The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About13) 10A Overview of Planning and Building ProcessesAG EN DA ITEM 10.A . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM EN T MEMORANDUM DATE: December4, 2018 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Bryan Cook , City Manager By : Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Director SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF PLANNING AND BUILDING PROCESSES RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to receive and file this report . BACKGROUND: The City Council requested a presentation to provide an overview of the planning and building processes, through which building projects are reviewed. ANALYSIS: The building and planning processes are complex and nuanced , and could be difficult to understand from a written report. In lieu of trying to describe the process in writing , staff has prepared a presentation to walk the City Council through these processes (Attachment "A"). As part of this effort, staff assembled a focus group of 11 designers and builders to seek input on the planning and building processes . The focus group was moderated by an outside consultant to obtain honest and anonymous feedback from the group. The group provided generally positive feedback regarding Temple City's processes and provided some suggestions for where minor improvements cou ld be made . Notably, the group did not express any substantive concerns regarding the length of time for the planning process , length of time for building plan review , responsiveness to inspection requests , or the process for final inspections and Certificates of Occupancy . Notes from the focus group meeting and the list of participants are attached (Attachment "B"). City Council December 4, 2018 Page 2 of 2 CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: This item is consistent with the City Strategic Goals of Good Governance, Economic Development, and Citizen Education and Communication. FISCAL IMPACT: This item has no impact on the Fiscal Year 2018-19 City Budget. ATTACHMENTS: A. Presentation B. Focus group participant list and notes ATTACHMENT A 1 Planning • Preserve and protect public health , safety, a nd welfa re • Maintain and improve quality of life Planning • How buildings look and function The Built Environment • How buildings interact with one another and the surrounding environment • Community character • Compatibility of buildings and uses Goal: Buildings that are attractive and functional , and provide a sense of place and community The Built Environment Building • Preserve and protect public health and safety • Protect life and property Building • How bui ldin gs are constructed, occupied , and operated • Seismic and fi re safety • Enteri ng , exiti ng , and usi ng building space • Accessibil ity • Energy and water use \ Goa l : Buildings that are safe, efficient, and sustainable 2 V) V) Q) u e Planning Building • Community vis ion and guiding principles • Building performance in real world events, lessons learned , best practices, te chnolog ica l advancement • Gene ral Plan: goals , policies, implementation program • Specific Plans • Zoning Code • Design Guidelin es I DevelopmenUproject review process • International Code Council • California Building Standards Commission • California Building Code (Title 24) The Built Environment ~ Plan check, perm it, and inspection process 3 1: Development Review Process Process and timeline vary based on type of project • 3 months for projects without public hearing ·Two-story single -family residence • 3-6 months for projects with public hearing ·multifamily and non-residential ·5-8 months for appealed projects • 2 -3 public hearings required 1: Development Review Process Timeline largely dependent on: ·Required approval process and opportunities for public input ·Mailing and publishing public notice by required deadlines ·Preparing staff report and presentation for public hearing ·Applicant responsiveness and timeliness ·Quality and completeness of application ·Providing additional materials when required 4 1: Development Review Process ·Opportunitie s to simplify or shorten process must be weighed against effects on public participa t ion/ transparency/ and quality ·Discret i onary applications should provide opportunity for public input ·Public notice requirements and timelines dictated by state law for public hearings 1: Development Review Process ·Comparison to other cities ·Arcad ia/ A zusa/ Burbank/ El Monte/ Glendale/ Glendora/ Monrovia/ Rosemead/ West Covina ·For all project types/ majority of cities surveyed are generally same or longer process than Temple City Project Type ' Shorter/Simpler Process Same Process Longer Process New 1 story house 0 3 6 New 2 story house 2 2 5 2 story addition t o house 2 2 s New apartment b uilding 2 6 New condominium b uil d ing with 0 9 0 te ntative ma p New co mmercial build ing 2 6 5 1: Development Review Process COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES : TYPE OF PROCESS REQUIRED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROJECTS Ministerial Review by Discretionary Review Staff by Staff New 1-story, si ngle- family house 3 2 New 2-story, sing le- f amily house 2 2 2-story ad dition to a single-family house 2 2 New apartment building 0 2 Ne w mul ti-famil y co ndomini um 0 0 New commercial building 0 2 l egend: Temple City's Process Discretionary Review by Director, Hearing Officer, or similar 3 3 3 1 0 1 Participating Cities Include: Arcadia, Azusa, Burbank, Cov ina, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Monrovia, Rosemead, and West Cov ina 1: Development Review Process COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES: AVERAGE PERIOD OF REVIEW FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROJECTS New 1-s tory, si ngl e- fami ly house New 2-story, singl e- family house 2-story addition to a si ngle-family house New apartment building New multi-f amily co ndominium New commercia l building l egend: Temple City's Average Period of Review Less than 1 Month 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 to 3 Months 3 to 6 Months 5 3 5 3 5 3 1 5 0 3 0 5 Partkipating Cities Include: