REPORT TO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY/INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR THE REZONING, PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROCESS

October 15, 1999

CC File No.3151
RTS File No. 01066

INFORMATION Council: November 2, 1999

· Third Report to Council

Mission Statement: The mission of the Community/Industry Advisory Committee is to encourage, advise and assist in the implementation of Vancouver’s new development and building process.
(See Appendix A for a list of the Committee members)

This report covers the period from May to September 1999. During this period, the Community/Industry Advisory Committee (CIAC) held 11 meetings which primarily focused on a task force (comprising of 11 staff members) reviewing the evolution of the new Development and Building Review (DBR) Process which had started in 1997. The purpose of the task force review was to clarify the status of the DBR process; identify implementation problems and obstacles; clarify the fit between the legacy and new processes; and prepare an implementation plan.

CIAC was involved in the review in a number of ways: direct meetings with task force members; bi-weekly update meetings; review of task force reports; submission of a CIAC report to the task force; and a letter to the City Manager. The review was completed in late July 1999. Presently, staff teams are working on the detailed implementation work.

· CIAC’S Submission to the Task Force

Following a number of meetings with the task force, in June 1999, the CIAC submitted a report containing 16 recommendations (see Appendix B). The Committee feels that these recommendations remain largely relevant for the revised implementation plan. While some recommendations cannot be implemented in the short term primarily due to financial constraints, they should not be abandoned.
The CIAC report of June 1999 concluded that the new DBR process will meet the needs of industry and the community better than the legacy process, and thatimplementation of the new process should be accelerated.

· Revised Implementation Plan for the DBR Process

The task force identified the following five priorities for implementation:

· Organization and Management: Consolidating most permission processing functions under a Manager of Permitting

· Inquiry Centre: Consolidating current inquiry and information functions into an inquiry centre, including a phone centre

· Detailed Procedures for the Coordinated and Facilitated Streams: Developing procedures to achieve efficiencies, better quality and better customer service

· Staff Roles: Finalizing new job descriptions and filling positions

· Space: Completing a comprehensive space plan for the East Wing

Staff teams have been formed to undertake the detailed implementation work for each of these five priorities. Presentations have been made by implementation staff coordinators at four CIAC meetings to date, outlining the work in progress. CIAC believes that it is a positive approach to have staff help design the new process since they are the most knowledgeable in the work they do, and therefore will more likely result in staff buy-in of the process.

A new management structure is being examined to facilitate better coordination among the City’s diverse permitting functions. CIAC agrees that this strategy may have merit because the DBR process would require a high degree of coordination between various permitting functions. Any proposed structure should allow resources to be adjusted in relation to changing work demands and to respond to issues and conflicts in a timely manner.

Based on a draft organization chart prepared in July 1999 during the task force review, there is a concern by a Committee member that the DBR process does not appear to incorporate the planning, inspection and enforcement functions in order to improve the overall processing of projects. The Committee has indicated to staff that to allay such concerns and to clarify the integration of various City processes and staff functions, an outline needs to be created and circulated to staff and the Committee.

Given the challenges and setbacks encountered in implementing a new DBR process over the past two years, the Committee recognizes that change has to happen incrementally within a long-term plan. Some items will have to be implemented on a lesser scale than previously planned or over a longer term due to financial constraints. Other items will have to be reviewed at some future time.

For example, the proposed plan for the Information Technology (IT) system and the workplace for permit processing will not be as ambitious as the old plan. CIAC strongly believes that IT and space allocation should not be roadblocks to the implementation of the plan.

CIAC will continue to monitor the progress of these implementation priorities, and have arranged for a bi-weekly short meeting with the implementation staff coordinators.

CIAC’S PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PLAN

The Committee is encouraged by the work that is being undertaken by the staff teams to implement the revised plan for the DBR process. As the process evolves, CIAC is of the opinion that it is important to do the following:

· Keep staff fully informed and involved in implementing the plan; encourage teamwork.

· Develop ways for the community to be meaningfully involved in projects early on in the process.

· Attempt to operate on a cost recovery basis (e.g., may need to collect a fee for the project scoping documents which require a significant amount of staff time to produce).

· Review plan on a regular basis; amend strategy as needed.

In conclusion, CIAC is pleased with the direction that the DBR process is moving. Under the revised plan, it is taking incremental steps; incorporating some good aspects of the legacy system; and setting up a management structure that will better coordinate the various permitting processes. CIAC is hopeful that this approach will address the concerns which led to the task force review.

Sophia Lum, Chair Dimas Craveiro, Co-Chair
Community/Industry Advisory Committee Community/Industry Advisory Committee

Appendices: A & B

APPENDIX A:

COMMUNITY/INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Community Representatives:

R.J. (Bob) Brewster

Joyce Catliff

Angie Lee

Sophia Lum

Sean McEwen

Charlie Richmond

Industry Representatives:

Dimas Craveiro
Certified Professional Committee

Bob Heaslip
Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association

Brian Palmquist
Urban Development Institute

Tom Staniszkis
Architectural Institute of BC

Dana Taylor (Alternate: Don Pamplin)
Mechanical Contractors Association of BC

Catherine Youngren
Interior Designers Institute of BC

APPENDIX B:

CIAC Recommendations to the DBR Task Force - Submitted June 4, 1999

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Accelerate the training of DBR staff by existing “expert” staff.

2. Expand and confirm the authority of DBR Facilitators and Coordinators.

3. Support the concept of the Area Generalist as an initial means of providing early community input at the first team meeting or sooner and facilitating ongoing community input.

4. Ensure that there are opportunities for the community to provide input on a proposed project as early as possible and throughout the process.

5. Seek ways to further enhance the scoping process, on an on-going basis.

6. Make incremental improvements in IT available to customers on a cost recovery basis as soon as possible.

7. Remember the results of the 1996 visioning conference and use them as a means of clarifying organizational directions.

8. DBR should create and publish a Strategic Plan and accompanying workplans clearly outlining its Goals, Objectives and Strategies for implementation, and update the Plan on a continuous basis as a means of measuring progress.

9. Recognize and support empowered leadership of the New Process, and confirm broad city government support.

10. Accelerate the implementation of the New Process as originally proposed in order to achieve promised organizational and cost efficiencies, while acknowledging emergent financial constraints.

11. Accelerate reclassification of DBR staff positions. This is absolutely key to the success of the New Process.

12. Regularly inform staff and the public of incremental service improvements and the progress in implementing the New Process.

13. Ensure senior management are aware that some process problems and shortcomings may be attributed to lack of response by legacy or “expert” staff or management.

14. Outline the Regulatory Review Process now. Accelerate the commencement of the review process .

15. Recruit Facilitators and Coordinators with enough expertise to include enough critical “expert” content to reduce “late hits.”

16. Collect a retainer for each project which is formally scoped, with that retainer applied against regular permit fees if the project proceeds. If a project is abandoned, staff time costs should be reimbursed from the retainer before any balance is refunded to the customer.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver