting Operational Issues section of this chapter. This pro-active approach will serve two purposes--it will prevent building activity beyond the expiration of permits, and it will prevent more costly delays to builder/applicants by preempting more costly requirements to tear out completed work which did not receive earlier required inspection approval. r r r r r r r r Cif o Beach 7 y f Huntington 8 9 i HOUSING Mission The Housing Section is a small unit within the Housing and Building Division. It functions with a staff consisting of a housing rehabilitation manager, a housing development specialist, and a part time secretary. The section also has an intern assigned at this time. The primary focus of this Section is to identify residential properties throughout the City in need of rehabilitation and to assist the property owners to secure loans and grants to improve the property. This effort is very comprehensive and includes assistance to process the paperwork, determining what work needs to be done and the cost estimate of that work, disbursement of funds to contractors and, if necessary, dispute resolution as well as the overall administration of the program. ' The funding for this program comes through the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program (C.D.B.G.). Within the City of Huntington Beach, the Economic Development Department exercises responsibility for the C.D.B.G. Program. Recommendations for programs to be funded on an annual basis are prepared by Economic Development as are the annual report documents submitted to the Federal Department of Housing and Community Development (H.U.D.) attesting to how effectively the grant moneys have been used. ' Organization Other activities of the Housing Section, through its Housing Development Specialist, include providing the planning staff with informational requirements of Federal housing programs, undertaking special housing studies, participation in the preparation of the Housing Element of the General Plan, and other functions assigned by the Director of the Housing and Building Division. This position also assists with the housing survey, which will ultimately assess the condition of every housing unit in the City, now being conducted by Code Enforcement. Some of the activities of the Housing Development Specialist appear to be duplicative (although not redundant) of functions that are being conducted in other parts of the organization. Other projects are unique to that position such as preparing to utilize the HOME program. The position is also used as a catch-all for programs assigned by the director. Most of the projects that have been assigned to this position appear to be of value and benefit to the City. However, it is difficult to assess their importance to the City in the absence of comprehensive housing strategy and policy. The organizational unit being discussed herein is identified as the Housing Section, which implies a more far-reaching responsibility for the City's housing activities City of Huntington Beach 80 than is the case. That nomenclature may not be descriptive of the more limited Y P focus of responsibility of the Section. Other parts of the City organization also share in the development and implementation of housing programs and housing policy. These include the Planning Division whose efforts include the Housing Element of the General Plan which is the most significant housing policy document of the City and Economic Development Department who promotes and provides financial support for the development of housing. Service Level The Housing Rehabilitation Program has provided over 500 loans since its inception in the late 1970's. This program has been conducted almost completely with only one staff person. The results of the program are positive, and substantial physical improvements in parts of the City most in need and for residents with few other options to improve their property have occurred. A great deal of input was received during the evaluation of the Department regarding the housing responsibilities being split between two departments and the appropriateness of that organizational format when related to concerns of effectiveness and efficiency. The funding source being administered from one department and the function being in another does not appear to be a problem with the rehab program. There are other perceived and real problems, however, with the City's housing efforts in general. While the rehab program, to the extent that it has been implemented, is very successful, there are several areas that do need to be addressed. These include substantial sums of funds that remain unused, the apparent lack of a comprehensive approach that leverages all available housing programs to meet identified City objectives, and whether the City should reconsider its policy for paying some program costs with General Fund revenues rather that paying those costs out of the C.D.B.G. program. Nearly one million dollars in C.D.B.G. rehabilitation funds remain in the program that have been carried over from previous years. As a result, this year's annual application to H.U.D. does not propose to include rehabilitation funds. This situation raises two concerns. The first is with the internal controls, or lack thereof, ' that are used to assure that funding is programmed in a manner that is consistent with the capacity to expend the funds. The second concern is, to what extent is the rehabilitation program a priority in the City? ' Economic Development has recognized the need for additional internal review of the program. Moreover, staff has stated that potential housing development and improvements have been lost because the City does not have a consistent position regarding what types of housing they will assist and what they will not. Further, some applications have begun processing under a set of assumptions assumed to be City of Huntington Beach 81 valid by the assigned staff only later to be required to make major changes or revisions to the project. This type of situation occurs both within the Department of Community Development when supervisors do not concur with project staff, and interdepartmentally, with the Economic Development Department. Jurisdiction of housing projects being proposed or processed with the City has also been a source of disagreement between the Community Development and Economic Development Departments. Resolution of interdepartmental disputes has been addressed through referral to the Department Head Management Team. This approach should only be viewed as a stop-gap, not a replacement for a clearly articulated City housing policy. A housing policy would also reduce intradepartmental conflicts over the interpretation and focus of housing efforts. However, a housing policy will provide only part of the solution to problems that are being experienced. Improved communication and additional training, which are discussed in detail elsewhere in the study, are also necessary. Notwithstandingthe Housing Element of the General Plan, it does not appear that g PP the Department or the City has a comprehensive and consistent understanding or focus on what it wants to achieve or where it should intervene with its police powers or resources. Organizational relationships are unclear and housing activities appear to be fragmented and without the benefit of clear direction. While it is not within the scope of the study to suggest the content of a housing policy, it is clear that a housing policy is necessary as a framing document to guide future housing decision. RECOMMENDATION 55: The Department of Community Development Should Adopt a Housing Policy Which Clearly Establishes and Articulates a Vision and Focus for All of the City's Housing Efforts so that Housing Activities are Well Organized and Orchestrated With Measurable Results, e.g., Number of Units Built, Percent Increase in Property Tax, Number of Submitted Units Eliminated, etc. RECOMMENDATION 56: The Organizational Framework Within Which ' Housing Activities and Programs are Conducted Should Be Evaluated Within 30 days After a Housing Policy is Adopted by the City. A Realignment of the ' Current Organization, the Reassignment of Some Existing Activities, and the Assignment of N e w Responsibilities Should be Antici.pated. City of Huntington Beach 82 V. PLANNING r This chapter of our report discusses our review analysis and recommendations pertaining to the organization and operation of the Department of Community Development's Planning Division. Organization As shown below the Planning Division is one of the two divisions within the City's Department of Community Development . Planning Housing and Building Division Figure V-1 Department of Community Development Organization Chart Mission The Planning division has three organizational units - Current Planning, Advanced Planning and Code Enforcement - and a wide range of duties and responsibilities including: • Ensuring the preparation, adaptation, administration and enforcement of the City's General Plan and all regulatory matters related thereto; • Providing technical assistance and staff support to City Council, Planning Commission and citizens regarding all matters relating to land use and quality of life issues in the City; • Providing research and technical assistance relating to the promulgation and enforcement rules, regulations and other matters legislated by other agencies that directly and/or indirectly impact land uses and/or quality of life for the citizens of Huntington Beach; • Reviewing applications, conducting research and insuring compliance with adopted rules and regulations; City of Huntington Beach 83 • Conducting field inspections to insure compliance with adopted City rules and-regulations governing land use and operations; ............................................ t Advanced Code Current Planning Enforcement Planning Senior Planner Senior Planner Senior Planner B.L.Chi- Enwanmmt IXfi— l Public c H.By S..diff Cauruer Cade A—PI— A.uc P6Ma Enfmcemmt c...t.l Offi-n 3 A—Pl.nna A—Pl.nner Cade AN.L PI.Mer Fid.ramml Plan t7edt Trainee 1 En—." Pl.Mina Aide Plamon A..ut.PI.Ma Inttrn M—M H—K Tali Draflranen M--9 Pl..d„g ad. l"�° lnt..n Figure V-2 Department of Community Development Planning Division Organization Chart Advanced Planning and Current Planning are terms of reference that are commonly used to further define and group the various planning activities performed by a public planning agency. The planning personnel in larger planning operations are also often organized into these functional areas, as is the case in Huntington Beach, which has a Current Planning Section and an Advanced Planning Section within the Planning Division. These terms have general meaning to those in the planning tprofession but the distinction is often not otherwise widely understood. As might be expected, the lack of distinction between the two terms is paralleled by a lack of a common definition. While Advanced Planning is generally more policy oriented, Current Planning is focused on the implementation of plans and programs. However, in municipalities with separate advanced and current planning working groups, it is common for staff crossover to occur where the policy group works on implementation programs and vice versa. This is true in the City of Huntington Beach and thus for the purposes of this report these two functions and units are discussed separately. 1 City of Huntington Beach 84 1 Current Planning For the purposes of our discussion and analysis, DCD's current planning division is responsible for those matters pertaining to the processing of applications requiring an interpretation and application of the rules and regulations set forth in related documents including Zoning and Development code, etc. These matters are often referred to as "case processing" or "regulatory matters" because the duties and responsibilities performed by staff are in direct response to applicant request for iapproval of a specific use and/or functions regulated by City code and/or policy. The tasks performed by staff must follow specific guidelines including written and well documented policies and procedures that support adopted code and regulations. Since there is discretionary action frequently involved, the review process involves public notification and hearing either before the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The function and duties performed by this Division staff include working with clients, handling and processing client paperwork, research, writing and report preparation, attendance at public hearings and in some instances, public presentation. In achieving this stated mission, the Current Planning division maintains two focuses: • Dissemination of information, and the intake and review of applications both for uses and buildings. This occurs at DCD's Public Counter located on the third floor of City Hall; • Research, evaluation and determination of the appropriateness of submitted applications As shown in Figure V-3, our analysis indicates the number of applicants 700 seeking approval for various regulated uses within the City has declined 18% during the last three years. 600 500 400 1990 1991 1992 Figure V-3 Planning Division's Number of New Applications for Planning Related Permits City of Huntington Beach 85 Despite this decline, the proportional Use Permit C.U.P. mix of the type of permits and uses 13% 10% Conditional ' Exception/Variance sought has remained relatively 10% constant with more than 70% of the Temporary Sign Environmental Division's work involving six major Permit 8%Assessment 23% areas: Temp Sign 23%, Use Permit f_y> �% D.R.B. 13%, C.U.P. 10%, Variance 10%, Environmental Assessment 8%, and D.R.B. 7%. (See Figure V-4). 29% All Others Figure V-4 In undertaking our analysis of the Mix of Planning Permits adequacy of staffing resources allocated to support both the volume and nature of the case load discussed above, we developed with staff support and concurrence, time-required yardsticks — that is, ' managerial estimates regarding the average amount of time required to complete the necessary work for each type of case request. These yardsticks are consistent with industry standards and those found in other communities. More importantly, these yardsticks are realistic targets and should be utilized in planning and evaluating resource requirements and service levels with respect to the division's future case Iprocessing requirements. As shown in Exhibit V-1 and lo,000.o (FTE 5.11 summarized in Figure V-5, our analysis 9,000.0 indicates approximately 6,142 current staff hours, or a minimum of 3.2 FTE, 8,000.0 (FTE 4.1) are required to successfully process the 7,000.0 current caseload. This current staffing (FfE 3.2) hour requirement is approximately 36% 6,000.0 below that required two years ago 5,000.0 despite only an 18% reduction in actual 1990 1991 1992 caseload volume. Figure V-5 The significant decrease in staffing time Planning Permit Staffing Requirements is directly attributable to the reduction in the number of cases and particularly the more time consuming cases involving Environmental Reviews, Zone Change and General Plan Amendments that were required as part of the Holly Sea Cliff and Bolsa Chica projects. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the City's Current Planning staffing of 4 FTE (1 Senior and 3 Planning Assistant, Associate Aides) is sufficient to handle current caseload and additional work that may result from the appeals (10 Zoning Administration and 53 Planning 1 Commission) and other special project assignments. City of Huntington Beach 86 City of Huntington Beach Planning Permit Staffing Analysis 1990-1992 1990 1991 1992 Cases %EC ManHrs %EM Cases %EC ManHrs %EM Cases %EC ManHrs %EM Admin. Review' 22 3% 286.00 3% 11 2% 143.00 2% 17 3% 221.00 4% Appeals 0 0% - - 0 0% - - 2 0% - C.U.P.' 69 11% 1,794.00 19% 61 11% 1,586.00 21% 55 10% 1,430.00 23% Cat. Exclusion 1 0% - - 3 1% - - 0 0% - - Coastal DevT Per.' 53 8% 795.00 8% 40 7% 600.00 8% 33 6% 495.00 8% Code Amend.' 10 20/6 - - 13 2% - - 7 1% - - Cond. Exce ./Var." 54 8% 864.00 9% 53 9% 848.00 11% 51 10% 816.00 13% D.R.B. 34 5% 204.00 2% 43 8% 258.00 3% 39 7% 234.00 4% E.I.R.' 6 1% - - 1 0% - - 0 0% - - Env. Assess. 48 7% 960.00 10% 47 8% 940.00 12% 44 8% 880.00 14% Gen. Plan Amend.' 6 1% 900.00 9% 6 1% 900.00 12% 0 0% 0.00 0% Gen. Plan Conf. 8 1% - - 11 2% - - 10 2% - - Lot Line Adjust.' 3 0% 18.00 0% 6 1% 36.00 0% 1 0% 6.00 0% Ltd. Sign Permit` 9 1% - - 11 2% - - 1 0% - - Plan Sign Pro . 0 0% - - 0 0% - - 9 2% - - Prelim. Plan Per. 17 3% - - 5 1% - - 6 1% - - Prelim. Plan St. Align. 2 0% - - 1 0% - - 2 0% - - Res. &Amend. to Res. 0 0% - - 0 0% - - 0 0% - - Res. Anim. Per. 0 0% - - 0 0% - - 2 0% -Site Plan Amend.' 2 0% 36.00 1 0% 3 1% 54.00 1%1 8 1% 144.00 2% Spec. Sign Per.' 12 2% 240.00 3% 81 1% 160.00 2% 10 2% 200.00 3% Temp. Sales Lot 13 2% - - 5 1% - - 20 4% -Temp. Sign Per. 137 21% 68.50 1% 151 26% 75.50 1% 124 23% 62.00 1 Tent. Parcel Map* 26 4% 312.00 3% 8 1% 96.00 1% 13 2% 156.00 3% Tent. Tract Map 22 3% 880.00 9% 9 2%1 360.00 5% 7 1% 280.00 5% x Use Permit' 79 12% 1,185.00 12% 67 12% 1,005.00 13% 70 13% 1,050.00 17% Zone Change* 18 3% 1,008.00 11% 9 2% 504.00 7% 3 1% 168.00 3% y TOTAL 651 100% 9,550.50 100% 572 100% 7,565.50 100% 534 100% 6,142.00 100% C r , It is of interest to note that six Coastal Development Conditional Exception/ of the 27 different types Of Permit Variance cases regulated account for s% 13% 76% of the Department's total Environmental staff hour requirement. This C.P.U. Assessment analysis should be considered 14% 23% by the staff and City Council in reviewing the equity and 1 appropriateness of the City's P current user fees and charges Administrative Use Permit g Review for planning related permits 4% 17% currently under review. Others 20% In assessing the adequacy of the staffing resources, we also Figure V-6 evaluated the total work days Percentages of Man Hours by Permit Type required to process cases. As shown in the table below, the Division has processed most cases within 30-45 day period. 1 Given the public notification requirements G b and the g regularly �c........sequencing of re ularl scheduled ;::.:;;;:: ;�.cc ' meetings (Planning Commission and/or ><:>> <.».<:>::>.:>:<:.:>.:.:>.<:>::::.:. >- Zoning Administrator) the days in process CA 173 44 are comparable and in some instances better TPM 158 29 than that found in other communities. In CUP 76 52 making this comparison it is important to LSP CE/Variance 58 NA note that no two communities are identical sSP 43 NA with respect to the Zoning Code provisions AR 39 26 and permit requirements. More CDP 37 34 importantly, due to the public hearings U' 32 38 requirements and public notification time LLA 27 NA SPA 25 NA frames, these windows could not be Zone Chan es NA NA improved upon significantly regardless of EPA NA NA the allocation of additional resources EIR NA NA Note: NA= not enough data available to calculate an average. ' Source: HB Planning Department Calendar ' Table V-1 Days in Process Planning Permit Applications 1 Cif o Huntington Beach 7 y f 8 $ r i RECOMMENDATION 57: The Current Planning Division should implement as Part of Department-wide project a time reporting system. Currently, the Department has no record keeping to determine which projects are consuming the time and energies of the Division's limited resources. Perhaps of greater concern, it was noted during our many discussions on the subject that Department management don't seem to agree on the value or the utility of this type of information. Time record keeping by all employees at 15 minute intervals is a widely accepted and subscribed to practice in a service/project- oriented industry such as the planning. We believe the benefits derived form this information far ' outweighs the inconvenience to the employees. Such data will be particularly helpful to the Department in monitoring employee productivity relative to agreed upon standards, attendant adjustments in staffing resources, and appropriateness of related costs and fees. An employee self-reporting system can also be done as a spreadsheet and compiled on a biweekly basis for the Department. The ' implementation of this recommendation should be done immediately and is not dependent upon modification or implementation of a sophisticated labor distribution system. ' RECOMMENDATION D D mans 58: C Bement should realign the staffing Iresources currently assigned to current planning Our analysis indicates approximately 3.2 FTE are required to manage the division's ' current caseload. This should be accomplished using three full time planners with the overflow and/or more difficult and time consuming cases being handled by the Senior Planner. As discussed later it appears that a number of other staff members are involved in case processing activities including those assigned to Advanced planning. This functional arrangement is not of concern until which time you sum the total man-hours reported on current planning projects. It far exceeds the 3.2 FTE equivalent discussed and recommended above. RECOMMENDATION 59: Each of the professional staff members assigned to the Planning Division should be provided a personal computer. ' Currently, the staff reports both within Long Range and Current Planning are written long-hand, sent to word processing for input, returned for edit and finalized. As discussed later in this report, the current system is highly inefficient for both the professional staff and the DCD's clerical staff and ultimately causes unnecessary delays in case processing. Our analysis indicate 70% of the text processing activities performed by clerical staff in support of this function involve the use of standard format, and citation/reference of standard text. This would indicate the majority of documents prepared by planning staff are relatively short (4-5 pages) and have ' limited new text input. Limited text processing and research citations should be City of Huntington Beach 88 1 done directly by the case planner. This is not an unreasonable expectation and is generally accepted within the professional circles. Our interviews with staff indicate a strong desire to have this flexibility. It appears that for a variety of reasons the City has been reluctant to invest the funds necessary to provide this technology to the professional staff. Our on-site observations noted several staff members are ' utilizing their personal PC to expedite their work. While this is commendable and illustrative of the willingness and commitment of the Department employees, it is unacceptable in this day and age. Implementation of this recommendation will require coordination with the City's Information Systems Department and we would hope that a relatively easy solution is available. We would estimate $2,000 per workstation (Based on current staffing requirements, $22,000) should be budgeted to implement this recommendation. Should budget constraints prevent it, we would recommend a one-time surcharge on user fees and charges be imposed to fund this essential capital investment. Our prior experience with other Departments with similar circumstances indicates clients are willing to fund a one- time investment if they are assured of improved employee efficiency and ultimately ' a reduction in case-processing time. RECOMMENDATION60: Planning Division staff should evaluate on an annual basis the need to modify the current Code Permit policies. Several of the policies and procedures and uses permitted are done in response to outdated code provisions. The adoption of the City's revised Zoning code should address this problem and will further reduce the units case load. The Department should review annually with the Planning Commission and City Council the various regulatory functions and address those that may for what ever reason require modification. Planning Counter Currently, the Planning Division occupies a six foot section of the DCD's public Y g P counter located on the third floor. The Planning/Zoning counter, under the supervision of an Associate Planner, is staffed Monday through Friday by two Assistant Planners (50%) and when needed by a Senior Design Plan Checker. The Planning/Zoning counter provides a variety of planning and zoning information services including answering phone calls, related to cases, flood information and other miscellaneous information. In addition, the Planning/Zoning counter provides direct customer assistance in reviewing and approving plans, responding to issues related to existing cases and matters pertaining to certificate of occupancy permits. Our analysis of the self reporting logs maintained by staff, indicates the Planning/Zoning counter is handling approximately 28 calls per day or 3 per hour City of Huntington Beach 89 and providing direct client service (walk-in) to approximately 35 people per day or 4 per hour. ' In addition to these services, the Planning/Zoning counter through the services of the Senior Design Plan Checker provided 350 plan checks during 1992: (150 plan ' checks that were routed via the Building Division; 100 over-the-counter plan check approvals; and another 100 plan check for signs). These plans were checked for conformance with the provisions of the city's General Plan and Zoning Code ' including set backs, entitlement requirements, and address. In selected instances, mainly involving sign applications, field verification of submitted plans is performed. Based on our analysis, the current volume of plan check results in less than two plan checks a day. It is important to note that the caseload records maintained by Current planning indicate a significantly higher caseload than that reflected in the plans being processed and fees collected by the building division. In addition to supporting the planning counter plan check workload, the Senior Design