Arcadia, Azusa, Burbank, Covina, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Monrovia, Rosemead, and West Covina Discretionary Review by Commission 1 2 2 6 9 6 6 Months or More 1 1 1 3 6 4 6 V') V') Q) u e a.. a.. rJ 1: Development Review Process ·Customer focus group: 10 designers and builders discussed Temple City's processes ·Group provided generally positive feedback about development review process and noted that Temple City's process is faster than most other cities 7 8 2: Plan Check and Permit Process •Process largely dictated by Building Code •Consistently meet average plan check review target of 10 working days •Most time consuming portions of process are not controlled by City Length of time to prepare plan corrections in response to plan check comments Multiple rounds of plan check required because comments are not adequately addressed Applicant’s funding availability may slow or halt process Issues between applicant and architect or contractor may slow process 2: Plan Check and Permit Process •Example of staff time vs. applicant time: plan check timeline for mixed-use development project •69 days of city review vs. 196 days of applicant revisions Building Plans Date In Date Out Days for City Review Days for Applicant Revision 1st Plan Check 11/16/2017 12/11/2017 25 1st Revision Period 12/11/2017 3/19/2018 98 2nd Plan Check 3/19/2018 4/4/2018 16 2nd Revision Period 4/4/2018 5/24/2018 50 3rd Plan check 5/24/2018 6/13/2018 20 3rd Revision Period 6/13/2018 7/31/2018 48 4th Plan Check 7/31/2018 8/8/2018 8 Total Days 69 196 2: Plan Check and Permit Process ·Customer focus group had minor comments and suggestions for improvement on certain aspects of plan check and permit process ·Staff is working to address these issues ·Building counter services on Fridays or every other Friday would be nice, but they are used to the schedule ·Would not be willing to pay extra for Friday service 9 3: Construction and Inspection Process ·Process dictated by Building Code and City responsibility to enforce life safety requirements ·Next day inspections typically available ·Most time consuming portions of process are not controlled by City ·Construction speed varies greatly depending on applicant, contractor, funding, weather, site conditions, etc. ·Work done incorrectly or incompletely must be corrected before work can proceed ·Work done without proper inspection must be undone or redone before work can proceed 3: Construction and Inspection Process ·Customer focus group had no complaints about inspection process or suggestions for improvement ·Lack of inspection services on Fridays is not a problem since they are used to the schedule ·Would utilize inspection services if offered on Fridays, but would not be willing to pay for service ·Customers complained gas co. takes too long to turn on gas once released by City, but understand that utility hold is the City's only leverage to prevent illegal occupancy 10 Overview of Development Activity (2017) • 1: Development Review Process ·Applications processed: 500 ·Public hearings held: 25 • 2: Plan Check and Permit Process ·Permits issued : 1,951 • 3: Construction and Inspection Process ·Permits inspected and finaled : 1,595 ·New units constructed : 92 11 ATTACHMENT 8 Planning and Building Process Focus Group August 29, 2018 Edward Chang, Builder Sidney Chang, Designer/Builder Brian Cheng, Designer Alison Fung, Designer Kamen Lai, Designer Charles Lei, Builder James Liu, Developer/Builder Richard Liu, Developer Robert Tong, Designer Eric Tsang, Designer Benjamin Zhu, Designer List of Attendees MEMORANDUM Date: August 30, 20 18 To: Scott Reimers From: Lis a Plowm an Project Name: Temple City On-Call Design Review (20 18) Topic: Pr ocess Improvement Focus Group Organization: Templ e C ity Title: Man ager of Planning Project Number: 1095 -04-URI8 rrm r~.·· ~ ~·~ design ~~[]group The City recently initiated a process improvement effort which included the formation of a focus group made up of architects, designers, and contractors that work in the City on a regular basis. The goal of this effort and the focus group was to obtain honest feedback on the City's processes and how they could be improved. The City hired RRM to serve as a neutral third party to facilitate the focus group meeting which allowed the participants to make comments and remain anonymous. The meeting was held on August 29 , 2018. Below is a summary of the comments provided by the focus group participants. General Questions What does Temple City do well? What do you like best about Temple City? • Staff is very friendly and approachable. They give good advice and are helpful. Some cities can sometimes be condescending to people who don't understand their process, but Temple City staff is never like this and are always willing to explain things. • Low turnover. Hesty and Sylvia have been with the City for a very long time and customers respect and trust their opinions. This also leads to not receiving conflicting information due to not having inexperienced staff wor king the counter. • Temple City is very "cohesive." All of the different City departments work very well together. • Plan check time is very reasonable. • Appreciative of how proactive Scott is about solving problems. Also getting a meeting with the C ity Manager is much easier than in other cities. • Plans have good comments. • Only one day's notice to sch edule an insp ection for the following day. www .rrmdesign .com a California corporation • leonard Grant , Architect C26973 • jerry Michael, PE 3689 5, l S 627 6 • Jeff Ferber, LA 284 Temple City Process Improvement -Focus Group Memorandum August 30 , 20 18 Page 2 of 4 What does Temple City do poorly? I How can Temple City serve you better? • The City needs to coordinate better with the Fire Department. Conflicting information leads to customers running back and forth, and the Fire Department is very slow and difficult to deal with. o Would like someone from the Fire Department to be available at the counter once a week or something similar. • Mechanical Submittal turn-around is four (4) weeks-too long. • No inspections on Friday although people are used to it now. However, Fridays or alternating Fridays would be nice to have. They don't want to pay more for Friday service. • Building hours are unpredictable. The entire Building counter shuts down when Sylvia goes to lunch , and her lunch hours are unpredictable. There are no other staff members that provide service at the Building counter. There should be a back-up staff person that can provide service when Sylv ia out of the office, o r her lunch hour should be set at a regular time. • Permits close at 4:00 pm, but some complained of being turned away at 3:50 pm , because it's "too close " to 4. • City staff should be willing to sign off on an unorthodox approach to solving a problem in the field , or there should be a process by which the City provides verification or writing authorization for the approach. For exam ple , a contractor complained that Dennis would give him the okay to run power overhead instead of underground because unde r gr ounding the utilities was infeasib le, but when the contractor asked for something in writing, Dennis wasn't willing to sign anything, and there was no process to formalize this approval. Plannin& Questions How do Temple City planning review times compare to other cities? • Good, they are faster than most jurisdictions. How does the City's design review and entitlement process compare to other cities? What can the City do to improve? Overall, the discretionary process is good, but there is some variation in service depending on the planner assigned to the case . • The existing design guidelines are straight forward and easy to understand. • There are some development standards they do not like: o Don't like the requirement to lower fences within I 0 feet of driveway. o Don't like the requirement that garages be setback further from front pr operty line than the dwelling portion of a home. www .rrmdes i gn.com o Ca li(omio co rporation • Leonard Gronr,Architect C26973 • jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 • Jeff Ferber, LA 284 Temple City Process Improvement -Focus Group Memorandum August 30, 20 18 Page 3 of 4 o They don't like the requirement that there be some variat ion in the plan e of the second story if it exceeds 24 feet. Some architectural styles don't work with this requirement. They would like there to be a process where they can vary from this requirement when the proposed home is well-articulated, or the true architectural style would not call for such articulation . o They don't like the requirement that square footage of covered patios r esult in the reduction of allowable residential square footage. They think they should be able to have 300 additional square feet of covered patio in additional to the home. • They don 't like the upcoming changes to the incentive program. • The City has a lot of large lots that are narrow. They would like to be able to have more than one flag lot when the lots are narrow. • The architects felt it was difficult to introduce new architectural styles into the community because planners would say they are not consistent with the neighborhood . Also , planners will sometimes require very ex pensive finishes or details for a particular architectural style (modern) making it financially burdensome for the homeowner. • The contractors don't like the policy of holding 25% of bond for a year after construction of public improvements are complete. • Temple City is too sensitive to resident complaints-one bad experience ruins it for everyone else. Arguments about patio sizes, window heights in second stories (views into neighboring backyards), strange requirements/requests that come out of nowhere (mentioned measuring the height of a house). Building Questions If services were available on Fridays would you make use of them? Are you willing to pay additional fees for long counter hours or Friday inspections? • Yes, they would use Friday services. No, they would not be willing to pay more for extended service hours/days. Issues with the process for getting a Certificate of Occupancy? • No real complaints. The process is no different than any other city, possibly better in some cases . The checklist is straight forward, and the requirements make sense . • Suggested that the City work with the Gas Company to make sure they are notified when gas is turned off and meters are removed .before they issue demolition permits. There is a problem now with slow service provided by the Gas Company (can take several months). • They would like to get certificates of occupancy before gas is turned on because it can take quite a bit of time to get the gas turned on. www . rrmdes i gn . com o Cali fornia co rpora tion • l eonard Grant, Arc hitect C269 73 • jerry Michael, PE 368 95 , LS 6276 • Jeff Ferber, LA 28 4 Other Questions Temple City Process Improvement -Focus Group Memorandum August 30, 2018 Page 4 of 4 What on-line services would you use to avoid a trip to City Hall? • The current information provided on-line can be d ifficult to search through and find the information that you need. • Want to be able to see the status of permits or plans on-line. Now they have to physically come in to ask about them, and they may sit for a week or longer after completion if Sylvia forgets to call them, even though Sylvia is usually very responsive and rarely forgets. Scheduling appointments to reduce wait times? • No, they like the sign-in process because it's more organized, even though it does increase wait times. They like things the way they currently are; they can schedule a meeting with a particular planner if they want, or they can walk in whenever they want for quick questions. o They suggested having someone else available at the counter when things are getting backed up . Or perhaps having someone who is available to an sw er a simple question so that they can get in and get out quickly rather than waiting behind a customer who is seeking a permit or has more complicated issues or questions to address with staff. • Lower fees are more important that faster review and processing times, especially since there aren't any issues with review and processing times. www .rrmdesign .com a California co rporation • l eo nard Gron e, Architect C26973 • jerry Mi chael, PE 36895, LS 6276 • Jeff Ferber, LA 284