04/10/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Smith stressed that the eight permits that were part of the case study are representative of only about one-fifth or one-fourth of the plans that the City reviews. Mr. Smith said the average turnaround time for the eight permits was 97 days, 50 of which were spent waiting for complete plans or corrected plans to be submitted. He said code compliance problems delayed all of the permits. One question, of course, is whether the Building Division is too nit-picky in its enforcement of the code. Mr. Smith found that this was not the case in these eight permits; all of them had fundamental code compliance problems (he cited several examples of structural and life safety deficiencies in the plans). Mr. Smith stressed the need for the City to develop a policy for allocating staff resources among different building permit services--particularly among customer assistance and permit review. He said 45 percent of staff resources for the site review loop, and 25 percent for the structural review loop, were devoted to customer assistance at the time of the study. e Mr. Smith also stressed the need for the staff to establish a clearer regulatory profile or philosophy. This will allow staff members to review plans more efficiently, because they will spend less time wondering how a particular code requirement should be applied; furthermore, it will help the design community know what to expect from the building permit review process. Doug Eveleth, Planning, Development, and Building Department staff, briefly reviewed some of the recent improvements that have been made to the permit review process: a new plans completeness checklist, which will help ensure that complete building plans are submitted; a permit processing guide, which will explain the design review process to the design community and help them to submit more complete plans; a new policy regarding partial permits and phased construction; and a new plans coordination system to improve coordination among the various types of code reviews that are done. Mr. Gleason said some of the biggest permit review problems arise when developers do not use qualified design professionals, or when communication between a builder, developer, and designer is poor. He said it has become fashionable to complain that the permit review staff is purposely trying to thwart economic development; this is simply not true. He said staff wants to receive constructive suggestions about how to improve the permit review process, and has been working hard to make improvements. Mr. Gleason added, however, that building code review is a difficult and often controversial process in all communities; there will never be a time when everyone believes that the City's code reviews are completely correct or fair; attaining this level of satisfaction, therefore, cannot be the City's goal. Mr. Boles raised the possibility of adjusting permit fees to take account of the fact that some members of the design community take up more staff time and resources than others. Mr. Bennett said the City encourages rehabilitation, which is very different than new construction. He said that either the City should develop a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 1989 Page 4