Plan Checker also provides plan check and coordination with Public Works for grading and landscaping, which had 98 and 45 plan checks respectively of the current plan check workload. ' RECOMMENDATION 61: Reorganize the Planning Division Counter operation. ' Client Service is a stated priority of the Department and the City. Yet that is not reflected in the organization and operation of its public counter, which is the initial point of contact for the overwhelming number of clients. For the most part, clients consider the counter operation a necessary but unpleasant experience. The Division has established a rotational system to ensure that this opportunity and experience is shared equally amongst staff. There are no current desk top procedures manuals to assist staff in executing their public counter duties and responsibilities. And, there are varying levels of knowledge and experience among the staff members in working with and interpreting the city's outdated Zoning code. Moreover, our analysis noted approximately 50% of the tasks performed by planning professionals manning the Planning/Zoning counter are clerical in nature and should be performed by either the applicant and/or the Department's permit aide located adjacent to the counter. Such tasks include answering phone calls that involve dissemination of public information that could have been screened, looking up Assessors files to find parcel numbers, recording dots on plat maps, preparing files, completing forms etc. Applicants should be given written instructions regarding completing necessary ' forms including public notification requirements. It should be the applicants' responsibility to provide these listings of adjacent property owners and to assume responsibility for the accuracy of the data submitted. This is a common practice ' within the industry. City of Huntington Beach 90 The Department's Permit Aides are there to assist the entire permit activities of the Department including Planning. As previously discussed in this report, the Permit Aides should take the completed forms, prepare the necessary files, file the paperwork, and input that data as part of the overall Department-wide permit data base. The reallocation of counter duties and responsibilities in this manner will free the professional staff to answer telephone inquiries (4 per hour) on more substantive issues and serve the walk-in pedestrian traffic (3 per hour). Implementing these revised work methods and procedures should enable the Division to staff the counter with a single individual handling the public traffic. In addition to revising the counter desktop policies and procedures, we recommend physically relocating the Senior Plan Checker to a space closer to the counter. The majority of this individual time is spent on planning matters yet is physically removed from the counter. The reorganization of landscape and grading plan check services as previously discussed, will free up approximately 25% of the Senior Design Plan Checker's time thus enabling that position to support the public counter activities should the need arise and focus on performing the needed plan checks within the desired turnaround times. RECOMMENDATION 62: The Planning position at the counter should be a full time senior level position. If you agree that the public counter is the Division's greatest point of public contact and exposure, then it is only appropriate that the Division staff the position with a senior level and experienced person. A knowledgeable and seasoned professional will enhance the quality of information provided to the questioning public and should enhance the over-the-counter plan check volume thereby reducing the workload for the Senior Plan Checker. We recognize that it is viewed by staff as a career limiting move, within the profession to take such an assignment. However, we believe the position can and should be structured to create a desirable assignment. A logical assignment would be to combine that position with those performed by the Zoning Administrator thereby centralizing the body of knowledge and experience at the point of intake and advising clients accordingly. That senior level position, physically present at the Counter, could also have responsibility for overseeing and coordinating the entire Public Counter operation. i RECOMMENDATION 63: The DCD should develop a database plan to record the permit activity -for city parcels Currently the City planners are manually recording various transactions on plat maps located behind the public counter. Not only is the practice highly inefficient and ineffective, the accessibility of such data represent the potential liability for the City. The maps at best are difficult to read and in the event of a theft or disaster, the City of Huntington Beach 91 information could be permanently lost. The Department management should place the highest priority on implementing a system that enables the various divisions to record and have available the historical transactions for a particular parcel. RECOMMENDATION 64: The Planning Division in coniunction with DCD should revise the current filing policy and procedures. In attempting to retrieve and analyze various data for our analysis, we noted a number of different filing systems used by the various units within planning division with no overall schematic or organization. On specific occasions we noted ' files were incomplete, misplaced and in a few instances out but expected back shortly (postmark Jan. 1990). The data contained in these files is important information often dealing with an individual's property rights. It's loss and/or misplacement 1 represents a significant potential liability for the City. All filing systems should be reviewed and analyzed and a new system developed and implemented that provides for easy accessing and monitoring. Advanced Planning The Advanced Planning Section of the Planning Division typically handles the following activities: Maintenance of the General Plan and General Plan Amendments; Interpretation of the General Plan; Overview of fiscal analysis prepared to assist in land use decision making; Implementation of mitigation monitoring programs; Special Studies; Liaison to many of the committees and groups established to interact with the City; LAFCO interaction; Monitoring of regional agencies; Preparation and maintenance of demographic information In addition to the responsibilities listed above, the Advanced Planning Section spends a substantial portion of its staff time working on Current Planning matters as discussed above, including processing and researching applications, and servicing ' the public counter. Advance Planning management estimates approximately 30% of available staff time is spent performing Current Planning and case processing functions. Staffing The Advanced Planning Section is small with an authorized strength of a Senior Planner who supervises the Section, four professional planners, a planning ' technician, and an intern. Like Current Planning, our observation of the assigned staff indicates that they are capable, competent, enthusiastic, and committed professionals. However, the purpose, focus, work program and products of ' Advanced Planning are not well defined. This is of concern since without a defined focus, combined with accountability, some measure of the staff's efforts and effectiveness is lost. Further, there does not appear to be a good understanding, City of Huntington Beach 92 1 outside of the Department, of what projects staff is working on; or that what they produce is a necessary ingredient for good decision making by the City Council or ' Planning Commission. Project Management Despite the lack of clarity, the DCD has allocated a significant level of resources to ' this critical function of the city planning efforts. While the resources have been allocated on paper, it is clear that current planning functions (i.e., project processing and permitting) receive a higher priority within the Department for the allocation of staff time than advanced planning projects and special studies. Therefore when development activity increases, advanced planning staff are reallocated to current planning projects. As a result, special studies and other advance planning programs are dropped, moved along with reduced staff allocations, or their completion time is extended into the future; i.e., the Zoning Code re-write project, low to moderate Housing Policy documents. This method of making staff assignments reflects the ' reality that development projects generate revenues to the Department and that applicants may expect the timely assignment of personnel to their projects. However, it appears unnecessary given the current staffing resources assigned to current planning and the caseload staffing requirements. Moreover, the assignment of advanced planners to perform current planning projects and/or special projects of the week fosters the notion that advanced planning projects are less significant and ' of lower priority than the current crisis of the week that will always surface in a case processing unit. More importantly, it means that information which is vital to good decision making may not be available to those who need it in a timely ' manner, the City Council, for example. Considering how work is prioritized, the Planning Division must be thought of first as an application processing and permitting organization and second as an organization which addresses contemporary and emerging planning issues. The limited commitment on the part of the DCD to policy planning, analysis of emerging issues and other advanced planning functions means that relatively little visioning materials has been made available to the City's decision makers to assist them in steering the community into the future. The planning staff is very much aware that the City can do more to shape its future rather than being forced to respond to it. The planning staff, however, is very uncertain what their role should be. Breakdown in communication on this issue is serious and warrants attention as soon as possible. There appears to be a lack of faith and/or trust in the advanced planning work of the Division. While planning to meet the future needs of the City has not received enough attention, it doesn't appear that City Councils of the past or other City leadership ever placed high emphasis on it. City of Huntington Beach 93 RECOMMENDATION 65: The Department of Community Development should , with the participation of all staff, a departmental mission statement. Each identifiable organizational unit of the Department should utilize the mission statement in the annual budget preparation and annual obJectives. �( RECOMMENDATION 66: The Advanced Planning Section should annually prepare a list of all special studies and other work 1 worts that it proposed to address in the upcoming year. This work program should then be presented to the Planning Commission for review and to City ' Council for adoption into the budget. While certain projects require specific budget approvals by the City Council, such as consulting services for the General Plan, most special studies are initiated internally by the director using departmental staff and without any process to assure that the staff resources are being utilized on projects that are the highest priority to the City, not only the Department. The effect of approaching advanced projects in this manner is that they have limited or no constituency outside of the department, and are eliminated or delayed when a "hot" issue is presented to the Department. RECOMMENDATION 67: The Planning Division should establish a policuy that ' advanced planning staff will be committed only to advanced planning proiects except during peri__ odd unusually high development activity and then only for limited time Frames. RECOMMENDATION 68: All assignments made in the advanced P l a n n i n g Section should have completion deadlines. Periodic review, by the Senior Planner at appropriate checkpoints, of progress toward completion of projects is essential to assure timely completion and anticipated work product. ' City of Huntington Beach 94 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement (CE) is presently responsible for enforcing the Zoning , Municipal and Uniform Housing Codes. Code Enforcement responds to citizen initiated complaints which may include substandard housing, property maintenance, trash ' and debris, illegal dwelling units, and structures erected without permit. Code Enforcement staff currently consists of one supervisor, three field inspectors and two trainees. For enforcement purposes, the City has been divided into four geographical areas with one inspector assigned to each district. One inspector is assigned full time to the Oakview redevelopment area. jAs shown in Figure V-7, our analysis of 3000 the Department's workload indicates the CE has experienced a 75% increase in the 2500 number of cases being reported for inspection. 2000 ' 1500 1990 1991 1992 Figure V-7 ' Number of Code Violation Complaints Certificate of Vehicle Violations Occupancies 1 17% 9% It is of interest to note that Non-permitted despite the significant increase 8% Uses in volume, the caseload mix Sign Code has remained relatively Violations constant during this growth Property 8% period. (Figure V-8). Maintenance 2 7%0 All 3 1% Others Figure V-8 Code Enforcement Caseload Mix City of Huntington Beach 95 i As shown in Figure V-9, our analysis of the Commercial inspection logs indicates the majority of the 17% units field inspection hours are spent responding to residential complaints and that Industrial commercial and industrial complaints account 15% 11 for 1/3 of the Division workload. Residencial 68% Figure V-9 Field Inspector Man-Hours by Unit Type Moreover, our analysis of the inspector logs as shown below (Table V-2) indicates 1 that opportunities exist to increase the employee efficiency and effectiveness of its field enforcement functions. XX f€:€:... It ; €:::`:>r':€..Num �f.. _ .>:: . Av ::::: :::::::::::::.::::::.: : .. :::::: .:.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.ber..:::::;::.;:::::.. .:::::.:<:.:::::: :: :::: ::a ::::::.::: .:::. I :.:.... ............................ .........................y.. ...:..:...........:.::.:.:..........::... ........:.:..............g....::.::.:::.::::.:::.: .::.:::............. ........................... ril ::>»»::><:;: :::::::>::;. extiotts V olatiazt ntue . .:emsetxans> a 1 ..... ..... 246 260-332 60 12 32 min. 219 243-195 60 10 39 min. 153 175-108 52 8 49 min. Table V-2 Inspector Monthly Work Logs RECOMMENDATION 69: The Code Enforcement Section should evaluate current sta.f'ing resources The Code Enforcement section is a highly organizedunit whose output includes: up-to-date policy and procedural manuals that assist employees in executing assigned duties and responsibilities; and monthly management reports indicating the number of complaints filed, number of complaints closed, number of inspections performed overall and by each inspector. These manuals and reports reflect good solid management practices that stand in marked contrast to those subscribed to by the Department's other units. We recommend that Code Enforcement take the final step and use this excellent database to allocate and monitor the allocation of its limited resources. Yardsticks should be developed regarding the number of inspections per stop (e.g. 12 to 15 inspections and 30 minutes per inspection including write up time); and the number of inspections required per complaint; and the number of inspections vs. number of violations cited. All of these are measures that should be used in better defining and i accounting for the resources required to support this important program. Assuming these yardsticks are implemented, it appears that three Code Enforcement officers are required to provide the desired high level of code enforcement policies City of Huntington Beach 96 jthroughout the City. This staffing level assumes that much of the clerical duties currently being performed by enforcement officers are assumed by the clerical staff as discussed later in this report. r 1 i City of Huntington Beach 97 1 VI. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL This chapter of our report discusses our review analysis and recommendations P P Y pertaining to the organization and operation of the Department of Community Development's Inter-Departmental System. ' Organization As shown in Figure VI-1 below, the City's development process includes and is dependent upon the efficient organization and delivery of support services from a variety of other City departments including City Attorney's Office, Public Works, City Clerk, Fire and Finance. Throughout the course of this study a number of concerns were expressed repeatedly by DCD management and staff regarding inefficiencies and lack of responsiveness by these departments in ensuring the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the City's development process. This section discusses the scope of these respective units' role and responsibilities in the City's Development process and interrelationship with DCD. < Puli Works_ i tto e ......:Cit :Clerk .: . C_. .:.A...:..:xrt... ..::.; Y.::.: ':.;::: .. cy eogXXXI rnni:>::>:;:.;: Fue Fuiance Figure VI-1 City of Huntington Beach Interdepartmental Development Review Process Public Works Public Works is responsible for insuring that proper standards are in place and plans are checked and work inspected for all improvements located in the public right-of- way. In addition, the Public Works Department is responsible for Plan Checking and inspecting all grading and landscape work undertaken both on private property and in the public right-of-way. City of Huntington Beach 98 As shown in Figure VI-2 below, there are various functions within Public Works involved in this process including Water, Sewer, Traffic, Maintenance and Landscaping. Public Works N Water Engineering Drainage Lanscaping Sewer Subdivision Traffics Maintainece Figure VI-2 Public Works Organizational Chart All plans for off-site improvements are 250 submitted at the Public Works counter located on the first floor of City Hall. Plans are 200 received and copies distributed to the respective sections for review and approval. A 150 log is manually maintained by the Engineering section recording the date received, and the 100 return dates from the various sections for each 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 plan including revisions that are submitted. Figure VI-3 The Public Works Department role and istPlan Check Volume responsibilities in the City's development $15 process was evaluated based on the turnaround time and number of rechecks required for plans submitted for off-site related g $10 to various development projects. As shown in o Figure VI-4 and VI-5, our analysis indicates the $5 number of plans being submitted for off-site plan check has declined slightly while the $0 value of the projects under review has 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 doubled. Figure VI-4 Plan Check Valuation City of Huntington Beach 99 ■ During this same period, turnaround time for is off-site plan,check services has been reduced ' from 13 to 8 work days for first check and approval (Figure VI-5). The reduction in o to turnaround time reflects an increase of the level of service due to reduction in workload volume. Valuation is one indicator of the nature and 5 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 complexity of the work being reviewed. It is important to note that the significant increase in Figure Turnazound project valuation is directly attributable to the off-site Plan Check plan checks submitted for off-sites associated with the Holly-Sea Cliff subdivision. While these plans have, in total, a significant dollar value due to the nature of the project (Tracts and Models etc..), it did not have a proportional increase on the Department plan check workload. If you isolate this major project from the total valuation, the value of the other plans being submitted have remained relatively constant. The relatively quick turnaround time for off-site plan check is consistent with the nature of the workload in DCD's building plan check. Moreover, the relatively quick turnaround time is consistent with and for the most part above those typically found in other cities and generally accepted industry standards. ' 350 The number of plans requiring recheck is also a 300 ■ 1st Check measure of the Department's 250 p 2nd Check effectiveness. As shown in 200 Exhibit VI-1, approximately El 3rd Check 50% of the plans submitted 150 require at least one recheck, 100 ❑ 4th Check with the subdivision and 50 water sections accounting for { ® 5th Check the single largest source of o 1989-90 1991-92 plan rechecks. Given the nature of subdivision plan Figure VI-6 check, that is to be expected. Total Checks However, it appears that the percentage of water division rechecks is excessive and should be examined. Although the turnaround time for each recheck is within acceptable limits, continued rechecks extend the overall time frame for the Public Work Department plan check service. It is important to note the overall number of plans requiring recheck is well within the acceptable standards for the industry with the notable exception of the Water division. A closer review of that Division's plan check workload turnaround time indicated that there are many smaller projects (new meter installations, etc....) that have quick turnaround and thus are lowering the average plan check in water. 1 City of Huntington Beach 100 8 City of Huntington Beach Public Works Plan Check Turnaround 1989 and 1992 VOLUME PER CHECK $=VALUATION DAYS=AVERAGE WORKDAYS PER CHECK YEAR ITEM 1st CHECK 2nd CHECK 3rd CHECK 4th CHECK 5th CHECK TOTALS # I DAYS # I DAYS # DAYS # I DAYS # DAYS # $ DAYS 1989 Division Engineer 27 7.13 8 6.50 1 1.00 0 0 36 - 14.63 }.yF.i.:.X.•i:y.3:.:i:?.:?}.:ry}.::i?.:Y•.:}:.:: k-:v,....:••i..i-.i::ti{rx%F.YY:Y•::?:•iiiii::}fi::yvS::iiy:4::::;:y+;.i''Y:::niiw}i:i:i:i:�::i{sr ii:::'wii:.•}:•iYi:?i:r•:�:::v.:.:....::.•..:.:..:..:.:.....:.:......:{�..: }..:}ry.}:. v{ M0.- ..... :. .fii x?k i.... ........ xr+ ?^:i8^Y}Y:•::».:!h}:YYY.. ......... : .. . �Y... > r::.w.-x:nv{:..-•.-.;vx::}n?:v:x::'::.#Y:. : 1989 Drainage 4 4.00 3 8.501 1 1.00 0 0 8 - 13.50 ...:- x ,:n-:{{{a{r.•:.{•{:;{.,;.;.:;,:,-,;:,.:ny;{:.? . ..:.:..^....{.Y:?•YY:•Y:;:.Y:?-y:?-Yy::. {r^;{.,;{+}...,,}w.y. x, Y.....:f.{!.... .... ..... ...;v...... .. ..fr{xy,.,v,?^Y,w-.v::.xn..v::.:.m •:x. -:nw,,::n{?x:,nnv. :.;y,}}:nY:n .{{{.:'n-n•w.v..:::n-.v. .... ...:............. ,::..:.ywny;. i..x.}Y.4:...nvn:{^:!:µ ............:k,/.C'.{'..................n..........:..:.::..:................::.....................n.............. :...........n.::............v.:::.: ......v.......... v:::.............- ....Y.•......./..::. ....... !! .Yf ............. ....................................................... .............. .......... .. ............... ............ .:.......... ....:::::.:v::::•. n......:...... :...{£.`n.: :::w:: iiiiiS::;:Si:;::;;:5:rr;:;;":�::tt::... ..............:.. . i:+%viY:•fi•YY:G: 1989 Fire 0 0 0 0 0; 0 - 0.00 }:{f•Y: +:-t••:•}i:Y:?!.:r : :;.}%:+r,.i' i:(<:.y:.Y:ti•Yy:•ii::-: :{?y::•.v nv ....::::>.. ............ik :..::::::::.:: :n.:::.............:.YY:.;:Y:.::.;'.:.y;;:.Y;::.: 2::.y;:.y:>:<:5s :i> . 1989 Landscaping 40 3.58 2 9.00 1 NA 0 0 43 - 12.58 1989 Maintenance 161 8.64 2 9.00 2 7.00 0 0 20 - 24.64 s 4>3' i..:y.::'.:...:.....:. :...::..v.::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::: yyy:•.:.:::...:.:::..:..:.: .............:...... n....::... . :Ill ''< <'< llll><_' 1. . 0 ...:::::::. 1989 Sewer 41 11.50 1 NA 0 0 0 5 - 11.50 <' '' 3 .. •` lll9 >l +i0= .:..:. ....... . .......:.......... :...;... :::..... .................. :::Y'::. ....n.....................:::.........y:.y:.Y:.y:.y}:.Y}>::::.:.......... :::.:.. :: :::n.: .....,. 1989 Subdivision 46 16.19 21 11.10 8 3.25 0 0 75 - 30.54 {{x:.: >••`:':<#< %''>'<€€:Ill::: <>''>:>>>llllllll< > `. l€113>: '. `lll`l#'> :..:. :.:.y:.y:. : 1989 Traffic 25 9.19 1 18.00 2 14.00 1 :1 7.00 0 29 - 48.19 i??x:.•::r..,.,,y,:?o:,„.�,:r:...: :.r::.:.v:...:::.::., `.' .:::::::.Y:Y:.:.....:..:....:.. .....::.......... : 1989 Water 46 7.32 30 8.75 15 4.38 1 1.00 1 1.00 93 - 22.45 :?.;:.::.:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:;.;:.;::>::>::::>::>::>::»:;:.;:. ;:.;:.Y:.::.y: ir•::?>::><::< :;:.:::<:>::»»>:>:<;;{::.; >;::::;;:;:;:;Y:i•:•;::;:::.:::::.;y{•Yy:i•Y:;y YY}};:.;:.;:.::.;:.;:::.;::.:::.:::::::::.:.::.:.:}•:.::::.:Y:{,>:;•Y:•;: ..::::::::::::.:".:'.:...:'.........................:............ 7.........$r... ....:........... .......:.... .. ............... ......... }..tf ..............Q .................. ...............t .................. .............45 ................... .......1 O2. 1989 TOTAL PER CHECK: 208 68 68 71 301 31 2 8 1 1 309 $5.1 M 178 1989 AVG.DAY PER CHECK 8 8 3 1 0 20 »: ". ;:.;::>:.y:1 4:.:::.;:.si:::Y:•>Y. >Y:•;>.... :.;;:.;:.>:< :.. :...... ::<:» '< >`':,` `< >ri :` l<l#'>> >: ll>•>»>'s .,: >'•.?`' ;':'.:`:.