Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2017

Home

:development Review Process Improvement By Norman Wright, AICP Many practitioners have inadvertently found themselves to be part of a development review process that has become cumbersome and frustrating to all. Imagine a scenario: An applicant comes to city hall seeking a permit to install a new awning above her store's entrance. She discovers that, because the awning's overhang extends over the sidewalk, she needs public works staff to review the request. Also, because the awning is fora building in a historic district, her request must be reviewed by the district's design committee. Additionally, building safety staff must review it for proper construc- tion. Before that review, however, she needs a variance because Awnings of this size aren't allowed by the zoning district. But the plan- ning department cannot process a variance application until she has a conceptual review meeting with staff, and the application for a conceptual review meeting requires a build- ing elevation to illustrate the effect of a new awning on the current architectural design. Which the applicant lacks. These requirements, by themselves, do not bother the applicant. All the same, she soon makes an angry call to the mayor because this simple visit to city hall led to her being sent to five different department offices where each reviewing authority has given her its own process and time line. Combined, all review processes and requirements add up to at least a nine -month total review time in order to potentially receive a permit. The com- mensurate fees are also more expensive than the awning itself. Sound familiar? Over the course of decades, the work we do to review projects and issue approvals has grown in complexity, much as our regulations have. The negative effect this has on customer experience is becoming more apparent. But inefficient pro- cesses not only cause frustration, they also contribute to greater delay and expense in the construction process, and worsen the eco- nomic conditions we planners seek to remedy. In the current analysis of zoning's impact on the housing market, much work has been done to identify the need for new policies that respond more dynamically to the growing demand for supply. We've explored the poten- tial of "tiny homes," inclusionary zoning, and accessory dwelling units, and have authored a shift to form -based standards in exchange for more flexible density requirements. These and other improvements are designed to allow our zoning practice to be more conducive to the need for housing in a broader set of forms . and options. Such policies move us forward. But this is only half of the challenge. Every great new policy requires an equally responsive implementation process. This was one of the major findings provided by a 2016 report from the Obama administration, which stated two important effects from a lack of focus on process improvement: "Unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes restrict long -run hous- ing supply responsiveness to demand, and also present an inefficiency for city planners and reviewers whose time could be more ef- fectively spent on essential tasks" (The White House 2016, p. 15). A more efficient process for administer- ing our zoning ordinance is a relief to frus- trated applicants and overburdened planners; it is also a key element of our response to the housing affordability crisis seen in many regions of the country. Improving this facet of our work provides tremendous benefit to virtually everyone. This issue will explain how to conduct such an effort in a way that yields immediate results. THE PRINCIPLES OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW In private -sector industries such as manufac- turing, process improvement is a discipline unto itself. Two approaches form the bedrock of this practice: Six Sigma and Lean. Six Sigma focuses on reducing the defect rate of underlying processes associated with produc- ing products. Its name is a reference to a sta- tistical goal: A Six Sigma process is one where there are six standard deviations between the specified acceptable limits for a process and the process's mean result. This translates to one defect for every 3.4 million opportunities (iSixSigma n.d.). Lean is a process improve- ment approach that focuses on "cutting out unnecessary and wasteful steps in the creation of a product so that only steps that directly add value to the product are taken" (Villanova University n.d.). Over the years, both approaches have effectively been combined to promote ef- ficient (i.e., "lean") processes that create high -quality deliverables (i.e., meeting the Six Sigma standard). If the term "Lean Six Sigma" sounds familiar, know that it is a neologism for "efficient and high quality." For this ar- ticle, we incorporate this dual approach. We start with the principles rooted in Lean. The very first principle one must embrace with process improvement is value. Value in the sense that every process delivers some- thing necessary and desired for those who enter it in the first place, including those who practice the process. In development review, that can be an entitlement (e.g., a rezoning, a conditional use permit, a variance). Consider the ultimate source of value —the one deliver- able that allows someone to deliver their own value to the community —the building permit. To see value in the building permit from the applicant's standpoint, and to also see value in the process itself from the practitioner's standpoint, changes our view of the process and allows the next principle to make sense. The applicant gains the ability to construct ZONINGPRACTICE 5.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2