<':» ...........:. . .:..:....:..:..: NOTES: Blank Cell=no plan checks in existence x "NA"=plan checks exist but lack data H C N However, our review of the section's records indicates there are several projects that have experienced plan checks much longer than 16 days, with 90% of these requiring a second check and 50%o a third check. Thus, the approval time for Water Plan check is often much greater than efficient turnaround time afforded by the Department's other units. Our analysis was substantiated during our interviews with Department staff and other City departments and clients who had experienced untimely plan checks with the City water operations plan check functions versus the Public Works off-site plan check function. I ' Grading Plan Check and Inspection Currently, grading plans, like the off-site plans, are submitted to the Public Works department for initial review and routed to a number of units for review and comment. DCD reviews the submitted grading plans (rough and final) for compliance with the Zoning Code, and any other terms and conditions that may have been imposed on the applicant during the entitlement process. DCD's comments are relayed to Public Works for review and approval. The permit is prepared by Public Works, sent to DCD for signature, and upon return executed and issued to the applicant. The application and a set of plans are retained in Public Works and filed according to permit number. A second set of plans and copy of permit is sent to DCD where it is filed by street address but not cross referenced with Public Works grading permit number. The Public Works inspectors are responsible for inspecting and signing off at the completion of grading according to approved plan and permit. RECOMMENDATION 70: Revise the current grading Man check process. The current grading plan check tasks performed by the DCD are not tasks unique to DCD staff training and/or skills. They are important duties and responsibilities and must be performed. However, with the appropriate training and inclusion of new procedures, the Public Works department staff could assume these responsibilities as part of the grading plan check process. The transfer of these duties and ' responsibilities to Public Works will expedite the plan check turnaround time and centralize accountability and responsibility for grading plan check and inspection. This transfer of duties and responsibilities can be implemented within the existing DCD work program and staffing resources. Last year 98 grading plans were submitted that required approximately 294 man hours to complete DCD duties and responsibilities. Also Implementation of the recommendation will also eliminate ' the duplicate record keeping systems that are currently being maintained and free up valuable professional time for DCD staff that can be reassigned to other duties and responsibilities within the Department as discussed later in this report. ' City of Huntington Beach 101 Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Currently Landscape plans which involve the location of plants and materials on the graded site are submitted to DCD. DCD checks the plans for land use compliance and routes the plans for approval to the Public Works Department's Landscape division. The City's Landscape Architect and staff, located in the Public Works Department, check the plans and return comments to DCD for review and approval. Copies of the approved plans are maintained by both Public Works Landscaping and DCD. The Public Works Department is responsible for inspecting the applicants compliance with the approved landscape plan and compliance with previously approved grading plans. RECOMMENDATION 71: Revise the current landscape plan check a n d inspection process. The current landscape plan check functions performed by DCD are not tasks unique to DCD staff training and skills. They are important duties and responsibilities and must be performed. However, all of the critical tasks and skills required to successfully perform the landscape plan check rests in the Public Works department staff. There have been a number of incidents cited that indicate a breakdown of communication and accountability exists between grading and landscaping. The Public Works department should assume all responsibility and accountability for fapplicants grading and landscaping according to permit. Such approval must include compliance with various land use codes and other conditions placed upon the applicant during the entitlement process. Implementation of this recommendation and therevision of the grading plan check services discussed above will require training of Public Work's department staff in desired plan check goals and procedures currently performed by DCD. Perhaps more important there must be a revision of the internal policies and procedures within Public Works to insure the proper coordination between grading and landscaping and the role and responsibilities performed by the different Public Works employees relative to plan check inspection, conformance between grading and landscaping plans, sign-off and approval. Capital Improvement Projects Currently, the City's capital improvements projects are not required to follow the City's normal Development process and procedures. These projects are administered in the City's Public Works Department which performs both plan check and inspection services which are typically performed by DCD. The City's Capital projects have large valuations and require staff time and resources to plan check and inspect. The City's current policy is that City public works projects are not required to pay fees to comply with the same codes and development requirements ' as private applicants. During interviews with City staff and confirmed during our City of Huntington Beach 102 on-site field observations there are a number of inconsistencies between the City's policies and procedures relating to City capital improvements and those applied to citizens and private applicants. RECOMMENDATION 72: The City �ro_jects should be required to meet the same development standard and undergo the review and a proval process afforded to the general public. It is difficult to defend, at any level why the City should exempt itself and/or operate under rules and regulations and process different from the clients they serve and ' regulate. The City should complete applications, pay all related fees and follow the same process and procedures that all development projects are required to follow. Implementation of the recommendation may slow down current projects. However, it will have a far greater impact on sensitizing the City to the impact of its rules and regulations, cost, and service. City Attorney The City Attorney is responsible for reviewing and approving all ordinances contracts and agreements pertaining to the City. Thus, all legal matters including reviewing and approving ordinances including supporting documents and/or agreements relating to various planning and land use matters must be reviewed/approved by the City Attorney's office. In addition the City attorney attends meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission, responds to ' questions and provides legal advice on all planning and land use matters. In addition to serving as legal counsel to the Department, the City Attorney's office serves as City Prosecutor on all matters pertaining to prosecution of violations of the municipal code. The City Attorney's office responds to requests for service from all city departments including DCD. Our analyses Grant,Deeds of the DCD request for legal services records &Ordinancesw::;#; ,.: Opinions indicates that their requests for legal < <5 20% 33% tyfi # services has remained relatively constant x: over the last three years. Those requests typically include, but not limited to, . ;v„? reviewing grant deeds, CC & R s, resolution . .::::::...::::::::::::::::::::::' ordinances and/or opinions pertaining to specific issues, and various contracts. CC&R (Figure VI-7). 37% Figure VI-7 DCD Legal Services Requested by Type ' City of Huntington g Beach 103 Both the volume and nature of legal services requested has remained constant. y 20 d Our analysis indicates turnaround time for o 18 the requested materials has remained c constant and appears to average between 2 16 ' and 3 weeks from time of request to receipt p 14 of response. Given the nature of work Q being requested and the competing 12 demands for the City Attorney's limited ¢ 10 resources, it appears a reasonable level of 1990- 1991- 1992- service is currently being provided by the 1991 1992 1993 ' City Attorney's Office to support the DCD's Figure VI-8 efforts. While we recognize there will DCD Legal Service Turnaround Time always be emergency issues or specific ' matters that become protracted, those instances are clearly the exception rather than the norm. Modifying the current service level either by contract or reassignment of additional resources within the City Attorney 's office would most assuredly result in increased cost and little, if any, tangible benefit to the City's Development Process. ' In addition to serving as legal advisor, the City Attorney's office is responsible for prosecution of violations of the municipal code. With respect to the DCD, this legal service involves handling the prosecution of those violations issued by DCD's Code ' Enforcement and Building Inspection divisions. The timely and aggressive prosecution of violators is an essential element in DCD's ability to fulfill it's mandated regulatory responsibilities and achieve desired effectiveness. Without ' the prosecutorial support, the entire enforcement functions performed by this department are in question. During our interviews, numerous comments were made by DCD management and staff about the lack of a timely prosecutorial support from the City Attorney's Office. Our review noted that unlike the other type of legal services discussed above, the DCD does not maintain a centralized log to track cases and the status of matters referred to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. In the absence of DCD records, we relied upon the City Attorney's office records which indicates during the last two years no cases have been referred by DCD for prosecution of building code violations. The City Attorney's office records are in direct conflict with the strongly held perceptions of DCD building inspection staff. In revisiting the issue with DCD management, it was determined that while discussed internally within DCD, no building code violations had been actually I referred to the City Attorney's office for prosecution during the last two years. Those that have been cited by field inspectors have been resolved informally by the Department's management. 1 In marked contrast to Building code violations prosecutions, our review noted that adaptations by Code Enforcement division for various violations have been referred to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. Our analysis of Code Enforcement division records indicates during the last two years 13 cases (1% of total number of complaints filed) were referred to the City Attorney for prosecution for a variety of City of Huntington Beach 104 ' code violations. As of this date two (2) were found guilty and four (4) others were in various stages of resolution. Thus over 50% of the cases are still awaiting some decision/action on the part of the City Attorney's Office. Our review of DCD internal correspondence indicates that similar patterns of perceived inaction and frustration with the timely disposition of referred cases has existed in prior years. It appears this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved. Our review of these issues with the City Attorney's office indicated the cases referred for prosecution are, by their nature, difficult to resolve and take time to process successfully. RECOMMENDATION 73:' DCD should modify the current legal services log to incorporate all matters referred to City Attorney's office. The maintenance of the legal services log is an effective management information tool. It enables DCD management to monitor the volume and appropriateness of the staff request for legal support including prosecutorial support. That log should contain all requests for services including those referred for City prosecution. RECOMMENDATION 74: DCD should automate and review on a monthly basis the legal services log_ The current log should be automated using a simple spreadsheet (computer program). These programs are currently available in the City and should be utilized throughout DCD to enhance its record keeping and retrieval capabilities. The DCD Director should review the data monthly and resolve any issues in a constructive, positive and timely manner with the City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION 75: City Attorney in con-unction with DCD should examine various alternatives for expediting Prosecution Code Enforcement violations. The timely and aggressive prosecution of code enforcement violations is a critical element in insuring the efficiency and effectiveness of this enforcement function. They are relatively few in number and don't, for the most part, involve life or safety issues. Nevertheless, the timely prosecution of violations is a key to the success of ' the overall program. One alternative is to establish a infraction/requirement system similar to the Fire Department. The levying of immediate fines for cited infractions enables the City to utilize other more expeditious works of enforcement. This system has served the Fire Department well in its field inspection and enforcement efforts and should achieve similar successes with Code Enforcement. City of Huntington Beach 105 1 Finance ' Finance is responsible for insuring the proper policies and procedures are in place to safeguard the collection of cash, insure the proper fees and charges are being charged and paid by the various clients of the City's development services. The Finance Department is located on the first floor of City Hall within close proximity to the Public Works Department and serves as the central cashier for City Hall facility. DCD is located on the third floor of City Hall and is physically separated from the ' Finance Department. No cash is collected by the DCD staff. All applicant's bills are computed, and sent along with check and/or cash via pneumatic tube to the Finance Department cashier on the first floor. Funds are recorded and deposited and receipts are returned via pneumatic tube. The DCD Planning Aide at the third floor counter receives the deposit and returns it to the applicant. At the conclusion of each day, DCD staff balance their records for permits issued and fees charged and provide that ' data to the Finance Department for their internal reconciliation to the revenue collected and posted. RECOMMENDATION 76: The Finance Department should equip the DCD with electronic automatic cash registers The current cash collection system is inefficient and results in unproductive use of DCD Permit Aides, duplication of Finance Department staff time and delays in ' customer service time. The DCD staff currently performs many of the same functions being performed by Finance Department staff with the notable exception of depositing cash. Nevertheless, DCD is required to balance their books at the end ' of the day to insure agreement with Finance. This appears to be a duplication of effort and significantly delays both the efficiency and effectiveness of DCD's counter operations. Duringour interviews with client constituents and in reviewing client feedback g forms provided by DCD, time delays at the Public Counter are frequently cited as a source of concern in the City's Development service delivery system. Our on-site observation noted the transmittal between Finance and DCD delays the processing ' time, causes unnecessary waiting for the client, and increased congestion on the third floor. In conducting our on-site observations of counter operations, we frequently mistook clients awaiting payment processing for those in line for plan ' check. Public Work's close proximity to Finance Department permits applicants to quickly walk to the register and pay. Thus, this issue does not exist for Public Works. However, due to the physical separation of DCD and relatively defined public space areas, the delays and back-up of people awaiting cashing service on the third floor heightens the public's perception of employee lack of productivity and unnecessary delay. ' City of Huntington Beach 106 User Fees and Charges The City imposes and collects a variety of fees and charges to support the delivery of desired development services. Our review noted that overall the City has the proper systems, policies and procedures to insure the timely and accurate computation and collection of fees. However, our review did note the collection of Parks and Recreation fees are often deferred until a later phase of project's construction and there are not adequate procedures for monitoring the collection of ' fees and verifying that a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued or final inspection performed until payment is received. RECOMMENDATION 77: DCD in conjunction with the Finance Department should modify the current Parks and Recreation Fee Collection System. At the time the Planning Department calculates the Park and Recreation Fee for a project with a tract map, the Planning Department should prepare a memo detailing the amount of the fee to be paid and the payment terms. This memo should be sent to the Finance Department to notify them of the receivable. At the time of payment, the Planning Department should send a copy of the cash receipt form to the Finance Department to notify them of the payment. We also recommend the Planning Department be responsible for monitoring the status of the Park and Recreation fee and for maintaining contact with the developer. This is particularly important when the City Council approves the 1 deferral of payment. In this case, if either a bond or letter of credit was accepted as a pledge of payment, the Planning Department is responsible for notifying the Treasurer's Office of the subsequent payment. If the City must collect on either the 1 bond or letter credit, the Planning Department should be responsible for notifying the Treasurer's Office to proceed with the collection. r ' City of Huntington Beach 107 t Fire ' As shown below, the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for coordinating the delivery of the Fire Department review and approval services relative to development and new construction and various land uses in the City. Fre<><>:::< < .... e e ntion Development Petro/Chemical Programs Figure VI-9 Fire Bureau Organization Chart In that regard, the Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for: • Code development including research, preparation and adoption of codes, ordinances and standards relating to fire and life safety; • Plan check including review of all plans submitted for compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards including Uniform Fire Code and State Fire Marshall rules and regulations; • Code enforcement, including conducting biannual inspections of all ' commercial and industrial premises to insure compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards and coordinating a City-wide self inspection program for various eligible consumers; Plan Check Turnaround Our review noted the Fire Department vis-a-vis the Building Department has clearly defined areas of responsibility for the various plan check and inspection services. Typical overlapping areas of responsibility and points of dispute between Building and Fire units in other communities have been previously resolved and are not an issue in this community. As discussed earlier in the report, turnaround for the Fire Department plan check was 29 days for 1992. This turnaround time is excessive and well above generally accepted standards. The time delay was due to ' personnel staff vacancies caused by promotion and reassignment within the Department. That issue had been resolved. Our review of the current records City of Huntington Beach 108 indicate the turnaround time for plan check has been declining and should be within acceptable levels within the month. 1 RECOMMENDATION 78: The Fire Bureau should monitor plan check turnaround time. Our analysis indicates there was a significant delay in the Fire Department plan check service. The reasons behind this delay were known and have been addressed. The Department should monitor the production of the new assignor to insure that turnaround time is reduced to an acceptable level (10 days) and commensurate with ' those provided by other Departments involved in the City Development Review cycle. City Clerk The City Clerk is responsible for issuing notification of public hearings to property owners within a specified radius regarding public hearings. Applicants are required to submit a listing of affected property owners who must be notified of the public hearings as part of the application process. Some applicants have chosen to contract for this service while others have utilized DCD's planning counter staff to guide their efforts in conducting the research. It appears the City Clerk has experienced problems with the property listings submitted by various vendors. Aside from the embarrassment, the failure to insure proper notification of affected property owners presents a significant liability to the City, causing hearings to be delayed while re- notification and advertising takes place. RECOMMENDATION 79: City Clerk and DCD should designate and pre-qualify vendors who provide title research and notification services. y.The City should continue to require applicants to assume responsibility for determining the affected property owners within the impacted area. We recognize this function has significant potential liability to the City if not properly carried out. The City Clerk in conjunction with the DCD and the City purchasing division should establish a policy and procedure for those applicants wishing to contract this ' service. That policy should include a pre-qualification and designation of a number of qualified firms and perform this service. Applicants may use only those pre- qualified vendors. Implementation of this recommendation in conjunction with a reorganization of the clerical duties and responsibilities with the Department should address the City Clerk's concerns regarding quality control and DCD desires for client service. 1 City of Huntington Beach 109 VII. INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL This chapter of our report discusses our review analysis and recommendations P P Y pertaining to the organization and operation of the Department of Community Development's Intradepartmental System. Organization CCD is a direct client service organization, labor intensive, paper-rich environment and totally reliant upon the technical knowledge, training and capabilities of both professional and support staff for the efficient and effective dealing of its service. In that light, we examined the Department's internal organization and operation with regard to clerical support, classification compensation and evaluation of staff, space utilization, public information/contact, application of technology and internal communication and cooperation. .. .. . ........................ .......................... ................................. _........ ...................................... Technology Communication :.:.:.::.::.:::.;;:.::. :.... Office Space/ e ur i tag Mg. . :... Cl. .. Classrficahon! Compensation ...... ..:::::.... employee Performance,:Evaluation AppxaisaI Figure VII-1 Administrative Support Functions Department of Community Development i� 1 1 City of Huntington Beach 110 Clerical Support As shown in Figure VII-2, the Department has a Central Word Processing (CWP) unit which is intended to provide the text input and processing for the large documents and reports prepared by staff. Administrative Assistant Administrative pHousiWBuilding Secretary Central sion Word ProcessingDept.AidClerk/Typist 5 Office Asst.11 tazative FY Dept.Aide Secre ary Figure VII-2 Department of Community Development Clerical Organization Chart In addition, there are fine other clerical positions available to support the activities of the Department's professional and field enforcement staff. These support services include, but are not limited to: typing of correspondence (including memos, letters, etc.), filing, serving as public receptionist, answering phones, payroll, personnel, budget, etc. The Director's Administrative Secretary has the additional responsibility of serving as Secretary to the Planning Commission, which requires transcribing meeting minutes and distributing their various agenda packets and informational items on a biweekly basis. The Department head serves as the direct supervisor for the Administrative Secretary and the Administrative Assistant. The Administrative Assistant is responsible for overseeing the Department's CWP, public receptionist and the other clerical staff members. The Building Official is responsible for overseeing the activities of the permit aides who perform clerical and administrative duties and the other clerical staff assigned to the housing function. During the course of our study, we received numerous comments from both management and staff about the lack of clerical support for professional staff. It was stated repeatedly that the absence of adequate clerical support impeded staff productivity and the timely production of documents. Our analysis of the City of Huntington Beach 111 Department's typing workload noted two types of documents are prepared: temporary (memos, letters, staff reports, etc.) and permanent (templates with standard terms and conditions, major reports, and analysis, etc.). We reviewed the clerical staff workload with respect to both the number of documents/pages produced per day/hour, number of words typed per minute and the number of keystrokes made per operator. As shown in Table VII-1, our analysis of the Department's clerical workload noted overall there is a relatively limited production of documents on a daily basis. The Department's clerical staff members are providing on average 18 typed pages (includes memos, letters, reports with new text and revision of existing text) a day per clerical position. Assuming a four-hour-a-day typing workload, this production approximates 30 words typed per minute by each operator. This production includes new input and existing text. Temporary Docs Pages/Day 6.10 16.07 21.24 4.80 5.89 Permanent Docs Pages/Day 5.17 7.57 12.25 5.48 5.91 Numberof�Day::.S.:::::.........................................:::.:::3.9:.;:.;:.:..............;:.;::.:8 ;.;:.;::..............::::::9�3 42 �:;;:.:.............::::::.62:.�.�:....... Number of Temporary Docs 105 163 638 57 113 Number of Permanent Docs 15 79 420 26 91 Tatal.l ucamex�ts:.. .er era ted ... ....: �2Q.... ... 242 ` ' ' >'.>€: .:�Q�>:>`<:> >. rNumber of Keystrokes 3541694 1,171,320 1,493,102 337,759 505,606 Hours Worked 786.0 784.5 786.0 422.0 772.0 Avexa a."C.5. 0. , s: e kI u �51 �00 ::::::>:`:>:::>::::>:SpQ.€`::<::<:>>€€ '>sS3a"<>>><< ' :::-XvXP..:::::::.:::::.:.:::.:::::::::::::::.:::.::::::.::::.::::. :.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.::.::::::::.::::..............:.. .......................................................................................................................:........................................................................................................ Table VII-1 Text Processing Statistics Pages per Day by Operator Our analysis also indicates an under utilization of the Department's CWP. As previously discussed, the CWP was intended to provide high speed typing services relative to inputting text for large multi-page documents. As would be expected given this objective, CWP should have the highest document production among the various clerical workstations. However, our analysis indicates the average report being typed in CWP is 4-5 pages, including new and existing text. When measured over an eight hour work period this production approximates 45 typed words per minute. This production is well below that expected in a high volume centralized typing pool and the technical capabilities of the staff. In follow-up discussions with staff, it was noted that approximately 50% of CWP time is spent on special projects which do not require high speed word processing skills. The significant amount of the operators time spent on low typing volume activities raises questions regarding both the need and effectiveness of the central word processing function. City of Huntington Beach 112 i 1 ` Finally, our analysis of the Department's clerical output clearly indicates a significant-imbalance exists between the workloads for the various clerical support staff. For example, the Administrative Secretary, who performs a wide variety of other duties in addition to typing, has a typing and document production twice that of the Department's other clerical staff, and not too far below that found in CWP. RECOMMENDATION 80: Reorganize the Department's Clerical Support-function and staffing levels. It is clear the Department's current clerical support systems are not functioning efficiently nor effectively. There is a significant opportunity to increase employee productivity by distributing workload more evenly among the existing clerical staff. In light of this analysis, the Department should re-evaluate its centralized word processing. It is clear, contrary to prior statements, the Department does not perform the heavy text processing to justify the dedication of a position to this, singular purpose. Our analysis and conclusions regarding the Departments limited L text processing workload is consistent with our analysis and conclusions regarding staffing resources and activities currently being performed by both current and advanced planning functions. Clearly there are not a lot of large policy research 1 documents being produced by the Department. Moreover, equipping professional staff with PC's as previously recommended will further reduce the clerical demands for word processing related support. There is a significant need to more effectively l balance clerical workload among the existing staff and provide improved service to the Department. This is an organization and management issue that can be addressed one of two ways: • The Administrative Secretaryshould be assigned the direct supervision of all g P clerical and administrative support staff in the Department. That position would be responsible for organizing, planning, monitoring and evaluating all administrative and support functions performed including typing, filing, telephones, etc. The expansion of these duties should be accompanied by a re- designation of that position to Executive Secretary level. • The Administrative Assistant assumes responsibility for all clerical staff duties and responsibilities exclusive of those performed by the Administrative Secretary. Typically this would include permit aides currently reporting to the Building Official. However, reorganizing in this manner would centralize accountability and responsibility for administrative personnel, system and functions but leave the Department secretary free to assist the Director and serve the Planning Commission and public. Regardless of which position is designated to assume these duties, the current I system must be changed within the immediate future. As discussed later in this report, in addition to a problem in timely typing of requested materials, many other 1 City of Huntington Beach 113 important clerical functions are in desperate need of attention and represent a potential liability for the City. Currently the Department has 6.0 FTE's to provide clerical support services to approximately 44 professional/technical staff. If you include the Permit Aides, who perform clerical support duties, the current clerical : Professional staff ratio is 1:3. This support staff : professional ratio is significantly below that found in private industry and other comparable public agencies. Our analysis indicates while the Department's overall document production is high, many of these documents involve the use of standard preformatted boiler-plate text. For the most part they are short documents not involving complex and time consuming preparation, like graphs, charts and newly written text. Moreover, there is a significant imbalance in the distribution of existing workload. Upon implementation of the management reorganization and decentralization of word processing for the professional staff as discussed above, the Department should evaluate the clerical staffing resources required to provide desired levels of service. Performance measures including document production targets should be established for each position and maintained monthly. Records Management A critical element of the Department's service delivery system is the availability of accurate and historical data regarding various decisions pertaining to uses and/or parcels in the City. Our review noted that every unit within the Department has its own policies and procedures for filing and record retention. Most of this is not documented and there is little, if any, cross referencing of files. There are numerous instances of duplicate files. Moreover, our review noted that significant differences exist among the units with respect to the policies and procedures followed to insure the files' completeness, accuracy and availability. We encountered several instances where files could not be located and/or had incomplete data. RECOMMENDATION 81: The Department should implement a Records Management Program. As part of the reorganization of its Administrative function, the Department should implement a centralized records management program. That program should be based on a written policy and procedure manual outlining the various files systems maintained by the Department, their physical location and the sub-directories used ' by the respective organization unit. The Department's Executive Secretary or Administrative Assistant should design and implement the program and monitor it on an ongoing basis. It is too important a function not to have this level of order and attention. Implementation of this recommendation should eliminate many inactive files and free much needed office space. City of Huntington Beach 114 Office Space/Signage The location and use of space has a significant impact on overall communication and efficiency of a working (A> environment. As discussed throughout this section, the o current use of limited office space impedes the efficient operation of this Department. Several notable examples w include: a public receptionist has been allocated to facilitate the referral of the Department's clients. As (B) illustrated, the physical location of the receptionist to the side of the public passageway (A) versus the center of the aisle (B) results in many clients `proceeding through to the workstation without ever realizing that service was available. Other examples include: the Senior Design Figure ec Plan Checker being located in the opposite end of the Public Access to Receptionist Department from the public counter to which, in function, he is directly linked; a Planning Assistant assigned to special projects given the office adjacent to the Director, while the Planning Director is located down the hall; and Code Enforcement staff with no public counter involvement, being assigned office space adjacent to the public counter. The net effect of this quilted patchwork of office ispace allocation results in a tremendous amount of foot traffic — staff transferring back and forth across the floor to speak with supervisors and/or colleagues in another location within the office. In addition to the inefficient use of space, the current signage directing clients to specific areas within the Department's public space is difficult to read and ineffective. Moreover, informational materials are available but poorly located, and due to their presentation often obscured. During the course of our study, it was noted that the Department has undergone numerous public signage changes in attempts to improve public access and service. Although we were not able to observe the prior methods, it is apparent that the current approach is not achieving the desired outcome. RECOMMENDATION 82: The Department should conduct an adjacency study and allocate space accordingly. The reorganization should be accompanied by a revision of the signage. A space study should identify the space needs of each unit and the efficient location of those assigned staff members. As previously discussed and recommended, the reorganization of the public counter should enable the Department to examine the use of space throughout the floor. That revised floor plan should include proper signage and placement of public information materials. 1 City of Huntington Beach 115 Security We observed, on several occasions, files being left open and available on counter tops and non-department employees walking though the Department unescorted. In one instance, an individual proceeded to walk through unescorted carrying on conversations with staff members while people were waiting in line for assistance. RECOMMENDATION 83: The Department should implement a Controlled Access System ' The current office reception environment is lax, unprofessional in appearance, and jeopardizes the safety of both employees and records. All visitors, except those going to the public counter, should report to the receptionist and be signed in. Staff should come to the receptionist and accompany visitors back to their respective offices. Implementation of this policy should apply to all non-department employees and visitors. Classification The Classification and compensation of staff is an essential element in the Department's overall ability to attract and retain professional staff. It was noted during our interviews with staff and confirmed that inconsistencies exist regarding the classification designation assigned to entry level and mid-management staff. For example, Planning Aides in Huntington Beach are required to have a college degree and perform professional related tasks, while in other cities the classification is used to distinguish a para-professional and/or a lower functioning position. Similar anomalies exist for Planning Assistant classification as well. RECOMMENDATION 84: DCD request the Personnel Division to undertake a re- classification study of the planning poste It is in the Department and City's best interest to develop and maintain a classification and compensation system that attracts and retains qualified staff. There is a generally held belief that the City's current classification system impedes the upward mobility and professional advancement of the planning staff. Based on our observations and experience, these concerns have merit and should be addressed. Implementation of this recommendation will not require an adjustment in pay scale which is typically the greatest stumbling block for re-classifying positions. Training The Department has a policy which permits planners to transfer between Advanced P P Y P and Current Planning sections. This policy has many positive features. It allows City of Huntington Beach 116 cross-training which results in more knowledgeable planners. It provides variety so as to eliminate boredom or staleness due to doing too much of the same thing. And it allows for a more versatile organization with experienced and capable staff members available who can handle both types of assignments. Aside from the internal training policies pertaining to on-the-job training, the Division does not have a specific target or requirement for on-going professional training and development of its professional staff. Our analysis of the Division's 1 training records indicates funds are provided and staff does attend outside training and development. However, there is no overall linkage of the training provided and the Department's current and projected work program. This is an important and essential element in maintaining the desired quality of professional services. ' RECOMMENDATION 85: The Planning Division should establish annual training program requirements for each assigned staff. Every employee should, as part of their annual evaluation as discussed below, have a program for enhancing existing skills and acquiring new ones. A minimum standard of 24 hours per year should be incorporated within the Division's overall work program to insure that this objective is achieved and maintained. Moreover, funds should be set aside to support employee enrollment in the various training opportunities. It is important that attendance at the training programs be related to specific and previously agreed upon objectives. This will prevent any possible abuse of the training program. It is a common practice as part of any budget cutting move to eliminate training .and travel budgets. While politically salable, such a decision particularly in this profession is counter productive. The efficiency of staff and the effectiveness of their overall work product is directly tied to their professional knowledge and capabilities. On-going training is the City's investment to insure continued efficient and effective delivery of development services. Evaluation/Feedback During interviews with staff throughout the Department, a recurring concern was the lack of feedback and performance evaluation provided by Department supervisors. Of concern to staff is that they are often unsure of how to approach their assignments or what is expected of them. There is little training for the new hires and no process to integrate them into the Department (or section). There is no Policy and Procedure Manual to guide staff on how to approach and deal with the questions they encounter in their everyday work experience. New staff learns by ' trial and error — if no one slaps their hand, then what they did to solve a problem or how they treated an issue becomes their standard practice. Or they learn by seeking the counsel of the "old timers". As an example, we were informed that there are three sets of Street Standards that can be applied to essentially the same set of development conditions. If a planner has been around long enough, he/she will likely make the correct assumption, but there is no written source that the planner City of Huntington Beach 117 1 can go to for guidance. The lack of initial direction and the sense of uncertainty about the acceptability of one's work product was not confined to the newer ' employees. Several of the more seasoned staff expressed a desire to have more feedback on their work, especially when revisions were made after the work product left their hands. rThe City's personnel rules and regulations require that an annual written evaluation 40 71% ' be performed on the employee's t anniversary date of appointment. That o so evaluation is a prerequisite for advancing 20 ' to a higher step in the salary schedule. w Our analysis of the Department's ° 10.. 4% 9% 6% 9% personnel records indicate 71% of the o 1 employees are at the fifth and highest step A B C D E within their respective pay range. This Figure VII-4 large percentage is indicative of a senior DCD Employees Pay Range Classification and long tenured work force and raises further questions about employee concerns for timely feedback and direction. Our review noted more than 50% of the Department's employees at the E step have not had a written evaluation during the last twelve months. There are several instances where Departmental employees have not received evaluations in years. Moreover, many evaluations completed as part of a salary step adjustment were processed late requiring the Finance's Department to compute separate checks for back pay. ' RECOMMENDATION 86: The Direct a r i Director in conjunction with each supe v sor should update employee evaluations and maintain the Cites specified standard for annual evaluations. 1 In undertaking our analysis, the consulting team engaged in considerable discussion regarding the formal and informal oral procedures used by Department management to evaluate employees. It seems the problem of timely evaluation of employees is part of City-wide work force issue. Which nonetheless does not excuse this situation. All levels within the organization have expressed significant concerns regarding management's lack of evaluation and feedback regarding employee performance. The absence of a timely evaluation for employees represents a significant liability to the City and has impaired the City's ability to effectively carry out its human resources responsibilities. It is relevant to note that ' during the last five years only three negative personnel actions were taken involving current and/or former Department employees. While we do not encourage and/or seek to facilitate negative personnel actions, it is uncommon within a work force of 51 employees to be so problem free. Implementation of this recommendation will require training of the existing supervisors. However once City of Huntington Beach 118 implemented it will provide at least a starting point for fruitful dialog between management and employees regarding feedback and performance. Technology ' Text processing, filing and record retrieval and graphics are activities that account for more than 50% of the specific work tasks performed by staff. During the course of our study, we were told repeatedly by DCD management that the absence of 1 computers and other technology was the single largest contributor to the Department's inefficiency. Our analysis noted that, contrary to that belief, the Department lacks the basic direction in the use of technology as evidenced by ' limited policies and procedures and manual systems that would be likely candidates for automation. The acquisition and assignment of PC's for every employee and the 1 networking of these units for word processing and case tracking logs should be more than sufficient to address the Department's immediate informational needs. Graphics is an important part of the Department's communications. Given the current work program and activities, the Department has acquired the basic technology and software to meet the basic staff requirements. However, our analysis indicates it has not followed through in providing the staff training to utilize these investments. RECOMMENDATION 87: The Department should conduct a skills assessment and develop a staff training program to more fully ' utilize the graphics software. RECOMMENDATION 88: The Department, as a standard policy, should provide personal computers (PC's) to each workstation in the Planning Division and others where appropriate in ' Building and Housing. As previously discussed, 90% of the Department's activities involve writing and recording data, files, etc. The volume of those types of transactions is significant. The application of technology through the use of PC's should significantly enhance the efficiency of the staff and facilitate the availability of data necessary to maintain the Department's accountability. RECOMMENDATION 89: The Department should evaluate the cost-effectiveness regarding contracting graphics and related services. The Department's desire and expectation regarding graphics appear to exceed the capabilities of the current staffing and equipment resources. Given the nature of the current workload, the current configuration should be more that adequate. The City of Huntington Beach 119 1 ' more sophisticated jobs involving color separation and overlays could be done through contracting. This is a common practice particularly given the capital investment required for the technology and rapid changes currently taken place in computer aided graphics. The implementation of a work order system as previously discussed will facilitate this analysis. Communication ' Interviews with individuals both inside and outside of the Department cited communication, or the lack thereof, as one of the most significant issues impacting the Department's organization and operations. Adequacy of interpersonal communications is one of the most difficult facets of an organization to evaluate. It is not something that can be quantified and listed in a chart/graph upon which conclusions can be drawn that, say, 10 letters, 2 memos and 1 monthly staff meeting, etc., will result in good communication. Communication is elusive and problems growing out of poor communication present themselves in many different guises. I However, the absence of a clearly defined set of goals and objectives for the Department; the lack of systems to insure accountability for allocating resources; blurred lines of responsibility, and limited employee evaluation are illustrative of ' an overall lack of communication by management personnel. During the course of this study, we noted in our interviews with stakeholders and in surveys of Department employees that communication was cited as a major problem. We personally encountered similar problems relating to communication in our dealings with DCD's management — problems with poor communication, no communication, and deliberate attempts at misinformation. RECOMMENDATION 90: The City Administrator in conjunction with the Department management should develop a program to address the issue of communication. ' The most simplistic of solutions would be to 'require the Department management to hold regularly scheduled staff meetings, perhaps publish monthly newsletters, and set forth goals, objectives and work programs for the respective units. If fully implemented, these may be sufficient to address the issues and concerns raised to date. However, based on our on-site observation and experience, the issue of communication is much more deeply rooted in the personality and management styles of the current management staff. It remains unclear whether such fundamental shifts in styles are possible. But the current incumbents 1 notwithstanding communications and related support systems must be drastically improved at all levels. 1 ' City of Huntington Beach 120 1 Meetings We noted during our review of the Department's management logs and had it confirmed during our on-site observations throughout the course of the study that a disproportionate amount of management time is spent attending various meetings. ' The issue is not so much the number of meetings, but the purpose and content vis- a-vis those in attendance. Frequently all three or a combination of the Department Head, Planning Director and Building Official will attend the same meeting where 1 the presence of one should be more than sufficient to address the matter at hand and communicate the results to other appropriate staff. For example, we attended numerous meetings where DCD management was in attendance that were not ' productive and thus necessitated further meetings. Our on-site observations and our interviews with employees both indicated that Department management and supervisors spend limited amounts of time focused on the Department's products and services. Our analysis of the organization and the issues related thereto and discussed in this report are directly attributable to management's lack of focus and attention. RECOMMENDATION 91: The Department's management team should re- evaluate the number and amount of time spent in meetings. It appears to be contradictory to be on the one hand encouraging greater communication while on the other recommending reducing the number of meetings. However, it is very consistent when juxtaposed with the premise that the ' Department's management team must take greater responsibility and involvement in the day-to-day operations of the units. The Director should focus attention on dealing with issues related to City Council and City Administrator and assume full responsibility for communication of these issues to Division heads and unit supervisors. The two division heads should focus on matters relating to day-to-day operations of their respective units. Realignment and reinforcement of this 1 responsibility will facilitate implementation of this recommendation. City of Huntington Beach 121